BuzzSugar

Soapbox: Give The Wire a Chance

BuzzSugar — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:00:00 -0800

Here's how much critics love The Wire: The show's Wikipedia page has has a running list of major publications, including Time and Entertainment Weekly, that have called it the best show on television. Yet the show, which kicks off its fifth and final season of exploring the darkest side of Baltimore on Sunday, has been mostly ignored by both awards shows and viewers.

As a relatively recent convert to the show myself, I can understand why it's had a tough time. The show doesn't hold your hand; it throws you headfirst into a world with dozens and dozens of characters, from drug dealers and their bosses to city government to dock workers to middle schoolers to the cops who step in when things go horribly wrong. I had to watch the pilot twice before I knew a single character's name, and it wasn't till the halfway point of the first season that I was confident I knew what was going on. The show is also unflinchingly realistic - which can make it seem brutally bleak. People are shot and killed, for any reason and no reason; sometimes good triumphs, but the picture is usually murkier than that.

Still, it's not all darkness and destruction, so read more.

For one thing, the show is funny - it's a subtle humor, an ironic humor, but it often makes me laugh out loud. For another, the main characters are complex but ultimately sympathetic; Detective Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West) has made more bad decisions than I can count (and I'm only partway through the third season!), and yet I can't help but root for him. And the show certainly deserves credit for its ambition, exploring what makes a modern city run - and falter - one piece at a time.

This final season focuses on the media, with segments set at creator David Simon's old employer, The Baltimore Sun. I'm rushing through my DVDs on Netflix so I can be ready for the series' finale; will any of you be watching with me? To watch a preview for this season, just read more.

Photo courtesy of HBO

Soapbox: Is Quarterlife a Synonym for Selling Out?

BuzzSugar — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:15:00 -0800

For most of my TV-watching life, I've defined myself as a fan of Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick, the producing team behind Relativity, Once and Again, and, of course, My So-Called Life. I remember reading about their latest project, Quarterlife, several years ago, back when it was still an ABC pilot awkwardly titled 1/4life. I was bummed when it didn't make the network's schedule, and I was happy to hear the show was finally surfacing online.

So the news that NBC has picked up Quarterlife should thrill me. Instead, I'm confused and a little annoyed.

My problems have little to do with Quarterlife itself. I don't think the show is great - some of the stilted dialogue makes it clear that the show is written by folks who don't spend much time around twentysomethings - but it's good enough to keep me watching. What bugs me is Herskovitz and Zwick's attitude about the whole thing: promoting themselves as revolutionary and anti-TV, then running back as soon as TV called. There's more to my thinking - including a potentially good side to this arrangement - so just read more

I believed Herskovitz's recent Los Angeles Times op-ed, where he wrote that television was a poisoned environment that stifled all creativity. I was excited to see how two respected producers could shake things up by working outside the system. And then, the system beckoned, and they fell into its arms. The most cynical part of me thinks it seems like suspiciously convenient timing, what with the writers' strike knocking so much other programming and limiting the networks' store of original, quality series.

But there's another side, though it's harder for me to believe it right now. It's the one Herskovitz pointed out recently: They're still doing something unprecedented. NBC shouldn't have anything to do with editing Quarterlife; the network is supposedly buying it to air as-is, leaving Herskovitz and Zwick - who are continuing to work as producers during the strike - in complete creative control.

Really? I guess we'll see when the TV version of Quarterlife starts to air, which could be as soon as this spring if the strike continues. Maybe this really will be a new era where shows stay in the hands of the people who make them. Or maybe I'll look back and think these two producers just sold out.

Source

Soapbox: Warner Bros. Exec Needs to Stop Hating on Women

BuzzSugar — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:30:26 -0700

Anyone want to get nice and riled up to start the week? Good. Then check out this alleged statement from a Warner Bros. executive that the studio will no longer do movies with women in the lead. According to LA Weekly reporter Nikki Finke, production president Jeff Robinov made the statement after The Brave One and The Invasion didn't meet expectations at the box office.

So let me get this straight: The reason these movies "failed" at the box office (despite the fact that The Brave One actually won its opening weekend) had nothing to do with their screenplays or premises, the way they were marketed, their supporting players, or any one of the zillions of other decisions that go into creating, producing and releasing a movie. Nope, it was the chicks. I mean, really: What's an Oscar-winning actress like Jodie Foster or Nicole Kidman good for if she can't deliver a box office smash every time?

What really disturbs me about this statement is the notion that actresses are basically expendable - and the related idea that actors are the solution to every problem. Make Daniel Craig's character the lead in The Invasion, and you'd erase all the troubles with the weak, confusing message and not-scary-enough horror elements, right? Except, you know, not.

