Well, I must apologize. It's been a long time since I've posted. There hasn't been a whole lot going on in the world of television, but that's not my excuse. Here's some unsolicited, un-television-related advice for you. If you find yourself pregnant with twins, don't decide to buy a house. Stupid. Just stupid!
Because of all that, I'm way behind on my television. But this past weekend, I finally saw the final finale of three of my cable shows. I thought I'd give my impressions.
Leverage
Leverage is new for me. I didn't see the first season, except for a couple episodes. Those episodes impressed me so much that I put Leverage on my DVR schedule. As you know, the relationships between characters is often what draws me in to a show. It's one of the things I love about Lost and about Bones. If the relationships aren't true, or are forced, I will eventually lose interest. Heroes is one show that lost me because of their failure to develop characters who could grow.
Leverage has a host of interesting characters. Nate Ford is a former insurance investigator who quit the business and sank into a drunken rage when his son died after the insurance company refused to pay for treatment. For reasons I don't understand, seeing as I never saw the pilot, Nate decided to help someone, but he needed skills he didn't possess. So, he found a grifter, hitter, thief, and hacker. All four of these characters were basically amoral who used their skills to help themselves, not others.
Sophie is the grifter. She's also an actress, but a terrible one when on stage. She fabulous when working a con. She works the most with Nate, and a romance of sorts is brewing between them. She humanizes most of the other characters who are somewhat socially limited. Sophie left to travel for a number of months "to find herself". The real reason is that Gina Bellwood, the actress who plays Sophie, was on maternity leave.
Eliot is the hitter. He's the hitter because he doesn't really like using weapons, though he can if he must. Skilled in martial arts, he mostly protects the group. He's often assumed to be a dumb jock, but he's actually smarter than he looks. He likes being underestimated.
Parker is the thief. No one knows if that is her first or last name. Raised in a number of foster homes, she is socially backward and relies on Sophie to help her with social skills. She is an extremely skilled thief, and is probably the most amoral of the group.
Lastly, Hardison is the hacker. He was also raised in foster homes, though it sounds like his childhood was more stable than Parker's. He's a self-professed geek who is able to hack into just about any computer system. However, in a funny joke, he did point out that he cannot "hack a hick."
But that doesn't tell you what the relationships between the characters are. Sophie and Nate are attracted to each other, but, of course, they keep fighting it. Hardison is attracted to Parker, but she doesn't recognize his flirting for what it is. Eliot is protective of the team, though he gets frustrated when Nate doesn't give them all the information he believes he needs. The group broke up at the end of the first season (for reasons unknown to me), but the four thieves found that they couldn't return to their normal lives. They liked helping people too much.
Nate changed the most in the second season. He sobered up during the break between seasons, but relapsed during a job. Although he tried to curtail his drinking, he never quite gave it up. He made it clear that, unlike his cohorts, he was not a thief. All he was doing in setting up his cons was helping the downtrodden get what was rightly theirs from the rich and powerful. He always maintained an aura of superiority over his colleagues, which they did not fail to note. But in the final episode, Nate lost control over his con and his own actions, partially due to alcohol and partially due to other reasons too long to discuss here. His team confronted him on a few occasions, but he insisted he was fine. What his team didn't know was that he had been caught.
In exchange for his assistance, Nate would go free, but his team was not. After all, they were thieves, Nate was not. There appeared to be no way out. But, as usual, Nate outsmarted the officials. The only evidence to convict a truly evil dude was Nate's testimony. And the price for his testimony: his colleagues go free. His team was not grateful, however. Sophie even slapped him. As they took off in a helicopter, Nate pronounced to the world, "I am a thief."
I guess they'll have to get the team back together in the first episode next season.
White Collar
White Collar has been essentially mind candy. The only reason to watch it, other than the impossibly handsome Matt Bomer, is the bromance between Bomer's Neal and Tim DeKay's Peter. Peter was the only FBI who could capture Neal (which he did, twice), but is hesitant when Neal suggests that Peter allow him to help solve white collar crimes. You know, an "it takes a thief" kind of thing. Have you ever noticed that thieves are all terribly handsome?
