new to me

Photo from NBC.com

So, how's fall TV treating you? We've been busy at work with special newspaper projects and two issues of the magazine to work on (winter and holiday), so it's been sort of nice having all these shows to watch after a tiring day. I haven't watched many new series so far. I am liking "Chuck" (above, with Captain Awesome, left; CIA agent Sarah; and best friend Morgan). I wonder if the actress playing Sarah hopes for fewer scantily-clad/ogled-by-teenagers scenes in the future. For the most part, though, "Chuck" is more 8 p.m.-friendly than many shows, and it's funny. And Adam Baldwin gets to play a guy who's tough but amusing, which is really his forte. (Also, the Nerd Herd car cracks me up just by appearing in a scene. I don't know how long that amusement will last, but I expect it to be long-term.)

I also watched "Bionic Woman" and plan to stick with it for awhile at least. I expect it to grow on a person as it continues (not that I didn't like it). I tried "Journeyman," but about 20 minutes in I opted for an episode of "Veronica Mars" instead (on DVD, from season 2, which I am watching for the first time via Netflix). I also recorded "Aliens in America" to watch sometime (it's on across from "Chuck" and "Prison Break") and of course I plan to watch "Pushing Daisies" tomorrow night.

Is there another new show I should be trying out?

UPDATE: I forgot that I had sort of listened to "Moonlight" while doing other things on Friday. I only "watched" it because Jason Dohring -- who played Logan in "Veronica Mars" -- was cast as one of the regular characters. I'm sorry to say I didn't think he fit well. (He was so surprisingly appealing as a rather messed-up Logan in "VM.") I was pleasantly surprised to also see Marshall from "Alias" -- and so ends my list of pleasant surprises from that show. (OK, so the main guy seemed OK and Shannyn Sossamon is a good choice for the bad ex-wife vampire woman.)

treacly goodness

I'm sure I'm not the only one who, after reading some of the Harry Potter books, wanted to try treacle tart. I looked through websites and developed what seems to me, an American who only knows what she found on the Internet, to be a basic recipe that stays true to the dessert.

I really enjoyed trying it. It's tasty. My favorite part is actually the shortcrust pastry, which appears in lots of dessert recipes. Maybe I'll make a pie with it this weekend.

Try some treacle tart. I bet you'll like it. And in the meantime — have you ever been inspired by a book to try a certain food, or something else?

new to us

Photo is a downloadable wallpaper from ABC.com.

Next week is when the big onslaught of fall TV shows premieres. I watched "Prison Break" this past week and was happy to see it back, despite the grossness and general depravity of life in the new prison, Sona.

Of the new fall shows, I am by far most excited to see "Pushing Daisies." This quirky, apparently fun and unusual show about life and death doesn't start until Oct. 3. The other new shows I'm definitely planning on trying out, at least once, are "Chuck" and "Bionic Woman," both starting this coming week on NBC.

What about you? Which new series are you excited to see?

Arrr...

I couldn't go the whole day without noting ...

Avast! It's Talk Like A Pirate Day!

The '80s: not all bad

Ah, the '80s. The decade the ozone cried out in pain under a massive assault of aerosol hairspray. The time when otherwise intelligent young men and women chose to go out — in public — with their jeans folded and tucked into their socks. The padded shoulders of blazers that made women look like football players. The alarming slang (totally grody, man). But the '80s weren't all bad. The pictures here prove it, showcasing highlights that began or reached their peak during the decade of embarrassing photographs. To read Prerogative Editor Samantha Perry's accompanying plea against the comeback of '80s fashion from our current issue, visit the Prerogative website. To see our full list of '80s highlights, visit our MySpace page's blog. And tell us ... did we leave anything out? (Of course we did; we could only include so many John Hughes films, you know.)

From top: A "Gremlins" toy Gizmo, Atari, "We Are the World" poster, some '80s album covers, "The Lost Boys" poster.

fall TV; fear of frogs

I was not planning to watch anything on The CW this fall. Reasons:
1. The demise of "Veronica Mars."
2. An interest in scaling back hours spent watching prime time television.

Only three fall shows are on my Must Try list: "Pushing Daisies," which I am sure I will love; "Bionic Woman"; and "Chuck," which precedes "Heroes" (a plus) but conflicts with "Prison Break." Add to that list one show — The CW's "Online Nation" — I am planning to watch because I actually know one of the hosts, Rhett. Sure, I haven't seen or talked to him in, roughly, years. But he's funny. Here's a music video about fear of frogs from Rhett&Link (Rhett's on the right):

//Video has been deleted because it starts automatically, which some people (like me) might find annoying. Enjoy it via the Rhett&Link site. It's still funny.//

cheerio

I love British people. When it comes to my favorite movies or books, British people definitely represent (C.S. Lewis, Harry Potter, Jane Austen, "Shaun of the Dead"). And when I was compiling a list of British movie/TV suggestions for a story in the autumn issue of Prerogative, I got to see some more rather good British films. Here's the list:

Where to begin? “British” sure does cover a lot of ground, from movies created by British people to films set in Great Britain. You could build a marathon easily around either famous Grant (Cary or Hugh). You could go with stand-bys such as Alfred Hitchcock, Monty Python, Harry Potter and James Bond. Recent movie choices include “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” “The Holiday,” “Eragon” and “The Queen.”
Here are even more options, both well-known and less so:

