PilotWatch: GRIMM

NBC Fridays @ 9

What's it about?
A new drama series inspired by the classic Grimm's Fairy Tales.  Portland homicide Detective Nick Burkhardt discovers he is descended from an elite line of criminal profilers known as "Grimms," charged with keeping balance between humanity and the mythological creatures of the world.  As he tries to hide the dangers of his new found calling from his fiancé [sic] and his partner, he becomes ever more entrenched in the ancient rivalries and alliances of the Grimm world.  With help from his confidant, Monroe, a reformed Grimm creature himself, Nick must navigate through the forces of a larger-than-life mythology, facing off with Hexenbiests, Blutbads and all manner of ancient evils, including royal lines dating back to the original profilers themselves, The Grimm Brothers.

So, how was it?
As the second of two new shows premiering within five days of each other that are based on fairy tales coming to life in the modern world, GRIMM will draw countless comparisons to ABC's ONCE UPON A TIME.  While this comparison may be unfair (one is a a serialized mystery, one is an episodic crime procedural), it is inevitable and unavoidable.  For my money, ONCE UPON A TIME is by far the superior of the two shows, being infinitely more creative, complex and mysterious.  But that's not to say GRIMM doesn't have its own charms, and will most likely find its own fiercely loyal cult audience that all such sci-fi/fantasy shows seem to garner (FRINGE, SUPERNATURAL).

My main problem with GRIMM is in its very basic chemistry: it's a procedural.  Not one procedural has ever been able to hold my attention.  I don't watch CSI, or Law & Order or NCIS, and I never tuned back in to this season's UNFORGETTABLE after the pilot.  Hour-long dramas with an entirely new plot every week just don't capture my interest.  I prefer something with an over-arching storyline, which is exactly what ONCE UPON A TIME has and GRIMM is lacking.  That's not to say there isn't mythology to explore in GRIMM, but the basic format of each episode will be a new big bad guy every week, and that concerns me.  How many fairy tale bad guys will we go through before the writers run out of ideas and start recycling story lines?  We're not drawing from the infinite well of human experience, here.  The Brothers Grimm only wrote so many stories, and if the entire show is based on their writings, they're drawing from a very limited pool.

As for the pilot itself, it was a mixture of intriguing and infuriating ups and downs.  The production value was excellent -- the forest settings were lush and creepy, the colors popped, and the creature effects were decent.  David Giuntoli is blandly likable as Nick, but Kate Burton steals the show as his docile librarian (but secretly badass monster hunter) aunt.  Unfortunately, the writing was bogged down in cliché after disappointing cliché: The protagonist who doesn't know his own super-secret background; the black best friend and partner who's always got the main white guy's back no matter how crazy he sounds; the "bad guy" who turns out to be a misunderstood, wisecracking good guy; the mild-mannered ceramic-collecting postal worker is actually the creeper kidnapper hiding the girl in his basement (this whole plot line felt ripped straight from SVU: Supernatural Edition).  And unfortunately for the seemingly-capable Bitsie Tulloch, who plays Nick's fiancée Juliette, it seems as though her role will be relegated to nothing more than lovely damsel-in-distress, as Nick's aunt warns him to leave her or she'll be in danger (and we know that of course he won't).  In a world becoming increasingly aware of gender roles and the underrepresentation of women in popular media, the creation of an entire female role for the sole purpose of being a pretty plot device is disappointing.

But my single biggest problem with the show is the simple fact that Nick is a police officer.  That seems all-too-convenient, given the fact that he now finds himself faced with chasing down supernatural bad guys.  It felt lazy and contrived to me, especially given the fact that Nick's aunt, the only other Grimm we know, is a librarian.  That, to me, seems so much cooler.  Why couldn't Nick be something more commonplace like an accountant or a banker or what have you?  That would've increased the ironic juxtaposition of his new role and allowed for a lot of character development and exploration as he grows into his new role as a bad-guy-catcher.  It seems like the writers missed a real opportunity here to make their protagonist infinitely more interesting by having him be a writer, just like his ancestors, the Brothers Grimm.

