'Tis that time of year again. What's everyone excited about?

My season started off with a two hour episode of Bones (yeah, I watch it because Angel is on it), and has continued with Terminator: SCC, and now this evening with Fringe. Did anyone catch it? I for one thought it was pretty good. Right from the beginning I was impressed with how much gore they were able to get away with right at 8pm. The plane scene was pretty terrifying (and a funny nod to how JJ's last series started).

I have all the premiere dates for my favorite shows on my Google Calendar, and the month of September alone has 16 premieres. Then I have seven in October. I watch a little too much TV.

New shows I'm excited about: Fringe. New shows I'll check out: True Blood, My Own Worst Enemy, Life on Mars (which I have very low expectations for, having seen the British version and liking it), and lastly Dollhouse (I'm just not sure how Dushku turn out).

What I'm most excited for overall: Supernatural (don't know why, but I can't get enough of this show), Dexter, and Pushing Daisies.

So, what shows are you looking forward to? Any series premieres?

My only question... what in the hell were they thinking when they put on that Hole in the Wall show or whatever it is? The commercials for it made me question the sanity in the country if that is the kind of thing that passes for entertainment.

I wanted to watch Fringe, but I think I forgot to add it to the playlist. If it is all about the gore though, I probably won't watch it, I deal enough with that at work. Ever see what a thermobaric missile does to people inside a house it hits? Nothing on TV will ever compare to that.

I'm glad Termimator started back up and I'm looking forward to the new season of Heroes.

It's just the next step in our long descent into oblivion. People will watch it precisely because it's so ridiculous. It looks like something that's probably been done already in Japan, and I've seen several other Japanese-inspired game shows advertised, so clearly, the American TV execs are banking on our appetite for the absurd and shocking to increase. It's probably a safe bet.

In a few years or so, Idiocracy will be reclassified as a documentary because of crap like this.

Oh, to answer Matt's quesrtion, the only shows I'll watch this year will be 30 Rock, The Office, How I Met Your Mother and, if it doesn't suck as bad as it did at the end of last season, My Name is Earl.

Yeah, My Name is Earl had a disappointing finish last season. Not sure how much was due to the writer's strike.


I never said it was "all about the gore." I was just surprised that it had it. I thought the effects they used were excellent. The only thing that concerns me in that regard is that apparently the pilot cost $10 million, and I'm certain most of that went to the special effects budget (but was well used). I just worry how future episodes will hold up. It's a little disingenuous to present the show like they did if they can't follow up.


I believe they're re-airing it this Sunday. Smart move on their part.


Really? I mean, it's certainly not something I'm going to watch, but I definitely don't find it as offensive as you guys do. As far as the current trend of reality/game show premises go, I think it's the best one I've seen in years. Hell, I'm most thankful for the fact that it's delaying the next season of "To Tell the Truth," which is probably the worst premise I've ever seen for any show ever. That's one that disgusts me. A show where people get into poses so a wall doesn't knock them in the water? What's wrong with that?

Oh, and according to the article I read, it did come from Japan, although the Youtube video I found was of a British version.

There's nothing offensive about it, it's just retarded.

I liked Fringe. However, I do think JJ Abrams is very much over-rated. Everything he's done seems to be very derivative. And that's putting it loosely in some respects.

Fringe is the X-Files. Period.
Lost borrowed a lot from Earth 2.
Alias borrowed from a lot of previous shows.

The other thing that worries me about the creators is that they're fickle. Alias went to trash after the second season. Lost was about to hit the bin and somehow they turned it around last season and made it interesting again.

I worry the follow-on episodes for Fringe won't live up to the pilot. We'll see. One thing they can do to vastly improve on the X-Files is to keep continuity and the story arc evolving. The X-Files was a mess in this regard and it bugged me right from the first season.

I don't know about anything else newly premiering this season that I should check out. I'll do a quick peek at the shows Matt mentioned to see if they're worth a spot on the PVR.

True Blood is something I'm grabbing for a friend, but I may watch the first episode to see if it's any good.

None of the new shows have really grabbed my attention yet. I'll basically wait for you guys to tell me that I really need to watch something or other. For now, I'm looking forward to the return of "Chuck" (my guilty pleasure), "Heroes" (which had better not suck like the wrap-up of last season), "Battlestar Galactica" (damn you and your cliffhangers!), and the continuing "Top Gear" (which I'm forced to watch via BitTorrent because BBC America is airing ancient episodes).

Also, much to my amazement, the iTunes store is now carrying "Entourage". Since I refuse to pony up the $20/month for HBO, this means I can get caught up on my other guilty pleasure.

I'm modestly annoyed that they're apparently killing "Swingtown", which was a very well-written and enjoyable show this summer (and not nearly as skanky as it could have been). I'll keep watching "Terminator", but I'm not deeply excited by its return or, even worse, all the other franchise-expansion going on over there. I know I'm supposed to like "Mad Men", but it hasn't really hooked me. They're working on a second season of "Breaking Bad" which should be lots of fun.

Of course, what I *really* want is a full season of "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog". Man, what more could you ask for?

I'd sign up for a full season subscription for Dr. Horrible as soon as it was announced. Good thing nothing that entertaining or original will ever make it on network television - it might ruin shows like American Idol and whatnot.

Entourage for me. Still watching all the old episodes before I watch the new one from Sunday...

real time with bill maher, dexter, californication, sarah conner chronicles, cops, simpsons, family guy, american dad, and fringe

So does/did anyone watch Heroes? I just watched the season premiere, and could not believe how bad it was. Seriously, I'm not sure where to begin with this one, but the writing, acting, story, pacing, and even basic logic were complete crap. (some spoilers for S3E01 follow)

The writers don't have a clue, and it's not just a feeling. I believe that in the last Heroes thread on this board I laid out why I thought the basic plot of the first season failed (essentially my theory is that Hiro didn't do anything after coming back from the future to prevent that future from happening). Now in this episode, we see Peter with a facial scar, presumably to be able to tell he's the "bad Peter" (what, he couldn't grow a goatee?). But how did he get the scar? He has Claire's powers to regenerate. And were they insinuating that "future Peter" was actually Sylar? Then why did he seem so affectionate towards Nathan? I suppose they might find some way to answer all that, but honestly I don't care. Here's why:

What is there to enjoy about Heroes? Watching this show, I have no sense of joy, no sense of deeper meaning, no sense of caring for the characters or interest in what happens to them. I think I don't care because I don't identify with any of them. In the first season we saw nothing but a dozen people finding out they had super powers, and then spending their entire waking hours either hating themselves for it, hiding it from their loved ones, or even denying they had them (like Nathan). As much as I couldn't stand Claire's boyfriend, in a way he was a breath of fresh air because he was the first person on the show who actually had some FUN with this power.

Perhaps this attitude was out of necessity. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like 95% of the show involves no use of anyone's powers at all. Is the attitude of the characters a cost-saving tactic?

Lastly, has anyone noticed what a downer this show is? For a show called "Heroes," the good guys sure seem to lose nearly all of the time. Yeah, they somehow saved the day at the end of season one (actually, only Nathan did, the rest pretty much stood around and failed to kill Sylar), and they stopped the virus at the end of season 2 by merely freezing time for a second with no final confrontation or anything, but the rest of the time they truly seem like a defeated bunch of people. Again, maybe this comes down to their attitudes toward their powers, but I really wish we'd see a few more victories from the good guys.