Jane Austen (Austen is your go-to gal for great girls’ night in fare. Her six novels have been retold repeatedly as movies and miniseries, many of them well-received. These are our top picks):
• “Pride and Prejudice” (two-disc mini-series from BBC)
• “Pride and Prejudice” (2005)
• “Emma” (1996, with Gwyneth Paltrow)
• “Sense and Sensibility” (1995)
• “Persuasion” (1995)

Films:
“The Importance of Being Earnest” (2002)
“Much Ado About Nothing” (1993)
“Gosford Park”
“Millions” (2005)
“Lassie” (2005)
“Miss Potter”
“Dear Frankie”
“Nanny McPhee”
“Truly Madly Deeply”
“Shaun of the Dead”
“Finding Neverland”

Miniseries (for longer gatherings; enjoy a meal as intermission between parts):
“Middlemarch” (two DVD discs)
“Jane Eyre” (several miniseries and film versions are available)
“Wives and Daughters” (three discs)
“Bleak House” (try the three-disc Masterpiece Theatre version from 2005)
“Horatio Hornblower” (starring Ioan Gruffudd)

TV series:
“The Best of the Original Avengers”
“Doctor Who” (pick any generation; the newest version of the series is available in CD sets from 2005)
“Jeeves and Wooster” (starring a pre-“House” Hugh Laurie)

Several in the "Jane Austen" section and most of the "movies" list are real winners for me. Did I leave any out?

Update: Have you ever wondered what the difference is exactly between Britain and England, or those and the U.K.? Here's the breakdown of what is (and is not) “British,” from largest to smallest:
• The British Isles refers to the group of islands that includes Great Britain and Ireland (though the Republic of Ireland is not part of Britain).
• The United Kingdom — whose full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — includes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as smaller islands such as the Isle of Man.
• Great Britain includes England, Wales and Scotland. (Northern Ireland, meanwhile, isn’t on the same island — it’s on the nearby island with the Republic of Ireland.)
• The Republic of Ireland is a separate nation altogether.

Mountain Lake and 'Dirty Dancing'

Chrissy Herrell wrote a feature about Mountain Lake Getaway Resort for the autumn issue of Prerogative. Some of you may know Mountain Lake as the site of some scenes from "Dirty Dancing." Chrissy and I headed down to the resort for our first visits there (in Giles County, Va., it's less than two hours away from my hometown of Princeton, W.Va.). We both took lots of pictures.

Of course, we had more photos than room in the magazine. Here are some of the ones that didn't make it, taken by Chrissy and me. (For some neat trivia about the resort and the film, check out the Prerogative website.)

We took several photos of the stone hotel, which lends itself to cool shots from several places around the resort.
This is part of the hotel's dining room:
On the "Dirty Dancing" tour:
Notice the Gazebo, which appears in the film:
This building houses the gift shop, art gallery and more:
The Activities Barn:
Inside the Activities Barn:

a note to some ads: roll over and die

Complaining about annoying aspects of the Internet seems basically irrelevant, considering that the Internet by nature includes several annoying features, from the way it brings out the cruel, critical sides of people who post comments or messages on boards to the existence of spam and pop-up ads. Still, just because something's common doesn't mean it's acceptable.

For example, rollover ads. Sometimes online ads can be sort of cool, like when an animated character just appears on the screen, unconfined by recognizable ad-sized boxes. But those neat ads are still annoying. And rollover ads are always annoying, even when they're encouraging you to learn about something you like — a particular TV show like "Eureka," for example, or some new movie out on DVD. The ads are, logically, placed at the top and/or right of the Web page, so you're more likely to accidentally roll over them with your mouse as you navigate from page to page or from top to bottom.

A note to advertisers, though, and the people who allow these advertisements to appear on their pages: The ads are ALWAYS annoying. When a person rolls over them accidentally and they slide down or sideways to cover the text or photos the person wants to read/see, that person might just hold it against the product being advertised, or even the site that allows the obtrusive ad to annoy its readers. Sites that often feature such ads may turn some people off for good, particularly when the ads are the sort that don't automatically roll back into place when you move your mouse away from them (and you have to click the little "x" to close them, as if you chose to open them in the first place). Ads should not distract from the website experience, unless a person legitimately chooses to be distracted.

ah, corey

I have a friend named Melissa (who, in full disclosure, I have not been in regular contact with for awhile). If I called her, I would begin with, "Hi, Melissa, this is Melissa." She thought this was funny. What could I do? It was true.

Melissa and I were not actresses, and did not appear in several movies together, and were never featured in teen magazines. We were spared the experience of existing in that glaringly bright spot of celebrity as teenagers. And so, today, we live quiet lives away from the prodding eyes of reality TV camera lenses and A&E viewers.

The same, I am sort of sad to say, cannot be said of the Coreys. It's not news that they're in a "reality" TV show together ("The Two Coreys," which debuted last night on A&E). The news broke awhile back, and it isn't at all surprising when you consider the reality- and celebreality-saturated state of modern (as in, the past few years) television. Part of my inner 12-year-old perked up happily when I first heard about the show, but most of my inner 12-year-old is glad I missed the premier. I prefer to think of Corey and Corey from the naive perspective of a pre-teen with pin-ups all over her walls, when the greatest drama I knew of their lives was Corey H. hanging out with Alyssa Milano or Lala Sloatman (oh, the jealousy I felt), or Corey F. getting emancipated from his parents.

