Update!

Due to a hardy blend of time constraints and my annoyance with Blogger's quirks, for the next little while, "I Speak TV" will be hosted on our sister site, Threat Quality Press.

Here's some links for you:

- A review of the "Dollhouse" premiere

- A look at the central problem plaguing "24"

- Also up on 2/19, "Lost" vs. "The Prisoner"

Welcome Back, "Lost"

So, if you weren’t quite aware, the season premier makes it as clear as it can: “Lost” is a science fiction show.

The audience response to this, as judged by its steady decline in viewership over the last year, has been, “OHHHH NO YOU DON’T!”

See, a lot of people feel like the show’s pulled some kind of bait-and-switch. They started watching the show thinking it was a character-based “struggle for survival” kind of series. And having recently watched four seasons straight through, I can tell you – other than a few weird visions and an occasional noisy monster, there weren’t too many that, just a few seasons later, we’d have a character try to explain, in his best “okay-nobody-freak-out-here” voice, that they’ve all become unstuck in time.

A monster in the jungle is one thing – it’s tangible. Still in the confines of an action-survival story. It’s something you can fight and kill. (At least, it was until it showed up on screen as an undulating sentient smoke-cloud, but anyway.)

But even if you explain the time-travel through a handy record-skipping metaphor and sciency-sounding explanations…it’s still time-travel. It’s conceptual science fiction that, bottom line, is NOT REAL.

That’s a harder pill for some viewers to swallow (and let’s face it – science fiction is still a niche genre). So for all the talk about “drop-off in quality,” or “frustrated fans,” I’d wager the real reason a great number of people bailed is because they didn’t want to watch a show that was becoming more and more about the space-time continuum and less about The Gang Hunting Boar.

Additionally, last year’s introduction of mystery-building flash-forward and fewer character-building flashbacks was a clear sea-change from character- to plot-based storytelling. A lot of viewers saw that as producers saying: “We care about the weirdo sci-fi crap now more than the characters, and you should, too.”

But that’s not true. In fact, the only reason the show can now successfully explore out-and-out sci-fi territory is because of those four seasons of character- and relationship-building. Because at the end of the day, a story only matters if you care about who it’s happening to. And the producers have been very careful to cultivate that concern.

(Which is why an episode where, say, Desmond’s consciousness is pinballing through time still works – because despite the lunatic premise, the real story is still about a guy who couldn’t possibly be further away from the one he loves, and it’s killing him.)

As for the actual episode(s), I thought they were very enjoyable, particularly for what they suggest – that the off-island present will be our “core” narrative (and the 70-hour timeframe to get back to the island would hint that “off-island” may not be a term we’ll be using all season), with the time-bouncing islanders (under the anti-Kate/Jack leadership of Juliet and Sawyer, has some interesting potential) making up the “flashback b-story,” possibly witnessing Great Moments in Island History as they happen (which would certainly be a novel way of answering some long-term questions, wouldn’t it?).

Some final advice: If you start talking about “Lost” and someone mentions how they dropped it because it got too “out there” (or some variation), just tell them that good stories have a beginning, middle, and end. Which requires change from one section to another, sometimes with unexpected results.

And if they don’t like it, they can just turn on frickin’ “Law and Order,” because Sam Waterston will never die.

Over the last few months, I wrote essays on each season of Lost, and I recommend them (of course, I would):

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4 (in two parts, here and here)

Adding up "Fringe"

There’s been a lot of stupidity on “Fringe.” Bad science, stupid investigating, and plots that hint at forward movement by obliquely referencing people and things that might have something to do with…something.

The stupid has been neck-and-neck with the interesting – the creatively gross stuff, the enjoyable banter between mad scientist Walter and his sardonic son Peter, and Lance Reddick’s awesomely sharp jawline.

But with its first episode after the winter break, the stupid-to-interesting quotient on “Fringe” has officially tipped in stupid’s favor. And so, I’m 80% certain I’m giving up on the show.

Let’s add it all up. -1 for every stupid moment, +1 for every interesting moment:

-Olivia escapes her kidnappers by asking for a drink of water, which they oblige without issue (-1) – and when her captors sit her up to drink it, she smashes the glass over the one guy’s head (-1 for giving her an ACTUAL GLASS).

-Then she throws a knife at the other guy and it plows straight into his back (+1)

-She sneaks up behind another guy, knocks him out, takes his gun and the keys to his car, and even swipes some evidence on her way out, finds the proper car and speeds out, at which point she uses the stolen cell phone to call in the whole thing (+1 because she really hauls ass throughout the whole sequence).

-Later, it turns out “fringe division” (-1 for actually giving this previously-unnamed subgroup a silly name) is being investigated by the guy our hero, Olivia, had previously prosecuted for sexual harassment (-1 for asking us to believe a guy with such an obvious conflict of interest would be put in charge of investigating this particular division).

-Meanwhile, a giant slug thing kills an immunologist and crawls out its throat (+1 for doing what “Fringe” does best – being gross as hell).

-Olivia starts solving this and that (+1 for giving her a personality – it took 13 episodes, but she has finally developed “enthusiasm for her job” as a secondary trait, past “earnestness for her job”).

-Then, she realizes the double-agent guy in the FBI is the one who kidnapped her, through skillful deductive powers of noticing the same dollop of WhiteOut on his shoe (-2 for being so fucking stupid that THIS is how she puts it all together – this is Scooby-Doo shit, right here).

-Despite her suspicions, she can’t investigate the guy, so her partner goes to known criminal Peter to tap double-agent’s phone off the books (so the FBI can maintain deniability). He does this by standing in the room while Peter makes calls to his criminal buddies, and helping him set up the illegal wire-tap (-2, one for the idiocy of FBI partner, and another for the utter bullshit of this wiretap setup).

