In about two weeks the networks will hold their "upfront" presentations where they announce next year's schedules. When they do, the fate of several shows I watch will swing perilously in the balance. Will they be picked up? Should they be picked up? Here is a quick rundown:
"Gilmore Girls"
The chatty mother-daughter team and their circle of oddball friends and relatives have two more episodes remaining in this uneven seventh season. With stars Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel not yet signed for next year, an eighth season is in doubt.
Argument For Coming Back: Series creator Amy Sherman-Palladino left the show after the sixth season, and watching the first part of the seventh season made me wonder if the new writers had ever actually seen the show before. Lorelai (Graham) got married to the terminally-irresponsible Christopher on a whim in Paris without telling her daughter Rory (Bledel). The Lorelai we got to know for six seasons would never have been bullied by Christopher, never would have rushed into a marriage so soon after ending an engagement with Luke, and certainly would never have gotten married without telling Rory less than a season after resolving their semester-long estrangement.
The writers started to find their footing once they jettisoned Christopher, but it has only left them with a few episodes to settle the will-they-or-won't-they with Luke, not enough time for a satisfactory conclusion.
Argument for Saying "Goodbye": While the second half of this season was improved, those episodes did not come close to measuring up to the show's heyday under Sherman-Palladino. And, other than the Lorelai-Luke question, most of the show's characters have reached a satisfying place in their arcs. Rory is graduating from Yale, Sookie has a husband and two kids (with one on the way), the Inn is successful, and Lorelai's parents are, well, Lorelai's parents. There does not seem to be any hanging threads that need sewing or snipping.
Verdict: Entertainment Weekly reported a few weeks ago that there has been talk of a 13-episode half-season to wrap up the show. That sounds about right. Sherman-Palladino has said that since the first season she has known what the last episode of the show should be. I hope she comes back to write it.
(NOTE: A couple of hours after I posted this, a friend emailed me a link to an Entertainment Weekly article that announced that "Gilmore Girls" will not be returning next year. It's a shame. It deserved a more thought-out conclusion to its run.)
"Scrubs"
The wacky doctors, nurses, sadistic janitor and sweaty lawyer at Sacred Heart Hospital are winding down their sixth season in yet another impossible time slot. Will they be given a seventh season in a scheduling trauma ward? Or, will Zach Braff be forced to find out once and for all if he is a movie actor and director to be reckoned with?
Argument For Coming Back: "Scrubs" is not only one of the greatest sitcoms of all time, it has maintained its quality for its entire six-year run. (I wrote a Valentine to the show in this space in March.) So, why not let creator Bill Lawrence unleash 24 more tales spiraling around the show's central couple, J.D. and Turk? (What, you were thinking a guy and a girl? Have you seen the show?)
Argument for Saying "Goodbye": The flip side of the show not being caught up in the will-they-won't-they of J.D. and Elliot is that there are no plot points unresolved (except, of course, for the little matter of J.D.'s ex-girlfriend Kim, played by Elizabeth Banks, lying to him about having a miscarriage earlier this season). The characters develop and grow, but there are no traditional cliffhangers. Oh, and I guess at some point a network has to cancel a show that nobody is watching, not that NBC has noticed the last several years (thank goodness).
Verdict: I hope "Scrubs" comes back, but not if the show is renewed without Zach Braff, which, I've read, is a possibility.
"Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"
Aaron Sorkin's ode to talkative neurotic writers, talkative neurotic producers and talkative neurotic network executives was pulled from the schedule during its initial season just as Danny (Bradley Whitford) started dating pregnant Jordan (Amanda Peet), Matt (Matthew Perry) was moving towards a resolution with Harriett (Sarah Paulson), and Sorkin was figuring out that he needed to make the plots about more than the battles of producing a comedy show.
Argument For Coming Back: Sorkin's writing is consistently more interesting than most of what makes its way to the primetime airwaves. And, although the ratings were lower than hoped for, the show did very well with wealthy viewers, which is very attractive to advertisers. Oh, and any show that features a character asking Lauren Graham (playing herself) to give his phone number "to the girl who plays your daughter" deserves a reprieve, no?
