In my opinion David Milch is the Steve Earle of TV writers...a brilliant American storyteller who has lived a tumultuous and sordid life I could never really relate to and thus am not sure I could ever emulate or even understand his writing methods or process.
But that doesn't mean listening to him discuss his life and process and methods any less fascinating.
From a 2006 MIT Communications Forum conversation with David Thorburn (it's all good, but gets really cooking around 30:00)
According to Variety, Milch has a new series in the works at HBO called Luck which centers on horse racing, including "the owners, gamblers, jockeys and diverse gaming industry players." Michael Mann directed the pilot and it stars Dustin Hoffman.
Can't wait.
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
LETTERS FROM MAMET
This is basically just a cut, lift, and paste (courtesy Kevin Parnell) from Karen Walton's Ink Canada facebook group discussion board. It's a letter David Mamet purportedly sent his writers on the TV series The Unit a few years back. And even though it's mostly advice he's relayed previously in books like On Directing Film I'm a bit of a Mamet groupie, so um...read, absorb, and enjoy. The ALL CAPS can make it seem like you're being lectured or shouted at, but still... screenwriting crafty goodness.
TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT
GREETINGS.
AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.
THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.
EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.
BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.
QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.
SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.
1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?
THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.
IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.
THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.
THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.
IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.
SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.
EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.
THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.
ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.
ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.
YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”
AND I RESPOND “*FIGURE IT OUT*” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM”.
WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.
THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”
WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.
AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.
*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.
FIGURE IT OUT.
START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.
LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.
THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.
HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.
REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*. THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.
IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.
IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)
THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.
I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?
ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.
IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.
LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05
(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT Questions* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)
Good stuff.
PS: I also liked Peter Mitchell's advice in the Ink Canada comments:
"Here's a super simple trick. Once you've written a scene or a script look for the "question marks" after each character's speech. Is the question being asked so that the other person in the scene can provide exposition. if so, consider revising it so the "exposition" comes as a declarative statement rather than an answer."
Excellent.
TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT
GREETINGS.
AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.
THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.
EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.
BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.
QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.
SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.
1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?
THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.
IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.
THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.
THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.
IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.
SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.
EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.
THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.
ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.
ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.
YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”
AND I RESPOND “*FIGURE IT OUT*” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM”.
WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.
THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”
WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.
AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.
*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.
FIGURE IT OUT.
START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.
LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.
THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.
HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.
REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*. THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.
IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.
IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)
THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.
I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?
ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.
IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.
LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05
(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT Questions* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)
Good stuff.
PS: I also liked Peter Mitchell's advice in the Ink Canada comments:
"Here's a super simple trick. Once you've written a scene or a script look for the "question marks" after each character's speech. Is the question being asked so that the other person in the scene can provide exposition. if so, consider revising it so the "exposition" comes as a declarative statement rather than an answer."
Excellent.
Monday, March 08, 2010
How To Tweet A Good Joke
Last night I took in the Oscars telecast at home on the television...but also in the company of many smart and funny Canadian TV/Media Twitter partners in crime connected via the hashtag #glush. (Don't ask what *glush* means exactly because I don't really know. It was conceived back during the Golden Globe awards ceremony and is some kind of amalgamation between the words Globes and Glug and Lush in order to convey the sentiment of "drinking games and snarky comments while watching big awards show". It just sorta stuck....not to mention it is quick and easy to type.)
Anyway, during the presentation of the Best Short Documentary category some funny business went down that was a little awkward and unusual and unsettling even. Roger Ross Williams took the stage to receive the Oscar trophy for "Music By Prudence", but before he got three words of his thank you speech out, a seemingly agitated older woman also took the stage and commandeered the microphone. She yelled out a few things and he smiled uncomfortably and then they cut the mic and the orchestra played them off.
Now when tweeting these events in a group setting a la #glush, there is pressure to be funny. Oh sure you can just comment: "Cool!" or "Yay!" or "Nice dress!", or offer an opinion: "Boring!" or "This sucks!" or "I wish Whoopi was hosting"...but generally you try to tweet something clever or witty. I try to be clever and witty, but my brain doesn't tend to work as fast as some, and most of my tweets kinda just lay there.
So when the above described incident transpired, I tweeted:
A Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever -- powered by Cracked.com
And finally, ABC's Modern Family Oscar-themed commercial from last night...that we didn't get to see up here in Canada due to simulcasting:
Funny!
Anyway, during the presentation of the Best Short Documentary category some funny business went down that was a little awkward and unusual and unsettling even. Roger Ross Williams took the stage to receive the Oscar trophy for "Music By Prudence", but before he got three words of his thank you speech out, a seemingly agitated older woman also took the stage and commandeered the microphone. She yelled out a few things and he smiled uncomfortably and then they cut the mic and the orchestra played them off.
Now when tweeting these events in a group setting a la #glush, there is pressure to be funny. Oh sure you can just comment: "Cool!" or "Yay!" or "Nice dress!", or offer an opinion: "Boring!" or "This sucks!" or "I wish Whoopi was hosting"...but generally you try to tweet something clever or witty. I try to be clever and witty, but my brain doesn't tend to work as fast as some, and most of my tweets kinda just lay there.
So when the above described incident transpired, I tweeted:
Not bad, but more of an observation than a joke per say. The closest I got to comedy territory was the #callsecurity hashtag.
But at the same time I tweeted the above, someone at @funnyordie tweeted:
And I was like: "Doh! Now that's a joke." (and thus Retweeeted it...the Twitter version of kudos)
Observing that something unusual took place during the Oscars and commenting on it isn't really a joke. Tying what happened on stage last night back to Kayne West's infamous hijacking of Taylor Swift's mic during the MTV Video Awards to proclaim Beyonce should have won is a joke.
And judging from some of todays headlines like HERE about said Oscar incident, several other people made the same comedic connection....though they had time to think about their headline, whereas the Tweeter at @funnyordie made it up on the spot.
I'm not sure what the writing lesson is in all of this, but I know I learned something: as in, anybody can tweet their opinion or an observation...but it takes a special talent to spontaneously tweet a good joke. It also reminded me what it takes to succeed in the TV and show biz racket...you not only need to be good, you also need to be fast.
In other movie news, please find below for your viewing pleasure a great send up trailer from Cracked.com for "every Academy Award winning film ever":
A Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever -- powered by Cracked.com
And finally, ABC's Modern Family Oscar-themed commercial from last night...that we didn't get to see up here in Canada due to simulcasting:
Funny!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Listless
I am not big on 'Best Of...' (year, decade, century) lists, but was encouraged to jot down my top TV shows of the 2000's (00's?). It's not a best of list as much as a recognition of certain programs/series I watched consistently. Some were even "appointment television", though in this day and age of DVD box sets and the internets, appointment TV is a term that will soon be parked in the What's that? section, beside the 'rotary dial phone' and 'VHS tape'.
So...on with the shows.
Arrested Development - the Bluth's
30 Rock - I like to go to there
Curb Your Enthusiasm - What? What?!
The Office UK - mock doc rock
South Park - ample parking day or night
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Whedon
Veronica Mars - Thomas
House - Laurie
Six Feet Under - death entertaining
Breaking Bad - meth entertaining
Lost - flashbacks and flash forwards
The Sopranos - The Chosen One
Law & Order or Law & Order: Criminal Intent - anytime comfort food
Jekyll and Life On Mars...brilliant but limited. Dexter burned bright but faded too fast for me. Firefly was great but didn't last long enough to count in my opinion. Really enjoy Mad Men, but not blinded by the love. I haven't yet got through all of Deadwood, The Shield, Battlestar Galactica, Friday Night Lights, or The Wire - all are excellent but I can't in good faith include though they certainly deserve mention. And if live NFL football, Leafs hockey, and PGA golf can be considered shows or programs...well, I watched a lot of that too. I'd also add The Daily Show and The Colbert Report but this didn't turn out to be that kind of list.
Doh! I said it: List!
So...on with the shows.
Arrested Development - the Bluth's
30 Rock - I like to go to there
Curb Your Enthusiasm - What? What?!
The Office UK - mock doc rock
South Park - ample parking day or night
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Whedon
Veronica Mars - Thomas
House - Laurie
Six Feet Under - death entertaining
Breaking Bad - meth entertaining
Lost - flashbacks and flash forwards
The Sopranos - The Chosen One
Law & Order or Law & Order: Criminal Intent - anytime comfort food
Jekyll and Life On Mars...brilliant but limited. Dexter burned bright but faded too fast for me. Firefly was great but didn't last long enough to count in my opinion. Really enjoy Mad Men, but not blinded by the love. I haven't yet got through all of Deadwood, The Shield, Battlestar Galactica, Friday Night Lights, or The Wire - all are excellent but I can't in good faith include though they certainly deserve mention. And if live NFL football, Leafs hockey, and PGA golf can be considered shows or programs...well, I watched a lot of that too. I'd also add The Daily Show and The Colbert Report but this didn't turn out to be that kind of list.
Doh! I said it: List!
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Jump Right In...It's *Your* Story
Sure it's kinda spoofy and a little over the top, but this post from TV writer/producer Richard Manning still captures the essence of excitement/pain blend that a freelance screenwriter experiences when trying to successfully navigate a television series' Writer's Room.
I've been there. It's confusing, terrifying, intimidating, and exhilarating all at the same time.
Read THE ENTIRE POST HERE.
Mary Sue’s successful pitch: “Griff and Angela [the series leads] must mind-link with K’Vax [their sentient, female, wisecracking spaceship] after a radioactive nebula erases K’Vax’s memories.”
There was more to her pitch – such as the mind-link forcing the aloof Griff and Angela to confront their true feelings about one another – but Mary Sue never got that far; Sam had interrupted. “Good hook, but amnesia’s soft. Needs more jeopardy. Hey! What if the nebula turns K’Vax evil? And she tries to kill everybody on board! So it’s dangerous for Griff and Angela to go into her mind; they might never come out. Terrific pitch! Sold!”