-Fortunately, Peter has tapped in JUST IN TIME to hear FBI double-agent call his wife – from his DESK AT FBI HEADQUARTERS TO THEIR HOME’S LANDLINE – to tell her “Olivia CANNOT LEAVE THE HOUSE ALIVE.” (-3 for the amount of phrases I had to put in aggravated caps.)

-Then Olivia shoots the wife in the head, narrowly missing a bullet herself (+1/2. Not too awesome, but…I gotta give ‘em something at this point.)

-So they catch double-agent, and in the interrogation room, Olivia breaks him by revealing she killed his wife (+1 because she gritted her teeth in kind of a cool way). Double-agent cracks hard and starts spewing in a really oblique way about how they weren’t kidnapping her, but SAVING HER, and now she’s RUINED EVERYTHING!!! (-3, two for the caps, one for the truly annoying vagueness of his “admission.” Nobody is ever this vague about anything.)

-Oh, and in the end, the investigator guy has to admit Olivia knows her stuff (still -1 because that still pisses me off.)

So let’s look at the tally:
+5.5
-15

Okay, it’s official: I’d have to be a real glutton for punishment to keep watching a show that hurts my brain this much.

Wait, what’s this?

Next time on “Fringe,” people’s brains liquefy and leak out their brains?

Oooooh…damn.

TV Winter Clearinghouse

Been quiet on this site for a few weeks, because mainly...nothing much to write about. Most shows I love are either being cancelled (I'll miss you, "Pushing Daisies"!) or are otherwise going to bed until January.

But a man needs to write about TV from time to time, so here's what I can offer:

1) Speaking of "Pushing Daisies," the lone bright spot of that show wrapping up is that creator Bryan Fuller will be returning to his old stomping grounds at "Heroes." And what's more, he seems to know what the hell is wrong with that show (something about "it's focused on half-assed mythology, rather than characters people could give a shit about," or some craziness).

Now, granted, last year around this time, it seemed like series creator Tim Kring also understood where the show had gone wrong, but the difference this time is, Bryan Fuller is a good writer, and also not an idiot with a grudge against his show's fanbase. So it is possible I'll check out a few episodes of the upcoming arc when it returns next year. It's the least I owe Fuller for 23 episodes of "Pushing Daisies."

2) "Dexter's" third season finished off strong, pitting our hero the serial killer up against Jimmy Smits, a loose cannon who could've been his friend and maybe even his partner if he wasn't also a power-mad lunatic.

This show is at its best when it explores its recurrent theme of how grown men deal with absent father-figures. Last season ended with Dexter's feelings toward his foster father Harry (who had given him a strict "bad guys only" code through which to channel his murderous urges) colored by new information about Harry's indescretions. This one ended with him making peace with Harry's damaged reputation, as Dexter prepares to become a father himself.

Which is all great, but makes everything non-Dexter-related that much more of a chore. In the end, the only way to view Deb, Angel and Quinn's annoying stories is that they all tie into a "nobody's perfect, not even cops" theme, but man, that's stretching it. Hopefully next year they can finally figure out how to integrate the cop stories into the Dexter character arc. But it's been three seasons, so I'm not holding out hope.

Still, I am looking forward to next year.

3) So, "Leverage," huh? Yeah! No? Nobody watched it? Hm.

I watched TNT's new caper series for two reasons: 1) Showrunner John Rogers developed the lamented "Global Frequency" pilot, and 2) Timothy Hutton's cool. Hutton is an actor who really should get better material, and there are a few sparkling lines of dialogue (Hutton's casual threat to a man making overly-personal observations about him: "You know that part of the conversation where I punch you in the neck nine or ten times? We're coming up on that real soon!").

But ultimately...was anyone clamoring for a new "A-Team" series? I mean, it's okay, but when there's so many better shows on, and TNT usually blows their budget on a show's pilot, thus ensuring subsequent episodes will look pretty crappy...who has time for this?

4) Rather than try to come up with halfway decent shows to run at 10pm, NBC has decided to give Jay Leno a pre-late-night show, presumably to ease the transition into absurdist Conan O'Brien humor old folks just ain't ready for. Good for you, NBC. Because trying is just so damn difficult.

Granted, after all the effort you put into "Knight Rider," "My Own Worst Enemy," "Journeyman," "Raines," "Crusoe," "Kidnapped," "Studio 60," or...wow, we're really putting together quite a list here...okay, you sold me. Who wants to bother with anything new that costs more to produce than "Deal or No Deal"?

5) Okay, so all's quiet until January, when...holy jeebus. "24," "Lost," "Burn Notice," and "Flight of the Conchords" all return, along with premieres of potential curiosities like "Castle" (Nathan Fillion's new ABC show), "Kings" (NBC's 'David and Goliath' in modern times series with Ian McShane). You can forgive me my rest until then.

6) Okay, not exactly. I've been watching "24" from season 1 to view the series on the whole, a la the "Lost" retrospective I did during the summer. Now, apples and oranges, obviously, but it's still interesting to watch the show, knowing how it'll evolve over time (what with most of the cast being killed off and all). So: expect that.

(Also expect this site to move over to Wordpress at some point, because holy crap, can I not abide the shittiness of Blogger anymore.)

So that's it for I Speak TV until after the holidays.

Merry XMas! Ho Ho Ho!

"24": The Deadly Bauer Genes

I think the producers of "24" knew pretty early on in the series that Kim Bauer may be the most dangerous female alive. Not only is she a heady mix of stupid and self-absorbed, she's got Jack Bauer as a father – who tries to make up for his shoddy parenting by basically letting her do whatever she wants.

As a result, she Mister Magoo's her way through life, somehow surviving through sheer luck while, oh, say, Valencia, CA gets nuked.

So it's a testament to the character that in last night's pretty solid season-7 primer "24: Redemption," she can somehow kill a man while being thousands of miles away.