Despite his reluctance to work with Neal, and despite the differences in their character, Peter finds himself appreciating Neal's skill and enthusiasm. He finds himself relying on Neal's advice on their cases and in his personal life. He even moves in with Neal when his home is being wired (that didn't work out so well).
But as Neal got involved in a plan to steal a music box to free his girlfriend, Peter becomes suspicious. He tries to talk Neal out of the theft, even promising to arrest Neal if he attempts the crime. Peter's no fool, though, and he realizes Neal will go forward with his plans regardless. What Neal didn't anticipate was the effect this would have on Peter - Peter's wife was accused of various crimes (clearly bogus), and Peter was suspended for two weeks.
Of course, Neal stole the music box, and Peter couldn't arrest Neal because Peter was on suspension. Neal is promised to be reuinited with his girlfriend with a new identity. He says good bye to everyone, except Peter. Peter find him, and Neal acknowledges he didn't say good bye to Peter because Peter was the only one who could talk Neal out of escaping with his girlfriend. Frankly, I thought Peter was doing a bad job of convincing Neal to stay, but it turns out his intervention saved Neal's life, as the airplane containing the girlfriend (allegedly) exploded.
Burn Notice
Michael Weston has spent three years trying desparately to find out why he was burned from the CIA. In this season's finale, we finally learned why. A rogue agent was so bad that he was placed in a remote jail. Because a power that is needed someone like this rogue agent, they altered Michael's file so that it appears Michael committed the horrible acts of the rogue agent. Both the rogue agent, Simon, and Michael protest they want their lives back. But Simon, who has escaped from his jail, is a true psychopath, and doesn't care who he kills to get what he wants. He even bribes Michael into helping him by putting explosives in a Miami hotel. If Michael doesn't help, the bomb goes off.
The FBI are onto Michael and his activities, and they believe what his CIA file contains. They try to find him, interrogating his mother, Maddy. Despite their attempts to convince her that Michael is a killer, she refuses to give her son up, and is eventually arrested by the FBI. But she's devastated. Michael managed to stop Simon, but was captured by the FBI. Within 2o minutes of his capture, another "suit" took custody of Michael. We last saw Michael being led in chains with a hood over his head to a meeting. But Maddy has no idea where her son is. Her distress was palpable.
Buffyverse fan alert - Christian Kane, Lindsey McDonald on Angel, plays Eliot on Leverage. The two characters are not all that alike. Lindsey was amoral, yes, but he committed his evil as an attorney for the soulless (literally) Wolfram and Hart. Eliot, on the other hand, prefers to use his fists, and has discovered that he has a desire to help people.
Deadwood fan alert and The 4400 fan alert. Garret Dillahunt, Francis Wolcott and Jack McCall on Deadwood and Matthew Ross on The 4400, played Simon on Burn Notice. I wonder, is Dillahunt as disturbed as the characters he plays?
Lost fan alert - Marsha Thomason, Naomi Dorrit on Lost, plays an FBI agent on White Collar. She is apparently joining the cast for the next season. Although she has an American accent on White Collar, she really is from Manchester, England, just like Naomi.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
So, Do You Think Babies Will Change My TV Viewing Habits?
I think we can all agree that the answer to this will be "yes." Only the most naive person would think that having twin infants won't change daily life. And television is a part of my daily life.
In the long run, I'm not sure that I want my children to see me just watching TV all day long. Not that I do, but I can, if bored or not feeling great. I certainly want them to watch cartoons and other shows, but I also want them to engage in actual activities, as well.
But first, they'll be just infants, and they won't be watching much of anything beyond their parents and caregivers. Maybe each other. TV will be little more than a noisy box to them. When they're first born, I'll probably spend most of my time feeding and changing them, and trying to get some decent naps. Not much TV in that scenario. I've been told that when they are still so young that I can watch TV while getting them to sleep or just rocking them. We'll see.