So I will stop watching Heroes now. I leave you with a series of other complaints I have:

- for the most part it seems impossible for these people, who all appear to know each other by now, to communicate with one another
- so Sylar now has Claire's powers and tells her she can't be killed, which means she didn't need to be saved in the first season, they just needed Sylar to not have it, but now he does, so that whole endeavor was pointless
- Sylar can block all the doors in Claire's home, but he can't break through a flimsy pantry door?
- Sylar could block the doors, but Claire didn't think to jump out a window? It's not like she'd be hurt for long...
- the extremely annoying Suresh lumbers off like a caveman at the end of the episode, just happening to be walking by the same graffiti depicting the world splitting that Matt sees in his alternate dimension or whatever. Unless these things are everywhere in the world, which someone must have noticed, isn't it a coincidence that Suresh walks by one at a random shipping port? It's not cool, it's very contrived.

ditto.

I also was really looking forward to the new season. Especially with all the talk about how the writers had learned their lesson, and were going back to the quality and style of season one. Oh, well...

We're quite enjoying series 2 of Lost

Series 6 of 24 is waiting in the background.

(ah, MythTV)

I'd make some different points than Matt and even rebutt some of his, but I agree with what he states at the opening. Heroes' writers are out to lunch and the show generally stinks.

I liked season 1. Thought the aborted season 2 was crap from the start and season 3 (which includes the aborted parts of 2) is starting out even worse than that.

Having the two parter was risky. Why? Because I almost fell asleep watching.

Damn, even the new X-Files (Fringe) is better than this.

I didn't much care for fringe. The absent minded professor is over the top.

On the other hand Eureka is better. They finally figured out how to keep a subplot going across many episodes. Though

I'm a fan of Eureka. It's a really charming show. In response to your spoiler:


As for Fringe, I actually think the professor is hilarious. I'm more worried about the rest of the cast.

I finally got the time to watch Heroes.

Eureka

Dan, I just wanted to clarify that my overall complaints about Heroes are not at all isolated to the season 3 premiere (and I'll point out that it is a premiere, so naturally there's going to be more special effects and what-not). I think that overall the show is a complete mess in all categories, from acting to writing to pacing to storytelling to everything else. Yes, they created a whole bunch of new, "compelling" mysteries. That's just funny to me, seeing as how Heroes was lauded as the show that answered its questions (in response to Lost). Turns out that: a) they aren't doing that, b) the few times they do it doesn't really turn out to be something worthwhile, and c) new mysteries don't feel like they grow from the plot or characters organically.

So to sum it up, my overall impression of the show Heroes, since its beginning, is that it's a complete mess and such a downer that it's not really worthwhile.

The sad part? I'll probably keep watching the train wreck, because I'm interested in only a couple of the passengers. I always liked Greg Grunberg, and find his character somewhat compelling, and Hiro is definitely the best character on the show, but they've turned him into a joke again (and I can't stand the girl playing the speedster).

Heroes was wrecked from the first episode of Season 2. It may have been internally wrecked before that, but as far as I'm concerned, it was when Season 2 started that it hit the fan for the viewers in the worst and seemingly irreparable way.

The creators and producers seem much more interested in cashing in on the popularity of the first season. Talks of spin-offs were in the air before season one ended.

Continuity is completely out the window and doesn't look like it will ever be aligned. The writers obviously don't watch the show themselves or they'd realise that they're writing new episodes that just don't connect with previous ones.
The characters have all been put out to pasture. I'm sure this is all down to the writing and direction, since I find it hard to believe the actors have suddenly become less capable of delivering lines and the appropriate emotions. Clearly any early established character bios/traits have been thrown out the window. Everyone is acting out of character. It's as bad as the X-Files at its worst where you'd swear the characters' minds had been wiped and replaced with some stranger's every episode. If not every episode, then at least every few or at the very least every season.

The Suresh character for instancehas exhibited 3 or 4 different and conflicting personalities since season 1. Unless they write off season 2 and 3 as a giant dream sequence or explain that he and some others are afflicted with multiple personality disorder, it just doesn't make sense. Worse that that, it's simply not enjoyable.

Apart from that, I hate the Sylar character. Maybe if someone else had been playing him it would be different, but Quinto's portrayal just makes me want to skip his scenes. I still think it's down to the writing and direction though.

I've lost sight of Syler's motivation, any more he just seems to be a goal less kleptomaniac.

I don't really care for the whole multimedia concept of Heroes.

Actually I'm sure I'm missing some explicative elements for not pursuing the online graphic puzzle junk.

I agree that the Heroes characters are getting a bit strange. I'm a bit of a sucker for an unanswered mystery so long as there's some clue that we're making progress (e.g., Babylon 5) versus going nowhere (e.g., X-Files).

No doubt about it, they're basically burying season 2, save for the barest outlines. I have the sneaking suspicion they're going to play timeline hokus-pokus on us more than once to change out the ground rules they established in the first episode.

In other words, they decided that people really liked the idea of Evil Sylar trying to suck out peoples' brains, and thought "how can we build an interesting plot around this?" Along with random thoughts like "Malcolm McDowell was far too cool to leave dead. We have to get him back." "Oh, and I really liked this Run Lola Run thing. Can we have a character like that?"

I'm just hoping they bring in Ewan MacGreggor playing his "Renton" character from Trainspotting, only with super powers. Hey, why not?

There was that whole Peter and the Irish plot line that just went nowhere. With Peter inexplicably loosing the girl in an alt future. She's just gotta reappear later somehow, though I don't see how there could be any continuity to her character.

Then there's been no explanation why the whole Linderman led coalition existed and was crushed. Unless we are supposed to accept that is was

This whole working with alternate time lines, changing either the future or past is just too convenient for the writers. I just hope there's a plan to tie it back together before the series gets canceled.

Two of the best shows on TV are leaving soon. Boston Legal says goodbye next week and Pushing Daisies will air out the remainder of this season's episodes before fading away from TV. ABC clearly has their heads way up their arses.

That said, I'm liking the US version of Life on Mars - enough that I'll need to check out the UK original next. I have a feeling it might not make it to a second season though.

Every time I watch Californication, Dexter or True Blood (which just ended its first season), I'm reminded how cable programming is miles above what's available on the traditional networks. Pushing Daisies was about as close to "cable" as I've seen on "network" in a long time.

I quite enjoyed True Blood, despite the constant cries of "OMG this is so changed from the books" emanating from the person seated beside me.

I'm so pissed that Pushing Daisies got canceled. I really hope they at least wrap it up somehow. Fuller mentioned that at the least he'd like to do a comic book to finish it, and at most a movie.

True Blood was a bit all over the map. Most of the characters or actors annoyed me (including and especially Anna Paquin), but the world of the show is getting pretty interesting.

The original Life on Mars is way better than the US version. Nobody can touch Philip Glenister's portrayal.

Dexter is fantastic. I hate that there are only two episodes left in the season and they need to get here quickly.

personally, i like heroes! take it as a bit of fun, with a twist and a cliffhanger here and everywhere each week, and it's great. i do wonder if some are trying to take it toooo seriously!!

life on mars, the uk version, is fantastic, i've seen a couple of episodes from the US show, and as much as i love watching all the old cars bombing about (i was into yank cars and drag raced for 10yrs+ until recently), it just doesn't do it for me.

you might still be able to see some of the uk series on www.bbc.co.uk iplayer service. you can certainly watch the current top gear and many other shows.

currently getting into a show called survivors, bit of a toned down remake of 28days later but without the gore and zombies. a viral pendemic spreads across europe and probably the world, killing 95% or more of the population within a week, now we see them gradually build groups and try to rebuild, it's getting a little tiresome already though, not sure if i'll continue much longer!

Lost... lost me after missing a few episodes in series 2, i think it was series two where they found the bunker place? kinda got wierd and i couldn't watch it regular enough to keep up. series 1 was a cracker though!

you guys get dr who over there? bit of a british institution i guess, fun to watch the kids scared of a show that used to scare me when i was their age! last few series have been fun.

We get it here in Canada -- the CBC was involved in sponsoring the first of the new series a couple of years back. Right now we're about a half season behind in episodes. Great stuff!

