Ad-Rant

Well, that's it. It barely seems a week or two ago we were eagerly anticipating the return of our favorite shows after the strike and suddenly we're at finale stage and saying goodbye to them again. Almost every show came back to reduced ratings and I've read a number of reviews that are disappointed about storylines being rushed - so was this short comeback worth it?

As always, season finales in May provoke the more extreme happenings (characters getting injured or killed, actors leaving, "stunts" everywhere) so maybe that gives us a biased view, but it certainly seems like all of the shows have been trying to cram in as much as they can in these last few episodes. I'll only talk about 2 examples, but I saw the same type of things on a number of shows.

House Only 4 episodes after-hiatus but to me every one has been high-ranking (so far, but I have no doubt the finale will be too). While I would've liked a full-season of this standard, it may be that the strike meant we only saw the cream of the crop. Certainly having the two-part finale as half of the returned season drags the overall rating up dramatically.
The Wilson-Amber relationship was developed pretty quickly, but it was already in place before hiatus and reports suggest that the two-part finale was intended for Superbowl week, (which would've been about the same number of episodes in if Fox hadn't dragged their feet over showing new episodes in Jan when they knew they were limited), so maybe that was the intended timing all along.

CSI:NY In contrast, the Danny-grieving widow thread came at us really fast after hiatus, without much background. But if that had been planned for the second half of the season the writers may have had no choice but to jump into it quickly when they lost half-a-dozen opportunities for background comments and odd missed dates etc. The Taxi-Cab-Killer thread seemed to drag out even with the reduced season, so maybe not having quite so many episodes to continue the hunt was a good thing.

Overall, I'm grateful that any of my favorites made it back onto the air this spring, but I'll continue to wonder what we may have missed and how things might have developed given more time.

What do you think? Did the short-season inspire your favorite show or leave it rushed & crowded?

A lot of the time a show gets associated with one particular creative force such as Josh Whedon or J.J Abrams and in the case of the revitalised Doctor Who, that has been Russell T Davies. As Executive Producer, writer of many episodes and the man in charge of the overall vision and storyline he has done a great job and received a lot of well-deserved praise.

But there is one other name I have noticed in connection with the best episodes - that of Steven Moffat. So I was very pleased this morning to discover that he was awarded a BAFTA for writing for the episode "Blink". "Blink" was the most talked-about episode of last season, an atmospheric tale that changed the rules of Doctor Who tales in the same sort of way that the wonderful "Three Stories" did for House. Steven Moffat was also responsible for "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" - the quintessential Christopher Eccleston episodes that introduced us to the wonderful Captain Jack Harkness who spun off into Torchwood and the writer for the BBC series Jekyll, a fascinating modern-day take on Jekyll & Hyde.
Fans can also thank Steven for the pitch-perfect fanboy-fun of "Time Crash" - the 10-minute Children in Need special about the meeting of two Doctors (unfortunately never seen on American TV but it can be found on YouTube).

Steven has written a couple of episodes for the new season and I am really looking forward to see what he does this time.

I'd also like to congratulate Murray Gold, creator of so much of the fascinating background music of Doctor Who, who was also nominated for a BAFTA. Robert Ivins has been rightly drawing attention to Murray's great music in the Doctor Who TV Show Blog and the CD of music from the first two series is one of my top listening pleasures.

I know I'm not the only one on these blogs who tends to pick up on mistakes, whether factual, grammatical or spelling. I try and restrain myself from posting every time because after all, these are quick reflections of people's thoughts and it is easy enough to make a mistake if you don't have time to re-read your post & polish it up. But I don't think it is too much to ask that someone who spends a lot (or even just a little bit) of money on an advertisement should take the time to get it right.

Several times recently I have seen a (maybe local?) TV ad for BMW in which they want to puff off the fact that they've won some "car of the year" trophy or whatever for 17 years by comparing it to some shorter-reigned monarchs like Henry V. But the first thing they do is put up text saying "Joan of Arc reigned for less than a year". Excuse me, what?!? This is some strange Queen Joan I've never heard of then, is it? Because even though I don't remember much about the Maid of Orleans from school, I'm very sure that she was never crowned, never wanted the throne, never thought about grabbing the throne and was never proposed as a possible candidate for the throne. In fact the most famous tale about her I remember is the one about her recognising the Dauphin - the future KING - in his court when he hid amongst the courtiers. [You can check out The Simpsons version of the tale, if you don't believe me).
Of course, I suppose you could argue that "never" is "less than a year", so in that sense Joan reigned for "less than a year", but then again so did I, Lisa Simpson, President Bush, Joe Bloggs and almost anyone else you'd care to mention.

