To be fair, I didn't go that far around the dial for this morning's Shuttle launch. I watched most of it on two networks.
I started on CNN, and really wish I hadn't. Miles O'Brien is apparently incapable of shutting up. He managed to for about a minute before and during launch, otherwise his pointless blandishments filled the airwaves. Had I been giving the TV full attention I'd likely have turned the channel quicker.
When I did turn it was to ABC, who had a fantastic simulator that gave all sorts of information about the launch: speed, altitude, distance down range, and a bunch of fligh-specific data that I don't think I could fully appreciate (though if you're a fan of yaw, this was for you). The data was accompanied by a virtual Shuttle, depicting what we'd be seeing if we could keep a camera on the Shuttle during the entire launch.
Charles Gibson was covering the launch, and he was OK. He at least knew when to let other people talk and when to let in some silence.
I saw scant amounts of coverage for NBC and CBS. Both seemed to enjoy the benefits of the new camera added to the external tank, as for most of the time I was on their networks a shot of the separated tank with the Earth in the background dominated the visuals. It was pretty cool.
So a check-plus for ABC and even less reason to tune in to CNN for breaking events.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Sunday, July 24, 2005
It's New to Me: Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares Revisited
While Gordon Ramsay is a pretty polarizing TV personality, as many are learning through Hell's Kitchen, I got my first taste of his forceful personality on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (shown here on BBC America), where he would spend a week at a failing restaurant trying to help turn it around. There were only four episodes, but they were pretty entertaining. Ramsay did his share of yelling and cursing, and generally got positive results, in some cases lasting to his revisiting the restaurant one month later.
In this new show, Ramsay goes back to the original four restaurants about a year later to see if the changes took for the long term. This sounds like a set-up that would best serve original viewers, but if you've never watched the originals don't sweat it. The first 50 minutes of each episode recap the original episode. Only the last 10 minutes actually "revisit" the restaurant. I'd have liked at least half the episode to be about the revisiting.
So if you've never seen the show, go ahead and watch. If you saw the originals, only tune in at the start if you forget what happened. Otherwise, tune in around 45 minutes in and you'll be fine.
In this new show, Ramsay goes back to the original four restaurants about a year later to see if the changes took for the long term. This sounds like a set-up that would best serve original viewers, but if you've never watched the originals don't sweat it. The first 50 minutes of each episode recap the original episode. Only the last 10 minutes actually "revisit" the restaurant. I'd have liked at least half the episode to be about the revisiting.
So if you've never seen the show, go ahead and watch. If you saw the originals, only tune in at the start if you forget what happened. Otherwise, tune in around 45 minutes in and you'll be fine.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
New on TV: So You Think You Can Dance
There's a pretty simple way to explain this show:
(American Idol-singing)+dancing=So You Think You Can Dance.
That's all you really need to know. The mechanics of the show are the same: tryouts across the country bring together people with talent and people without talent. The former get a chance to go to "Hollywood," the latter are mocked. Those making it to "Hollywood" (usually played by some other part of greater Los Angeles) will be winnowed down to a group of finalists, who will compete weekly until a winner is named (though apparently by a group of choreographers rather than YOU, the public).
There are other substitutions as well, as we keep our acerbic Brit (Nigel Lythgoe rather than Simon Cowell), vapid host (Lauren Sanchez in for Ryan Seacrest), and person who has some idea about the business (Carrie Ann Inaba - last seen as a judge on Dancing With the Stars and apparently not metioned at all on this show's web pages - subbing for Randy Jackson).
We do not sub for Paula Abdul, as she'll be popping up here to teach regular schlubs something about dance. Or giving out her phone number, I'm not sure which.
As you might imagine, a show that borrows so much is likely going to be a copy of the original at best. And when the original is already on the light side, the copy is that much more obvious. The show will benefit from a built-in audience of American Idol viewers and a dearth of competition, though the lack of voting may cause folks with lower interest levels in dancing to wander away until the tone deaf start appearing on our screens in January. I don't see it attracting non-dancing fans the way Dancing With the Stars did.