I love the bbc, i guess if it wasn't for bbc1 and 2 i could just cancel my cable subscription (would have to pay extra for 3 and 4, with another extra package of junk channels, so i just bt what i want from those)

Spooks, Apparitions, survivors, top gear, coast, buzzcocks, Lead balloon, Qi, Merlin, culture show. That's almost my complete current pvr list.

Oh, and iplayer only works in britain, so you'd have to use a proxy to watch that.

It shows in the US on two different cable channels, both the SciFi Channel and BBC America. I'm waaaay behind (like multiple seasons), so I don't know where they are. Also, I have the suspicion that they may cut them down to fit into an hour with commercials — about 44 minutes.

It also shows in the US if you can convince the BBC's online "iPlayer" that you're in the UK. That's an exercise left to the reader, but one supposes a combination of FoxyProxy and a box in the UK might come in very handy...

Or the use of TOR and Privoxy.

(which works the other direction for access to Pandora)

Oh gosh no. I don't take it seriously in the least. It's the least profound show with the least to say of all the TV I watch. They think they have a lot to say (as evidenced by those terribly Mohinder narrations), but it's really just a soap opera with people who use super powers once in a blue moon.

Believe me, I want it to be fun. That's all I ever wanted out of it. But they tried for more and missed.

The writer strike seems to have had an effect, for the worse, on the show Life. They seem to have toned down the level Zen attitude for Crews.

Good clean fun!
Bitt, if you haven't caught the "Blink" episode yet, then you are in for a treat. It's one of my all-time favorites.

I also like the little 15-minute "Dr. Who Confidential" segments for an "inside baseball" look at the making of.
(Just don't watch one before the corresponding episode, as they are Spoiler City.)

I agree, but it's still one of my favorite network shows.

I was thinking the exact same thing! They now seem more interested in the mystery than the characters, which is always a backward way of thinking.

And as much as I like Donal Logue, I don't really buy the relationship they're creating there.

It's not my favorite show, but I do quite enjoy it.

i guess you're right, still, i can't wait for the next episode to come each week! we get next weeks episode played on bbc 3 right after the current episode, which is handy as i occasionally miss the following week, last night i missed the current episode (already seen) and 20 mins of the next episode cos i got carried away re-organising my workshop, gutted, will have to wait til next week to see it now, and then on I player as i'm out on the weds night !






yeah, i don't watch the confidentials pre show if they're on, that blink episode is class, not sure who was freaked out more, me or the kids! my litle girl is scared to death of the ood (sp?)

Hmm - well, since you've clearly been having fun digging into the electronics with Mark - maybe you should dig into MythTV too?

Does a home built PVR based on linux sound like a fun project?

i use to love making little electronic things, mostly nothing more than messing with led's etc, always fancied doing more. what is myth tv? i know nothing of linux btw!

"Blink" is amazing. I have it saved on my Tivo right now.

Agreed. One of the best pieces of writing for cinema, TV or otherwise, I'd ever seen. Just brilliant.

I do worry about the BBC America cut-down-for-US-commercials versions of any Doctor Who episode, though. I can't wait to see the episodes, so I'm always watching downloaded versions shortly after they're aired in the UK, thus I never watch the BBCA episodes, so I actually don't know how badly they've been butchered...

It is possible to edit a show well. Has anyone else here seen the network TV edits of Dexter? I've watched the show from the beginning, and I just had to tune in when they started airing the edited versions. My wife and I were shocked that it still held up! There wasn't much lost, and the edits for cursing were the best I've ever seen done (not distracting in the least). That really impressed me. I figured they'd have to completely re-dub Deborah's lines (and Doakes's too), but they handled it perfectly.

I've had a change of lifestyle since leaving Alaska where I was an avid TV watcher (30-40 hours/week). I no longer watch television. I have a TV set sitting in the living room connected to over 100 channels, and in the past six months I have watched part of a Presidential debate, and... uh... nothing else.

That frees up a lot of time for other, more productive things.

tanstaafl.

You might as well cancel your cable/satellite service, then, and free up your budget for other, more productive things, too.

My television cable brings in my internet. The pricing structure is such that internet alone is more expensive.

Usually I don't watch TV. In the rare moments that I do, I surf through Comedy Central, The History Channel, and Discovery Channel.
My housemate has been hooked on the motorcycle gang soap opera Sons of Anarchy, though, and although I can't stand the lionizing of criminals, I've watched along during the first season.
Anyone else?

My concern for Doctor Who is the need to edit for length, not language. When you cut 15 minutes out of a 60 minute show, what do you cut?

A similar edit-for-time was needed to get Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" into the theaters, and when I finally got to see the Criterion Collection version at its full length, it felt so much better and seemed a lot less disjointed.

Modern Doctor Who episodes are 45 minutes. In a 60-minute slot on an ad-supported channel, they aren't cut.

Peter

Or only slightly, since hour-long slots in the US tend to have 44 minutes of program time.

Actually, my biggest problem with the new Doctor Who is the length of the stories. It used to be that you got four or six 25-minute episodes making up a story, which is 100 or 150 minutes of story (minus a little for recaps and credit sequences), whereas now you get one or two 45-minute episode stories, so 45 or 90 minutes of story. As such, they almost always end up feeling rushed and truncated to me.

Ah! I thought they were 60 minutes when I was watching them as downloads. I must have been remembering wrong.

Just to clarify, by the "and" I meant the edits for cursing and what was lost to cuts for time. Dexter is about 55 minutes.

I was also wondering if when the show went to network television, they'd keep the great opening title sequence. That thing has to be at least a minute long, probably 90 seconds. In this day where lead-ins like Lost and Heroes are 10 seconds at most, I was surprised to see they kept it.

Leverage (TNT) seems to be like the old Mission Impossible series. Sanctioned only by moral outrage, instead of the Government.

Has anyone heard anything about the last three episodes? I haven't seen a new schedule showing it in the lineup.



I have to respectfully disagree with this comment. I have just started watching the UK original (2 episodes so far) and while I like it, I don't think it's as good as the US version. The acting is quite well done, the characters likeable enough, but there's just too much missing. I get a sense like there's too much padding in the UK version whereas the US remake uses that extra time to provide more content - that works well. I think I would feel the same way even if I had watched the UK version first. I can't shake the feeling that parts of the episode are stretched a little too thin.

They've done an amazing job of refreshing the series and I think they've ended up with a better produced and better written show for it.

Now, I wouldn't expect all shows to work as well given a remake. The Office worked, but I can't imagine the IT Crowd pulling it off (I'd love to see the US pilot though).

They will be aired this summer sometime.

Could part of that be due to the slower pace of a full hour-long show instead of one that's ~44 minutes?

I stopped watching the US version, so I can't say for sure (and you've also only seen two episodes of the UK version, so I wouldn't judge too quickly either), but you're saying that there's a lot of padding on a show whose entire run lasted 16 episodes? The US doesn't know how to end a show other than an abrupt cancellation (see Pushing Daisies) or a prolonged meandering story (see X-Files). I'd really be interested in seeing how closely the US version follows the story of the UK version. If so, there really isn't much to add there that the UK version didn't say better and with fewer episodes.

Most of all, I refuse to believe that anyone can match or surpass Philip Glenister in that role. I'm sorry, it is impossible to argue this with me - my personal opinion on it is unwavering. I was somewhat interested in seeing Colm Meaney in the role, but the studio ditched him for Harvey Keitel, and I haven't heard the reason for that.

The only thing I didn't like about the UK version was the actress who played Annie. I just didn't think she was very good.


ps- while I was thinking about this show again, I had to check when Ashes to Ashes was returning. I can't find anything! Do any of you Brits know? The first episode aired last year in the beginning of February, so I hope it's similar this year.

I thought that was it at first, but upon comparison, the US version still packs more into its shorter air time. It's not just compressing what was in the UK version.