Mary Sue was ecstatic. “Great! I’ll write up an outline –”
“We don’t do outlines. We – me and the writing staff – break all our stories in the room. Once we get the structure down, you go off and write the script. Come in Tuesday at nine. Bring in a beat sheet. Not an outline, just the big moves. Some rough act breaks. Keep it simple. One page, tops, just to get things started.”
And so it begins…
9:00 am Tuesday. A punctual Mary Sue happily looks around her first Writers’ Room. Cheap, mismatched “executive” chairs surround a coffee-stained table strewn with old magazines, food wrappers, a Slinky, a broken water pistol, various Rubik’s-type puzzles, and other toys. The walls are a crazy quilt of actors’ headshots, set blueprints, costume design sketches, test photos of alien prosthetics… and three large whiteboards.
Two are covered with multicolored scrawls, circles, arrows, renumbering, and crossouts – the story beats for Episodes 5 and 6, in impenetrable shorthand: “5. BRIDGE: G + A expo. K ng 10 min no Froonium. H/L payoff? AB: J zapped.” The third is frighteningly blank – a naked canvas awaiting a plot.
I've been there. It's confusing, terrifying, intimidating, and exhilarating all at the same time.
Read THE ENTIRE POST HERE.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
21:9 For 2010?
The Product
The Commercial
Kinda cool, though someone clearly watched The Dark Knight and got inspired, for 219 seconds in fact. Kinda makes you wonder why they didn't just use an excerpt from Nolan's movie. But if you're interested you can watch the making of the above short film HERE.
The Conclusion?
Should you have a separate TV in your abode just for viewing cinema? That's what Phillips seems to be selling with this new model. Sure it's shiny and sexy, but I likes my television to be more versatile, and a 16:9 TV is still truly the best of both worlds right now between 4:3 TV broadcasting and 16:9 and 21:9 movies.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Train In Vain... (Or How Canadian TV Drama Got Derailed Over The Past Ten Years) (Reprint)
This post was from back in August, and probably stirred the pot as much as Uninflected Images is capable of doing. Definitive Canadian TV drama series since 2000...what do you think?
TRAIN IN VAIN
I have been following with interest the thread that began at Anthony Strand's Live Journal and then continued at Weinman's TV Guidance where they've been discussing...what is the definitive TV show of the past decade?
First off, how do you define definitive? Does that mean greatest, most popular, coolest, hippest, most influential...? I suppose it's a bit of 'all of the above, and as Weinman explains, that doesn't necessarily mean best show, but one that best embodies TV and TV trends over the past (almost) 10 years.
Between Strand/Weinman and the commenters I would say they've covered all the possible candidates pretty well. Strand chose one drama and one comedy...and singling out Arrested Development as the definitive comedy of the 2000's(?) made a lot of sense (though I would award a tie between it and the UK's The Office). And while I'm not sure if Angel stands up as the decade's 'definitive' drama, Strand makes a solid case. Lost, House, 24, CSI, and The Sopranos all deserve consideration, and I still wouldn't exclude Survivor or American Idol (they may not be drama drama, but they sure come very close to 'defining' the TV decade as far as I'm concerned).
At any rate, one thing I took away was the lack of one show standing out...a single program/ series from the past nine years that was entertaining and popular yet also managed to encapsulate the mood, mindset, ambiance, and personality of the decade --- like The X Files or Buffy or Seinfeld or Friends did in the 90's.
Perhaps it's due to there being so many good series out there of late. Or that viewer fragmentation has expanded to such a degree that it's almost impossible for one show/series to stand out. Anyway, go check out those posts --- what I wanted to put on the table is....
....what might be the definitive Canadian series/show of the decade?
Again, comedy seems to be a little easier to nail...a toss up between Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys in my opinion. They both were popular enough to be known by most people of this country (whether you 'liked' them or not isn't really part of the equation)...but they also in their own way defined us as gentler simpler and slightly snarkier people/neighbours to the north of the monolith that is the USA.
But drama...not so easy.
In trying to determine a shortlist, I searched long and hard. Series like The Eleventh Hour or This Is Wonderland or Intelligence were quality but didn't quite attain the necessary 'popularity' factor. Cold Squad and Divinci's Inquest were popular and ran well into the 2000's, but both began airing in 1998 (and one of the criteria seems to be that the series began airing by or at least roundabouts 2000).
Stargate: SG1 or at least it's spinoff Stargate: Atlantis were certainly long-running and popular enough to warrant consideration. And as far as 'defining' us, service producing US programming is certainly high on the list of things we do as an industry...and the Stargates' definitely fall into that category (which is kind of an unfair rap against them because even though the vast majority of cast, crew, writers, showrunners are Canadian, it's primary investors and broadcasters have been American - MGM and US's Showtime and then SciFi channel). Thus, most people up here don't perceive them as distinctly 'Canadian' shows, so I moved on.
Degrassi: Next Generation has been around most of the decade, so it should be a nominee...but it's a half hour drama and the second incarnation (or is it 3rd?) of a series (Degrassi Jr. High) that probably defined us in the 1980's....tell me we've come at least some ways since then, please? In fact, the whole teen/tween/kids arena could certainly define recent Canadian TV to a large extent...there have been countless series/programs of that ilk quite successful in their own right in this category. But the defining show? Nope, can't go there.
Slings & Arrows, Regenesis, Durham County, The Collector, Blood Ties, Mutant X, Blue Murder, The Border, Whistler, Falcon Beach...were all either too new or short-lived or too niche/genre to be serious contenders (but feel free to disagree with me).
All in all, I said "damn!"...it's been a pretty miserable run for Canadian dramatic TV.
Most of us called 'bullshit', not that it really mattered what we said. From the same article:
Also true. Not that it mattered what the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said.
For me, Train 48 embodied Canadian TV and TV trends of the past decade....cheaply produced programming with the primary mandate to fulfill quotas and mandates, NOT to make popular and entertaining hits of high or at least decent quality. The network, and the government and regulatory bodies overseeing the networks/industry really didn't seem to care. And it had a profoundly negative effect on the industry, at least in my circles...as in, if this was the kind of crap that a major broadcaster wanted to throw its weight and energy and money (pittance that it was) behind...was there any point? Was there any hope for us?
From friends, relatives, American colleagues, I heard more negative comments about Train 48 than any other Canadian show produced over the past decade...and every conversation went the same way: have you seen it? did you work on it? isn't it terrible...like, laughable? And then the kicker....is that the best you guys in Canadian TV can do?
It was tough to argue with them. And the resulting feeling was really demoralizing and depressing...not so much because we couldn't do better for the networks, but because the networks didn't really appear to want 'better'. Train 48 was 'good enough' it seemed, and we've been paying for and trying to live that down for the past four years.
That said, there has been a recent trend to at least try to return to more engaging quality dramatic TV (though having the US as a partner seems to be a necessary criteria). And, even if just through pilots, there's also been an attempt to make more of it...drama, that is. But still...
...we were off the rails for quite a while.
TRAIN IN VAIN
I have been following with interest the thread that began at Anthony Strand's Live Journal and then continued at Weinman's TV Guidance where they've been discussing...what is the definitive TV show of the past decade?
First off, how do you define definitive? Does that mean greatest, most popular, coolest, hippest, most influential...? I suppose it's a bit of 'all of the above, and as Weinman explains, that doesn't necessarily mean best show, but one that best embodies TV and TV trends over the past (almost) 10 years.
Between Strand/Weinman and the commenters I would say they've covered all the possible candidates pretty well. Strand chose one drama and one comedy...and singling out Arrested Development as the definitive comedy of the 2000's(?) made a lot of sense (though I would award a tie between it and the UK's The Office). And while I'm not sure if Angel stands up as the decade's 'definitive' drama, Strand makes a solid case. Lost, House, 24, CSI, and The Sopranos all deserve consideration, and I still wouldn't exclude Survivor or American Idol (they may not be drama drama, but they sure come very close to 'defining' the TV decade as far as I'm concerned).
At any rate, one thing I took away was the lack of one show standing out...a single program/ series from the past nine years that was entertaining and popular yet also managed to encapsulate the mood, mindset, ambiance, and personality of the decade --- like The X Files or Buffy or Seinfeld or Friends did in the 90's.
Perhaps it's due to there being so many good series out there of late. Or that viewer fragmentation has expanded to such a degree that it's almost impossible for one show/series to stand out. Anyway, go check out those posts --- what I wanted to put on the table is....
....what might be the definitive Canadian series/show of the decade?
Again, comedy seems to be a little easier to nail...a toss up between Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys in my opinion. They both were popular enough to be known by most people of this country (whether you 'liked' them or not isn't really part of the equation)...but they also in their own way defined us as gentler simpler and slightly snarkier people/neighbours to the north of the monolith that is the USA.
But drama...not so easy.
In trying to determine a shortlist, I searched long and hard. Series like The Eleventh Hour or This Is Wonderland or Intelligence were quality but didn't quite attain the necessary 'popularity' factor. Cold Squad and Divinci's Inquest were popular and ran well into the 2000's, but both began airing in 1998 (and one of the criteria seems to be that the series began airing by or at least roundabouts 2000).
Stargate: SG1 or at least it's spinoff Stargate: Atlantis were certainly long-running and popular enough to warrant consideration. And as far as 'defining' us, service producing US programming is certainly high on the list of things we do as an industry...and the Stargates' definitely fall into that category (which is kind of an unfair rap against them because even though the vast majority of cast, crew, writers, showrunners are Canadian, it's primary investors and broadcasters have been American - MGM and US's Showtime and then SciFi channel). Thus, most people up here don't perceive them as distinctly 'Canadian' shows, so I moved on.
Degrassi: Next Generation has been around most of the decade, so it should be a nominee...but it's a half hour drama and the second incarnation (or is it 3rd?) of a series (Degrassi Jr. High) that probably defined us in the 1980's....tell me we've come at least some ways since then, please? In fact, the whole teen/tween/kids arena could certainly define recent Canadian TV to a large extent...there have been countless series/programs of that ilk quite successful in their own right in this category. But the defining show? Nope, can't go there.
