A TV Calling

NBC programming keeps going down South

2009-10-09T22:45:00.000+02:00

So, I woke up this morning with another news that symbolized the continued downfall of the Peacock network.

"Southland" has been cancelled after a quick run in the spring, and while it was scheduled to return in the Friday slot of death in just 2 weeks.

Today, TV commenters are dumbfounded by the decision, which was prompted, according to sources, by a content deemed "too gritty" for 9 p.m. viewers. Some people call it "the first casualty of Jay Leno"; others "the end of NBC's commitment to excellence in drama". They're absolutely right. But I also think it shows tragic misdirection in NBC's management of their development slate.

"Southland" premiered in the Thursday slot left vacant by "ER", which was run by John Wells, who also produces this show. The ratings were surprisingly solid, which was seen as a "tour de force" in an otherwise bleak season. But, as we all know, Jay Leno would take all the 10 p.m. slots in the fall. NBC sure wanted to stay in business with Wells, so they decided to renew the show, but put it on Fridays at 9.

Usually, if a show had a gritty content, execs would ask to lighten up the tone of the stories somewhat. Not the case here: they waited until six episodes were completed, and decided it was inappropriate to show on Fridays. This comes after news that Amaury Nolasco was leaving the show, the premiere was pushed back a month...

And there was still a slot on Sundays at 10 pm on midseason.

Oh, wait. That's "The Apprentice" time.

As we all know, apart from "Law and Order SVU" and its comedy block (with modest ratings compared to the Must-See TV days), nobody even bothers watching the fiction programming anymore. "The Biggest Loser" apparently does fine, and, coming October, "Dateline NBC" will do fine....especially for NBC, who produces the program in-house rather than buying an expensive and "dark" John Wells production for a hefty price tag.

Nikki Finke also reported that "Trauma" could be next to face the axe, with less than 6 million viewers. Barely surprising. And I also bet that the new JJ Abrams project, as well as a few other shows, will be fast-tracked for midseason, once all the drama slates are left vacant.

In conclusion, an interesting analysis from a NPR specialist.

Five under-the-radar movies you should watch

2009-10-06T23:58:00.010+02:00

Many movies are made each year, a few are box-office successes, and even less garner critical acclaim. Some great movies unfortunately pass through all the cracks and are almost never heard of, let alone recognized.
This post is here to repair this terrible mistake with the five "under-the-radar" films you should check out right now.
The films are here listed alphabetically, so pay no attention to the order they're in.

Blindness

Crew and Cast: Julianne Moore stars in a movie helmed by Cidade de Deus/The Constant Gardener’s director, Fernando Meirelles. Don McKellar adapted the José Saramago novel of the same name. Also in the cast are Danny Glover, Mark Ruffalo, Alice Braga and Gael Garcia Bernal.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A city is ravaged by an epidemic of instant "white blindness". Those first afflicted are quarantined by the authorities in an abandoned mental hospital where the newly created "society of the blind" quickly breaks down.

Why you should watch it: Besides the gut-wrenching performances, the movie offers a brutal (albeit allegorical) view at our society.
Says LAT's Cristiana Ferraz Coimbra:

In both book and film, blindness is not only a physical condition but a metaphor for the darker side of human nature: prejudice, selfishness, violence and willful indifference.

Its portrayal of the blind community has on the other hand been deemed controversial. Make your own mind by seeing the film.

Brick

Crew and Cast: Rian Johnson wrote and directed this indie film starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the title role. He is accompanied by Nora Zehetner, Emilie de Ravin and Matt O’Leary.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A teenage loner pushes his way into the underworld of a high school crime ring to investigate the disappearance of his ex-girlfriend.

Why you should watch it: If you like film noir or hardboiled detective fiction (such as The Maltese Falcon), this one’s for you. Brick is the kind of film you need to rewatch to start understanding what's going on, and the dialogue is so fine-tuned it makes you wonder if those high-school characters aren't going to suddenly transform into Humphrey Bogart or Gloria Grahame.
You can see this is a passion project of Johnson's. He even offers on his website the shooting script annotated with footnotes!
There's also the great Joseph Gordon-Levitt in it. As to why this should be reason enough to see the movie, that's for another post.

Children of Men

Crew and Cast: Adapted for the screen by Alfonso Cuarón (director of Y tu mamá también) based on P.D. James’ novel of the same name. Clive Owen has the title role. Julianne Moore, Michael Caine and Chiwetel Ejiofor are also present.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: In 2027, in a chaotic world in which humans can no longer procreate, a former activist agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea, where her child's birth may help scientists save the future of humankind.

Why you should watch it: Where to start? First, the directing is incredible.
Talk about awe-inspiring single-shot sequences! One of them even lasts for seven minutes and a half.
As for the story, it is, in my opinion, one of the best adaptation of a novel ever done. Its depiction of this bleak future is simply astounding
To be honest, it would probably take weeks to list all the reasons why Children of Men is a science-fiction classic. Wikipedia has actually a very detailed page on the many, many themes and complex production of the dystopian film, though you should first see the movie.

Lars and the Real Girl

Crew and Cast: Written by Six Feet Under’s Nancy Oliver and directed by United States of Tara’s Craig Gillespie, the drama stars Ryan Gosling. There’s also in the mix Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Paul Schenider, and a sex-doll.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A delusional young guy strikes up an unconventional relationship with a doll he finds on the Internet.

Why you should watch it: Well, Ryan Gosling is great (as is the rest of the cast), and the story is atypical to say the least (a sex-doll as a central character?).
Nancy Oliver’s screenplay was actually nominated at the Oscars, WGA Awards and won a Humanitas Prize. Kudos to her.

Oldboy

Crew and Cast: Adapted for the screen by Chan-wook Park (director of Mr. Vengance, Lady Vengeance, and the recent Bakjwi a.k.a. Thirst) based on a Nobuaki Minegishi manga. South Korean actor Choi Min-sik plays the title role.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: After being kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days.

Why you should watch it: Probably the most well-known movie on this list given its international status (it won, amongst other prizes, Cannes' Grand Prix).
This thriller is at its core a dark and twisted tale of revenge, part of the filmmaker's Vengance Trilogy. There's also a live octopus being eaten whole and one of the most memorable continuous take ever made.
Unfortunately, an American remake is currently in preparation. Given its somewhat scandalous side, this doesn't bode well for the American "reimagination."

It's now time for you to rent some movies out.
Enjoy.

Redesign

2009-10-02T23:48:00.000+02:00

Design should never say, “Look at me.” It should always say, “Look at this.”
— David Craib

As previously hinted, I’ve been working for the past weeks on "something special" for the blog.
It is now time to (partially) reveal what this mysterious project is.
Although far from being over, I’m currently in the process of redesigning the site for a future move on a proper webhost and platform. The permalinks shouldn’t change much; everything will just be cleaner, more accessible, and better looking. Especially the Archives and Labels that are pretty much a mess right now.
If you’re interested in my advancements, I’ll be tweeting the updates.
When the time comes, I’ll transfer all the posts and content for a total relabeling. This process will most likely last a week in itself with about 400 posts to revitalize, so a limited blog shutdown should be expected.
Don’t worry though, this might still be weeks away, so don’t expect any sudden changes out of the blue.

I am an asshole.

2009-09-28T23:56:00.003+02:00

Just as Yom Kippur ends, I find out someone has posted the following comment regarding my “Fringe is unoriginal” post:

If you honestly think that your stupid post will steer people away from watching Fringe, YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN! Grow up, asshole!

Okay, my cover has been blown: I’m an immature asshole.

Indeed, I’m really bitter about being rejected from the Fringe writing staff so I decided to write a two-parter out of pure spite.
That’s basically the same reason why Jon Stewart decided to bash CNBC. The network had rejected him the year prior from being their new spokesperson.

I acknowledge that Sliders and the Kromaggs are pure inventions of mine that I retroactively created after seeing the Fringe Season Two premiere.
I went back in time impersonating both Tracy Tormé and David Peckinpah, and later went on to get that “parallel universe show” made, with all the while in the back of my mind this vague idea that, a decade later, I would post on some semi-obscure blog how this awkwardly-named series Fringe looks so much like a poor man’s Sliders.

So, yeah, I agree with you that I’m an asshole for showing the many ways something pretending to "revolutionize a genre" or be “original” actually is not.

Secondly, I also admit that I was angling for people to stop watching Fringe altogether after reading my post.
Not to be an egomaniac on top of being an asshole, but it's pretty obvious everyone follows my advices.

If we take a look at what happened in the past year:
- The Middleman ended its second season with ground-breaking ratings;
- Stephen Colbert was named president both in the Marvel universe and our actual universe;
- The Jay Leno Show got taken off the air a week before it premiered;
- The MacGruber movie was never made;
- And, just recently, Flight of the Conchords and Breaking Bad won Emmys for being the best shows in their categories.

Though, for the record, I wasn’t asking anyone to stop watching Fringe. I was merely pointing out the awkward similitude the show has with another science-fiction series dating back to the mid-90s.

Mea culpa.

FlashForward premiere: See how I (don't) care

2009-09-26T23:59:00.018+02:00

FlashForward premiere last Thursday at long last.
I've been talking about it since last year and read at the time the pilot script. I liked (loved?) it, so, needless to say, I was anxiously waiting for the final result. I wanted to like this series premiere, I really, really wanted to.

And, in the end, I was very disappointed.
Perhaps I expected more from it, but the pilot script delivered, so how come the end result didn’t?
Let’s take a look at the various negative points from the broadcast version.

First, the opening. Okay, I get it, you want to hook the viewer in. But come on, where’s the originality? The opening scene was like a rehash of Lost’s. Even down to the character’s facial expressions!

But one of my biggest quarrel has got to do with the directing. I’m sorry David S. Goyer, but you don’t know how to shoot. What’s up with you zooming in on everything? Did you just discover the “zoom” function on your camcorder?
The same can be said about all the color filters (blue and orange). For a second there I thought I was on a Canadian show.
In reality, the shot of the (real opening) suburban setting, coupled with the lame transition before it (or was that the credits?) were my first clues that I was watching a Lifetime movie of the week.

Another being the scope of the disaster getting neglected altogether. It’s as if no one cares than a billion people died almost instantly! At least with Lost you could feel the mayhem following the plane crash. Here it’s just people going from one point to the next. There’s barely any interaction. Important conversations are discussed casually, and what should be intense emotions or scenes are almost done matter-of-factly.
The chilling “I dreamt there were no more good days” uttered by Charlie Benford was supposed to be a major moment hinting at the chaos ahead. Instead, you have an almost laughable (dare I say clichéd) scene.
There’s just no soul to it, and Goyer doesn’t care. He keeps on moving to the next scene. Hell, even the flash-forward, arguably the most pivotal scene, is supposed to last 2 minutes and 17 seconds, yet on the show it’s barely 50 seconds!
You don’t have time to know the characters either, they’re like zombies. The relationships all fall flat on their faces. The “I hate you” notes left by Olivia to her husband seemed more mean than anything else. You basically don’t feel for the characters. The scene where Bryce Varley is on the verge of killing himself is barely glanced at. I was expecting a better set-up than him randomly walking up to the beach, pulling a gun, and ten seconds later having his flash-forward. That wasn’t what the script called for!
In the script, actual character beats opened and closed the series premiere. The show began and closed with Mark Benford in his daily life. Instead, here we got a wannabe Lost opening and an OMG moment at the end.

Continuing on the Lost comparison, Ramin Djawadi’s music score was pretty generic. I was awaiting a Michael Giacchino-type level of orchestra; all I got were some bland notes.
The VFX were also pretty awful, not even worthy of Battlestar Galactica.

There’s even this out-of-place kangaroo echoing Lost’s polar bear.
You do realize that you don’t need an exotic animal in a random spot to do a good mystery show, right?

Overall, what worked on the page didn’t work on screen.
I don’t blame the writing though, I blame the plain directing and editing.
A two-hour premiere (and a better-suited director!) would probably have given enough time to develop both the story and the characters. Sadly, this wasn't the case.
Better luck next time.

The MGM ever-delayed debacle: In the jungle, no one can hear you roar

2009-09-25T23:03:00.000+02:00

So, I was busy writing a blog on another subject which may or may not see the light of day later, and I come across this story, written by Deadline’s Nikki Finke, about how MGM is on the verge of bankruptcy, and has a $4 billion debt to erase. Actually the past 20 years were a bumpy ride for the firm of Leo the Lion (and his family, The Lionhearts. Yes, I did my homework again, but my curiosity knows no bounds.)

So, I’ll do the Cliff’s Notes version, but the firm with the Lion has been passing from owner to owner. First, there was the very Français Pathé Frères, and the French bank Crédit Lyonnais. During their tenure, successful movies like Thelma and Louise were made. There was also businessman Kirk Kerkorian, who owned MGM no less than three times in the span of 20 years, and finally, from 2004 onwards, Sony and several equity partners, trust funds and banks. But during those 7 years, no really successful movies were produced to speak of.

It’s no wonder that MGM has only one remaining viable franchise, and that is the 007 one. The reason why the studio can’t exploit its catalogue is simple: all the pre-1986 classic movies and cartoons like “Tom and Jerry” and the Tex Avery shorts were sold to Ted Turner and Time Warner more than 20 years ago. Sure, MGM bought off other failing studios such as Orion Pictures. But even moderate successes produced by Orion, like the first “Addams Family”, are not their property.

In short: upcoming Blu-Ray restored and remastered editions of “The Wizard of Oz” and “Gone With the Wind”, sure to garner profit from movie lovers….won’t be saving MGM, even though it was originally produced by the studio.