Photos courtesy of Warner Bros.

Soapbox: Captivity

BuzzSugar — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:29:49 -0700

I have never once had any inclination to see the latest "torture porn" movie Captivity, but after reading the most scathing review in the world, I'm even less interested. In fact, I'm nauseated, in a similar way to how I felt about Hostel: Part 2, but even more so.

Apparently, the "plot" of the movie consists of blond model Jennifer (Elisha Cuthbert) being tortured in a variety of ways by a sadistic man. Meanwhile, there's another guy in this dungeon who also appears to be getting tortured, so of course the two form an relationship and, unbelievably, have sex. Because I'd sure be up for some nooky after having ground up body parts forced down my throat. Sure. As you'll find out if you read that review, that's not even the worst part of the film, if you can possibly imagine it.

The worst thing about this whole thing - the movie, the ridiculous promotional posters - is the filmmakers' reaction to the outcry over it. For obvious reasons, women's groups have denounced the film (though they're not the only ones, the writer of the aforementioned review, for example, is a full-grown married man) and the response to that is, "Let's throw a torture porn party!" I wish I were kidding. You can see how not-kidding I am if you read more

Cinematical describes the party, being thrown in West Hollywood by the Captivity filmmakers, as reported in the New York Times:

[Producer Courtney Solomon is] planning one of the craziest, most politically incorrect premiere party's in history; one that wil...feature, among other things, "the three 'most outlandish' SuicideGirls available from the punk porn service." Solomon also promised "individuals in torture gear" who will wander through the club grabbing people.

Regarding aspects of the extravagant event, which Solomon admits are "probably not legal," he says it's his "personal little tribute" to all the women's groups who are opposing the film. Another interesting note in the article is the fact that Captivity will screen only once prior to its release - not for critics, mind you, but for women's groups in New York. Following the screening, Solomon wants to "engage in a town-hall-style debate with detractors."

What kind of "debate" can one have with these people? How does one intellectually discuss the "merits" of a movie that puts forth violence toward women and sexual deprivation as entertainment? Clearly the filmmakers only want to make a mockery of these women's groups. I'm not sure what possesses people to make movies like this, and I can only hope this one bombs at the box office, as happened to Hostel: Part 2.

Soapbox: Enough With the Sequels Already!

BuzzSugar — Tue, 08 May 2007 09:03:25 -0700

Giddy from their record-breaking first weekend, the producers and studio execs behind Spider-Man 3 are falling over themselves with news and ideas for the next Spidey installments. Sony Pictures Entertainment co-chair Amy Pascal is claiming that "There'll be a fourth and a fifth and sixth and a seventh," and that "As many stories as Peter Parker has to tell, we'll do sequels." There are already rumors flying around about the villains that will be included in Spidey's fourth chapter: According to Cinematical, Spider-Man will have to face off with a man-sized lizard (called Lizard) along with Carnage the serial killer.

Sure, this sounds intriguing, but I'm still exhausted from this year's Spider-Man movie and the relentless onslaught of promotion that led up to its release. After this year they'll probably have to up the ante even more in that regard, which is virtually unfathomable. Also riding the sequel train is the Shrek series, the fourth of which may have just found a director. So, there's already buzz around a fourth movie when the third hasn't even hit theaters yet. Take a breather, guys!
For more of my sequels rant, read more

It gets tiring watching the same old characters year after year, regardless of what they're doing or how they're doing it. It even gets tiring for the people who play the same old characters, as Keria Knightley recently admitted. After the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie, she's just tired of doing it. Heck, I'm tired of her doing it! Enough is enough.

Sticking to something that has proven successful in the past makes sense sometimes, but there has to be a saturation point someday... right? What happened to original scripts? I want fresh faces and new characters!

Soapbox: Maybe "FNL" Shouldn't Get a Second Season

BuzzSugar — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:31:02 -0700

If you've been reading Buzz for a while, you know I adore "Friday Night Lights." It was easily my favorite new show this year; even now, three weeks since the show's season (and possibly series) finale, I get chills thinking about Coach Taylor's halftime speech.

Though the fate of the show is still up in the air (and will be until NBC announces its fall schedule May 14), signs have been looking good for its return. The cast believes the show will be back, its producers have talked about what a second season might hold, and NBC apparently has plans to put episodes back on the air this month.

So why am I not happy?

