Once a bad guy...

As the 4th season of Eureka appraches its start, life does not look like it will be improving for Sheriff Carter. Matter of fact, things are getting worse by the hour.

For those that are not yet fans of this science fiction comedy, located on the otherwise unwatchable SyFy Channel, I will recap a bit.

Sheriff Carter (Colin Ferguson) is the better than average good natured former Fed, that watches over the town of Eureka. The town is an ultra-secret think tank for the greatest minds in America. They have AI, fully functional green energy technology, basically the next closest thing to Star Trek techology on the planet. The townspeople also have a penchant for nearly destroying the planet via plagues, meteor storms, climate manipulation, mini suns and so much mmore. Thankfully Sheriff Carter, the dumbest man in town, comes to the rescue generally with common sense answers that the eggheads never consider.

Along the way Carter has the joy of raising his teenage daughter (Jordan Hinson), which any parent will state is as difficult as trying to avert a planetary collision. Add to that the difficulty of getting a date.

Carter's first love (Allison - Salli Richardson-Whitfield) interest wound up getting back with her ex-husband, who has only grudging respect for Carter. The ex (Stark - Ed Quinn) winds up dying saving the planet - try to compete with that - on his wedding day after he and Allison had become pregnant. Talk about hurdles to jump. Then his next love interest just disappeared from the storyline. His 3rd (Jaime Ray Newman) just left the show on a trip to Australia for years unknown.

All of this, comically done to near perfection, might be the best of times for Carter. Because in season 4 Baltar is coming to town.



James Callis, known for his great portrayal as Gaius Baltar in the revisioned mess that was battlestar Galactica, has joined the cast of Eureka. Already we have been made aware that his character is no ray of sunshine.

Callis will be Dr. Grant. Now given that Callis is loved as the devious, maniacal, virtually unrepentant, self-absorbed scientific genius that led to the murder of virtually all humanity in Galactica, what do you think his character will be like in Eureka? You bet he will be up to no good, and quickly will be a thorn in the side of Sheriff Carter.

This is especially true since the writers are once again going to focus Carter on being with Allison. But Dr. Grant is a ladies man with eyes on her as well.

The best part of all of this is that Callis is continuing on as a bad guy. He did a wonderful job of being compelling yet unlikeable. The kind of villian you just have to watch even as you hope he get killed off. Few actors get such a character to play and even less can do it right. Callis nails it with a penache akin to Vincent Price.

Will season 4 of Eureka be the best yet? That remains to be seen. Though having a character we love to hate, and a love triangle where we know the couple we want to see work out, makes for enjoyable television more often than not.

Burn Notice - season 3 end

Well there is no question that a bunch of the loose endsa are getting sown up for the television show Burn Notice. The season ending episode was not a huge cliff hanger. It wasn't even a great episode. But it was very ominous.

As the episode starts we get a recap of the start of the series. We get a refresher in who caused Michael Westen (Jeffrey Donovan) to be in Miami. We see how everything has been a long trip ever deeper into the web that "Management" has woven.

Honestly I didn't find Simon, the main bad guy that was orchestrating events from afar for the season, to be all that impressive. He might have been a murderer, but so have several of the people on this show. Possibly even Westen himself.

What was interesting was how little we saw of Fiona (Gabrielle Anwar) and Sam (Bruce Campbell). Their roles were minor, almost side thoughts. True they did provide a critical bit of help through the episode, but they were just in the shadows and not really working with Michael. They were more like employees. Which is a dark forboding thing to notice.

Michael's mother, Maddie (Sharon Gless), on the other hand was quite prominent. She was the other side of the Westen personality. The side we have grown so interested in watching. She held out, resisting the pressure of the oppresive world of operatives to hold out hope and believe in the right thing.

That's what this episode was. A battle of what is right, and what is effective. Michael has to choose. And that was the choice he never truly made turning down Management the first time.

The first time was about the selfish interests of Westen. His misguided belief that he could just start over, back where he left off. His denial that he had to make a choice, because ultimately life is black and white not shades of gray.

3 times in this episode Westen had the chance to change his course. He could have taken a different path. He could have made a choice to do the right thing. But each time he did what was effective.

I surmised at the begining of this season, and a couple of seasons ago, that Westen was being set up. That the time off was really just a training exercise. A way for Management to mold and corrupt Westen so that he could ultimately embrace their offer. Slowly he changed, and finally too them up on the offer.

Thus we are left with a bigger cliff hanger than previously, without all the excitement and explosions. Michael Westen has isolated himself in the heart of Management. His friends have been pushed aside. His mother abandonded. He is walking the path that ultimately leads to the very people he struggled with in the beginning.

The last battle for Westen, and I think the last season for the series, will be the battle that he has with himself. He has gone too far to ever become a spy like he was before the burn notice. He no longer has the unconditional support of friends and family he once had. All that is left are the missions from Management, and the means by which he acheives them. Given time, the nature of the work is sure to eat at his soul.

I didn't like the way this episode ended the season. I do like the way that the story arc has finally beenset to close. I'm hoping that next season will be filled with this biggest battle. But you can see how all the actors are getting tired with their roles. The writers are running out of fresh places to go. This needs to lead to the season where either a monster is set loose, or is killed.

And somehow, either way, I don't think Michael Westen survives.

Tiger comes to cable television show

Never let it be said that a television network lets a good scandal go without profiting from it. Spike TV sure hasn't.

Spike TV is the network created to cater to men, often at the lowest denominator. While there have been efforts like the short lived Blade series, predominantly the fare is mostly old action films, and stupid shows featuring large-breasted women in tight clothes. Obviously the target market for Spike requires little more.

But there is nothing better than mixing a scandal, a world famous athlete, and women with large-breasts in tight clothes. Thus the inspiration for Back Nine came to be.

Back Nine is a show based on a former pro-golfer trying to make a comeback. The problem is he is a drunk (or as the channel descibes, hard-drinker). Plus he has the special joy of his caddy - named oddly enough Tiger - who is a sex crazed sex-addict.

How interesting. Almost sounds familiar yes? Golf fans might think this is a mix of the old John Daly and current Tiger Woods. But that would be a leap. Wouldn't it? To give Spike some credit, the show was being discussed long before the November crash that brought Tiger into the current noteriety.

John Schneider will be playing the lead of this role, with Miguel Nunez in negotiations for the more-than likely popular role of Tiger. Let's see if this winds up to be more than a timely one-trick pony.

Burn Notice: Friendly Fire

So after the tepid start of the season, the next episode for Burn Notice picks up the pace a bit. It's more of the familiar, but at least this time the cast look and feel like they want to be involved in the acting.

Friendly Fire is more of what we enjoy about this show. Smart plans, stylish execution, and an interesting yet swarmy bad guy that you just want to dislike and see taken down. This is true of the Vega (Danny Trejo) and Rincon characters in the episode, and the Gilroy character for the seasonal arc.

You just have to love the outfit that Michael Westen wears to emphasize his role as a bad ass from hell. This episode truly had a flair of the exotic. And it was perfect.

The timing of misdirection, playing on deep-seated religous fears, and just the persona made watching the episode enjoyable. Plus it was interesting to watch Jeffery Donovan play a role that had a hint of mayhem to it. The snap-of-death was a great touch, when matched with the deep brooding look and the constant looking down.

The side story of Sam (Bruce Campbell) was a bit less interesting, though it did fill out a bit more about his character. Learning more about his past gives me the indication that something is about to happen to him in this story arc that most fans will not enjoy.

Then there is the lovestory between Westen and Fiona (Gabrielle Anwar). I can't buy it. I'm sorry but she is too damn skinny. I just can't see anyone wanting to be with a bunch of bones except a dog. Seriously the director and producers should let the woman gain 15 pounds, maybe 25.

But going beyond my personal tastes, you can see where this is headed too. The fact that they are getting so close, again for them, only means that the major story arc is going to cause an issue neither can like with. There's just no room in war for love, and their business is war.

Was this the best episode of the show ever? No. Not even close. But it was one of the more stylish, and far better than average. It definitely was better than the season opening episode. It was more of a reason to keep watching the series, at the very least.

So what can we conclude at this point? Not much. Just that Michael and Fiona are going to get very close and then very far apart. Sam will have a major crisis that no one will be able to help him with.

I also suspect that the original people responsible for Michael getting his burn notice are coming back. With a vengance. They haven't forgotten about the wayward spy that cost them their Miami operations. The fact that he has survived, and flourished to a degree means they want his services more than ever.

Gilroy is a trap. He is the means to push Westen further away from ever working for the U.S. and good guys. He is their way in. Perhaps by providing Michael with a choice he cannot refuse. Work for us, or let the monster that Gilroy is continue to be loose in Miami and the world.

That's how I see the long major arc turning out. And that would be quite a season ending situation. Westen stuck with that choice of 2 evils and no option out of it.