So, there it is, folks: a studio with a whopping 4,000 movies in its vaults, produced in-house or by other studios, and unable to exploit them correctly.

In 2006, worldwide distribution for DVD and Blu-Ray reverted to Fox Entertainment. Did you hear about any “special editions” of forgotten movies such as “Heaven’s Gate”, the swan song of Michael Cimino? Neither did I. Oh sure, there was the “Rocky” collection, but nothing really groundbreaking.

Instead...
This is what we get, for example.

Each MGM DVD of “catalogue” has the same tasteless cover art. I know of…hum, heard of adult DVDs that have better design than this.

Sure, the Stargate franchise does well on DVD. And apparently, two movies are on the way (one for SG-1, another for Atlantis), and the premiere of “Stargate Universe” will surely reboot the franchise...once again.
But then, other long-running franchises such as “The Outer Limits” second incarnation have barely been released on DVD, in their unedited, non-syndication form. Nevertheless, they are one of the better-remembered sci-fi series of the 1990s? So...what’s the hold up? Poor sales can be fixed with the right marketing. Why not start producing more TV shows again?

In the past few years, MGM has taken bizarre decisions. It’s not a studio that big, never has been since the 1980s. Under the supervision of Harry Sloan, its biggest recent move was the hiring of Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner to oversee a “reborn” United Artists. To prove his willingness, Cruise starred in the first two movies: one was “Lions for Lambs”, written by Matthew Carnahan and directed by Robert Redford. It was sure Oscar-bait, right? Wrong.
The movie tanked, and the “New York Times” estimated that UA lost $50 million over the promotion of the movie. Bryan Singer’s “Valkyrie” fared better, but still underperformed. Now all development at UA seems to have stopped. Bringing over Mary Parent from Universal led to an “ambitious” slate of films, including Drew Goddard’s “Cabin in The Woods” slated for release in 2010. So yeah, the upcoming remake of “Fame” will do well, if not domestically, at least internationally. But bringing in trucks of cash for the studio? Nope!

MGM partnered with, among others, The Weinstein Co. to finance a lot of their recent movies, but it doesn’t even ear n a dime in DVD sales (Harvey and Bob do, through Genius Corp.). So, last month, they brought in turnaround specialist Steven Cooper to oversee a potential restructuring, that, from the look of things, may come sooner rather than later. Steven Cooper worked miracles for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts; will he tidy up the MGM kitchen as well? Compared to Lions Gate, which is a mini-major with Oscar-winning projects (Crash being the most famous), the Lion firm pales. Lions Gate has profitable filmmakers (African-American mogul Tyler Perry), and great cash cows in the Saw franchise, as well as a flourishing TV division, producing Weeds and Mad Men. Why can’t MGM do the same? When DreamWorks severed its ties with Paramount and John Lesher, the president of the studio, got shown the door, his replacement was ordered to put more projects in the pipeline and revive franchises. It shouldn’t be that hard for MGM to follow the same template.

But in order to achieve these things, it seems that time has run out. The goodwill of the shareholders, too.

The unoriginality of Fringe (Part Two)

2009-09-24T23:23:00.003+02:00

Following yesterday's post (where we saw why The X-Files still surpasses Fringe), we'll now be discussing how the Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman show is actually getting its ideas from another source.
It seems that with this “parallel universe” story, the writers are beginning to get “inspired by” another science-fiction show, Sliders.

Yet again, I'll be talking about Fringe up to, and including, its Second Season premiere. In addition, I'll be making numerous references to major Sliders plotlines, so tread carefully (even though the show has been off the air for almost a decade).

Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Fringe is no more "science” than it is “fiction,” especially now that we’ve been officially introduced to parallel worlds.
In reality, it’s just a convenient way to answer everything that’s unanswerable. Unsurprisingly, a self-cutting neck is not scientifically realistic, despite what the writers want us to think. Stop wondering why someone has a bionic arm, the answer is obvious: it comes from another universe!
And if you’re still thinking that the writers know their science, just take a look at who wrote (and directed) the season premiere: Akiva Goldsman, the writer behind the 1998 movie adaptation of Lost in Space with Matt LeBland (no typo). If I recall correctly, that movie was actually a documentary about space exploration. I mean, its use of “time bubbles” was simply astonishing.

In the meantime, here's a brief history of Sliders.
From 1995 to 1999, the series ran for five seasons, including three on FOX. Created by Tracy Tormé & Robert K. Weiss, the series dealt with a group of people that get sent to parallel dimensions. Tormé and Weiss “left” the show after several problems with the network. Ultimately, SciFi Channel took over after the series’ third season, but by then David Peckinpah, who’d been made showrunner the year prior, had already ran the show into the ground by completely abandoning the concept of alternate histories and going into a more action/adventure direction. Sliders at its core was a show about the exploration of parallel worlds (which isn’t what Fringe is about--yet), but the series shifted focus during Season Three with the introduction of the Kromaggs (more on that in a second).

Sure, as soon as the multiverse is used on a show, Sliders is always brought up, but this time though it's with good reason as the similarities between the two are beyond eerie.
Ironically, the writers seems to take from Sliders its worst storylines.

The main one being of course the Kromaggs, a parallel version of humanoid primates, and “a technologically advanced and highly militaristic race bent on conquering all human-dominated alternate Earths.”
They also have psychic abilities, such as the power “to project illusions and plant post-hypnotic suggestions into human minds. One episode had one Kromagg attempt to force data out of someone's minds by touch, similar to Star Trek's Vulcan "mind meld”.” Moreover, they also have “healing powers, whereby they can heal people with their minds.”

Okay, so now that you know what Kromaggs are, let’s take a look at the two main opposing forces in the Fringe ‘verse, symbolized by the mysterious group called Zerstörung durch Fortschritte der Technologie ("Destruction through Technological Progress" or simply ZFT).
io9 briefed us on the group’s motives:

Bioterrorist group ZFT is responsible for many of the experiments the Fringe team investigates. ZFT's extensive network of scientists perform bizarre and often deadly experiments on other human beings — like infecting a woman with a form of vampiric syphilis or growing fast-aging humans. In addition to their biohacks, ZFT possesses some technologies developed by Walter Bishop, including a teleportation device.
But there's also a method behind ZFT's biological madness. ZFT members operate according to a manifesto that states two key things: there is another dimension more scientifically advanced than our own, and in the coming interdimensional war, only one dimension can survive. ZFT is out to create an army of biologically enhanced supersoldiers who will fight for our dimension in that war. But there's also a chapter missing from ZFT's manifesto — one that outlines ethics.

In the second season premiere of Fringe, we got introduced to this enemy from the “other side,” notably a shape-shifting soldier that is both very agile and very resistant.

So, to summarize, we have, on both shows, technologically advanced supersoldiers with powers, from a parallel universe, trying to destroy humans and other worlds.
It’s pretty much the exact same story.
Oh, and the shape-shifters also look like Kromaggs.

The similarities do not stop there.
Peter Bishop’s parallel world origins seem oddly comparable to that of another main character from Sliders, Quinn Mallory. Even though for the majority of the series we believe Mallory is from Earth Prime, it turns out that he’s not.

[Quinn Mallory is] from Kromagg Prime, an Alternate earth where humans and Kromaggs coexisted until a civil war broke out between the two species. He learned that he was transported to Earth Prime when he was a baby and left with his parents' doubles. When his parents came back to get him, his adoptive parents were too attached to him so they hid Quinn, and Quinn was raised on Earth Prime.

Replace “Quinn Mallory” by Peter Bishop, “parents” with Walter Bishop, and “Kromaggs” by parallel world enemies, you’ve got the whole series’ arc for Peter and his enigmatic past.

Arguably, one might even say another major plotline was ripped from Sliders, its fifth season's borefest around Mallory (also known as Quinn2 or Quinn Mallory 2.0).
In the show, two of the main characters (Quinn and Colin Mallory) were “fused” into one. During the whole season, they’re trying to find a way to unmerge the two.
Sounds familiar?
That’s because the same storyline ran for half a season on Fringe. The consciousness of John Scott gets inadvertently transferred into her former partner’s mind, Olivia Dunham. There was even an episode where Olivia’s persona was about to be lost forever. Fortunately, John finally leaves Olivia alone midway through the series’ first season.

Last but not least, we have the mysterious character of William Bell, who seems to overshadow not only ZFT but several parallel universes thanks to his Massive Dynamic conglomerate.
In the second season premiere of Sliders, we meet a mysterious character named the Sorcerer (turns out, he’s an alternate version of Quinn Mallory). Anyways, this “Sorcerer” seems to be able to control the multiverse technology in the same way William Bell does.
For one, he knows much more about the tech than anyone else who’s ever been encountered on the show. He’s also able to capitalize on his interdimensional knowledge, the same way Massive Dynamic exports the numerous advancements it gets from other worlds.
Ding, ding, ding! You're a winner.

If we look deep enough, other resemblances will probably be found with other science-fiction series.
Who knows, perhaps the writers will totally shift focus and lose their "evil alternates" stories. Probably not though.
But at least now, you've been warned about Fringe's unoriginality.

The unoriginality of Fringe (Part One)

2009-09-23T23:37:00.007+02:00

Similarities between FOX's Fringe and other science-fiction shows have been going on for some time, mainly The X-Files.
Ever since Fringe premiered, the first show that pops into everyone's mind is the one about aliens and conspiracies.

A little warning before we start: I'll be talking about the Second Season premiere of Fringe, so, if you haven't seen the episode yet, check out in the meantime this cute ad.

Coast clear?
Okay, now that we’re among adults, let’s get real.

I'm not going to talk about the differences and similarities of Fringe vs. The X-Files, given that this has already been done before (kinda).
That said, I recently came across a so-called "article" that lists "10 Reasons Why 'Fringe' Is Better Than 'The X-Files'."
I should warn you now that if you read this, chances are you’ll have a heart attack in the following ten seconds.

I was so taken aback by this piece of--uhm--journalism (?) that I've decided to counter it right here and now.
Let's get it on.

1. No aliens. OK, there’s an alternative universe, but at least everybody’s human.

So, besides the fact that we don’t know if they are indeed human (just look at their super-powers), you’re saying that Fringe is better than The X-Files because it doesn’t have aliens?
I take it you mean that aliens are bad.
If that's so, then I’m sorry that Star Trek, Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica, are such horrible, horrible fiction works.

2. The mysteries seem more solvable. Of course, there are unanswered questions at the end of every episode. But they’re not too stupid to beggar belief.

Are we watching the same show? And by “the same show” I mean the FOX TV series produced by Bad Robot, the sole company that actually takes pride in the fact that you’ll never get concrete answers out of their mysteries (see Alias, Lost, Cloverfield, or even Felicity’s mystery box).

3. The characters don’t take themselves too seriously. There’s Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv), who heads up the investigations. Peter Bishop (Dawson Creek’s Joshua Jackson), the wise-cracking slack genius who helps her by taking care of his father, Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble), who is completely insane. I mean really, Mulder did all that pouting and screaming and what did it get him? Nothing.

First, Mulder doesn't pout. Second, he not only was right about the Aliens, but he ended up in a relationship with Scully (and a baby). I wouldn't call that "nothing."
And I'm pretty sure Olivia Dunham does take things seriously, especially when we're talking about innocent people dying everywhere.

4. The pseudoscience is at least theoretically possible and doesn’t require great leaps of the imagination. There’s a running storyline in which computer geniuses are trying to download information from a dead man’s brain.

Should I point out that you're using as an example someone downloading a dead guy’s thoughts?
You’re countering your own argument here lady. This isn't even remotely "theoretically plausible." Nothing on Fringe is.
For some believable Science vs. Fiction comments, Popular Mechanics has numerous articles on the subject.

5. Every episode has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

They've finally found out how to tell a story, nice!
It's certainly not like that other show with cliffhangers, random act breaks, and the bad guy never being caught.

6. There are no love affairs—yet.

The “love quadrangle” (John/Olivia/Peter/Rachel) begs to differ.
Oh, and check out that Nina Sharp/Phillip Broyles kiss, it was in the freakin’ season two premiere!

7. Leonard Nimoy is in it. He is the shadowy head of Massive Dynamic, a huge multinational corporation that is a combination of GE, Microsoft, and Blackwater.

Lenoard Nimoy was also in Zombies of the Stratosphere. So what?
Anyway, he wasn't even in the premiere (by the way, nice dodge from the writers of last season's cliffhanger). He'll probably be seen only a few minutes for the whole season, max.

8. There’s a lot more racial diversity in Fringe. Yeah, X-Files had a few black people, but it really was this weird world where people of other hues were mostly used as plot devices.

Can someone tell me why the hell this is an argument for "why Fringe is better than The X-Files"?
I wasn’t aware skin color equated to talent. Robert de Niro has won more Oscars than Marlon Wayans, but Dennis Haysbert is obviously tons of time a better actor than, say, Larry the Cable Guy.
The issue of diversity, though laudable, is irrelevant to the actual quality of a show (or its writing).
Meanwhile, Astrid Farnswrth continues to be the definition of pointless character/plot device.

9. Because Fringe actually knows where its storylines are going, it doesn’t rely on filler episodes to distract you from the fact that you’re being sold a bag of nothing.

That was an ironic statement, right?
(See point number 2)

10. Fringe is worth watching just for Noble. His characterization of Bishop, the mad scientist at the heart of the show, is at turns brilliant, exasperating, hysterical and tragic. It’s the best of The X-Files in one man.

