Two links

First off, Andy Bowers of Slate has a great idea about putting West Wing on ITunes. I wish I had thought of it first. Although, he does echo what I said last week:

The same model could work for other quality shows that are always teetering "on the bubble"—shows like Arrested
Development and Scrubs (as well as departed critical darlings such as Freaks and Geeks and I'll Fly Away).

Second, here's the first attempt at a Madden/Michaels rundown of last night's 24. Thanks to Mike Zordan for working on it with me.

Bye Bye Bartlet

Alas, The West Wing has reached the end of its seven year run. It was only a matter of time, but I'm quite sad to see it come this year. After a horrendous and meandering fifth season, West Wing had a nice recovery in its sixth. Once the writers made the (in retrospect) wise decision to skip a "year" and go straight to what they do best, campaign races, West Wing had a strong 2005.

It was hard at times to believe that a character such as Alan Alda's Arnie Vinick could exist, not to mention get the Republican nomination. He was the ideal Republican for any idealistic, leftist West Wing watcher...which is pretty much every West Wing watcher. Jimmy Smits has also been a bit too much of a golden boy without much of a personality.

But this seventh season has been reminiscent of the fantastic first few seasons, the Aaron Sorkin era. John Spencer's last few episodes are brilliant, and last night's show was the best in recent memory. While "Duck and Cover" was a not-so-veiled jab at what our President should be doing in a national emergency, the taut pacing and relentless drama seemed awfully realistic.

In one fell swoop, Tommy Schlamme and John Wells made the election a toss-up. Well-done, sirs. Now let's see how you handle John Spencer's untimely passing.

But back to the cancellation. Lisa DeMoraes, as always, has a great roundup of the announcement. At first I was angry, fuming that NBC would probably replace WW with another spinoff series from Dick Wolf. As Jared will attest, there are way too many procedural dramas on TV today. But then I remembered, 2006 will mark the first season of Sunday Night Football on NBC.

So naturally, West Wing would have had another change to another night at another time slot. Better it die a respectful death, than a slow and ugly one on Friday or Saturday night.

On one last note, if Rob Lowe is coming back to the show, he will (as I predicted) be the replacement candidate as Vice President. Unless he won't be. Then I'd be totally totally wrong.

So many things to blog...

...way too much delaying actually writing about them. I have a laundry list of items to write about, so hopefully I'll get to them throughout this week . Stay tuned.

But today's post deals with one of my least favorite people, Brent Bozell. I've written about him before, check out my Tufts Daily column on him...it's one of my favorites. No matter how much I disagree with him, and no matter how many times his vitriolic crap angers me, I still read him along with many other right-wing nutcases. Let me say for the record, again, that I agree with Bozell on one issue, and only one issue: a la carte cable options. I dont want Bozell and his Parents Television Council army crashing my love for trashy TV, but if they can opt out on paying for trashy channels, all the more power to them.

Anyways, straight to the Bozo Column: Old Europe's Golden Globes

Where is this "enormous" influence the Golden Globes has over a) our culture and b) the Oscars? Does Mr. Bozell have any facts to back this up? No, of course not. In fact, I think very very few people care who wins the Golden Globes. This gives me an opportunity to rant against the awards show whose only reason for gaining any attention is that all of Hollywood gets plastered on stage. But I'd like to see any evidence where the Golden Globes matter ...other than fashion/gossip rags and the entertainment world.

Like his Townhall.com counterpart, Bert Prelutsky (cue Nutsky pun here), Bozell admits to not seeing Capote, or Brokeback, or TransAmerica:

People who've actually seen these movies are a better judge of whether these actors deserved the acting honors. I am told that Hoffman was superb.

Yes, Phillip Seymour Hoffman was quite spectacular in embodying Truman Capote. The film was otherwise a bit slow, and I thought Catherine Keener put forth a better performance, but Hoffman was great. So what is wrong with recognizing a great performance?

Apparently because none of them are "box-office-booming" successes. Who would Bozell have nominated for an ACTING category from War of the Worlds or Star Wars? The films were entertaining and all, but an acting award for Hayden Christensen pouting like a three-year old...or Dakota Fanning for screaming throught a two-hour movie? The only person I could possibly see getting nominated for anything among the movies he mentioned is Naomi Watts...but they could have shown a loop of her blue eyes staring in awe with her jaw agape and no one would have noticed.

His closing paragraph reiterates his opening, but he makes even less sense.