Is it really too much to ask that someone putting together an advert spends just a little time and thought checking to be sure they have got their facts right?

Just a reminder that the handsomest 903-year-old on television is back on SciFi tonight.

Sometimes my DVR automatically picks up the name of the program I have recorded, sometimes it gets it wrong (I guess it comes from some sort of coded signal in the broadcast).
But maybe it is more intelligent than I think - the other day I recorded Hustle with Robert Vaughn and the machine labelled it "Solo"

Generally speaking I watch TV to escape - top of my list is usually dramas that entertain me where I"ll happily suspend all disbelief or those that provide an emotional resonance. Few fit my exacting standards but a comedy that makes me laugh is always welcome and "light entertainment" (quiz shows or a few of the more wholesome reality shows) are fine for keeping the noise going while I do something else. But no sports, no soap operas (although I'll admit to a few past addictions) and no factual programs or documentaries ....... except over the last few weeks I have been more and more drawn to two "factual" programs, Mythbusters and Top Gear. I put factual in quotes because neither show gives you reams of facts you can quote around the Watercooler, or indeed provides much information you could ever look up on the internet or in reference books [the last episode of Top Gear I watched claimed they "hadn't given a fact in over five years"] but I can't immediately think of another way to describe programs that deal with real-world things now that "reality" programmes has come to mean totally artificial game-shows.

Watching Mythbusters is your fault - you the Community - because I had heard good things from several sources here so one time when it was on I thought I would just have a look-see. And irritated as I am by the constant "what'll happen next" and "stay tuned for x" announcing style, the program itself is fascinating due to the enthusiasm of the participants.
But am I the only one who does a mental double-take everytime they say Cary Grant is going to do something?

Top Gear on the other hand is a program I have known about for years (it started in the UK in 1978) and never had any interest in - after all I'm not "into" cars - in fact I can hardly tell what any car is without checking the badge or the name on the back. But I left the TV on while I finished some sewing the other day and there it was - and despite a few bits of technical gobbledygook, it was fun. Yes, Jeremy Clarkson is obnoxious and arrogant at times (I would've compared him to Simon Cowell, but Cowell was on one ep & JC was definitely the nicer of the two) and some of his jokes are definitely near the knuckle but that just makes it more fun when he gets egg on his face during some of the challenges. And basically, the whole-hearted enthusiasm he & Richard Hammond have for the show and the cars makes it fun because you can see how much they are enjoying themselves. [Only someone who really loves what they do would suffer the sort of horrendous incident Hammond did 18 months ago and just keep on doing the same thing.]

I hear that one of the US networks is thinking about their own version of "Top Gear". Would I watch it? Probably not, but I might if they can learn the lessons that the presenters don't need to be chosen for their looks but for their personality and enthusiasm for the subject and that they need to be free to express honest opinions, not be hampered by whose advertising dollars speak the loudest.

Sometimes I agree with Matt Roush and sometimes I don't, but I really have to take issue with his comment today that promotion for a show which reveals a forthcoming death "is unquestionably the tackiest of all promo gimmicks."

Agreed, revealing spoiler information in the promo (with no warning & little chance to avoid it) is bad. But for me (at least so long as they don't reveal exactly who gets killed and how) then it can do the intended job of making me interested and determined to watch that episode. And sometimes seemingly "revealing" information like that isn't (I'm thinking of the NCIS promo a few months ago that showed Gibbs & Maddie in a car underwater, then Gibbs on the dock seemingly not breathing - those scenes were actually taken from the pre-titles sequence, so you were supposed to know that before the episode started)

Far worse IMO are the trailers that string together unrelated scenes to make you think something drastic or important is happening, when it doesn't bear any relation to the episode at all. Fox used to be terrible about this last year when promoting House - you'd see something like Chase talking about making a mistake and then Cuddy saying something about firing someone - but actually they were two seperate conversations about totally different subjects.

