That's a Wrap!
The end of Program Notes

It is with great remorse that I post my last entry in this blog. The fact of the matter is that there is simply too much going on in the world of television for me to keep up. While there is much I would like to comment on, my present schedule does not permit the attention to this topic that the Partial Observer readership deserves. I will close with a few random thoughts:

Too many questions? 'Lost', 'The Nine', 'Heroes'

I've heard quite a few people express major disappointment in Season Three (thus far) of "Lost". Ratings are down from last year. "Too slow, not enough answers, not enough time with the non-captive losties, they're just making it up as they go along" they whined. It's true that "Lost" is a show that requires patience from its viewers. While there are indeed an awful lot of unresolved questions, the story has certainly progressed this fall with most of the focus being on The Others. Knowing that the season would be split in two, with a 13-week hiatus after the seventh episode, the writers wisely chose to limit the scope of the "fall season" (Jack, Kate, and Sawyer are held captive by The Others, and we gain some insight on how The Others live). My feelings about the show haven't changed since I last wrote about it. And while I would agree that the fall finale was not as intense as expected, I'm confident that when the show returns in February the groundwork laid this fall will prove to be a sensible and satifying set up for the "spring season". If you're the type of person that requires instant gratification from your entertainment, "Lost" is not your kind of show. In my view, if "Lost" were to reveal all of the mysteries in just its third season, making just another good-vs-evil show, it would lose the primary element that made it so special. Frustrated viewers should either embrace the bewilderment or stop watching. And regarding the whole "they're making it up as they go along" argument? Hogwash! Anyone who has given any considerable thought to the process of writing fiction knows that these writers are very good and know (at least generally) the answers to the big questions.

While I will eagerly keep watching "Lost," I quit watching "The Nine" soon after it's debut, despite impressive critical reviews. As another show that required much patience, "The Nine" (ABC) dealt with the aftermath of a hostage situation. The former hostages now have a special bond, and over the course of the season, viewers would be dealt small glimpses of what happened during the crisis to shed light on the odd complexity of their relationships. Like "Lost", wild questions were raised, but as my wife so astutely observed, with "Lost" we could identify with the castaways because they were just as confused and unenlighted as we were/are. But with "The Nine," all of the main characters know what events occurred inside that bank and us viewers were left to try to piece it together. I felt like I walked into a room of people who suddenly stopped talking and refused to tell me what they were talking about. Not my idea of fun! Low ratings recently forced ABC to put "The Nine" on hiatus.

I did, however, stick with NBC's "Heroes", yet another big-on-questions, short-on-answers show. I felt it had a somewhat shaky start, but there was enough there to sustain interest, and the payoff is now starting to reveal itself at the close of the "fall season." Again, the characters are as confused as we are, and despite some questionable network promos that promised more answers than we got, the "Six Months Ago" episode, for me, sealed the show as worthy of its success.

Is 'Must-See TV' Back?

NBC would like us to think so, scheduling four comedies in a row on Thursday nights as in happier days for the network (i.e., pre-"Joey"). The current line-up is "My Name is Earl," "The Office," "Scrubs," and "30 Rock". Not bad (especially the first hour). Sitcoms have not done well in recent years, but I liked what a "Scrubs" producer said in a USA Today interview that I can no longer locate: he said that comedy is not dead - bad comedy is dead. Gone are the days when you could put up any sub-par sitcom on Thursday night and get good ratings because people have so many other options for entertainment these days. Sounds fairly plausible. I do find that there seem to be an overwhelming amount of good quality shows on TV these days. However, I don't think we can yet say that there are no more bad shows - just fewer of them.

Signing Off

So ends "Program Notes: the Blog". I'll still be hanging around the PO, of course. I hope to contribute some graphical content sporadically in the future. Until then, thanks for reading.

Get Caught up with 'Battlestar Galactica'
The updated series is one of the best on TV.

Filed under: Programming

Naturally, it doesn't get the attention that "Lost" gets but may be just as deserving, because it's just about as good. In fact, I don't know how it could be any better than it is. Sure, there's been much "Battlestar" buzz on the periphery of mainstream TV, but as a basic cable sci-fi show if difficult to gain respect outside the nerdy Comic-Con crowd.

While many people dismiss any science fiction as fluff, "Battlestar" has unusual depth, finding fresh ways to explore our humanity with great realism, style, and strong acting. But indeed it's not for everyone: this is a grim tale about the human on the brink of extinction. TV doesn't get much darker than that. For those who haven't been watching "Battlestar" and appreciate the drama and insights such darkness can bring, this is the time to get caught up and start watching.