It doesn't matter how many total episodes there were to be able to compare episode to episode. I'm not commenting on the overall story arch nor am I saying that the UK version is bad. I'll continue watching it since I have the whole of both series.



That's both the fault of networks and producers/creators. On the one hand you have a show being created without a definitive overall plot or story arch as was the case with the X-FIles. It also lacked continuity on amy different levels. On the other hand you have shows that do have well thought out stories that have been tailored to last a specific number of episodes and some type of plan on how to end the series. When the network steps in and prematurely cancels this type of show, it's not always possible to wrap it up neatly.



We don't really know if there's a plan to produce only a fixed number of US shows at this time. There are at least 13 episodes planned for this first season though. Since the original creators are behind the US version, I suspect it would work well enough even if it ran two or three times as long as the UK version. At one point a show stops being a remake or retelling and takes on a life of its own.



That's fair, I'm not going to argue the merits of one actor versus another. I've liked both versions enough to say that I don't think either is carried by the strength of one single person.

I think my feeling at this time is that the creators have improved on what they wrote originally. And the substitution of US-isms for UK-isms wasn't what made the changes work.

I'm looking forward to watching both, though I'd really like to try and get ahead on the UK version to see it from the other side.

How is it that studio executives wonder why shows falter? This season has seen very obscure schedule shuffling and show pulling. Even shows that are supposedly doing well have had this treatment.

You can contrast this to TV of the past where you'd see a lot more reruns. Now you just get shows vanishing for months at a time with little to no notice or promotion of the return. The studios are crapping all over their content and then wonder why the audience is abandoning them.

Complaining about PVR usage isn't going to cut it when you're shuffling that deck of cards around so often and so quickly that using a PVR is the only way anyone is even going to be able to follow a series.

I'm thinking they're morons.

Um, yeah. Ditto.

From what I can tell, all the networks are nearly identical in their behavior: a show lives or dies based on how many viewers it gets in the first 3-5 episodes. It doesn't matter one ounce to them how passionate the fans are about a show, as long as there's a lot of them.

And yeah, once a show starts changing nights, unless it's an enormous hit (like Lost or, in the past, the X-Files), that's a sure sign it's on its last legs. Currently I'm scared for Bones, as they just moved it from Monday to Thursday. This means I have no choice but to "obtain it by other means," as I'm already recording two shows when it airs now.

Bruno, it's a good sign that the people who made the UK version are also doing the US version, I wasn't aware of that, but I can't imagine that have even a tiny amount of control over how long the show lasts. If it's successful, the network will try to run it as long as possible, if it's not, the creators will likely not be given enough warning to wrap up the story.

There have been very few exceptions to this rule, and even when there have been, the "wrap-ups" are at best unsatisfying. Take, for example, last year's show Journeyman. The show started off as a decent-but-not-great show, and ended up as (IMO) fantastic. The timing worked out just well enough so that the writers had a chance to answer a number of questions that they would have strung out longer, and in the end they gave the show a thematic ending, if not an entirely satisfying one.

It's one of the biggest complaints about network TV that I have. Everything the networks do proves how little they care about their viewers.

I haven't seen the complaints you're referring to, but it does occur to me that, if the networks can assume that most people have PVRs (or that the people who get most addicted to particular programmes all have PVRs) then their strategy seems pretty good: put the first few episodes on during prime-time, then once everyone is either hooked or not, switch it to half past dogwatch. (Especially if it's a programme such as Heroes, where there's no point starting to watch the series part-way in.) It's the TV equivalent of the magazine world's "Today, Tom Cruise revealed he regularly sticks a ...continued on p168".

Peter

The problem with schedule shuffles is that they end up losing a significant amount of the viewers who are apparently hooked up with the ratings boxes they pay attention to. Which in turn leads to the cancellation of the program.

So PVR viewings don't count towards ratings? That sounds like a pretty skewed dataset... oh wait. Unless the thinking is that PVR viewings don't count towards ratings, because PVR users won't be watching the adverts. That would make a sick sort of sense.

Peter

The Nielson company that does the ratings didn't include PVR stats for a long time. Likely something technical. Now I believe they do PVR stats as well. But many people (myself included) believe the networks place far too much confidence in the Nielsons.

The bigger problem however is that advertisers (also) look at the same ratings and won't be inclined to advertise on shows with low numbers. That's why it doesn't matter how good a show is nor how many people watch it or its commercials. It's all about what numbers the people with the magic boxes report.

Thankfully there are specialty cable channels where the bean counters think differently than their counterparts at the broadcast networks, which has lead to the creation, and continuation, of a number of fantastic series which would not have lasted a half season on broadcast, if they were picked up at all.

Passionate fans don't bring in the advertisement revenue, the number of fans does. Since networks aren't on the payment plan of something like the HBOs or Showtimes of the world, they need a certain number of fans so they can justify ad slot prices, which in turn pays for the show. I'm not sure many of the networks are in the business to lose money.

I'm definitely not happy about some of the choices (like Firefly, but I didn't see it until a while after it was canceled), I can see the reasoning behind it though.

Well, yeah, I don't disagree with you. I think you missed my point.

It's not an injustice to cancel an unpopular show, no matter how good it is. My point was more about how they cancel them. Really, how difficult would it be to give a show a chance to wrap up its story? The good will they'd garner would be worth it, IMO.

I think the problem is some of the stories just drag on without a real ending in sight. If they are bleeding money, they just want to fill that slot up with something profitable as soon as possible. I'm not sure wrapping up a lot of series would even be possible under those circumstances.

Many years ago, DC Comics licensed properties from TSR, the role-playing game company, and produced, IIRC, four comics. One of them was based on Gamma World called Gammarauders. It did not sell well, and was scheduled to be canceled at issue 12, and the creators aimed to wrap up their storyline. However, it sold so poorly that DC changed its mind and decided to cancel it at issue 10 instead. The creators were unable to wrap up the storyline, so issue 10 included several pages of lightly illustrated text describing the plot to wrap up the storyline.

It would be great if TV show creators would do the same thing. I'm not suggesting they have someone narrate the plot at the end of the last episode, but posting a summary online would be excellent.

That said, there has been at least one instance of continuing a TV show as a comic book series: Buffy.

Just like the successful series: Heroes, Lost, ad infinitum.

Run a Star Wars scroller (in reverse, possibly) for the final episode...?

Wow, Bitt, I've often had the exact same idea. Sometimes that actually happens, too! For example, I watched all the aired episodes of the failed Nathan Fillion show Drive. It honestly wasn't a great show but he was fantastic in it (of course! when is he not?), and the story was somewhat compelling. After the show was canceled, the creator didn't exactly give the entire wrap-up, but he did give away most of the coming surprises that they would have slowly revealed throughout the series.

But that's an excellent point you make. It's clear that in this country, the networks are not going to care enough about us to do this, and it's not any effort for a show's creator to write up something and put it online.

I don't really consider Buffy as an example of this, though. I thought that show wrapped up pretty neatly, and ended before it dragged on too long. 7 seasons is a long time for a show to run, and I can't think of any off the top of my head that have run successfully longer than that (and I don't mean commercial success). I think Angel is a better example. I think that show had more story to tell. The comic is pretty good too (though sometimes I hate the art).

Carlton Cuse, one of the two showrunners for Lost was the showrunner for a show many years ago called The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.. It was an oater with some SF elements, kind of like Wild Wild West. There was an overarching storyline about a gold orb and a villain obsessed with it. The show was cancelled before it was ever explained well.

In recent years, Cuse gave an interview in which he mentioned Brisco and the gold orb plot. He said that the writers had no idea where they were going with that storyline, that it caused a lot of problems, and that he was never going to do that again. (I wish I could remember where I saw that interview. It may have been in the special features of the Brisco DVDs.)