Perhaps the season will go in a different direction, but the clue is in this episode. Westen and crew helped a bad guy to take down a bigger bad guy. The net result still kept a negative in place, all for the price of removing a child molester who deserved to be in jail (or worse).

It's a slippery slope down, and if it spirals it could be a vortex that takes everything with it. Which would be great television to watch happen. But we will see how close I am to the truth.

In case you missed it

If you happen to be like myself, and not in the 25 - 34 demographic, you might miss some of the shows on these days. Generally that's a good thing, but on occassion it does mean catching up on something really good after the fact.

I like Jon Stewart. His show is funny, especially when viewed after watching the real news and reading the facts of the issues he mocks. There is nothing more interesting than watching his ultra-liberal view in defense of say Health Care Reform, or defense of Democrats, to just bring on the laughs.

Still, he does take on Democrats and Liberals too. Just far less often and harshly. Though they often make for some of the most outrageous bits. Of course that being said I never thought I'd see this



Well he was having a bad day. It was right before Martha Coakley got stomped in Massachuesetts. But if you thought that public self-realization of the obvious was enough to force Stewart to give up his Liberal card, wait it gets better.

Not only does Jon Stewart nail Keith Olbermann rightly for his pompous and offensive comments about Senator Scott Brown, but when Obermann decides to respond he makes himself look even worse.



Who knew Olbermann was doing sketch comedy at MSNBC. Well, actually anyone who watches him probably already knew that.

Nicely done Stewart. Now if only my readers can view the videos before you have your staff pull the video clips - as they tend to do with anyone that uses their material in a non-liberal love manner.

List of 12 greatest sci-fi shows

Considering the nnews that the Push is being developed into a television series, I thought about what in fact are the best science fiction television series ever? Well ever may be a bit too long, but at least since I have been alive and that I have seen.

Every list I have come across seems to be geared toward promoting advertising sales, patronizing some target group of readers, and/or restricted or inclusive to shows that really don't qualify as sci-fi. So here is my list, from best to worst, without influence of advertising rates, job security, or pandering.

1. Star Trek. Make all the comparisons you want, argue the inconsistencies and quality all day but the fact is this is the best sci-fi television show ever. It influnced everything to come after it, and continues to endure decades after it ended.

2. Dr. Who. The same theme and plot continues to appear on televisions across the world since 1963, that says a lot. It may not have the reach of Star Trek, but every serious sci-fi fan knows the show. To many Americans it's the television equvalent of the World Cup - the world knows it but America thinks it can do better. And actually we did, just once.

3. Farscape. Besides the Fugitive name another show that had so much fan adoration that the network had to respond? This show put Sci-Fi Channel on the map, and the manner in which it was taken off television had a lot to do with the change of the cable network to Syfy. Literally the best collection of science fiction ideas done incedibly well on television.

4. Babylon 5. Another great assortment of sci-fi ideas, done with style and serious attention to plot and details. Way before it's time.

5. Superman. I mean the original George Reeves series. Yes it was campy, but it just had a spark to it. It took the incredulous and made it enjoyable. Something almost all shows on television since have failed miserably to do.

6. Flash Gordon. Yes this was a television series long before it was a cartoon, movie, or porno. Buster Keaton took you on an adventure and every week you wanted to join him. The effects were bad, the acting anything but stellar. Yet it came together as more than it's parts.

7. Futurama. Comedic, animated, and enjoyable. Who says sci-fi can't be funny?

8. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Serious anime, with strong plots and engaging characters. The science is solid, if futuristic. The art is cool. The themes are adult. The plots make more sense than almost anything on television. See it.

9. Star Trek Deep Space 9. Much of the flair and storytelling of the original came back in this series. The Federation stopped being wimps, Kingons got to fight, and aliens were alien. Amazing what a bit of imagination can do.

10. V. The miniseries shocked and amazed everyone. It reminded us that if an alien could get to Earth they likely were superior, since we can't get to them. It's a sci-fi future just seconds away from reality. And it encompassed political issues and human frailties that technology or delusions of granduer cannot conquer.

11. Alien Nation. The most honest depiction of the bias and incoherent fears that exist in the human race (and America) right now. Perhaps only Archie Bunker made it more obvious that we all have a long way to go still.

12. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It's British, bare-bones effects, funny, and completely silly. Another example of how the absurd, mixed with sci-fi, can be widly entertaining.

Other great shows worth mention: The Greatest American Hero, Wild Wild West, Twillight Zone, UFO, The Avengers, X-Files, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Space: 1999, Sliders, Six Million Dollar Man, Quantum Leap, Max Headroom, First Wave, Firefly, Torchwood

Not included for consideration: Cartoons - ie. Jetsons, Starblazers, Battle of the Planets, Code Lyocko, Digimon, ect.; Shows that have nothing to do with science - Get Smart, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Charmed, Bewitched, Batman, Dead Like Me, Night Stalker, Airwolf, Highlander, Highlander: The Raven, ect.

Shows to avoid forever: Homeboys in Space, Ark II, Automan, Battlestar Galactica (revision), Star Trek Enterprise, Knight Rider (remake), Logan's Run, Mutant X, Primeval, Roswell, any seaQuest, Swamp Thing

Like the list? Did I miss anything? Let me know.

Push: the television series

There is somethig about sci-fi on television that just makes you wonder. Occassionally you can get great shows like Farscape, Dr. Who, The Invisible Man, the original Battlestar Galactica, even The Six Million Dollar Man and Eureka fall into this category. But more often you get shows like Homeboys in Space (be happy you didn't see it), The Battlestar Galactica remake, Santuary, Demons, the V revisioned series and soon Push.

Push is the failed movie that most in the world never bothered to watch. It was a January 2009 release that can be summed up as a revisioned cross between X-Men and Firestarter. To say that it was a waste of time is to give the film credit.

But in Hollywood, where useless ideas and revisioning of anything someone else did is better than an original idea, a failed movie is exactly what television needs. Thus Push is about to become a television show.

So far there are no entertainers attached to the proposed show. Which is no surprise because I can't imagine who would need the money that badly if they are established. There is also no television network admitting they want the idea, broadcast or cable. My guess is that this will wind up on the SyFy Network, because they have proven they have no clue what good sci-fi is.

The plot is unknown but a couple of conclusions can be made. There will be omnipresent bad guys who are Government agents. There will be a young guy and woman that are being chased by the agents. There will be a huge world of pther people that are equally hiding from agents, mostly criminals, that will want to use the guy and woman as much as the agents do. At the end of each episode the duo will escape and continue to evade everyone, ala Bill Bixby at the end of every episode of The Hulk (the 70's television show which wasn't bad for the time).

Most likely the summation I just made will be more exciting and far easier to understand than the show will be. Because if you start with an inferior base, and then strip out the better qualities, you really get junk unworthy of anything put mindless goo. Which is not what sci-fi is about.

Could I be wrong about Push the television series? Sure, just as I was wrong about Demons (I hoped it would be new and different, but it turned out to be a rehash of Buffy the Vampire Killer). But betting odds are in my favor that this will be closer to the short-lived Mutant X (anthor show trying to score off of the X-Men movie craze) than Star Trek, Andromeda, Farscape, or even Ark II (based on the bad Damnation Alley movie, and something only those around since the 70's will have any clue about).

Conan O'Brien doing the right thing for staff

For all the back and forth over who gets the Tonight Show, I have had nothing to say. It's broadcast television and I generally don't watch it. Plus Jay Leno is not my cup of tea. Then again, Conan O'Brien isn't quite it either.

I do think that O'Brien got screwed by NBC. But his contract will ensure that he will be well paid for this public slap in the face. Leno on the other hand is a sinking ship. I believe that even his fan-base will reject him back in his old time slot because of the way this all worked out.

But the thing that got me writing is none of this. It's the most recent news of what is happening in the negotiations between NBC and O'Brien.

NBC is stuck and they know it. They must pay O'Brien since they broke the terms of his contract. That's worth $30 million. But the contract is not inclusive of the staff. They are a seperate situation.

O'Brien, it is reported by the AP, is sticking by his guns and fighting for a deal that will take care of his 200 or so staff members. NBC for it's part says it's made a nice deal for them and that this is just PR. So it's a he-said-she-said situation.

I believe O'Brien. NBC screwed him. NBC caused the situation. NBC is the ne trying to preserve as much money as possible while being forced to live up to the contract they broke. If anyone is likely to be pinching pennies, it would be NBC. Especially when it comes to people the public is unaware of and thus far more expendable in NBC's eyes.

I have a lot more respect for Conan O'Brien having heard about his support of his staff. He may be funny, but it's his staff that allows him to be so, night after night. The fact he is standing up for them is the right thing to do. Something that many stars in Hollywood and television forget.