Argument for Saying "Goodbye": Of course, Sorkin's writing is consistently more frustrating in its lack of accessibility, too, which drove away a big chunk of the large opening night viewership. Also, while the demographics of the ratings were good, the show costs a ton. NBC could air a season's worth of "Deal or No Deal" for the price they pay for an episode of "Studio 60" (an exaggeration, but not by much). And, any show that features as many speeches about the way things Ought To Be deserves to be silenced, no?
Verdict: I enjoyed every minute of "Studio 60," so I will miss it immensely when it's gone. And, it will be gone.
"Veronica Mars"
The critics darling about the daughter of a sheriff-turned-private eye who never let being a student get in the way of following in her father's footsteps is back after a "Pussycat Dolls"-induced hiatus and will wrap up its third season with a handful of stand-alone episodes.
Argument For Coming Back: The titular sleuth (Kristen Bell) is one of the most compelling characters on television. She's smart, tough, and is not the least bit afraid to use her looks to get what she wants. And, the very qualities that make her a good investigator cause her great trouble in her love life. Her relationship with her father Keith (the pitch-perfect Enrico Colantoni) provides an emotional heart for the show, letting the audience have something to care about besides the case Veronica takes a season trying to solve. How many shows put a father-daughter relationship ahead of a girl's love life?
Argument for Saying "Goodbye": As interesting as Veronica and her dad are, the story lines they have been asked to make work have gotten increasingly less interesting. The first season was a triumph, with Veronica trying to figure out who killed her best friend, who also happened to be her boyfriend's sister. The second year was more muddled, centering on a bus crash that killed some of her classmates. This season had Veronica moving to college. Seemingly in an effort to improve ratings and make the show more accessible, the plots became more simple and ordinary. I'm afraid to think about where a fourth season would go in the quest for viewers. Veronica becomes a Laker girl?
Verdict: While the show's numbers were up slightly from last season, the ratings for "Pussycat" were significantly better. It looks like a sea of bustiers will push out a college gumshoe with a cool cell phone.
"30 Rock"
Sure, it's been picked up for next year already. But if Alec Baldwin gets his way and is allowed to leave the show, I fear that Tina Fey the writer will have as hard a time doing a show without him as her Liz Lemon character had trying to do "TGS" without Tracy Morgan's Tracy Jordan in the season finale. Let's hope Baldwin cools down and by next year is ready to don Jack Donaghy's power suit again and continue to give one of the funniest performances on television.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Republicans Must Pay Political Price for Bush's Veto on Iraq
Nothing's over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans
- Bluto (John Belushi) rallying his fraternity brothers after they are expelled in "Animal House," screenplay by Harold Ramis, Douglas Kenney and Chris Miller
As expected, President Bush vetoed Congress's war spending bill because it contained a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is now up to the Democrats in Congress to make their next move. Will they follow the spirit of Bluto in "Animal House" and defiantly fight on? Or, will they follow the example of, well, the Democratic Party and roll over and play dead?
Bush is still fighting, flying defiantly in the face of public opinion. In a move straight out of the classic administration playbook, the talking point that the president and others in the party have stuck to is that the Democrats passed the bill to make a "political statement." Bush's line of attack demonstrates how far removed from reality he is, and how entrenched he is in his positions, regardless of what the vast majority of Americans believe, according to polls and the results of the midterm elections.
What makes the Democrats' proposed legislation "political"? According to Bush, it is because he told Congress he would not sign a bill that contained any withdrawal timetables. In Bush's increasingly out-of-touch and megalomaniacal mind, if he makes a decision, it is the rule of law. Under that way of thinking, the Democrats' actions, which he has declared doomed to fail, could have no actual effect, and thus would only be a political statement.