Now, he could have been blowing smoke up our asses, but the plot elements of Lost hold together pretty well so far, with a lot of callbacks to seemingly unimportant details from distant prior episodes, so I'm inclined to say that he does know where the plot is going. In addition, they have a contract for about 32 more episodes over two more years and the show will end (and they knew that 16 episodes and a year ago) so if they didn't have an endgame before, they have had more than enough time to come up with one.

I know that your argument wasn't that it didn't have an ending, but that it was not in sight, so sorry if I'm arguing a point that you weren't trying to make. Still, I think a lot of people have learned something from The X-Files: that it's a bad idea to go into a show with a story arc and not at least know some major plot points and the ending.

Lost has a lot of broken plot points and numerous examples of broken continuity. While there was an idea of what the show was about when it was first conceived, it has been mentioned many times that plots and story lines have been adapted, enhanced, altered, or completely re-imagined from initial concepts.

No matter how much I've ever seen a show creator brag about how well conceived their project is, they all seem in the end to mostly make it up as they go along. This has been evident in Lost for a long time. To their credit, they have managed to tie back a lot of loose ends and make some corrections along the way. Last season rescued the show in my opinion, because it was previously already circling the bowl about to drop the last inch down the drain.

The first two episodes of this season were decent. I have confidence that we may see a season as good as the last one. Fingers crossed. Some plot elements are probably best left in the past without trying to tie them back in. I find convoluted or contrived tie-backs much more annoying.

Heroes has come back this season and somewhat smoothed out some of the damage they did last season, but it's still a pale, pale ghost of what it was during its first season. I don't believe for a second that anyone at that show has a strong idea of how episodes and the seasons fit into the overall plot. IMO, it suffered in a large way from lack of planning. An obvious thing this show's creators might want to keep in mind is character development and consistency. They take far too many liberties by pushing the characters, well... completely out of character.

More specifically, I was pointing out that, just when you think you're getting closure on a story arc, something else happens to justify stretching it out to another season.

I was about to offer '24' as a counterpoint, because each season does reach closure, and then they move on (yeah, I know it's not exactly high art). Thinking about it, however, I can't really offer '24', because I tend to buy/rent the box sets and then watch them in 4 to 6 hour slices, which (I guess) means I don't have to suffer wandering story arcs for too long.

My main problem is that I'm never in regularly enough of an evening to really get into a show, so unless I can dip in and out without thinking "WTF?" too often (or I suppose I could just watch the whole season in one go...), I tend to lose interest quite quickly.

Heck, I'd be happy just to know the story behind Book.

"He's no Shepherd..."

tanstaafl.

I hate to call you out, but I'd like to hear some of those examples.

I don't fully understand your points. It's not like the creators of Lost planned out and wrote exactly 117 episodes of their show, but I have faith that they created a good enough framework to hang a whole lot of great stories. Sure, they've changed course on a few plots during the show (ie Nikki and Paulo), but that doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing.


Heroes, on the other hand, is not better this season, it's worse. The problems I had with it before (terrible characters, ridiculous dialogue, absolutely no vision, and a complete lack of hope and joy), are still there and have worsened in most cases. It's just bad.

Argh! I hate that! I'm hoping it gets answered in a comic or something...

I'd argue that the characters aren't terrible, merely intentional archetypes and that the "ridiculous dialogue" is also somewhat intentional. It's supposed to be a comic book after all. (I know, not all comics are like that, and I'd be the first to say that and argue against that stereotype, but that's clearly what the creators are going for.) That said, I understand where you're coming from, and if you don't like it, you don't like it.

I'd argue with the notion that there's no vision. I like where the plot seems to be taking us. Yes, there have been some serious missteps, but it's not like it's Garcia Marquez.

But the part I don't get is "a complete lack of hope and joy". WTF does that have to do with relating a plot or having compelling characters or telling a story or anything else literary or cinematic? There is a long tradition in the field of literature that you might have heard of. It's called "tragedy". Look it up sometime.

I'd love to post some right now, but I have to think about it for a bit. I had a few in mind last week after watching the two new episodes, but didn't write them down - I'm not that anal.

I'm not speculating when I say that the Lost creators don't (or at least didn't) have a solid plan for their series. I'm going by what they and cast have said in interviews/press. One very early example was not killing off the Jack character. Another is the Hurley character. Both characters were changed and heavily influenced because of, and by, the actors cast for those parts.

It's good to have some flexibility in the design and plan for a show and for the most part Lost has made it work. Two seasons ago it was getting a bit tired and I absolutely hated the flash-forward finale. They made it work last year.

Anyway, if I can remember the items I had in mind last week or anything else I'll list them for you.

I agree with you about your Heroes points for the most part, but I still think last year's partial-season was total crap. That whole central american road-trip was terrible. They had way too much Mohinder (who used to be a decent character in Season 1). The whole Peter in Ireland thing was ill-conceived and completely superfluous. They killed off the Nicky character only to bring back the actress in the role of a long-list sister. That's my biggest complaint carried from last season to this. It does seem they severed the majority of last season because the continuity with this new one is negligible.

The bottom line is that I find the current season of Heroes much more watchable than last.

Bitt, I do think you give the people behind Heroes too much credit though. There has been some very bad writing on that show and a complete ignorance of character bios and traits by some writers. If any of this was purposeful then I'd have to say it makes it an even bigger blunder.

About the worst season of a formerly decent show I've ever seen however was the previous season of 24 (the 2006-2007 season). Powers Booth should never be on TV again.

I'm surprised we've had all this discussion of shows losing the plot and no discussion of Babylon 5 has ensued. Clearly, JMS had the whole thing mapped out in advance, but that mapping took quite a beating as actors changed, as the network tried to kill it off after four seasons rather than five, and so forth and so on. Still, despite all the insanity that happened in the real world, the story in JMS's world actually hung together pretty well.

You can say similar things about many of the different HBO and Showtime miniseries over the years. (I'm still bummed they killed Carnivale after only two seasons, although they did sort of vaguely kinda pay off the main tension that show had been building to for those two years.)

As to giving away enough details to reach closure, I suppose JMS is another good example of how this can (or might not) be done. He's got the whole damn world in his head. He could certainly tell us how the plague on Earth is sorted out. But he hasn't. (Damn him!) JMS would probably argue that he choses to keep these things to himself so they retain commercial value later on. Of course, if he gets hit by a bus, we all lose.

I'd argue that the last season of B5 was absolute crap. He went out of his way to wrap everything up (quite well, I might add) in the 4th season that he had nothing to do in the 5th, and people started acting well out of character for no reason. (Lennier comes to mind. I'm still pissed off about that one.)

I'd personally argue that the plague on Earth is somewhat irrelevant to the story. I'd also argue that JMS is a great plotter (even if he did lift large portions from The Lord of the Rings), but a lousy scripter. (As evidence, I submit every standalone B5 "movie".) And he'd present that story as a standalone plot, and it would suck. So that may influence my opinion of its relevance.

Wow, that was patronizing. I was trying to keep my responses short for once, so I apologize for not expanding on my point. I also felt I had already discussed my opinion on this in another thread, so I'm sorry if you didn't see that.

Here's a train of thought as an example of what I mean (sorry, I'm tired and I'm not sure how to explain this):

Almost every main character on the show does not enjoy having their powers. How emo are the writers of this show? All these people with amazing abilities and all they do is complain non-stop. Actually, there are only three characters in the whole series that I can think of that truly enjoy having their abilities: one is Claire's short-term boyfriend, and he was written off pretty quickly. Next is Micah, who was encouraged to not use his powers, and has since been practically written off for no reason that I can see (frankly, I'd much rather see his story than have another second of any of Ali Larter's characters). Then the last is Hiro. Oh, Hiro, what have they done to you? Aside from Peter, it's arguable that he had the best power of anyone, and look what they've done with the character. They spent the entire first season giving him tremendous personal growth, and have spent every episode since then turning him into a clown and an utter failure.