So I really don't care who gets the Tonight Show. I won't be watching it any more than I have for the last 2 decades. But just because of what O'Brien has done, I will watch a bit of whatever he does next. Do you agree he has earned that much?

Television Show Review: Archer

FX Network is the latest to create an animated adult-oriented anime program for the Thursday night slot. But unlike The Simpsons, this is a show more aking to Cartoon Networks celebrated Adult Swim line-up than the prime time original.

Even before the show came on the month long rollout from FX has made it clear that the college crowd was the target audience. The multiple 30 second spots promoting the show made it clear that this was meant to be a mix of non-PC themed jokes, crude sexual inuendo, and a parody of James Bond style spy movies.



The real question is will the program work in its 30 minute format as well as it did in 30 seconds? The answer was, not really.

It's not the over-used semi-3D blockish art that takes away form the show (which has been used for Frisky Dingo and Assy McGee among others). It's not the style of jokes. It's not the voice acting. It's a combination of all the above.

Obviously the first thing most will notice is the art. Fans of Adult Swim will be bored as this is a style that is quickly becoming overused. It's not overly detailed, eye-catching, or involving. For those that haven't seen it before it might be a change of pace, but it gets old by the end of an episode. Probably because the colors are more of a bland wash-out than bold or striking.

The voice acting is much on the same level. The actors are competent in what they are doing. The lead character, Sterling Archer, is H. Jon Benjamin - best known for being the voice of Assy McGee. His former love interest is Lana Kane, Aisha Tyler who may be most recognized from her role on CSI. Jessica Walter adds experience to the cast in the role of Mallory Archer, the mother of Sterling. Another accomplished actor is George Coe as Woodhouse, the longtime man-servant of Sterling.

They are all good at what they do. But listening to them with 80% of their lines you just don't get a feeling that there is any excitement. That somehow the cast is just not in snyc. Or that they really aren't enjoyig the lines that they have.

Which brings up the writing. It's just par. It hits the mark, but just misses the big laugh. Like the pace is off. It's so close to being very funny, but not quite.

There are many good lines though. Little bits of side comments or quick quips that catch the attention. But it's not consistent.

Watching the first 2 episodes you get a feel for the programs' potential. There is huge potential for the show to get it's legs and take off. You can feel how it could be really good. Or come completely off the wheels and crash and burn.

One thing I liked was Lana and her hyper-sexuality and interracial porn addiction. The almost Clousea-like nature of Sterling Archer is good as well, though his character would definitely be grating at an hour length.

The negatives are far more numerous. I won't even try to list them. But the good news is they are things that the show can work to remove. In fact I would imagine that many of these issues are likely worked out by the end of the season.

Archer is a bold try to grab the attention of college 20-somethings. It makes fun of the Bond types and the serious outlook on the spy thriller. The art is ok, as is the writing. But potential must be realized for the show to make it past the first set of episodes. I'll watch it again, maybe even for the most of the season, as long as this does not compete with Burn Notice. Ultimately, I don't see the show making it past 2 season though. It just doesn't have enough to make it tread water.

My favorite Mission Impossible episode

For no particular reason, I want to share an episode of Mission Impossible that was a favorite of mine. This is from the original series and was on television first on November 21, 1970. The episode is called Hunted.

This episode starts off with the rescue of a religious leader of an African nation that is ruled by Apartheid (namely South Africa). The goal of the IMF team is to get him out of the nation so he can start the process of revolution and end the racist laws that hold down the majority of people in the nation.

It only took another 16 years before America seriously looked at South Africa and joined with the world in denouncing Apartheid. It took a total of 24 years from this episode before Apartheid ended. The episode was well ahead of it's time, and sadly it failed to inspire our nation or Government.

It's also one of the few episodes (or television shows) where African Americans are featured and not merely background thugs. Even when you compare it to 90% of the shows on television today.

The episode stars: Greg Morris, Sam Elliott, Leonard Nimoy, Peter Graves, Lesley Ann Warren, and Ta-Tanisha (who I think did a great job of being deaf and mute in this role).

[The video is not a production or edit by M V Consulting, Inc.]











I've long remembered this episode. It was quite good.

As a side note, does anyone else think that Ta-Tanisha looks incerdibly like Nana Hill (another beautiful woman) from A Good Day To Be Black & Sexy and Star Trek (the 2009 remake) fame?

Television show review: Demons

What happens when you need a new idea for a television show but you have no idea or clue. Let's say that you have a deadline and need to make sure you have some new program that can compliment a top show that just underwent a massive revamp. What is the result?

Well if you are the BBC, you go to a tried and true theme. You copy something successful from the U.S. and put a British spin on it. Thus was born Demons. A television program that can be summed up as a combination of Twilight and Buffy the Vampire Killer. Sadly, the premiere seems to lack the spark either had.

The pacing is slow, I mean dead slow. It plods along at a pace that even the most dim can out-think. If a tribble could write, this might be the program it would make.

The characters are wooden, as are the lines they speak. We jump from scene to scene without much thought or logic. Viewers couldn't care about whether anyone lives of dies in the show.

From the top, the show is a male based version of Buffy. The last of the Van Helsing family has suddenly been found by inhuman creatures that would love to see him dead. The boy has incredible reflexes, but no training as a fighter. He is living a regular life like any other teen, with a friend that is secretly in love with him - of course he has no idea of this. Enter a mysterious man that turns out to be his godfather (and soon to be mentor in the art of killing the undead et al). Of course his mom has no clue about any of this.

Does this sound EXACTLY like the start of Buffy? Minus anything interesting? Well maybe the young actor playing the lead will be something the tween girls out there will enjoy.

The dialog is filled with "I'll smite you" and "Beware my wrath". That's as good as it gets in this. The visuals are dark tones and shaded, supposedly adding to the allure of the current trend in goth culture and vampire lore. Both are just boring.

I was hoping this might be a new idea in the trend on vampires. That it might be a unique mix of European lore and modern day. That it could be more than just a retread of old ideas, poorly done. But that's asking for entertainment, and quality. Something that costs far too much for most networks and studios.

Could Demons turn into something far more than this first episode? Could it build into more than a sophmoric caricature of concepts that are so overused today that evaluating it elevates the program beyond it's merit?

It is possible. Just as it is possible that Dr. Who could be enriching for viewers under the 12th Doctor. Then again it is possible, in fact mathematically probable, that pigs will fly. But I wouldn't make a bet anytime soon.

If you are 12 - 16 I recommend Demons (and Dr. Who under the new Doctor) as something to watch if your Xbox, Playstation, and cell phone are all broken while your television is stuck on the channel. For everyone else, avoid this unless the choice is watchinng American Idol (then just turn the television off). At least BBC America has this scheduled on Saturday nights and there are always better options.

Television show: Demons

There is just something about vampires and other such creatures of the night that everyone wants to see. Dracula, the Werewolf, Frankenstein, and on and on for over a century now. It's a theme we all seem to never tire of.

The BBC recognizes this of course. They constantly have television shows that either focus on this theme or include it. And in 2010 they will be debuting yet another show firmly ensconced in the otherworldly.



Demons will preimere right after Dr. Who finishes The End of Time pt 2 and introduces the new, geeky kid as the Doctor. I'm sure more than a few fans will want a distraction from the end of David Tennant's tenure as the Doctor. This new show seems to fit the bill.

Now I always tend to enjoy European depictions of vampires, lycanthropes and such. There is just a flair that seems to be added that probably comes from the centuries of rumor and mystery on the subject. Whatever the reason, I just enjoy Eurpoean, and especially British versions more.

The storyline is pretty basic though. The last of the Van Helsin's is needed (likely because some aspect of a secret base or weapon requires the bloodline) by a modern day secret society of vampire hunters. The stories we have grown up with are all true and more. Thrust suddenly into this other world within our own is a young man that has to learn quickly what is going on.

Obviously there will be the battle-hard veteran that will watch his back. There will be no end of baddies that will be seeking him out to kill him so they will be safe to graze upon humanity forever without fear. There will be a love interest that is questionable in loyalties (a young looking vampiress) and unattainable of course. And the young man will grow into his role of the hero that never knew he could be.

Still as rote as some of the background seems to be, and as oriented in the youth culture as it is, the show seems to have potential. The CGI effects and make-up look good. The styling of the show mixes modern and old goth well. There is a dark feel while obviously employing some action too. In a way it reminds me of the style of Torchwood in it's early episodes.

This will not be a Buffy the Vampire or Angel type show. At least not at it's beginning. Which bodes well for the program. And I hope it does not fall into the trap of Twillight. If it can avoid these pop fads there amy be a show that will really take off.