Let's backtrack: Jack's friend Benton steps on a landmine while trying to keep a young African boy from doing the same. Which he was about to do, because he wandered away from the rest of the group to go get a scarf that was snagged on a bush. This is a scarf he was allowed to keep by Jack. A scarf that Jack had bought with the intention of giving to his daughter. So: Because Jack bought Kim a gift, a good man died.

Despite being a continent away (and entirely off-screen), Kim Bauer Blew A Guy Up. If you ask me, out of all the messed-up things Jack Bauer's done (cutting off a guy's head, chopping off his partner's hand, shooting another partner in the throat, torturing his girlfriend's innocent ex-husband)…by fathering Kim Bauer, Jack may have doomed us all.

Which just goes to show you: Every atom of Jack Bauer is dangerous. Even - no, especially - his sperm.

"'Pushing Daisies"' Beautiful Corpse

(Written at Noon on 11/20)


“Did you hear ‘Pushing Daisies’ isn’t doing so hot in the ratings?”

“Boy, I hear that ‘Pushing Daisies’ is close to cancellation.”



“Hot dang, that there colorful show ‘bout the pie guy ain’t long for this world, do it?”

Yes, I know, everyone. I know. STOP TELLING ME, I KNOW!

And yet, oddly, I’m not too horrified.

I love “Pushing Daisies” unreasonably. It makes me laugh at puns. The more absurd it gets, the more gushily sweet it gets, the more it makes me smile. But if it doesn’t get picked up after its 13th second-season episode is complete, I won’t be mad. I’ll be bummed, and upset, but not mad.

I was mad when “Firefly” got cancelled, because it seemed to get shafted from the start. It never had a chance to be anything other than a cult hit.

I was mad when “Arrested Development” was cancelled because…well, looking back, I feel like it was part of a broader “red state, blue state” argument: “Nobody will watch ‘Arrested Development,’ but ‘According to Jim’ is still on the air?! THIS is why the country’s in the shitter!”

But if “Pushing Daisies” goes this year, I’ll understand why. It wasn’t for a lot of tastes. It’s not ABC’s fault – they promoted it heavily, they actually kept it on the same night, the same time, for two seasons. They made sure the season 1 DVD set was available before premiering season 2. They did everything right.

Usually when a show gets cancelled prematurely, it bugs me because like most fans, I get attached to the actors. For instance, I feel bad for 90% of the casts of “Buffy” and “Angel.” It’s just a fact of the acting profession that in most cases, the cast goes on to crap guest-starring roles or featured roles on inferior shows.

But most of the “Pushing Daisies” cast come from well-regarded Broadway careers, and that’s where they’ll go back. They’ll be okay.

The other sticking point with early-death on shows like this is there will almost certainly be unresolved storythreads. I’m not sure if they can take care of both the Ned’s Father and Emerson’s Daughter stories in the next seven episodes.

But even there, I’m covered. Bryan Fuller has said he’ll finish the story as a comic series if he can’t wrap it up on the show. And with the right publisher and artist (I’m thinking Oni Press), it’ll be a delightful package.

Frankly, if it goes now, the only bummer is we won’t get a full musical episode, and given the talents of the cast, that will be a real shame.

So if “Pushing Daisies” is a goner after 26 episodes, I’ll mourn it. But it’ll join “Arrested Development,” “Wonderfalls,” and “SportsNight” on my DVD shelf as another Beautiful Corpse series – killed long before it could decline in quality.

Which is not a bad way for a TV show to be remembered. Particularly one about a guy who can bring dead things back to bold, technicolor life.



(UPDATE, 8:55 PM: Well, damn it. Good thing I spent time writing this at work, huh? Anyway, I stand by it. I'm bummed, but not mad. If they don't bother airing the last seven episodes...THEN I'll be mad.



Okay, maybe I'm a little mad now. Just a little. I mean, really, ABC. You're cutting this one, but keeping "According to Jim," "Private Practice," and actually RENEWING "Scrubs"? What the HELL does Jim Belushi have on your executives, that he's proved so invincible?!)

Tuesday Throwdown: "Fringe" Vs. "The Mentalist"

Last week’s “Fringe” featured an “Audrey II”-esque plant thing squeezing a man’s heart. What did last week’s “The Mentalist” have? Its lead character explaining the concept of a memory-tower to his co-workers.

You might be surprised which I found more interesting.

It’s all about the successful execution of a procedural. “The Mentalist” aspires to be nothing more than an engaging detective show, and as a result, everything it does above-and-beyond – things like character development, personality, and understated visual and tonal style – make it that much more impressive.

By contrast, “Fringe” seems to think it’s a lot better than it is. It’s so sure people get that it’s “not just” a mere procedural – by dropping increasingly annoying “Larger Forces At Work” hints and allusions to upcoming Stories To Be Told (including a rather smarmily-titled episode called “In Which We Meet Mr. Jones”) – that it seems to have ignored the fact that it has so far told basically the same story five or six times in a row now.

In fact, it seems a bit arrogant about that fact, having Lance Reddick irritably inform his subordinate that she’s always going to have more questions and basically, she should consider that just a part of the job, because she’ll know more when he’s ready to tell her.

This is the producers momentarily hijacking a character to tell viewers to stop whining about repetitive stories, and stop complaining that being deliberately obtuse isn’t the same as telling an engaging story. Because it’s all Part of The Bigger Plan, you see. And the producers erroneously assume we care about The Plan.

By now, viewers are extremely savvy to the precarious scaffolding that is “Big Picture Storytelling.” We’ve seen when it goes right: “The Wire,” and perhaps “Lost.” And we’ve seen when it goes wrong: “Heroes,” and off-seasons of “24.”

My advice to “Fringe” is to take up a page from “The Mentalist”: don’t worry about the Big Picture. It’s less important to viewers than you think. What viewers like is engaging weekly stories. If they actually build to something more, great. But it’s never the reason to watch a show.