And don't give me this "tragedy" crap. The episodes of this show are not Shakespeare. When they sent Hiro back in time and had him reconnect with his mother, it was really well done. Then, in an almost comical way, they had Arthur pop in, steal Hiro's power, and pop out again. I think it took about five seconds. That's not compelling, it's not saying anything, and it's just frustratingly annoying because they had just essentially done the exact same thing a few episodes before, so what were we supposed to get out of that?

Anyway, go ahead and tear this assessment apart too. Try not to be so patronizing though. That was uncalled for.

I'll just sum up by saying it once again: every issue that Heroes is stumbling through with a heavy hand, The 4400 explored with a good deal of insight. That show had its problems, but at least it actually had some things to say, and didn't feel the need to actually say them out loud in a ridiculous narrative (and yes, I can see it's an attempt at something "comic book-eque," but that doesn't mean it works).

So thanks for making up my mind, I'll be happy to dump Heroes from my Tivo. If anyone on this board eventually tells me that the show suddenly greatly improved, I'll think about going back and catching up, but I think the chances of that are unlikely.

Sorry. That came off more patronizing than I meant it to. Still, just because people aren't happy doesn't make it bad. (Other things can and do. I recognize that there are elements of the show that are … less than ideal, but I still think it's entertaining, in a melodramatic, goofy way.)

Heroes is mostly ripping off a fairly good era of Uncanny X-Men, some thematically, some directly (check out Days of Future Past). But the main idea is that people with super powers were representative of people who were societal outcasts, from Jews in 1930s Germany to homosexuals in 1980s America, and like many of those peoples, wanted to hide their true selves from society at large. That is not a story of joy.

I get that theme, and it's one that really impressed me about the X-Men. The difference in Heroes is that society doesn't know about them, so these people are making themselves outcasts before they even know how the world will react to them. And that's my complaint, I suppose: all the characters on Heroes are a bunch of whiners

I wasn't able to watch more than about three episodes in season two and haven't bothered watching it since. I was kind of surprised it was still on the air. I'm not sure what changed, but season one I thought was awesome and season two just missed the mark totally for me.

I guess it was kind of like BS:G for me. I loved the first season and couldn't wait to see where they were going with it. Then, they just kind of lost it for me in either the second or third. It no longer had the same 'feel' I guess and went waaaaay too philosophical for my taste.

BS:G has indeed gotten very, very strange. But, unlike X-Files, there seems to be some measure of coherence to the crazy. In other words, even as they're piling it on, they're also simultaneously peeling back the onion and explaining some of the mysteries from earlier seasons. BS:G has clearly learned some of the lessons from B5, namely having a clear plot arc worked out from start to finish, which allows them to get away with the gradual reveals.

Heroes, on the other hand, is a total disaster. Season 2 was just am embarrassment. Season 3 at least got the pacing right, but kept unceremoniously killing people and/or leaving behind perfectly good characters who could/should be playing more of a role. Heroes had such potential, and they've just totally blown it. I'm just waiting for somebody to mention midichlorians.

It's worth noting that the Heroes showrunners were let go in November. I expect to see some changes in the coming months.

Not only that, but Bryan Fuller will be returning. That is the only thing that might keep me watching Heroes, though I didn't think the first couple episodes he wrote after his return were all that great - certainly not "Company Man"-great. That's definitely the best episode of the series, IMO.

I remember reading that it will be around the 20th episode before we would see any changes due to Bryan coming back.

20th episode? I didn't think any series was going 20 episodes this season 9other than "24"). The networks seem to be settling just above what the specialty cable channels have been producing. 12-16 episodes. Which is unfortunate when you're following a quality show. But it leaves them more room for a wider variety of (crap) programming.

I'm glad that Lost seems to be off to a really good start this season. I've quite enjoyed the first three episodes so far. Could be as good or better than last season.

I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I've seen there haven't been any shortened seasons this year aside from Lost, but that was planned since before the strike***. All the other shows seem to have their usual 20+ episode season. Right now Heroes appears to be scheduled for 19 episodes through March 9th, and usually the networks end their seasons in late June/early May.


I'll agree there, Lost appears to be running full-steam towards the finish line, and they're doing it from 30 episodes out, so that's impressive


*edit*

*** - and if you look at it, the original plan was to have these last three seasons be 16 episodes each, which would have made two regular 24-episode seasons if ABC weren't so desperate to hold onto their one good show.

Speaking of Heroes... I just visited the Heroes web site. In addition to the comics and whatnot, they've also got a bunch of web-only mini-episodes and all kinds of other junk. Methinks they should focus less on the junk and more on the actual show.

Meanwhile, new episodes from the 4th season starting Feb. 2. Also, the new season of Chuck is starting on the same day and will be broadcast in 3D. Lovely. To get the magic 3D glasses (both for the two or whatever 3D Superbowl commercials and the special edition of Chuck), head to your neighborhood supermarket or whatnot.

(3D. I suppose it's cheaper than good writers.)

It was a generalization and somewhat sarcastic, but I've been seeing shorter season lengths over the past couple of years for a number of shows. 23 episodes used to be a typical season. Pushing Daisies wasn't scheduled for 20+ episodes even before it was cancelled. Life on Mars isn't scheduled for that many that I can tell and I believe the same was true for Prison Break.

Over the past 3 years it really feels like the networks have been giving us 10-14 episode miniseries that initially have the promise of being full-blown series. It's generally been a result of cancellations and as you've noted, they don't always wrap successfully. But I'm also not digging the schedule shuffles nor the oddball seasonality of some programs. Running a short season of one show then doing a mid-season replacement with a different one, etc.

I guess it might appear this way to you, but I'll just say that I watch a hell of a lot of TV shows (I just counted 15 major network shows in all), and I don't really get that "feel" from any of the uncancelled ones. Pushing Daisies didn't get a full season order initially because the network wasn't even sure at that time if the show would survive or not. Most shows do not get a full season order initially unless it's doing phenomenally well, but on average they all get as long a season as they like, which is usually up to 22-24 episodes.

Again, you might be seeing different things from the shows you watch (I'm not a Prison Break fan), but I get the opposite impression. I guess I'll go through my list of shows and see if any of them have a shorter run this year. I certainly haven't seen any kind of "trend" like you mention, particularly since it's hard to make such a claim when we just had the strike. Before that, I didn't see any shortening of seasons, and we haven't had a complete TV season since then.

Looking long term, I can see the trend Bruno is talking about. Star Trek The Next Generation for example was 26 episodes per season for it's late 80s to mid 90s run. Dallas (78-91) had seasons ranging from 22 (last season) to 31 episodes. Even Babylon 5, an unknown and risky show got 22 episodes for every season except the final (21).

What really annoys me is this trend to break up seasons into two pieces. Battlestar Galactica for example is not only airing in two halves (seasons 4.0 and 4.5), but is generally sold that way as well in both iTunes and on DVD.

ST:TNG and B5 were both first-run syndication, and are more-or-less irrelevant to the argument. Dallas was one of the most popular TV shows of all time. It's not surprising that they tried to milk it. (In comparison, NBC ordered 30 episodes of The Office last season, but it got shortened due to the writers' strike.)

In general, though, shows used to tend to run 24-26 episodes per full season, and now tend to run 22-24 episodes per season. Of course, you don't recall all the failed shows of the past, which also didn't run full seasons. Just randomly picking 1979, Delta House (15 episodes), Supertrain (9 episodes), Out of the Blue (8 or 9 episodes), Working Stiffs (9 episodes, only 4 shown).

And I agree about the split seasons thing. It's obviously so that the cable channels can run their new episodes in times when network shows are in reruns, but they did it as awkwardly as possible.