The underlying mythology is the one thing that gives me hope for this show.  FRINGE started its first season as an episodic, X-FILES-ish sci-fi drama and has morphed into one of the most well-written, well-acted, under-watched shows on television (and one of my personal favorites).  Maybe one day GRIMM will surprise us all and transform into something similar.  The question will be whether or not it remains interesting enough in the meantime to hold my attention in this sea of new shows.  We'll see.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
GRIMM had the misfortune of premiering against Game 7 of the World Series, but still did surprisingly well, considering: it managed to get 6.5 million viewers with a 2.1 rating.  That's the highest-rated non-sports show that's aired on a Friday since last December.  That sounds great, but that still puts it in 8th place for drama premieres this season between the already-canceled CHARLIE'S ANGELS and the desperately-struggling PRIME SUSPECT.  Also remember that CBS postponed all scripted shows last night in favor of reruns due to the game, while FOX similarly postponed their new episode of FRINGE (which seems like it would have somewhat of a crossover audience).  So for anyone not wanting to watch baseball that night, there weren't many other options.  We'll see what happens next week when those shows come back.  Granted, the bar for Fridays is set much lower than any other night of the week so even middling ratings can mean survival for a show airing then.

What about you, Fellow Addicts? Are you intrigued or turned off by the episodic nature of the show? Did it bother you that Nick was a police officer? Which do you like better, this or ONCE UPON A TIME? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of GRIMM?

Which fairy tale show did you like better, ONCE UPON A TIME or GRIMM?

Showtime renews HOMELAND for a second season

Showtime has just announced that they are giving a Season 2 to their freshman political drama HOMELAND, starring Claire Danes, Mandy Patinkin and Damian Lewis.

This will come as absolutely no shock to anyone who has been watching this stellar show, which is quite a few people.  In fact, it's the most people that have watched a new Showtime drama, ever.  HOMELAND had SHO's highest-rated drama series premiere, drawing in 4.4 million viewers in its first week.  (This may not seem like that many, but remember we're talking OnDemand, not network television.)  Furthermore, in a rare feat, ratings for the show have only been climbing since, with this Sunday's fourth episode being the highest-rated week yet.

If you haven't been watching this brilliantly-crafted show by the creator of 24, now's the time to start before you get too behind.

How do you feel about HOMELAND getting a second season?

CBS orders full seasons for PERSON OF INTEREST and UNFORGETTABLE

CBS just announced that they are ordering the back 9 episodes for two of their new dramas, JJ Abrams' PERSON OF INTEREST and the crime procedural UNFORGETTABLE.  Both of these shows will now receive full 22-episode seasons.

PERSON OF INTEREST has been averaging a 3.0 rating with 14 million viewers, while UNFORGETTABLE garners an average 3.3 rating with 13.9 million viewers.

With the full-season pickup of 2 BROKE GIRLS and the cancelation of HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN, this news means that Patrick Wilson's A GIFTED MAN is now the only new show on CBS left with an uncertain fate.

How do you feel about PERSON OF INTEREST getting a full season?

How do you feel about UNFORGETTABLE getting a full season?

AMC renews THE WALKING DEAD for third season

Zombie fans, rejoice!  We will get to see the dead rise, shuffle around, and occasionally munch on a regular cast member for at least another year.  AMC has just announced that they are giving their hit show THE WALKING DEAD a Season 3.

This announcement is unsurprising considering the show's popularity, especially after the Season 2 premiere received the highest ratings for a basic cable drama.  Ever.  It managed to rake in 7.3 million viewers with an impressive 3.8 rating.  Seems like this undead show has got some life in it yet!  (Horrible pun intended).

How do you feel about THE WALKING DEAD getting a third season?

ONCE UPON A TIME is fall's biggest drama premiere

The premiere of ABC's ONCE UPON A TIME got its fairytale ending last night as it became the most-watched premiere of any new drama this fall, even despite the fact that IMDB released the full episode two days early.  The pilot episode drew in 12.8 million viewers with a 3.9 rating in the Adults 18-49 demo.