Another promo tactic I find really annoying is where they show the two or three funniest lines from an episode in the trailer. Frequently the lines are not that funny in isolation - they need the context of the show itself, and yet if you've seen it in the promo, the actual moment falls flat.

Which do you think?

Came across an interesting debate on how producers etc handle the controversial items that occur during a (fictional) filmed-24-hours-a-day reality show.

A few notes before you watch :-
- do read the list of participants to get an idea of who's who.
- the audio is pretty low and it's sometimes hard to catch everything that is said (even if you understand the British accents)
- the FCC would not approve - the N word is used in the context of one of the controversies.

http://www.bafta.org/library/webcasts/the-bafta-debate-the-reality-of-british-tv,253,BA.html

As a UK transplant to the US, I sometimes feel like there are two viewpoints in my brain, commenting and arguing from different perspectives …..

US Me: Not really that impressed with the recent new TV shows. Given the tendency towards cancellation as soon as ratings drop these days, it’ll be a surprise if more than half of them last out the season. Still it’s comforting to see something like ER going strong in its 14th season.
UK Me: [Muffled snort] You do remember a little program called Casualty about life in the Accident & Emergency dept of a hospital that has been running continuously since 1984?
US Me: Or there’s Dick Wolf, fighting to keep Law & Order on the air for a seventeenth season.
UK Me: [Starts whistling the theme music to The Bill and talks between phrases] Local police station …… real life stories …… 23 years …. two or three times a week.
US Me: Of course there’s long-running game shows, like Jeopardy (1984) or Wheel of Fortune (1975).
UK Me: Remember the big black chair of Mastermind (1972)?
US Me: Yes, but that was off-air from 1997-2003.
UK Me: (gives a mock-sigh) I suppose next you’ll say that I can only count 37 years for University Challenge – 24 in the first incarnation and 13 since the revival.
US Me: (scrambling desperately) Ah, but what about soaps? General Hospital has been continuously on-air for 44 years.
UK Me: (decisively) Coronation Street. Since 1960.
US Me: (feeling triumphant) As the World Turns started in 1956
UK Me: (scornful) But that’s daytime. Coronation Street is primetime – in fact it’s usually one of the two most-watched programs on British TV.
US Me: (thinks a minute) Like I was saying, sure is nice to have something new and different on TV to watch, isn’t it?

*All dates come from IMDB

I started this blog over a year ago to talk about a very large part of our television viewing habits - ads. And while we are no longer tormented by "Bob" there have been several ads recently that have been raising my blood pressure, or at least my BS meter and two in particular that get me going every time I hear them.

"There's nothing sweeter than saving money on car insurance." Oh puh-leese, what sort of sad-sack would you have to be for that statement to be true? Even if money is your one and only god, there are so many ways to get more than the hundred or so dollars you might save

"Future home of the most HD channels on the planet" Well, we don't actually have the most channels yet, but we're sure we will at some point in the future (even if it is sometime after you are dead) so sign up because of something we may do for five minutes some time in the next millenium or so.

Oh, and I also have a strong distaste for the ad that keeps telling me I used to dream about a device that would fit in my pocket with a TV screen and information and music. Most of my dreams were far more interesting than that - and the only time I ever did dream about something like that was when I wanted to be on the Enterprise with an electronic PADD or sensor.

However, there are also two ads out there where each time I see them I think "I want that". Unfortunately, it's not the item they are selling that gets me so excited. The first is for a paint-matching service in a home/garden store - I want the enormous purple stuffed walrus they are trying to match the colour of. And the second is the car-ad built around "Duh!". I don't care about the cars, but I really like the music (people chanting "duh" to tunes like Mission Impossible, Pink Panther & 2001) and I'd like to get a CD of it.

jawick posted in his blog on Emmy voting "Then there are the mysteries that surround the Nielsen ratings system—a joke of cosmic proportions".
Well, I can answer a few of the mysteries because I just posted back a Nielsen TV diary covering what I watched this week.

It actually started a year ago, when I got a phone call from Nielsen, asking if I was prepared to take part in a TV survey in my area. Naturally I said yes but when they gave me the date it would cover, I was disappointed as I was going to be away that week. However, they still wanted to send me a diary and have me fill in that I watched no television that week, and said I would have the chance to list which shows I had recorded to watch later. However, I got a later note from them saying that there had not been sufficient response from the area and the survey was not going ahead.

