Tony Awards? Seriously: Who Cares

I'll start by admitting that I don't understand the point of award shows. To be honest, I don't understand much of what I see in my online viewing guide. Maybe that's colored by the fact that, when I was a kid, there were like three channels (ABC, CBS and NBC) - four if you counted PBS. There just wasn't a lot of available air-time to put genuine garbage on the air, let alone niche-appeal garbage.

Award shows, in general, always just struck me as self-congratulatory wanking by entertainment industry X. That said, most of the award shows were about subjects that had wide enough appeal that I could at least sort of understand how a national audience might be interested in watching. The same can't be said for the Tony Awards. I mean, from a wide viewership standpoint, how many people (that don't live in the NYC area) actually see Broadway shows more than once or twice in a lifetime? I understand there's a decent amount of cross-over between more widely-popular entertainment mediums and Broadway. I also understand that some of the really successful shows have road versions of their shows - widening the audience of people that can see a show. But, all that aside, how many people are there that are both consumers of Broadway and Broadway-style productions are there out there and, more importantly, how many of them are interested in watching a self-congratulatory wank-fest? It just doesn't seem like there'd be enough to soak up an hour or more worth of prime advertising time. I guess that's why it's aired during summer repeats season though - it's the only way it can come even marginally close to having enough of an audience to draw advertising dollars.

A Cautionary Tale?

As I wait for it to get closer to time to get ready for New Year's festivities, I'm sitting here watching TV. As I scanned through the online "what's on" guide, I saw that National Geographic TV was running one of their Aftermath shows.

The series, as a whole, is based on some fairly far-fetched premises. However, those premises were, previously, ones that conceivably have the capability of having a "life goes on" outcome. The episode that's on,now, Population Explosion, doesn't really fit that mold. It has as its premise that (somehow) the earth's population has somehow managed to double overnight.

Yeah, I get that this is supposed to be a cautionary tale for our future that collapses the time-frame of whats to come as the Earth's population doubles on a more natural time-scale. However, doubling over a course of decades versus over the course of a day (or even months) results in a completely different set of stressors and outcomes. Population is an inherently self-limiting problem. Explosive population growth is even more self-limiting. I'm not seeing on this episode that people have somehow become immortal, so a lot of the problems they're positing seem unlikely. Long before we'd have to worry about creating new housing, beefing up infrastructure and finding more farmlands, energy and other resources, people would have already started to die, on a massive scale, from lack of food and environmental exposure. Let's face it: if you doubled the human population, overnight, and even had double the farmland (and seed-stock) available to plant new crops on, those crops aren't going to come online for a month or more - billions will have starved before then. Along with them starving (and running out of water), your doubled need for housing is going to disappear.

Oh well.. I guess National Geographic had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for this one. Seriously, this one borders on the mind-bendingly stupid. Would that doubled population still exist three (or more) years from the doubling-event? Don't think so. I have my doubts that, post doubling, we'd even have our current levels of populations surviving over the course of even half a year, let alone ofter three. The damage and deprivation caused by that doubling would be severe. Not only would all of the new population not survive, but a significant chunk of the incumbent population would die along with them.

Sorry, National Geographic, but gonna have to give you a big, fat "F" for this bit of shoddy programming. This is even worse than the A&E's Ancient Aliens shows.

Grimm Reality

It looks like NBC is playing with social media to promote new programming. If you follow their Twitter account for the soon-to-air series, Grimm, they'll private message you with a code that allows you to preview the show's pilot.

When I'd seen the commercials for the show, it had piqued my interest. So, I hit their "follow" button Twitter. A short while later, I got notification of the private message's arrival. Donna and I sat down and watched the episode. It wasn't horrible. Has a decent enough premise. However, it was a bit on the predictable side.

I can't say that I'll go out of my way to watch the show, but I won't avoid it, either. If I happen to hit the channel when it's on, I might watch. If the actual series is better than the opener, then I might seek to watch it. Who knows, it could get good. Star Trenk: Next Generation started out poorly, then eventually found its stride. But, for now, it's a bit weak.

Netflix Horrors

So, last night was a NetFlix night. Could have watched something on Zune or FiOS's "On Demand" service, but, I wasn't feeling like spending the money.