The question I am left with is how long will it be before some American television (probably cable if we are lucky) network takes the idea and copies it? With shows like Santuary, Supernatural, and so on all the craze these days and with copies of Brit shows (Leverage, The Office, Life on Mars, ect.) the new in thing on American television you just have to imagine that this too will be copied. One can only hope that the American version is closer to the Office copy than say the failed near-verbatim yet highly flawed Coupling version.

Ultimately only time will tell how well this develops. And until then American television fans will try to enjoy David Tennant in his new show about a lawyer that doesn't do trials. It's a comedy, and honestly sounds to bland for American tastes. American shows about lawyers are so focused on trials and law these days I'm not sure if this show will work. Maybe if it's more akin to Night Court or Ally McBeal than say The Practice or Law & Order (given they are dramas).

But back to the point at hand. Do you think the supernatural shows are overdone? Have you seen your fill of vampires and goblins? Do you want the ghosts and inhuman creatures to be banished to television void or are you looking forward to another try at it? What do you think and will you check this show out?

Dr. Who - End of Time pt 1 - thoughts

So having seen the Dr. Who episode End of Time Part 1 I am both filled with questions, and potentially filled with dread. But the episode started off to a pace that was way under par, so my feeling now is surprising.

The fact that the Master is back was great. I really like John Simms as the Master. Plus there was the assurance that The Master cannot die off, just as other standards of Dr. Who - the Daleks as an exaple - should not.

But for all the energy that John Simms brought to the episode, literally, the first 20 minutes or so are just flat. We get to see Donna and her grandfather again. Both we find out are integral to the plot. Just how is the real question.

Throughout the episode I was wondering how the Master will cause the death of the David Tennant. Until it hit me that he won't do it. I think that the grandfather is the one that will do it. Though Donna might be a cause, though that seems remote.

Basically we know, fans of Dr. Who that is, that the next episode will be the first appearance of the 11th Doctor. Which is something I'm not looking forward to. But I think that the sum total of the existence of the 10th Doctor will be revealed as well.

In the next episode I believe that we will find out that the 9th Doctor did not kill all the Time Lords. Like the Daleks, just a few escaped. And they have been waiting, judging the Doctor on what he did and has done since killing almost every Time Lord and Dalek. He will be put on trial, a trial that will sure find him guilty (having breached Time in the Water of Mars episode).

But back to the episode at hand.

Some things in this episode just don't make much sense. Like the Doctor walking into the line of fire of the Master. How could he have been so sure the Master wouldn't just kill him? Especially if he is so ravenously hungry that he is eating people regularly. I mean a Time Lord must contain a whole lot more energy than a human right?

What is that damn drumming the Master hears? Is it the judge of the Time Lords (Timothy Dalton) bringing the Doctor and the Master to trial for their crimes? Is it some fixed point in time that the Master fears understanding (like The Architect of The Matrix Reloaded)?

I liked the fact that EVERY human, except Donna and her grandfather, become the Master but it still doesn't make sense. If the device was to fix or heal an entire planet, how did it overwrite the genetic data of all humans to make Master clones? Are all the clones linked to the original Master - thus they all die if he dies? Will Donna, or her grandfather, sarifice their life to resequece all the Master clones back into regular people?

And what about that line that Torchwood is defunct? I know Captain Jack Harkness went to space for a while, but does that mean the show is done? Will the 11th Doctor ever meet up with Jack in the future, and how might that go? Wouldn't UNIT have rushed in to recover everything they could from Torchwood before someone else got their hands on all that potentially deadly alien stuff?

Obviously all of these issues will not be completely resolved in the next episode. Likely the return of the Time Lords, the Doctor being a renegade again, the death of Donna (she is supposed to burn up now that she has her memories, and possibly the power, back) and the eventual escape of the Master are all things that will be left for the 11th Doctor to figure out and deal with.

Overall, I was a bit disappointed by this episode. All the hype and anticipation of the departure of David Tennant's Doctor and the arrival of the new, geeky, kid (who am not impressed by) created a huge bar to hurdle. This episode did not do it. The next may, but that's a lot of information to cover in 1 episode.

Either way, I am a Doctor Who fan, and I will be watching next week.

Golden Globes 2010 nominees

Well it's that time of year again. Yes, the nominees for Golden Globes are out, and our first indications of Oscar Award nominees is in. The big question I have every year at this time is has anyone even seen anything that got a nomination?

In movies the top films are:

'Avatar' - too much hype to live up to

'The Hurt Locker' - $16 million, people saw this?

'Inglourious Basterds' - $120 million

'Precious' - $38 million - the winner, it just tugs on liberal heartstrings more than Pitt or Clooney make them swoon

'Up in the Air' - $4 million, who saw this besides reviewers?

Best Comedy/Musical

'500 Days of Summer' - $32 million, seriously?

'The Hangover' - $277 million, it should win but won't

'It's Complicated' - Meryl Streep has to win for something, and it has Alec Baldwin (liberal favorite) and Steve Martin

'Julie & Julia' - $94 million

'Nine' - they're kidding right?

Best Animated

'Coraline' - $75 million

'Fantastic Mr. Fox' - $30 million

'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs' - $122 million

'The Princess and the Frog' - $28 million - most likely to win since it's the "first" Black Disney Princess, thank you Obama effect

'Up' - $293 million

And then there is television. While I can't see how the television shows did for the year, I can say that if I were to pick the best shows I'd wind up with NCIS, Eureka, Torchwood and Doctor Who. Of course the last 2 won't count since they are British. Still there is nothing that beats them from what I have seen on tv, especially broadcast. But give it a bit of time and there will be an American copy just like Life on Mars, Hustle and The Office among others.

Best Television

'Big Love'

'Dexter'

'House' - If I had to guess, based on what I have seen, this should be it

'Mad Men' - The sure winner

'True Blood'

Best TV Comedy/Musical (I haven't seen any of these. Would Eureka be comedy?)

'30 Rock' - the winner, Alec Baldwin strikes again

'Entourage'

'Glee'

'Modern Family'

'The Office'

Best TV miniseries

'Grey Gardens'

'Into the Storm'

'Little Dorrit'

'Taking Chance'

'Georgia O'Keeffe'
(Not one of these matches Torchwood's Children of Earth in my opinion. Too bad it's British)

The surprises for me have to be that Michael Jackson's This Is It is not up for a Globe. How this is possible I can't imagine. I am sure that it will win something at the Oscar Awards though. And yes, it's just because he is dead.

The Soloist also missed out. Which is a surprise since it was rumored to have been an early Awards contender. With Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. you would think it would be a shoe in. Then again, the damage from Foxx earlier this year may have been a factor.

On the television front, how did the remake of The Prisoner miss out?? Though it warped a bit of the original shows premise, it was a quality miniseries. It had big stars and I think Sir Ian McKellan was a solid Number 2. Plus the twist at the end was mostly original and unexpected.

But like always, the nominees seem to have little to do with the view from the public.

Susan Boyle proves American Idol is a waste of time

I have been asked in the past why I dislike American Idol so much. I have explained it many times, but I think the recent debut album of Britain's Got Talent winner Susan Boyle makes it crystal clear.

Susan Boyle is not a beauty queen. That reason alone is likely why she has not been scooped up by a record label long before now. Because she wouldn't look sexy in a music video, and she isn't so young she couldn't drink in America. She is an average woman, with incredible talent.



Adam Lambert, and all the other winners of American Idol are virtually all young, good looking, and marketable to teens and young adults. They can be marketed via music videos, dressed in all manner of revealing or seductive clothing, and prance around a stage in mock acts of lacivity that just draws censors and media attention.



The difference between the 2? Talent.

There is no comparison of the American Idol winners and Susan Boyle (or another surprise winner in England Paul Potts who sings opera like a knockout punch). Not even Jennifer Hudson, who is quite good, can match her talent. But then again, American Idol isn't about talent. It's about making money.

American Idol is simply a way for people to prove that they can sell according to a set of preconceived list of attributes that American record companies find important. It's a cookie cutter mold of throw away acts that make a quick buck. They are flash in the pans that are about as important to record companies as last year's ratings are to American Idol - they only count if money is coming in.

Hell, the proof of the pudding had to be William Hung. He wasn't attractive, he couldn't sing, he couldn't even shake rythmically. But he got ratings out the buttocks. So he got a record deal, and made 2 albums before he was discarded like day old fish. His shelf life was longer than his talent, but he was a useful tool to rake in cash on a gimick.

But in Britain's Got Talent we see singers that aren't confined to just pop music. They aren't molded to quick sales and gimmicks. They aren't just a means to the next buck, but are actually able to do something special. Well at least sometimes if we are being honest.

That's the point though. The concept was to find people with talent that were overlooked for whatever reason. To give them a shot at living their hearts dream. Britain's Got Talent does that, American Idol just goes for the superficial.

Why in the world would I, or anyone, want to watch a bunch of people embarrass themselves (in the early portion), and then sell their creative souls to become just another forgettable name on the one hit wonder list? Even if they survive for a while, all they are is mediocre and pop tarts that can be replaced in a year.