The third season premiere airs on the Sci-Fi Channel this Friday, October 6 at 9:00 PM ET, but be sure to catch a special called "The Story So Far" earlier that day at 4:00 PM (and again at 5:00 PM) or view it online at sci-fi.com. Those who have been watching are eager to see how this season plays out after a mind-blowing Season Two finale that moves the show in an unexpected direction, but it's not too late to jump in.

Doctor Who: Season Two
British import returns to Sci-Fi Channel this week.

Filed under: Programming

BBC's smash hit "Doctor Who" returns to the Sci-Fi Channel this Friday night (Sep 29) with two episodes, starting at 8:00 PM ET. The first episode, a 90-minute special, is the first for David Tennant in the starring role. Christopher Eccleston, who was wonderful as the Doctor in the previous season, chose to leave the show after just one season (13 episodes) for fear of being typecast. Sad as it was to see him go so soon, the word from the UK is that Tennant does a fine job himself. Billie Piper continues as the Doctor's companion, Rose.

"Doctor Who" is a fun show, a rare combination of humor and substance among the many seriously-toned sci-fi shows in recent years. It stays true to the classic original series while keeping up with current visual trends and pacing. It deserves a solid American following.

To Whom it May Concern
RE: Tribes segregated by race on upcoming 'Survivor'

Filed under: Cultural Impact, Reality TV

Dear offended viewer, critic, or advertiser,

Your umbrage over the racial segregation of the tribes in this season's "Survivor: Cook Islands" is duly noted. However, it would seem your protestations are premature at this point considering a) none of you have seen it yet, and b) it's 'Survivor', and the twist will likely be over ten minutes into the second episode.

In fact, I regret to inform you that you've played right into producer Mark Burnett's marketing plan to wrangle more viewers after the show's previous lackluster outing. This is the most buzz 'Survivor' has gotten in years, thanks to your outrage. Everything about the promos indicates it is purposely provocative and ultimately tame, with zero chance of provoking a race riot.

I was personally prepared to finally not watch this installment, but I have to admit I'm somewhat intrigued by this gimmick. I regret to say I'll have to watch at least the first episode. I generally enjoy thought-provoking shows that explore race issues, and while 'Survivor' is unlikely to go into much depth on the matter, it's a chance for it to rise above it's usual blandness.

So go ahead, and give it a gander. If/when it reverts back to the status quo, stop watching. If you're still upset about the segregation after the premiere, go ahead and complain. I predict, however, that come Friday morning, if we're talking about 'Survivor' at all, it will be about how un-controversial it is, and your uproar will have been all for nothing.

Sincerely,
Mark D. Johnson, partial observer.

On 9/11 Programming
Controversy abounds.

Filed under: News Programs, Programming

I have largely avoided anniversary specials of the 9/11 attacks in previous years, but now, at the fifth anniversary mark, it seems a fitting time to look back. But some of the high-profile specials are getting some flack:

ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' Mini-Series

Democrats were hopping mad at this one, which aired tonight despite heavy criticism and demands to pull it from the schedule by those claiming it plays way too loose with the facts. Allegedly, it was written by a right-winger who decided to fabricate events in a way that reflects poorly on the Clinton Administration. However, the program did not air without major last-minute re-editing and disclaimers. I did not watch it myself because I have very little interest in which U.S. government officials and agencies are to blame, preferring to blame bin Laden. It's difficult to understand why ABC green-lit this project.

CBS: '9/11' documentary film with profanity

The '9/11' documentary by French filmmakers has aired before, and I did happen to catch this very well-done and sobering film when it first aired. Yet this time around, some CBS affiliates are worried about getting fined by the FCC because the film contains strong profanity by people reacting to the horror of the attacks. A traditional-values Christian group, the American Family Association, has also called on CBS stations to forgo or delay airing.

Two points:

1. Why in the world doesn't the FCC have a committee to review these major cases in advance of the broadcast to let the network know if fines will indeed be handed out if aired? Affiliates are instead forced to play a ridiculous guessing game. (By the way, the FCC did not assess fines for the most recent uncensored Saving Private Ryan broadcast, and said that any review of '9/11' would take historical context into consideration - I think there is very small risk of fines for '9/11')
   
2. I understand the filmmakers' wish to leave the profanity intact to preserve everything they captured in its raw state, but is it really such a big deal to bleep or mute the obscenities?