Netflix had a lot of "new arrivals." However, I think what they mean is "new to their service" not "recently made". At any rate, we found a movie that looked like it would be amusingly bad. The movie was Eyeborgs. It was just about as horribly awful as one might suspect. I suspect that my watching of "Eyeborgs" would have been greatly improved by intelligence-reducing consumables. Unfortunately, the kind of reducers needed aren't really legal, so, I can't partake of them. There's alcohol, but I don't think I could manage the balance between mental obliteration and unconsciousness necessary to make it a watchable flick.

The Sad State of Saturday Morning TV

This morning, Puckett got me up early. I couldn't get back to sleep. So, I came downstairs and turned on the TV. I was very sad at what I found.

When I was a kid, we only had like three TV stations - four if you counted PBS (but, PBS only counted to kids if they were Sesame Street or Electric Company age). Yet, somehow, those three stations managed to have far more to watch than the scads of stations available today. Today, it seems like the great cartoons of the past have been replaced with infantile pablum. Ugh. I *really* pity today's kids given their choices of Saturday morning programming. No Superfriends. No Looney Toons. No Tom and Jerry. No outrageous slapstic. TV's been nerfed - especially Saturday morning TV. It's all just thinly veiled attempts to sell toys - mostly "kid-safe" toys.

(Hopefully) Poor Career Decision

Let me start by saying, "I fucking hate the 'Hyundai for the Holidays' sales campaign." I hate how frequently they've been playing it. I hate the fact that they're playing Christmas music well past Christmas. I hate the fact that this thing doesn't end until the 3rth (such that I can look forward to being continually pissed off by it, till then). I fucking hate the soulless hipsters that Hyundai chose to play music and act in the commercial campaign.

In fact, I hate those soulless hipsters so much I actually bothered to Google-about so I could find out who they were. Turns out that they're "Pomplamoose" and Nataly Dawn is the soulless, dead-eyed chick singing for them. And, just for added insult to injury, I found out that they do cover's of an equally overplayed and annoying performer, Lady Gaga.

Here's hoping they die in a fire.

TV Listings

Yesterday was not a good day for the Big Ten in their various bowl appearances. And, frankly, I don't understand how we've come to having so many bowl games that all it takes for a team to get there is to have a better than .500 record. And, yeah, I realized it's all about money, but I still don't get how a team with a barely-winning record can even accept a bowl bid. Bowls are supposed to be "the big show" and a reward for a good season. How can you even think to go if you were a mediocre team?

At any rate, I was scanning through the cable guide, looking for something to watch - preferably something less painful than the day's bowl games. Eventually, as I hit the upper channel numbers, I noticed that the Big Ten Network was showing, "Big Ten's Greatest Games". I don't imagine that any of this year's bowl games will end up in future episodes of this show.

Better Names for Shows

National Geographic Network has this show called "Locked Up Abroad." It's episode after episode showing how people ended up in foreign prisons. Invariably, as the stories unfold, you can't help but scream at the "victims" of the foreign incarcerations, "you fucking deserved it!" I mean, for starters, each of them got arrested for doing something illegal. And, we're not just talking illegal in the country they got arrested in, we're talking illegal in their home countries, as well. And, secondly, so many of the stories seem to feature episodes where things were going wrong, not according to plan or just otherwise left the arrestees with an uneasy feeling long before the cops come for them. Seriously: how stupid can you get. You fucking deserved to be locked up abroad. With the level of stupidity you've shown, you deserved to be locked up and neutered where you stand.

I really think that National Geographic should have just named the show "Stupid People Arrested". It would have been just as accurate as naming it "Locked Up Abroad" and it would really let people flipping through the channel guide know what was going on. Then again, they might have just thought it was NatGeo's version of "Cops".

Hateful TV Programming

No, it most definitely is not time for the Wendy Williams show. I don't get why she even has a show.

I mean, ok, she's got big (ginormous, actually) tits - and, as a guy, I should like that - but I'm not going to watch a show just to see some loudmouth with big tits (there's far too much good internet porn out there for me to base my TV watching on covered-up, big, saggy tits). Even if I were to watch based just on tits, I'd do it with the sound muted (due to the aforementioned "loudmouth" problem). I don't think your sponsors are going to have any chance of getting their money's worth if I'm watching on mute.

I get that she kinda sounds like Oprah and Oprah's mad popular with the lobotomy crowd. But, I've not got a lobotomy and, even if I did, I'd probably want the real deal rather than some counterfeit.