Which, being said, means I'll be reading or something as this plays out across our TV screen.
(American Idol-singing)+dancing=So You Think You Can Dance.
That's all you really need to know. The mechanics of the show are the same: tryouts across the country bring together people with talent and people without talent. The former get a chance to go to "Hollywood," the latter are mocked. Those making it to "Hollywood" (usually played by some other part of greater Los Angeles) will be winnowed down to a group of finalists, who will compete weekly until a winner is named (though apparently by a group of choreographers rather than YOU, the public).
There are other substitutions as well, as we keep our acerbic Brit (Nigel Lythgoe rather than Simon Cowell), vapid host (Lauren Sanchez in for Ryan Seacrest), and person who has some idea about the business (Carrie Ann Inaba - last seen as a judge on Dancing With the Stars and apparently not metioned at all on this show's web pages - subbing for Randy Jackson).
We do not sub for Paula Abdul, as she'll be popping up here to teach regular schlubs something about dance. Or giving out her phone number, I'm not sure which.
As you might imagine, a show that borrows so much is likely going to be a copy of the original at best. And when the original is already on the light side, the copy is that much more obvious. The show will benefit from a built-in audience of American Idol viewers and a dearth of competition, though the lack of voting may cause folks with lower interest levels in dancing to wander away until the tone deaf start appearing on our screens in January. I don't see it attracting non-dancing fans the way Dancing With the Stars did.
Which, being said, means I'll be reading or something as this plays out across our TV screen.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Ending with a whimper
On the plus side, tonight marked the end of the rather dull ABC unscripted show The Scholar, where the dramatic granting of a full ride scholarship was undermined by (a) an unbelievably slow final episode, full of sound and scholarship committee "fury" that signified nothing as the vast majority of the competitors wound up going to the college of their choice, and (b) the drawn-out nature of the episode, unusual given how much they chopped up the students' final Q&A session with the committee.
I would not look for a second installment.
On the minus side, Hell's Kitchen rewarded typical unscripted show behavior by seeing three competitors plot against a fourth, and succeeded in getting that fourth removed from the show. It was a little frustrating; Ramsay clearly knew that Elsie (the removed contestant) was hung out to dry, Elsie wouldn't confirm that, so off she went. I now do not care for any of the remaining contestants, and only find solace in the high failure rate of new restaurants. Odds are the winner will be back toiling in someone else's kitchen by New Year's Eve 2006.
I would not look for a second installment.
On the minus side, Hell's Kitchen rewarded typical unscripted show behavior by seeing three competitors plot against a fourth, and succeeded in getting that fourth removed from the show. It was a little frustrating; Ramsay clearly knew that Elsie (the removed contestant) was hung out to dry, Elsie wouldn't confirm that, so off she went. I now do not care for any of the remaining contestants, and only find solace in the high failure rate of new restaurants. Odds are the winner will be back toiling in someone else's kitchen by New Year's Eve 2006.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Ass. Assassassassassass. Ass!
Aspercream, a product I can't claim to have thought about much over my lifetime, found its way into my head a few months ago with a "You bet your sweet Aspercreme" jingle that had me and the wife singing it well after seeing the ads using it (generally during Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy!).
Of course, someone had to go and ruin it. We saw an ad today using the jingle "You bet that it's Aspercreme." Boo.
Of course, someone had to go and ruin it. We saw an ad today using the jingle "You bet that it's Aspercreme." Boo.
Friday, July 15, 2005
New on TV: Great Outdoors Games
ESPN is running the sixth installment of this event, which combines timber sports with dog competitions and with things you'd even see in the Olympics (shooting and archery). This year they've even added ATV racing, which I can't say interests me. But I'm sure there are ATV enthusiasts who don't share my love for big air dogs.