If I am going to commit to watching regular people trying to make it big, I'd rather go out with friends to see a live performance. I'd rather see people trying to make it with their creative souls intact and enjoying being what they dreamed instead of the prefab creation of a bunch of accountant and statisticians. I want to see talent, not marketing.

American Idol is literally the worst of programming on television. It takes your brain cells and life and gives you back reguritated mash.

And by the way, I recommend the album of Susan Boyle. I may one day recommend Adam Lambert, if he is around in a year or 2 and has more to offer than gimmicks and the insta-fame of pop television fluff.

Pimp Ken and Slut Barbie

I'm not sure how many people have heard what next year's new toy du jour will be. It's likely not what you think, and even less savory once you know.

The toy is the Ken Doll from the Barbie collection. In honor of the 50th year of Barbie dolls, Ken has a new line that is called officially Sugar's Daddy Ken Doll. You might have heard of it more commonly as the Sugar Daddy Ken doll. Or even perhaps as the Pimp Ken doll.



Now Mattel has made it clear that they do not agree with the renaming of the toy, geared to adult collectors.

"While the name of the doll does refer back to the dog, I think people are going to interpret it as they want to interpret it." - Mattel spokeswoman Michelle Chidoni

Really now? Mattel spends untold millions on market research for every toy they make. Every detail of the toys , from the colors used to the packaging, to the names are market researched and designed to click with their target market. There is no interpetation of a Barbie or Ken doll that Mattel has not envisioned and tested long before anyone in the world sees it.

Mattel knew this would be the reaction. In fact I believe they planned on it. Not only because they get free publicity, but because they want to stay relevant to how they see society.

It's the same reason that there was a pregnant Barbie, which lined up with the spike in unwed mothers and pregnant teens in the nation. It's the same reason they made a Tattoo Barbie, to match the ass stamp (or tramp stamp as some call it) that is now overwhelmingly popular among young women. In fact it is the same reason that Lawyer Barbie and Professional Barbie are things of the long ago E.R.A. past.

"We are a good brand and we inspire girls around the world to do amazing things, and we are very proud of who we are and what we are." - Richard Dickson General Manager of Mattel

Oh yes I can see how this is inspiring young girls. Matching Tattoo Barbie with her ass stamp and inhuman figure with Sugar Daddy Ken (or in this match up I like to say Pimp Ken) young girls are inspired to find a man to take care of their needs. To use a man via sexuality to gain material goods. To effectively become a cheap prostitute.

It's an image straight out of almost any rap music video. It's an image found commonly in movies of the last decade or so. It's a theme found on various CW television shows. And in case any young girl has yet to be infected from those sources - because they are too young - Mattel is there to usher them in.

Maybe I am making too much of this. Maybe most girls have too much self-esteem to fall into this trap. But most is not all.

In the same way some women are eased into anorexia because of media influences, and the way that getting a tattoo on the ass of a 16 year old is the current common way to express individualism, this doll and combination reinforce the worst of society. It's no different than the aforementioned music videos and pregnant Barbie. In fact, adding this to those elements and movies, television shows, and magazines I am unsure how any young girl might be at least subliminally unaffected by the image of dependency and prostitution that is being sold to them from all sides.

Is Mattel free to make the toy? Yes and they should be in a free capitalist society. That is not my point. Simple morality and decency should have prevented them from creating these doll lines in the first place. There are some things unworthy of selling for profit. This, to me, is a clear example of such.

BET wrongly accussed of creating gangs in Monroe

There is no end to the things that I don't like about Black Entertainment Television. The music videos, the quality of most of the films shown on the cable network, the lack of news, the ghettofication (yes I just made that word up) of entertainment. The list goes on and on.

But there are some things that I'm not sure you can blame on BET. Just because Viacom is commoditizing Black culture does not mean that every wrong in the Black community is tied to them. That's something that needs to be proven because just making the statement is like throwing around the word racist (which is a popular thing to do these days).

The Monroe Free Press really needs to think about this. Today they published an article that blames BET for the increase in violence and gangs in their area. The article is More Shootouts as teens fight for "Respect" and Headlines. Obviously this article delves into the question of what is motivating teens to join gangs and kill each other.

It's not stated who wrote the piece, but I think they were seriously reaching when they decided to pick on BET. In fact I bet they were just looking to get more coverage, which they did succeed in doing.

The article states immediately

"They are young and out of control, but the arrests keep coming as neighborhood gangs bent on being famous like BET’s American Gangster, fight each other for what one has called “My Respect.”

“American Gangster” is a weekly television program on Black Entertainment Television which profiles gangs in the black community since the 1950’s with photos and storylines that lift the criminals to legendary status."

Now I have no argument that shows like American Gangster and Gangland glorify the criminal and mindless activities the dregs of society have chosen. I agree that such programs are counter-productive in a society that thinks everyone should have a Jackass or American Idol moment. The various Youtube videos of various people breaking the law (like giving babies drugs, or setting up fights to be taped) shows how stupid some can be, and how desperate some are for attention they don't deserve.

But to directly state that the gangs in Monroe are growing simply because of the actions of just this one show on BET is anything but a given. Which is proven by the fact that the article goes on to stop mentioning BET while discussing the problem with teen gang shootings. There is no proof that the BET show encouraged the gangs. There is nothing that connects the recent shootings in Monroe, or the gang growth, to BET.

Problems cannot be fixed by just scapegoating an individual or institution. The very argument that modern television and aspects of the internet promote the worst behavior in teens and some adults is weakened by such a baseless claim. Not once was there even so much as a quote by an accused shooter or gang member about BET. There wasn't even a made up stat or poll or reasonable connection.

Do I think the programming on BET is worthwhile, positive, or beneficial to the Black Community? No. I've stated that many times. I think that Sumner Redstone and the execs at Viacom are too busy cashing in on the commoditization of Black culture to care what they put on or what potential effect it may have. Until all of their kids act out and reference BET, or the other equally horrid programming featuring African Americans on other Viacom channels, they won't even notice.

Still my opinion, and my direct references to shows on BET and their link to stereotypes and negative connotations of African Americans, are not the same as trying to vaguely connect BET to crimes being actively committed. A publication that purports itself as a member of the press needs to have higher standards. Being a publication catering to African Americans does not mean standards are removed or lowered.

Can BET be improved? Only in as much as I am sure the sun will rise tomorrow. But is BET contributing to the rise in gang violence in Monroe? There is no way to be sure, especially considering the "reporting" by the Monroe Free Press. And the readers of Monroe, and the internet, deserve better. Even BET for all its faults deserves better than that.

Television Review: The Prisoner (2009)

The following television review of The Prisoner (2009) may include some spoilers for some fans or those that have not seen the first episode.

I just finished watching the AMC network premiere of the revisioned The Prisoner, with James Caviezel and Sir Ian McKellen. It is certainly an interesting television program.

The television show starts off in many ways just as the original The Prisoner did in 1967. We are introduced to a man and immediately we are in the middle of questions. Who is he? Why is he there? What is going on?

These are questions the man we learn is called Six yearns to know answers to as much as we do. And there is the basis of the whole thing. What are the answers? Though we are given lots of clues, we are also given more than a bit of misdirection and confusion. But always, in the commercial breaks, we are given the hope that all things will be revealed at some point. Which would be a letdown, I think.

In this first of 3 nights, we get to learn that The Village is all there is. It seems that everyone has no memory of anything else. Well almost. Some do have recollections of other things and facts, like about the universe, but yet there is no connection from one fact to another.

From the onset I was let with a recurring thought. This isn't happening, it's the result of a torture. Some kind of hallucination brought on due to a hypnosis or psychological treatment meant to break Six and reveal something that he has yet to even consider.

But this is not something Six does not consider. At the same time we are given every reason to believe it is really taking place. People die, others disappear. And everyone fears Number Two.

There are things that can be gleaned from watching this first episode. We know that there is a corporation, where Six worked. It was in New York. Six resigned from it suddenly and with a bit of dramatic flair. And they are not willing to let Six walk away, at least not without knowing something they fear he learned. That is, if the corporation are his captors at all.

We know that the Towers are meant to symbolize NYC. Possibly meaning an end to innocence, or the extent of desperation some may fanatically follow. We know that control of thought and action are predicated on medications, likely mixed into wrapped foods that are the only style of meal available. We know that fear is a motivation that keeps the few that have any inkling of separate thought quiet and hidden.

But what does this all mean? Why is all of this being done?

One thing is clear, everyone is being watched all the time. Big Brother exists, just not as a Government entity. And that extends from the Village to your home right now. Perhaps only death is the means of ultimate escape.

I think that many of the people in the Village are familiar to Six. He has watched them and their actions in his work in New York. Thus they exist now, but without clear meaning.