Speaking of counterfeit: if you're going to offer up a "Wendy Williams", I'm thinking, even in her decomposing state, "Wendy O. Williams" would be a better choice.

Damn: what a waste of air-time.

Please Let the Hyundai Christmas Commercials End!

Corpses have more life and vitality than the singer in the Hyundai Christmas commercials. Freaking creepy. Do these commercials actually make anyone want to buy a Hyundai? All they make me want to do is organize a hipster-hunt (I've got lots of bare walls, perhaps a hipster-hide would be nice?).

Be Careful of Your TV Choices

Being too knowledgeable isn't a good thing when watching shows like "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire". Some of the answers are simply annoying. Many are inaccurate. Some are just down-right wrong.  It's clear that, instead of looking for correct/accurate answers, they're looking for the answers most likely to be given by the class of contestants their show draws.

Ugh. Makes me want to smack a bitch.

The Good Wife?

There's a lot of TV programming I don't understand the point of. "The Good Wife" is one of those programs I just don't understand. I mean, when I saw the original commercials, it seemed like it was supposed to be some serial that was loosely based on the phenomena of politicians' wives that stick around even after the politician's been acused (and, frequently, proven guilty of philandering). Which, to me, didn't seem like much of a premise. But, now, the commercials seem like it's just some "women's drama" that is just holding on to a title without really having anything to do with the title.

Perhaps it would make more sense if I bothered to watch the show. Then again, nothing I've seen in the commercials is providing a compelling case for taking time out of my schedule to do so.

(More) Seen On TV

So, the days that I telecommute, I generally have the TV on, in the background, as I tap away at my laptop. I usually flip on the Fox 5 Morning News when I come down for the day. Then at 10, when that show goes off the air and switches to the dreadful Wendy Williams show (who the fuck is she blowing to get a TV spot???), I change over to NBC for the last hour of their morning show. Unfortunately, that consists of the only slightly less odious "Hoda and Kathy-Lee" segment.

Today, they were doing the whole "iHoda" thing (basically, a "what's on Hoda's iPod" segment). This is the embarrassing segment where they play some song that she has on her iPod. Invariably, the song is dreadfully awful. Definitely not the kind of music I would admit to listening to, least of all would I play it as some kind of pick of the day. Whatever: no accounting for taste.

They also then had some performance group on. Appeared to be four black early-teens doing a song and dance routine. I think the whole thing was supposed to be them performing their music, but really wasn't paying that close of attention to it. The music was awful enough that it caused me to look up to see what the hell they were doing on the show. It was not impressive. They were outfitted in suitably "urban" attire and bouncing about to some horrid piece of music. They were clearly (read, "poorly") lip-syncing to some awful piece of Autotuned garbage. Not sure if I was supposed to be impressed by their "singing", the music, the dancing or their stage-costumes. If I was, then I guess I was missing whatever it was that was supposed to impress me.

Oh well...

Such a Quandary

Today, I came home from work to find that "Sex in the City 2" was playing on my A/V system. Now, I knew that Donna had planned to watch this cinematic atrocity, as she'd IM'ed me, at work, to ask if she could get it via OnDemand. I'd agreed under the assumption that she could get the watching of it out of her system and that I'd not be exposed to it.

What I didn't know is that, not only is "Sex in the City 2" the story of over-the-hill New York whores, it's also of epic duration. I'm not sure, but I think that Lord of the Rings had a shorter running time.

As A result of this, I came home to find Sex in the City 2 playing on my TV. Ultimately, I couldn't decide which was worse: coming home to find Sex in the City 2 on my TV or what father time had done to those shrews (painfully rendered in HD). Granted, Sarah Jessica Parker was never easy on the eyes, but, combine that horse-face with the ill-effects of the passage of time and rendering in HD... It was not a pretty picture that I found waiting for me on my TV.

Consummate Hacks

Every year, I get the "joy" of listening to the Pittsburgh Penguins home commentators because of NHL Center Ice. For whatever reason, NHL Center Ice seems to prefer to use their broadcast feed when showing Penguins/Flyers games. I can only guess that the Pittsburgh broadcast has a lower carrying cost than what Comcast-Spectacor charges for their broadcast. This would make a certain sense, given that the Comcast production is a lot more professional: better video quality, better camera operations and commentators that are a lot less extreme on the "blind homer" scale.