Though I don’t disagree with Bishop being the best character on the show, like the old proverb says, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
And Fringe has plenty of them.

All done...
Almost.

Regarding its faux-procedural aspect, Fringe does, in a way, take a hint from The X-Files.
However, for its more mythological storylines, the writers seem to be more inspired by another science-fiction series, Sliders.
As to how, tune in tomorrow.
(Oh yeah, I went the cliffhanger route)

Paul (Script) - Review

2009-09-20T23:29:00.005+02:00

I read the script last night for the über-secret science-fiction comedy Paul. The film is being directed by Superbad/Adventureland’s Greg Mottola and was written by Simon Pegg & Nick Frost.
Albeit long (120 pages), the story was so immersive I read it all in one go.

Check out this incredible cast:

1st row: Nick Frost, Simon Pegg, Kristen Wiig
2nd row: Bill Hader, Jane lynch, Jason Bateman
3rd row: John Carroll Lynch, David Koechner, Jesse Plemons, Joe Lo Truglio
Not pictured: Blythe Danner, Jeffrey Tambor, Sigourney Weaver
Here’s the movie in a nutshell:
Alien (Paul) escapes from Secret Service.
Geeks (Clive and Graham) meet Alien.
Geeks and Alien go on the run from Secret Service Agents (Zoil, Haggard and O’Reilly).
Geeks and Alien kidnap on their way a religious freak (Ruth).
Geeks and Alien go on the run from said religious freak’s father (Moses).

The movie is not part of Pegg and Frost's "Blood and Ice Cream trilogy (comprised up til now of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz).
Actually, Paul reverses the standard dynamic between the two by putting Frost as the lead and Pegg as the sidekick.

As usual though, they play the two main characters, respectively Clive Gollings and Graham Willy, two (sorta) stereotypical nerds. Clive authored Jelva, Alien Queen of the Varvak, a not-so-popular sci-fi book.
As they leave Comic-Con to visit Nevada's Extraterrestrial Highway (and Area 51), they encounter, you guessed it, Paul the alien. Seth Rogen will "MoCap" the character.
The Paul character would probably be best described as a cross between American Dad’s Roger and the "Take Me to Your Dealer” alien (the poster is actually referenced in the movie).
The former for his intellect and pop-culture knowledge, the latter for his physical appearance...and because he smokes pot.
I guess that's why they chose Seth Rogen (ha, ha, ha).

Wiig will portray Ruth, a Bible thumper that is both smart (!) and knowledgeable (!!). She gets (somewhat) inadvertently kidnapped by the group. John Carroll Lynch will be her dad, neither smart nor knowledgeable.
Jason Bateman plays the main Secret Service Agent, Lorenzo Zoil. He is followed by two other agents, Haggard and O'Reilly (Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio). Jeffrey Tambor is their boss, nicknamed "The Voice."
David Koechner and Jesse Plemons play Gus and Jake, two stupid meatheads while Jane Lynch depicts Pat, a waitress at the (real) Little A'Le'Inn.

As for Sigourney Weaver and Blythe Danner, I'm having a problem pointing out their role. While IMDb lists Weaver as playing Tara (the woman that pulled Paul out of his Roswell wreckage some 60-odd years ago), it seemed to me like it would fit more Danner (hell, Weaver wasn't even born in 1947).
That said, I have no clue what the extra character is.

There's also in the movie a cameo by a famous director (you might guess which), and as well a few scenes at Comic-Con.
At one point, Michael Biehn even makes an appearance (Clive is hoping to ask him if he feels that “the killing of Hicks and Newt in Alien 3, invalidates Ripley’s struggle at the closed of the previous installment.”).
Which makes you wonder what’s going on in the movie since Weaver (aka Ripley) has a role (not as herself), and there are no meta-joke about that either.

Anyways, now that you know the story and the characters, time to talk about the movie itself.
What's interesting to note is how atypical some of the things in the script are.

First, regarding the obligatory references.
Pegg and Frost know their way around pop culture, so it's obvious they're having a blast when they write those nods at many SF movies/TV shows.
What is funny however is that those nods aren't blatant at all.

For instance, there is at one point a Heroes reference (yes, that one).
Only, this is not a “Hiro/Claire" type of reference, it’s more, let’s just say, obscure.

CLIVE
She called her dog Paul?

PAUL
Least it wasn’t Mr. Muggles.

Yup, they just talked about the Bennet family dog, Mr. Muggles (dare I say a detail on Heroes).

The same can be said about every other nod in Paul (regarding their subtlely).
There are Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, and Back to the Future allusions, but they do not involve jokes around Cylons, Spock/Kirk or Hoverboards.
There's even a Pokémon that gets mentioned (and no, not Pikachu or Mudkip)!
Other "tip of the hat" include (among many, many other movies/shows) The X-Files, V, E.T., and Encounter of the Third Kind .
By “tip of the hat” I’m not talking about reenactments (with one notable exception), rather verbal winks like above.
Some other references are even more subtle, and even more random.
Case in point with Jason Bateman’s character. He's named Lorenzo Zoil, an obvious hommage to the 1992 film Lorenzo’s Oil.
I have no clue why they chose this particular movie though.

The characters from the movie are also (for the most part) actually smart. Even Ruth the Evangelical is, like I pointed out before, knowledgeable!
Obviously, she doesn't believe in science, but at least she knows about it, and probably knows more about geography than our two hero nerds combined.

This leads me to my final point, and I know I'm burying the lead here, but Paul is a smart comedy.
Actually, it's way smarter than it might appear at first glance.

If anything, it tackles really well the whole Religion vs. Science debate, mixing both comical dialogues with sensible arguments.
Here is just one of the numerous examples contained in the movie:

RUTH
How can he be from another world? There is only one world. Our world, created by God the Father.

PAUL sits down next to GRAHAM. RUTH whimpers.

PAUL
Look, if it makes you feel any better, my existence only disproves the notion of the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God, as well as all single earth theologies. Science still hasn’t categorically rule out the notion of divinity, even though evolutionary biology suggest the non-existence of a creator by probability alone.

RUTH
How could that possibly make me feel any better?

PAUL
Jesus Christ, I was just trying to be nice!

Hopefully, all those dialogues won't lose their "serious" edge once they're done by Seth Rogen.

Nevertheless, Paul has what many comedies do not have: both heart and brain (and the funnies). Here is an example of a good, funny, and smart, R-rated comedy (unlike that other one).
The incredible script coupled with, yet again, a great cast, makes me think this will probably be Pegg and Frost's best movie to date.
As for its precise date of release, there is none yet, though it should come out in 2010. In the meantime, check out the many video blogs left on the official website.

Why "Mad Men" is the anti-soap

2009-09-18T22:59:00.000+02:00

So, around a month ago, Lex posted a blog giving all the reasons why “Mad Men” is way overrated by the critics. While the show will, without a doubt, walk away with a lot of Emmys on Sunday, and the critic gushing will continue for a few years, I would like to make a few points regarding the show’s own merits. Those points, in my opinion, haven’t been made enough in the mainstream press, and really, who could blame them.

This week, we learned that Oprah Winfrey would host a 60s-themed show next week, in honor of “Mad Men”, with the Drapers on her couch, or rather, Jon Hamm and January Jones. It’s really cute of her, and any publicity is good publicity. As Lex would probably say, it continues to “crown” endlessly a show that has been marketed as “the little show that could, so it’s cool to root for it”. But by doing this stunt, Oprah misses the point of the show completely.

The show is meant to surgically deconstruct any good memories we may have had, or our parents may have had, of the swinging sixties. While “American Dreams”, a network show that was chronicling the same period-to be fair, the pilot episode of the show picks up after the Kennedy assassination, while Season 3 of “Mad Men” will probably end there-was perpetuating the myth of a solid family, through the Pryors, without omitting social issues and rampant segregation, “Mad Men” still portrays a corporate, sexist world full of cynicism, which may change too fast for the advertising employees that work there. But, most importantly, it chronicles the slow downfall of a marriage, those of the Drapers. Each season, the viewer anticipates the moment where Betty will walk away from Don, and sign divorce papers, only to be disappointed-last season, with the pregnancy, was seen as the final straw that can keep the household together.

And that leads me to the main point I want to make: “Mad Men” is not a soap opera. Nevermind the attractive cast, it takes great pleasure in making them the most unlikable characters on TV. There’s barely any love or interaction in the Draper household, no matter how effectively they try to keep it together. It’s reminiscent of the Tony/Carmela relationship in the final seasons of “The Sopranos”: the marriage was seen more as a business partnership than anything else. Don is still an unrepentant cheater, now stuck with Betty’s dad. The show is about keeping appearances, it has been said many times by many people. But it’s funny to see people gushing about these characters like they were on “Grey’s Anatomy”. Maybe because the media loves the glamour and extra-clean atmosphere of the 60s of “Mad Men”. But to me, this clean atmosphere hides a deep discomfort, almost in the manner of “American Psycho” if it makes sense.

The show has often been accused to be dull, since it doesn’t even stay on the topic of the “Client of The Week”. But to me, this dullness is on purpose: there are not that much displays of love or affection in the show, if you look closely, not really physical violence. The moral values are strongly implied in the show, so any outburst, like the fired advertising guy at the beginning of the season, or reprehensible behaviour, like Roger Sterling in blackface, is noticed, but barely mentioned. The show is more about fleeting frustration, lost “accounts” and lack of good ideas for their campaign. To me, every week, “Mad Men” gets more oppressing in its depiction of characters rotting from the inside, characteristically unhappy. That a show still manages to attract viewers despite the depressing content is, to me, an amazing feat.

MacGruber (Script) - Review

2009-09-13T23:10:00.003+02:00

You have probably heard by now about the Saturday Night Live sketch entitled MacGruber (a parody of MacGyver).
Wiki describes it best:

The skit sets MacGruber, Vicki, and another assistant (typically played by the current SNL host) in a life or death situation. The sketch always occurs in three parts. The setting is always the sort that stars of action shows find themselves in (an abandoned mine, a warehouse, and so forth), and they always find themselves trapped in the control room (no matter the setting, there is always a control room.) They need to disarm a bomb which is about to go off, and Vicki will call out that there are twenty seconds left, ten seconds, and so forth. MacGruber calls for his assistants to pass him ordinary objects, like rubber bands or bubble gum wrappers (a parody of how MacGyver would typically devise some way of getting out of a jam with typical household objects). Unfortunately, MacGruber is always dealing with some sort of personal issue, and always becomes distracted by this issue, ignoring Vicki's notices about how much time is left, and the bomb always ends up going off.

So they’re adapting this one-gag 30-second sketch into a 90-minute movie, and it's going to be the first SNL-based and Lorne Michaels-produced movie in almost a decade (not counting Harold).
Looks like Michaels thinks SNL is again more popular than ever (yeah, right).
MacGruber has also been used as a Pepsi vehicle during this year's Super Bowl.

The cast will mainly include Will Forte, Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph reprising their respective role (Grubes, Vicki and Casey).
It’s still being written by Forte, John Solomon & Jorma Taccone. The latter of which is directing the pic.
Regarding the new characters, Ryan Phillippe is playing the brash Lieutenant Dixon Piper, and Powers Boothe I’m assuming will be Colonel James Faith. As for Val Kilmer, he’ll be portraying the evil Dieter Von Cunth (you read that right).
And, yes, there’s a bunch of lame jokes around his name, mainly MacGruber repeating over and over again:

Time to go pound some Cunth.

Ha ha, that was a really clever pun to make...not.

Now, at this point you’re probably wondering how one can make a movie out of a sketch. The answer is simple: instead of parodying the same scene over and over again (being locked in a control room with a ticking time bomb), the movie parodies 80’s action films in general.
In that sense, it begins to be very different from the original MacGruber sketch.

The story is also really basic.
Grubes is pulled out of retirement to defend his country from Cunth, a man with a nuclear warhead. And this time, you guessed it, it’s personal. Cunth was actually the one that killed MacGruber’s former assistant (and bride to be), Casey.
Shit doesn’t blow every 20 seconds unfortunately. There’s probably like three or four “real" explosions occurring in the entire 90-minute movie.
The famous countdown sequence (by Vicki) is where you’d expect it to be. It’s however longer (three minutes instead of a few seconds) and is overall pointless (do you really expect MacGruber to die?).

In case you’re wondering what the rating will be like, it’s definitely a “Hard-R movie” as Bill Hader put it.
I was actually very surprised at how gory and crude the film was.
For the gore part, we have various head-shots, lots of blood and body parts everywhere. And the opening scene features young soldiers getting mercilessly killed one by one. Not really a funny opener.

As for the crude stuff, you can count on tiny penises and a hairy ass…with a carrot inside it.
Sorry for the image now stuck in your head.
In any case, the crude jokes seem to only be here to add a sense of ridiculousness to the whole movie, but what might have worked for, say, an Apatow production, isn’t necessarily something an SNL movie should base its jokes on. I’m not going to spoil anything but how the movie ends epitomizes this utterly pointless humor. I doubt even South Park would resort to such puerile jokes, and that’s saying something.
The drastic change of tone is even more evident once you look at the original MacGruber skits. They’re not as dark or as stupid (or at least not full of “below the belt” crude jokes).
And this leads me to the main character, obviously Grubes. Turns out, he’s a massive douche, and I don’t mean the good “it’s funny when he’s being an asshole” kind. I’m here talking about the bad “shut up you stupid, stupid man” kind. Saying he’s an egomaniac doesn’t cut it. For half the movie he’s basically insulting people. It’s so bad that you end up almost hating the guy and rooting against him. I was this close to virtually bitch-slapping him. Given that he’s supposed to be our hero, that’s a problem to say the least. Sure, he’s supposed to be this idiotic person that is ready to sacrifice himself for the good of his country, but he turns out to be the complete opposite of that. At one point, he even uses a “good guy” as a human shield! Way to prove your valiantness MacGruber.

