V is off to a way better start than Flash Forward, ABC's other new sci-fi ensemble show (and possible successor to Lost, so hopes the network) of the 2009 television season. However, that's 100% based off of the final 10 minutes.
The majority of V is spent introducing our main protagonists and antagonists of the series and setting up the plot. It's fairly rote stuff. The exposition isn't very compelling, mostly because this is a remake and even if it weren't, everyone and their brother knows that the aliens are obviously evil. I'm predisposed to like Elizabeth Mitchell's character and think Morena Baccarin is silkily creepy, thanks to their respective turns in Lost and Firefly. Everyone else, I couldn't be bothered to care about yet. Speaking of which, add in Alan Tudyk and this show is a television sci-fi fan's wet dream. I half expected Summer Glau to show up as Cameron and blow all the aliens away. Evil aliens are why we need killer robots, people!
Fortunately, shit gets real at the end. Those terrorist cells that our heroes were investigating? They're made up of aliens! And Wash is one of them! But that black dude who used to be involved with the conspiracy theorists is here to kick ass and save the day! And now Wash is dead! And that black guy is a good alien! It's crazy and slightly predictable but by golly it works.
So yes, my endorsement of V is strictly on its potential. But I was more involved in those final minutes than I was for three episodes of Flash Forward. It's worth a shot.
Showing posts with label 2009 tv season. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009 tv season. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A Man for New Seasons: The Venture Bros. and It's Always Sunny
The Venture Bros. has come roaring out of the gate in its fourth season. Everything that I hated the most about the third season is pleasantly absent. Whereas last season's premiere didn't even feature the title characters and focused exclusively on The Monarch, "Blood of the Father, Heart of Steel" puts the Venture family front and center - even H.E.L.P.E.R.! And while the second episode of season three trotted out Dr. Killinger, a character I never really cared for in the first place, "Handsome Ransom" introduces Captain Sunshine and a handful of other new superheroes (I am begging for Ghost Robot to reappear). While the episode's vaguely pedophilia-related undertones are hardly new ground, the episode was bonkers enough for everything to work. So long as the current season continues to introduce new characters and not get bogged down in its own mythology, this could be one of the best seasons yet.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia barely warrants a mention; the show has never bothered to flesh out its characters or construct broad story arcs. As long as the gang continues to behave reprehensibly the series will be funny, and so far it has fulfilled this obligation.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia barely warrants a mention; the show has never bothered to flesh out its characters or construct broad story arcs. As long as the gang continues to behave reprehensibly the series will be funny, and so far it has fulfilled this obligation.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A Man for New Seasons: The Next Iron Chef
When all you've ever eaten is filet mignon, it's hard to adjust to a lesser cut. Such is the case with cooking reality shows. I've only ever watched Top Chef and its spinoff. I attempted watching an episode of Hell's Kitchen once for kicks and turned it off about five minutes in. I've always been a fan of the Iron Chef series but that's an entirely different animal, built around colorful dishes and gimmickery. With The Next Iron Chef, the Food Network is trying to take a page from Bravo's playbook.
At first, I was surprised that another chef was needed - wasn't five enough? But Batali hasn't cooked once all season (too bad, I like him) and Morimoto cooks sparingly (ditto). And somebody needs to pick up Cat Cora's slack - she wins less than 60% of the time. Meanwhile, first season winner Michael Symon is doing pretty well for himself.
Is it unfair to compare The Next Iron Chef exclusively to Top Chef? Yes. But one of these shows is the gold standard, and the other is the upstart.
Next Iron Chef borrows the preliminary challenge/elimination round format from Top Chef but throws in a nifty wrinkle by having the chefs evaluate each other's dishes in the beginning challenge. There's no secret ballot, which strikes me as unfair - perhaps that's edited out to ramp up the drama.
In place of Padma as host, there's Alton Brown. I'd say that's a pretty solid tradeoff; Brown does a great job as host of Iron Chef America and his culinary credentials trump Ms. Lakshmi's. But he's behind a booth on Iron Chef America and Next Iron Chef forces him to intermingle. It's in this role that he struggles. Padma and Tom Colicchio have this act down pat, but Alton Brown tends to stand uncomfortably close to the contestants and interject awkward statements. With his pocket notebook in hand, he comes off sort of like an overbearing college professor.
Next Iron Chef also takes more of an educational stance. Its parent show has often focused on interesting tidbits about different foods and cooking techniques and the spinoff follows suit, including pop-up text balloons that explain the origins of certain dishes and describing culinary terms to the layperson. I wish Top Chef did this too; I only recently found out that creme fraiche was more akin to sour cream than fresh cream.
The challenges have been fairly vanilla so far, and so have the challengers. Just like in Top Chef Masters, these competitors are professionals in their field and pettiness is not encouraged. There is a vague attempt to make Nate Appleman a villain, but it's pretty weak.
Will I keep watching? Perhaps. Mad Men already occupies a piece of my Sunday nights so another show isn't going to hurt. But I could easily miss a few episodes and not lose any sleep.