Meanwhile, instilling a rigid “freak-of-the-week” format – to get viewers used to seeing weird crap by redoing the same story with minor variations each week, while also draping a larger picture – is actually a bit insulting to the viewer.

Unfortunately “Fringe’s” problems are wider-spread. While “The Mentalist” has a cast that starts with the beatific charismata of Simon West and is uniformly enjoyable overall, “Fringe” is kneecapped with the presence of Anna Torv and Jasika Nicole, two frankly terrible actresses in underwritten roles.

The worst part? Neither character is actually necessary for the main plots. And Anna Torv is the ostensible lead character!

(And for now we’re ignoring the patent silliness of the “science” involved in the stories. I don’t need it to actually be plausible. It’s helpful when it sounds plausible, but even that isn’t really necessary when you’ve got the amusingly loopy mad scientist explaining it. I only need it to sound interesting. Which is iffy from case to case.)

Anyway. Both “Fringe and “The Mentalist” have scored full-season orders, so I’ll follow each through until May, hoping from the best from each. But while “The Mentalist” has actually delivered more than expected each week, “Fringe” currently has quite an uphill climb.

How To Make Fun of Our First Black President

Sure, there's been a lot of pansy-ass, lilly-livered-liberal outpouring of emotion over the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land (I just love that phrase - it's so "Dungeons and Dragons," and yet normal media folk use it all the time!). People all over the globe seem so beside themselves with enthusiasm over something as pedestrian as America's first black president.

Being that I'm an embittered political cynic, I wouldn't know anything about that enthusiasm. Ahem.

But now the real question remains: How Can American Comedians Make Fun of President Obama?

The question seems built on Fred Armisen's portrayal of the president-elect on "Saturday Night Live." Ignoring the whole "half-blackface-issue," the big problem seemed to be that Armisen's Obam isn't all that funny on its own.

These complaints seemed to ignore the fact that the featured Obama sketches were really just ways of making fun of John McCain (played by Darrell Hammond as a borderline psychotic). The joke only works if there's a straight-man - Obama - to respond to McCain's increasingly nonsensical deviations.

Now that SNL will have to develop skits exclusively featuring the Obama caricature, I offer this - and frankly, I'm disappointed I even have to say it, since it seems so frickin' obvious I can't believe any media concern has been spent on it.

In essence, it's "Barack Obama: Our First Superspy President."

How does Obama respond to every problem put in his path? Just like James Bond: by being cooler than cool about it. Even if the logical response is something closer to "Complete Freakout," Obama approaches problems like he's going to seduce it into submission.

This routine will easily cover the next few months, until Obama has actually shown what kind of president he'll get to be.

Something tells me no 007-president can smoove the economy into behaving...though it'd be nice to see Armisen-Obama try.

The CNN/Star Wars Connection: More Than Just James Earl Jones

Ahh, election day news coverage. The one time of year when The Daily Show/Colbert Report’s potent blend of absurdity and silly pomposity is somehow less funny than actual cable networks.

CNN and MSNBC seemed to be having a Star-Wars-Off.

There’s Wolf Blitzer, talking to a hologram of a correspondent. Why? Because CNN likes to imagine the future of news the only way they know how: through the lens of a child's imagination in the 1970's.

Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and less goofily bizarre to simply do a satellite interview like they do every other day of the year? Of course. But on Election Day, audiences expect something new. Something with "zazz."

Or something that’ll at least make audiences instinctively answer, “Obi-wan? D’ya think she means ‘Old Ben’ Kenobi?” to their TVs.

Not to be outdone, MSNBC stuck their people on a set that was made almost entirely out of CGI effects.

You know how the Star Wars prequels were kind of hard to watch, like, on a conceptual level? It was because your eyes were constantly telling your brain to pretend that something that simply wasn’t there was real and interacting with the actual humans standing in front of it?

You shouldn’t have that happening while trying to hear some election results.

And if you’re asking, “Well, what did Fox News have?”, the answer is: an existential crisis.

ISTV Special Report: Romance No Longer In The Air

Why is TV so against hurried coupling?

“How I Met Your Mother” and “The Office” have both plowed through their Big Relationship stories in record time, and it’s…well, it’s damn weird, and yet totally expected.

“How I Met Your Mother” walks an odd tight-rope balancing the audience’s expectations. There’s a frame of mind that thinks once lead character Ted meets the titular woman in question, the show’s over. That the series should end with the line, “…And that’s how I met your mother.”

Another line of thought is that the audience should actually get to know the mother, which would mean she could be introduced well before the show is over.

(This is the line of thought that, despite the best efforts of the creators to dissuade it, leads some conspiracy theorists – like, say, me – to conclude the mother is Wendy the Waitress, who’s been around since the start of the series.)

Still, the dismissal of Sarah Chalke’s character after a hurried wedding attempt felt like the writers realized they’d written themselves into a corner, and their breakup (by bringing in old flame Jason Jones) felt arbitrary and rushed. Ideally the breakup is a gateway to a larger story, just as Ted and Robin’s breakup at the end of season 2 informed Ted’s behavior during the strike-abbreviated season 3.

But the difference between the Robin break-up and this one is, we knew from the first episode how Ted and Robin’s relationship would go down. Teasing a wife for Ted and then backing off smacks of writers trying to stretch a story-arc past its expiration date. Not a big deal on this show, since the rest of the cast easily carries the weight – and Barney’s interest in Robin creates a slow-burning secondary romantic spirit – but it’s a weird thing for a sitcom to promote “Lost”-levels of continuity irritation.

+++++

Meanwhile, “The Office” had to figure out how to get rid of Holly, Michael Scott’s perfect girl (read: totally adorable dork). Now, I don’t believe this was a half-assed decision – they knew when they got Academy-Award nominee Amy Ryan that she probably had some other stuff coming up, job-wise (like, say, a Clint Eastwood movie).