Slings & Arrows, Regenesis, Durham County, The Collector, Blood Ties, Mutant X, Blue Murder, The Border, Whistler, Falcon Beach...were all either too new or short-lived or too niche/genre to be serious contenders (but feel free to disagree with me).
All in all, I said "damn!"...it's been a pretty miserable run for Canadian dramatic TV.
Which leads me to my choice for definitive Canadian TV show/series of the decade... Train 48.
Now I know I'm probably going to get called down for naming this show...but for me, Train 48 encapsulated all that Canadian TV has for the most part been since the devastating CRTC decisions of 1999. You know, the changes that decimated the indigenous industry and killed a lot of dramatic TV production by allowing broadcasters to fulfill its Canadian content mandates and quotas with news magazine, arts and entertainment, lifestyle, and reality programming.
A quick recap. The time was 2002/2003. I'd just moved back from LA to Canada, and sussing out what was going on and getting made up here...and truth was, not very much. And then I heard about this new series from CanWest Global. Under pressure to start producing more homegrown TV, specifically drama, and in order to fulfill it's conditions of license and meet CRTC mandated expectations, the network bought into an Australian soap format called Going Home and transplanted it to Toronto. Set entirely on a Go Train, it told the story of a group of commuters each day returning to the suburbs and surrounding communities from downtown Toronto. Largely improvised from outlines (so full writer/script fees wouldn't have to be paid), it was notorious for it's bargain-basement production values and mediocre performances. Shot on the cheap...an episode a day - it was, in short, embarrassing.
And it ran for 3 years.
EDIT: H/T to Weinman for finding a clip (and don't take this whole write up as a knock against the crew or actors or creatives on the show as much as to hammer home the sad fact that this was considered acceptable drama by the network)
Check out some of the negative comment threads on imdb.com for starters, just to get a taste of the disdain people had for this program. And the WGC had a 'behind the scenes' piece on the program HERE, which helps give the lay of the land. From the article:
Global denies picking up the series to meet Canadian content obligations on the cheap. "It costs less per episode, but the volume makes it more expensive," says Loren Mawhinney, vice president of Canadian productions. "Sixty-five episodes cost over $6 million, compared to $3.25 million for all 13 hours of Blue Murder."
Mawhinney calls Train 48 an "out-of-the-box way of creating drama," and says Global hopes to use it to lure advertisers in an increasingly fragmented marketplace. The network also wants the independence of making shows without any direct government funding.
Most of us called 'bullshit', not that it really mattered what we said. From the same article:
Tim Woods of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting says Global has no excuse for not investing in high-budget dramas. "Simultaneous substitution–putting Canadian commercials on popular American shows–is worth an enormous amount of money to broadcasters. It's a gift in exchange for investing in Canadian shows," he says.
Woods suggests broadcasters hoodwinked the CRTC by establishing a "trust policy" in 1999 that leaves it up to them how to fill time allotted for Canadian programming, rather than requiring them to invest a revenue percentage in Canadian shows.
Also true. Not that it mattered what the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said.
For me, Train 48 embodied Canadian TV and TV trends of the past decade....cheaply produced programming with the primary mandate to fulfill quotas and mandates, NOT to make popular and entertaining hits of high or at least decent quality. The network, and the government and regulatory bodies overseeing the networks/industry really didn't seem to care. And it had a profoundly negative effect on the industry, at least in my circles...as in, if this was the kind of crap that a major broadcaster wanted to throw its weight and energy and money (pittance that it was) behind...was there any point? Was there any hope for us?
From friends, relatives, American colleagues, I heard more negative comments about Train 48 than any other Canadian show produced over the past decade...and every conversation went the same way: have you seen it? did you work on it? isn't it terrible...like, laughable? And then the kicker....is that the best you guys in Canadian TV can do?
It was tough to argue with them. And the resulting feeling was really demoralizing and depressing...not so much because we couldn't do better for the networks, but because the networks didn't really appear to want 'better'. Train 48 was 'good enough' it seemed, and we've been paying for and trying to live that down for the past four years.
That said, there has been a recent trend to at least try to return to more engaging quality dramatic TV (though having the US as a partner seems to be a necessary criteria). And, even if just through pilots, there's also been an attempt to make more of it...drama, that is. But still...
...we were off the rails for quite a while.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Television. Adventure.
Where to begin.
Around this time last year I purchased my first HD television, a 26 inch Sony KDL 26M3000. And I gotta say....I lurve my HD tee-vee. I've actually watched more basic network tv programs over the past year because I find myself only flipping between channels 501 - 525 now...cuz dem's the HD channels. Four are movie channels...two are PBS...and the rest are just your basic U.S. nets NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC east and west...and Canadian nets CTV, GLOBAL, CITY, and CTV. There's been more than one occasion that I've found myself watching an ep of L&O: Criminal Intent, just because it looks so fine.
Anyway, a few months ago a black line appeared down the right half of the screen or picture panel. Out of the blue. And then the line widened. I looked into the problem...dead pixels. Looked like this:
Thus endeth my television adventure. In and out in six days..the way it should be. Nice.
As for the other Television Adventure, that's another post for another time...when the topic is brilliant but unsung new wave bands from the late '70's.
Around this time last year I purchased my first HD television, a 26 inch Sony KDL 26M3000. And I gotta say....I lurve my HD tee-vee. I've actually watched more basic network tv programs over the past year because I find myself only flipping between channels 501 - 525 now...cuz dem's the HD channels. Four are movie channels...two are PBS...and the rest are just your basic U.S. nets NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC east and west...and Canadian nets CTV, GLOBAL, CITY, and CTV. There's been more than one occasion that I've found myself watching an ep of L&O: Criminal Intent, just because it looks so fine.
Anyway, a few months ago a black line appeared down the right half of the screen or picture panel. Out of the blue. And then the line widened. I looked into the problem...dead pixels. Looked like this:
And as I investigated some more, I learned this is fairly common in LCD televisions. Happens about 30% of the time apparently. Not common to any particular brand, it just happens. New technology I was told. Harrumph. Well that sucks. But no worries, it still should be covered under the manufacturer's one year warranty.
So last week, with the warranty nearly expired, I went to my neighbourhood Best Buy...you know, where I purchased the telly in the first place...to get some direction. Erm...bad idea. I asked the first sales assistant I could find where I should take my television to be fixed, and his response: "Why didn't you get the Best Buy extended service plan?" Um, I just didn't. Again I asked, where's the authorized Sony service dealer in town? He shrugged and said: "Don't think there is one. You're going to have to box it up and ship your television back to Sony. Probably will be gone months. Should've got our extended service plan, man."
Sorry...but you're not helping.
I asked another sales assistant...exact same response. Now I was getting snarky. C'mon...let's move past the fact I didn't get the Best Buy extended service plan, where do I go to get it fixed? Shrug. Still not discouraged, I asked a third sales assistant where the authorized Sony service dealer was in town. "Oh, that'd be Video Refit over on McKara." Thank you! I immediately led this helpful gentleman over to the two other fucktards and had him tell them what he'd told me. It didn't seem to matter, they just stared at him blankly... but I felt better.
So I went home and boxed up my Sony and whisked it over to Video Refit, along with my bill of sale and one year warranty card. They seemed very busy there, but were quite helpful...even though I was the annoying customer with lots of questions: were they going to repair or replace screen/panel? Or were they going to just replace it with a new television since apparently the cost of the panel is the majority of cost of the entire unit? And how were they determine what was going to be done...were they going to assess the dead pixel problem themselves? Or did they have to ship to Sony HQ for them to assess?
All my questions were answered...and panel replacement or television replacement were definitely options. They also said a third option might be a refund or voucher so I could go back to Best Buy and replace my TV that way. But they said give them 7-10 days to figure things out...I nodded but left reluctantly, already missing my HD TV.
A refund/voucher, huh? The wheels in my head started spinning...if I got back the purchase price of what I paid a year ago, I could upgrade to a 32 inch version of same television (since prices have dropped). And not only that, I could get the 1080p model, as opposed to the lowly 720p model I was currently saddled with. I raced back to Best Buy to explore this option. And happily, a former student of mine was working in the TV department that afternoon. So I was able to pick his brain without the annoying "Why didn't you get the service plan?" question.
And here's what I learned.
He guessimated it would be about three months before I saw my TV again....that was his experience with people trying to get items repaired or replaced under manufacturer's warranty. WTF? And as for the second part of my master plan, he said he'd never seen a refund or voucher in lieu of replacement or repair before. Bummer. But most importantly, he said that no North American networks broadcast in 1080p!
I. Did. Not. Know. That.
Read about it here and here and here, but bottom line is that it's a bandwidth issue (networks broadcast HD in 720p or 1080i), so having a 1080p television doesn't mean my HD network shows will look noticeably better. Which begged the question: why spend the extra $ for the 1080p if the best digital HD signal you can receive is 720p (or 1080i, same diff)? Oh sure...your Blu-Ray movies will look better, since they are actually delivering a 1080p signal, but that's pretty much it.
I was glad to discover all this, but a little miffed. I'd always been led to believe that HD tv means 1080p tv, if your television can accommodate it. As it turns out...not so much.
Anyhow, my new best Best Buy pal also informed me 'defect' is open to interpretation when it comes to manufacturer's warranty...and in the case of dead pixels, there's actually a number that have to appear before it's considered defective. It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and model to model, but bottom line is that several (up to 10 I believe) random dead pixels on your LCD screen falls into normal use/wear and tear, and not a defect to be repaired or replaced. And he said to make sure the manufacturers warranty covered parts and labour...apparently some don't do both.
I was now muttering and twitching...expecting my TV to not only not get looked at for months, but that then I'd be informed my problem wasn't even 'covered' or I'd have to pay for work done anyway.
At any rate, this television adventure has a happy ending. One that sent me over the Marquee Moon, so to speak.
End of last week, a mere six days after dropping off my Sony, I received a call from the repair shop. Come pick it up, your television is ready. Really? I double-checked to make sure they had the right person....even reading out the number off my ticket stub. Yep...it was mine.