The host site this year is Disney's Wide World of Sports in Orlando, which is proving difficult in two respects:
1. Crowds appear to be sparse more often than packed, especially in comparison to turn-out in more obvious locations (like Lake Placid).
2. The recent run of bad weather caused the wash-out of the shooting events. They were using a site about 30 miles south of Orlando which apparently got quite a bit of water (as evidenced by a reported standing in waders in the middle of the rifle range). Can't say you'd really expect that sort of weather this early in the year, but it's another argument for heading away from the Gulf coast.
The latter point is also personally difficult, as I like the shooting events. The archery still seems to be on, so there's that at least.
But I really tune in for the dogs. The last couple of nights brought small and large dog agility (mostly Jack Russell terriers and border collies running a course of jumps, tires, and other obstacles), but I'm more of a fan of the retriever-dominated events: big air (basically a dog long jump) and field trials. There's a new event this year that's big air with a height component. Not sure how I feel about this, but more dogs can't be bad.
Clearly, this is a "your mileage may vary" sort of veiwing opportunity. But the coverage is reasonable (not overhyped, which is something for ESPN) and they usually only cover 2 or 3 events a night, so it's easier to follow and, if nothing's to your liking, skip without fear of missing what you want to see.
Unless it was skeet shooting.
The host site this year is Disney's Wide World of Sports in Orlando, which is proving difficult in two respects:
1. Crowds appear to be sparse more often than packed, especially in comparison to turn-out in more obvious locations (like Lake Placid).
2. The recent run of bad weather caused the wash-out of the shooting events. They were using a site about 30 miles south of Orlando which apparently got quite a bit of water (as evidenced by a reported standing in waders in the middle of the rifle range). Can't say you'd really expect that sort of weather this early in the year, but it's another argument for heading away from the Gulf coast.
The latter point is also personally difficult, as I like the shooting events. The archery still seems to be on, so there's that at least.
But I really tune in for the dogs. The last couple of nights brought small and large dog agility (mostly Jack Russell terriers and border collies running a course of jumps, tires, and other obstacles), but I'm more of a fan of the retriever-dominated events: big air (basically a dog long jump) and field trials. There's a new event this year that's big air with a height component. Not sure how I feel about this, but more dogs can't be bad.
Clearly, this is a "your mileage may vary" sort of veiwing opportunity. But the coverage is reasonable (not overhyped, which is something for ESPN) and they usually only cover 2 or 3 events a night, so it's easier to follow and, if nothing's to your liking, skip without fear of missing what you want to see.
Unless it was skeet shooting.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Emmy Nominations
You would think, this being a TV blog and all, that I'd be over the moon about the Emmy Award nominations, which were released today.
Well, I'm not.
I actually don't care all that much about the Emmy Awards. Four reasons come to mind:
1. I've generally only seen a small percentage of the nominated material. This isn't all that different from, say, the Oscars, but it seems to make a difference in this case
2. I don't root for actors. Really, I'd be happy if Hugh Laurie won for his work on House, but I don't have any personal investment in a possible win for him.
3. The repetitive nature of nominations, especially in the past when it seemed that the likes of Candace Bergen, Helen Hunt, and David Hyde Pierce would win every year. It probably wasn't that bad, but it only exacerbated my disinterest.
4. The awards show is on in the summer, when I'm less likely to watch.
Going back to point three for a second, the Emmy folks may be trying to balance repetitive nominations by adopting newcomers with buzz. Witness, for example, the 15 nominations for Desperate Housewives. Clearly, this was abetted by the show's consideration as a comedy, as there's not a whole lot of stand-out material in the sitcoms that usually populate the comedy awards. I'm not sure I agree that the show is a comedy; it has comedic elements, but I tend to think of the story lines as dramatic in nature.
Random observations:
* UPN got three nominations, all technical, and all for the same show: Enterprise. Whoops. No nod for America's Next Top Model in the reality category, and (not unexpectedly) no love for Veronica Mars.