But my biggest problem with this movie is probably the fact that it mainly relies on clichés for its jokes.
First, there’s an over-use of “stock footage.” This might be funny for a few explosions here and there (again, check out the old Grubes skits), but when all your expositions shots are only stock, the joke cancels itself out.
The same can be said about all the other clichés used throughout.
Stereotypical scenes and plotlines abound for an hour and a half. You’re obviously not surprised by anything, because you’ve seen it all before a thousand times. If the joke is supposed to be that I’m able to predict a mile away what’s going to happen, then I’m not laughing.
Five pages in, you already have your military general convincing a retired hero “to go back in the game”. Said hero (Grubes) has retired to, wait for it, a monastery in the middle of nowhere (or rather Rio Bamba, Ecuador). If that’s not enough for you, MacGruber is also surrounded by kids speaking in Spanish (though surprisingly not playing soccer/football). I almost forgot to mention those nightmares/memories he’s having about the villain killing his fiancée the day of their wedding (and the various “Noooooooo!” and “Aaaaaaaaah!” that ensue).
Again, a cliché in itself isn’t a joke, it’s just a cliché.

Despite all those numerous flaws, there are a few good scenes here and there. For obvious reasons, I’m not going to enumerate what they are but there’s at least one in a night club that made me smile. There are as well, sometimes, hints of good jokes in the dialogue amongst the ludicrous one-liners. Unfortunately, those moments lead back to the non-engaging storyline.

Overall, despite the lack of any decent plot, I’m confident the cast will pull it off. Forte for one (who shaved his head for the wig) will undoubtedly nail the dialogue and the character. The rest of the cast is also comprised of great actors (what the hell is Powers Boothe doing here?).
That said, I still can't get past the fact that some of the jokes/scenes are just too absurd.
MacGruber wrapped shooting yesterday (on the 12th) and is scheduled to come out on April 16, 2010.

Medium: Can't You See?

2009-09-09T23:49:00.005+02:00

For this blog, I will talk about a veteran show that will return on CBS on September 25th. A show that mixes crime and paranormal elements, that garnered the lead actress an Emmy win in 2005, and was produced by arguably one of the greatest showrunners of the past 20 years.

That little show, you’ll have guessed, is called “Medium”, and was saved from cancellation by CBS, whose sister studio, CBS Paramount, also produces the show.

“Medium” is one of the rare shows that is barely recognized by critics, yet makes solid ratings and performs well in the key demographics. Even in France, where network M6 airs it, there’s barely any talk about the show. Granted, on the surface, it deals with familiar territory: a medium start having visions and helps the local district attorney to solve crimes and murders. Notice I didn’t elaborate on the visions. That’s because, at first, it was only dead people trying to communicate with her, either by showing them minutes before their murder, or actual clues about the identity of the murderer. But over the episodes, the creativity of Glenn Gordon Caron-who created one of the great comicbook-inspired shows of the last decade in “Now And Again”, and of course “Moonlighting”-is to play with the visions, and have them in a bunch of different ways: in a noir-from-the-50s way, in 3-D, in cartoon….The real treat is to see where those visions lead Allison, and how she interprets them. And even if the viewer can quickly expect some kind of routine, as Allison finds out soon she’s wrong about the visions, and someone is caught at the end of the episode, the show finds a way to defy expectations.

In a recent interview, Glenn Gordon Caron said: “This may look like a crime show, but it’s really about an American marriage”. And the heart of the show is the DuBois family. Actually, as other writers would introduce cheating, betrayals and other soapish devices to give drama and scandal to the DuBois life, Caron makes a point about keeping the DuBois family very much together and maintain their cocoon of joy they call “home”. One of the reasons may be to balance the depressing and scary visions perturbing Allison. But the show is kept realistic thanks to a honest portrayal by the tag team of Patricia Arquette and Jake Weber, who does a consistently great job every episode. Weber, and Joe DuBois, don’t look like the tanned, well dressed husbands with a good haircut, but he’s believable as an understanding and levelled father without sounding corny or plain weak. Actually, “Medium” may be pleasing to Denny Crane given how effectively the Republican values are portrayed in the show. But it never hammers the point home, no matter how the crazy family crises get solved. When focusing on the couple, “Medium” has released one of their best episodes, “Twice Upon a Time”, a beautiful take on alternate realities and a great exploration of what glues Allison and Joe together.

It boggles the mind to see that, in the span of a few months, two great shows watched by people over 50 were taken off the air of their networks: one being the cancelled “Boston Legal”, and “Medium” was fortunately rescued by CBS. In a TV world obsessed by young and sexy characters, “Medium” offers a couple who are grown and mature, with no troubles in their relationships, raising three adorable children despite consuming jobs. How boring, right?

So, “Medium” succeeds on three plans: the crime mystery, who actually manages to keep one guessing without falling in procedural traps- yes, there are investigations, but they are paramount to solving the mystery of the visions themselves-; the paranormal aspects, who give creepy, eerie visions in a variety of visual styles-what other show can give the viewer the impression that he’s choking in a plastic bag this convincingly?-; and the family aspect, which gives fuel to heart-warming scenes and entertaining banter, as well as a few choice zingers from Joe DuBois. But those three aspects are misunderstood by the critics, who’d rather see a routine crime show full of independent episodes, and no discernible or lasting character arcs. Let’s hope that the sixth season with a decent promo budget, and a good lead-in (in terms of ratings, of course) in “Ghost Whisperer” will solve those problems.

PS: The title of this post was brought to you by R&B group Total feat. The Notorious B.I.G.

Why the hell do you have an iPhone?

2009-09-05T23:52:00.001+02:00

Nifty, the second post in a row starting with a "why."
I wonder...

Anyways, this was a provocative question for a provocative post as, today, I will try to challenge some misconceptions about what makes the iPhone so great.

Spoiler alert: it sucks.

The iPhone, like any other Apple product, is extremely expensive. You’re also tied down to that AT&T contract. This amounts to almost a thousand dollars a year.
Don't you have better things to invest your money in?

It’s sleek, it looks cool, it’s gorgeous, but what does this mean exactly?
A beautifully-carved stick isn’t a knife.
A beautifully-designed iPod isn’t a phone.

And because a picture is worth a thousand words, take a look at the following chart:

3G compatibility wasn't introduced to the iPhone until earlier last year. Prior to that, it was EDGE-based.
The (literally) 4-year old phone I owned (Samsung Z-500) before my current one (Samsung i900) already had 3G speed, and it’s from 2005, not 2009.
It also had a whole lot of functions that even the current iPhone still does not have as you can see in the chart, including video call capability thanks to a second camera situated on the front of the mobile phone.

All of this begs the question:
With such a hefty price tag and such low technological assets tied to it, why do you have an iPhone?

The first answer that pops into your mind will probably be linked to its incredible touchscreen.
Granted, it’s hands-down one of the best currently on the market. That said, its only superiority to other touchscreen phones is the multi-touch function. And not for long. The Palm Pre for instance already has multi-touch technology.
Also, think about it, are you really using actual multi-touch rather than standard touchscreen on a day-to-day basis? Double-tapping is more widely used for Web surfing or Google Maps. And I think that the primary appeal of the multi-touch technology when it was introduced, because it was so brand new, was that it’s cool to “show off.” But now that everyone has either seen, touched, or owns an iPhone, it’s getting pretty old.
There’s also the fact that the screen is far from the only thing that matters in a phone, especially on a smartphone.

And with that, let’s see what other important features you might need.
I’ll try not being too technical.

First, the hardware.
Save for the screen, it's almost a decade old.

The iPhone camera is extremely limited with only 3 Megapixels (today’s phones can easily attain the 8MP).
Also, you couldn’t even make videos with the iPhone until a few months ago!
I mean, come on, even the most basic camera phones can do that but you're telling me that for a few hundred dollars more I must have less?

As stated above, another 3G advancement was the ability to make video calls via a mobile phone.
Problem is, you need a camera at the front of your handheld device (let alone it having a decent quality). This little bonus has now widely spread throughout the smartphone landscape.
Not to the iPhone though.

You don’t really own the phone either, certainly not its hardware since you can’t do anything with it.
Try changing the battery.
Sorry, you can't, the back is sealed shut.
Oops?

Now on to the software.

Regarding the iPhone’s, it’s also pretty weak.
Customizability is virtually nonexistent compared to its competitors, starting with the most used feature on there, web browsing.
Safari is far from being the best mobile browser. I suggest you compare it to one of the many others available such as Opera Mobile.
That's right, I said “one of the many," as elsewhere you can select which one you want to use.
You can’t pick and choose on the iPhone. And Safari can’t even handle Flash content. Sorry about that.

Hey, but good news, MMS is finally coming to the iPhone later this month!
Oh, but wait, it will only be available to 3G users.

Technically, this is only a software limitation, not a hardware problem. An EDGE phone can send an MMS given the opportunity. It just takes two lines of code to fix this (hell, there even have been several apps allowing MMS available for months).
Yet this seems to be way too complicated for Apple.
I wonder why.

It would take way too long to list all the basic functions lacking.
What’s more revolting is that the iPhone is considered by many as a “smartphone,” similar to a Blackberry. More and more businesses have actually started using the iPhone. And yet, there’s so much missing.
You can’t even do data tethering (use your phone as a modem for your laptop)!
A phone from the last decade could do it, why not one introduced only three months ago?

But you can read movies you say?
Did you check if you could read non-MP3/MP4 files, such as DivX AVIs or Lossless FLAC?
The answer is no, you cannot read those on the iPhone (or any iPod for that matter).

Regarding third-party applications, that’s a whole other story.
They were not even officially supported until the release of the second iPhone OS last year!
At the end of the day though, unless you “jailbreak” your iPhone, you’re entirely dependent on Apple’s goodwill via iTunes.
Case in point with Google Voice. Sadly, it's not coming to the store.

With other phones, like Windows Mobile-based ones, you don’t have to “jailbreak” them since you’re not dependent on the one store to get your apps.
And, unlike with Apple, no one is looking over the developer’s shoulder to check if the app is “good enough” for the phone (read: doesn’t compromise the manufacturer’s evil master plan).
Sure, the World Wide Web is less “cool-looking” than iTunes, and it takes more time to find the perfect app, but they’re usually cheaper, do a better job, and can even be, wait for it, open-source.

The worst part in all of this is that if you look at the iPhone objectively, it doesn’t suit anyone’s needs.
If you’re a professional businessman that can afford such an expensive contract, then in that case you’re better off looking at other, more professional, phones (Blackberry-types).
You might also be a technogeek, and, if you really are one, then chances are you either don’t own an iPhone, or if you do, don’t know what you’re missing.
And in the rare case that you’re an average customer, then, again, go check out the competition.
Compare.

The iPhone is not only overhyped and expensive; it is also very limited and limiting.
Sure, it’s probably the best iPod player there is, but since it’s supposed to be a smartphone, it’s far from being enough.
I suggest you either look into an iPod Touch if you’re only interested in the iPhone’s multimedia capabilities. And if you want a true multi-task phone, go take a look over at some of Sony Ericson’s, or better yet Samsung’s, most recent mobile phones.

Unfortunately though, you'll have to trade your cool "pinch to zoom out" feature...

Why mythological shows are often idolized

2009-09-04T23:55:00.004+02:00

I’ve been recently thinking about why some people seem to love Battlestar Galactica’s latter two seasons ven though they’re tragically awful. I dare say the same thing about Lost’s latest season.

I’ll be here mostly using those two series as primary examples because they’re so popular, and are still held to very high standards.

Fans have widely criticized Lost’s fifth season. However, if you’ve just very recently watched for the first time the first four seasons, you probably disagree, or, if you agree, you’re probably not seeing how big of a slap the season is towards everything that came before it.

I should point out now, since this will come into play later, that I’ve found the common link (save for some flukes) between the people who like BSG’s third (possibly fourth) season, and Lost’s fifth.

They were peeps who, in the span of days, or weeks, saw the whole show for the first time from A to Z in a few sittings only (or at least are not the people who have been following the shows since the first or second season).

Why is this important? Well marathon-like screenings do not really allow the spectator to “think things through” so to speak.

Basically, mythological shows such as Lost and Battlestar Galactica have overarching storylines, supposedly thought-out, complex, and well-developed. In the case of BSG for instance, that would mainly be the twelve Cylon plotline. Now, I've already exposed in previous posts to what extent both Lost and Battlestar Galactica have had more than disappointing revelations exposing their poorly-planned mythologies, so I'm not going to talk about that again.

This post is more about the way their mythology is being perceived and how in the long run, more often than not, such shows are idolized with all flaws removed.

In marathon-like screenings, the mind is somewhat submissive to the story told and the episode. The brain is passive, not active. You don’t have time to really think about the many twists and turns since you’re watching them unfold. You’re “eating” away the episodes, not “digesting” them. Everything will probably seem to blend into a unified storyline instead of finite stories broadcast every week or so with hiatus lasting months in-between seasons. Watching the first three seasons of Battlestar back-to-back won’t be the same thing as having been there since 2003.