Only, Bush seems to forget that the Republicans no longer control Congress, and, as a result, he no longer is the one and only voice in making decisions (his self-imposed "decider" moniker notwithstanding). He is now only one part of the process. But, it seems lost on Bush that his view on the proper make-up of a war spending bill is no more or less valid than the ones expressed by the House and the Senate. Instead, Bush's rhetoric sounds as if he is the Generalisimo of the country, and the Congress is his hand-picked body of lackeys to rubber-stamp his proclamations. For Bush to accuse the Democrats of making a political statement by passing a bill that expresses Congress's view of how the war in Iraq should be funded is to thumb his nose at the basic idea of governing within a democracy. And, in light of Bush's record of incompetence and dishonesty on the war, he has unmitigated gall to attack the Democrats for trying to impose order on a situation in disarray.
Bush is like a kid who spilled grape juice on the couch and now is mad because the Democrats want to use club soda to try and clean it, while he insists that he can get the stains out with more grape juice.
After the sham meeting today in which Bush will tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he will compromise on the spending bill as long as they agree to do exactly what he wants, the Democrats in Congress will have some big decisions to make. Some Democrats, especially in the House, do not want to vote for any funding bill that does not impose limits on Bush. Others seem afraid of being accused of putting the troops in jeopardy and are ready to fold and claim a moral victory for passing legislation that, but for Bush's veto, would have brought the war to an end, but will register no actual changes in policy.
The Democrats have done a good job of following through on their electoral mandate to bring the troops home, but I hope that the divisions in their ranks do not cause the party to drop the ball now. I think it is important that the Democrats do two things in response to the president's veto.
First, the Democrats have to fight harder in the rhetorical war. Bush and other Republicans are all over television talking about "political statements," Congress inserting its judgment ahead of the commanders in the field and Democrats putting the troops at risk. All of these claims are patently ridiculous, and it is incumbent on the Democrats to get out there and counter the propaganda before it takes hold.
The Democrats have to make the point that the war to topple Hussein is long over, and that the war that exists now is essentially a civil war between Shia and Sunni Iraqis. They have to make it clear that there is no "winning" or "losing" for the U.S. now in Iraq, any more than a city police department wins or loses in its battle against crime (assuming the police are visitors from another precinct and are outgunned and outmanned). The future of Iraq is wholly dependant on whether the Iraqis can get together and make the hard decisions on how to govern themselves and distribute their resources. No army can do that for them. And, as long as the U.S. has an open-ended military commitment to Iraq, the Iraqis have no incentive whatsoever to make these hard choices.
Second, the Democrats have to force Republican lawmakers to go on the record with as many votes as possible relating to Iraq. In November, the Democrats were swept into power on a single issue: voter discontent on the handling of the war. While the president is not standing for re-election in 2008, every Republican member of the House and many Republican Senators are. Bush's power to continue down a losing path in Iraq is directly enabled by Republicans in Congress who vote to sustain his policies. If the Republicans voted with the Democrats to overturn Bush's veto, he would be powerless.
For that reason, the Democrats have to make Republican lawmakers accountable for their actions. If polls are to be believed, the American people are no happier with the Iraq war today than they were in November when they tossed the Republicans out of power. The Democrats have to put pressure on Republican members of Congress and leave them with nowhere to hide. To paraphrase one of Bush's favorite expressions, the Democrats should make the Republicans decide if they are with Bush or against him. And, if they cast their lots with the president on Iraq, they will have to answer to their constituents in November 2008.
If only John Belushi was still alive (for more reasons than this, of course) to take on the role of Bluto one more time. He could walk into the Democratic caucus rooms on Capitol Hill and rally the troops, inspiring them to stay united and keep fighting to stop Bush from continuing his tragically flawed policies in Iraq. This time, though, Bluto shouldn't make a mistake identifying the country that attacked Pearl Harbor. After all, invading the wrong country is a mistake Bush has already made once.