I drove over later that afternoon and was greeted by the manager. Nice fellow. But he immediately launched into a "Oh we're so sorry about how long it took to repair your telly..." I'm confused. Say I'm not complaining. He sighs and explains how many units they get in that need repair and how short-staffed he is...pulls out my invoice and loudly sighs: "Oh c'mon...let's see when you brought your tv in. The 30th....see?", followed by more apologies. I am now really confused. It's okay I say...I'm really not complaining. Then he takes a closer look at my work order...now he looks confused. "This was just last week," he says. I nod. He hustles over to the box containing my tv and checks the ticket stub number. "Wow," he says, "Did you really bring it in last week?" Again, I nod.
Now he's shaking his head and reviews the work order --- they'd looked at it the day after I'd dropped it off, determined enough pixels were dead to warrant repair, sent the evidence to Sony HQ (they have to take pictures and list specs apparently), the new panel arrived two days later, they took out the 'defective' one and replaced it with the new one, and then called me.
He told me I should buy a lottery ticket, because in all his days he'd never seen one go through the system that fast. Nevertheless, I still had him turn mine on, just to make sure it was working properly. It was. I thanked him, signed the completed work order, and humped my Sony out to the car and home again.
And the warranty covered everything.
Thus endeth my television adventure. In and out in six days..the way it should be. Nice.
As for the other Television Adventure, that's another post for another time...when the topic is brilliant but unsung new wave bands from the late '70's.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Best Before Date
I had several things this morning I wanted to link to and comment on, but got busy and one thing led to...well, you know how it is.
So keeping it short and sweet, go check out THIS POST at Just Thinking... by Earl Pomerantz, a terrific TV writer with a long track record primarily in American sit-coms. He talks about the ageism settlement that a group of writers recently won (as also reported by Nikki Finke) against the ICM Talent Agency, and whether discrimination was really at play here.
He's got a good point there. And then Mr. Pomerantz neatly brings it around full circle:
Nice.
I've written about this topic in other forums, like Ink Canada.
I still contest that the struggles we face to get hired (hell...or even meetings!) as we get older has sooooo much to do with what one will do for the gig when one is younger and starting out. You'll work for free, laugh at the asshole producer's lame jokes, do countless unpaid revisions, be asked to cut corners or screw colleagues...all in exchange for the supposed privilege of being allowed to maybe play in the big leagues. But then as you get older and wiser etc., and, yes, more experienced and probably better suited and prepared for the work, there's a reluctance to put up with the bullshit of the biz. And you can become known as 'difficult' or 'won't play by the rules'...or even 'too expensive' if you've had a decent but not meteoric run. Hence, it can just be cheaper and easier to go younger.
The cream of the crop will usually always rise to the top, regardless of the age. But when playing in the middle leagues, which is what most of us do, TV/movies has been and always will be primarily a young man/girls game.
But what I said isn't exactly discrimination either...rather a resistence to play the game, or not being good enough to rise above all the crap. So Pomerantz has got me going "Hmmmm...", how much merit was there in this lawsuit/settlement anyway?
Anyhow, his entire piece is well worth reading. Seriously, GO, before it becomes old news.
So keeping it short and sweet, go check out THIS POST at Just Thinking... by Earl Pomerantz, a terrific TV writer with a long track record primarily in American sit-coms. He talks about the ageism settlement that a group of writers recently won (as also reported by Nikki Finke) against the ICM Talent Agency, and whether discrimination was really at play here.
Why are agencies and the studios and networks discriminating against older writers? Do they despise them? Are older writers perceived as being genetically inferior? That can’t be true. Their genes haven’t altered from when they were young writers, and fully employed.
What’s the reason older writers are discriminated against? Is it “Wrinkle Envy”? What?
Older writers are not hired because they are perceived as being unable to provide material that will deliver the younger audience advertisers require the networks to attract. Agencies are dropping them, because they can’t get them any work. In other words – an argument can be made – and probably has been – that that this has nothing to do with discrimination at all. It’s simply a matter of business.
It’s an argument that cannot be easily dismissed. Can you imagine a similar lawsuit being brought against Major League Baseball by a group of fifty year-old ballplayers?
He's got a good point there. And then Mr. Pomerantz neatly brings it around full circle:
In the article about the agism lawsuit, a writer named Larry Mintz was mentioned as one of the plaintiffs. Among his credits, it was reported, were Sanford and Son, The Nanny and Family Matters. These are estimable credits on successful sitcoms, but do those shows bear any resemblance to the half-hour comedies they’re making today? (This is no shot at Mr. Mintz. You can ask the same question using my credits.)
Can an older writer learn to write scripts consistent with contemporary tastes and standards? Some can, I imagine. I’m probably not be one of them. The structure’s not the problem – as I mentioned, a story’s a story – but the current sensibility, with its focus on the coarse, the blatantly sexual, the humiliating and the pain inducing…it’s not my natural terrain.
An older writer can try to “write young”, though their efforts may prove imitative rather than generic. The option of older writers’ exploring their current experiences for the enjoyment of their contemporaries is unavailable, since advertisers aren’t interested in the older audience, making their stooges, the networks, unwilling to program for them.
This seems like a mistake, since the only audience still loyal to the network television brand is that very same older audience. Someday, perhaps, the business people will wise up and program for who’s watching – the older audience – instead of who they wish were watching – the otherwise engaged younger audience – in which case, the older writers are back in business.
Nice.
I've written about this topic in other forums, like Ink Canada.
I still contest that the struggles we face to get hired (hell...or even meetings!) as we get older has sooooo much to do with what one will do for the gig when one is younger and starting out. You'll work for free, laugh at the asshole producer's lame jokes, do countless unpaid revisions, be asked to cut corners or screw colleagues...all in exchange for the supposed privilege of being allowed to maybe play in the big leagues. But then as you get older and wiser etc., and, yes, more experienced and probably better suited and prepared for the work, there's a reluctance to put up with the bullshit of the biz. And you can become known as 'difficult' or 'won't play by the rules'...or even 'too expensive' if you've had a decent but not meteoric run. Hence, it can just be cheaper and easier to go younger.
The cream of the crop will usually always rise to the top, regardless of the age. But when playing in the middle leagues, which is what most of us do, TV/movies has been and always will be primarily a young man/girls game.
But what I said isn't exactly discrimination either...rather a resistence to play the game, or not being good enough to rise above all the crap. So Pomerantz has got me going "Hmmmm...", how much merit was there in this lawsuit/settlement anyway?
Anyhow, his entire piece is well worth reading. Seriously, GO, before it becomes old news.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Train In Vain...(or How Canadian TV Drama Got Derailed Over The Past Ten Years)
I have been following with interest the thread that began at Anthony Strand's Live Journal and then continued at Weinman's TV Guidance where they've been discussing...what is the definitive TV show of the past decade?
First off, how do you define definitive? Does that mean greatest, most popular, coolest, hippest, most influential...? I suppose it's a bit of 'all of the above, and as Weinman explains, that doesn't necessarily mean best show, but one that best embodies TV and TV trends over the past (almost) 10 years.
Between Strand/Weinman and the commenters I would say they've covered all the possible candidates pretty well. Strand chose one drama and one comedy...and singling out Arrested Development as the definitive comedy of the 2000's(?) made a lot of sense (though I would award a tie between it and the UK's The Office). And while I'm not sure if Angel stands up as the decade's 'definitive' drama, Strand makes a solid case. Lost, House, 24, CSI, and The Sopranos all deserve consideration, and I still wouldn't exclude Survivor or American Idol (they may not be drama drama, but they sure come very close to 'defining' the TV decade as far as I'm concerned).
At any rate, one thing I took away was the lack of one show standing out...a single program/ series from the past nine years that was entertaining and popular yet also managed to encapsulate the mood, mindset, ambiance, and personality of the decade --- like The X Files or Buffy or Seinfeld or Friends did in the 90's.
Perhaps it's due to there being so many good series out there of late. Or that viewer fragmentation has expanded to such a degree that it's almost impossible for one show/series to stand out. Anyway, go check out those posts --- what I wanted to put on the table is....
....what might be the definitive Canadian series/show of the decade?
Again, comedy seems to be a little easier to nail...a toss up between Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys in my opinion. They both were popular enough to be known by most people of this country (whether you 'liked' them or not isn't really part of the equation)...but they also in their own way defined us as gentler simpler and slightly snarkier people/neighbours to the north of the monolith that is the USA.
But drama...not so easy.
In trying to determine a shortlist, I searched long and hard. Series like The Eleventh Hour or This Is Wonderland or Intelligence were quality but didn't quite attain the necessary 'popularity' factor. Cold Squad and Divinci's Inquest were popular and ran well into the 2000's, but both began airing in 1998 (and one of the criteria seems to be that the series began airing by or at least roundabouts 2000).
Stargate: SG1 or at least it's spinoff Stargate: Atlantis were certainly long-running and popular enough to warrant consideration. And as far as 'defining' us, service producing US programming is certainly high on the list of things we do as an industry...and the Stargates' definitely fall into that category (which is kind of an unfair rap against them because even though the vast majority of cast, crew, writers, showrunners are Canadian, it's primary investors and broadcasters have been American - MGM and US's Showtime and then SciFi channel). Thus, most people up here don't perceive them as distinctly 'Canadian' shows, so I moved on.
Degrassi: Next Generation has been around most of the decade, so it should be a nominee...but it's a half hour drama and the second incarnation (or is it 3rd?) of a series (Degrassi Jr. High) that probably defined us in the 1980's....tell me we've come at least some ways since then, please? In fact, the whole teen/tween/kids arena could certainly define recent Canadian TV to a large extent...there have been countless series/programs of that ilk quite successful in their own right in this category. But the defining show? Nope, can't go there.
Slings & Arrows, Regenesis, Durham County, The Collector, Blood Ties, Mutant X, Blue Murder, The Border, Whistler, Falcon Beach...were all either too new or short-lived or too niche/genre to be serious contenders (but feel free to disagree with me).
All in all, I said "damn!"...it's been a pretty miserable run for Canadian dramatic TV.
Most of us called 'bullshit', not that it really mattered what we said. From the same article:
Also true. Not that it mattered what the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said.