* The only network show nominated in the reality category was Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which I find about as interesting as (with apologies) paint drying. Shows that did get nods here include Queer Eye, Antiques Roadshow and Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. This is easily the strangest group of nomninees. Oh, OK, there is a separate "reality-competition" category with all the expected nominees (The Apprentice, American Idol, Survivor, The Amazing Race, and, surprisingly, Project Runway).
* Sticking with American Idol, I kind of want to gag that the finale got a directing nomination, given how the show is generally kind of a mess.
* While I'm OK with shows getting more than one nomination in a category, there should be a limit. Take best guest actor in a comedy, for example. Four of the five nominees are from appearances on Will & Grace. While you can make the argument that they're all deserving, to my mind it rewards stunt casting.
* This was not the year for The West Wing, as the only acting nods went to Alan Alda and Stockard Channing. It only got five nominations total (though one is for best drama, which helps). In a related note, Kathryn Joosten, who played Mrs. Landingham on the show, got an Emmy nod for her guest role as Mrs. McClusky on Desperate Housewives.
* Oh, yeah, neither Nicolette Sheridan or Eva Longoria got acting nods. Huh.
* Scrubs got a best comedy nod, which I'm sure NBC will be happy to tout... when the show returns in January.
* I feel less dirty now that Cold Case Files has a nomination for outstanding non-fiction series.
There's probably more later. But maybe not.
Well, I'm not.
I actually don't care all that much about the Emmy Awards. Four reasons come to mind:
1. I've generally only seen a small percentage of the nominated material. This isn't all that different from, say, the Oscars, but it seems to make a difference in this case
2. I don't root for actors. Really, I'd be happy if Hugh Laurie won for his work on House, but I don't have any personal investment in a possible win for him.
3. The repetitive nature of nominations, especially in the past when it seemed that the likes of Candace Bergen, Helen Hunt, and David Hyde Pierce would win every year. It probably wasn't that bad, but it only exacerbated my disinterest.
4. The awards show is on in the summer, when I'm less likely to watch.
Going back to point three for a second, the Emmy folks may be trying to balance repetitive nominations by adopting newcomers with buzz. Witness, for example, the 15 nominations for Desperate Housewives. Clearly, this was abetted by the show's consideration as a comedy, as there's not a whole lot of stand-out material in the sitcoms that usually populate the comedy awards. I'm not sure I agree that the show is a comedy; it has comedic elements, but I tend to think of the story lines as dramatic in nature.
Random observations:
* UPN got three nominations, all technical, and all for the same show: Enterprise. Whoops. No nod for America's Next Top Model in the reality category, and (not unexpectedly) no love for Veronica Mars.
* The only network show nominated in the reality category was Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which I find about as interesting as (with apologies) paint drying. Shows that did get nods here include Queer Eye, Antiques Roadshow and Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. This is easily the strangest group of nomninees. Oh, OK, there is a separate "reality-competition" category with all the expected nominees (The Apprentice, American Idol, Survivor, The Amazing Race, and, surprisingly, Project Runway).
* Sticking with American Idol, I kind of want to gag that the finale got a directing nomination, given how the show is generally kind of a mess.
* While I'm OK with shows getting more than one nomination in a category, there should be a limit. Take best guest actor in a comedy, for example. Four of the five nominees are from appearances on Will & Grace. While you can make the argument that they're all deserving, to my mind it rewards stunt casting.
* This was not the year for The West Wing, as the only acting nods went to Alan Alda and Stockard Channing. It only got five nominations total (though one is for best drama, which helps). In a related note, Kathryn Joosten, who played Mrs. Landingham on the show, got an Emmy nod for her guest role as Mrs. McClusky on Desperate Housewives.
* Oh, yeah, neither Nicolette Sheridan or Eva Longoria got acting nods. Huh.
* Scrubs got a best comedy nod, which I'm sure NBC will be happy to tout... when the show returns in January.