I think that all the numbers are critical. 313, 2, 6, 147, 93, 17, 16, and especially 11-12. They all have a significance I cannot now fathom. It is a clue that Six himself states, though in a flashback to the world. It's a hidden message of some sort.

I also believe that the reference to underground is important. Something is happening under the surface, literally, at the Village. It's something that is happening in the subconscious of Six. It is the answer to our questions, I believe.

I think that this is all happening ala Total Recall. The mind of Six is trying to make sense of torture and information, but so far cannot come to grips with the reality of it all. I could be wrong but the way Six appears at most places, how things change, how they interact with his memories of the world, leads me to believe this.

Stepping away from what has been shown, taking into account several things stated by Sir McKellen and the nature of Hollywood these days, I believe this is all a reaction to the evil of not his corporation but another. Someone else wants to know the secrets he uncovered in his work. This is corporate espionage.

So I conclude with this. This revisioning of The Prisoner is interesting. It has more than enough clues and distractions to cause those who actively watch to be curious as to what happens next. It has enough purposive loopholes to make it unclear of what is a writing mistake and part of the storyline. At this point I doubt anyone can out guess what the writer's intended with assurance.

The acting has been well done. We can sympathize with Six. We too can see reason to fear Two. We can understand the dread that comes from the Clinic and the sense of claustrophobia that permeates the idyllic scenery.

Thus this is a good program. It is the high end of what television can provide, when it tries. This is not The Prisoner of 67, yet it is a worthwhile experience. It is captivating and allows time to roll by without notice. It easily inspires discussion and questions. It easily makes you believe in the experience being given.

Television rarely reaches for such lofty goals as entertaining the mind as much as the eyes. But in this case they have succeeded, and I look forward to Monday nights episodes.

Television Preview: The Prisoner (remake)

Over the years I have consistently warned my viewers to stay away from 'revisioned' fare on television and movies. Almost invariably such efforts are refuse best avoided than partaken in. But sometimes there comes an exception.



So far the previews of The Prisoner look like it has captured the essense of the original British show from 1967. Keep in mind the words essense. Because like all revisions, this one has been adapted to the sensibilities of our current time. And that likely will be the flaw of the program.



The remake will star Sir Ian McKellen and James Caviezel. Both are fine actors of high note. I believe both bring real credibility and substance to the program. There should be no question of how compelling they both can make their respective characters.

The setting will be interesting too. Filmed primarily in South Africa, the landscape - as much as there will be any considering it takes place in the confines of a desert - should add to the overall theme of the program. Desperation will be something not just discussed but also seen.

But the heart of the television show has never been the actors or the scenery. The Prisoner is enirely about what is said and done. It is about ideals. It is a surreal reflection of the world around us.

In the 1960's the world was in flux. Governments were trying to adjust to changing views in their societies. War was on the horizon, and even larger global conflicts loomed while internal strife was everpresent.

Thus the 1967 show focused on freedom. Individual freedom versus the oppressive nature of large Governments of all types. Of the ability to be unique in a world striving to ensure every peg fit perfectly into a pre-conceived hole.

It's a topic that could easily fit into the world today. A theme that sounds as true in 2009 with government-run healthcare, forced restrictions on energy usage, and plans for government to determine what is free (and/or fair) via the internet as it was for the world of the 60's. But that isn't where this show will go.

Instead this will be an attack on capitalism. The easy target of the day and the preferred evil of Hollywood. Yes it is capitalism that the prisoner Six (Caviezel) will be seeking to escape. Or so Sir McKellen has stated

"Capitalism offers you freedom, but far from giving people freedom, it enslaves them," he says. "That's part of the show's message." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_en_tv/us_ap_on_tv_prisoner_mckellen

I don't agree with this view, as much as Hollywood (an institution only possible under capitalism) likes to insist it is true. But that does not mean that the show will be bad. Depending on how strongly this theme is reinforced will ultimately determine how much it can be enjoyed. Unless the viewer is just vacantly watching the program, and then it wouldn't matter if this were the revisioned V series or static snow.

So the premise is this, can you escape your Village (capitalism)? Do you even want to? What does it cost you to stay right were you are?

But that leads me to a series of questions I don't think the program will delve into. Can we escape the other alternative being pressed upon us (Government oppresiveness)? What cost of our freedoms does craddle to grave government oversight take? Isn't escaping one Village to only join another just as futile?

Deep questions. Likely not something that most television viewers expect for the ITV box in their living room. But The Prisoner is a show that never strived to just keep viewers mindlessly enthralled like American Idol. So if nothing else this remake might just succeed on that level too.

On Sunday we will all have the choice of actively allowing ourselves to be held, members of a Village far larger than the one we will see onscreen. For that price I think we will be rewarded, to some degree, with a unique experience. The only question is if it is worth the price paid.

Television Review: V - the 2009 series

Well I just finished watching the new V television series on ABC. It does lead one to have several thoughts.

When I watch a sci-fi show, I generally keep an eye out for the 8 critical factors all good sci-fi must have. They are:

Originality

Obey Rules

Writing

Special effects

Plot

Acting

Visuals

Sound

When all of these elements exist and are done well you get Star Wars (episode 4), Star Trek (the original), Blade Runner, and Battlestar Galactica (the original) to name a few frfom movies and television. When they are not, you get Quark - exactly, no one even remembers the show.

The heavily revisioned V loses on originality. But it does ok on sound, visuals, acting and special effects. Just ok, not great or awesome. There is nothing impressive there. (though Morena Baccarin does look good as Anna)

As for obeying the rules, let me clarify. In every sci-fi film or movie, the beginning is critical. In the first 5 - 10 minutes almost every rule of the world or universe being displayed are provided. If there are lasers, if there are superheroes, if a person can control magnetisim or bounce bullets off their chest. The keys to all of what follows are set up immediately, and can only be added on in that context. The Alien vs. Predator movies come to mind as examples of what happens when the rules get broken. You get a crap product.

In this revisioned V series, the rules are still not clear. The aliens have interstellar travel capabilities, look human, are reptillian. They have superior technology and a massive amount of information about Earth. And that's about all we know.

The writing, as well as the plot, is stiff. It all sounds pretty close to right, but not quite. It's almost what you might expect people to say, but not really. Of course that could just be because this is the pilot episode so the creative juices and character development has yet to take place.

The biggest problem I have is with the plot. It jumps all over the place. It skips past vital information. It is obvious in its path and observation. It's slow paced to the point of boredom. It is unengaging, unless you compare it to American Idol - but watching paint dry could be compared in the same way.

Plus there are problems. Lots of them. Some becuase I am old enough to have seen the original, some just intrinsic to this version.

We see that the entire program has been feminized. Which clues us in right from the start that this will be a PC program. Get ready for the political messages as entertainment.

As I guessed all the male characters have major issues. All the women characters assuming all the roles of position and power, which is not a bad thing persay except in the original both sexes had power and position for the good and ill of humanity. It's a subtle message, but a political one all the same.

The men are flawed even when we don't see them. The father and ex-husband of FBI agent Evans (Elizabeth Mitchell) has abandoned his kid. He is so insensitive that he doesn't even speak with his child when the world changes.

Agent Evans is the overworked, dedicated, mother/father, of a teen that just wants to rebel. You just have to feel for her troubles, don't you? I didn't.

But they are 2 examples of what the show sets up as the dominant theme. Men are weak, women will save them and the world. Aren't we lucky, because being equals just won't cut it.

But we skip from that to a terrorist cell. A group that increases chatter as everyone else is caught off guard as the aliens arrive. Not that anyone panics with 29 (down from 50 - some places in the world just don't count as much as they did 20 years ago) alien ships in the sky. Not that any of the religious fanatics might go bezerk with this new question directly facing them.

But before we get far we already know that Ryan Nichols (Morris Chestnut) has a secret. And we are pretty sure that he is a terrorist, likely an alien as well. They telegraphed that punch, like all of them in the show, from about 3 miles out.

Just as fast we get to see that the media is exactly the sleazy ratings whores that many presume them to be. And we get to see that in yet another sex change from the original.

It just does downhill from there. The jewish family from the original - gone as expected. The connection to Nazi's gone. The V itself is now a positive propoganda symbol instead of a resistance sign. The sympathizer boy remains the same though, even as his future love interest is sex changed, and his charcter is combined with the role of the girl that was too dumb to appreciate what she was doing.

I was wrong on one critical thing though. There is diversity in this television show. It doesn't rise to the level of the 1980's but it is better than average for 2009. We have A Black man and A Hispanic woman. We even get to see AN Asian woman. Ocassionally we get to see a few people of color in the background, because this is NYC after all. So I did get that much wrong and I am glad they did get it right (in as weak a version as they did).