But after a few episodes teasing the relationship and one of them actually getting together, Holly and Michael (due to her corporate-mandated transfer seven hours away) split quite suddenly (though narratively, it made total sense – Dunder-Mifflin clearly recalled the last time Michael dated within the company, so…probably a smart move on their part).

Nevertheless, it's the mark of a great show that they could not only create a character as absurd-yet-realistic as Michael Scott, but create a believable love-interest for him. So here's hoping that Holly will return at some point.

In the case of both shows, by removing the love interest, they've reset the clock on a part of their larger narratives. Dramas that do this are (often rightly) lambasted for this kind of reboot. But comedies have a little more leeway, and as said, both shows are pretty clever with their larger viewpoints.

So if you hear anyone complaining about "jumping the shark," I would advise an authoritative, ISTV Global Stronghold-sanctioned slap.

I Speak TV Couples Counseling II

(Continuing our advice column for the staggeringly dumb males featured in commercials.)

Dear, Guy who scopes out women on his cell phone during a coffee date with a lady-friend,

When she catches you taking pictures of girls on your cell phone, and then actually texts you to tell you, "Dude, WTF!" And you ask, "What? What?"

She may be willing to put up with a lot of your crap, and so you may be getting mixed signals. Allow us to answer to your question. Her answer to, "What? What?" is, "I'm thinking I should've dropped your inconsiderate, leering frat-boy ass months ago, that's what."

We hope this has been helpful.

So getting down to brass tacks: what are we watching this fall?


Sunday: "Dexter" and "True Blood"
Monday: "How I Met Your Mother"
Tuesday: "House," "Fringe," and "The Mentalist"
Wednesday: "Pushing Daisies"
Thursday: "The Office" and "30 Rock"
Friday: "Life"


Let's take a couple posts to look at how my favorites are holding up, now that we're deeper into their new seasons.



“Dexter”:
Oh, goddamn it. We might be in trouble. As the A-story between Dexter and D.A. Jimmy Smits gets more complicated and interesting, we’re getting smacked in the face by the "Dexter" Curse: increasingly annoying B, C, and D stories.


B! Deb is being lured into a relationship with an informant and an internal affairs investigation against a new detective; C! Angel feels lonely; and D! LaGuerta’s got some case that ties in with D.A. Jimmy Smits. At least LaGuerta’s plot will likely come back to the A-plot, but man, do I not care about Angel’s Lonely Cop Life - and I like Angel!


The problem with “Dexter” as a series is that the only interesting thing about it is the lead character – any time the plot checks in on the supporting crew, it turns into, well, a mediocre cop show.


I thought they learned this in season two, when they tied Deb with the FBI agent hunting her brother, and Doakes was instrumental to the plot's resolution. And this season started its side-plot promisingly, showing how Angel’s promotion has affected his relationship with the cops investigating Dexter’s accidental killing.

Really thought that would cover a lot of ground, but here we are with Angel getting busted by a cop undercover as a hooker, and Deb mysteriously drawn to a couple of dudes we don’t care about.


Come on, show, you’re better than that.


“Pushing Daisies”:
I love how much the characters’ psychological backstories are informing the emotional core of the show, grounding it in believable human needs even as the visual puns go hog-wild with easy nun and clown gags.

While, say, a car in a lake holding the bodies of 17 drowned clowns is wacky and goofy and all that, it’s the emotional themes of absent families and how that dictates the behavior of the characters that makes the show brilliant.


Even though he’s the lead, I still feel like Lee Pace doesn’t get enough credit for his portrayal of Ned the Piemaker. His closed body language and barely-disguised need for affection isn’t just a response to being in love with a girl he can’t touch. He’s becoming aware that his own childhood abandonment has affected him more than he’s realized, and it’s making for great, slow-build storytelling (since the audience has been shown his deadbeat dad will be returning soon).

And I won’t lie – the subtle references to Ned and Chuck’s unconventional sex-life crack me up. On ABC at family hour, no less! Good for you, show!



"Heroes":
Quick update: every time I read a new recap of a "Heroes" episode, I feel really good about the decision to drop it. Just putting that out there, for those of you who keep watching. You know who you are. You don't need to feel that sense of shame every Monday at nine, people!



Next time: "Fringe" vs. "The Mentalist"! Stupid scheduling bastards have to make me choose?! Also: "True Blood": Annoying, pompous, or pulpy entertainment? Or is it all three?
Also, also: I'm watching "Life"? Really? I had no idea!

ISTV Couples Counseling

Today, the I Speak TV Global Stronghold presents our first romantic counseling session for TV. It's come to our attention that men on television - particularly in commercials - are portrayed as either thoughtless boobs, or simply retarded (generally when it comes to healthy food consumption).

Never fear, we're here to help. And so, we present our new advice column, "Open Advice Letters to Morons on Commercials":

Dear the guy who sings catchy, Jason-Mrazy jingles about wishing he'd known about his girlfriend's credit rating before trying to buy a house, and ending up living in her parents' basement instead:

Did you, at some - and any - point in your relationship, attempt to have a serious discussion about finances prior to your apparently seat-of-the-pants, wild-hair-up-your-ass decision to apply for a mortgage loan?

Because I'm thinking all the free credit reports in the world wouldn't have made up for that straight-ahead five-minute chat.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Accoustic guitar, three-day-scruff, uncombed hair, wide-eyed-like-you've-been-awake-for-days, track-jacket-in-the-afternoon-wearing troubadour...how's your credit, hmm? Making (excuse the pun) boatloads of cash at your job waiting tables at a pirate-themed seafood restaurant?

So here's some advice: Don't foist all the blame on the girl whose parents are nice enough to put your penniless ass up in their basement. And how about you back up a bit before you write another cute little ditty about your girlfriend's shitty credit?

Asshole.