I forgot all about that one.

Yep, I explored some of that, and came away feeling I missed some of the back story. The info gained, chasing thru the WWW, just wasn't worth the time spent.

I also hated that the graphic novels were formatted for the printed page and not the screen. The proper flow just isn't there when you have to zoom and scroll around.

I agree, though thinking back, I think I may have gotten more enjoyment out of the comics than the show its self. I found the "web-connected" woman more interesting than the majority of the characters on TV.


Completely off the Heroes topic: did anyone see this week's BSG?

*possible spoilers if you haven't seen up to last week's episode*

BSG:

Speaking of BSG, the webisodes are very important. You should really watch them before the first episode of the season.

The last two episodes of Heroes have (IMO) *firmly* cemented it as likely the worst scripted prime-time show on this season. They've completely negated anything positive they've ever done in any previous episode.

So. Bad.

This is hilarious, because I haven't minded some of the things they've tried to do. I don't think they're doing them well, but I haven't minded some of it. I've kept watching because of Bryan Fuller. I know I said I'd stopped, but I want to give him a chance to turn it around. I gather he hasn't had much to do with the current direction, though.

But there are certainly still huge issues with the show. For example: how exactly did Matt get his new power? Just because he was destined to? It can't be just because he was put in a trance by that guy. So now people can generate powers just because its destiny?

*edit*
I just wanted to expand on what I've liked recently. Bitt mentioned one of the bigger themes of the X-Men, the idea of society feeling threatened by a group of people and that being a metaphor for many of the problems in our society. My argument was that while that's a great theme to explore, Heroes wasn't doing that because society didn't even know about these people. Now they're almost there, even if it's just some people in the government.

And I guess I also like that finally we're going to see some of these people team up. Thank goodness! No more of this "lets go our own ways even though it makes absolutely no sense to do so." The characters are acting more and more like normal people would react.

I totally dislike the X-Men outcasts of society angle. It's been done to death. My biggest complaints are that the writing in general has made the show almost unwatchable. The dialog is suffering in a big way. The effects have gone down hill, the acting is getting worse and the whole thing is just completely preposterous. The characters have become hyper-artificial to the point where they're simply parodies.

They've gone down the soap-opera slope they've been previously been skirting.

Where someone gets a particular power is somewhat irrelevant when the whole story line and characters have been turned into a joke. Characters have been completely undeveloped such that their attitudes, personalities, actions (what makes them that character) have become totally malleable and interchangeable.

The franchise has no direction left and it's painfully obvious. If they're trying to emulate everything that made the X-Men movies bad, they've achieved what they were after. As far as making compelling TV, I'm tempted to start a petition to get the show cancelled. It doesn't have any legs left to stand on and it's painfully obvious no one working on the show cares at all about what promise they had in season 1.

The story unfolds rigidly with awkward actions of convenience forming the only workable path - like a really crappy video game. That probably explains how Parkman got his new power. It was just needed to advance the latest plot. Never mind that he could have used his old power umpteen times to change the direction of every conflict scene he's been in.

Sorry, Bruno. (warning, spoilers, but they're marked)

Oh well. Just another example of network killing good TV and leaving some bad behind.

I think Life on Mars would work much better as a cable show rather than network. That would allow them to include more 70's grime in the form of language and nudity.

I'm glad they're going to wrap it up though. They've already diverged from the UK original in a number of episodes, so it's going to be interesting to compare the two once everything's done.

I notice no one has said anything about Dollhouse. There's probably a good reason for this. In that it is, so far, extraordinarily bad.

The whole premise is derivative, which we knew to start with, but there doesn't seem to be anything else to it yet. Yeah, there's the "maybe she remembers something" part, but it's not like that's not been done to death, too.

Then there are the actual episodes. So far only three, the first of which was bad, but in a first-episode kind of way, the second of which (Middleman!!) was better, but mediocre. And then there's this most recent episode, which was skin-crawlingly awful. I don't remember the last time I fast-forwarded through parts of an episode of TV.

If Dollhouse didn't say "Joss Whedon" on it, I would definitely not be watching any more. Even so, I'm not going to give it much longer.

Penny Arcade linked an interview with one of the actresses who said that it gets awesome at exactly episode six. I haven't watched any of it, and I don't know if that's true or what.

I knew Dollhouse would be bad when I saw who was in it and who created it.

The 1st 5 episodes of Dollhouse are more standalone at the request of Fox. See the Q&A with Eliza: http://www.avclub.com/articles/eliza-dushku,24418/

Wait wait wait wait... seriously?

Yes. He hates Joss because he has no taste in TV shows. Remember, he liked the US Life on Mars better than the original.

Ah. Well, that sorta makes sense. In that the execs at Fox are idiots who saw how well tinkering with the start of Firefly went.

Open note to network execs: if your first five episodes suck, it doesn't make much difference how great the latter ones are, as everyone will have stopped watching by that point.

You're right, Bitt. Dollhouse has been pretty bad. Eliza Dushku just isn't a draw for me. When I first head about the premise, my first thought was "she's going to be in a serious that tests her range as an actress?" That had me worried. I mean, I liked her on Buffy/Angel (particularly on later episodes of Angel), but I'm not sure she can pull something like this off. So far for me the results are just okay.

And I'm very surprised that with Dushku and Acker on the show, the part of the nerdy scientist guy wasn't given to Tom Lenk. It looks almost like they tried to get someone who looked like Andrew, but they didn't want to overload the cast with former Whedon people.

Anyway, I haven't been impressed. I'll keep watching, because I'm pathologically incapable of dropping a show I'm watching if it isn't called Jericho Hopefully eps 6 and beyond will be good.

But regardless of the quality, what the hell is with Fox? I can't believe Joss trusted them again, and then they went and delayed his show till mid-season, then moved it to Friday night. I guess he shouldn't take it personally, since Fox seemed to move all of their shows around this year, but still, I hope he never does anything for those ungrateful bastards again.

My guess is that he has a development deal with them.

I feel that Whedon is overrated, especially by geeks. I consider myself somewhat geeky as well, but for the life of me I just couldn't see what people found positive about Firefly. I thought it might be good after first seeing the commercials and previews, but when it debuted I was really disappointed.

Buffy and Angel I simply found to be crap. To be fair, I pretty much skipped Angel entirely given how much I disliked Buffy.

If I'm going for campy and surreal, I might as well also enjoy the cast and find the show funny and light. For that reason I actually quite like Reaper.

I'm still planning to finish out the two seasons of the original UK Life on Mars, but so far after 3 episodes, the US version just polishes up and improves on everything the original put in place. The reason it's being canned isn't because it's a bad show or compares poorly with the UK version. It's likely because it's too similar to the UK version for a US audience. Remember, I do like both versions.

I know we've discussed this before, but did you watch past the first episode? The first one was crap. Fox decided that it didn't like the original pilot (which was amazing when it ran later in the season) and had Whedon write a new one in something like two days.


There is no other way to say this than: you're quite simply wrong.

I always forget that you have such bad taste in TV. I should really just stop paying attention when you talk about it.

I always pride myself on having not liked Buffy. Strange.

I've been meaning to give the Firefly DVDs a shot actually, but just haven't gotten around to it. Only based on the comments I've seen here of course. How it was improved and about how good people thought Serenity was specifically. Didn't want to check out the movie without trying out the series again with the new (old) pilot.

Don't forget too that I'm in a different country, so I may not find appealing what most of the US seems to adore: Jerry Springer, Nanny 911, Deal or No Deal, Chuck, Entertainment Tonight/Access or any of its clones, Dancing with the Stars, Ghost Whisperer, etc.

There's probably a cultural divide that keeps me from appreciating this high art.

This is what I wrote back in December about LOM:


So I sort of expected it.