Corey Haim was my favorite (my favorite among all young, attractive actors at the time actually), while my best friend preferred Corey Feldman. This may have made the latter Corey's unbecoming appearance on "The Surreal Life" (which I've seen bits of) easier to stomach. More than a decade of non-Corey-centered existence also made it easier to face a bloated-drug-addict version of Corey Haim in some entertainment-news report on TV. Still, my naive, pleasantly nostalgic Corey Haim ideal has been altered. I don't want to further tarnish my former massive celebrity crush by learning more about who he is now, or at least who he appears to be on a reality TV show. I also am not interested in seeing the subject of my formerly massive celebrity crush be the butt of the reality TV joke, which most famous people on such shows are.

It's possible he's funny and likable. I don't hold it against him that he's had drug problems. But I expect that the show will be more likely to make him look bad than not (a lot of celebreality shows tend to focus on the less admirable qualities of its stars, no?). This reminds me of VH1's "Rock of Love" with Bret Michaels (who I saw in concert with Poison, who also occupied many spots on my bedroom wall, in the ninth grade). Even if these people turn out to be what you would logically expect, it's still disappointing to see them drinking like frat boys and romping around hot tubs with scantily clad women as if there's nothing tragic, empty and juvenile about it all.

It's a disappointment, often, when your personal version of who that guy in the magazine photo is turns out to be far different than the real thing. (In Bret's case, I think his music made his lifestyle pretty clear; I would have hoped he would outgrow some of that with age and experience, though.) It's easier when your teen idols grow up to fade away as they make good lives for themselves out of the spotlight, or when they grow up to be successful in their careers, known more for their talent and skill than for their grasps at second-rate celebrity. When I was 12, it would have never occurred to me that I would one day see a puffy-faced, sometimes incoherent Corey Haim on TV in a story about his drug addiction. Now, an estimated couple of years after seeing that, he at least looks healthier. I hope he is. I hope he turns out to be a stable person who can find real success without the junk that ruins people. Seeing him in a decent movie after all these years would be a treat. I'd be all about watching that.

a vent about Emmy

Emmy and I, I think, are done.

Why? Because Emmy is delusional. While sometimes honoring deserving people and shows, Emmy also rewards the mediocre. Emmy apparently doesn't watch much TV, and yet is responsible for honoring the best TV has to offer. Emmy is a poser. Sure, lots of people know about Emmy. Emmy is the best known TV award in the country. But does the modern-day Emmy deserve to be in a position of influence? Only when it gets things right.

You may have guessed by now that I disagree with the Emmy nominations announced this morning. The fact that the voting process is so screwy — and obviously incompetent, as the continued insistence on nominating popular junk like "Two and a Half Men" while ignoring, say, a good five to 10 more rightly acclaimed shows reveals — should make the blows easier to bear. But the high profile of the Emmys makes its shortcomings frustrating.

The nation should know that "Friday Night Lights" is better than the shows they're watching — "Grey's Anatomy," for example. Not that "GA" is wretched. But come on. I am not even speaking as someone who considers "FNL" her favorite show. It's not even in my top five. But it's better — the writing, the acting, the directing, the editing, the whole package — than most of the shows (or maybe all of the shows) that are nominated for Best Drama. To an extent, these decisions are about opinion. But sometimes you just have to concede to reality.

This year's "Lost" was better than those shows, too. I will acknowledge that I haven't seen a full episode of "Boston Legal" or maybe "Grey's Anatomy" this year, but based on what I've read and my own previous, though limited, exposure to these shows, I wonder HOW ON EARTH they could be considered better than "Lost," "Friday Night Lights" or "Battlestar Galactica," the latter being a show I also have limited exposure to, but enough to know it shouldn't be snubbed every year.

I wonder how much exposure Emmy voters have to all these shows. Are they really watching "Two and a Half Men" and thinking, "Gee, that Charlie Sheen does some incredible work"? Are they really watching complete episodes of "Friday Night Lights" and thinking, "Wow, that Kyle Chandler is good, but why not just blindly nominate the same people over and over instead"?

Not that Hugh Laurie doesn't deserve a nomination. Not that several nominees are deserving. But the glaring omissions are too much for me this year. I've had it. I am officially boycotting the 2007 Emmys. Even if they DID manage to have somewhat of a clue in the Comedy categories, nominating "The Office" for best comedy, Steve Carell for best lead actor, Rainn Wilson for best supporting actor, Neil Patrick Harris for best supporting actor and JENNA FISCHER for supporting actress. (Looking over a few of the bigger categories that were not announced on TV this morning, I am also happy to see that Masi Oka from "Heroes," Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn from "Lost" are nominated in the Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series category.)

But I don't think I can stand to watch the whole Emmys broadcast for the sake of the comedy awards and best supporting actor award, unless I really think that there's hope for all of them — "The Office" and Jenna in particular — to win. The half a clue the voters caught while choosing supporting actors and actresses lessens the shock of "Friday Night Lights" and "Lost" (and others) being shut out of the major categories, but maybe not enough to get me to watch. Every time "Boston Legal" or "Two and a Half Men" comes up, the annoyance twists inside me. And I even like William Shatner and James Spader.

For some more looks at the problems of Emmy voting, check out this Entertainment Weekly column by Mark Harris. For more Emmy reaction, visit the Gold Derby.
For a complete list of Emmy nominations, go here.
And stay tuned for my list of who I would have nominated in the major Emmy categories.

almost time

I have been reading "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" in order to prepare for "HP and the Deathly Hallows," which you might have heard is coming out July 21. Whenever I read a Harry Potter book, I develop a compulsion to read-read-read until the book is finished. This compulsion ultimately results in gloomy withdrawl and that vicious sorrow of having to reenter this (real) world. (Note to self: Obsession can be a painful, dangerous thing.) I hope to force myself to take things more slowly during "Deathly Hallows," no matter how badly I want to know what will happen next, and how everything ultimately turns out.