Fast-forward a year and I got the same phone call only this time the survey went forward and I received the diary to fill out. First there were a few basic questions - did I have cable or satellite, did I have a VCR, did I have DVR service, how many TVs etc. But the bulk of it is just that, a diary with spaces for you to write down what you watched (program and channel) covering every 15 minute segment of the whole 8 days. You also needed to indicate how many people were watching and give their ages. It was also possible to note down when a show had been originally recorded, if it was watched on DVR (although for VCR you only noted what you recorded, not watched). It was even possible to note down when the TV was on but no-one was watching (although how you were supposed to know what program to put down then, I didn't figure out!)

The trouble with any sort of survey like that is that simply knowing that details are being recorded can have an effect on what you watch and it depends on people being honest in what they write down. As it happened, this was a very busy week at work so there were a couple of times I might've skipped a favorite program in summer-time repeats, but I felt I had to watch to ensure it went in the diary. Equally, when channel-hopping, there was once or twice I stopped on something that caught my eye, only to then realise it was a program I would never usually watch, so I was torn whether I should list it or not. Although the instructions said to write down any program you watched for more than 5 minutes, it was only possible to indicate 15 minute chunks which felt like it was giving undue weight to something marginal. There were also these vast pages of blank time and a temptation to watch something at 4AM just to help fill them up.

I suspect the survey was only a local one (I don't live in any of the major metropolitan areas Nielsen usually seems to use) so it may not have any impact on standard ratings. On the other hand, I know the sampling size Nielsen usually uses seems very small to me, so it's possible that even my one person/one television response may have some impact. So if for one week the ratings go crazy and Doctor Who is suddenly top of the table and all the reality shows like America's Got Talent and So You Think You Can Dance suddenly plummet off the charts, well, you can blame me.

Following Rev's discussion/quiz on character actors last week http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/Casual-Viewer-Peeking/Youve-Got-Great/800018357#comments I've found myself paying more attention than usual to the character actors currently on-screen.

I'm not sure that I can define exactly what qualifies someone to go on the list, but I'm fairly sure it includes Geoffrey Lewis, John Billingsly, Willie Garson and Matt Malloy. For some reason, I'm not quite so sure if Peter MacNichol fits or not.

Have you spotted any lately?

Amongst all of the names being attached to pilots mentioned at the upfronts this week, one in particular caught my eye - Jim Dale. Partly because I have happy memories of seeing him on TV when I grew up, but mostly because the brackets after his name said "(reader of the Harry Potter series of audio books)". My first thought was that for such a well-known actor that was a very odd credit to give. But looking into the matter via IMDB I see that there were only a few Disney movie credits (of which I'd've said he was a staple) and a lot of "Carry On ...." credits, and I really don't know if those mean anything here in America or if they were purely a British phenomenon.
On reflection, the Harry Potter connection probably is the thing most people know him for these days, despite his Broadway successes (he was nominated for a Tony yet again last year).

Generally I find the rules for determining which show goes in the bracketed credits quite interesting. The obvious usage is for someone who starred in a show, such as Chris Meloni (Law & Order:SVU) but some actors are credited with their last great/successful show, rather than the not-so-successful show - Angie Harmon (Law & Order) rather than Angie Harmon (Inconceivable) for example. I can see the reasoning but just wonder who sets the rules and makes the decision what to list? And how long does a show have to last before Scott Bakula (Quantum Leap) becomes Scott Bakula (Enterprise)?

Of more concern is when you get Sam Robards (The West Wing) - an actor who had a recurring role on the series (8 episodes over about a year) and one you may even recognise if you were a devoted watcher but is certainly not one of the top 20 names to spring to mind when you think of the series. And at the extremes Kristoffer Polaha (CSI:Miami) where he actually only appeared in one episode. I realise this may be Kristoffer's most-watched credit to date, but it seems to unfairly promote him to the level of David Caruso.

This could all be cleared up if the reporting media could add little acronyms - something like Mark Harmon (si:NCIS) "starring/starred in", Joe Spano (rc:NCIS) "recurring character" or Matt Malloy (gs1:NCIS) "guest star 1 episode" or the extra-coveted sgs1: for "special guest star 1 episode".

