New from the folks who brought us Deal or No Deal is this game show that takes a variant on the whole "wisdom of crowds" thing. One contestant answers trivia questions, and if they answer correctly, they get money for each member of the "mob" - the 100 people referenced in the title - that got the question wrong. The money - and theoretically the question difficulty - goes up by round. Contestants also have two "helps" - one allows the contestant to see how many people in the mob gave the same answer, the other allows the contestant to talk to two individuals in the mob, one of whom picked the right answer and one who did not.
The contestant can opt to walk after each round, and if they get a question wrong, the money they earned is distributed to all the remaining mob contestants. Folks in the mob get to carry over from contestant to contestant, creating an opportunity for a mob member to become a semi-regular. Ken Jennings was in the mob last week (and I assume will be in there tonight); make sure to tune in next week when King of LaPlaca James Dinan will be in the mob!
No one is going to mistake this show for Jeopardy! or Millionaire. The questions seem secondary to playing on the emotions of the contestant (and even the mob, which is quite excitable), which underscores its ties to Deal or No Deal. My concern is that I'll have the same reaction to this show as I did to Deal - initial interest followed by apathy when the episodes get repetitive.
Bob Saget is fine as host. Can't say much more than that.
All in all, it's a decent hour of entertainment for Friday night. I'd be happier if it were on another night, but I'd rather not have NBC use it like Deal, so I'll live with it.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
New on TV : Six Degrees
The title pretty much gives you the premise of Six Degrees - a sextet of New Yorkers have their lives intertwine in ways unexpected and (in some cases) unknown as the living embodiment of the "six degrees of separation" between any two people. What it doesn't do is explain how implausible this set up can get.
For example, take the new friendship of Whitney (Bridget Moynihan) and Laura (Hope Davis). They meet at a nail salon, discover that they both attended the same concert over a decade ago, and now they're BFF. I don't doubt that some sort of relationship can come from this sort of chance meeting, but what they've developed in one or two episodes would, in real life, take months.
I have a similar issue with most of the new connections on the show, to varying degrees. The budding romance between a public defender (Carlos, played by Jay Hernandez) and a former client (Mae, played by Erika Christensen) seems the most normal, while the working relationship between Whitney and the recently dried out photographer Steve (Campbell Scott) is bizarre at best. The individual story lines don't suffer from this that much, and a couple are quite interesting, such as the frosty relationship between limo driver Damian (Dorian Missick) and his thug brother.
But it's all acted pretty well, so if the writing can make better sense out of these relationships I think there's room to improve. Given how badly it's bleeding viewers out of Grey's Anatomy, it had better improve soon.
For example, take the new friendship of Whitney (Bridget Moynihan) and Laura (Hope Davis). They meet at a nail salon, discover that they both attended the same concert over a decade ago, and now they're BFF. I don't doubt that some sort of relationship can come from this sort of chance meeting, but what they've developed in one or two episodes would, in real life, take months.
I have a similar issue with most of the new connections on the show, to varying degrees. The budding romance between a public defender (Carlos, played by Jay Hernandez) and a former client (Mae, played by Erika Christensen) seems the most normal, while the working relationship between Whitney and the recently dried out photographer Steve (Campbell Scott) is bizarre at best. The individual story lines don't suffer from this that much, and a couple are quite interesting, such as the frosty relationship between limo driver Damian (Dorian Missick) and his thug brother.
But it's all acted pretty well, so if the writing can make better sense out of these relationships I think there's room to improve. Given how badly it's bleeding viewers out of Grey's Anatomy, it had better improve soon.
Monday, October 16, 2006
New on TV: Heroes
After watching the pilot, I had to agree with the points made in the TeeVee review of the show. I am happy to say that the show has improved over the last couple of episodes, as the show has becomes less expositionally-focused and the characters have become more fully developed.
That doesn't mean I've become that much more interested in them. I still find Milo Ventimiglia's character irritating, and I'm fairly bored with Ali Larter's character. The revelation that one of the heroes is the adopted daughter of the guy who is hunting the heroes has spiced up that story line a bit, though as the TV Without Pity recapper has noted, there's a little bit too much subtext in their father-daughter relationship to sit comfortably.
Hiro, the Japanese time-and-space bending office worker is still the most enjoyable of the bunch. I was pissed at the show for putting what might have been the most ham-handed product placement in TV history in his story-line, but we've moved through it for now (though I assume several glamor shots of said product in future episodes). The mind-reading LA cop has also become a fave, and for pretty much the same reason as Hiro. He's confused at his new ability, but he embraces it - perhaps a little too much, as it seems like he's gotten himself into some trouble.
I'm still not quite on board with some of the overblown narration, which is very reminiscent of Revelations (not surprisingly, as some of the staff from that miniseries is on this show). I'm hoping this will become more sensical as we move forward, but I'm steeling myself for an entire season of proto-mytho-scientific mumbo jumbo to open and close episdoes. I'm trying not to take it out on the narrating character, Mohinder Suresh (the son of a professor who was trying to create an algorithm to find and track down people with heroic changes), but it's hard. His new, chrirpy sidekick isn't helping, either, nor will the eventual discovery that she's working for the bad guys.