I do hope that the following characters in particular do not die:
• Harry
• Hermione
• Anyone named Weasley

Of course, the only character on whom I wish death is Voldemort. I would like to see Draco do something surprising. I believe Snape is ultimately NOT a villain. I expect Peter Pettigrew to repay Harry for sparing his life in "Prisoner of Azkaban." I also expect to get another glimpse or more of Harry's parents and perhaps Sirius, in some form or other. In any case, I'm glad it's about time to read whatever it is that J.K. Rowling has written.

where are they now? right here, apparently

I was just reading over some best-seller lists and came across something that suprised me: No. 1 on the Top Music Video Sales list is “Mindcrime at the Moore” by Queensryche.

1. People still actively like Queensryche? Enough to know when a video is released? Enough to buy it?
2. Queensryche still exists?

My point here is not to knock the band. I once owned a Queensryche album, and might still have it in a box somewhere under my bed. The issue isn't whether Queensryche deserves to have the No. 1 music DVD on sale right now. The issue is: Where on Earth did this popularity come from? It looks like the band released a greatest hits album in June, and the aforementioned DVD (Amazon.com Sales Rank: No. 1,257 in DVD as of this writing) and a related CD on July 3. Are we in for a Queensryche resurgence? Should I expect to hear "Silent Lucidity" on the radio during my drive home?

I guess being on a VH1 Celebreality show isn't the only way for has-beens (or perhaps seemingly has-beens) to sell some records.

superheroes at your service

The season premiere of SciFi's "Who Wants to be a Superhero?" is Thursday, July 26, at 9 p.m. My question is: What superheroic power would you like to have?

The powers of the show's real-life contestants are detailed on the website. The Defuser's "specialty is non-lethal weaponry. His powers include enhanced speed, strength, agility, reflexes, hearing and eyesight. He also has night vision to a range of 60 feet." Basura "communicates with and is aided by insects of all kinds; trains small animals to assist her; can intuit by touch how any object was created; turns trash into treasure and reshapes rubbish into robots." Hygena, meanwhile, "now fights crime and grime with weapons created from cleaning tools. Her feather duster shoots ionized radiation upwards of 60 feet, immobilizing criminals (and leaving them with a pleasant odor and a sparkling shine). Her clean bombs cause foes to fall unconscious for 30 minutes. She is protected by a magic necklace."

I've often wished I could transport from one place to another, like the folks in "Star Trek." I'd like to be able to transport myself and other people and objects. But without having to be able to see my destination (like Nightcrawler in "X-Men") in order to avoid transporting into, say, the interior of a wall. Maybe I could look at a map, or a photo, and once the location has downloaded into my brain it's there for the rest of my life. Hawaii, here I come! And no more driving to work on snow-covered roads! I wouldn't even have to wear a cape. Unless I want to. Now I just have to think of a name.

Another summer of sequels: End of the world, or not?

Looking for a movie to watch this summer? A sequel will be hard to avoid.

Being a sequel isn't such a bad thing.

With another summer full of sequels, remakes and updates of familiar characters, you're likely to run into a few "Why can't they do something ORIGINAL?" laments. And while many sequels, remakes and updates are better left unrealized, some are unfairly maligned by being lumped in with "Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties" (which I haven't seen, so I'm just guessing here). Just because some of the characters and/or the basic storyline are familiar doesn't mean a movie can't be inventive, creative and as good (or better than) the original.

I haven't yet seen a film this summer that I flat-out didn't like. Actually, the only movie I saw in the theater this year that I didn't like was "Premonition." I saw few films from January through April. Since May, I've seen lots, mostly sequels or updates — "Spider-Man 3," "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Ocean's 13," "28 Weeks Later," "Nancy Drew," "Fantastic Four," "Transformers" and my favorite so far, "Live Free or Die Hard." I plan to add "Harry Potter" this weekend.

Of those, the only one that didn't quite meet my expectations was "Spider-Man." Not that it was bad. "28 Weeks Later," "Fantastic Four" and "Transformers" were what I expected (good but not spectacular), as was "Ocean's 13" (better than good with its playful spirit and style). I would preferred a stronger "Pirates" to cap off the series, but I enjoyed "At World's End" and wouldn't call it a disappointment. "Nancy Drew," meanwhile, was a pleasant surprise, and "Die Hard" really surprised me, too. The funny parts were funny (actually worth laughing at) and the action choreography and camera work was creative and exciting (notable in a time when moviegoers approach the film already having seen A LOT of action sequences).

Most of these movies didn't shatter expectations, but then again, neither do most "original" films. If the script, the actors and the execution are good, and the overall product is worth a thumbs up, and the new film offers something notable of its own, then why fault it for being an extension of a brand we already know?

(I just realized that the only summer movie I've seen that wasn't a sequel or an update of a well-known character is "1408." Which is based on a Stephen King story. The movie I'm most excited about seeing that hasn't come out yet is "The Bourne Ultimatum," No. 3 in the series.)

so much to read

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" comes out July 21. The autumn issue of Prerogative comes out July 27. That gives you plenty of time to race through "Deathly Hallows," and you'll probably need something to help curb your Harry Potter withdrawl. I'm planning to make myself read the book more slowly, over the course of a week and a half perhaps, rather than reading it compulsively for hours on end. I hope reaching the end will hurt less that way.