* I feel less dirty now that Cold Case Files has a nomination for outstanding non-fiction series.
There's probably more later. But maybe not.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
It's New to Me: Lost
I'm not sure why I didn't watch Lost during the season. Time slot, other commitment, disinterst in Gilligan's Island meets Lord of the Flies, who knows? But after the buzz built and I heard from more than a couple people about the show's quality, I figured I'd use the summer to see if I should believe the hype.
Turns out I should believe a goodly portion of the hype. What makes it difficult at times, though, is that the things that make it most interesting can also work against the show in a significant way.
The first few episodes have been split between the present, where we see the survivors of the plane crash cope with their new situation, and flashback, where we've gotten backstory on both the crash and selected survivors. The focus has generally been on a character a week, which makes you look forward to who'll be next, but also can slow an episode down. Take the most recent one I watched, where we got the skinny on the island's Korean couple, Jin and Sun. After weeks of only getting subtitles, it was great to learn about them, but the story wound up taking time away from an important decision that seems to have split the survivors. While that will undoubtedly be examined in detail later, I'd have liked to have had more up front discussion than "beach or cave?"
I am also glad that the air of mystery about the island is being maintained at a reasonable level after healthy doses early in the show (having a polar bear crop up on a tropical Pacific island was genius). I'll be interested to see how this goes for the rest of the season, as too much of this mythology sort of stuff can get tiresome (hello, X-Files).
Talk about the show suggests a bit of a drop-off in the latter part of the season, with a season finale that, of course, doesn't answer nearly as many questions as we'd like. It doesn't help that I've been exposed to some of what happens at the end via recaps and accidental reading. On the other hand, I at least get to look for it now, which I guess is something.
If you haven't been watching, well, catching up would be difficult. There's too much carry-over from week to week. Find a friend who's been watching or read the recaps over at TV Without Pity. It's not a perfect solution, but it'll get you up to speed.
The acting is pretty good across the board, though I especially like Terry O'Quinn's soft-shoe Colonel Kurtz (come to think of it, 'Colonel' was a nickname Quinn's character had).
For the nitpickers, you'll probably find things to grouse about. The feasability of having all these actors grow the sort of body hair (and BO) actual castaways would have is pretty low (not without serious compensation, at least), and you have to wonder how these people have survived for a week on leftover airline food and bottled water (OK, there was one boar, and there's some fishing going on, but it seems like they're getting off easy). Don't sweat it. I'm sure there's a website you can complain about these things on.
Just not this one. Well, you could comment, but expect to get mocked.
Turns out I should believe a goodly portion of the hype. What makes it difficult at times, though, is that the things that make it most interesting can also work against the show in a significant way.
The first few episodes have been split between the present, where we see the survivors of the plane crash cope with their new situation, and flashback, where we've gotten backstory on both the crash and selected survivors. The focus has generally been on a character a week, which makes you look forward to who'll be next, but also can slow an episode down. Take the most recent one I watched, where we got the skinny on the island's Korean couple, Jin and Sun. After weeks of only getting subtitles, it was great to learn about them, but the story wound up taking time away from an important decision that seems to have split the survivors. While that will undoubtedly be examined in detail later, I'd have liked to have had more up front discussion than "beach or cave?"
I am also glad that the air of mystery about the island is being maintained at a reasonable level after healthy doses early in the show (having a polar bear crop up on a tropical Pacific island was genius). I'll be interested to see how this goes for the rest of the season, as too much of this mythology sort of stuff can get tiresome (hello, X-Files).
Talk about the show suggests a bit of a drop-off in the latter part of the season, with a season finale that, of course, doesn't answer nearly as many questions as we'd like. It doesn't help that I've been exposed to some of what happens at the end via recaps and accidental reading. On the other hand, I at least get to look for it now, which I guess is something.
If you haven't been watching, well, catching up would be difficult. There's too much carry-over from week to week. Find a friend who's been watching or read the recaps over at TV Without Pity. It's not a perfect solution, but it'll get you up to speed.