But I'm sure what I won't give up TV altogether. I spent some time this weekend wondering what shows I will try to watch, and what shows will get kicked off the DVR save list.
I first divided the shows that I save on DVR into categories. Roughly, they are:
- Shows with prominent arcs. An arc, of course, is a storyline that crosses, or arcs, from one episode to the other. The most famous shows with arcs include the Buffyverse shows and my current favorite, Lost. If these shows are not watched in order of airing, the viewer can be mightily confused. Unlike soap operas, which are prominent arc-series, these shows are too complicated to just not watch for a couple of months and just pick back up. Current shows I've saved on my DVR that have prominent arcs include Lost, Dollhouse (though now cancelled), Mad Men, Damages, and Fringe.
- Caper shows with background arcs. I call them "caper shows", because they usually involve a caper of some sort, often in an furtherance of protecting innocent people. Some of these caper shows have background arcs that rarely take center stage until the final episode or two of the season. A prime example is Burn Notice. Each episode could essentially be stand-alone, with Michael, Fiona, and Sam (sometimes with the help of Maddy!) help someone who is being victimized by a powerful group or person. They use their spy, gun, and special ops skills to save the person, often without pay. The background arc is that Michael was a CIA agent until he received a "burn notice" that he was no longer in the service. Michael has spent some time every episode either investigating who burned him or trying to get back into the spy business. You can skip a number of episodes without being too confused to enjoy the show. Other shows saved on my DVR that are caper shows with background arcs include Chuck, Leverage and White Collar. I suspect that Human Target will end up being a caper show with a background arc, as it seems to have started developing one.
- Procedurals. A procedural is a show that follows a certain pattern. The two best examples of procedurals are now franchises: Law & Order and CSI. I have neither franchise on my DVR list. The only procedurals I do have on DVR are Bones, The Closer, The Good Wife, and House. Bones and The Closer are about solving crime. The Good Wife follows a new associate in a law firm. House is about diagnosing a patient. Most procedurals have bare hints of arcs in their storylines, whether it's Lenny Briscoe's alcoholism and troubled relationship with his daughter, or Temperance Brennan's attempt to find and then bond with her family. The arcs are not prominent, and most episodes can be watched in any order with little to no confusion on the part of the viewer as to what is going on with the main characters.
- Reality competition shows. You might be surprised to know that I do not have The Biggest Loser on my DVR. I only catch it when I can. But I do have Project Runway and Top Chef on the DVR. A reality competition show is pretty much what it sounds like. Semi-amateurs or unknown professionals compete in a season-long competition to win a title and some nice prizes. You don't have to watch these shows in order, but it really makes sense to.
- Comedies. I don't watch a lot of comedies. The only traditional comedy I save is Community (which I think is really funny), but I also enjoy The Office (some times) and 30 Rock. You could argue that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a comedy, and it certainly is, but it's not very traditional. Maybe it's a late night show? Whatever, Stewart is definitely on the DVR.
- Finally, miscellaneous. There are two shows I watch that don't fall into the categories above. One new show I've started saving, though I'm not sure for how long, is Life Unexpected. This is one of those shows I watched because of one of the credited actresses: Shiri Appleby, formerly of Roswell. The other I've mentioned on the blog before: Men of a Certain Age. This is more like a buddy tv show than anything else, with life-long friends in their late 40s or 50s navigating middle age.
So what to keep and what to throw away? Well, I've heard many jokes from people that it's a good thing this is Lost's final season, and I must agree! This is one of those shows that has made it to my "pantheon" of favorite shows ever, joining the Star Trek franchise and the Buffyverse shows. I will greatly miss Lost, but better to have loved and Lost than to have never loved before.
I love shows with prominent arcs, so I know that I will continue to watch Fringe. You may remember that the relationship between the Bishops is one of the joys of watching TV for me right now, but I'm also fascinated by the relationships between the other characters and the concept of an alternative time line - you know, the one Peter's from. He just doesn't know that. Yet.