We'll be back next week with another column, attempting to help out the guy who thought it'd be a good idea to snap pictures of women's asses with his cameraphone while his lady-friend watches the whole damn thing.

Because we are here to help.

Bobby Flay: Food Network Asshole

So let me get the premise of this "Throwdown with Bobby Flay" show straight:

Bobby Flay, TV personality-chef, practices dishes, and then goes to the restaurants of people who have worked hard to build a reputation on these dishes. Where it's a sense of neighborhood pride, like say, buffalo wings in Buffalo.

And then Bobby Flay pops up during a crowded public promotion at the chef's own restaurant, and challenges that chef to "defend his title" regarding his/her signature dish.

Now, I know absolutely nothing about Bobby Flay. I am not a regular Food Network viewer. I just stumbled across this show.

But I have to ask: What kind of asshole is Bobby Flay?

Best-case scenario for him: He wins the taste-off, humiliating the hard-working cooks who have spent a lot of time and hard work developing a specific flavor and style that's earned them recognition. Which makes him a total dick.

Worst-case: He is beaten by the cooks, and he looks incompetent.

I'm sure, behind the scenes, the Food Network contacts all the restaurants and they agree, because hey, free publicity. But nevermind that. Based only on the narrative of the show...what the hell is the point of this show, other than to make Bobby Flay seem like some kind of TV-star egomaniac who thinks he can do better than the local pride?

Honestly...what a jag-off.

Pilot Season: "My Own Worst Enemy"

Oh, now that's a shame.

NBC's new spy show, "My Own Worst Enemy," should be good. It's a great (if outlandish) premise, with good supporting players and wide-open mysteries (which may just be plot holes, but oh, what holes to fill)...all totally undone by the need to hire a big-name "star."

The premise: A spy who willingly split his own personality to hide out in the suburbs as a completely average guy finds the conditioning techniques separating the two personalities is breaking down. Hijinks ensue.

The supporting players: Alfre Fricking Woodard! A fantastic actress, in the shadowy-boss role. (Last year's failed "Bionic Woman" reboot had Miguel Fehrer in the shadowy-boss role, and I maintain that this is the best role for seasoned actors. Victor Garber kicked ass in the role during his time on "Alias." It just looks like a lot of fun, standing around complicated computer devices and being condescending to the leads.)

Wide-open mysteries: Why in the holy living hell would any organization blow billions of dollars to put a top operative (let alone, as the pilot suggests, multiple operatives) under a sleeper program, when...seriously, what the hell would the need for this be? Keeping the operative hidden? The guy is apparently a medal of honor winner. He's hardly a spook.

The answer, of course, is: it's the premise of the show, so...deal with it. Everything else is secondary. The pilot delivers no answers, but I'm sure the creators (including producer Jason Smilovic, whose credits include great shows "Kidnapped" and "Karen Sisco," and aforementioned crap show "Bionic Woman," which this one most resembles) have plenty of ideas in their notepads just waiting to be toyed with.

The problems: There are two, so we'll start with the lesser first - the pilot blows its chief gag way too early. Ten minutes in, and we get the joke - superspy and family guy are the same person - but then shit immediately breaks down.

Ideally, the pilot would follow both their lives, concurrently, only letting the two characters realize they're the same person around the last act, creating a hell of a good cliffhanger that would lead into the series proper. It was a stupid move that leads me to suspect this was written as a feature first.

(And it would make a good movie. Or a terrible one, since it feels a lot like the hacky movie pitch featured in Adaptation.)

But nevermind that now, because we've got to deal with Christian Slater.

Somewhere between bad movie choices and certain incidents involving guns and biting ex-girlfriends, Slater's star-power began to dim, making him available for TV roles. So I'm sure when the producers realized they could cast him, they were ecstatic.

Problem is, Christian Slater has only ever played Christian Slater. Asking viewers to accept him in two separate roles, when he can't be bothered to switch up any of his mannerisms, isn't just a problem. It is, in fact, THE problem, and as a result, the show just doesn't work.

A character actor is needed here. An actor who can do two roles: One who thinks this ludicrous scenario as acceptable, and one who thinks it's...well, a ludicrious scenario.Some kind of, say, affordable Paul Giamatti, who can alternate between capable agent and run-of-the-mill everyman, is absolutely essential to sell the premise.

So...not Christian Slater.

It's unfortunate, because this really is a fun, if wholly laughable premise. NBC is currently full of laughable shows (okay, "Knight Rider" and "Heroes"), and it really could've used one that was grounded by a decent enough actor.

If you want to watch a goofy spy show, "Chuck" is still on NBC at 8pm. It's very pleasant, well thought out, has good actors and writers, doesn't try too hard, and could use some viewers. Give that one a go instead.

"Torchwood"...only Canadian?

Let me read you a synopsis of a science fiction show:

"There are creatures that live among us, abnormal offshoots of evolution that live in the fringes, unseen by most. Some are dangerous, but most are benign, becoming violent only because they are threatened by an ever-encroaching world. A mysterious leader of an expert team have dedicated themselves to tracking these mysterious creatures: harboring the benign ones, and protecting the world from the dangerous ones. Using their unique combination of instinct, medicine and cutting edge technology, this eclectic team must take on the creatures that lurk in the corners of our civilization."

This show's mysterious lead character is a transplant from another country, and over 100 years old.

The show's viewpoint character is an underappreciated cop whose investigation into a bizarre case leads to the secret organization's world.

For 300 big boys, WHAT is the name of this show?

You poor bastards went and said "Torchwood," didn't you? You would be right, if you weren't also wrong.

The show is actually SciFi's new series "Sanctuary," which started life as a Canadian web-series.

So...that right there will tell you how good it is.

"Torchwood" takes a lot of flack (often by me) for the fact that all the characters seem to be having sex with all the other characters. It's almost like Captain Jack Harkness hires people because they are bisexual and alarmingly horny (actually, that may be some unspoken fact that never made it out of the series bible). It's meant to be more adult, but it comes off as a bit ridiculous.