For one thing, you didn’t theorize during Season One or Season Two. That might not seem all that important, but not being able to think for several months or years (or even only days in the case of a marathon) about who the twelve Cylons are won’t make you aware of how preposterous the introduction of the Final Five during the show's third Season is. If you care a little bit about a show, you’ll surely think about it, start asking yourself questions. Let’s be honest, we all have way too much time on our hands and we love to theorize. Shows such as BSG or Lost work because you can theorize about them all day long... Until you can’t due to a faulty mythology.

Turns out, when watching episodes back-to-back you don’t have months to think about “what’s in the Hatch” or anything else that deserves theorizing. You're not expecting special answers either, so you rarely end up disappointed either.

The poor planning of Lost’s mytho was shown with such glaring plot holes and atrocious revelations (or rather pseudo-revelations out of the blue) as featured in its fifth season finale. Despite this, to what extent it nullifies the preceding four seasons would be hard to tell without hindsight, an asset nonexistent with a marathon since there's no time to look at the big picture.

You’re also head first in the story itself, not what goes on outside the series. By that I mean that at the end of, let’s say, watching Battlestar’s first season, you’re not going to look for news article dating back 5 years. The same goes for Lost with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse’s various contradictory interviews between when the show started (2004) and now (2009), especially regarding questions/mythological plot points that would get answered (or not). You’d be surprised at how antinomic some of their remarks are (same goes for Ronald D. Moore). They're also very hard to track down.

The bottom line here is that, in the end, you need to be able to take a step back. You need to have time to think things through to really enjoy in a more objective fashion a show and its mythology.

It will be interesting to see how all of this will play out with FlashForward, given that not only has the “FF date” been stopped (April 20th), but flash-forwards are already being shown in the pilot.

The X-Files is considered to be a great mytho show. Ironically, it only has a fourth of such episodes. And, if you really take a look at them, you’ll see how many plot holes there are. Despite those, The X-Files is idolized and remembered as one of the greatest mythological show in TV history.

Battlestar Galactica is already branded as the greatest sci-fi show ever.

In five-year time, Lost will probably join the ranks of such cult show as Twin Peaks, regardless of its “objective” lack of mythological planning.

But, hey, it’s the thought that counts, not its execution. Right?

The « Late Late Show »: Ode to the Scottish Conan Guy. I know.

2009-09-01T23:34:00.003+02:00

So, for my third blog (is it? Geez, work around these parts is getting way too slow…) I will pay a long overdue homage to the work accomplished by then-Scot-now-American Craig Ferguson.

If all the spin in the world was true, very late-night television would consist of Conan O’Brien and Jimmy Kimmel. But, yet, on CBS, the Late Late Show has been existing for 14 years (that’s right). Ferguson is only the third host of the Late Late Show, taking over from Craig Killborn (yeah, who?) since January 2005. Like Killborn, Ferguson is a relative unknown in the public eye, but he is familiar to some American viewers, having starred as Drew Carey’s boss in “The Drew Carey Show”. But nevermind that: his ratings have increased substantially in the pas few months against all odds, where his main competition is Jimmy Fallon over at NBC. Except that, save for The Roots, Fallon’s “Late Night” will never hold a candle to what Ferguson does, even with four times the budget.

Here’s a breakdown of the wonder of “Late Late Night”.

It may be the first post-modern late-show of History, as Ferguson is really aware of the pitfalls of late-night. He really had no resources, his show being the last broadcast in standard-def (yes! Even after Kimmel!) and he makes frequent references to that during his monologue. His monologue is stuffed with purposely lame late-night jokes. For a few weeks, he even inserted a “Late Night Octomom Joke” graphic, to cheer after a lame pun. But his 10 minutes of monologues are, for the most part, an exercise in free-wheeling and ranting about nothing. He can educate about an aspect of wildlife (he did a whole thing about Shark Week, and seems keen on all things animals), or foreign people, or just about anything. The most refreshing aspect of Craig Ferguson is his inability to stay on topic, while other hosts try hard to squeeze as much juice as they can out of the day’s news stories.

Another good example of the unpredictable aspect of the show is the intro. Visibly forced down by CBS as a way to keep viewers before the actual show starts, Ferguson didn’t seem at ease with it at first, and a lot of “I’ve got nothing” ensued. But….one day, he made the intro as a small musical, with puppets lip-synching. And ever since, he really made the segment into his own, be it a small riff on foreign members in the audience, or Brittany Murphy on a swing pushed by no-nonsense comic Steven Wright, or even dance routines to Britney Spears, the intros were a way to introduce a new audience to the show.

But the most interesting aspect is Craig Ferguson seems genuinely enthusiastic about hosting a late-night talk show, and usually gives a warm welcome to his guests, which he always seems interested in. Of course, his best guests are the ones that can adapt to his unique style of rants. So far, my personal Top would include Scots Ewan McGregor and Gerard Butler, Kristen Bell (their segments are a must-see), Stephen Wright, Eddie Izzard, Alfred Molina, and on a more serious note, Lawrence Fishburne and the wonderful interview he did with Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

I would talk some more about the “Late Late Show”, but I’ll say this. At his worst, Ferguson will still be entertaining and lively with the dullest of guests, and at his best…well, it’s moments of brilliance that become fine American television. To me, unpredictability IS addictive, and he’s the best of the three really-late-night talk-show hosts. Bar none.

Craig Ferguson is The Man. And you can quote me on that.

TV Fall '09: The Complete Review - What is up with the networks

2009-08-31T22:56:00.002+02:00

Last year, we took a look at how all the major networks were trying to invest into cross-platform products and Internet-based entertainment (without much success).

This time around, we're going to check if said major networks have any pulse left with their crazy fall slate changes and schedule moves.

The Network Effect: Between Déjà Vu and Madness

Changing cloned horses in midstream.

CBS’ “new” slate isn’t really all that new. They have about 15 returning shows (including the just-acquired Medium), 11 of which are at their fifth season or more. The least we can say is that the network likes to work with the old (including its main demographic, wink wink), and clearly doesn’t want to invest in original content. Out of the four new series premiering this fall on CBS, we have one spin-off, one medical drama, and a classic sitcom. It’s as if they are scared of fresh ideas.

Going where no network (with half a brain) has gone before.
The biggest ratings everyone is anxiously awaiting to see this year are the ones from Leno’s new 10PM show. We’ve already discussed in length last year (when it was announced) what the various implications such move had and will have on the television industry. There was also Silverman leaving his cushy NBC job last month. That was interesting.
Consequently, the peacock doesn’t have many fresh series this fall, barely three (including two medical shows). Community is probably the funniest new comedy this season, and surprisingly enough, in my mind, well promoted. We’ll see how it fairs under pressure as it will be against Survivor, FlashForward and Bones. This is tough competition to say the least.
And Heroes will probably fail yet again.

Congratulations, you’ve just found the F5 key.

Contrary to all the other networks, ABC brings in this fall an almost massive amount of new shows (count them, eight). Add to that those other three programs for mid-season and you’ve got yourself a pretty hefty slate.
What is interesting to see is that half of those shows are comedies. The Alphabet network is indeed launching this season their own little comedy night full of fresh series. It’s certainly a gamble, especially when you consider the competition: to name a few, So You Think You Can Dance, Glee, Criminal Minds, ands CSI: NY. At least half the sitcoms will probably get the axe, but I do think however that some of them might get better scores than the CBS comedies on at the same time.
We can also notice with this accumulation of series a trend opposite to last year’s. Indeed, with, at the time, literally a single fresh (now canceled) drama, ABC didn’t want to look towards the future and instead buried its head in the sand.
Last season I was talking about how:

ABC [is relying too much] on those 3 hits, [Lost, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy], and I think that around 2010-2011, if they don't have any new hit series, the network will be in a lot of troubles when said hits won’t be around anymore. The only fresh program this fall on ABC is Life on Mars, how original.

This year however, everything has changed. Eastwick is trying to get the Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives appeal while FlashForward has already been branded as the new Lost. V will probably struggle in the ratings when it takes the Shark Tank’s place in front of NCIS, The Biggest Loser and Hell’s Kitchen. Even if it’s a reliable alternative to all three shows, with a 3-part arc it’s as if even the creators know where the future is heading.
One thing we can say about ABC though is that, for once, it’s trying to relaunch itself.

Where laughter goes to die.

It’s a somewhat-surprising slate for FOX. For one it renewed Dollhouse. Who saw that one coming? That said, this season will be the last. Especially when you consider when the series is being broadcast (behind Brothers and ‘Til Death, on a Friday night, come on).
The network also seems to have a CBS vibe to it now with nine returning shows, and over half of them being in their fifth season (or more). As for their new programs, we have a third Seth MacFarlane production, as well as Brothers. That last one is so awful, it’s almost indescribable. Think of a multi-camera sitcom with all the funny sucked out of it. What’s even sadder is that the show has a more than decent cast, including the great CCH Pounder.
Anyways, unlike ABC they don’t have dying series on their hands (except 24), most of them can basically continue on forever (take a look at The Simpsons). So their risk factor is taken out of the equation.
To be continued (or canceled)...

Good ratings: They shall not pass!

With a few exceptions, The CW is basically keeping every show it has and giving them a maximum lifespan. They’re almost better at this than CBS with 80% of their series being over their fourth season.
The CW is also trying to bank on already-established genre/brands like 90210, Gossip Girl, and now both Melrose Place and The Vampire Diaries. Smallville on the other hand is almost dying of old age with its ninth season rearing its ugly head.
In short, the network is trying to repair their atrocious ratings by producing more of the same. That’s called a foolproof plan.

Because we blew all our money on TV pilots.

With about a gazillion upcoming projects, FX is trying to reinvigorate itself with fresh programming. Case in point this fall with two new comedies, Archer and the League, which will accompany Philadelphia’s fifth season. FX is kind of the HBO to AMC’s Showtime. A network with fading critical hits in desperate need of renewal.
We saw last month how FX doesn’t want to let its show die either. Nip/Tuck, despite a finished shoot, won’t have its series finale broadcast until mid-2011. Rescue Me will as well film its two final seasons back-to-back for a 9/11 homage broadcast during the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. By 2011, FX will only have a few shows left, such as Sons of Anarchy, and perhaps new series it’s creating at the moment.

It got so high; it just had to fall back down.

Not a lot of fresh content this fall given that most of its series have now changed to being Summer-based (Entourage premiered last year in early September for instance). I’m hoping Bored to Death does well as it both deserves it and is basically the only HBO show with fresh episodes (excluding Curb Your Enthusiasm). Another comedy, The Life and Times of Tim, has yet to return (hopefully before Christmas). Meanwhile, In Treatment and The N°1 Ladies’ Detective Agency are both on the bubble.
Like FX, HBO has a lot of projects on stand-by, including the long-awaited Game of Throne adaptation. Basically most of its fresh batch of episodes is scheduled to air only around mid-season, which almost allows Showtime free reign over cable networks.

Pay close attention for we are about to be foolish.

Incidentally, Showtime itself should try looking into new series. Weeds will next year go into its sixth season, and Dexter is almost in its fifth. By all logic, one should be looking for fresh and exciting new programs.
However, earlier this year, Sho passed on four pilots with great potential (including a Matthew Perry/Peter Tolan comedy and a Tim Robbins drama). Pretty surprising choices to say the least. They’ll soon come a time when the cable network will have to reevaluate its slate of shows. It’s all a cycle.

Overall, it looks like most of networks do not want to change much, trying to rely on proven formulas as long as they hold.
The nets are either banking on the same types of shows they’ve been making for a decade, or doing very stupid decisions (I’m looking at you NBC).
Live and learn...

TV Fall '09: The Complete Review - What is new

2009-08-30T16:15:00.005+02:00

Let’s continue our TV 2009 review/coverage with this time around all the new shows that are premiering this fall.
Notice how eight of the twenty or so shows (more than a third!) are either direct spin-offs or remake/adaptations.

Newbies: They’re not that original.

- Accidentally on Purpose (premieres Sept. 21): Jenna Elfman comes back to TV with a show about a woman who “accidentally” gets impregnated after a one-night stand. I don’t see how this show can last over a season. But then again, the same thing was said about How I Met Your Mother...
- NCSI: Los Angeles (premieres Sept. 22): A fourth CSI show set in L.A. would have seemed way too suspicious so they instead opted for something way more original: a spin-off from a popular crime show. Can someone clarify for me the series’ relation to JAG?
- The Good Wife (premieres Sept. 22): Despite its standard CBS procedural aspect, I’ll give this one a try if only for Julianna Margulies (that, and both Ridley Scott & Tony Scott are execs). She’ll play the wife of a politician having been jailed following a public sex and corruption scandal. On the nose storyline.
- Three Rivers (premieres Oct. 4): I’m sensing a cancellation here.

- The Jay Leno Show (premieres Sept. 14): Crash and burn. Please?
- Community (premieres Sept. 17): The pilot was funny albeit with most, if not all, of its jokes in the trailer. The cast is enjoyable enough, but unfortunately John Oliver will only be part of two or so of the show’s 12-episode season.
- Mercy (premieres Sept. 23): Have mercy on yourselves and do not watch this.
- Trauma (premieres Sept. 28): It’s like E.R. and Third Watch but with a lot more budget so they can make everything explode. Plus Peter Berg.