The acting is pretty good across the board, though I especially like Terry O'Quinn's soft-shoe Colonel Kurtz (come to think of it, 'Colonel' was a nickname Quinn's character had).
For the nitpickers, you'll probably find things to grouse about. The feasability of having all these actors grow the sort of body hair (and BO) actual castaways would have is pretty low (not without serious compensation, at least), and you have to wonder how these people have survived for a week on leftover airline food and bottled water (OK, there was one boar, and there's some fishing going on, but it seems like they're getting off easy). Don't sweat it. I'm sure there's a website you can complain about these things on.
Just not this one. Well, you could comment, but expect to get mocked.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
New on TV: The 2005 Tour de France
While most people follow this at arm's length, do yourself a favor and watch the actual race coverage on OLN. You'll get cycling and some nice shots of the French countryside to boot.
Live daily coverage starts at 8:30 am EDT (except on off days), and is repeated during the day. The race is called by a pair of Brits who are also former riders: Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen. They know the sport very well (certainly better than the average sports guy), and they're pretty good about explaining things as the stage moves along.
Prime time coverage starts at 8 pm EDT (9 pm PDT), but with Al Trautwig and Bob Roll, an American who is a former pro cyclist. I don't watch much of their coverage, but what I've seen is OK. Roll has a unique style that may not be to everyone's liking, but I get a bit of a chuckle from him.
All four appear on the pre-race show, which kicks off the morning coverage. If you're around, give them 10 minutes rather than Kate or Charlie or whoever.
The coverage isn't as Lance-centric as you'd imagine (though the promotion is), which is a good thing. Not that they ignore Lance when he's not front and center; he gets a number of mentions. But they do focus on a number of riders, both those involved in the day's stage and the ones vying for the overall title. You'll even get into the sprint and "king of the mountain" competitions, which add a little spice to the coverage.
They use French TV for the visuals, which is fine. Occasionally Phil and Paul have to fill when there's a shot of some local landmark, but they handle it well.
Live daily coverage starts at 8:30 am EDT (except on off days), and is repeated during the day. The race is called by a pair of Brits who are also former riders: Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen. They know the sport very well (certainly better than the average sports guy), and they're pretty good about explaining things as the stage moves along.
Prime time coverage starts at 8 pm EDT (9 pm PDT), but with Al Trautwig and Bob Roll, an American who is a former pro cyclist. I don't watch much of their coverage, but what I've seen is OK. Roll has a unique style that may not be to everyone's liking, but I get a bit of a chuckle from him.
All four appear on the pre-race show, which kicks off the morning coverage. If you're around, give them 10 minutes rather than Kate or Charlie or whoever.
The coverage isn't as Lance-centric as you'd imagine (though the promotion is), which is a good thing. Not that they ignore Lance when he's not front and center; he gets a number of mentions. But they do focus on a number of riders, both those involved in the day's stage and the ones vying for the overall title. You'll even get into the sprint and "king of the mountain" competitions, which add a little spice to the coverage.
They use French TV for the visuals, which is fine. Occasionally Phil and Paul have to fill when there's a shot of some local landmark, but they handle it well.
New on TV: The Princes of Malibu
Hell no, I didn't watch it. It'd take a paying gig - and a good one - to get me to tune in to this.
So Bruce Jenner's post-Olympic career: Can't Stop the Music, the infomercials, and two layabout sons. Way to peak early.
So Bruce Jenner's post-Olympic career: Can't Stop the Music, the infomercials, and two layabout sons. Way to peak early.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Hellish 'Heaven'
Had my first exposure to Carrie Underwood's first single, that "Inside Your Heaven" song that both she and Bo performed on the American Idol finale.
It's still horrible. It's not Underwood's fault, unless she wrote or arranged the song. It could very well be the worst "official" American Idol champion single of the four, though I can't recall whatever it was Fantasia recorded.
