Just in time for the holidays, TVLand is making a list - of the top 100 catch-phrases in TV history, just in time to make a special out of it. And to get idiots on the Internet to talk about it.
With most lists of this type, my biggest reservations are for the most current entries. While I still enjoy How I Met Your Mother - even though with the removal of Ted's future kids, it sounds like future Ted is talking to himself - I don't think that "Suit up!" is necessarily in the top 100. It's more deserving than "Tell me what you don't like about yourself" from Nip/Tuck, which is both not that catchy and way too generic. I'm also not sure how William Shatner screaming his own character's name on Boston Legal cracked the list, even if it is funny.
(I'd also note that "Welcome to the O.C., bitch" would be better on a list of top 100 TV phrases turned into mocking or ironic restatements.)
Not surprisingly, the better catch-phrases from the current aren't from scripted prime-time programming. "The tribe has spoken" and "You're fired!" both fit pretty well; "Here it is, your moment of Zen" less so based on not being that catch-phrasey.
Not surprisingly, the '70s is most represented on the list with 26 entries. Saturday Night Live has six entries. And odd repeat is "Hey hey hey," which is in from both Fat Albert and What's Happening. They're said differently, of course, but it's funny seeing them next to each other like that. Throw in "Heh heh" from Beavis and Butthead and you get the feeling that the list should have been arranged chronologically.
With the given list, I'm going to guess that "Do you believe in miracles?" will top the list once it's presented in order. Also not much of a catch phrase, but memorable nevertheless. My dark horse is "I want my MTV"; it not only became a catch-phrase of sorts, it also marks a generational change in how entertainment was presented (for better or worse).
Anyway, suggestions for replacements are welcome. To start, I would happily replace any of the current clunkers with "Whoa nelly!" or some other oft-repeated nugget from Keith Jackson.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Arrivederci, Roma
For reasons that I still do not completely comprehend, the wife decided to include The Bachelor: Rome in our viewing when the new season started. I don't recall her being particularly interested in the show in the past (she's not watched it regularly, at least) and I've never watched the show.
Until now, of course.
I will admit that, as with pretty much any unscripted show, it's hard not to get pulled into choosing favorites. But it's also not hard to see why this concept has seen better days. I'm already sick of the sheer artifice of it all, from the dates that are either so busy or so over the top that it's hard to see where anyone is making a real connection, to the rote rites of the rose ceremony. I also don't find the bachelor, an Italian "prince" who grew up in the US and speaks Italian about as well as I do, to be that interesting. From looking at past bachelors, that's not surprising; there's a bland sameness to them all.
In this series, there's also been the use of that unscripted favorite, bringing back a particularly unsavory contestant for future hijinx. In this case, it's a Houston "socialite" who always wears a tiara and thinks that, because she's rich and from a privileged background, that she's perfect princess material. It doesn't help her case that she constantly looks stoned and (in an odd juxtaposition) acts like she's off her meds. I fear that she's going to become the next Bachelorette. Not that it'll matter, as I'll fry our DVR rather than let the wife record it (not that I think she would, she can't stand this contestant, either).
Anyway, I'm not sure what ABC is getting out of the continued existence of The Bachelor. They're getting reasonable female demo numbers (and growth out of Wife Swap - but how could they not grow out of that?), but in all the show looks like the middle of a crap sandwich.
Of course, What About Brian got a full-season order. I imagine they're using a liberal amount of mustard to get this sandwich down.
Until now, of course.
I will admit that, as with pretty much any unscripted show, it's hard not to get pulled into choosing favorites. But it's also not hard to see why this concept has seen better days. I'm already sick of the sheer artifice of it all, from the dates that are either so busy or so over the top that it's hard to see where anyone is making a real connection, to the rote rites of the rose ceremony. I also don't find the bachelor, an Italian "prince" who grew up in the US and speaks Italian about as well as I do, to be that interesting. From looking at past bachelors, that's not surprising; there's a bland sameness to them all.
In this series, there's also been the use of that unscripted favorite, bringing back a particularly unsavory contestant for future hijinx. In this case, it's a Houston "socialite" who always wears a tiara and thinks that, because she's rich and from a privileged background, that she's perfect princess material. It doesn't help her case that she constantly looks stoned and (in an odd juxtaposition) acts like she's off her meds. I fear that she's going to become the next Bachelorette. Not that it'll matter, as I'll fry our DVR rather than let the wife record it (not that I think she would, she can't stand this contestant, either).