- Bluto (John Belushi) rallying his fraternity brothers after they are expelled in "Animal House," screenplay by Harold Ramis, Douglas Kenney and Chris Miller
As expected, President Bush vetoed Congress's war spending bill because it contained a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is now up to the Democrats in Congress to make their next move. Will they follow the spirit of Bluto in "Animal House" and defiantly fight on? Or, will they follow the example of, well, the Democratic Party and roll over and play dead?
Bush is still fighting, flying defiantly in the face of public opinion. In a move straight out of the classic administration playbook, the talking point that the president and others in the party have stuck to is that the Democrats passed the bill to make a "political statement." Bush's line of attack demonstrates how far removed from reality he is, and how entrenched he is in his positions, regardless of what the vast majority of Americans believe, according to polls and the results of the midterm elections.
What makes the Democrats' proposed legislation "political"? According to Bush, it is because he told Congress he would not sign a bill that contained any withdrawal timetables. In Bush's increasingly out-of-touch and megalomaniacal mind, if he makes a decision, it is the rule of law. Under that way of thinking, the Democrats' actions, which he has declared doomed to fail, could have no actual effect, and thus would only be a political statement.
Only, Bush seems to forget that the Republicans no longer control Congress, and, as a result, he no longer is the one and only voice in making decisions (his self-imposed "decider" moniker notwithstanding). He is now only one part of the process. But, it seems lost on Bush that his view on the proper make-up of a war spending bill is no more or less valid than the ones expressed by the House and the Senate. Instead, Bush's rhetoric sounds as if he is the Generalisimo of the country, and the Congress is his hand-picked body of lackeys to rubber-stamp his proclamations. For Bush to accuse the Democrats of making a political statement by passing a bill that expresses Congress's view of how the war in Iraq should be funded is to thumb his nose at the basic idea of governing within a democracy. And, in light of Bush's record of incompetence and dishonesty on the war, he has unmitigated gall to attack the Democrats for trying to impose order on a situation in disarray.
Bush is like a kid who spilled grape juice on the couch and now is mad because the Democrats want to use club soda to try and clean it, while he insists that he can get the stains out with more grape juice.
After the sham meeting today in which Bush will tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he will compromise on the spending bill as long as they agree to do exactly what he wants, the Democrats in Congress will have some big decisions to make. Some Democrats, especially in the House, do not want to vote for any funding bill that does not impose limits on Bush. Others seem afraid of being accused of putting the troops in jeopardy and are ready to fold and claim a moral victory for passing legislation that, but for Bush's veto, would have brought the war to an end, but will register no actual changes in policy.
The Democrats have done a good job of following through on their electoral mandate to bring the troops home, but I hope that the divisions in their ranks do not cause the party to drop the ball now. I think it is important that the Democrats do two things in response to the president's veto.
First, the Democrats have to fight harder in the rhetorical war. Bush and other Republicans are all over television talking about "political statements," Congress inserting its judgment ahead of the commanders in the field and Democrats putting the troops at risk. All of these claims are patently ridiculous, and it is incumbent on the Democrats to get out there and counter the propaganda before it takes hold.
The Democrats have to make the point that the war to topple Hussein is long over, and that the war that exists now is essentially a civil war between Shia and Sunni Iraqis. They have to make it clear that there is no "winning" or "losing" for the U.S. now in Iraq, any more than a city police department wins or loses in its battle against crime (assuming the police are visitors from another precinct and are outgunned and outmanned). The future of Iraq is wholly dependant on whether the Iraqis can get together and make the hard decisions on how to govern themselves and distribute their resources. No army can do that for them. And, as long as the U.S. has an open-ended military commitment to Iraq, the Iraqis have no incentive whatsoever to make these hard choices.
Second, the Democrats have to force Republican lawmakers to go on the record with as many votes as possible relating to Iraq. In November, the Democrats were swept into power on a single issue: voter discontent on the handling of the war. While the president is not standing for re-election in 2008, every Republican member of the House and many Republican Senators are. Bush's power to continue down a losing path in Iraq is directly enabled by Republicans in Congress who vote to sustain his policies. If the Republicans voted with the Democrats to overturn Bush's veto, he would be powerless.