It's still horrible. It's not Underwood's fault, unless she wrote or arranged the song. It could very well be the worst "official" American Idol champion single of the four, though I can't recall whatever it was Fantasia recorded.
Bag Job with the Stars
After six weeks where Dancing with the Stars went (to me at least) from being of no interest to reasonably entertaining, the show threw it all away in the last half-hour of its finale when the three judges handed out a perfect score to Kelly Monaco (General Hospital). Not only was this the only perfect score for the entire competition, but it was the first time any of the judges handed out a full 10 points.
Of course, Monaco would go on to win the whole thing, which shouldn't irritate me as much as it does. Suffice it to say, the result does nothing to further the idea that ballroom dancing should be an Olympic-level sport (though, to be fair, the fans don't get to vote on who wins medals).
This turn of events made the finale of Beauty and the Geek - where a Newlywed Game-style Q&A game decided who won the cash - seem like the pinnacle of competition when it went into a tie-breaker. Even the disclaimer at the end about how parts of it were edited and/or re-shot didn't detract from things, at least in retrospect.
Next week we get "the aftermath," a reunion show which I find a little dubious (given that the show itself was only six weeks long). But maybe we'll find out if Urkel-in-training Richard ever made out with his partner.
Of course, Monaco would go on to win the whole thing, which shouldn't irritate me as much as it does. Suffice it to say, the result does nothing to further the idea that ballroom dancing should be an Olympic-level sport (though, to be fair, the fans don't get to vote on who wins medals).
This turn of events made the finale of Beauty and the Geek - where a Newlywed Game-style Q&A game decided who won the cash - seem like the pinnacle of competition when it went into a tie-breaker. Even the disclaimer at the end about how parts of it were edited and/or re-shot didn't detract from things, at least in retrospect.
Next week we get "the aftermath," a reunion show which I find a little dubious (given that the show itself was only six weeks long). But maybe we'll find out if Urkel-in-training Richard ever made out with his partner.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
I have a life?
Precious little from TV to mention, as I spent the vast majority of the weekend doing things other than burning my retinas. I will note, though, that I think I stayed at a hotel with the worst TV system ever. Showtime instead of HBO and MSG instead of ESPN? Why?
I won't even go into the movie ordering process, which involves the TV, a card reader, and the phone. Not that we ordered any; I just thought it was oddly complex.
I did see about a minute and a half of MTV's Live 8 coverage, and while I didn't think it was possible, it does appear that the channel's current crop of hosts has even fewer skills with regards to covering live events than past presenters. They should have just let the concert footage roll without comment.
Coming in a close second in the incompetency department was the female co-host whose name I didn't catch on the CBS coverage of Boston's fireworks. Harry Smith was fine, but she was trying a little too hard to generate excitement. She'd have fit in well with those Wheel of Fortune contestants who yell "woo hoo!" every time they find a letter on the board. The broadcast was also a little odd in their choice of music to play over the fireworks. I know the "whatever" concept is popular, but when you segue from Aerosmith to Selena to Creed something has gone horribly wrong.
I won't even go into the movie ordering process, which involves the TV, a card reader, and the phone. Not that we ordered any; I just thought it was oddly complex.
I did see about a minute and a half of MTV's Live 8 coverage, and while I didn't think it was possible, it does appear that the channel's current crop of hosts has even fewer skills with regards to covering live events than past presenters. They should have just let the concert footage roll without comment.
Coming in a close second in the incompetency department was the female co-host whose name I didn't catch on the CBS coverage of Boston's fireworks. Harry Smith was fine, but she was trying a little too hard to generate excitement. She'd have fit in well with those Wheel of Fortune contestants who yell "woo hoo!" every time they find a letter on the board. The broadcast was also a little odd in their choice of music to play over the fireworks. I know the "whatever" concept is popular, but when you segue from Aerosmith to Selena to Creed something has gone horribly wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)