"Friday Night Lights" was an absolute gem in its first season, and it's exactly the kind of show NBC should keep on the air if it wants to promote a classy, quality-minded image. It won a Peabody Award, and - if there's any justice in the world - Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton will get Emmy nominations. NBC was incredibly patient with the show, giving it a full season even though it was one of the lowest-rated series on the air. But I don't think NBC would be as kind if things didn't pick up right away in a second season, so read more

Here's my biggest fear: "Friday Night Lights" comes back, and its ratings stay about the same as this season. NBC starts moving it around to different nights, confusing potential viewers. Eventually, the show gets pulled completely - either with no sense of resolution or with episodes going up online as an afterthought. It would be an ungraceful death, and this show deserves better.

The rumor that the show could air on Fridays if it returns worries me. Yes, it makes sense to have a show with "Friday" in the name air on that day of the week. But let's face it: Friday is a TV graveyard, and it's certainly not a place shows go to build ratings (example: what happened with "The Wedding Bells" and "Six Degrees" this year). "FNL" is better than either of those shows, but I still don't believe it can surmount the Friday curse - especially in the fall, when a good portion of its target audience is likely to be at actual football games. Of course, there's always the chance that "FNL" gains millions of viewers and becomes a true hit - but I'm not sure it can ever be that big a show.

And what about the story lines set up by this season's cliffhanger? I'm already worried about Tami Taylor having a baby - and while I trust the "FNL" writers to pull it off, new babies have been a jump-the-shark moment for a lot of shows. I like that the Panthers won the state championship, but where does the football story go from here? The show certainly isn't all about sports - the football is just a framework for the small-town dramas - but I don't want it to become a soap opera, either.

If "Friday Night Lights" ended now, I could say it was a perfect and beautiful thing that left me with a satisfying ending after 22 of the best episodes of television I've ever seen. I don't want it to end up battered and bruised, canceled midway through a second season or having its episodes burned off on a Saturday afternoon. Am I just being paranoid? Does anybody else think "FNL" might be better off wrapping up now?

Source

Soapbox: Why You Should Watch "Significant Others"

BuzzSugar — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:30:44 -0800

We all have TV shows that we champion long after they've been canceled, and one of mine is "Significant Others." Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the Jennifer Garner series of the same name that Fox canceled in 1998. This show, which aired for two seasons on Bravo in 2004 and 2005, featured a cast of unknowns and an almost entirely improvised script about troubled couples in therapy. It's still one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV.

I've been looking for an excuse to write about it, so I was thrilled to discover all six episodes of the show's first season on DotComedy, NBC's answer to YouTube.

In case you missed it the first time (don't worry, almost everyone did), "Significant Others" focuses on four couples: Ethan and Eleanor, the overgrown indie kids who don't know how to deal when Eleanor gets pregnant; James and Chelsea, who got married after a weekend fling and discover they just piss each other off; Bill and Connie, who are stuck in a passionless marriage and split when Bill starts having an affair with Connie's sister Ginny; and Alex and Devon, whose biggest issue is their belief that they have no issues. It's often awkward, occasionally poignant and totally hilarious, so read more

The fast-paced show flips between scenes of the couples in the therapist's office (the actual therapist is never seen nor heard) and in their daily lives. A friend of mine called it "squirm comedy," and it can be truly uncomfortable when, say, James starts asking random guests at Chelsea's gallery opening how many people they've slept with.

But it's the kind of show that grows on you. Sure, the characters can veer into caricature, but they're funny - I love that Ethan takes his Game Boy to Eleanor's ob/gyn visits, and the second season episode in which Bill first introduces Ginny to his friends and they toast to things like "loyalty and sisterhood" gets me rolling on the floor every time. I wouldn't say "Significant Others" sheds light on what love and marriage are really like these days - for everyone's sake, I hope it doesn't - but it's a pretty good look at the worst-case scenario. And if nothing else, it will definitely clarify what you're not looking for in a mate.

If you get hooked, you can also Netflix the boxed set of both seasons, which came out last year on Valentine's Day (perfect!).

Source and Source

Soapbox, Revisited: What's the Matter With "My Boys"

BuzzSugar — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:03:17 -0800

Recently I went on a rant about the TBS original series, "My Boys," which I find lame and annoying. It seems to want to be a kind of "Sex and the City" for tomboy-types, yet the writing is not very good, and the stereotypes that were so cliche in "Sex and the City" are simply reinforced in new ways. Clearly, I'm in the minority in my dislike, because TBS just picked up "My Boys" for nine more half-hour episodes. My theory is that the show could potentially appeal to both men and women-not just because of all the (countless) sports references but also because comedian Jim Gaffigan, who plays PJ's brother on the show, seems to have gathered a cult following. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of his Hot Pocket routine, and I think he's naturally funny to watch, but it's not enough to make me like the show.