Mad Men and Damages are not traditional prominent arc shows, and you might argue they belong in a different category. Regardless, however, I plan to keep Mad Men on the list, for several reasons. One, it is one of the few shows that B and I actually watch together. We definitely have disparate likes when it comes to TV, so any commonality is worth maintaining. Plus, it is one of the best and most interesting dramas right now that doesn't involve a science fiction plot or procedural. The characters are well-drawn and acted, and the story lines never fail to produce a lot of thinking on my part. Damages, however, will not remain on the list, despite the great work of Glenn Close. I just don't enjoy it enough to keep watching it.
Of the caper category, I think I will only keep Burn Notice and Chuck. I really like the work that Jeffrey Donovan has done as Michael Weston, and any show that has Bruce Campbell should be supported by many. Chuck is another delight for me, with a great set of characters and fabulous actors to make any night's episode enjoyable viewing. And Adam Baldwin's Casey is turning into one of my all-time favorite characters (granted, a long list, I'm sure, but still, Casey belongs there).
However much I'll miss the antics of Timothy Hutton's Nathan Ford and his merry band of do-gooding thieves, I think Leverage is one of those shows that will be easy to catch up on with re-runs on TNT or somewhere on the internet. I'm certain I'll stop watching The Human Target, despite the appealing presence of Mark Valley. Since it is on Fox, it will most likely have to succeed for a number of seasons (up to at least 100 new episodes) to become a staple on cable TV (see Law & Order and Bones on TNT), so it may be that I'll never see the show again if it ends too soon.
Procedurals would seem to be the easiest of shows to give up. They rerun well, and the arcs are just not that complicated or interesting to keep up with. However, while I see myself giving up The Good Wife, I just can't see giving the rest up. But how can I give up David Boreanaz, Emily Deschanel, Hugh Laurie, or Kyra Sedgwick? I only watch these shows because of these actors. Their shows all have a few flaws, but the actors and the development of the characters they play just keep me coming back for more. At least The Closer only airs a few weeks a year. If I must, I'll give up House and Bones, but they will be the hardest to give up.
I think I can give up on both Project Runway and Top Chef. They are both interesting to watch, but unlike the procedurals above, the characters (and they are characters) don't last more than a season. It is hard to get attached to the characters. Plus, I don't tend to watch every moment of these shows, usually focusing on the results of the contestants' work. Top Chef might be a little difficult to give up, simply because it is another show that both B and I watch together. But we'll see.
I'm also certain that I can lose the comedies, with the exception of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And of miscellaneous, I've threatened two out of three weeks to drop Life Unexpected, so I'm comfortable saying good bye to them. I think I'll also sign off Men of a Certain Age, though Andre Braugher's work here is just top notch.
So, how much did I get rid of? Let's do the count. I reported eighteen shows that I watch on a regular basis. I did not count Lost or Dollhouse, since they are essentially over. I dropped (more or less - and only in my mind, since the babies aren't here yet!) 10, and hope to keep 8 (assuming all 8 are renewed). That's not bad, for me. How realistic that is, I've no idea. I'm sure it will be an interesting story, one way or another.
In the long run, I'm not sure that I want my children to see me just watching TV all day long. Not that I do, but I can, if bored or not feeling great. I certainly want them to watch cartoons and other shows, but I also want them to engage in actual activities, as well.
But first, they'll be just infants, and they won't be watching much of anything beyond their parents and caregivers. Maybe each other. TV will be little more than a noisy box to them. When they're first born, I'll probably spend most of my time feeding and changing them, and trying to get some decent naps. Not much TV in that scenario. I've been told that when they are still so young that I can watch TV while getting them to sleep or just rocking them. We'll see.
But I'm sure what I won't give up TV altogether. I spent some time this weekend wondering what shows I will try to watch, and what shows will get kicked off the DVR save list.