For me, Train 48 embodied Canadian TV and TV trends of the past decade....cheaply produced programming with the primary mandate to fulfill quotas and mandates, NOT to make popular and entertaining hits of high or at least decent quality. The network, and the government and regulatory bodies overseeing the networks/industry really didn't seem to care. And it had a profoundly negative effect on the industry, at least in my circles...as in, if this was the kind of crap that a major broadcaster wanted to throw its weight and energy and money (pittance that it was) behind...was there any point? Was there any hope for us?
From friends, relatives, American colleagues, I heard more negative comments about Train 48 than any other Canadian show produced over the past decade...and every conversation went the same way: have you seen it? did you work on it? isn't it terrible...like, laughable? And then the kicker....is that the best you guys in Canadian TV can do?
It was tough to argue with them. And the resulting feeling was really demoralizing and depressing...not so much because we couldn't do better for the networks, but because the networks didn't really appear to want 'better'. Train 48 was 'good enough' it seemed, and we've been paying for and trying to live that down for the past four years.
That said, there has been a recent trend to at least try to return to more engaging quality dramatic TV (though having the US as a partner seems to be a necessary criteria). And, even if just through pilots, there's also been an attempt to make more of it...drama, that is. But still...
...we were off the rails for quite a while.
Definitive Canadian TV show of the past decade...what do you think?
First off, how do you define definitive? Does that mean greatest, most popular, coolest, hippest, most influential...? I suppose it's a bit of 'all of the above, and as Weinman explains, that doesn't necessarily mean best show, but one that best embodies TV and TV trends over the past (almost) 10 years.
Between Strand/Weinman and the commenters I would say they've covered all the possible candidates pretty well. Strand chose one drama and one comedy...and singling out Arrested Development as the definitive comedy of the 2000's(?) made a lot of sense (though I would award a tie between it and the UK's The Office). And while I'm not sure if Angel stands up as the decade's 'definitive' drama, Strand makes a solid case. Lost, House, 24, CSI, and The Sopranos all deserve consideration, and I still wouldn't exclude Survivor or American Idol (they may not be drama drama, but they sure come very close to 'defining' the TV decade as far as I'm concerned).
At any rate, one thing I took away was the lack of one show standing out...a single program/ series from the past nine years that was entertaining and popular yet also managed to encapsulate the mood, mindset, ambiance, and personality of the decade --- like The X Files or Buffy or Seinfeld or Friends did in the 90's.
Perhaps it's due to there being so many good series out there of late. Or that viewer fragmentation has expanded to such a degree that it's almost impossible for one show/series to stand out. Anyway, go check out those posts --- what I wanted to put on the table is....
....what might be the definitive Canadian series/show of the decade?
Again, comedy seems to be a little easier to nail...a toss up between Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys in my opinion. They both were popular enough to be known by most people of this country (whether you 'liked' them or not isn't really part of the equation)...but they also in their own way defined us as gentler simpler and slightly snarkier people/neighbours to the north of the monolith that is the USA.
But drama...not so easy.
In trying to determine a shortlist, I searched long and hard. Series like The Eleventh Hour or This Is Wonderland or Intelligence were quality but didn't quite attain the necessary 'popularity' factor. Cold Squad and Divinci's Inquest were popular and ran well into the 2000's, but both began airing in 1998 (and one of the criteria seems to be that the series began airing by or at least roundabouts 2000).
Stargate: SG1 or at least it's spinoff Stargate: Atlantis were certainly long-running and popular enough to warrant consideration. And as far as 'defining' us, service producing US programming is certainly high on the list of things we do as an industry...and the Stargates' definitely fall into that category (which is kind of an unfair rap against them because even though the vast majority of cast, crew, writers, showrunners are Canadian, it's primary investors and broadcasters have been American - MGM and US's Showtime and then SciFi channel). Thus, most people up here don't perceive them as distinctly 'Canadian' shows, so I moved on.
Degrassi: Next Generation has been around most of the decade, so it should be a nominee...but it's a half hour drama and the second incarnation (or is it 3rd?) of a series (Degrassi Jr. High) that probably defined us in the 1980's....tell me we've come at least some ways since then, please? In fact, the whole teen/tween/kids arena could certainly define recent Canadian TV to a large extent...there have been countless series/programs of that ilk quite successful in their own right in this category. But the defining show? Nope, can't go there.
Slings & Arrows, Regenesis, Durham County, The Collector, Blood Ties, Mutant X, Blue Murder, The Border, Whistler, Falcon Beach...were all either too new or short-lived or too niche/genre to be serious contenders (but feel free to disagree with me).
All in all, I said "damn!"...it's been a pretty miserable run for Canadian dramatic TV.
Which leads me to my choice for definitive Canadian TV show/series of the decade... Train 48.
Now I know I'm probably going to get called down for naming this show...but for me, Train 48 encapsulated all that Canadian TV has for the most part been since the devastating CRTC decisions of 1999. You know, the changes that decimated the indigenous industry and killed a lot of dramatic TV production by allowing broadcasters to fulfill its Canadian content mandates and quotas with news magazine, arts and entertainment, lifestyle, and reality programming.
A quick recap. The time was 2002/2003. I'd just moved back from LA to Canada, and sussing out what was going on and getting made up here...and truth was, not very much. And then I heard about this new series from CanWest Global. Under pressure to start producing more homegrown TV, specifically drama, and in order to fulfill it's conditions of license and meet CRTC mandated expectations, the network bought into an Australian soap format called Going Home and transplanted it to Toronto. Set entirely on a Go Train, it told the story of a group of commuters each day returning to the suburbs and surrounding communities from downtown Toronto. Largely improvised from outlines (so full writer/script fees wouldn't have to be paid), it was notorious for it's bargain-basement production values and mediocre performances. Shot on the cheap...an episode a day - it was, in short, embarrassing.
And it ran for 3 years.
EDIT: H/T to Weinman for finding a clip (and don't take this whole write up as a knock against the crew or actors or creatives on the show as much as to hammer home the sad fact that this was considered acceptable drama by the network)
Check out some of the negative comment threads on imdb.com for starters, just to get a taste of the disdain people had for this program. And the WGC had a 'behind the scenes' piece on the program HERE, which helps give the lay of the land. From the article:
Global denies picking up the series to meet Canadian content obligations on the cheap. "It costs less per episode, but the volume makes it more expensive," says Loren Mawhinney, vice president of Canadian productions. "Sixty-five episodes cost over $6 million, compared to $3.25 million for all 13 hours of Blue Murder."
Mawhinney calls Train 48 an "out-of-the-box way of creating drama," and says Global hopes to use it to lure advertisers in an increasingly fragmented marketplace. The network also wants the independence of making shows without any direct government funding.
Most of us called 'bullshit', not that it really mattered what we said. From the same article:
Tim Woods of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting says Global has no excuse for not investing in high-budget dramas. "Simultaneous substitution–putting Canadian commercials on popular American shows–is worth an enormous amount of money to broadcasters. It's a gift in exchange for investing in Canadian shows," he says.
Woods suggests broadcasters hoodwinked the CRTC by establishing a "trust policy" in 1999 that leaves it up to them how to fill time allotted for Canadian programming, rather than requiring them to invest a revenue percentage in Canadian shows.
Also true. Not that it mattered what the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said.
For me, Train 48 embodied Canadian TV and TV trends of the past decade....cheaply produced programming with the primary mandate to fulfill quotas and mandates, NOT to make popular and entertaining hits of high or at least decent quality. The network, and the government and regulatory bodies overseeing the networks/industry really didn't seem to care. And it had a profoundly negative effect on the industry, at least in my circles...as in, if this was the kind of crap that a major broadcaster wanted to throw its weight and energy and money (pittance that it was) behind...was there any point? Was there any hope for us?
From friends, relatives, American colleagues, I heard more negative comments about Train 48 than any other Canadian show produced over the past decade...and every conversation went the same way: have you seen it? did you work on it? isn't it terrible...like, laughable? And then the kicker....is that the best you guys in Canadian TV can do?
It was tough to argue with them. And the resulting feeling was really demoralizing and depressing...not so much because we couldn't do better for the networks, but because the networks didn't really appear to want 'better'. Train 48 was 'good enough' it seemed, and we've been paying for and trying to live that down for the past four years.
That said, there has been a recent trend to at least try to return to more engaging quality dramatic TV (though having the US as a partner seems to be a necessary criteria). And, even if just through pilots, there's also been an attempt to make more of it...drama, that is. But still...
...we were off the rails for quite a while.
Definitive Canadian TV show of the past decade...what do you think?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
9021...Oh No
It's weird...I was actually writing up something last week wondering who the new reboot of Beverly Hills 90210 was for exactly...and then THIS happened.
From the Associated Press:
Jennie Garth? Tori Spelling? Shannen Doherty??? Now I'm really confused...who is this show trying to appeal to?
See, I'm interested because my kids watch and talk about these kinds of shows...they liked The O.C. a lot, and One Tree Hill, and Gilmore Girls, and even The Hills. And even though 90210 wasn't on their radar in its heyday, it's on their radar now. But still, why should I care...the reboot isn't really for me...or is it?
By several accounts, reviews of the new 90210 pilot script were pretty good...including Karen Hill guest posting/reviewing it on Jill Golick's blog. Hill says "the new 90210 eschews the cornball humour of the original series in favour of a hip, wry tone. There’s tons of banter and the de rigueur hyper-articulate TV adolescents who bear zero resemblance to the pimply mumblers trolling food courts everywhere."
Hip wry tone? Tons of banter? I suppose kudo's are in order to Rob Thomas and his successors, Jeff Judah and Gabe Sachs, for achieving TV 'goodness'...however, it sure ain't sounding like the 90210 I remember.
The original show was popcorn...fun, flavourful, and tasty, but still just popcorn at the end of the day. And I don't mean to slag the talents of Darren Star...he's got it in spades. But Star's 90210 and his followup Melrose Place weren't trying to be TV goodness the way we define it today...except in the soaptastic kinda way. The reboot sounds like it wants to be good, like Veronica Mars or Freaks & Geeks 'good'...but the show title does not connote 'good', it will always only connote fun tasty popcorn.