Given the use of internet links that immediately show you a list of the actor's credits, the brackets may be on their way out anyway but till then it would be nice to have some differentiation.

Even if you never look beyond your TV to see what the weather is like outside, it's obvious that we’ve reached May. Normally calm and rational characters are getting emotional and running around frantically alone to ensure they can be caught in compromising positions. things are heating up on every "will-they? won't they?" or "is (s)he? isn't (s)he?" that we've been teased with other the past few months and all of the TV magazines are full of information on "special guest stars" and "shocking spoilers". Yep it's the most frenetic Sweeps period of the year, building up to the season (or series) finales and the competition is on to give each show a final ratings boost and try to come up with something that'll keep the fans talking all summer so they are still interested and excited come September.

The massive over-hyping of every show seems very repetitive with over-used slogans of "x episodes remaining ...." as if we are counting the weeks till it is finally over and done with and "shocking finale/twist/ending" when merely knowing a supposed shock is coming is often enough to allow you to guess what it is.
And then you get the use of that dreaded (at least by me) word "cliff-hanger". Leaving aside the pain of so many past cliff-hangers that go unresolved when a show fails to get renewed, far too often the cliff-hanger seems to be an artificial device, someone behaves in an atypical way or is pushed by coincidences into a position where they may not return for the following season (because they quit, they're in deadly danger etc). The shows where you have been waiting for answers all year seem bad enough, but at least you have had ongoing episodes to keep teasing the mysteries and giving you more ideas. The thought of having to wait 3 months for a question to be answered with no new information forthcoming is just painful.

As you can probably guess from the above, I don’t have the same love for finales that I do for pilots. Some shows (usually the serialised ones like Heroes and 24) can do a good job of wrapping up the year and giving you answers, although even with those the episodes themselves can go flat with anti-climax unless handled carefully. But so many others distort themselves away from the formula that has been so successful all year, procedurals suddenly focus on personal lives of characters, those who lead soap-opera lives suddenly get thrown into danger or quiet character-driven stories suddenly become about saving the whole world. That said, the change of formula can prove fascinating (eg the House finale last year, or the classic “Three Stories” episode which was the penultimate episode the year before) but the massive end-of-season hype seems to ensure you’ll be disappointed in at least some of the finales. And of course there is always just the sad knowledge in the background that they’ll be no new episodes for several months to come.

Which finales are you looking forward to?

I suspect that like me, a lot of you end up doing other things with the TV on. As someone who lives alone, I will usually turn the TV on while I'm eating dinner. Sometimes there is something I'm intending to watch anyway, and dinner time is adjusted to meet the schedule, but other times I will end up channel-surfing to find something to "keep me company".

Once food is out of the way though (and partly to prevent snacking), I often pick up my cross-stitch (or occasionally other crafts). This enables me to justify some guilty pleasures by how much sewing I can get done. You see, with something where I am bored or not paying much attention to I can get 4 or more threads done in an hour, something which grips my attention usually means I only get one thread done (in the ad-breaks) but that's okay, because that must've been pretty good TV, right?
For instance, House is one of my favorites and I don't often sew during new episodes but even repeats usually rate just over one thread (mostly done during ad-breaks and the overly graphic surgical bits where I'm glad to look away) while Bones rates 3-4 threads depending on how much the Lab-Techs are on. Something like Medium or CSI usually works out at 2-3 threads, fairly interesting but fairly productive as well. Heroes has gone from 2-3 threads at the beginning of the season - only concentrating on the screen when Hiro was on or someone was actually using a power - to only one thread last night (only sewing during the ads).

Of course, it partly depends on the type of program - something like American Idol or Deal or No Deal has so much filler material that you only need to glance at the screen occasionally anyway. In fact, I find those programs far harder to watch if I don't have my sewing to hand. Sitcoms like Scrubs that contain more visual humour can also skew the results a bit so sometimes I find I've been watching them more (and sewing less), even if I don't think an episode is that good. But by and large I can point to a completed square inch on my cross-stitch (if I'm lucky, it's slow progress) and prove that I haven't wasted those three hours I've been sitting there.

Do you "justify" your TV habits like that or do other things while you watch?