I first divided the shows that I save on DVR into categories. Roughly, they are:
- Shows with prominent arcs. An arc, of course, is a storyline that crosses, or arcs, from one episode to the other. The most famous shows with arcs include the Buffyverse shows and my current favorite, Lost. If these shows are not watched in order of airing, the viewer can be mightily confused. Unlike soap operas, which are prominent arc-series, these shows are too complicated to just not watch for a couple of months and just pick back up. Current shows I've saved on my DVR that have prominent arcs include Lost, Dollhouse (though now cancelled), Mad Men, Damages, and Fringe.
- Caper shows with background arcs. I call them "caper shows", because they usually involve a caper of some sort, often in an furtherance of protecting innocent people. Some of these caper shows have background arcs that rarely take center stage until the final episode or two of the season. A prime example is Burn Notice. Each episode could essentially be stand-alone, with Michael, Fiona, and Sam (sometimes with the help of Maddy!) help someone who is being victimized by a powerful group or person. They use their spy, gun, and special ops skills to save the person, often without pay. The background arc is that Michael was a CIA agent until he received a "burn notice" that he was no longer in the service. Michael has spent some time every episode either investigating who burned him or trying to get back into the spy business. You can skip a number of episodes without being too confused to enjoy the show. Other shows saved on my DVR that are caper shows with background arcs include Chuck, Leverage and White Collar. I suspect that Human Target will end up being a caper show with a background arc, as it seems to have started developing one.
- Procedurals. A procedural is a show that follows a certain pattern. The two best examples of procedurals are now franchises: Law & Order and CSI. I have neither franchise on my DVR list. The only procedurals I do have on DVR are Bones, The Closer, The Good Wife, and House. Bones and The Closer are about solving crime. The Good Wife follows a new associate in a law firm. House is about diagnosing a patient. Most procedurals have bare hints of arcs in their storylines, whether it's Lenny Briscoe's alcoholism and troubled relationship with his daughter, or Temperance Brennan's attempt to find and then bond with her family. The arcs are not prominent, and most episodes can be watched in any order with little to no confusion on the part of the viewer as to what is going on with the main characters.
- Reality competition shows. You might be surprised to know that I do not have The Biggest Loser on my DVR. I only catch it when I can. But I do have Project Runway and Top Chef on the DVR. A reality competition show is pretty much what it sounds like. Semi-amateurs or unknown professionals compete in a season-long competition to win a title and some nice prizes. You don't have to watch these shows in order, but it really makes sense to.
- Comedies. I don't watch a lot of comedies. The only traditional comedy I save is Community (which I think is really funny), but I also enjoy The Office (some times) and 30 Rock. You could argue that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a comedy, and it certainly is, but it's not very traditional. Maybe it's a late night show? Whatever, Stewart is definitely on the DVR.
- Finally, miscellaneous. There are two shows I watch that don't fall into the categories above. One new show I've started saving, though I'm not sure for how long, is Life Unexpected. This is one of those shows I watched because of one of the credited actresses: Shiri Appleby, formerly of Roswell. The other I've mentioned on the blog before: Men of a Certain Age. This is more like a buddy tv show than anything else, with life-long friends in their late 40s or 50s navigating middle age.
So what to keep and what to throw away? Well, I've heard many jokes from people that it's a good thing this is Lost's final season, and I must agree! This is one of those shows that has made it to my "pantheon" of favorite shows ever, joining the Star Trek franchise and the Buffyverse shows. I will greatly miss Lost, but better to have loved and Lost than to have never loved before.
I love shows with prominent arcs, so I know that I will continue to watch Fringe. You may remember that the relationship between the Bishops is one of the joys of watching TV for me right now, but I'm also fascinated by the relationships between the other characters and the concept of an alternative time line - you know, the one Peter's from. He just doesn't know that. Yet.