- The Forgotten (premieres Sept. 22): That, it will be.
- Modern Family (premieres Sept. 23): Despite its good cast I’m still dubious of its comedic appeal. Especially when you consider that one of the creators was behind Stacked.
- Cougar Town (premieres Sept. 23): I wonder if Bill Lawrence will get busier with his Scrubs reboot than with this Courtney Cox show?
- Eastwick (premieres Sept. 23): Unnecessary adaptation of the 1987 witch film.
- FlashForward (premieres Sept. 24): I’ve been telling you about this awesome show for almost a year now. And here it finally comes.
- Hank (premieres Sept. 30): Kelsey Grammer tries his luck a second time with this sitcom about a fallen CEO forced to move back to his old town with his family. I’m not expecting much, despite David Koechner also being in the cast.
- The Middle (premieres Sept. 30): Where’s Malcolm?
- V (premieres Nov. 3): Reboot of the famous ‘80s TV show about aliens coming to Earth with no-so-noble intentions. The pilot was somewhat enjoyable but didn’t really impress me. Will this become The 4400 2.0?

- Glee (premieres Sept. 16): The pilot was surprisingly entertaining. I’m looking forward to what’s to come.
- Brothers (premieres Sept. 18): Oh CCH Pounder, what has thou done?!
- The Cleveland Show (premieres Sept. 27): Yet another Seth MacFarlane show. I’ll pass.

- Melrose Place (premieres Sept. 23): You surely have better things to do than watch this reboot/remake/spin-off/revival/adaptation.
- The Vampire Diaries (premieres Sept. 10): Did they just create a TV spin-off of Twilight?
- The Beautiful Life: TBL (premieres Sept. 16): Simply awful.

- Archer (premieres in October): James Bond meets Arrested Development meets The Office. Greatest combination ever?
- The League (premieres November): Fresh off the network’s pick-up list, here comes a comedy about a Fantasy Football League with Human Giant’s Paul Scheer, the lovely Leslie Bibb and My Name is Earl’s Nadine Velazquez. Plus, it was created by Seinfeld/Curb Your Enthusiasm alumni Jeff Schaffer & Jackie Marcus.

- Stargate Universe (premieres Oct. 2): Now that Battlestar Galactica is gone, SGU wants to be the gritty sci-fi show. The storyline and cast definitely piqued my interest but I’m unsure how dark a Stargate series can be...

- Bored to Death (premieres Sept. 20): Jason Schwartzman, Zach Galifianakis and Ted Danson, together. Simply brilliant. The show describes itself as “noir-otic” and centers on an alcoholic novelist (Schwartzman) pretending to be a private eye. Galifianakis plays his BFF, a struggling comic-book artist.

Tomorrow will be our third and final part of our complete Fall ’09 review. We’ll check out what’s going on with all the major networks. It’s gonna be epic (fail).

TV Fall '09: The Complete Review - What is coming back

2009-08-29T20:20:00.002+02:00

Following last year’s lead, it is now time for "the inevitable fall preview post that is on every TV blog!"
As always, it will be split into three parts (returning show, new shows, network talk)
No hazardous predictions this year seeing as I’m can’t seem to see very far.
Now, let us begin.

Back in all their glory; That, they are (not).

- Suvivor - Season 19 (premieres Sept. 17): A new season with a “treasure island” theme. Let’s pray that we’ll get a more interesting game than what we’ve been having for the past couple of years. I hope you love the Samoas because the 2010 edition was filmed back-to-back on the same location.
- How I Met Your Mother - Season 5 (premieres Sept. 21): Suit up! It’s time to go back in the game. Neil Patrick Harris is hosting this year’s Emmys so perhaps the show will garner more viewers. We should get finally this season some definite info on how Ted met his soon-to-be-wife...
- Two and a Half Men - Season 7 (premieres Sept. 21): Oh God, not this again.
- The Big Bang Theory - Season 3 (premieres Sept. 21): I was very reticent at the idea of watching this stereotypical show. But then I saw the first two seasons and liked it, a lot. It was much better than I expected it to be! The show was also renewed for two more seasons. Hopefully this year won’t be a crapfest.
- CSI: Miami - Season 8 (premieres Sept. 21): Put on your sunglasses. Utter a lame one-liner. You’re now ready to enjoy some terrible acting on your TV.
- NCIS - Season 7 (premieres Sept. 22): Not on my watch(list).
- The New Adventures of Old Christine - Season 5 (premieres Sept. 23): Nothing clever to say here.
- Gary unmarried – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 23): What the hell?! This was renewed?
- Criminal Minds - Season 5 (premieres Sept. 23):
- CSI: NY - Season 6 (premieres Sept. 23): I’ll probably check out the season premiere just to see the conclusion of last year’s cliffhanger (Hey, I had to prepare for that interview).
- CSI: - Season 10 (premieres Sept. 24): The show that wouldn’t die. I’m however dying of boredom when I'm watching this.
- The Mentalist – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 24): I’ll save you some time here: Go watch Psych instead.
- Ghost Whisperer – Season 5 (premieres Sept. 25): I don’t have to whisper to tell everyone how mediocre this series is.
- Medium – Season 6 (premieres Sept. 25): How well will Medium fare with the network switch? Tune it to find out.
- Numb3rs - Season 6 (premieres Sept.25): This endless equation continues for CBS thanks to great numbers. In the ratings.
- Cold Case - Season 7 (premieres Sept. 27): Obviously CBS doesn't consider Cold Case "cold" enough to be classified. Ha. Ha. Ha. Get it?

- Heroes - Season 4 (premieres Sept. 21): Will my eyes heal once I gauge them out?
- Law & Order: SVU - Season 11 (premieres Sept. 25): Sorry peeps, I’m not interested.
- Parks and Recreation – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 17): Given that the first season got funnier by the episode, I’m looking forward to this one.
- The Office - Season 6 (premieres Sept. 17): Last season was pretty weak to say the least. I’ve heard good things about the upcoming episodes however, so cross your fingers.
- 30 Rock - Season 4 (premieres Oct. 15): Although a great show, I still feel that it’s The Sopranos of comedy (regarding its hype).
- Southland - Season 2 (premieres Oct. 23): The pilot didn’t really impress me (and I’m not that big on cop shows). There's also this little Friday slot problem and the show being pushed back a month. Doesn't show confidence...
- Friday Night Lights - Season 4 (premieres Oct. 28 - On Direct TV): The third season was much better than its second. It also opened the show to a whole range of new possibilities. Perhaps we’ll see the beginning of a two-season arc (the show having been renewed for two more years).

- Castle – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 21): Despite Nathan Fillion being on it, the show never really clicked with me.
- Grey's Anatomy - Season 6 (premieres Sept. 24): Perhaps this year the onscreen drama will be more interesting than the backstage one.
- Desperate Housewives - Season 6 (premieres Sept. 27): The show can’t keep its 5-year leap momentum for long. I wonder how they’ll try to reinvent themselves this time around.
- Brothers & Sisters - Season 4 (premieres Sept. 27): I stopped watching the show two seasons ago. And, speaking of…
- Private Practice - Season 3 (premieres Oct. 1): …I gave up on this one last year.
- Ugly Betty - Season 4 (premieres Oct. 9): I’m assuming this is most likely the last season given its great schedule placement.

- Bones - Season 5 (premieres Sept. 17): Nothing to add here.
- Fringe – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 17): Answers shall be given. In that parallel universe where we're not currently residing.
- 'Til Death - Season 4 (premieres Sept. 18): You’re kidding me, right?
- House M.D. - Season 6 (premieres Sept. 21): As stated last year, I dropped out after a season and a half. The one good thing about House however is that his one-liners are funnier than Caruso’s.
- Dollhouse – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 25): The biggest surprise of last season was probably the renewal of Dollhouse. Epitaph One, despite its greatness and “bonus episode” aspect, was pretty much a game-changer that will be hard to play out organically inside the upcoming season. I wouldn’t hold my breath (again) for a third season. FOX putting it behind ‘Til Death and Brothers signals the end.
- The Simpsons - Season 21 (premieres Sept. 27): That other show that wouldn’t die.
- Family Guy - Season 8 (premieres Sept. 27): Their Emmy nom was so underserved. Go check out instead the early seasons of The Simpsons or, better yet, Futurama.
- American Dad - Season 5 (premieres Sept. 27): Still average.
- Lie to Me – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 28): I won’t lie to you, I don’t care about this show. Even if it has Shawn Ryan as its showrunner.

I shan’t comment since I neither watch nor care about The CW shows.
- 90210 – Season 2 (premieres Sept. 8)
- Supernatural - Season 5 (premieres Sept. 10)
- One Tree Hill - Season 7 (premieres Sept. 14)
- Gossip Girl - Season 3 (premieres Sept. 14)
- Smallville - Season 9 (premieres Sept. 25)

- Dexter - Season 4 (premieres Sept. 27): I’ll sum up this upcoming season in two words: John. Lithgow.
- Californication - Season 3 (premieres Sept. 27): The move to NYC should mix things up a bit. I wonder how all of this will play out.

- Sons of Anarchy - Season 2 (premieres Sept. 8): I’m not really interested in the show, though I’ve heard great things about it.
- It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Season 5 (premieres Sept. 17): Almost a year after the fourth season’s finale are we getting this fresh batch of episodes. About time I say.
- Nip/Tuck - Season 6 (premieres Oct. 14): Funny how the last two seasons were shot at the same time yet we won’t get a series finale until 2011...

Whew, that was a long first part.

There won’t be any script review tomorrow; instead you’ll have another kind of review with part deux of this wonderful list (albeit with new shows this time).

Pippin my studio: The Weinstein way of dealing with problems

2009-08-26T23:55:00.005+02:00

You’ve probably heard by now about the Weinstein Company kind of being on the verge of bankruptcy (even though it’s starting to get back up following Inglourious Basterds’ success). If you don’t know what the hell I’m on about, then check out right now this in-depth look from the New York Times’ David Segal on why “Weinsteins Struggle to Regain Their Touch.” It’s eye-opening (take a look at the studio's market share).

All done catching up?

Anyway, the Weinstein brothers still haven’t found the perfect equilibrium between filmmaking, and, let’s just call it “mogulamania”. Case in point with their acquisitions in 2006 of A Small World (Millionaire Facebook) and the Halston fashion brand while making, you know, movies. Go figure the correlation here.
But don’t feel too bad for the studio. It has found its way back on top.

Indeed, it looks like what is going to save the company is neither a Kevin Smith nor a Quentin Tarantino film.
How awesome is that:

From the producers of The Crow 3: Salvation and The Punisher 2: War Zone comes another revolutionary take on an American classic.
The Weinstein Company is proud to present to the world Pippin the Hunchback, the Musical: The Movie.

Yup, one of Harvey Weinstein’s passion project (for real) is none other than a movie adaptation of the popular 1970 Broadway musical Pippin.
And I’m dead serious about that.

First things first: I’m not talking about The Lord of the Rings’ Pippin. Let’s be honest, who would want to see a play based on this character?

I’m here blabbering about a musical with a story loosely based on (read: a fictitious account of) Pippin the Hunchback’s life. What is so exceptional about Pippin (aka Pepin) is that he is the eldest son of Charlemagne. That’s a fascinating subject for a musical, wouldn’t you say? There was even a 1981 television movie directed by David Sheelhan. Perhaps this will allow William Katt to leave his work on Alien vs. Hunter and reprise for a third time the role of, you guessed it, Pippin.

Regarding the Weinstein Company, well basically the story goes that following the 2003 success of Chicago, Miramax (then-owned by the Weinsteins) bought the same year the rights for a potential movie adaptation of Pippin. The rest is History (extremely clever pun intended).

In any case, even though the brothers have had the property for some time now, it seems like the project is back on track as they’re currently looking for a writer. That and, as I said, it’s Harvey’s love baby, so he’s “never gonna give [it] up” (insert Rickroll comment).
This looks like the greatest segway to success, ever.

For all you Weinstein Company lovers, don’t panic.
If that’s not enough to revitalize the dying studio, they have another ace to play: a revival of Knight Rider (yes, that Knight Rider) through a movie (seemingly written by Bruce Feirstein, screenwriter of all the Piers Brosnan/James Bond movies).

Gives a whole new meaning to the expression "crash and burn."

Unknown White Male (Script) - Review

2009-08-23T23:40:00.002+02:00

Here comes another script review for you guys this week with Unknown White Male.
This thriller will star Liam Neeson. It’s supposed to be his next project once he completes The A-Team and Clash of the Titans.

The script was written by Oliver Butcher & Stephen Cornwell (the guys behind Guy Ritchie's next movie, The Gamekeeper), with some revisions by Dead Like Me's Karl Gajdusek. The story is based on Didier Van Cauwelaert’s French novel Hors de moi (published under the title Out of My Head in the US). Unlike in the book, the movie isn’t set in Paris but in Berlin (money, money, money).

What’s it about? Well, it centers on Dr. Martin Harris, a botanist who arrives in Berlin with his wife Liz for a conference (he has been invited to speak at the "World Biotechnology Forum"). After forgetting something at the airport, he takes a taxi back to get it. His plans are cut short however when the car crashes into a river. His life is saved by the mysterious taxi driver, Gina. Martin wakes up in a hospital; three days have passed while he was in a coma. He discovers that another man (Martin B) has taken his identity and has replaced him in every way. Even Liz, the wife, doesn’t seem to recognize her husband.
Lost in a foreign country with no papers, a small amount of cash, and no way back, the “real” Martin tries to uncover the truth behind the most extreme case of identity theft ever. He also seem to have some killers going after him for some reason.
Has our hero gone completely off the rails (is he who he thinks he is), or is there really a giant conspiracy trying to replace him?