On the plus side of the horror that is the Pittsburgh-based broadcast team: having the Pens' home commentators calling the game is extra sweet when the Pens lose.

Halloween on Price Is Right

So, today was this year's "Halloween" episode of Price Is Right. Drew and the rest of the cast dressed up like the cast from Wizard of Oz.

Now, if I recall, correctly, Price Is Right shoots it's episodes several days or weeks before actually broadcasting them (much like all the late-night shows are shot in the mid-afternoon or early evening). This means that, if they want audience members and/or contestants to be in costume, people have to be dressed up not on Halloween.

I know that Price Is Right sells advanced tickets, but, I imagine there's a lot that are sold "at the door". And, that aside, more than a few people in the audience are people who are non-local and are just taking the opportunity to get on TV while on vacation (thus, probably haven't packed costumes with them).

For the tickets sold in advance, they could print on the tickets "Halloween broadcast: please dress up". However, I don't think that's the case and, even if it was, probably wouldn't result in a great number of people dressing up at any rate.

Judging by the costumes, I'd say that most, if not all, of the costumes are show-issued. It looks like women who are cute and fairly petitely or slenderly built are given the option of wearing costume store tart-ware (sexy-cop, sexy-firegirl, sexy-nurse, etc.). The rest of the people are given Halloween-themed Price Is Right T-shirts, offered makeup and/or accessories. Given the number of non-svelte Price Is Right audience members, the makeup, t-shirt and/or (non body size-specific) accessories are the most flexible way to get the largest number of people "in theme".

Speaking of "non-svelte"... At the end of the show, they gave everyone a 5lb. Hershey's Chocolate chocolate bar. I wonder how many of the recipients already had "the diuhbeetus"?

I'm Not a Good Sport

In fact, in many sporting contests, I express my outcome preference in terms of who I'd rather see lose than who I'd rather see win. I mean, when it's not one of my teams (Flyers, Eagles, any PSU team), I generally don't care who wins other than how it best helps my team(s). That said, there are certain teams that I almost always want to see lose (Redwings, Penguins, Senators Cowboys, Redskins and pretty every college team that isn't PSU). There are also certain players that I take great joy from seeing lose, and, by extension, the teams they're on (I'm looking in your direction, T.O.).

I live in the DC Metro region. I don't like any of the teams here. Unfortunately, absent spending several $100s per year to see my teams, I'm stuck watching the local teams on TV. Right now, as I write this, I've the choice of the Deadskinz or Baltimore. I have a hard time caring about Baltimore in any way. So, I'm watching the Deadskinz. Now, I pretty much hate Chicago and its teams, but... Go Bears (beat the Deadskinz).

Sponsorship Oops

USA is showing a "Visionary Character" commercial featuring Michell Rhee. Guess USA and BlackBerry doesn't know she's fired?

Drug Abuse as a Business Model

When Cartoon Network puts on shows like "Delocated", I think they rely on people being too stoned to change the channel. I mean, I know that a lot of people that watch Adult Swim aren't substance-free. Many are complete hammered or stoned out of their gourds. But, when things like "Delocated," the various "Tim & Eric" shows and the like are on, all I can figure is that Cartoon Network relies on people being stoned. They're either hoping that, in a stoned state, those shows come across as funnier than when straight or that people will be too stoned to figure out how to change channels.

Making Sense of Programming

Sometimes, I think the various networks and cable channels forget that most people have remote controls. I think they also forget that the typical cable package has a half million freaking channels to choose from. I mean, how else do you explain some of the programming choices. Don't get me wrong: it used to make sense to sandwich weak shows between strong shows because it was a hassle for people to get up, flip through the channels to find something better and then have to repeat the exercise to get back to the next, strong program. You didn't used to have a lot of simultaneous choices and not everyone had a remote. These days... Many people find that there's so much programming on that they're interested in, that they need DVRs to be able to see them all. So, if someone puts three shows back-to-back, and the one in the middle is weak, there's a lot of alternatives that are quickly reached at the touch of a remote.

At this point, it seems that sandwich programming risks more than it rewards. I mean, if I flip away from your station to get away from a bad program, it gives me the opportunity to notice that, not only is the show I'm watching its place better, but I might find something I like more in the next time slot. Tossing that weakling out in front of the next strong program might make it so I stop watching that strong program (or, just as bad, record that program and skip all the commercials).