Mad Men and Damages are not traditional prominent arc shows, and you might argue they belong in a different category. Regardless, however, I plan to keep Mad Men on the list, for several reasons. One, it is one of the few shows that B and I actually watch together. We definitely have disparate likes when it comes to TV, so any commonality is worth maintaining. Plus, it is one of the best and most interesting dramas right now that doesn't involve a science fiction plot or procedural. The characters are well-drawn and acted, and the story lines never fail to produce a lot of thinking on my part. Damages, however, will not remain on the list, despite the great work of Glenn Close. I just don't enjoy it enough to keep watching it.
Of the caper category, I think I will only keep Burn Notice and Chuck. I really like the work that Jeffrey Donovan has done as Michael Weston, and any show that has Bruce Campbell should be supported by many. Chuck is another delight for me, with a great set of characters and fabulous actors to make any night's episode enjoyable viewing. And Adam Baldwin's Casey is turning into one of my all-time favorite characters (granted, a long list, I'm sure, but still, Casey belongs there).
However much I'll miss the antics of Timothy Hutton's Nathan Ford and his merry band of do-gooding thieves, I think Leverage is one of those shows that will be easy to catch up on with re-runs on TNT or somewhere on the internet. I'm certain I'll stop watching The Human Target, despite the appealing presence of Mark Valley. Since it is on Fox, it will most likely have to succeed for a number of seasons (up to at least 100 new episodes) to become a staple on cable TV (see Law & Order and Bones on TNT), so it may be that I'll never see the show again if it ends too soon.
Procedurals would seem to be the easiest of shows to give up. They rerun well, and the arcs are just not that complicated or interesting to keep up with. However, while I see myself giving up The Good Wife, I just can't see giving the rest up. But how can I give up David Boreanaz, Emily Deschanel, Hugh Laurie, or Kyra Sedgwick? I only watch these shows because of these actors. Their shows all have a few flaws, but the actors and the development of the characters they play just keep me coming back for more. At least The Closer only airs a few weeks a year. If I must, I'll give up House and Bones, but they will be the hardest to give up.
I think I can give up on both Project Runway and Top Chef. They are both interesting to watch, but unlike the procedurals above, the characters (and they are characters) don't last more than a season. It is hard to get attached to the characters. Plus, I don't tend to watch every moment of these shows, usually focusing on the results of the contestants' work. Top Chef might be a little difficult to give up, simply because it is another show that both B and I watch together. But we'll see.
I'm also certain that I can lose the comedies, with the exception of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And of miscellaneous, I've threatened two out of three weeks to drop Life Unexpected, so I'm comfortable saying good bye to them. I think I'll also sign off Men of a Certain Age, though Andre Braugher's work here is just top notch.
So, how much did I get rid of? Let's do the count. I reported eighteen shows that I watch on a regular basis. I did not count Lost or Dollhouse, since they are essentially over. I dropped (more or less - and only in my mind, since the babies aren't here yet!) 10, and hope to keep 8 (assuming all 8 are renewed). That's not bad, for me. How realistic that is, I've no idea. I'm sure it will be an interesting story, one way or another.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Bonanza star Pernell Roberts dies at 81
Bonanza was always in reruns when I was growing up, and it was Adam who was the character I was most drawn to. I didn't know until much later about the drama behind the series, how Roberts grew increasingly restless with the series, and finally left when his contract was up. All I knew is that any episode without Adam was quite dull. I also enjoyed Trapper John, M.D., though not quite in the same way.
But Pernell Roberts has always been one of the actors I've kept an eye out for. Whenever he was a guest star or on a television movie, I watched, just to see him. I hadn't heard about him recently, and now I know why. RIP.
Bonanza star Pernell Roberts dies at 81
But Pernell Roberts has always been one of the actors I've kept an eye out for. Whenever he was a guest star or on a television movie, I watched, just to see him. I hadn't heard about him recently, and now I know why. RIP.