What I didn't expect was for Fox to have such a spotty schedule for airing Fringe (thanks to American Idol). Nor for ABC to work such an odd schedule for Scrubs either.

Just because you don't like shit of one order doesn't mean that everything else you don't like is also shit. If you don't like it, fine. I don't care, but don't call it "crap".

Actually, you know what? I don't really care about that, either.

I'm not putting anyone else down for liking shows I don't, so there's no need to get offended.

With a lot of programs, there are similar reasons or aspects of the program which, to me, form my dislike. It's possible of course that someone else will agree on some and not on others.

I'll be the first to say that Reaper, a show I quite like, can for some of those very reasons, also be crap. And in fact, to many people it is (such as my wife). But it's crap that I enjoy. But that I only watch after she's gone to bed or not around.

Good choice: The movie would spoiler the series. And I commend you for wanting to give it another shot.

For what it's worth: Although I loved Firefly, I couldn't get into Buffy too much. I recognized that it was well written and complex, and I appreciated a lot of the subtlety in the dialogue and characters, but for some reason it just fell flat for me. And I did give the DVDs a shot, but only a brief one. (That's one nice thing about the Firefly DVDs: Only 13 episodes total, then a nice feature film to wrap up the story.)



Ouch!

I watched the first episode of Dollhouse because it said Joss Whedon. I've not bothered to watch another one.

Hard to believe that the man behind Firefly and Buffy created Dollhouse. A disappointment, really.

tanstaafl.

I figured everyone in this thread had already seen the relevant Penny Arcade Comic about Dollhouse and was therefore not mentioning it, but I'm pretty sure Doug isn't a regular reader, so I thought I'd link it for his sake.

Dollhouse: I'm still watching it, just hoping for it to actually go somewhere. I'll wait to see what happens around episode 6. If it's still lame, I'm dropping it.

Heroes: I'm also still watching it, but I'm still coasting on the brilliance of the first season. If this season doesn't get its crap together soon, I'm dropping it as well.

Chuck: currently my favorite show. It's got a lot of the campiness that attracted me, years ago, to Buffy.

I actually enjoy Dollhouse. The subplots have me intrigued (Alpha, security wonk, memories coming back). I don't watch a lot of TV, but now I've expanded to Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles, Dollhouse as well as hockey. I'm not sure why others don't like it.

I never watched Firefly when it was on the air. In fact, I never heard of it until long after it was canceled. One of my friends was talking about how much she missed the show, so I told her I never heard of it. She told me to watch Serenity (which I also never heard of), but I blew it off until my roommate rented it. Serenity was amazing, so I bought the Firefly series. I don't think it hurt the experience by watching the movie first.

Other than Firefly/Serenity, the only thing I've seen by Joss was Dr. Horrible. I couldn't tell you anything about Buffy or Angel if my life depended on it. Maybe that is why I enjoy the story of Dollhouse, lack of expectation?

The episodes since I complained have been much better. I was actually getting around to coming back here and posting about it.

I'd have to agree. And as predicted/foretold, it looks like things are really going to ramp up starting with episode 6 (next week).

I still think that the main scientist dude should have been played by Andrew

I have no clue who Andrew is, but just yesterday my roommate was telling me that guy could be me.

So, here in Canada it's common practice for a Canadian station to air select programming of multiple US stations. If that weren't the case we'd have much less programming because we don't have access to all the US networks.

You can likely see similar situations in the US where you have a local non-affiliate who might carry programing from other sources, such as smaller networks or syndicated programming.

Because said stations are non-affiliates, that means they don't air the entire programming block of any one network. They need to pick and choose which programming to license and then fit it into their own schedule as best as possible. Normally the stations here try to air in the same time slot as the US network/station. The added benefit for them is that they get to override the signal on the US station and therefore show their own ads.

Programming selection and schedules can interfere with this however and sometimes you'll get a particular program on before or after it airs on the originating network/station. Usually shifted up or down an hour or two, but sometimes on a different day.

Reaper, a CW show, is only available in my market through a local - we have no CW station as part of our cable package. That same local also airs ABC's Dancing with the Stars. This week ABC decided to run back-to-back episodes, the first being a recap. What does my local station do? They decided simply to not air Reaper and instead show both Dancing episodes. They just skipped it. Next week they'll show the new episode, but it's as if this weeks episode just didn't exist. Poof.

Yeah, the Internet is has already proved valuable over the years and it's also the reason I'll be able to avoid having so many tuners in my new PVR setup later this year. I think I'll be able to have a single Satellite feed coupled with two ATSC tuners, leaving the rest to the net.

Man, I'd be pissed too.

I was over at my in-laws' house and Dancing was on in the background. I was amazed that a show like that can get away with airing an hour-long episode that contained absolutely no new content (I believe American Idol does this all the time). I'm sure it got millions of viewers anyway, which is what really upsets me. More people probably watched that show than the best rated Pushing Daisies. Ugh.

But to preempt Reaper for THAT? That's a shame. It's not like Reaper is the greatest thing going (IMO), but I'll always champion scripted, creative TV over those reality shows. I don't even mind DwtS all that much as far as those reality game shows go.

Reaper downloaded super fast this morning thanks to over 1000 seeds. I'm sure the quality will be even better than my analog cable recording to my PVR would have been. It would have been more convenient to watch it last night, plus it would have sorted in with my other recordings.

I hope this isn't a trend that's likely to continue for the shows I care about on these Canadian stations. Especially not after I switch over to recording HD. It's not as easy to find a full non-scaled HD capture online. Plus it's a lot more bandwidth sucked when you do.

Sorry, what do you mean by "non-scaled?"

I mentioned that the Reaper episode I had to pick up from the net would likely be higher quality than what I would have recorded. That's because generally someone will record such episodes from an HD source. But they'll still size the movie to smaller dimensions to make for faster file upload/download.

Generally the video frame will be scaled down to SD or sub-SD size. So the file might be 640x300 or similar instead of the 1280x720 the original may have been.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I usually see those "SD" widescreen versions (usually around 350MB AVI's), but most of the time there's also compressed HD MKV files aroudn 1GB in size. I can drop you a PM with a good site I'll send that later this evening...

Last week's Dollhouse, I must say, was quite good! I knew Tamoh kicked ass on BSG, but he was friggin' bad-ass on Dollhouse in that fight. It was a pretty impressive brawler for primetime TV.

But aside from the fighting, there's a lot to like about Dollhouse. There are decent surprises, they're revealing things with decent frequency.



Anyway, I think I'm prepared to call this a good show from now on.

Dude, there's a spoiler tag so that I don't read about shows I haven't gotten around to watching yet.

Crap. Sorry about that, I keep forgetting that's available. To be fair, I did warn of the spoiler before writing it, but I understand the need for the tag.

I read whole sentences at a time. Placing the word "spoiler" at the front of a single sentence just doesn't help.

Do you start reading them from the end?

Bah, sentences are like TV show seasons, they often don't really get going until several words in.

Peter

New show: The Unusuals on ABC. Cop show with a genre mix and a decent cast. Quite an assortment of quirky characters makes this show stand out IMO.

I suspect it won't be renewed for a second season which will be a real shame. ABC really only has Lost going for it right now. I suppose they're banking on Bachelor and Dancing with the Stars to carry them indefinitely.

Prediction confirmed.

Unusuals cancelled recently. ABC is all about dropping the axe on decent shows. Why bother putting them on in the first place if all you're going to do is advertise the pilot and not any of the additional episodes?

Reaper (on CW) has also been axed.

Looks like Medium (NBC) is going away, though no official "canceled" notice yet.

My Name is Earl (also NBC) also done - unless it gets picked up by a new network.

I think NBC is in for a world of hurt next season when they see their ratings slide to lows never before seen. That new Leno show will tank unless the other networks all decide to show blank or static screens at 10pm every night.