Anyway, I'm not sure what ABC is getting out of the continued existence of The Bachelor. They're getting reasonable female demo numbers (and growth out of Wife Swap - but how could they not grow out of that?), but in all the show looks like the middle of a crap sandwich.
Of course, What About Brian got a full-season order. I imagine they're using a liberal amount of mustard to get this sandwich down.
When Smart Turns Stoopid
I'm two or three weeks behind on Studio 60, having just watched "The Wrap Party" over the weekend. I was stunned in this episode to find that a show from alleged genius Aaron Sorkin would have two of the stupidest moments on TV this season, both involving the character Tom Jeter giving his parents a tour of the studio:
1. During his discourse, we learn that Tom's parents have never heard of the Abbott and Costello routine "Who's on First?" It also appears that they've never heard of Abbott and Costello. Way to use the least amount of straw to create your men, Sorkin.
2. At an especially exasperating moment of the tour, when Tom says they're standing in the middle of the "Paris Opera House of American comedy," his dad shoots back "your brother Mark is standing in the middle of Afghanistan!" While I can believe that the dad would disapprove of Tom's job - especially when his brother is getting shot at halfway across the world - having it come out this was is just ridiculous.
There was also a bludgeon of a subplot involving a blacklisted writer, which I can marginally forgive thanks to Eli Wallach's performance. If this episode is indicative of how the show is a metaphor for itself - something that's "smart" and will "save" TV - I will happily sign off on whatever Endemol gameshow NBC has waiting in the wings to replace it.
1. During his discourse, we learn that Tom's parents have never heard of the Abbott and Costello routine "Who's on First?" It also appears that they've never heard of Abbott and Costello. Way to use the least amount of straw to create your men, Sorkin.
2. At an especially exasperating moment of the tour, when Tom says they're standing in the middle of the "Paris Opera House of American comedy," his dad shoots back "your brother Mark is standing in the middle of Afghanistan!" While I can believe that the dad would disapprove of Tom's job - especially when his brother is getting shot at halfway across the world - having it come out this was is just ridiculous.
There was also a bludgeon of a subplot involving a blacklisted writer, which I can marginally forgive thanks to Eli Wallach's performance. If this episode is indicative of how the show is a metaphor for itself - something that's "smart" and will "save" TV - I will happily sign off on whatever Endemol gameshow NBC has waiting in the wings to replace it.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
UnListed
I finally got around to watching the one episode run of Fox's The Rich List last night, and while it wasn't the horror show I expected, I can't say I'm going to miss it.
I did like the premise - two teams of two strangers each "bid" on the number of entries they can correctly provide for a list (such as "Tom Cruise movies"). The team whose bid is accepted by the other team must then meet their bid. Failure to do so gives a win to the other team, the team that wins two out of three goes on to the actual Rich List, where for every three items they can name from a list, they get a certain amount of money (with an error earning you nothing).
So while the premise was fine, everything else was either derivative, actively annoying, or both. In the former case I'd put the set, the music, and the lighting, which was all taken from the new game show playbook of space age over-dramatic hyperkinetic nonsense.
Falling in the both category was the host and the contestants. The host, an Anglo-Irish presenter named Eamonn Holmes, had an Irish accent of someone who is trying not to have one. He'd have been better off in full brogue. His attempts to inject drama into the proceedings fell flat, though that was only partially his fault.
Which leads us to the contestants, who fall into that slightly dopey category that's all the rage now. This works on shows like Deal or No Deal because of the time spent talking to and working on the contestant. It's easy to milk drama out of contestants when you spend time messing with their head, and then introducing family, friends, and celebrities to do the same. When you've got minimal chatter along those lines, the dopiness of the contestants stands out. This is a problem when the show is more knowledge-based.
Anyway, if you didn't see it you didn't miss too much. Though it'd still be better than the continued foisting of The O.C. on the public.
I did like the premise - two teams of two strangers each "bid" on the number of entries they can correctly provide for a list (such as "Tom Cruise movies"). The team whose bid is accepted by the other team must then meet their bid. Failure to do so gives a win to the other team, the team that wins two out of three goes on to the actual Rich List, where for every three items they can name from a list, they get a certain amount of money (with an error earning you nothing).