I also plan to reread Stephen King's article about coming to the end of a book series (read the online copy here). I think it will help to know I'm not alone in the sort of separation anxiety only books can give you.

I have returned to bring to you a mystery

And what prods me to finally post something new? Well, mostly the Internet rumblings about this new secret J.J. Abrams movie. Also, we're almost finished with the work on the autumn issue of Prerogative, which comes out July 27, and so I have some more time to do things like this.

People who saw "Transformers" also saw a snippet of an untitled movie to be released in January 2008. Here is the official trailer.

A movement is growing online of people who are trying to learn more about the film. Not even the official name is known for sure (the codename at least appears to be "Cloverfield"). Here's what IMDb has about the movie. And here's a site that's definitely related.

A possibly related website is one for Slusho, which people say was on a shirt that one of the characters is wearing in the movie trailer (I haven't rewatched the trailer yet to check it out myself). A couple other sites were/are considered to be linked to the film, but producer J.J. Abrams disagrees. Note that he also says we haven't found most of the film-related websites yet.

•••
Speaking of (the fabulous) J.J. Abrams, for those of you who aren't as familiar with that name: He has worked as a writer, producer and/or director for "Lost," "Alias" and "Felicity," among other projects. He directed "Mission: Impossible III" and is set to direct the next "Star Trek" film. I think he's also supposed to work on the movie versions of Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series. And he's good friends with (the fabulous) Greg Grunberg, who has been in lots of J.J. Abrams projects, though some of you might know him better from "Heroes." (A scan of his acting credits on IMDb also unearths such early-career gems as "Frankenstein: The College Years" and an episode of "Baywatch.")

Greg Grunberg also plays in a band with Hugh Laurie ("House"), James Denton ("Desperate Housewives") and some other people. They raise money for charities. I recently watched a few episodes of "Jeeves and Wooster," an older British show, and Hugh Laurie was pretty impressive in his sing-and-play-the-piano scenes.

firing offenses

It's a good week to have brought up the private-lives-of-public-people topic (see post below). But any given week might be the right week. I'd been meaning to broach the topic weeks, maybe months ago, but hadn't gotten around to it until an actor's arrest for DUI this week reminded me of the general issue. Now Isaiah Washington isn't coming back next year to "Grey's Anatomy," and Entertainment Weekly's Michael Slezak brings up the questions sparked by "Isaiah-gate" over at the magazine's Popwatch blog.

I don't watch "Grey's" regularly, and this year not really at all, so I can't say how it would affect me as a viewer. As a person in the workplace, I think some situations depend on the individuals involved. If they come to a resolution and the offended parties are OK with the offending person keeping his job, then that seems like the way to go. But, then, some language strikes me as obviously fire-worthy, such as the word Washington used. What do you think?

private lives, public people

Does it matter to you what stars do in their personal lives?

Drinking and driving.
Using racist or anti-gay slurs.
Cheating on their spouses.
Calling their kids derogatory names.
Going to jail for rape or murder.
Smoking pot.

How about if they hold different beliefs than yours about homosexuality, abortion, God, politics, etc.?

I can think of celebrities who have done, or been accused of doing, the things listed up above. Some continue to have successful careers, sometimes with very little public attention to their off-screen actions. Others haven't held up so well. As a society, we're fond of the backlash and we like to get riled up about what strangers who happen to be famous do. But we're also pretty sick of the Adventures of Lindsay Lohan by now, aren't we? Aren't we?

With Lindsay, though, it's more like watching someone with promise and talent waste herself on bad choices. She hasn't directly hurt other people so much as she's hurting herself, as far as we can see. Sometimes bad choices are something we immediately regret and are embarrassed to have made. Most of us don't have cameras on us when we do and say stupid things.

Sometimes bad choices are part of our lifestyle, and once we've begun the slide it's hard to stop. Being rich, catered to and famous isn't necessary conducive to being a healthy, grounded person. Not that being famous is an excuse; fame just doesn't insulate people from the pain of public scrutiny, or from doing stupid things you'll regret 5 seconds from now.

So, where do you draw the line? Once someone is labeled a child molester or is arrested for possession of child pornography, it's hard to listen to their songs anymore without feeling yucky inside. O.J. Simpson is pretty much tainted forever by public perception that he killed his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman. Mike Tyson has found work, though, since serving time for a rape conviction.

And then there's the lifestyle stuff. Do you listen to music written and recorded by people who believe in things that are very different than what you believe in? Did you stop listening to the Dixie Chicks after the "we're ashamed the president's from Texas" business? Do you avoid celebrities who stand up for causes — be it about the war, the poor or AIDS in Africa — because you're sick of them? Or do you make your decisions based entirely on the content of the movie/TV show/music?

What sort of behavior rubs you the wrong way enough that you've held your own mini-boycott of a person, network or product? Have you ever backtracked and decided you were being petty? What's your gauge?

here's a quarter

At this point I think film promotion saturation has just gone too far. It's one thing to dress mailboxes like R2-D2; it's another to manipulate U.S. CURRENCY to promote a summer movie.

•••

And on an unrelated note, this Friday's quote:

Religion isn’t going away and it’s not getting less important. You can’t understand the world if you’re spiritually illiterate.
— Frank Lockwood, answering the question "Why is it important for journalists to understand the role of religion in our world today?" at the Get Religion blog

vampires, time travel and cavemen, oh my!