Bonanza star Pernell Roberts dies at 81
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Fringe - The Bishop Boys
One of my favorite couples on television right now is completely unromantic and would be incestuous if it were. It's the Bishops - Walter and Peter. I've just finished watching What Lies Below, in which Peter is infected with a virus that is over 75,000 years old and may have wiped out the mammalian population. The virus does what it can to infect as many people as possible, so, once Peter is infected, he spends his entire time trying to escape from the building in which he is confined. Fortunately, Walter is a brilliant scientist and manages to concoct a cure before the Army is brought in to kill all the infected.
So there were some parts that weren't exactly the most believable, but to be honest, that is the least important to me. What instead really shined in the episode is the close relationship between father and son.
Peter started out the series not wanting any contact at all with his father. Walter was the stereotypical "mad scientist" who may not have been very nice to his family. In 1991, at least one of Walter's lab assistants was killed in a lab explosion, and Walter was charged with manslaughter. However, Walter was judged mentally unfit to stand trial and institutionalized for seventeen years. As Walter's only family, Peter was the only person who could get Walter released. Walter initially refused, but Olivia Dunham convinced Peter of the importance of Walter's work.
In the first season, Peter was the often-annoying voice of reason, protesting that his father's theories were too outlandish to be true. But since this is a show about fringe science, Peter's well-founded skepticism was disregarded, and Walter was often proven correct. As this occurred, Peter became more accepting of the wild theorizing, often commenting that he was crazy for considering these ideas.
I think what surprised Peter the most was how vulnerable his father was. Walter's institutionalization left a very child-like man with limited social skills and many fears. Peter often finds himself parenting his father, and Walter has responded alternately with gratitude and frustration. So, it turns out that Peter finds himself liking his father.
However, we've learned a few things that may change all that. Last season, we learned that Peter Bishop died in 1985. Thus, Walter built the door to the alternate universe to collect another Peter. Our Peter is not our Peter, if that makes sense. We learned this season that Peter has a history of nightmares in which he is kidnapped by his own father. And in this episode, Walter told Astrid, "I can't let Peter die again." Astrid heard the "again", and asked him about it, but Walter refused to respond. This secret will come out. And there will be hell to pay.
So there were some parts that weren't exactly the most believable, but to be honest, that is the least important to me. What instead really shined in the episode is the close relationship between father and son.
Peter started out the series not wanting any contact at all with his father. Walter was the stereotypical "mad scientist" who may not have been very nice to his family. In 1991, at least one of Walter's lab assistants was killed in a lab explosion, and Walter was charged with manslaughter. However, Walter was judged mentally unfit to stand trial and institutionalized for seventeen years. As Walter's only family, Peter was the only person who could get Walter released. Walter initially refused, but Olivia Dunham convinced Peter of the importance of Walter's work.
In the first season, Peter was the often-annoying voice of reason, protesting that his father's theories were too outlandish to be true. But since this is a show about fringe science, Peter's well-founded skepticism was disregarded, and Walter was often proven correct. As this occurred, Peter became more accepting of the wild theorizing, often commenting that he was crazy for considering these ideas.
I think what surprised Peter the most was how vulnerable his father was. Walter's institutionalization left a very child-like man with limited social skills and many fears. Peter often finds himself parenting his father, and Walter has responded alternately with gratitude and frustration. So, it turns out that Peter finds himself liking his father.
However, we've learned a few things that may change all that. Last season, we learned that Peter Bishop died in 1985. Thus, Walter built the door to the alternate universe to collect another Peter. Our Peter is not our Peter, if that makes sense. We learned this season that Peter has a history of nightmares in which he is kidnapped by his own father. And in this episode, Walter told Astrid, "I can't let Peter die again." Astrid heard the "again", and asked him about it, but Walter refused to respond. This secret will come out. And there will be hell to pay.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Jay Leno Show Implodes
I was actually surprised by NBC's decision to essentially cancel The Jay Leno Show. After all, it didn't have to bring in many viewers to make a profit, and the show appeared to be achieving that less than stellar goal. What I hadn't counted on was the dissatisfaction of the affiliates with the inability of The Jay Leno Show to bring in viewers to the 10 o'clock local news. Even The Tonight Show has experienced a decline in viewers that might be partially attributable to the poor lead in. In other words, Law & Order brought more viewers to the local news than Jay Leno does.