Still this show pales in comparision to the original. It has gaps in logic, like if the conspiracy group is so smart, why didn't they check out Nichols? How in the hell did they find this out, and why didn't they spread the word sooner? How do they know ALL the plans of the aliens from day one? Why didn't they have a plan in place for when this happened?

2 things that I did find interesting were:

They slipped in universal healthcare. Except the implication (likely unintended) is that it is a means of gathering sheep that wish to be lead - even to the slaughter.

The fact that those in power can command and pervert the media with such ease. The compromising of Chad Decker (Scott Wolf) seems so much like the way the Obama Administration cuckholded MSNBC. Again I'm sure that was not the intended thought, but there it was.

Overall this television series looks to be worse than I had imagined in my preview. It waters down the sci-fi, and the political grandness of the original, to a meaningless and bland waste of time. It supplants PC themes for plot and motives. It berates and lectures at the audience in a quiet and Hollywood-esque manner.

This show won't make it one season I think. It would have to make dramatic and sweeping changes just to make me watch one more episode. This isn't groundbreaking, sci-fi, or even entertaining. It's the result of of a bunch of Hollywood execs trying to save cash and reusing a great idea in a horrible way.

The only way I can see anyone recommending this program is if the only other option is watching any reality television program, or because your television is stuch on ABC and can't be turned off. Or they were paid a big salary.

The Doctor...I mean lawyer is in

What if The Doctor was American? I know, many of my readers don't get the reference. I'm talking about Doctor Who. Specifically, the man who was the latest Doctor and one of the most popular in the 46 year history of the television program. David Tennant.

Tenant is not a big name in the U.S., outside of sci-fi geeks and those that watch BBC America. But in Britain he is huge. Because playing the Doctor isn't something just anyone can do (normally). In fact, it's kind of like being picked as the next James Bond.

David Tennant did a wonderful job as The Doctor (no the character doesn't have a name that is known). he was spunky, fun, intelligent in an absent-minded manner, and had a very strong dark vicious streak in him. The kind of character you can enjoy and find incredible depth in.

After playing Dr. Who, the sky was pretty much the limit to what Tennant could have done next. Anything being done in England would have been extremely happy to even have him as a cameo just because he is that popular. But Tenant is a stage and television actor, so he seems to have stuck to his roots. he found a television show to star in.

That may be the end of the good news.

The television show that Tennant has picked is Rex Is Not Your Lawyer. Right off the bat a problem exists. The name is far too long. Never a good sign for 99% of television shows in America.

Add to that the fact that this television show idea is a brainchild of NBC (they haven't been doing so well since Seinfeld and Fraiser went off the air). Plus the news that this idea has been sitting on a shelf for 2 years waiting to get somebody who is capable and willing to take on the project. Not exactly inspirational news.

The concept is basically that a high-end lawyer has a breakdown. So he decides to coach witnesses instead of defending them. I'm laughing already. Yes, that core idea is the key to this comedy show. Since this is not a rip-off of an British comedy, I'm even less enthused.

Overall I am excited to see how David Tennant will do in America. I have no doubt that he is getting paid extremely well for this first shot. I'm equally sure that some Hollywood exec is dreaming of selling rights to the show back to England for a nice profit. And that's all the good news I can get from this concept.

There is no way of figuring out if this idea will work, or if it was put on a shelf for good reason. Tennant may be able to float the show alone, he might get a capable cast that can make it work with him. It might turn out to be an Ally McBeal. Or it could be the American version of Coupling.

At least if it doesn't work, Tennant can still jump in the TARDIS and go back across the pond. I'm sure the Brits will not hold his attempt to raise the standards of American entertainment, and getting paid handsomely well, against him.

**Don't forget to support this blog by checking out Alchemy at World of Vass, and the t-shirts at World of Vass. Your support helps keep this all going. Thank you, and do tell a friend.**

V - the 2009 television series

Last night I had the chance to watch the original V series. I remember the television miniseries from back in the 80's when it was originally shown. It was a moving work of television at its best back then, and now.

But in watching the original, which was promoting the upcoming "revisioned" television series, I thought about what we know is different now in the coming premiere on ABC on Tuesday. Sadly, I doubt the impact, message, or interest will survive this "reimagined" program.

Right off the back there are a few things that are readily seen. The first is that the city this will be highlighting is New York City instead of Los Angeles. Another is that unlike the original, and unlike NYC, the diversity of the characters has gone out the window. Add to that the fact that several of the main characters have had their race and gender changed.



In 20 years, somehow NYC has become a place where people of color are incredibly unseen (or more accurately underseen). Which is amazing since NYC is possibly the most diverse population anywhere in the world. And it is that diversity which is a major theme of the program. That ALL human beings are involved and affected. That this can happen to anyone, everywhere. But in the new version, basically if you are a person of color, you just don't matter.

The original had several major characters that were women, or people of color. They were not authorities or people invested with the way of life. Just ordinary people that had to rise to the circumstances they found themselves in. The leader of the resistance is a woman who had no aspirations of power or leadership. But she became more than she knew she could be.

The new version will have women assuming several roles of the male characters from the original. The father that is divorced yet still tries to maintain a good relationship with his ex-wife and son is gone. The image of a strong man, that can work with and support a strong female leader is gone. The thought of ordinary people being more than they ever envisioned is gone.

I can only guess if the Holocaust survivor character will remain, but I doubt it. I can only guess that the hard working factory employee Black single father is also gone. I would bet that the references to social climbing succubi - as portrayed in the original - will be gone. In fact I expect every female character to be a version of Wonder Woman, and every male character to be little more than a boy Robin at best and more often a pack of impotent Renfield's. Just to suck up to the current political correctness of the day.

In the original the change from everyday freedom to a totalitarian society takes mere weeks. The change is fast but based in the very credible fears and weaknesses we all hold. And the Visitors obviously learned a lot about us, as they took the prime example of Hitler and the Nazis to implement their plans.

The new version will forgo that idea. Instead they will focus on a post-9/11 world. Aliens are among us, and have been for years. They have infiltrated our lives and we don't know it. And the world has been prepped for a siege none of us are ready for.

But that takes away from the story. It forgets that some of the most dangerous times in the world have been not when we are under attack (even unknowingly) but when we are feeling completely safe. When the Government and laws change ever so little, but sliding away from what we grew up with.

These are things that have been changed to suck in younger viewers. Because they never saw the original. Because Hollywood executives are sure that younger viewers will not understand the impact of the Nazis or how that could happen in America. Because they believe that feeding off of the hype of recent events is more entertaining than providing a lesson about how history repeats itself when we watch with dull minds.

The fact that this will be a weekly series means that people will not have to pay attention to what is going on. That if you missed something you can just wait for reruns to get it. That watching the show out of sequence will not destroy the meaning of what is going on. And it loses a lot in that.

The original series hit people because it left no stone unturned. It happened in a real world of people from all facets of life. It involved the real issues we all face. It delved into the need for security and comfort of routine. Even with a sci-fi background, it was something everyone could relate to.

The new series proposes to substitute a false image of the world. Where a great number of people don't exist. Where the frailties of society are replaced with the hype of politics. Where some will be able to hide - even if that is just a subliminal effect of what they have done. It is a watered down, self-serving, and quite possibly useless exercise in grabbing ratings.

I will watch the show. I will be more than happy to write a post detailing exactly how wrong I was on every point I have made. I will be delighted to headline a post with my failure to see the benefit of this "revisioned" show. But I wouldn't place a bet in Las Vegas that any of that will happen. Not because I am unwilling, hell I'm hoping, but because there won't be enough substance to cause it to happen.

In addition this new V series will be a ratings whore. It will be shaped by the number of viewers it will get. It will be modified by the popularity of the stars involved. Because every television show is. And when they aren't they get canceled for low viewership.

Television has always been an escape. A way to be amused by the antics that we all can feel safe are restricted to a small screen. When it is at its best and true to the purpose of its creation, television informs and educates. And that happens best in a small dose that has no regard for weekly ratings, star power, salaries, or fickle Hollywood executives. Roots is another great example of what can be done in a miniseries that cannot in a television series.

Will this version of V be interesting? I hope so. Will it provide the same political and societal message? Not at all. Will it rise to the highest goals of television? Most likely not. Will it last? Undoubtedly only a season or 2 at best.

I hope to be wrong. I hope to see a great program that is well written. But what I know I will see is a show that panders to popular political ideals, and seeks to garner ratings over delving into real issues.

Tyler Perry Responds to Spike Lee

Recently I provided video from Black Enterprise of Ed Gordon interviewing Spike Lee. In that video Spike Lee was asked about the state of Black culture and coverage in movies and television. The response was very critical.

Specifically, without directly naming him, Spike called the work of Tyler Perry "coonery and buffonery". He found it akin to Amos 'n Andy. I essentially took it that he found Perry's work - no matter the income it draws - little more than the minstrel show. Which for my readers that are not familiar is possible one of the worst things that can be said of any Black entertainer or celebrity.