Which led to my initial confusion...why call a piece of retro candy the same name if you are going to change all the ingredients? Some might argue it's only an 'updating' ...but I'd contest that as 'good' as other teen soap dramas like V Mars and Freaks & Geeks (and even Gossip Girl) are/were, NOBODY watched/watches them...or at least not in the kind of numbers that make for a real 'hit', which BH 90210 was for quite a few years.
The CW wants this reboot to be A HIT.
Furthermore, the original 90210 (like The Hills and The O.C. today) all began with little fanfare, then slowly built a primarily young audience who tuned in each week for some gossipy 'who's sleeping with who' water cooler fun. The new version already has too much hype, which means very high expectations, which means it can only disappoint.
But it doesn't have to disappoint, as long as it doesn't try to reach too high or too wide.
When these shows hit, they keep it simple and they appeal to a specific age group with closet desire for some occasional mindless escapism and fantasy drama. It can be pleasurable experience, but you really don't feel that good about watching. Seinfeld encapsulated it all perfectly in the episode where he didn't want to admit he watched Melrose Place...and when he finally fessed up to his soapy addiction, he lost the girl he was trying to hide it from. But that was still okay with Jerry...and the episode ended with him racing home to tune into a new Melrose ep. "Oh that Michael I hate him...he's just so smug."
The kids can and will eat that stuff up...but I'm not sure they will if it's weighed down by hip wry tone and ultra witty banter. Add to that the show bringing in a bunch of old cast members (who really really can't act for shit) from the original series, and I think the kids will be thrown off again. I know I was thrown off...does the show want the young un viewers? Or do they want me? Teens and twenty somethings looking for some soaptastic escapism? Or aging Gen X's with fond memories of a show they used to love?
I don't know anymore...but if the producers think a new tone and stunt casting will get them both, my fear is after big premiere numbers due to the curiosity factor, by trying to snare everyone, they'll end up with no one.
p.s. The new title sequence should probably look like THIS...but might end up looking more like THIS.
From the Associated Press:
Shannen Doherty will reprise her role as Brenda Walsh in CW's new version of the 1990-2000 series, with her character now a famous director who's invited back to stage a musical at her alma mater, the network said Saturday.
Walsh will guest star in multiple episodes, the network said at a meeting of the Television Critics Association — which, appropriately enough, was in Beverly Hills.
She'll be reunited with a few members of the old West Beverly High School gang. As previously announced, Jennie Garth will return as Kelly Taylor, now a school guidance counselor, and Tori Spelling will be back as Donna Martin, who owns a boutique.
Jennie Garth? Tori Spelling? Shannen Doherty??? Now I'm really confused...who is this show trying to appeal to?
See, I'm interested because my kids watch and talk about these kinds of shows...they liked The O.C. a lot, and One Tree Hill, and Gilmore Girls, and even The Hills. And even though 90210 wasn't on their radar in its heyday, it's on their radar now. But still, why should I care...the reboot isn't really for me...or is it?
By several accounts, reviews of the new 90210 pilot script were pretty good...including Karen Hill guest posting/reviewing it on Jill Golick's blog. Hill says "the new 90210 eschews the cornball humour of the original series in favour of a hip, wry tone. There’s tons of banter and the de rigueur hyper-articulate TV adolescents who bear zero resemblance to the pimply mumblers trolling food courts everywhere."
Hip wry tone? Tons of banter? I suppose kudo's are in order to Rob Thomas and his successors, Jeff Judah and Gabe Sachs, for achieving TV 'goodness'...however, it sure ain't sounding like the 90210 I remember.
The original show was popcorn...fun, flavourful, and tasty, but still just popcorn at the end of the day. And I don't mean to slag the talents of Darren Star...he's got it in spades. But Star's 90210 and his followup Melrose Place weren't trying to be TV goodness the way we define it today...except in the soaptastic kinda way. The reboot sounds like it wants to be good, like Veronica Mars or Freaks & Geeks 'good'...but the show title does not connote 'good', it will always only connote fun tasty popcorn.
Which led to my initial confusion...why call a piece of retro candy the same name if you are going to change all the ingredients? Some might argue it's only an 'updating' ...but I'd contest that as 'good' as other teen soap dramas like V Mars and Freaks & Geeks (and even Gossip Girl) are/were, NOBODY watched/watches them...or at least not in the kind of numbers that make for a real 'hit', which BH 90210 was for quite a few years.
The CW wants this reboot to be A HIT.
Furthermore, the original 90210 (like The Hills and The O.C. today) all began with little fanfare, then slowly built a primarily young audience who tuned in each week for some gossipy 'who's sleeping with who' water cooler fun. The new version already has too much hype, which means very high expectations, which means it can only disappoint.
But it doesn't have to disappoint, as long as it doesn't try to reach too high or too wide.
When these shows hit, they keep it simple and they appeal to a specific age group with closet desire for some occasional mindless escapism and fantasy drama. It can be pleasurable experience, but you really don't feel that good about watching. Seinfeld encapsulated it all perfectly in the episode where he didn't want to admit he watched Melrose Place...and when he finally fessed up to his soapy addiction, he lost the girl he was trying to hide it from. But that was still okay with Jerry...and the episode ended with him racing home to tune into a new Melrose ep. "Oh that Michael I hate him...he's just so smug."
The kids can and will eat that stuff up...but I'm not sure they will if it's weighed down by hip wry tone and ultra witty banter. Add to that the show bringing in a bunch of old cast members (who really really can't act for shit) from the original series, and I think the kids will be thrown off again. I know I was thrown off...does the show want the young un viewers? Or do they want me? Teens and twenty somethings looking for some soaptastic escapism? Or aging Gen X's with fond memories of a show they used to love?
I don't know anymore...but if the producers think a new tone and stunt casting will get them both, my fear is after big premiere numbers due to the curiosity factor, by trying to snare everyone, they'll end up with no one.
p.s. The new title sequence should probably look like THIS...but might end up looking more like THIS.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
So Technorati...What's Up?
I know I shouldn't be concerning myself with such trivial matters, but over the past several months I've watched (with some dismay) my Technorati links plummet off the charts. Not so long ago, they stood at around 60, now they waver tentatively at an almost embarrassing 14. Even though visitor stats were still respectable, I just figured other blogs had been deleting Uninflected Images from their blogroll since I hadn't been posting as often.
But still...would so many abandon the Dix so fast?
So I started clicking through the sidebar and my favourites, just to see if what I thought had happened was actually the case....and I stopped checking when I hit 45. Yes, that's right...at least 45 blogs were still linked here, and I know of several more I didn't need to check...yet my Technorati stats still sit at 14. What the huh?
Not that it's that important...really...but because I'm curious and/or vain, is there a tech/blog expert out there in the scriboblogosphere that can tell me...what's up? Or better yet, how does one get the stats up...again?
Edit: And just so we're clear, I'm not talking links to posts...those seem to drop off after a certain time period...but just links from blogroll to blog. Okay okay, I'll stop whining and write Technorati a note...
I now return to wondering how I will be able to see a lot of the new and returning CTV programs this fall when I don't have the A Channel as part of my cable package. Oh no! Oh right, I can see all those shows on US networks anyway...problem solved!
But still...would so many abandon the Dix so fast?
So I started clicking through the sidebar and my favourites, just to see if what I thought had happened was actually the case....and I stopped checking when I hit 45. Yes, that's right...at least 45 blogs were still linked here, and I know of several more I didn't need to check...yet my Technorati stats still sit at 14. What the huh?
Not that it's that important...really...but because I'm curious and/or vain, is there a tech/blog expert out there in the scriboblogosphere that can tell me...what's up? Or better yet, how does one get the stats up...again?
Edit: And just so we're clear, I'm not talking links to posts...those seem to drop off after a certain time period...but just links from blogroll to blog. Okay okay, I'll stop whining and write Technorati a note...
I now return to wondering how I will be able to see a lot of the new and returning CTV programs this fall when I don't have the A Channel as part of my cable package. Oh no! Oh right, I can see all those shows on US networks anyway...problem solved!
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Once You Go HD....
...you can never go...pee?
So I've taken the plunge, though it wasn't easy. Many years of begrudgingly upgrading (8 tracks to audio cassettes --- vinyl to cd's ---- VHS to DVD) had taken its toll and made me cautious of the 'next big thing', but I gave in and got me an HD television.
So I've taken the plunge, though it wasn't easy. Many years of begrudgingly upgrading (8 tracks to audio cassettes --- vinyl to cd's ---- VHS to DVD) had taken its toll and made me cautious of the 'next big thing', but I gave in and got me an HD television.
Wow.
But not without some research. Weeks of looking at 8 bit vs. 10 bit video processors and 720p or 1080i vs. 1080p comparisons not to mention 60hz vs. 120hz frame rate analysis finally resulted in a purchase, and Sony won out again.
I can play with madness.
I remember when I made my first high end TV/media purchase. The year was 1990 and I dived in deep with a 27" Sony XBR and a 4 head Sony VCR. The two didn't come cheap. The TV cost $2,700.00. The VCR was $600.00. That's $3,300.00. Plus taxes. Gulp.
But what a sight to behold...they so put my 20" Citizen Television and top loading JVC VCR to shame.
That said, a similar-sized LCD High-Def Sony TV and a discounted Blu-Ray Player today...under a thousand bucks. Taxes in. Throw in the digital HD cable box with built-in PVR, and no hernia carrying the boxes from car to house...triple threat.
And the experience of viewing your favourite movie or TV show in sparkling 1080p? Sweet. Oh so sweet.
But will these new entertainment display units be dependable and last? One upside of my old Sony was that it made it through three cross country moves with several unintentional drops, bumps, and bashes, and was still ticking last year before some tube or circuit crapped out and I didn't bother repairing it. Better still was it's remote control. A tank of a hand unit, all the buttons still worked and numbers still visible, even after fifteen years of constant use. I know of two friends TV's bought in the past couple years that already have scotch tape over the battery holder and the number 3 is caput.
So we shall see.