Anyone lamenting the loss of "Gilmore Girls," "Jericho" and the like can rest assured that the networks would like to help you fill that void with one (or more, of course) of their new shows coming to TV starting in the fall. Here's a list of what's coming up, and where to find clips of the new shows. I haven't been able to get CBS or Fox videos to play on my work computer, but a look at shows from ABC, The CW and NBC (which has the most clips available for each show) reveals a better-looking season than I initially thought. They're not all winners, but several seem watchable, at least for one episode.

Shows with a * are unscripted, which most of the time means "reality TV." Also, I've included lists of this past season's canceled shows for each network. All lists — canceled shows, new shows — include what I've found and remembered, and are not definitive. If you find any omissions or mistakes, please let me know.

For a full fall schedule featuring shows from all major networks, visit this TV Guide blog item.


ABC

Fall preview: ABC offers short samples from each new show (except "Oprah's Big Give"), which on the one hand is nicer than a slickly produced promo, but on the other hand is a detriment because it's difficult to get into a short scene that's out of context with the overall show.

This season's casualties: "Daybreak," "Help Me Help You," "The Knights of Prosperity," "George Lopez," "According to Jim" (I think), "The Nine," "Six Degrees"

New: "Sam I Am," "Carpoolers," "Cavemen," "Private Practice," "Pushing Daisies," "Big Shots," "Dirty Sexy Money," "Women's Murder Club," "Miss/Guided" (mid-season), "Cashmere Mafia," "Eli Stone," "Oprah's Big Give"*


CBS

Fall preview

This season's casualties: "Jericho," "Close to Home," "The Class," "Smith"

New: "Viva Laughlin," "Moonlight," "The Big Bang Theory," "Kid Nation"*, "Cane," "Swingtown" (mid-season)


The CW

Fall preview
Videos (show clips)

This season's casualties: "Gilmore Girls," "Veronica Mars" (most likely), "All of Us," "Runaway"

New: "Aliens In America," "Reaper," "Gossip Girl," "CW Now,"* "Online Nation,"* "Life Is Wild," "Farmer Wants a Wife"* (mid-season), "Crowned: The Mother of All Pageants"* (mid-season)


Fox

Fall preview

This season's casualties: "The War at Home," "Happy Hour," "Drive," "Vanished," Justice, "Standoff," "The O.C."

New: "K-Ville," "New Amsterdam," "Back to You," "Kitchen Nightmares,"* "The Search for the Next Great American Band,"* "Nashville,"* "The Return of Jezebel James" (mid-season), "Canterbury's Law" (mid-season), "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" (mid-season), "The Rules for Starting Over" (mid-season)


NBC

Fall preview: NBC offers promos and multiple clips for each show.

This season's casualties: "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," "The Black Donnellys," "Andy Barker PI," "Twenty Good Years," "The Real Wedding Crashers" (I think)

New: "Chuck," "Bionic Woman," "Journeyman," "Life," "The IT Guys," "Lipstick Jungle" (mid-season), "Baby Borrowers"* (mid-season), "The Singing Bee"*, "World Moves"*

who saw THAT coming?

Here I am again, prepared to ask your forgiveness for not keeping up with the blog so well. Again I plan to do better, starting with a brief look at finale season, which it is for just about anyone who watches TV.

I’m sort of on a TV-show-finale kick. I'm tempted to watch the last 10 minutes of shows I don't even see otherwise. It’s kind of exciting to be ending a season that’s included many shows I’ve felt compelled to watch (or, in a few cases, that I’ve watched regularly out of a sense of obligation). I have TV show finales listed on my computer's iCalendar so I can keep track. I’m also picking up a few shows I rarely if ever watched before. It’s interesting to see how each show goes about its ending, most of which employed a cliffhanger or long-time-coming plot development.

So far, I’ve seen (spoilers ahead):
“Gilmore Girls” (A — excellent final scene wrap-up; see mini-review below)
“The Office” (A — see mini-review below)
"Friday Night Lights" (A- — this was on how long ago?)
“Prison Break” (B+ — OK, so it's been awhile since this was on)
“Bones” (B — a little blah compared to regular episodes; the ZZ Top guy felt like stunt casting and the final scenes felt both rushed — with Angela and Jack — and stunted, like they couldn’t quite stick the ending with the “What do we do now?” question, as if the answer would be anything other than “Go eat at the reception.”)
“How I Met Your Mother” (B)
“Jericho” (B — I’m pretending Johnston didn’t die.)
“Scrubs” (B- — Totally over J.D. and Elliot as a maybe-couple.)
“Crossing Jordan” (B-)

I also saw some/bits of:
“My Name is Earl”
“ER”
“CSI: New York”

And I recorded, but have not yet watched, the "Smallville" finale, despite not having seen an entire episode this year. And I read a recap of the "America's Next Top Model" finale to see who won. Thank you, VH1, for your attention-sucking "ANTM" marathons.

“Gilmore Girls” — YES to including so many minor characters in the final show. YES to spending the episode in Stars Hollow, which of course is a character all by itself, the sort that makes viewers want to live there even if we’d complain that there isn’t a chain restaurant or store in town. And a final YES for these “GG” faves: Luke and Lorelai! Emily! Richard! Paris! Lane and Zack! Ms. Kim! Kirk! Practically everyone!

“The Office” — I recorded the show while watching it and willing it to stay on the air until 9 p.m. (the thunderstorm mid-show made the TV blink a few times). I plan to rewatch it soon, as in tonight, but in the meantime ... YES. Excellent final scenes. I knew there’d be a BIG twisty bit at the end, but I never expected what happened. Never, ever.