It must be resonating with someone, though, if TBS is keeping it alive. Or perhaps the continuation has something to do with Match.com? To find out why, read more

Utilizing an advertising technique known as branded entertainment, Match.com entered into a deal with TBS to integrate Match.com mentions into each of the series' 13 episodes. The New York Times reports:

Other elements of the deal include identification of “My Boys” as “sponsored by Match.com” in a television, print, radio, and online promotional campaign that TBS is creating for the series; the posting of a profile of a character from the series on Match.com; billboard-style ads for Match.com on a special “My Boys” Web site (tbs.com/shows/myboys/); and a discussion of “My Boys” and Match.com during an episode of another TBS show, “Movie and a Makeover.”

Maybe Match.com has actually been successful with this approach and that's why "My Boys" is continuing? Tell me what you think: why is this show still going on?

Source

Soapbox: What's the Matter With "My Boys"

BuzzSugar — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:49:43 -0800

Because I went to journalism school in Chicago and have lots of guy friends, I was excited to watch the new show "My Boys," which airs Tuesday nights at 10 on TBS. The show follows a sportwriter named PJ (played by Jordana Spiro), who lives in Chicago, writes for the Sun-Times, and has a pack of close guy friends. It sounded right up my alley.

But after seeing the first two episodes, I've mostly just been nothing but annoyed and frustrated by this show. Many reviewers have compared "My Boys" to "Sex and the City," since the protagonist is a writer who provides continuous narration about her love life. But in this case, the narration is in the form of relentless sports comparisons, i.e. "Love is like baseball". According to "My Boys" creator Betsy Thomas, the show is meant to be a kind of "Sex and the City" for women who don't always relate to the super-feminine characters on that show. In an interview on Zap2it.com, Thomas says

"I love sports and sort of begrudgingly wear makeup, and I have a weekly poker game, and I think when I first wrote this, I felt very alienated by a lot of the women portrayed on TV."

But in attempting to offer up a less cliched version of "Sex and the City," the writers for "My Boys" have just dug those cliches deeper and deeper. For the rest of my rant, read more

Instead of the age-old romance issues that Carrie Bradshaw struggles with in "Sex and the City" (namely, the Mars versus Venus conundrum), PJ's problem is that she's too much like a guy, and this, apparently, isn't sexy. The thing that is hard to understand, however, is what could be NOT sexy about PJ. She's physically attractive, intelligent, straightforward, and assertive. She doesn't seem to like playing relationship games. She loves sports, poker, and beer. She is, it would seem, a dreamboat.

But on the show, these traits are a major problem. In one scene in which PJ is trying to make out with love-interest Bobby (Kyle Howard), he wants to slow down and just talk. He then freaks out, saying that "the girl" is supposed to be the one who wants to slow things down. Really? I thought guys liked it when women see what they want and go for it.

And then there's PJ's one girlfriend, Stephanie (Kellee Stewart), who exists solely to provide the "girly" voice in this masculine world. She is the quintessential caricature of girliness, to the point where I wonder what on earth she could possibly have in common with PJ. Opposites may attract, but how would these two get through a conversation in real life without becoming disgusted with one another? For a show that seems to be reaching for refreshingly real, this friendship is laughably unrealistic.

Yet overall, the reviews for this show have not been as bad as I would have expected, and this is surprising. What am I missing? Is the appeal simply that PJ is a new, different character on TV, giving voice to all the women who were called tomboys growing up? The good thing I will say about this show is that, unlike of every other movie or TV show in which the woman is too masculine/plain-looking/forward/loud and changes to be more attractive to men, PJ hasn't (yet) compromised her values or her personality to be more pleasing to her love interest. That's one less "foul ball" for this show, I suppose.

Have you guys watched "My Boys"? What did you think?

Source

America's Next Top Model Quiz: "Make Me Tall"

BuzzSugar — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:15:52 -0700

Top Model - either you're amazingly campy and over-the-top or . . . you're boring. Unfortunately last night's episode was the latter. There is very little drama, Tyra is barely in it, and everyone keeps belaboring the fact that these girls are short. Even the episode is titled "Make Me Tall." Note to Tyra: if you're going to "revolutionize" the modeling industry by introducing short-er girls, then, as Marie Antoinette might say, "let them be short." Now that I'm off my soapbox, what did you think of the ep? Ready to take my quiz? Start here then head over to Bella for more Top Model fun.

Meet other Top Model fans and dish about the latest in the America's Next Top Model group on BuzzSugar!

Photo courtesy of The CW

Take the quiz