As for early handicaps, I like Jehangir Mehta. But like in any reality cooking show, it's too early to tell.
At first, I was surprised that another chef was needed - wasn't five enough? But Batali hasn't cooked once all season (too bad, I like him) and Morimoto cooks sparingly (ditto). And somebody needs to pick up Cat Cora's slack - she wins less than 60% of the time. Meanwhile, first season winner Michael Symon is doing pretty well for himself.
Is it unfair to compare The Next Iron Chef exclusively to Top Chef? Yes. But one of these shows is the gold standard, and the other is the upstart.
Next Iron Chef borrows the preliminary challenge/elimination round format from Top Chef but throws in a nifty wrinkle by having the chefs evaluate each other's dishes in the beginning challenge. There's no secret ballot, which strikes me as unfair - perhaps that's edited out to ramp up the drama.
In place of Padma as host, there's Alton Brown. I'd say that's a pretty solid tradeoff; Brown does a great job as host of Iron Chef America and his culinary credentials trump Ms. Lakshmi's. But he's behind a booth on Iron Chef America and Next Iron Chef forces him to intermingle. It's in this role that he struggles. Padma and Tom Colicchio have this act down pat, but Alton Brown tends to stand uncomfortably close to the contestants and interject awkward statements. With his pocket notebook in hand, he comes off sort of like an overbearing college professor.
Next Iron Chef also takes more of an educational stance. Its parent show has often focused on interesting tidbits about different foods and cooking techniques and the spinoff follows suit, including pop-up text balloons that explain the origins of certain dishes and describing culinary terms to the layperson. I wish Top Chef did this too; I only recently found out that creme fraiche was more akin to sour cream than fresh cream.
The challenges have been fairly vanilla so far, and so have the challengers. Just like in Top Chef Masters, these competitors are professionals in their field and pettiness is not encouraged. There is a vague attempt to make Nate Appleman a villain, but it's pretty weak.
Will I keep watching? Perhaps. Mad Men already occupies a piece of my Sunday nights so another show isn't going to hurt. But I could easily miss a few episodes and not lose any sleep.
As for early handicaps, I like Jehangir Mehta. But like in any reality cooking show, it's too early to tell.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The case against: Glee
Glee made a flashy entrance when its first episode premiered after the season finale of American Idol earlier this year. It promptly vanished until the start of the 2009 TV season proper, allowing the buzz to build for months. Ratings have been so good that it's been picked up for a full season.
There's a lot to like about Glee. The cast is talented, the dialogue occasionally zings in a 30 Rock-esque fashion, and there's nothing else like it on television. It's also heavily problematic, which keeps it from being something I want to watch regularly.
- There's too much going on: Here's a shortlist of what happened during the episode "Preggers." Kurt made the football team as a kicker and came out to his father. Sue continued her mission to break up Glee Club by getting Sandy to re-join the faculty. Rachel, feeling under-appreciated, left Glee Club in order to be a part of Sandy's cabaret. And - deep breath - Finn found out that his girlfriend was pregnant but even though he thinks he's the father it's actually his best friend Puck, which gives Will's wife a chance to come up with a baby because she's lied to him about being pregnant. Phew. At least it's told in a compact time frame; the episode prior to it seemingly took place over an entire month.
- The characters are problematic: I get extremely nit-picky when it comes to characters staying consistent with who they are. For instance, Will and Sandy are fairly chummy in "Acafellas" but one episode later Sandy hates Will with a passion. Granted, their allegiance as part of the Acafellas was one of convenience and not mutual respect, but in "Preggers" Sandy hates Glee Club with the passion of Sue Sylvester, who'd sooner kill herself than team up with Will for anything. Also, while "ugly" high schoolers have been portrayed by attractive actors and actresses for ages, the show still stretches the limits of plausibility by having Rachel moping about being unloved and invisible. Sure, she's a bit of a bitch, but she's also stunningly attractive. It's like when Taylor Swift paints herself as a nobody in "You Belong to Me." I'm not buying it for a second.
- The musical numbers are overproduced: I've never seen a real show choir before, but my God, I can't handle any of the performances in Glee. I did chorus and musical theater in high school. I have Broadway soundtracks on my iPod. I'm one of the few people who don't mind college a capella groups. This sort of thing should be right down my alley. But it doesn't help when all the songs come with unnecessary backing vocals and instrumental accompaniments. Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele were on Broadway. They don't need help from the production booth to sound good. And Jesus, the Acafellas didn't even sing a capella! I can understand why the musical numbers are largely contemporary pop songs - I doubt audiences want to hear "The Lord Bless You and Keep You." But it's possible to do a capella songs, or choral work with limited post-production, and have it be catchy. It worked for Billy Joel. It was a viral hit for Straight No Chaser. And even traditional choirs can make pop music work.