So what does NBC do? They screw it up, just as they have the last two times The Tonight Show changed hosts. Fearful that Leno will jump ship to another competitor, the powers-that-be decided that Leno will take the post local news slot (10:30 central time) and The Tonight Show, hosted by Conan O'Brien, will start at 11. Jimmy Fallon's show will start at midnight.
Guess what? O'Brien hates the idea. He has no intention of taking a back seat to Leno. NBC clearly cannot keep both. And the late night shows have been abuzz with jokes and snippy comments about the entire situation.
But of more interest to me, and more fitting to the theme of this blog, is that extra hour each week day that will soon be left free. My first thought, when I heard, was to wonder if NBC was sorry it had cancelled Southland before its second season, which NBC had already ordered. Fortunately for the show and its fans, TNT decided to pick it up. I've since heard that the Law & Orders (original, SVU, and Criminal Intent) will be airing at the 9:00 hour originally taken by Jay Leno. as will a reality show or two and an episode of Dateline. NBC has time, however, as nothing will really change until after the Olympics in February. Perhaps something will fall into their laps.
So what does NBC do? They screw it up, just as they have the last two times The Tonight Show changed hosts. Fearful that Leno will jump ship to another competitor, the powers-that-be decided that Leno will take the post local news slot (10:30 central time) and The Tonight Show, hosted by Conan O'Brien, will start at 11. Jimmy Fallon's show will start at midnight.
Guess what? O'Brien hates the idea. He has no intention of taking a back seat to Leno. NBC clearly cannot keep both. And the late night shows have been abuzz with jokes and snippy comments about the entire situation.
But of more interest to me, and more fitting to the theme of this blog, is that extra hour each week day that will soon be left free. My first thought, when I heard, was to wonder if NBC was sorry it had cancelled Southland before its second season, which NBC had already ordered. Fortunately for the show and its fans, TNT decided to pick it up. I've since heard that the Law & Orders (original, SVU, and Criminal Intent) will be airing at the 9:00 hour originally taken by Jay Leno. as will a reality show or two and an episode of Dateline. NBC has time, however, as nothing will really change until after the Olympics in February. Perhaps something will fall into their laps.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Ricky Gervais and the Golden Globes
I don't normally watch the Golden Globes, even though they have a TV component, but this year I believe that it is must see TV. And solely because Ricky Gervais is the host.
I've been mildly interested in Gervais since I caught the British version of The Office. I've seen him in a few interviews since then, primarily on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. But it wasn't until the Emmys a couple of years ago that I realized how funny this man really is. He didn't host, but he was an award presenter. He spent his time haranguing Steve Carell for "stealing" Gervais' Emmy the year before. It was so hilarious that I was rolling on the floor. This past Emmy show also gave Gervais an opportunity to show how funny he is.
The producers of the Golden Globes must have paid attention, because they snapped up Gervais. And that means I'll actually be watching the Golden Globes tomorrow night.
As an aside, Michael Emerson, Ben Linus of Lost, is up for an award. I'll let you know if he wins.
I've been mildly interested in Gervais since I caught the British version of The Office. I've seen him in a few interviews since then, primarily on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. But it wasn't until the Emmys a couple of years ago that I realized how funny this man really is. He didn't host, but he was an award presenter. He spent his time haranguing Steve Carell for "stealing" Gervais' Emmy the year before. It was so hilarious that I was rolling on the floor. This past Emmy show also gave Gervais an opportunity to show how funny he is.
The producers of the Golden Globes must have paid attention, because they snapped up Gervais. And that means I'll actually be watching the Golden Globes tomorrow night.
As an aside, Michael Emerson, Ben Linus of Lost, is up for an award. I'll let you know if he wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)