Anyway, for X-Men lite this isn't a bad show. Just a little dour for the start of the week.
That doesn't mean I've become that much more interested in them. I still find Milo Ventimiglia's character irritating, and I'm fairly bored with Ali Larter's character. The revelation that one of the heroes is the adopted daughter of the guy who is hunting the heroes has spiced up that story line a bit, though as the TV Without Pity recapper has noted, there's a little bit too much subtext in their father-daughter relationship to sit comfortably.
Hiro, the Japanese time-and-space bending office worker is still the most enjoyable of the bunch. I was pissed at the show for putting what might have been the most ham-handed product placement in TV history in his story-line, but we've moved through it for now (though I assume several glamor shots of said product in future episodes). The mind-reading LA cop has also become a fave, and for pretty much the same reason as Hiro. He's confused at his new ability, but he embraces it - perhaps a little too much, as it seems like he's gotten himself into some trouble.
I'm still not quite on board with some of the overblown narration, which is very reminiscent of Revelations (not surprisingly, as some of the staff from that miniseries is on this show). I'm hoping this will become more sensical as we move forward, but I'm steeling myself for an entire season of proto-mytho-scientific mumbo jumbo to open and close episdoes. I'm trying not to take it out on the narrating character, Mohinder Suresh (the son of a professor who was trying to create an algorithm to find and track down people with heroic changes), but it's hard. His new, chrirpy sidekick isn't helping, either, nor will the eventual discovery that she's working for the bad guys.
Anyway, for X-Men lite this isn't a bad show. Just a little dour for the start of the week.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Did anyone notice?
I didn't notice this, but the CW has more or less swapped their Sunday and Monday night line-ups. Everybody Hates Chris, All of Us, Girlfriends, and The Game move to Monday, while Runaway and 7th Heaven will follow the America's Next Top Model re-run on Sunday.
I don't think this will make a tremendous difference. I'm not sure if the sitcoms will make a dent opposite the tough CBS line-up, and the dramas move into one of the tougher two hour blocks on TV. What will make a difference will be better programming, though I think that's going to be a long-term issue.
I don't think this will make a tremendous difference. I'm not sure if the sitcoms will make a dent opposite the tough CBS line-up, and the dramas move into one of the tougher two hour blocks on TV. What will make a difference will be better programming, though I think that's going to be a long-term issue.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
New on TV: Jericho
I was home on Columbus Day, and while flipping around discovered that CBS had episodes of various shows for viewing through Comcast's On Demand service. The only new show on offer was Jericho, and they thoughtfully had all three episodes available. So, like a sucker, I watched them.
This isn't a very good show. It's not the fault of the actors, nor is it for lack of a good (if derivative) idea. They could very easily have come up with a solid if unexciting drama in the vein of NCIS or The Unit.
But what keeps Jericho down is some very stupid writing. For example: in a town of 5000 where everyone seemingly knows everyone else, how is it that a main character doesn't realize that the two guys in the sheriff's car are bascially strangers? And why is pretty much everything that happens telegraphed by some character (for example, a guy who says "I hear something!" when there is a very audbile something happening that was planned for in a previous scene)? And why does Pamela Reed, an actress of some repute, only get to repeat the same three lines and hug family members?
There is room for some complexity with the characters, but we mostly get stereotype, from the prodigal son returned (Skeet Ulrich doing his best Jack Sheppard impersonation, minus some of the rage) to the city slicker stuck in town to the loser teenager in love with a pretty, popular girl. They'd better start developing some backstory to these people, otherwise it's going to get duller in a hurry. As annoying as the flashbacks can be on Lost, you get a clear indication of their usefulness when compared to this show, where conflicts and feelings have, to date, been depicted in one dimension.
Not that I'm going to stop watching. I'm a sucker for shows like this. Heck, I'm still watching Vanished, so you can see the depths of my problem.
(Full disclosure: I worked on and off with the mother of Sprague Grayden (who is in the cast) when I was substitute teaching. Though based on what I've written, I think the idea of a conflict of interest is pretty well shot.)
This isn't a very good show. It's not the fault of the actors, nor is it for lack of a good (if derivative) idea. They could very easily have come up with a solid if unexciting drama in the vein of NCIS or The Unit.
But what keeps Jericho down is some very stupid writing. For example: in a town of 5000 where everyone seemingly knows everyone else, how is it that a main character doesn't realize that the two guys in the sheriff's car are bascially strangers? And why is pretty much everything that happens telegraphed by some character (for example, a guy who says "I hear something!" when there is a very audbile something happening that was planned for in a previous scene)? And why does Pamela Reed, an actress of some repute, only get to repeat the same three lines and hug family members?