For that reason, the Democrats have to make Republican lawmakers accountable for their actions. If polls are to be believed, the American people are no happier with the Iraq war today than they were in November when they tossed the Republicans out of power. The Democrats have to put pressure on Republican members of Congress and leave them with nowhere to hide. To paraphrase one of Bush's favorite expressions, the Democrats should make the Republicans decide if they are with Bush or against him. And, if they cast their lots with the president on Iraq, they will have to answer to their constituents in November 2008.
If only John Belushi was still alive (for more reasons than this, of course) to take on the role of Bluto one more time. He could walk into the Democratic caucus rooms on Capitol Hill and rally the troops, inspiring them to stay united and keep fighting to stop Bush from continuing his tragically flawed policies in Iraq. This time, though, Bluto shouldn't make a mistake identifying the country that attacked Pearl Harbor. After all, invading the wrong country is a mistake Bush has already made once.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
At Least Miss America Didn't Put on a Flight Suit
I am a dramatization of a doctor.
- Felix Unger (played by Tony Randall) acting in a television commercial in an episode of "The Odd Couple"
Politicians and celebrities love photo ops. And, if the opportunity is to pretend to be a police officer or a soldier, it seems as though the value of the appearance is doubled. So, it was a match made in publicists' heaven when Lauren Nelson, the reigning Miss America, traveled to Suffolk County, N.Y. to help authorities with a sting operation aimed at Internet sexual predators.
According to a Yahoo!/AP article, Nelson went online, pretended to be 14, and chatted with men. If they continued chatting when they found out her proffered age, she set up meetings with them at a "sting house" with television crews and law enforcement officials waiting at the agreed-upon location. And, of course, the whole thing was filmed for an episode of "America's Most Wanted."
All in good fun, and nobody got hurt, right? Kind of like Shaquille O'Neal riding along on a child pornography bust in Virginia? (I'm sure that Shaq had nothing to do with the fact that it was the wrong house. Oops!) Uh, no. See, while it might have been a gas for Nelson to go out to Long Island and practice her acting skills while securing a television appearance, it seems that actually coming back to testify against the people she helped bust isn't in the cards. Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota told Newsday, "Her agents have told us that she's not coming back to testify." I guess the fun is over, and Nelson is done.
That news was music to the ears of the defense attorney for one of the men nabbed in the sting. You see, since Nelson spoke to him, that makes her a key witness and one that he would like to cross-examine. Spota, as a result, said in the Newsday article, "Given the fact that we have now determined that Miss America was actually speaking to one of those arrested, I have instructed prosecutors not to present any more cases to the grand jury until we can determine her involvement." As for a case already presented to the grand jury, Spota added, "That case, in my view, could be compromised."
Spota called the police sting using Nelson well-intended but "nothing more than a publicity stunt." And therein lies the problem. Granted, as a 20-year-old at the beck-and-call of the Miss America organization, Nelson is probably as much of a puppet as she is a troublemaker, but the underlying point is the same. In this media-driven society, there is a disconnect between publicity and reality. Do what you need to do to get press or on television (or both), but don't even think about the real-world implications.
Really, how far of a jump is it from Miss America flaking to President Bush dressing up in a flight suit and landing on an aircraft carrier to declare victory in Iraq with the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background? Bush, with a military record spottier than a Dalmatian, had as much business wearing a flight suit as Pacman Jones has lecturing strippers for being greedy.
Bush's presidency has been conducted using the same strategy employed by the Miss America folks: Reality does not matter, just worry about how to portray things in the media. And, really, could Nelson have been any worse at being a law enforcement officer than Mike "Brownie You're Doing a Heck of a Job " Brown was at running FEMA? (By the way, for those of you who think that liberals have made up or exaggerated the Bush compliment to Brown, you can still see the quote on a news release on the White House website.)