- The show can't commit to what it wants to be: I feel that Glee would work better as a half-hour comedy in the vein of The Office, but that's not my major quibble. Glee could successfully be an hour-long dramedy if it chose to either be an all-out musical or keep the musical numbers in the real world. Instead, Glee is all over the place. Rachel and Mercedes sing in fantasy sequences, but the football team's "Single Ladies" dance happens during an actual football game. I'm all for willing suspension of disbelief, but the team's dance is the sort of stunt that would at the very least result in a delay of game penalty. Establish that the show follows the rules of a musical, and I don't think about that. But the show's first three episodes occur in a reality-based setting. You can't change the rules like that and expect the audience to play along. Perhaps the creators remembered how Cop Rock and Viva Laughlin were colossal failures and decided not to go balls-out. It's a bad call.
There's a lot to like about Glee. The cast is talented, the dialogue occasionally zings in a 30 Rock-esque fashion, and there's nothing else like it on television. It's also heavily problematic, which keeps it from being something I want to watch regularly.
- There's too much going on: Here's a shortlist of what happened during the episode "Preggers." Kurt made the football team as a kicker and came out to his father. Sue continued her mission to break up Glee Club by getting Sandy to re-join the faculty. Rachel, feeling under-appreciated, left Glee Club in order to be a part of Sandy's cabaret. And - deep breath - Finn found out that his girlfriend was pregnant but even though he thinks he's the father it's actually his best friend Puck, which gives Will's wife a chance to come up with a baby because she's lied to him about being pregnant. Phew. At least it's told in a compact time frame; the episode prior to it seemingly took place over an entire month.
- The characters are problematic: I get extremely nit-picky when it comes to characters staying consistent with who they are. For instance, Will and Sandy are fairly chummy in "Acafellas" but one episode later Sandy hates Will with a passion. Granted, their allegiance as part of the Acafellas was one of convenience and not mutual respect, but in "Preggers" Sandy hates Glee Club with the passion of Sue Sylvester, who'd sooner kill herself than team up with Will for anything. Also, while "ugly" high schoolers have been portrayed by attractive actors and actresses for ages, the show still stretches the limits of plausibility by having Rachel moping about being unloved and invisible. Sure, she's a bit of a bitch, but she's also stunningly attractive. It's like when Taylor Swift paints herself as a nobody in "You Belong to Me." I'm not buying it for a second.
- The musical numbers are overproduced: I've never seen a real show choir before, but my God, I can't handle any of the performances in Glee. I did chorus and musical theater in high school. I have Broadway soundtracks on my iPod. I'm one of the few people who don't mind college a capella groups. This sort of thing should be right down my alley. But it doesn't help when all the songs come with unnecessary backing vocals and instrumental accompaniments. Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele were on Broadway. They don't need help from the production booth to sound good. And Jesus, the Acafellas didn't even sing a capella! I can understand why the musical numbers are largely contemporary pop songs - I doubt audiences want to hear "The Lord Bless You and Keep You." But it's possible to do a capella songs, or choral work with limited post-production, and have it be catchy. It worked for Billy Joel. It was a viral hit for Straight No Chaser. And even traditional choirs can make pop music work.
- The show can't commit to what it wants to be: I feel that Glee would work better as a half-hour comedy in the vein of The Office, but that's not my major quibble. Glee could successfully be an hour-long dramedy if it chose to either be an all-out musical or keep the musical numbers in the real world. Instead, Glee is all over the place. Rachel and Mercedes sing in fantasy sequences, but the football team's "Single Ladies" dance happens during an actual football game. I'm all for willing suspension of disbelief, but the team's dance is the sort of stunt that would at the very least result in a delay of game penalty. Establish that the show follows the rules of a musical, and I don't think about that. But the show's first three episodes occur in a reality-based setting. You can't change the rules like that and expect the audience to play along. Perhaps the creators remembered how Cop Rock and Viva Laughlin were colossal failures and decided not to go balls-out. It's a bad call.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
A Man for New Seasons: The Office and Weekend Update Thursday
The Office is getting off to a good start. Michael is more petty and less sympathetic than usual, which I don't mind, since the show got very soft on him last season. Andy continues to be the best Sixth Man, so to speak. And I like how the writers are keeping Jim's flaws consistent. Michael flaunting Toby's report in order to keep Jim from getting a promotion was a dick move, but Toby's report is spot-on. And tonight's episode is yet another example of Jim wilting when given a position of authority. The PB&J relationship gets cloyingly cute at times, but it's flaws like these that keep the characters from being unbearable. Speaking of which, it seems a little odd that Jim and Pam's big wedding is the 4th episode of the season. Saving the baby's birth for the finale, I suppose.
SNL Weekend Update Thursday, on the other hand, has sputtered out the gate. Fortunately it's just a placeholder until 30 Rock returns. Without a presidential election to give it a raison d'etre, there's a dearth of material for the show (and for SNL proper, too). I fully welcome its pre-planned demise, and I'm sure Lorne Michaels and company welcome it too.
SNL Weekend Update Thursday, on the other hand, has sputtered out the gate. Fortunately it's just a placeholder until 30 Rock returns. Without a presidential election to give it a raison d'etre, there's a dearth of material for the show (and for SNL proper, too). I fully welcome its pre-planned demise, and I'm sure Lorne Michaels and company welcome it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)