Let's hope that when our children look back on the classic movies and TV of their youth, they won't be influenced by which ones won the Golden Globes. I'm already eager to forget who just won.

Again, are our children influenced TODAY by who won the Golden Globes? I follow the awards seasons, and look forward to seeing films that are recognized as the best of the year, and I've ALREADY forgotten who has won many of the Golden Globes from last week. I have no idea who won anything from last year.

This is all a part of the ridiculous culture wars...which, as E.J. Dionne pointed out in this month's Atlantic, is a war between those who think one exists, and those who think it is a ludicrous way of avoiding the real problems of our world. The Golden Globes are not corrupting our children...instead look to those closeminded idealogues with no handle on reality.

I'm looking towards you, Bozo.

Somewhere, Paul Tagliabue is Crying

In my earlier rambling post, which included a couple thoughts on the Oscars, I said how it didnt matter who hosted the Oscars, but that the ratings would surely drop. The same is true about the Super Bowl. With so many options for home viewers, including the recent trend of strong counter-programming by other networks and cable, the Super Bowl ratings have been stagnating as of late. Last year's Pats-Eagles game reached an estimated 86.1 million people, the '03 game found 89.8 million. According to the AP, the ratings of the Super Bowl reached its apex in 1996 with Dallas vs. Pittsburgh (94 million). I hate the post-game ratings story, because it rarely means anything. That being said, Tags has to be quite upset over what transpired this past weekend.

Seattle...Carolina....Pittsburgh...and Denver. Four teams that no one outside of their geographic reasons, all realtively small metropolitan areas. Found this site listing population via metro area as of 2004, since the Census page is unnavigable, Seattle/Tacoma is the 13th biggest metro area by population; Denver is 19th; Pittsburgh is the 21st; Charlotte, NC is the 24th. None of them even crack the top 10. Had Indianapolis won, they would have been the smallest market at 27th...but no self-respecting sports fan would miss Indy in the Super Bowl. Tags lost out on Boston, Chicago, and Washington--3 top 10 markets and 2 top 5's.

On top of that, what are the compelling matchups? Seattle has no one who brings a great story to the big game. Maybe its Hasselbeck's longtime struggle with baldness...or Holmgren's issue with looking like a walrus. Carolina has a potential to bring actual talent to the table, and Steve Smith deserves a chance to prove the MVP voting is a joke. Denver has their Johnny Damon character with Jake Plummer's beard...but not much else other than Mike Shanahan's inability to win without Elway.

I see Pittsburgh as the best chance for an underdog story. The Bus? Last game before walking off into the sunset? Doesn't get much better than that. And Bill Cowher is a hoot to watch in big games...whether he's winning or losing. Pitt has the most history of any of the Final Four...another plus.

Everyone, from ABC Sports to Tags to everyone outside of Denver, should be rooting for the Steelers for the AFC Crown...it'll make for a better Super Bowl. And with the NFC?

Whatever.

Nerds or Hunks on the Tube

Wow...two days in a row, let's keep this going!

In last Friday's Wall Street Journal, Brooks Barnes wrote an article titled "I Wany My Nerd TV" about the supposed trend of networks hyping unhunky characters as the stars of new offerings. I call bull. It's close to what Jack Shafer of Slate would call a phony "trend" story.

Barnes explains how the main characters of "Four Kings," "What About Brian," and "Love Monkey" all feature dorky guys as the romantic leads. All are ostensibly light-hearted comedies. But Barnes makes this out to be something new. He refers to nameless "entertainment executives" who say that the popularity of reality TV has made viewers uninterested in "slick, unrealistic characters."
Who they are referring to is unclear...something along the lines of the Studly Dudely who doesn't really exist on TV comedies.
These same execs are also "hungry to court the legions of awkward, videogame-playing young men who advertisers covet." Barnes does quote a Starcom Entertainment exec...so that's one thing going for the article. But as far as I know, dorky video gamers want to see Jessica Alba in "Dark Angel," not Seth hooking up with Summer on "The O.C."

If this article were about dorky guys emerging on soaps like "The O.C.", that would make sense. But it's not. It's mostly about the supposedly new trend of dorks in comedies. This is the part I have the biggest problem with. Barnes mentions Gilligan, Urkel, and Doogie...but what about the entire cast of "Seinfeld"...Woody on "Cheers"...Archie Bunker and Meathead?