Dramatizations/re-enactments of 9/11 events

While 'The Path to 9/11' would appear to be an example of how dramatizing 9/11-related events can be a very bad idea, risking accusations of exploitation and historical revisionism, two dramatic movies from this year have received nothing but total respect, from what I've heard: United 93 and World Trade Center. I happened to catch a new Discovery Channel special last night called 'Inside the Twin Towers', which mixed actually 9/11 footage, interviews with survivors, and dramatized re-enactments. I wound up staying up to 2:30 AM because it provided an engrossing new perspective of what was going on in the WTC towers from when the first plane hit to when the second tower collapsed. It was effective TV, and sensitive to its subject matter. The re-enactments were, for the most part, believeable, and not done in cheesy, manipulative, investigative-reporting style. It airs again Sept 12, 8:00 PM ET.

CNN.com replays real-time coverage from 9-11-2001 online

A friend of mine brought this to my attention on his blog, where he asks, 'Why live in the past? Why remember so much pain?' After ignoring most past 9/11 anniversary coverage, then seeing footage from that day again last night, I found it meaningful to witness once again those unimaginable scenes, to reflect on the innocent lives lost, to remember my own reaction at the time - because with the passage of time, memories fade, the shock wears off, we adjust back to a normal life, and it would be a shame to forget how awful that day was. So go ahead, watch - and cry, and get angry again at bin Laden, and get angry that it led to this difficult war in Iraq and thousands more dead. It should quickly put the occasional profanity in '9/11' into perspective.

So long, mate.
Steve Irwin, 1962-2006

I'm saddened by the sudden death of the famed "Crocodile Hunter," Steve Irwin, who captivated throngs of viewers like myself who ordinarily wouldn't pause more than two seconds while channel hopping to watch a show about reptiles. His infectious enthusiasm and seemingly risky handling of the some of the world's most dangerous creatures brought something remarkable to television that we hadn't quite seen before. Though I haven't watched his shows for years, I recall a time maybe six years ago when his show became a nightly routine, and we sat with out mouths open as he did the craziest things with deadly snakes.

No doubt there are those who think he somewhat deserved to die the way he did, while others respect him for dying doing what he loved to do. The former stance doesn't really have much merit, considering how rare it is to be killed by the poisonous barb of a stingray. It was more bad luck than anything.

The small screen is slightly dimmer tonight.

The Emmys just don't matter
They've taken on a Grammy-esque weakness.

Filed under: Trends

The Emmy nominations were much-criticised this year due to some glaring snubs as a result of a change in nomination proceedures, but even though they seem to have less meaning than ever, they meant little before. Sure, good talent is still rewarded, but how can they be taken seriously when last year's Best Drama winner, "Lost", didn't even get nominated this year. With the Academy Awards, Oscar-winners definitely get more attention and winning movies typically see a significant bump in box office/rentals/DVD sales. Not so with the Emmys - no guaranteed rise in viewership, no guaranteed network support if the winner's ratings are weak. Just a trophy and brief recognition. Low-to-no impact. So I won't bother to rant on and on about the various injustices.

Instead, in case you missed it, here is the intro from last Sunday's ceremonies with host Conan O'Brien being inserted into several popular shows. If you can get past the unfortunate timing with that morning's deadly plane crash, it's a pretty funny bit, and the show was generally downhill from there on...

Watch '30 Days'
'Supersize Me' director returns with another season of riveting reality.

Filed under: Programming

Director of the acclaimed documentary Supersize Me, Morgan Spurlock, is back with Season Two of his excellent docu-reality series in which one person spends an eye-opening thirty days outside his or her comfort zone (Wednesday's 10:00 PM EDT, FX). Topics this season include (from the official website):

"Immigration" - a man who has staunch anti-illegal immigration views and is a member of the Minutemen lives with a family of illegal immigrants.

"Outsourcing" - a man who lost his job to outsourcing travels to India, where he witnesses how the outsourcing of U.S. jobs has affected that country's culture.

"Atheist/Christian" - a woman who is an atheist lives with a fundamentalist Christian family.

"New Age" - a man who is over-worked and over-stressed attempts to find inner peace through unconventional means.

"Pro-Choice/Pro-Life" - a woman who had an abortion 6 years ago and is pro-choice resides in a pro-life group home for pregnant women.

"Jail" - Morgan Spurlock experiences life as an inmate inside a county jail.

The season premiere was actually last week, but it's the kind of show where you can jump in at any point. Also, Season One is now available on DVD. You can view the Amazon.com listing here, where you can also watch a video clip of Spurlock's talk with Bill Maher on Amazon's original "TV show," 'Amazon Fishbowl'.