And will I ever be able to watch analog or SD (Standard Def) channels again? My friends who'd already gone HD who warned me that they (and therefore I) can't go back. And I will admit throwing up a bit in my mouth on Saturday after flipping to the Golf Channel after just enjoying the Leafs beat the Penguins on CBC HD.
Come on 2009 (or is it 2010?)!
This article from MediaPost lists the U.S. channels actually available today, plus the hype (or lack thereof) of what's to come.
As for the future, can the images get any better, sharper, crisper? Oh, probably. But there's one thing we do know for sure....they will get cheaper. The price of the one I got has already dropped, just in time for Xmas.
Sigh.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Sunday Mish Mash...
Happy Thanksgiving Oh Canadians. Much to clean and plenty to cook so lets cut to the chase...
A while back I posted Hart Hanson's old essay about how to deal with notes on your script and the personality archetypes that might give those notes. A commenter asked if there was a list of writer or writer's room archetypes. I bailed on the request, but today Ken Levine delivers a great partial list at least...including 'Dr. No' and 'Mr Back In A Second'.
And Jaime Weinman at Macleans offers up some nice analysis of why new dramas need to click right out of the gate whereas comedies need some time to grow.
I get what Jaime's saying, but I contest it wasn't always that way. I was thinking back on my fav one hour TV series of the past fifteen years or so and realized that I'd watched none of them right from the pilot. Northern Exposure, The X Files, Buffy, The West Wing, Sopranos, Veronica Mars, and even House I didn't really 'discover' until near the end of the first season or beginning of the second year. And though the first seasons of all those shows were okay, it was the 2nd and 3rd year that they really began to sing. Why? Because like a lot of the comedy programs Jaime references, these shows were also allowed to grow.
Gotta run....thanks to NYBro for visiting and Happy Birthday JP!
A while back I posted Hart Hanson's old essay about how to deal with notes on your script and the personality archetypes that might give those notes. A commenter asked if there was a list of writer or writer's room archetypes. I bailed on the request, but today Ken Levine delivers a great partial list at least...including 'Dr. No' and 'Mr Back In A Second'.
And Jaime Weinman at Macleans offers up some nice analysis of why new dramas need to click right out of the gate whereas comedies need some time to grow.
Obviously there are many dramas that get better in the second season, but there are just as many that never live up to the promise of the first season (Desperate Housewives) or even the promise of their super-expensive pilots. Dramas often depend heavily on their basic premise or storyline, which means that the writers have more freedom in the first season, because the premise is still fresh and the story ideas are plentiful. As the series goes on, the premise has to be tweaked and stories are harder to come by, and that's why you wind up with Season 2 storylines like Elisha Cuthbert vs. a Cougar (24).In today's TV world, where there are more networks, more competition and less incentive for a network to stick with a show, a show has a tremendous advantage if it can be really, really good -- at its best, really -- in its first season.
I get what Jaime's saying, but I contest it wasn't always that way. I was thinking back on my fav one hour TV series of the past fifteen years or so and realized that I'd watched none of them right from the pilot. Northern Exposure, The X Files, Buffy, The West Wing, Sopranos, Veronica Mars, and even House I didn't really 'discover' until near the end of the first season or beginning of the second year. And though the first seasons of all those shows were okay, it was the 2nd and 3rd year that they really began to sing. Why? Because like a lot of the comedy programs Jaime references, these shows were also allowed to grow.
Gotta run....thanks to NYBro for visiting and Happy Birthday JP!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
What The 'Kids' Say Is Alright
I always go around the room at the start of each semester and ask my college students what TV they're watching and what movies or moviemakers they're digging...
In this class, preferences were all over the map, but the winners for TV seemed to be The Office and Arrested Development (both comedies, it should be noted). And I heard some praise for moviemakers Scorcese and Tarantino, but Wes Anderson appeared to triumph.
I like this choice.
Fact: even though I'm old by comparison, I also dig Wes Anderson, and would put the trilogy of Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and Royal Tenenbaums on a list of my favourite movies from the past ten years. Fact: his new film, The Darjeeling Limited, opens in a couple weeks. It appears to be another interesting meets quirky affair. Fact: Rolling Stone magazine gushes loudly...here's the trailer:
Looks good. It just made my list of things to do the day it opens. Hope 'the kids' approve.
In this class, preferences were all over the map, but the winners for TV seemed to be The Office and Arrested Development (both comedies, it should be noted). And I heard some praise for moviemakers Scorcese and Tarantino, but Wes Anderson appeared to triumph.
I like this choice.
Fact: even though I'm old by comparison, I also dig Wes Anderson, and would put the trilogy of Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and Royal Tenenbaums on a list of my favourite movies from the past ten years. Fact: his new film, The Darjeeling Limited, opens in a couple weeks. It appears to be another interesting meets quirky affair. Fact: Rolling Stone magazine gushes loudly...here's the trailer:
Looks good. It just made my list of things to do the day it opens. Hope 'the kids' approve.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Sexy Time?
Diane Keaton: Sex without love is an empty experience.
Woody Allen: Yes, but as far as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.
From Oz to Big Love, HBO is known for delivering some pretty powerful original drama series. Tell Me You Love Me is their latest offering (it premiered last night on Movie Central up here in Canada), and it has some pressure to perform after the John From Cincinnati misfire.
And speaking of performance, can I say...holy sex action Batman?!
But it's not like you think. We're not talking over-the-top teen movie sex, nor long-winded robot porn star sex...it's real sex, as in, like real life. It's almost as if Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz's "thirtysomething" got together with Clement Virgo's "Lie With Me" and they had a baby. The result is a sex-filled program that's pretty unsexy.
Why? Because it's goal isn't to arouse or stimulate, but to show how sex (or the lack thereof) plays a role in the lives of three couples of different ages and at different stages in their relationships who are all seeing the same couples therapist.
Shall we break it down? I'm going to ask the three questions I always ask of anyone pitching a story to the room:
What's the hook? I guess it's the graphic sex scenes....that's what everyone seems to be talking and writing about (I read a funny live blog of the show that basically read...he's jacking off...some talking....balls, I saw balls!...more talking...etc.). So what seems to be 'unique' about this show is sex scenes between some known Hollywood actors. And they're sex scenes where you see, you know, stuff.
What happens? Lots of heavy relationship talk and drama, interspersed with several scenes of sex either solo or between the members of these three couples.
And what's it about? Who knows for sure, since it's so early in the game, but I'm going to agree with others and say honest or pure intimacy...you know, the desire for each person to find or preserve or recover some degree of passionate closeness with whoever they are partnered with.
So, did it deliver the goods?
It's too soon to tell, but my feeling is that the parallel stories might be it's undoing. There's a distancing effect that occurs to a viewer when you intercut three or four disparate storylines --- you feel like an observer as opposed to being drawn in and moved emotionally (think Syriana or Traffic or Babel). I know this style makes the whole and the juxtaposition of the parts more important than the parts themselves, which can be swell for a movie, but for a continuing dramatic TV series, I'm not sure how well it can work.
And then there's the discomfort that can happen when you watch shows that cut a little too close to the bone, as it were. In this boys opinion, real life and real issues and realistic relationships can be informative and educational, but they're not very fun or entertaining. Entertaining is what I want my TV to be.
Then there's the fact that the world of the show is pretty, um, normal. The Sopranos and Buffy and Six Feet Under and Deadwood and The West Wing and Oz and on and on were fascinatingly entertaining because they took us to a unique new arena. But real life...real relationships...real problems...real issues - all set in a non-unique arena?
Sorry...been there, done that. Don't know if I want to relive it. And that's not to knock the acting or the drama that was being portrayed...I enjoy seeing all that stuff, but set in a funeral home, or an old west town, or the White House.
And lastly, there wasn't even a hint of a smile in the one hour. Pretty sombre serious stuff. Could've used a little sprinkle of the Woody Allen I say.
But what do I know...I just tuned in for the boobies.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Okay, Okay, I Love You Already!
HBO's new one hour drama series Tell Me You Love Me debuts this weekend...it's the story of three couples trying to stay afloat — and one woman's efforts to show them how to do it. Here's a nice preview of the show from AP's Frazier Moore:
He touts it as HBO's most important show since The Sopranos. Hmmm, could it be so? Or do we have another variation of Californication. Ugh.
Anybody got some buzz on this, and whether it'll be available in Canada (by over the air legal methods I mean)?
Early reports about the series have dwelled on its graphic sex scenes. But the sex only underlines what "Tell Me" is really about. For most of each hour, the characters engage in an even more intense brand of explicitness: Their beyond-the-flesh struggle to preserve, or recover, some measure of intimacy with the partner each of them is committed to. Which is to say there's lots of talk going on, set against the relatably ordinary lives these people lead.
He touts it as HBO's most important show since The Sopranos. Hmmm, could it be so? Or do we have another variation of Californication. Ugh.
Anybody got some buzz on this, and whether it'll be available in Canada (by over the air legal methods I mean)?
Monday, September 03, 2007
Entourage Chums Stink Like Shark Bait
When did Entourage 'jump the shark'?
Was there a specific scene? Or has it just fallen victim to a lightweight premise worn way too thin?
In the Season Four finale, the boys go to Sundance, I mean, Cannes, for the premiere of Vinnie's new film 'Medellin'. Of course it bombs...what else could possibly happen? But like nearly every other episode this year, the show tries to spin the positive at the end...with Ari and crew (and shows writers) clinging to Vinnie's mantra: 'Everything always works out.'
I can't remember a series where for an entire season I felt like I was watching a retread of previous episodes. Every beat felt familiar, every turn expected, every line of dialogue merely a slight variation of something said before...sad. Because Entourage's candle burned bright for a lot of the first three cycles. But I knew I was done when I found myself flipping to the weather channel to check tomorrows forecast in the middle of last night's season finale. I was that indifferent...and bored.
For me, the shark jump came in this season's penultimate episode...the one where the gang was trying to get to Cannes but no flights were available. Their chance to fly with director Sidney Pollack falls through, and then, lo and behold...Kayne West wanders through the airport about to leave for the UK on his own private jet (with plenty of room, of course).