The successful comedies have always been about the normal guy succeeding. "Sex and the City" is the aberration in this trend, and thats because women are crazy. Even "Friends" had Joey, a supposed beefcake, but he was surrounded by Chandler and Ross, two dorks-- who had the lasting romantic relationships that Joey never attained.

Look at "Cheers," Ted Danson's bartender was a bigheaded jerk..and was frequently held up just to be beaten down for comedic effect. On "M.A.S.H," the cast was a group of wisecracking doctors...none of whom were hunks. "Frasier" had the two main characters fighting over wine and classical music.

The MacGuyvers and Magnums and assorted action heroes were all in the realm of one-hour dramas. It's been a very rare occurence where the hunk was the central character of a successful comedy...maybe Desi Arnaz is the only instance that currently comes to mind.

Losers are funny. See: Homer, Archie, Ralph Kramden, Peter Griffin...the list goes on. This is nothing new.

More on Stewart

The posting continues...

Jared asked me for further thoughts on Golden Boy hosting the Oscars. As my nickname for him suggests, he can do little to no wrong, in my book. Daily Show is absolutely brilliant, and much of that has to do with Stewart and his clan of writers. The recent bit "Coot Off" between Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens was as good a segment on the show as I had seen since the 2004 election. I highly recommend watching it on comedycentral.com/dailyshow

Anyways, if Stewart brings his writing staff with him, and I imagine Gil Cates will encourage that, then we all have much to look forward to. With the politicized nature of many of the Oscar-worthy flicks (gay cowboys, big oil, terrorism, globalism, africa...need i go on?), Stewart has so much material to mine. All that being said, I will be watching with baited breath, for a number of reasons.

1) Stewart is not a physical comedian. He works sitting in front of a desk, and never really walks around. During the monologue, which will likely make or break the night (for the vibe in the theater and for itchy remote triggers at home), how will Stewart translate his shtick to walking around a stage? Also, much of the show's humor lies in airing congressional/media gaffes and absurdities...then making a joke about it. Maybe his monologue will do that with celebrities, and it could succeed, but that brings me to ...

2) Stewart sucks with celebrities. I know many people, myself included, who shut off the tube when the guest on Daily Show is a celebrity publicizing his/her new movie. It's usually just not funny or interesting. Probably because Jon Stewart just doesnt give a damn about it. Honestly, if you spent your day analyzing senate idiosyncrasies, would you even feign interest in Pierce Brosnan in The Matador? How will Stewart deal in a room full of ego-driven celebrities...as opposed to liberal college-age students?

3) His routine isn't Hollywood-centric. Like I've said numerous times in this post, Stewart just doesnt do Hollywood. This isnt Jay Leno or Conan or Letterman--making Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan cracks. Chris Rock, Steve Martin, Billy Crystal are all insiders who have been around the Beverly Hills scene for years. Jon Stewart was in a couple of flops and would fit better in DC than LA. I just dont know how well he'll jive at the Oscars.

Those are my concerns. I pray he'll be funny. But even if he isnt, he has a cozy home at the Daily Show with a devoted audience that won't really care either way.

Good start to the new year

New Year's Resolution #1: Start posting more on this blog.

From a TV standpoint, thank god for the end of December. No more reruns, no more War on Christmas demagoguery from Bill O'Reilly, and no more bad Christmas movies. Although this does mean I'll have to wait 11 months before being able to hear "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!"

This January marks a great beginning for TV enthusiasts. "24" begins in a week or so, the best episodes of "American Idol" are set to air as well. I stop watching after the first round, but schadenfreude is ripe for the taking with the William Hungs of the world. I do feel a bit cheated when I know that the crap singers are only put through to the Simon and Company just so they can be embarassed. It still makes for great entertainment anyways. Other great parts about January: The Office comes back tonight; West Wing returns Sunday; midseason replacements to ignore; Daily Show returned last night with its usual great satire, social commentary, and interesting guests; NFL playoffs on HD televisions; College basketball begins interconference play...MD-Duke is less than a week away.

And lastly, great news out of Hollywood. Via Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch Blog, I have good news on the Oscars front. Jon Stewart, golden boy, is set to host the show in a couple of months. Of course he'll be liberal and anti-Bush, and with the crop of films including themes on terrorism, gays, and racism--he will have plenty of ammunition. I dont know how it will affect ratings, but I dont really care about ratings...because I know already they will be lower than last year. As they are every year. If the Oscars want younger viewers, they've picked a good horse..and although Conan would have done well too, I pray that Stewart will be a great addition.