There was no question that Perry was going to respond. Here is what is available on that response.



I understand the anger that Perry has. At the same time, there are legitimate issues with some of the work Perry has created. The question I suppose is which is the correct stance, or is there some middle ground?

What do you think?

Family Guy breaks Windows

If you have seen the show Family Guy, and at this point that would be most anyone from age 45 and down, you know what you are going to get. The jokes are hardly tame, the show is about as close to All in the Family as Archie was open-minded. But there is no question that this is all a given.

That's why advertisers love this show. Most of the time. Because they can reach their target audience, plus other people equally flush with cash. And almost every product can fit into the theme of any episode. It's just that sometimes the advertisers just can't handle an episode or a dozen.

Microsoft is the latest of advertisers to balk at the content. After making major plans, and potentially a lot of money, to have Seth MacFarlane hawk Windows 7 in the upcoming Family Guy special Microsoft lost their nerve. Either that, or the execs that loved the demographics of the show never bothered to watch a single episode before they made the deal.

But once they did get to watch a special taping of what they would be involved with, well the deal broke. It seems that deaf people, the Holocaust, feminine hygiene and incest are all topics that Microsoft can't find humor in. Not that any of these things are new subjects for this television program to tackle. I suppose they really would have lost their minds if it included the recurring BDSM themes of the show (or maybe they would have liked that??)

Honestly this makes me wonder only one thing. How stupid can the brains at Microsoft be? All they had to do is watch less than 30 minutes of television and they would have known if this was the right kind of show for them. A quick Google search (or MSN if they want to lie) and they would have found no end to the topics that some object to on Family Guy. Instead they look dumb, snobbish, and insincere.

Somehow I think Microsoft will get a bit of advertising in the end. It may not be this episode (though I think it will be) but I think that Seth MacFarlane will trash talk the computer giant - with references to broken windows or more directly to the landmine that was Vista. Somehow I don't think Microsoft will like the attention, and I'm sure it won't add to their bottom line. But it will probably be very funny.

So I look forward to seeing that in Family Guy.

Oh, for Microsoft. I have advertising space available for you on my blogs, if you can handle what I say. Give me a call.

Samuel L. Jackson - producer again

Of the many thing that I think Samuel L Jackson has done right, I'm not sure his next 2 upcoming projects will fall into that category.

Jackson has just signed a deal with CBS to try out 2 new shows. This will confirm the executive producing credits that Jackson gained from the Afro Samurai program that was wildly successful on Spike TV. But unlike the Afro Samurai, I think Jackson has passed his limit.

One of the unnamed shows is about what happens after a U.S. Congressman dies while in office, and his wife inherits his seat. It may not sound like it but this is proposed to be a comedy. When I first heard of this I thought of a West Wing like program. But considering that the main writer is the same from 3rd Rock From The Sun, this will not be serious.

Will it be a serious laughfest? Somehow I doubt it. There are few comedies about politics that I can recall, and of the ones I do recall - like Benson in its later years - they failed. Americans don't laugh about politics often, so this will be a huge hurdle. Especially once you consider that most viewers of CBS are older and take their politics far more seriously.

The other show, is a medical drama (yes, yet another) focusing on an emergency room doctor (but it's not ER) who uses unconventional methods to treat his patients (ever heard of House?).

Obviously I find that one to be an overused idea. Then again the writer of that program is responsible for Cold Case - a show that rips off Law & Order, CSI, and several other old cop-format television shows. Still in Hollywood there is no greater sign of success than copying. No greater way to get paid either.

I like Samuel Jackson. I think he's a great guy to have a beer with, and from what I can tell, he seems to have tastes that are similar to myself and a lot of other guys I know. Somehow, I don't see these shows, as described, as being in that vein. He's just out for the money. Which I don't fault him for, I just won't watch them a second time if I am right.

If I could advise Jackson, I would remind him why Afro Samurai worked. It's a subject he has a passion for, and a medium he understands. If he sticks to those principles, he will likely make more money and find greater success.

Now watch these both become great shows and I have to eat my words. We will see.

Maybe there is hope for mankind yet

In probably the happiest news I've learned about in year I can now say that the Fox 'Reality' Channel will be ending. That's right, a 'reality' network is going to dust.

After what seemed like an endless run of this programming trend, turning countless numbers of people into chattel for the television corporations, an end is in sight. And not a moment too soon as Flava Flav is about to venture into schools and directly corrupt minds with this trash.

I cannot say that I will miss a single program. In fact, I can say with glee that I have never seen more than 5 minutes of any 'reality' program since I watched a full episode of Survivor the first season. That experience was enough to kill more brain cells than the grain alcohol party in my freshman year in college.

Maybe, just maybe, television executives will spend a little money and get writers to provide something with the semblance of originality. Just maybe a spark of innovation will venture through the ITV and provide the next generation something more than the notion that acting like a buffoon is desirable.

Considering the plethora of copycat shows (CSI is CIS: NY is NCIS, Law & Order is Law & Order with an alphabet, they all are more original than Medium, Numbe3rs, Cold Case and so on) and the near limitless ways that Viacom found to market Flav and his nymphette minions, I was ready to declare that the Romans watching the gladiators as Rome decayed into ruin were riding the crest of the wave of their civilizations demise compared to today. But Fox may be ahead of the curve in noticing that reality is what people want to escape while watching TV. And there is just so many times you can watch some idiot make a complete churl of themselves.

I don't know what the next trend in television might be, but I can only hope that it might have some tiny bit of imagination and intelligence. I'm asking for way too much, but you never know. You can't get what you don't ask for.

Television preview: V (2009)

In yet another in the long line of revisioned entertainment, ABC will be reworking a true classic. V was one of the big mini-series of the 80's. It was a hit, with great writing decent effects and better than average acting. Now it will become likely something far less.

Hollywood has sometime ago abandonded any pretense at trying to create anything new. Movies have rehashed even the least interesting of television shows, and even some of the more obscure comic books. So it is no surprise that television would follow in this trend. At least it's not yet another "reality" program.

V is basically a story of aliens that come to Earth. They appear as good guys, they help us with issues ranging from disease to feeding the world. They do all this just out of the goodness of their hearts. And billions of people, plus their Governments, fall in line to almost worship there aliens. Plus they look just like us!

Then we learn that all is not as shiny and gold as it appears. The aliens have sinister plans. They have the book, How To Serve Man. Thus a small group try to fight to remove the aliens.

How all of this will be played out on ABC today is another question. Likely there will be massive changes. The original had huge references to the growth of the Nazi Party. They hit upon issues like natural resources, freedom, and quality of life. I doubt any of that will be in the revisioned remake.

The first clue to what may happen is the fact that this seems to be planned as a television series. So it will not hold the same punch as the original episodes did. Add to that the fact that many of the main characters have been changed (like the lead becoming a single woman with a child instead of a man and a child). Plus the nature of the media to spin political rhetoric is far more abundant today than then, so be prepared to see a flood of pro-liberal imagery.

Early reviews state

"E! Online rated the pilot episode "on a scale of 1 to 10, we give it an 11. V is the best pilot we've seen in, well, forever." The website Seat42F rated the pilot episode A+, applauding its cast and effects and naming it one of the best pilots in years. USA Today's Robert Bianco named V on his list of the top ten new shows, stating that the remake is well-made and "quickly establishes its own identity."

Pretty good reviews for a remake. Which means either the reviewers are like many watching tv now, and never saw the original or television has gotten so bad that anything above mundane is exceptional. I tend to believe both will be accurate.

The cast will include:

• Elizabeth Mitchell as Erica Evans
• Morris Chestnut as Ryan Nichols
• Joel Gretsch as Father Jack Landry
• Lourdes Benedicto as Valerie Stevens
• Logan Huffman as Tyler Evans
• Morena Baccarin as Anna, the leader of the Visitors
• Laura Vandervoort as Lisa, a Visitor
• Scott Wolf as Chad Decker, a reporter

Chestnut and Wolf are probably the best know of the whole cast. So who knows if the acting will be good.

Overall I find revisioned television shows, and movies, to generally be inferior to the originals they copy. Writers generally change the best aspects of the original and destroy the intent. Directors focus on trivial or far less interesting aspects of the original. And it's really bad news when a director, with the writers, decide that they found a way to improve on the original (ie. Dukes of Hazzard, Starsky & Hutch, Battlestar Galactica, ect).

Will V become a sensation? Can it provide the impact and drama that caused the original to be a massive hit? Will even I be interested enough to watch broadcast television again?

Probably not. But the premiere might be worth watching. For those that never saw the original it will likely be fantastic, for those that have boredom may ensue. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt it. Odds are 3 - 1 that it does not get renewed.