So while the premise was fine, everything else was either derivative, actively annoying, or both. In the former case I'd put the set, the music, and the lighting, which was all taken from the new game show playbook of space age over-dramatic hyperkinetic nonsense.
Falling in the both category was the host and the contestants. The host, an Anglo-Irish presenter named Eamonn Holmes, had an Irish accent of someone who is trying not to have one. He'd have been better off in full brogue. His attempts to inject drama into the proceedings fell flat, though that was only partially his fault.
Which leads us to the contestants, who fall into that slightly dopey category that's all the rage now. This works on shows like Deal or No Deal because of the time spent talking to and working on the contestant. It's easy to milk drama out of contestants when you spend time messing with their head, and then introducing family, friends, and celebrities to do the same. When you've got minimal chatter along those lines, the dopiness of the contestants stands out. This is a problem when the show is more knowledge-based.
Anyway, if you didn't see it you didn't miss too much. Though it'd still be better than the continued foisting of The O.C. on the public.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Tritter is the new Vogler
I can't say I'm particularly thrilled about the current House plot line where police detective Michael Tritter (played by David Morse) is investigating House for his practices relative to Vicodin. To me it's playing off very much like the first season story Edward Vogler story line. Or at least an attempt to do that story line better.
There are some differences between Tritter and Vogler. Tritter has the power of the state to back his menace; the ability to freeze Wilson's bank accounts or send House to prison take things up a notch from getting fired. Tritter is also much more of a House-like character, between the overuse of medication (nicotine gum rather than Vicodin) and the shared belief that everybody lies.
I suppose this should make me more interested, in that we get to compare House battling a law enforcement variant of himself. But to me, it's playing more like the bully versus bully confrontation that marked the Vogler plot. I know that they need to run stories like this to give some foil to House that he can't run roughshod over, but I'd like a little more nuance.
(Unrelated note: David Morse is from Hamilton, Massachusetts, one town over from where I grew up. He may be the most famous Hamilton native ever.)
There are some differences between Tritter and Vogler. Tritter has the power of the state to back his menace; the ability to freeze Wilson's bank accounts or send House to prison take things up a notch from getting fired. Tritter is also much more of a House-like character, between the overuse of medication (nicotine gum rather than Vicodin) and the shared belief that everybody lies.
I suppose this should make me more interested, in that we get to compare House battling a law enforcement variant of himself. But to me, it's playing more like the bully versus bully confrontation that marked the Vogler plot. I know that they need to run stories like this to give some foil to House that he can't run roughshod over, but I'd like a little more nuance.
(Unrelated note: David Morse is from Hamilton, Massachusetts, one town over from where I grew up. He may be the most famous Hamilton native ever.)
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Lost getting lost
Given the slow pace with which Lost forwards its plot, it's hard to have more than a week off between episodes, as the momentum built over time by new episodes dissipates quickly.
You can imagine, then, how things are going to go after tonight, as the next new episode will air in February 2007. In its place (for now, at least) ABC is airing the new Taye Diggs drama Day Break, which is like the movie Groundhog Day, but with more homicide and shots of the lead not wearing a shirt.
I know ABC is hoping that Lost's audience will be interested in this novel show, and follow it to wherever its new home will be, but is it smart to take one of your top shows off the air for months when there are other nights whose programming is languishing (hello, Monday).
There's also the problem of the shrinking Lost audience, which is down significantly from this time last season. After waiting all summer for new episodes that only started airing last month, will viewers tolerate what amounts to an Indian summer for the show? I will, because I'm a sucker. ABC better hope there are plenty of suckers in the Lost audience.
You can imagine, then, how things are going to go after tonight, as the next new episode will air in February 2007. In its place (for now, at least) ABC is airing the new Taye Diggs drama Day Break, which is like the movie Groundhog Day, but with more homicide and shots of the lead not wearing a shirt.
I know ABC is hoping that Lost's audience will be interested in this novel show, and follow it to wherever its new home will be, but is it smart to take one of your top shows off the air for months when there are other nights whose programming is languishing (hello, Monday).
There's also the problem of the shrinking Lost audience, which is down significantly from this time last season. After waiting all summer for new episodes that only started airing last month, will viewers tolerate what amounts to an Indian summer for the show? I will, because I'm a sucker. ABC better hope there are plenty of suckers in the Lost audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)