"You boys want a lift?" (cue Kayne's new song to play over the close, just one more big ad for Los Angeles and its entertainment community). This sort of stunt felt fresh once. Now it just felt obvious, and tired.
Say goodbye to Hollywood...say goodbye to my Entourage baby.
EDIT: Course if they were to bring back Sloan (Canadian-born Emmanuelle Chriqui) in a prominent way, I might be convinced to feel otherwise...
Was there a specific scene? Or has it just fallen victim to a lightweight premise worn way too thin?
In the Season Four finale, the boys go to Sundance, I mean, Cannes, for the premiere of Vinnie's new film 'Medellin'. Of course it bombs...what else could possibly happen? But like nearly every other episode this year, the show tries to spin the positive at the end...with Ari and crew (and shows writers) clinging to Vinnie's mantra: 'Everything always works out.'
I can't remember a series where for an entire season I felt like I was watching a retread of previous episodes. Every beat felt familiar, every turn expected, every line of dialogue merely a slight variation of something said before...sad. Because Entourage's candle burned bright for a lot of the first three cycles. But I knew I was done when I found myself flipping to the weather channel to check tomorrows forecast in the middle of last night's season finale. I was that indifferent...and bored.
For me, the shark jump came in this season's penultimate episode...the one where the gang was trying to get to Cannes but no flights were available. Their chance to fly with director Sidney Pollack falls through, and then, lo and behold...Kayne West wanders through the airport about to leave for the UK on his own private jet (with plenty of room, of course).
"You boys want a lift?" (cue Kayne's new song to play over the close, just one more big ad for Los Angeles and its entertainment community). This sort of stunt felt fresh once. Now it just felt obvious, and tired.
Say goodbye to Hollywood...say goodbye to my Entourage baby.
EDIT: Course if they were to bring back Sloan (Canadian-born Emmanuelle Chriqui) in a prominent way, I might be convinced to feel otherwise...
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD...
Apparently there's been a quiet war waged lately between the next generation of high resolution DVD...Blu-Ray and HD DVD.
And a big shot went across the bow this week when two studios, Paramount and Dreamworks Animation, announced they would no longer be releasing their films in...wait for it...Blu-Ray!
More in this NY Times article.
Interesting. And it probably explains why Sony is announcing that their PlayStation 3's can now be configured (with an add-on) into a PVR.
More on that HERE from C21. You see, PS3's haven't been selling that well since their release..and one of their initial big selling points? Yes, they can play Blu-Ray discs.
Not that Blu-Ray was suffering...Disney and Twentieth Century Fox were already alligned behind Blu-Ray and only Blu-Ray. But as much as some people might be kicking themselves, this announcement by the other studios is probably a good thing. It'll start pushing us toward a winner. Right now, consumers are being asked to choose between two rather expensive and near-identical items. Pick one guys.
I've always resisted jumping onto the next hot new thang bandwagon, like when cd's began to challenge vinyl...or LaserDisc's took on VHS tape. Bragging rights never meant much to me. And there was always some annoyance with having to restart one's movie collection all over again. And for what? A few more features? A bit more clarity? Nicer sound? You're watching a movie in your basement for crying out loud!
Nevertheless, this Blu-Ray announcement did have a small impact on my consumer life. You see, one of the big selling points of the new Dell XPS laptop is that it's equipped with a Blu-Ray player. After the above announcement, I found myself rethinking the Dell purchase...or at least of that particular model.
Why pay for Betamax when VHS may be all that's out there in a year or so, ya know?
Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD. Anyone out there tried either format? Is there a clear frontrunner?
The rivalry between Blu-ray and HD DVD harks back to that 30 years ago between the VHS and Betamax formats for home video recording. Which high-definition technology is better has been the subject of intense debate in Hollywood for years. HD DVD players are about $200 cheaper than Blu-ray machines, but Blu-ray discs have more storage space and more advanced protections against piracy. Both versions deliver sharp resolution.
And a big shot went across the bow this week when two studios, Paramount and Dreamworks Animation, announced they would no longer be releasing their films in...wait for it...Blu-Ray!
More in this NY Times article.
Interesting. And it probably explains why Sony is announcing that their PlayStation 3's can now be configured (with an add-on) into a PVR.
The company will release a TV tuner called PlayTV early next year, which will plug into the back of the PS3 and allow consumers to watch, record and pause live digital terrestrial programming. PlayTV will initially go on sale in the UK, France, Germany and Spain and will also mean programmes from the PS3 can be streamed wirelessly to the PSP or transferred permanently via a USB cable.
More on that HERE from C21. You see, PS3's haven't been selling that well since their release..and one of their initial big selling points? Yes, they can play Blu-Ray discs.
Not that Blu-Ray was suffering...Disney and Twentieth Century Fox were already alligned behind Blu-Ray and only Blu-Ray. But as much as some people might be kicking themselves, this announcement by the other studios is probably a good thing. It'll start pushing us toward a winner. Right now, consumers are being asked to choose between two rather expensive and near-identical items. Pick one guys.
I've always resisted jumping onto the next hot new thang bandwagon, like when cd's began to challenge vinyl...or LaserDisc's took on VHS tape. Bragging rights never meant much to me. And there was always some annoyance with having to restart one's movie collection all over again. And for what? A few more features? A bit more clarity? Nicer sound? You're watching a movie in your basement for crying out loud!
Nevertheless, this Blu-Ray announcement did have a small impact on my consumer life. You see, one of the big selling points of the new Dell XPS laptop is that it's equipped with a Blu-Ray player. After the above announcement, I found myself rethinking the Dell purchase...or at least of that particular model.
Why pay for Betamax when VHS may be all that's out there in a year or so, ya know?
Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD. Anyone out there tried either format? Is there a clear frontrunner?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Kalifornication?
David Duchovny's new Showtime series Californication is being sold as a comedy, but it feels a lot darker than that...not quite Kalifornia dark, but close. That said, there's been some very clever lines of dialogue. And I did laugh out loud a couple times in both the pilot and episode 2. "It's all good!"
For the uninitiated, here's an overview clip:
But as Alex shuns and Denis mulls, there are more things bugging me about the show than loving about it right now.
Like Duchovny's character name, Hank Moody. He's a sarcastic, self-loathing, mid-life crisis case...oh, I get it now.
The opening title sequence felt wrong. Jittery home-movies (a la Wonder Years) of Duchovny and his ex-wife and his kid in what appear to be happier times set to a rockin' upbeat diddy just didn't jive with the show I was watching. Too bad The Red Hot Chili Pepper's tune wasn't available (I read somewhere it had already been bought by Disney for a theme park ride).
Moody smokes, but Duchovny's not a smoker. Sorry, but non-smoking actors trying to pull off smoking always comes off unconvincing...major buggage.
Duchovny's ex, played by the lovely and talented Natascha McElhone, smiles too much...at him and his little quips especially. He's been nothing but clingy and annoying while clearly living in the past and yet she won't just tell him to F*** off. If this is to set up the two of them getting back together, I won't buy it.
The blogging gig Duchovny takes to try to break his writers block clearly points the series in the direction of being a male variation of Sex In The City (with some of Entourage's west coast attitude thrown in). I don't know why that bugs me but it does.
And speaking of sex...all that sex, I now seen it's being depicted like Sex In The City sex...or more specifically, Kim Cattrall SITC sex - as in: Smash cut to the bedroom for effect or shock or laughs, as opposed to sexy sex. That wouldn't bug me per say, but the series has been sold so far as 'ground-breakingly' sexual. Misleading.
And the biggest bugaboo...believing that 21 year old actress Madeline Zima (Mia) is supposed to be sixteen. The big shocking twist of the pilot hung on that fact, and a lot of the complication of the second episode hinged on it as well. She looks and acts too old. Never. Bought. It. For. A. Second.
Californication feels like it's still trying to figure out what it is or what it wants to be. A single man in his 40's tries to find sex, love, happiness, and more sex in LA? Or a writer distraught by the breakup of his family tries to get back together with the mother of his child?
The XXX Files? Or The Ex Files?
We shall see.
For the uninitiated, here's an overview clip:
But as Alex shuns and Denis mulls, there are more things bugging me about the show than loving about it right now.
Like Duchovny's character name, Hank Moody. He's a sarcastic, self-loathing, mid-life crisis case...oh, I get it now.
The opening title sequence felt wrong. Jittery home-movies (a la Wonder Years) of Duchovny and his ex-wife and his kid in what appear to be happier times set to a rockin' upbeat diddy just didn't jive with the show I was watching. Too bad The Red Hot Chili Pepper's tune wasn't available (I read somewhere it had already been bought by Disney for a theme park ride).
Moody smokes, but Duchovny's not a smoker. Sorry, but non-smoking actors trying to pull off smoking always comes off unconvincing...major buggage.
Duchovny's ex, played by the lovely and talented Natascha McElhone, smiles too much...at him and his little quips especially. He's been nothing but clingy and annoying while clearly living in the past and yet she won't just tell him to F*** off. If this is to set up the two of them getting back together, I won't buy it.
The blogging gig Duchovny takes to try to break his writers block clearly points the series in the direction of being a male variation of Sex In The City (with some of Entourage's west coast attitude thrown in). I don't know why that bugs me but it does.
And speaking of sex...all that sex, I now seen it's being depicted like Sex In The City sex...or more specifically, Kim Cattrall SITC sex - as in: Smash cut to the bedroom for effect or shock or laughs, as opposed to sexy sex. That wouldn't bug me per say, but the series has been sold so far as 'ground-breakingly' sexual. Misleading.
And the biggest bugaboo...believing that 21 year old actress Madeline Zima (Mia) is supposed to be sixteen. The big shocking twist of the pilot hung on that fact, and a lot of the complication of the second episode hinged on it as well. She looks and acts too old. Never. Bought. It. For. A. Second.
Californication feels like it's still trying to figure out what it is or what it wants to be. A single man in his 40's tries to find sex, love, happiness, and more sex in LA? Or a writer distraught by the breakup of his family tries to get back together with the mother of his child?
The XXX Files? Or The Ex Files?
We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)