But I will never chide "Torchwood" again, because after sitting through a painful half-hour of the "Sanctuary" premiere, I now know what the BBC series would be without all the sex:

Canadian. Very, very Canadian.

Lookit! Good TV!

Ohhh, there's that feeling. The reason I watch TV: new episodes of genuinely good shows. Man, that feels good.

"Pushing Daisies," last year's #1-super-best show ever (granted, pickings were slim), came back tonight after its strike-abbreviated first season, with an episode devoted to...bees. And realizing the whole damn episode would be filled with bee-related puns, I was a bit worried that the show's cloying aspects would overwhelm the re-introductory premiere. (And jeez, ABC, did the first five minutes of the episode have to be a season 1 recap for new viewers?!)

I accept that this is a love-it-or-hate-it show. Either you're on board with the modern fairy-tale Seuss-meets-Burton style of the show, with its cute weirdness and weird cuteness, or you find its super-saturated color-scheme and adorability annoying and sensory-obliterating. This is a show whose success is entirely dependent on how cynical a viewer is feeling that Wednesday. If ever the phrase "not for all audiences" was built for a show, this is it.

But I know I'm a terribly cynical person. And I also know that for the hour that "Pushing Daisies" is on, I'm not quite so cynical. Bee-puns and all. I'm so happy this show is back, and urge everyone to watch it (and also go get season 1 on DVD).

+++++

Speaking of introductory recaps, "Dexter"'s new season started with a looooong one. "Previously on 'Dexter'..." has never been such an understatement. Seriously, ten minutes recapping season 2, huh? Okay, fine, whatever.

But if you could slog through that, you got to watch Great Television in Action! The first episode managed to reset things to the status-quo of season 1 (before Dexter was being hunted) while at the same time amp things up into new and unexpected levels of danger.

SPOILER! (Ugh, I hate that term. But I realize some people only watch the show after it's out on DVD, so yeah, tread lightly here if you wanna stay blind for the next three months - and really, good luck with that.)

OK? Ready? Good.

Dexter getting Rita (SERIOUSLY, SPOILER, TURN BACK YOU BASTARDS, AAAAHHH!!!) pregnant is one of those developments that would seriously fuck up a lesser show. But the main theme of "Dexter" has always been how a man deals with an absent father's expectations. And last year, our lead made his peace with his departed dad - learning new things about him, and realizing that while "Harry's Code" is deeply important, doesn't rule his life.

So seeing how Dexter deals with the idea of himself as a father is an absolutely fascinating road to take. That's going to be the B-story, what the meaning of the show is about. But in the meantime, we're also apparently going to get Jimmy Smits as the friend Dexter never ever wanted. It's all looking pretty good.

+++++

Speaking of puns (from the "Pushing Daisies" bit, get it?...look, sometimes you have to work a little harder for your segues), HBO's "True Blood" made me proud for the first time in its few episodes with this line of dialogue:

Bill (after Sookie rolls her eyes at the name of the local vampire bar being "Fang-tasia"): You have to realize, most vampires are very old. There was a time when puns were considered the highest form of comedy.

The show's not perfect. There are way too many Southerner-stereotypes, Jason Stackhouse is so astoundingly stupid I don't know how he even remembers to breathe, and the actors' accents venture into Foghorn Leghorn territory at points...but I feel like this show's going somewhere fun, and that's more than I can say for...oh, say "John From Cincinnati" at this point.

But anyway: Good TV! Hooray!

One Down

Aaaand we're done with "Heroes."

Over at the Entertainment Weekly recap, Marc Bernadin mentioned the phrase "Who's carrying the idiot ball this week?" to ask which character will have to do something unreasonably stupid just to move the plot along.

Watching this show is like watching some kind of high-speed Idiot-Dodge-Ball game being played, where characters launch their idiot balls at each other only to get pummeled in the face by three balls themselves.

Let's run down a partial list - from THE LAST THREE EPISODES:
- Hiro opens a vault his dad specifically told him NOT to open because he "Wants a quest." Because Hiro has the emotional complexity of an exceptionally stupid 5-year-old.
- A strange man in an African desert he hands Parkman a bowl, which he drinks out of without question. THEN he asks, "Hey, what was in this?"
- Nathan survives multiple gunshot wounds and suddenly becomes religious. Even though last year he was brought back from massive burns and had no such epiphany.
- Mohinder drinks a special potion and then is surprised it has dangerous side effects.
- Sylar hangs around the Company to "see where this goes," even though all he's ever wanted to do prior to this episode was to escape the Company so he can keep killing for powers.

I could keep going, or focus on all the bungled plotlines (Clone-Nikki, show? REALLY.) but honestly, why? A clean break, that's what's needed. Besides, "24" will be back on at the same time in a few months, and I'm gonna have my hands full keeping track of all the nonsense on that show.

I mean, they just proudly boasted that they even came up with an ending for this year's arc, like that's a novel new idea to them that stories should have beginnings, middles, and ALSO endings.

So I get the feeling that idiot ball's gonna be getting a lot of use over there.

"The Mentalist": Not Bad At All

As previously stated: I am not a procedural fan. And so, by extension, not really a fan of anything on CBS. I will take personality over verisimilitude any day. And considering half the science of the "CSI"-style shows is way off anyway, why not focus on the things that make crime interesting: People?

With this in mind, “The Mentalist” was very enjoyable. Which has me on guard, because it’s on a network that tends to cancel their more original fare, and it’s on opposite “Fringe,” which has gotten a crapload more attention.

Anyway. “The Mentalist” features Simon West as Patrick Jane, a former fake-psychic in the John Edwards (no, the other one, think back – yeah, remember that asshole?) mold. After the murder of his family at the hands of a serial killer who didn’t take kindly to the BS “psychic” assistance he was giving the cops, Jane dropped the shtick and started using his keen observational skills in conjunction with a made-up-sounding but actually real California Bureau of Investigation (so just be happy the show’s not called “CBI,” which I guarantee you was the subject of at least one production meeting).