America's got too many talent shows!
Wednesday night Crap-O-Rama

Filed under: Reality TV

The desperate search for the next 'American Idol' continued tonight as the Big Four aired the following programs simultaneously: 'Rock Star: Supernova' (CBS), 'So You Think You Can Dance' (FOX), 'America's Got Talent' (NBC), and 'The One: Making of a Music Star' (ABC). It's enough to make one long for the days when there was far less "talent" on the small screen.

The ratings winner so far, perhaps eyeing a leap to the regular-season schedule next year, is Simon Cowell's latest brain-child, 'America's Got Talent'. Even the title makes me cringe. I was saddened to see it perform so well in the ratings, but there's still a chance for it to take an 'American Inventor'-esque nosedive as the audience starts seeing the same 'good' acts over and over, now that the anything-goes auditions are over. But the Ryan Seacrest of 'Talent,' host Regis Philbin, says it feels like a hit, based on his 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' success.

I don't like this show for the usual reasons: the formula format, cheap production values, bad talent as entertainment (I've had my fill now, thank you), viewer voting, raucus studio audience, yet another British judge (although they're always the best of the bunch), but what I really don't like about the show is such varied talents competing against each other for the million-dollar prize. Teenage yodeler vs. juggler vs. ventriloquist vs. magician vs. harmonica player... It's just ridiculous. Is the best singer better than the best acrobat? Any attempt to apply serious judging criteria among all the contestants is quickly abandoned in favor of personal taste.

I believe it is possible to make a high-quality, deeply-engaging talent show. My dream talent show would consist only of very strong, serious talent - all music school students, for instance - and a documentary-style presentation, following the competitors through the rigors of high-stakes competition, capturing the thrill-of-victory, agony-of-defeat moments. Professional judges, no audience voting, and no shameless-fluff results shows. It could conceivably follow an existing competition: the famous Tchaikovsky Piano Competition, for example. Obviously, only about 2,300 people in America would watch this show. This is where PBS comes in. I hereby pledge my support for this show.

Check out 'Office' webisodes
The accountants get suspicious when the books don't balance.

Filed under: Programming

Every Thursday, NBC.com offers a new webisode - a few minutes of new material - from their comedy hit 'The Office'. It's a small treat to help us get through the summer TV doldrums, and in these mini episodes the focus is on the accountants - Oscar, Kevin, and Angela - minor, but enjoyable, characters. When it appears $3000 is missing from the books, they set out to solve the mystery. The first two webisodes are currently available at this writing. While you're there, you can also view numerous deleted scenes and outtakes from the show.

Not into 'The Office'? More than one person I know didn't care for it at first, but later grew to enjoy it. You can give it another try this summer - NBC has been airing multiple episode reruns on Thursday nights.

'Last Comic Standing' returns to form
But the season's too short!

Filed under: Episode Reviews, Reality TV

It's rare for a series to un-jump the shark. NBC's 'Last Comic Standing' prooved to be solid summer fare its first two seasons, but then collapsed under a too-soon, ill-conceived Season Three (Season One vs. Season Two). After giving it a rest, the show is back with new host Anthony Clark, a good cast, and an interesting setting for the "house": the former luxury liner Queen Mary II. All is forgiven.

Unfortunately, it's a shortened season, with two comics getting knocked off each week during only three weeks of 'head-to-head-to-head' competition. America votes for their favorite starting next week. NBC's timidity is unstandable after the Season that Should Not Have Been, but now that the show is back to form, the new express format feels way too short. My advice: bring it back for a normal-length Season Five, but not until next summer.

Once annoyance not limited to 'Last Comic,' but in fact commonplace among reality shows: going to the commercial break with scenes coming up after the commercial break. It's probably been proven that this tactic keeps some channel hoppers from straying too far, but it's really insulting to the regular viewers who plan to watch the whole thing anyway.

Whenever I see these "coming up" segments, I feel like I must be watching what the network considers a "low-brow" show. The more respected reality shows do not do this ('Survivor', 'Amazing Race'), but 'Fear Factor', 'Wife Swap', and 'Treasure Hunters,' among many others, all work desperately to get us to keep watching after the break. And of course, 'American Idol' does it ad nauseum during the auditions. I suppose people are more prone to ditch a reality show mid-episode, but can you imagine if they did this with dramas? Coming up on 'Lost': Sawyer and Ana Lucia get it on in the jungle. Is it true love or a mind game? And later: Michael gets trigger-happy!