(Major to mild spoilers ahead; if you didn’t see the episode yet but you might one day, maybe you should watch it first before reading — feel free to come over to my place if you didn’t record it.)

The more I think about it, the more believable it is that Ryan would get the job. Who knew back in season 1 what the temp would become? He’s a bit of a punk. I like him best when he isn’t actively looking down on everyone else for working at the paper company (where he works, too), though I have copped a similar attitude when stuck somewhere I didn’t want to be. I like that he turned out to be different than I first expected. I look forward to seeing how the Ryan-as-boss dynamic works with Michael. My guess was that Michael would get the job. (I also entertained the idea of a Dwight-Angela development, considering their personalities and that they've been together for more than a year. Given their fondness for rigidity and structure, I would expect them to advance to the "institution-of-marriage" stage, particularly Angela. Not that marriage is just that, a rigid structure; from their perspectives, though, I think it would be appealing. And if Angela is a "Christian" as at least one other character has called her, engaging in pre-marital sex with Dwight doesn't jibe with her strict nature. Even Christians without her flair for the legalism honor the Bible and its guidance on sexual relationships as God-given and right.)

But back to the ending ... It was better than anything I thought up, for sure. It's nice to see a show step up to the plate and deliver something unexpected like Ryan's scene and the Jim-and-Pam scene. I knew something was coming in this episode, but didn't know what it would be. I expected Jim and Karen to still be together at episode's end. I still get nervous about impending Jim-Pam developments, but again the show’s writers proved to be on their A game (is that the right phrase?). Gold stars all around for the writing, timing and acting. The change in Jenna Fischer’s face after Jim walked back out of the room — excellent, excellent, realistic, lovely and wonderful. I would have worn my Team Pam shirt today, if it weren't too casual for work.

I did think the tone of the show was a little ... brighter, maybe? Not bright-happy, but bright-lively sort of. It was almost more like a regular TV show at times than a “documentary” (which “The Office” is, in a fictional sort of way) in which the “characters” are real people being themselves. I think of Jan crying in the car, mostly for its loudness (which is common in the real world, of course). And Pam was really talking, all bright-eyed and louder, too. Maybe it was partly the way the show looked — a little nicer, maybe? Less documentary, more TV sitcomy? I’ll let you know if I change my mind after watching it again.

I like that Pam’s standing up for herself more and not being so meek, but I also wondered if any of it last night was her trying to show a brave face (to herself moreso than the cameras), like when you want to hold on to the resolve and confidence you had before that’s now waning a bit. I love that she had time to not be in a relationship — particularly, to not be in a relationship with Jim. Relationships are so, so important, but we can’t place our contentment or values on one person (well, unless you count God as a person).

I also do feel sorry for Karen. Is she stranded in New York? That was/will be a super-fast breakup, no? While she isn’t as sentimental or vulnerable as some characters, she has still invested herself in the relationship with Jim. I don’t want her to get burned. Jim can be a little mean in a joking way, like when he gets a laugh at Dwight’s expense, but in general he’s comsiderate of other people. Though he broke up with Katy suddenly in season 2, and with no visible concern for hurting her feelings (though that was a much shorter relationship).

What about you? Any finales you've found particularly good, or disappointing? Are you done with TV already? Are you desperate for something to fill the time until next season?

Coming soon: A look at the recently released network fall schedules.

In this case, not making it into The End zone is a good thing

I just want to say: yes.
(Or should I have said touchdown?)

The TV networks will be getting together with advertisers and announcing their new shows. I think this is also when we'll hear the official word on shows that are renewed. The schedule is:

NBC, Monday, May 14
ABC, Tuesday, May 15
CBS, Wednesday, May 16
The CW and Fox, Thursday, May 17

Any cancellation or non-cancellation news you want to hear? Down with "Law and Order"? Desperate for one more year of "Jericho"? What do you say? The only two shows that were facing an uncertain future that I really, really was rooting for were "Friday Night Lights" and "Veronica Mars." Here's hoping for two-for-two.

in other words, you stink

"If you don't like it, don't watch it."

Ever read this comment posted after an online article or blog entry in which the writer criticizes a TV show? This sentiment and its variants tend to show up now and then, and man is it getting old (or, rather, is way past getting old). It reveals what so many comments tend to reveal: That people are often sensitive to a fault when it comes to what they like, and it doesn't take much to put us into our defensive postures.

Now, I don't like people criticizing things I like. I am tired of anti-"Lost" whining from people who, I confess that I presume, are just too impatient to appreciate a story that doesn't wrap up in one season though the show itself will continue much longer than that. I honestly do not understand how so many people can choose to instead watch "Criminal Minds." (How many crime procedurals with likable casts but a constant emphasis on sick behavior and twisted characters do we, as a society and viewing audience, really need?)

I am naturally a more sensitive person about these things. If a particular writer tends to trash something I am really fond of, I don't read what that writer says about that something. I understand the impulse to jump up and defend the merits of said thing, but we often don't do a good job of defending in a constructive way. This may have a lot to do with how much time we spend on our argument (very little, I suspect) and the immediacy provided by click-and-comment capabilities at many sites.

Statements like "If you don't like it, don't watch it" aren't thought out very well. Do you really want every person who can find any flaw in any episode of a particular show to never watch it again? Shows get canceled when viewers don't watch them. Are we so averse to criticism that we are unable to see that, given in the right spirit and tone, criticism can be helpful and good? Why equate criticism with blind hatred? If no one ever offered anyone else tips on their work, relationships, creative endeavors, etc., then we'd all be mediocre or worse, as would all the things we're working on.