The smartest thing the pilot does is to have a sort of mini-pilot within the first five minutes that succinctly shows what Jane does, how he uses those skills, and his general attitude towards his work (his calm response to police who burst in just a leeeetle too late to stop a suspect’s shooting: “This isn’t as bad as it looks.”).

There’s a level of confidence in the episode that’s rare and appreciated in a pilot. Confidence in the strength of the show, yes, but also confidence in the viewer.

We’re allowed to grasp the specifics of the upcoming series without a lot of spoonfeeding or exposition to beat into our brains What It's About. We get that Jane is talented by watching him use those talents. We get to know the supporting players through their behavior: Cho’s staggering insensitivity, Rigsby’s quiet consideration, Van Pelt’s rookie mistakes, and Lisbon’s…well, right now she appears to be Cuddy to Jane’s House, but the show is basically "What if House actually solved murder mysteries instead of medical mysteries...and also was more pleasant to be around" (or, to address the obvious, "What if 'Psych' wasn't so damn wacky?"), so the taskmaster/babysitter role has to be there.

I also liked that the characters actually seem to know and like each other – which feels rare on investigative shows. They eat dinner together, they tease each other, they disagree without it becoming a major dramatic point. When Jane shows his atheist leanings to the Christian Van Pelt, neither one comes off as stupid. It’s refreshing.

(And there’s also a nice little jab at crime-scene procedurals, when a CSI enthusiastically describes his take on the murder, and Jane responds with mild distain, “You enjoy your work too much, my friend...I find you irksome.” Which is a word that needs to get more play.)

Now: A good pilot does not mean a good series. So, assuming this one doesn't die quickly, I recommend "The Mentalist" with reservations. We’ll just have to follow the show’s magician's-secret tagline advice and “Watch closely.”

Be Smarter, TV! (Part 2): "Heroes"

Characters realizing they have some essential skill sets they’re not using – like, say, basic human intelligence – would reeeeallly help out “Heroes,” which just returned with a bombastic two-hour premiere.

There’s a lot to like about “Heroes” – for one thing, there’s nothing else like it on TV right now. It is a full-on superhero soap opera. But that's part of the problem - it seems to be taking a lot of cues from similarly-soapy mid-70’s Marvel comics, ignoring the fact that those stories were based less on logic and more on the limited amount of pages they had to tell a tale.

So the writers have a lot of real live people behaving as stupidly as a hastily-written comic book character might, while hoping real live viewers will accept it.

Let’s take the series’ most consistently stupid character: resident scientist Dr. Mohinder Suresh, ironically enough. The writers seem to be following the character template of X-Men character Dr. Henry McCoy, The Beast.

Way back when, McCoy concocted what he thought was a cure to his mutant genes. When bad guys came to his lab looking to kill him and steal the formula for nefarious ends, he hastily swallowed the potion, and as a result mutated further, growing blue fur and fangs.

Now on “Heroes” we have Mohinder, who – after studying the body chemistry of a girl who is basically a walking plague whenever she gets upset – develops a potion he thinks would give anyone superpowers. Which is all of a sudden important to him for some reason that's never come up before.

Plague-Girl quite rightly points out that this formula at least needs further study, and at best should be destroyed. So let’s play “Choose Your Own Adventure.” Does Mohinder:
A) Dispose of the no-doubt toxic sample in a proper, EPA-approved way, like any half-smart scientist would know how to;
B) Contemplate tossing the sample into New York Harbor despite its potentially catastrophic effects on the local sea life, or
C) Cram the whole thing straight into his veins for no apparent reason?

If you guessed A, I’m sorry, you terribly smart readers. That was a trick - on this show, it was never even an option. No, our genius sticks it straight into his veins.

Then, after an initial high of superpowers, he’s surprised – shocked, even! – to find bits of skin peeling off him. Well, yeah, MOHINDER.

With very few exceptions, every character on the show exhibits highly variable levels of intelligence. This is not rare on TV, unfortunately. Dramatic tension is usually a byproduct of people not asking obvious questions at opportune times (see: "Lost," season 2).

But…come on. This isn’t “Why didn’t Peter use his telepathy to see if a guy’s telling the truth?” That’s the nitpicking you just have to ignore with a show like this.

This is “What self-respecting scientist would inject himself with a chemical even he admitted needed more testing?” It’s a character ignoring basic human reasoning skills for the sake of a character arc.

The well-founded complaint of season 2 was that things moved too slowly, that old characters treaded water while new unconnected characters were introduced haphazardly (see: complaints about “Lost: Season 2”). But in its haste to course-correct, “Heroes” has started season 3 by overcompensating and having its characters Doing Stuff, no matter how poorly-conceived.

I still have high hopes for the season, because, well, I’m an optimist at heart (ha ha). Also it’s got Kristen Bell guest-starring. And lest we forget, things didn’t look so rosy on “Lost” at the outset of season 3, either.

But then, “Lost” didn’t seem to be tying all of its stories into the fact that half the characters were actually related (Sylar's a Petrelli? C'mon, what does that add?) and the grim fate of the world needed to be averted yet a third time (thanks to yet a third nightmarish vision of the future).

There are stories to be told here. Invincible Claire starting to question her own humanity if she can’t feel pain. Whatever arc Noah Bennet is going to go through. The existential dilemma represented by the fact that the mere presence of all these superpowered folk means the world is on the brink of destruction no matter what they do. These all point to a show with a bit of cleverness.

But somehow I’m lacking confidence. It might be because the guy who should have a faint clue as to what’s going on is absolutely confounded why he’s sloughing off skin after sticking Plague-Girl’s blood inside him.