At first glance this looks like an interesting thriller with some paranoiac elements echoing The Game. We’re also quickly thrown into the action with the crash already happening around page five.
That said, this is no Taken. In Unknown White Male, I wouldn’t say Neeson kicks lots of asses, as we’re talking more of a deadly cat-and-mouse game throughout Berlin (involving at one point a train colliding with a Land Rover, “pushing the mangled wreck along the tracks into a tunnel [in] a tail of sparks”). The motto here is more "run and hide from the bad guys" than "go hunt them".
It takes also a lot of time to get decent answers to some of the stuff going on. For the most part it feels like a long chase with no end in sight.
In a way, it looked like a cross between UPN’s 1995 Bruce Greenwood series, Nowhere Man (virtually the same basic premise), and especially a “reverse” Jason Bourne (mainly the first one). It’s kind of a giant mash-up between those two stories only set in Berlin.
Martin even has his own foreign female side-kick that later becomes a love interest and helps him uncover the truth. Whereas in Jason Bourne it was Franka Potente’s Marie, here it's the character of Gina. Not much originality unfortunately.

And this brings me to two of the main points I want to make about the film.
First, about half-way through the story, the movie shifts tone into a more spy-based thriller. The “real” Martin seems to be hunted by a unit (named Section 15) described by one of the characters as:

Freelance, deniable. They’d work for whoever would pay – public sector, private sector. Second-to-none in their planning and efficiency. They never failed. What’s more, they were invisible. They’d strike, and nobody would even know there had been foul play.

To be clear, we’re talking about an elite assassin squad known for its secrecy. Yet, in the film, we’re witnesses to dozens of murders, crashes, and explosions. So what gives? I mean that’s what I’d call a hell of a mess to clean.
Also, there is this whole deal about the Biotech conference that is never really explained. Even though it is hinted around the end that one of the character’s research was around the "development of a new strain of corn to be made available worldwide without patent or copyright costs," it still does not justify some of the actions made by a few of the main characters (going back to that "mess" thing).
Now, the second comment concerns a major twist that occurs about two-third into the movie.
I won’t say what it is exactly because it's pretty major in the storyline, but like The Game’s final twist, this is a revelation that makes you reevaluate the whole shebang. The surprise is so big that it might be hard to swallow for some.
It even stretches this "reverse" Jason Bourne comparison to the max as you’ll see (when the film comes out, you cheat). And if you really, really, want to know the twist, go read the book's last pages.

Overall, this was a decent read, but the finished product might look like a poor man's Jason Bourne.
Shooting for Unknown White Male is slated to start around January in Berlin. As said above, Liam Neeson is set to star as the "real" Martin Harris. No clue as of now on who will play Martin B, Liz, or Gina. Joel Silver’s Dark Castle is producing the pic with a release date around 2011.

Avatar Day or how I tasted the 3-D revolution

2009-08-21T23:52:00.007+02:00

I'm just back from seeing the 15-minute preview of James Cameron's Avatar and one word comes to mind: gorgeous.

Wiggle your big toe!
We were able to see six very intense scenes in 3-D from the movie’s first half.
A quick note regarding the story: I didn’t expect much beforehand so I wasn’t disappointed on that part. It looks like a "green futuristic Pocahontas."
Nothing more, nothing else.

Yesterday, I said I was going to wait until after Avatar Day to see the 2-D version of the teaser trailer, thinking the teaser would look pale in comparison to the true result. Looks like I was correct.
Indeed, the 2-D version is, dare I say, awful. Too flat, too unrealstic, too CGI. A video-game of sorts, like Crysis but on screen.
However, the 3-D end-product transcends everything you might expect.

Here it is folks: the most immersive movie in History.

Yes, that’s what over 120 years of technology have led up to.
I’ll refer you back to my November post about how "3-D will be introduced in 2009."
If you think about what all those technological advancements in the entertainment industry were for, the answer is simple: realism.
With the use of sound, color, and now 3-D, mimicking the real was always the main goal of cinema.
And this is real enough, folks.
The CGI is so advanced that its uncanny valley equivalent has been skipped. Sure, we’re not talking about fake-humans here, this is no Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the Na’vi skin and eyes are more than convincing. There’s no dead-eye syndrome either.
The movie seems to have completely immersive CGI aesthetics that perfectly blend in with the raw footage. Though you can obviously guess what was added (answer: everything non-human), it is still extremely realistic.
The night scenes are absolutely amazing, same goes for the fauna. Colors were vivid, despite the use of darkening glasses.

I might seem overly enthusiastic about the movie but I had two problems with the footage (hey, there had to be some):
The first scene we got to see was one only involving humans, and presented to us the world we were about to enter. As the camera was dollying in, the depth of field created by the 3-D camera felt too...forced. It was almost problematic. Basically, it looked to me like the technology seems to work great with CGI-based sceneries and scenes with some human/CGI interaction (like above), but seemingly not that well with "semi-raw" footage (or rather scenes only involving human interaction in normal surroundings).
Given that about 40% of the movie should be live-action, I’m still waiting to make up my mind regarding Cameron’s use of 3-D in non-VFX scenes.
Probably the main disappointment however came from the main action sequence featured in the preview (a chase between Jake Sully and an alien creature through a forest). The camera and editing were way too quick. The scene was almost all a blur. With 3-D, eyesight cannot really adapt to the various depths.
Also another minor quarrel: Given that I saw the preview in Paris, the movie was subtitled (fortunately not dubbed). You might have noticed the use of subtitles yourself during the native Na’vi language as well as its Papyrus font. They were pretty distracting overall. The eye has to deal with the subs in the forefront, plus the whole movie behind with its own depth of field.

Anyway, in case you're wondering, theatres aren't being equipped with Avatar-only technology. It's your standard run-of-the-mill modern 3-D tech, including XpanD glasses (the ones you might have used on Up).
Incidentally, Cameron has just inked a deal with Panasonic to help promote 3-D TV and 3-D Blu-Ray players. The home video business plan for Avatar will be extremely interesting to see...
That said, what separates Avatar from previous movies is its use of the revolutionary Fusion/Reality Camera System 1 developed by James Cameron and Vince Pace allowing groundbreaking stereoscopic imaging.

Remember when I said:

If [typical 2-D movies were meant for 3-D], something huge would have been missing from the first time we laid eyes on them.

Avatar is exactly that.
Seeing the 2-D trailer just shows how great the gap between the two "dimensions" is.
Even on a big screen, I doubt Avatar 2-D would visually work, or at the very least if it would be as immersive as 3-D.
James Cameron clearly revolutionizes 3-D not by the way it is made but by the way it is used.
We're far from Journey to the Center of the Earth or My Bloody Valentine with their "gimmicky" use of the tech.

We'll just have to see the 2-hour result on December 18th.

Mad Men: Demystifying the overhyped

2009-08-18T23:58:00.019+02:00

As my ~~Twitter~~ followers can attest, I’ve been recently complaining about Mad Men, or rather all the attention the show is getting.

Don’t worry, zero spoilers ahead.
If you have never watched the show, you are also very welcomed to read the following rant.

Mad Men is certainly amongst the best show currently airing on TV, no doubt about that.
In my mind however, it’s certainly not the greatest show ever though.
With four out of five possible Emmy writing noms and not a single negative article about it out there, the series sure seems like the greatest thing ever.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have our new Sopranos.

By that I mean a good TV show that is by most people considered the greatest show in television history, forever and ever.
The writing is so good, and the stories are so deep, and the symbolism is mind-blowing, and this can go on, and on, and on...

Probably the straw that broke the Camel Cigarette’s back is Bruce Handy’s Vanity Fair piece on Mad Men.
It seems as if we’re talking about some piece of art that should be hung in a museum and Weiner is the greatest genius ever.

Let’s take a look at where this article went wrong and why I do think Mad Men is overhyped.

Off the bat, we’re told an average episode costs a “measly” $2.8 million. I know we’re talking historical accuracy et al., but I think we can all agree that about 80% of the show takes place inside, with at least half of that time spent in the same office/soundstage.
To compare, Lost’s pilot episode was around $10 million and is considered the most expensive pilot in TV history.

Despite all of this, Matthew Weiner seems to be complaining about this “budget constraint”:

I’m of the persuasion that budget contraints are very, very good for creativity. I think people having unlimited amounts of money makes you really lazy. And I will be quoted on that, believe it or not.

The article also underlines even more to what extent Weiner is a control freak, not only on the décor, costumes and props (which is understandable since this is a period piece), but also on the various scripts.

Reading this article, one might have thought Weiner is writing the whole show by himself, if not for the following small parenthesis on the last page of the article:

(Despite the impression I may have given, TV is never a one-man show.)

Oh, and that other remark:

Weiner would descend from the production suite with four or five of his writers trailing him like ducklings.

And there’s also this talk about how they are writing scenes around a single image in Weiner’s mind.
Wow.

Anyway, moving on the rest of the article, the parallels made between the show’s backstage drama due to salary negotiations and 1920s/1940s movie studios exercising creative control are appalling. Here is the excerpt:

The one public sour point for Weiner amid all of Mad Men’s success was the negotiations for the third season, which in his telling didn’t begin in earnest until after the second season had concluded, along with his original contract. Looking for a raise but with no guarantee that he’d even get a deal, Weiner said, he began putting out feelers for other jobs. At the same time someone leaked to the press that AMC and Lionsgate, which AMC had brought on after the pilot to produce the show, were considering bringing in another show-runner to replace Weiner—which would seem inconceivable on a project so clearly driven by one man’s obsessions, except that the entertainment industry has a long history of swatting away idiosyncratic talents, going back to Orson Welles on The Magnificent Ambersons and Erich von Stroheim on Greed. That history lesson aside, Weiner said he was “mystified” by AMC and Lionsgate’s hard line.

Just reading this should give you a clue as to why this is an almost-inexcusable error. If you still don’t get it (understandable if you don’t know about the two movies mentioned), here’s what’s going on.

First, we’re talking here about The Magnificent Ambersons and Greed, which respectively came out in 1942 and 1924.
As said above, both of these movies are known for their tumultuous history. Long story short, we’re talking about a time where directors were nothing more than interchangeable parts for movie studios. The latter were also exercising dictatorial-like control over the finished movie product. Even Bruce Handy talks about this period in the start of his own article:

Once upon a time, the studios reigned supreme. They bulldozed geniuses and turned out dreck[.]

Yet, he seems to forget that we’re in 2009 and, ever since the 1960s, things have changed.
Let alone the fact that we’re talking about television, not cinema.

Moving on the second main problem, the author tries to compare two different situations. One is, if you don’t know this, studios firing directors (Welles and Von Stroheim) because they couldn’t follow the movie studios’ directions regarding the finished product. Again I’m simplifying the various stories, but suffice it to say that in the Magnificent Ambersons’ case, the studio reedited the pic without Orson Welles’ knowledge.

On the other hand, are AMC execs displeased with Weiner’s work on the series? Are they reediting episodes? Are they firing Weiner because he’s just messing up what Mad Men ought to be?
No.
Weiner is asking for a better salary given the show’s enormous success.
Not the same thing, at all.
This is not a studio fight; this is just a monetary dispute.

And, last but not least, comparing Von Stroheim and Welles to Weiner is an embellishment of the biggest magnitude.

I think I have now covered the main problems of this article. Handy is hovering between utter admiration towards “the greatest writer in TV history,” ~~David Chase~~ Matthew Weiner, and this perfect series that is ~~The Sopranos~~ Mad Men.

A final case in point:

The dialogue is almost invariably witty, but the silences, of which there are many, speak loudest: Mad Men is a series in which an episode’s most memorable scene can be a single shot of a woman at the end of her day, rubbing the sore shoulder where a bra strap has been digging in. There’s really nothing else like it on television.

If only shows such as Six Feet Under, The Wire, Breaking Bad or Carnivàle were on television...
Oh, wait.

Okay, I have to admit, I love underrated stuff. The aforementioned shows are in my mind the true series that should be imortalized.

The Wire and Six Feet Under got, in their entire 5-year runs, only 2 writing noms (no wins). As for Breaking Bad and Carnivàle, I’m still waiting.

When a single series occupies 80% of all writing nominations despite obvious worthy contenders, when Times Square dedicates a whole evening to said series’ season premiere, when virtually everyone declares it the best series of the year, no matter how good the show actually is, that's Mad Men.
And Mad Men is being overhyped.

Orbit (Script) - Review

2009-08-16T23:57:00.012+02:00

Here comes another script review: Orbit.

The movie is based off the 2006 John Nance of the same name.
The script was adapted by Sheldon Turner who currently has a billion projects in development, including Jason Reitman's Up in the Air and X-Men Origins: Magneto.

Obviously, spoilers abound in these neck of the woods.

The main story is about a father (Matthew Dawson) able to go into space after winning a lottery game made by NASA PRs. For a few weeks, he is trained at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center by Owen, an astronaut whom Mat "replaced." Once the training done, he leaves Earth aboard the Intrepid with four other peeps.
But when he arrives in space, he finds out that the other members of the crew have died. He is now trapped alone, with a limited amount of oxygen left, and no way back home.
Thinking he is a dead man anyway, he uses his computer to gather his final thoughts that are, unbeknownst to him, beamed back to Earth where the rest of the world begins to follow his last (?) moments.

The concept seems very intriguing and exciting. However, the execution was in this instance pretty bad (borderline awful).