A "real" fan doesn't look blindly at what she likes. Nothing is perfect, not even a show as good as "Lost."

•••
Friday's appropriate quote:

"You speak unskilfully: or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice."
— Taken from Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure," via the Shakespearean Insulter

get a clue — watch "Veronica"

Tonight at 9 p.m. is (finally) the return of "Veronica Mars" on The CW. Just in case you forgot.

Take a look at this list of "Veronica" episodes. I never paid regular attention to episode titles until recently. Well, even now I don't, but the success of TV-on-DVD has made them more noticeable. And notable in this case. The "Veronica" folks aren't just all fun and clever with their writing on the show — they extend those attributes to the episode titles, too.

Some of my favorites:
"I Know What You'll Do Next Summer"
"Poughkeepsie, Tramps & Thieves"
"Hi, Infidelity"
"Look Who's Stalking"
"Nobody Puts Baby in a Corner"
"You Think You Know Somebody"

TV Guide has a helpful roundup of finale dates over here for the season's shows. It's a helpful way to keep track of when things are ending, now that it's May and most shows are winding down.

satiated spam

The amusing thing about spam (if you can manage any amusement from something so unwelcome and overwhelmingly annoying) is how it often utilizes bizarre or unbelievable subject lines:

I am so sated with knowledge at the moment, I am euphoric.

In this case, the sentence is complete and uses proper English. And because no one I know would ever actually write a subject line like this, I can immediately identify the message as Not From A Real Person. Thanks.

it's about time we quoted that guy from "Shaun of the Dead"

Today's Friday quote:

"The truth is always the best place to start from."
— Simon Pegg of the new film "Hot Fuzz," in an interview over at The A.V. Club

TGIF, no? Have a good weekend. And don't forget to get a copy of the new Prerogative issue. It has some good stuff inside.

serial killers

I am mildly surprised that Fox rushed (or should I go for the pun and type "raced"?) to cancel "Drive" already. It's annoying particularly when you consider that a couple more episodes have been taped and have not yet aired. I read they may run on Fridays in May.

ABC said it would make unaired episodes of the canceled "Daybreak" available on its website. NBC was supposed to run the full story arc of "Kidnapped" on Saturdays after it was canceled and bumped from its mid-week time slot. I remember shortly after "Daybreak" was pulled from TV, viewers complained that the new episodes were not materializing online. I see now that they're there. "Kidnapped," on the other hand, I don't see a hint of it on the NBC website, and I don't think all those episodes aired on Saturdays either.

It sort of feels like the networks don't feel any loyalty whatsoever to their viewers, particularly when you compare the value of a few million viewers to the monetary worth of ad time. If "House" reruns rate higher on Mondays at 8 p.m. than "Drive," then nevermind the people who are actually watching the show, and the actors and writers and producers and crew who put their time into the show. The people whose good graces you want to stay in, and who will always earn your loyalty, are the advertisers. So what if you alienate viewers who feel betrayed? So what if you earn a reputation for bailing out on shows that deserved a greater chance, be it "Dark Angel" after two seasons (which I suppose is quite a run, relatively speaking) or the poster child of ill-used shows that were MUCH better than Fox deserved, "Firefly," which only made 11 episodes (not all of which aired, of course). Shows of varying degrees of quality, but with storylines that require several episodes to reveal their mysteries, are tossed with no regard for the good faith of their viewers. See "Vanished," "Reunion" and now "Drive" on Fox alone.

The thing is, advertisers don't want to buy ad time during shows that have fewer viewers. And some viewers declare personal boycotts of networks who continue to mistreat them and the shows they like. If Fox will cancel shows A and B without giving them time to find an audience (while holding onto junk; see some of the sitcom schedule), why should I bother to watch any new drama that network puts on? Especially when it's a serial, which means it's more likely than not to end unresolved?

What should networks do, then, in the case of serial shows? Maybe they should continue online or in comic books ("Dark Angel," while not a serial like "Lost" or this season's defunct "The Nine," ended way up in the air and felt perfect for the comic book treatment). What do you think? Why don't networks at least run unaired episodes on Saturdays at 8 p.m. or something?

Happy early Earth Day

I am actually not at work today, but thought I should come through anyway with this Friday's quote:

Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.
-- Aldous Huxley

True, no? This seems fitting, too, considering that Sunday is Earth Day. The links here at Oprah's page really are helpful, regardless of whether you're an Oprah fan. My Earth Day challenge to you is to pick at least one simple lifestyle change that you'll try out. I'm planning to start using fluorescent bulbs, not get receipts at the ATM machine and start taking my tote with me to the store (to use in place of plastic bags).

What about you?

the first day

Yesterday the big news was the weather. All sorts of minor accidents left cars roadside, as rain was followed by hail and finally snow — in mid-April.

Yesterday is far, far away now. Snow in April is nothing compared to 31 people being shot to death on a college campus in Virginia, just down the road from Bluefield. In our modern Internet- and TV-fed culture, the news feed is nonstop. Talk about it, watch news reports about it, read updates about it on CNN.com — it's easy and tempting to maintain a steady diet of information overload in an attempt to satisfy our shocked wondering.

It seems like we should be able to answer the questions already: Who was the shooter? Who has died? What exactly happened? The most intriguing question, I think, is "Why?" But even with the Internet and the constant coverage on TV, some things will still take time: the answers to all those questions, and the dealing with grief and loss. It's a long road ahead.