There is room for some complexity with the characters, but we mostly get stereotype, from the prodigal son returned (Skeet Ulrich doing his best Jack Sheppard impersonation, minus some of the rage) to the city slicker stuck in town to the loser teenager in love with a pretty, popular girl. They'd better start developing some backstory to these people, otherwise it's going to get duller in a hurry. As annoying as the flashbacks can be on Lost, you get a clear indication of their usefulness when compared to this show, where conflicts and feelings have, to date, been depicted in one dimension.
Not that I'm going to stop watching. I'm a sucker for shows like this. Heck, I'm still watching Vanished, so you can see the depths of my problem.
(Full disclosure: I worked on and off with the mother of Sprague Grayden (who is in the cast) when I was substitute teaching. Though based on what I've written, I think the idea of a conflict of interest is pretty well shot.)
Monday, October 09, 2006
New on TV: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
It's got an all-star cast, strong writing, top-shelf directing, and is likely the tightest show on TV, never mind among new shows
So why am I still on the fence about Studio 60?
There are some minor things - I'm not a huge Amanda Peet fan, for example - but I think it boils down to three things:
1. The hyper-focus on religion. While I have no doubt that religion is a major issue in the TV industry, the three episodes that have aired so far have been very focused on religious issues, from the sketch that precipitated everything ("Crazy Christians," which we never get to see) to the resultant problems with affiliates that seem to have righted themselves by the second episode helmed by Matt and Danny (the writer and director played by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford). The focus even spreads into other sketches that we see, such as "Science Schmience," a game show parody about the clash of science and religion. Which leads to my second point:
2. The show within a show doesn't seem that funny. We don't get to see to much of the actual Studo 60, but what they've shown is less than appealing. Take the sketch mentioned above; it has six contestants in order to include all major religions, but when have you seen a Jeopardy-style game show with six contestants? It doesn't help that the host is basically giving science lessons while asking questions. It's over-written and not worth the laughs the audience is giving.
Then there's the cold open from Matt and Danny's first show, a rewriting of some Gilbert and Sullivan. While I'm glad that Aaron Sorkin was able to get his G&S fixation out of the way early, it wasn't all that funny. It was amusing, which I suppose is fitting for G&S, but not the sort of funny we're built up to expect. There's also a new recurring sketch based on commedia dell'arte, which just seems strange.
3. I'd like more about the actual show and its cast and crew, and a little less about the NBS executives. Steven Weber does a good job as the network chairman, and even though I don't care for Amanda Peet, she's doing a decent job as the new NBS president (even though she was a little too omniscient in the pilot). But I'd rather have more development on plot lines involving the cast and crew. We're getting some of this - one of the leading cast members is Matt's ex-girlfriend, and there's a rift between Matt and the show's less quality-focused writers (though that seems to be coming to an end), but I'd like more. I suppose that will come with time.
I'm going to stick with the show, as there is a lot going for it. I just hope Sorkin et. al. make the show a little less focused on issues and more on the people.
So why am I still on the fence about Studio 60?
There are some minor things - I'm not a huge Amanda Peet fan, for example - but I think it boils down to three things:
1. The hyper-focus on religion. While I have no doubt that religion is a major issue in the TV industry, the three episodes that have aired so far have been very focused on religious issues, from the sketch that precipitated everything ("Crazy Christians," which we never get to see) to the resultant problems with affiliates that seem to have righted themselves by the second episode helmed by Matt and Danny (the writer and director played by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford). The focus even spreads into other sketches that we see, such as "Science Schmience," a game show parody about the clash of science and religion. Which leads to my second point:
2. The show within a show doesn't seem that funny. We don't get to see to much of the actual Studo 60, but what they've shown is less than appealing. Take the sketch mentioned above; it has six contestants in order to include all major religions, but when have you seen a Jeopardy-style game show with six contestants? It doesn't help that the host is basically giving science lessons while asking questions. It's over-written and not worth the laughs the audience is giving.
Then there's the cold open from Matt and Danny's first show, a rewriting of some Gilbert and Sullivan. While I'm glad that Aaron Sorkin was able to get his G&S fixation out of the way early, it wasn't all that funny. It was amusing, which I suppose is fitting for G&S, but not the sort of funny we're built up to expect. There's also a new recurring sketch based on commedia dell'arte, which just seems strange.
3. I'd like more about the actual show and its cast and crew, and a little less about the NBS executives. Steven Weber does a good job as the network chairman, and even though I don't care for Amanda Peet, she's doing a decent job as the new NBS president (even though she was a little too omniscient in the pilot). But I'd rather have more development on plot lines involving the cast and crew. We're getting some of this - one of the leading cast members is Matt's ex-girlfriend, and there's a rift between Matt and the show's less quality-focused writers (though that seems to be coming to an end), but I'd like more. I suppose that will come with time.
I'm going to stick with the show, as there is a lot going for it. I just hope Sorkin et. al. make the show a little less focused on issues and more on the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)