Felix Unger's matter-of-fact proclamation that he was portraying a doctor in a commercial on "The Odd Couple" got a laugh partly because of his tendency to be too honest. When Miss America flutters into a serious situation, participates, and then flutters out, leaving the local prosecutor to clean up her mess, the photo op has crossed from silly to harmful. How would Nelson explain her decision not to testify to the parents of the next teenager sexually abused by a predator she helped catch (but refused to help put away)?
It's time we start calling public figures on their photo ops. Go ring the bell of the stock exchange or stick a silver-plated shovel into some pre-loosened earth. Just stay away from serious law enforcement issues. Or dressing in flight suits and prematurely telling us a war is over.
- Felix Unger (played by Tony Randall) acting in a television commercial in an episode of "The Odd Couple"
Politicians and celebrities love photo ops. And, if the opportunity is to pretend to be a police officer or a soldier, it seems as though the value of the appearance is doubled. So, it was a match made in publicists' heaven when Lauren Nelson, the reigning Miss America, traveled to Suffolk County, N.Y. to help authorities with a sting operation aimed at Internet sexual predators.
According to a Yahoo!/AP article, Nelson went online, pretended to be 14, and chatted with men. If they continued chatting when they found out her proffered age, she set up meetings with them at a "sting house" with television crews and law enforcement officials waiting at the agreed-upon location. And, of course, the whole thing was filmed for an episode of "America's Most Wanted."
All in good fun, and nobody got hurt, right? Kind of like Shaquille O'Neal riding along on a child pornography bust in Virginia? (I'm sure that Shaq had nothing to do with the fact that it was the wrong house. Oops!) Uh, no. See, while it might have been a gas for Nelson to go out to Long Island and practice her acting skills while securing a television appearance, it seems that actually coming back to testify against the people she helped bust isn't in the cards. Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota told Newsday, "Her agents have told us that she's not coming back to testify." I guess the fun is over, and Nelson is done.
That news was music to the ears of the defense attorney for one of the men nabbed in the sting. You see, since Nelson spoke to him, that makes her a key witness and one that he would like to cross-examine. Spota, as a result, said in the Newsday article, "Given the fact that we have now determined that Miss America was actually speaking to one of those arrested, I have instructed prosecutors not to present any more cases to the grand jury until we can determine her involvement." As for a case already presented to the grand jury, Spota added, "That case, in my view, could be compromised."
Spota called the police sting using Nelson well-intended but "nothing more than a publicity stunt." And therein lies the problem. Granted, as a 20-year-old at the beck-and-call of the Miss America organization, Nelson is probably as much of a puppet as she is a troublemaker, but the underlying point is the same. In this media-driven society, there is a disconnect between publicity and reality. Do what you need to do to get press or on television (or both), but don't even think about the real-world implications.
Really, how far of a jump is it from Miss America flaking to President Bush dressing up in a flight suit and landing on an aircraft carrier to declare victory in Iraq with the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background? Bush, with a military record spottier than a Dalmatian, had as much business wearing a flight suit as Pacman Jones has lecturing strippers for being greedy.
Bush's presidency has been conducted using the same strategy employed by the Miss America folks: Reality does not matter, just worry about how to portray things in the media. And, really, could Nelson have been any worse at being a law enforcement officer than Mike "Brownie You're Doing a Heck of a Job " Brown was at running FEMA? (By the way, for those of you who think that liberals have made up or exaggerated the Bush compliment to Brown, you can still see the quote on a news release on the White House website.)
Felix Unger's matter-of-fact proclamation that he was portraying a doctor in a commercial on "The Odd Couple" got a laugh partly because of his tendency to be too honest. When Miss America flutters into a serious situation, participates, and then flutters out, leaving the local prosecutor to clean up her mess, the photo op has crossed from silly to harmful. How would Nelson explain her decision not to testify to the parents of the next teenager sexually abused by a predator she helped catch (but refused to help put away)?
It's time we start calling public figures on their photo ops. Go ring the bell of the stock exchange or stick a silver-plated shovel into some pre-loosened earth. Just stay away from serious law enforcement issues. Or dressing in flight suits and prematurely telling us a war is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