Let’s begin with the two main differences with the novel.
A major change made was with Dawson’s personal life (named Kip in the original work).
Whereas in the book Mat/Kip’s main drive for being in orbit is due to his son blaming him for his wife’s death, in the movie however the main reason for him trying out for the NASA lottery is more somber. Matt still has a 15-year old son (Brian), but in this story he has lost his other child (Danny) and both he and his wife (Cindy) have difficulties coping with it. His son loved space, which makes for a logical character motivation.
The other important change will be talked about later on and concerns the computer used by Mat.

Now, onto the actual movie.

First, a lot of screen-time is given to the actual training.
Mat only goes into space around page 35 (out of 115).
Even if the 20 minutes are supposed to set up the relationship between Mat and his mentor/rival Owen, ultimately this is just wasting a lot of valuable time. This is something that basically leads to nowhere (the training that is). Sure, we all know that the efforts put into building astronauts are immense, but why spend a fifth of the movie on it?

Moving on to once Mat is in space.

So, he discovers that all the onboard astronauts have died due to a sudden depressurization of the main cabin.

Given that he’s a newbie at these things, it’s understandable that panic sets in and he feels as if he’s a dead man floating.
Therefore I wasn’t too shocked to see him not being able to save himself. Who would be able to repair a broken spaceship?

That said, here comes the strangest part of the movie.

He begins e-mailing himself (or rather blogging) his last thoughts.

Yeah, don’t ask me how.
What I understood was that he hooked up to his Apple Computer a handy-talkie to make into a sort of “ham radio,” boosting his signal, allowing him to send messages (but not receiving any).

It’s like ~~MacGyver~~ MacGruber in space.

Remember that other important novel change?
In the original story, he actually writes on the spaceship computer, which makes way more sense than some pathetic attempt at product placement (yes, Apple is really written in the script).

And now we move on to the other huge pill to swallow.
As I’ve said before, he only has a few hours of oxygen left, and NASA is now aware that he’s trapped alone up there (thanks to his amazing Blogspot posts – true story).
What do they decide to do?
Put together in the span of literally a few hours a rescue mission comprised of Owen, two other astronauts, and an experimental shuttle (meaning one that has never, ever, flown).

The use of the latter allows this incredible exchange to occur:

RICHTER
(re: the experimental shuttle)
You ever seen anything like that?

OWEN
Sure.
Don’t you guys ever watch “Battlestar Galactica”…?

Priceless.

The departure of the rescue mission also reminded me a lot of Armaggeddon (not in a good way).

So, yeah, two utterly ridiculous plot points.
There's also this pointless love story between Owen and the NASA PR lady.
Don't even get me started on that.

Despite those (major) flaws however, a few good things came out of the script.
The space scenes are well-constructed and should be beautiful to see. I could easily picture them accompanied by some Bear McCreary-esque music.

The characters were also engaging.
So much so that at times what happened on Earth with Brian and Cindy seemed way more likable and interesting than what was going on elsewhere, starting with Mike.

Two small upsides, but still worth noting.

Bottom line: the execution of a great idea (man trapped alone in a spaceship) could have lead to a more interesting story that should not have lacked believability. Despite interesting characters, my disbelief couldn't be suspended high enough, even if the story takes place way up in space (greatest pun?).

Orbit is slated for a 2011 release. Thomas Bezucha is currently on board to direct the pic for 20th Century Fox.
Last I heard it was one of the studio's top priorities before a potential SAG strike (that never happened).

Interview with CSI:NY's Hill Harper

2009-08-13T23:12:00.005+02:00

A month and a half after my interview with CSI:NY's actor Hill Harper, here it finally is online.
Why would you care you ask?
Well, for one, he talks about online technology, and especially Twitter, in relation to TV and his show. And as you'll see, the guy loves Twitter.
There's also that part about the future of TV and how budgets are getting sliced.
And I don't watch CSI.

Interview conducted on July 2nd
(Thanks to Toutelatele.com)

Can you talk a little about your atypical journey to acting?

Hill Harper (HH): When I went to college, to Brown University, I studied theatre, but I didn’t know if I was going to make a career out of it. I certainly wanted to go to grad school, so I decided to do a joint degree at the Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. That is where I met President Obama, he and I were classmates. I just really felt at the time that I loved acting, and I loved being an artist. I think all of us come to a realization, maybe sometimes earlier in life, maybe sometimes later in life, that nothing else matters except following your heart. I really do believe that you’ve got to do what you love. That was reinforced when my uncle passed away when I was very young. He was 45 years old, and I was in law school. I realized that in life, nothing’s promised. Too many people I know put off saying I’m going to do this when, etc. And I’m the type of person who said: “you know what, what’s in my heart I’m going to follow.”

How do you feel about your CSI:NY character?
HH: I love that my character, Dr. Sheldon Hawkes, breaks many stereotypes. He’s the most intelligent character on the show. All the other characters have to come to my character for answers. It’s not the typical portrayal of the African American male on television and in the media in general. I like breaking stereotypes.

What do you think of the two other CSI shows?
HH: I think it’s better acted; I’m going to be honest. Not to take anything away from their shows, but I know our actors are the best, in my opinion.

In what ways did CSY:NY succeed in differentiating itself from other shows?
HH: If you look at the stories, they’re unique and interesting, and that starts with your writing. I don’t care how good your actors are, if you don’t have great writing, there’s no way you can have a good show. Really, television is all about the scripts. We’re in a wonderful time right now for American television. I call it the golden age of television. The best TV shows in the world at the moment are coming out of the US. I think that’s all about the cultivation of really good writing talent. They’ve been doing a great job. At the same time, you see the quality of American films decreasing. So it’s interesting in a time where the quality of American television is going up, the quality of American films is going down in comparison to the filmmaking around the world. I really do think the big difference has to do with the writing talent.

A lot of directors, writers, and even some actors, are moving to web-based content. Would you be interested in working on a creatively-strong web-series, even if it would mean a pay cut and reaching only a tenth of your current CSI audience?
HH: A lot of that depends on the content. I’m more of an artist who wants to do great content. If it’s great content, it doesn’t matter. I mean, I do theatre too and that’s a very small audience. That’s only the actual number of people that can actually fit in the actual seats. So, it’s not about reaching. Certainly doing a show like CSI:NY, where we reach millions and millions of people worldwide every week, that’s wonderful. But, it’s still to me about the content.

I know you use Twitter a lot, and we’re seeing a lot of celebrities now using it. What do you think is its primary appeal?
HH: Unlike Facebook and MySpace where it’s just so long, it takes time, Twitter is short-hand. With Twitter, I could literally within 30 seconds, in the middle of this interview, tweet and have responses. That’s the quickness of it. Technology is supposed to enhance your life, not detract it. You can get to a point where you feel chained to Facebook, where you have to go on, read it all. It’s just too much. With Twitter, it’s instantaneous. I’m going to be the first actor that I know of, certainly on my show, that is going to be tweeting from the set. I’m even tweeting live, asking questions to the audience: “Do you want me to wear glasses?”, or, “this is what this scene is about, do you want me to drink coffee?” I’m going to allow the audience to interact. It’s going to be three levels: my character Dr. Hawkes, me, Hill Harper, and the audience relating to both through Twitter. I’m excited about this. I want that feedback worldwide. The audience will feel they have an impact on the show, and when they see the scene, they’re like “I remember when he was tweeting about that!” I’m really interested in using technology in all ways.

Isn’t that becoming too dependent on reaction and feedback though?
HH: I think that you can pick and choose. As an artist, you need your own point of view or you’re not interesting. But we don’t do art in a vacuum. It’s meant to be seen, or else you’re masturbating. There’s always this tension. I have friends that don’t read critics or reviews, because they say, well, if I read the good reviews and I believe them, then I have to believe the bad reviews too. I think that everyone can figure out for themselves how much interaction they can have versus not. Certainly, if it starts taking away from who you are, like if you’re reading reviews and it starts to change your work in a negative way, then stop. If you’re tweeting and you’re having an interaction with your audience, and it starts making yourself too self-conscious, and it’s affecting the way you do things, then stop. I think we can all find our own way. The more people you can welcome in, to who you are and the work you do, and allow them to be part of it in whatever way, can heighten the experience. Because everything that we do, I believe, should cause an experience.

Would you be interested in writing an episode for your show?
HH: The writers are so good at what they do so specifically, and it would just take me so long to write an episode, I wouldn’t be interested in that. I’d be more interested in directing an episode. I may get that opportunity to do it later on this year. I’m hoping to, but it’s very political when it comes to actors directing. Every actor wants to direct an episode and thinks they can, so it’s very political getting the opportunity. This is the last year of my contract, so we’ll see what happens.

How do you see the show’s future?
HH: I would like to stay with CSI and do a couple more seasons. But, you know, Without a Trace just got cancelled. It’s a good example of a top show that they decided was just too expensive to continue. You just don’t know what’s going to happen. The entertainment business is changing very quickly, and I think if you’re smart in the business, you have to think about other things. The days of sitting back on a show, thinking that you’re character is not getting killed off, are over. Just look at how they did the last episode of our fifth season: the entire cast was in a bar and they shot up the entire bar. You don’t know who’s going to live or die. And they’re negotiating with people. The creative and the business side are getting much more linked in a way that I don’t think is necessarily good. It’s a little manipulative. It gets negotiation advantage in a way, but at the same time that’s the reality of the business. Its called show-business not show-art, they have to make money or they can’t produce the show. And if the advertising revenues are dropping, we have to make changes. This year we’re making changes like special effects. I know we’re going to be shooting on HD digital format rather than film for the first time. They’re definitely making certain changes that are going to affect different things. But, at the end of the day, what I think has made CSI:NY so good is the writing. All television begins with the writing, period. We have the best writers in my opinion.

What other projects do you have?
HH: My third book, called The Conversation, is coming out in September. It’s my first book directed towards adults. The previous two were motivational books for teens and this book is about relationships. It’s from a single man’s perspective. It’s going to be interesting to see how it’s received. I purposely push buttons in it. It’s all about the idea of sparking conversation and communication between men and women, hopefully to make for successful relationships. I have a non-profit foundation, the Manifest Your Destiny Foundation, where I give scholarships to low-income young men and women. I also do a lot of speaking around the country, so I’ll continue doing that. The state department has sent me on two missions to speak to young people; they sent me to Italy and to Turkey. All of this because of my relationship with President Obama and because they know what I do with young people. It’s really great. That’s why I love doing a show such as CSI, it has such an international reach that it offers me a platform to speak to young people around the world that I otherwise wouldn’t have. I think that that can be a positive benefit. Any celebrities can use their platform for positive or for not so positive in a way. I personally believe that what’s the use of having a platform if you’re not going to do something good or positive with it.

Prisoners (Script) - Review

2009-08-09T22:19:00.002+02:00

No scripts today, rather a review of (a hot) one.
Prisoners is a spec script by Aaron Guzikowski that sold for about a gazillion dollars.

The story is about "a Boston family-man (Keller Dover) whose 6-year-old daughter with her best friend are kidnapped," as THR puts it.
Unsatisfied with the work of the lead detective (Loki), the father takes matters into his own hands by kidnapping the man he thinks is responsible for the young girls' demise to find out where they are. Loki meanwhile is trying to unravel the truth behind the kidnappings.

Three big names were attached to the project.
Mark Wahlberg as Dover and Christian Bale as Loki, with Bryan Singer set to direct.
Unfortunately, the deal fell flat on its face only a couple of weeks ago when Alcon acquired Prisoners.
It is very unfortunate.
I'm sure Christian Bale could have pulled the Loki style. The character seems like a modern version of Public Enemies' Melvin Purvis (albeit with more intensity). On the other hand, Keller Dover is an unusual role for Mark Wahlberg. It would have been an exciting part for him.

The basic premise might seem a bit rehashed but Guzikowski actually does bring an interesting and fresh execution to the storyline.
Although good, the script is definitely not the great movie I was expecting to read given its high buzz (and dollars thrown at it).

Steven Zeitchik over at his Risky Riz Blog described it as "a real page-turner."
Even if I agree regarding the fact that the last forty pages get you involved, I had a lot of trouble entering the world of our characters, mainly in the first third of the film. I dare say the beginning is almost boring.
Guzikowski in my opinion takes too much time setting up his characters and going into the meat of what we're waiting for.
To give you an idea, the "kidnapping the kidnapper" storyline, even though it's supposed to be the major part of the movie, begins just before the middle of the script is reached.
As for the more mysterious elements surrounding the kidnapping(s), they're only introduced twenty or so pages later (with forty remaining). Pretty late in the game for me.
This is a bit more problematic considering that in true Hollywood fashion, the movie should be described as "Seven meets Saw with a hint of Mystic River."

The first two films are especially true regarding the overal tone of Prisoners. The ambiance is indeed very dark; there are no jokes which makes for a heavy read, even until the end.
In addition, the mystery complexifies and deepens as the story progresses.
I'm still unsure about a couple of details, and unfortunately there seem to be both loose threads and pointless clues (not red herring). There's this creepy running theme around mazes that is never really explained even though it could have led to some great pay-offs.
Fortunately though you're kept guessing as to what's going to our characters until the very end (in the same way as the first Saw ended sort of).

The characters are well-defined, and I had this Mystic River vibe going on as both movies are set in Boston and the parents are both blue-collar-type in similar situations. There's an overarching dread throughout the story as well.
I'm interested in seeing who plays the mother as they do have "juicy part" like Zeitchik puts it.

In the end, despite a weak first act, the dark thriller that is Prisoners has a strong enough hold that it keeps you waiting until the very end, if anything just because you want to know who did it and why.
Alcon Entertainment is currently fast-tracking production on the project for a release slated around October 2010.
Here's to hoping the new cast will do justice to the script.