Here's a breakdown of how all the new network dramas did on their premieres:
• ONCE UPON A TIME (ABC) 3.9/12.8mil
• REVENGE (ABC) - 3.3/10mil
• PAN AM (ABC) - 3.2/11mil
• PERSON OF INTEREST (CBS) - 3.1/13.3mil
• TERRA NOVA (FOX) - 3.0/9.1mil
• UNFORGETTABLE (CBS) - 2.9/14mil
• CHARLIE'S ANGELS (ABC) - 2.1/8.8mil
• PRIME SUSPECT (NBC) - 1.8/6.1mil
• THE PLAYBOY CLUB (NBC) - 1.6/5mil
• A GIFTED MAN (CBS) - 1.4/9.3mil
• THE SECRET CIRCLE (CW) - 1.3/3.1mil
• RINGER (CW) - 1.2/2.7mil
• HART OF DIXIE (CW) - 0.8/1.8mil

ABC's having a great year with all three of the highest rated new drama premieres.  And The CW, as the smallest of the Big 5 networks, unsurprisingly had the three least watched premieres.  I'm sure FOX wishes TERRA NOVA were slightly higher on that list.  Of those 13 shows, 4 have received back-nine pickups (REVENGE and all three CW shows) and 2 have been canceled (THE PLAYBOY CLUB and CHARLIE'S ANGELS).  It'll be interesting to see what happens to the rest of the pack in the next couple of weeks.

Chime in, Fellow Addicts! Did you watch ONCE UPON A TIME? If so, did it make you feel happily ever after? Or leave you as grumpy as Grumpy? What's your favorite new drama? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments! (And make sure to check out my review of OUAT!)

Did you watch the premiere of ONCE UPON A TIME?

PilotWatch: ONCE UPON A TIME

ABC Sundays @ 8
Premieres Sun 10/23

The first episode of ABC's new fantasy drama, ONCE UPON A TIME was released in full on IMDB yesterday.  So here is my review, shortly in advance of its actual premiere tomorrow

What's it about?
Emma Swan's life has been anything but a fairytale.  A 28-year-old bail bondsperson, she's been taking care of herself since she was abandoned as a baby.  But when Henry -- the son she gave up 10 years ago -- finds her, everything changes.  Henry is desperate for his mom's help and thinks that Emma is actually the long, lost daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming.  Yes, the actual Snow White and Prince Charming.  Even stranger, Henry believes that Storybrooke, the sleepy New England town he calls home, is really part of a curse cast by the Evil Queen, freezing fairytale characters in the modern world with no memory of their former selves.

So, how was it?
"From the writers of LOST" should be a pretty big clue.  Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis, co-executive producers and writers of LOST take their turn at the helm as the creators of ONCE UPON A TIME.  (The duo was responsible for some fan-favorite episodes such as "Greatest Hits," "The Variable" and "What They Died For.")  Seeing as how LOST is my favorite show of all time, this was one of my most highly-anticipated shows of the season, and I was not disappointed in the slightest.

Let me get it right out there and say this: if you're not interested in fairytales or think they're trite or boring or whatever, then this show probably isn't for you (although you should still give it a shot -- it's very unique).  But if you, like me, harbor a deep interest in the fantastical, weird and mysterious, then this show should be right up your alley.  The pilot tells two stories: one story takes place in a world where all fairytale creatures can interact, and their battle with an Evil Queen who curses them all (herself included) to a world where there are no happy endings; the other story takes place in our world, which is now inhabited by the banished fairytale creatures, who no longer remember who they are.  It is in these parallel worlds that the show's greatest creativity is shown: Snow White (Ginnifer Goodwin) becomes a schoolteacher with an affinity for animals; the Evil Queen (Lara Parrilla) becomes Storybrooke's ruthless mayor; Rumplestiltskin (Robert Carlyle) owns the town; Jiminy Cricket is a therapist; and Grumpy the dwarf is a drunken hooligan.

In the midst of all this is thrown Emma Swan (HOUSE's Jennifer Morrison), drawn into the town's plight by her own biological son, Henry, who she gave up for adoption ten years ago and now lives with the "evil" Mayor.  He tries to convince her that she is the daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming and that only she can free the town from the curse.  She is, of course, skeptical, but by the end of the episode has booked a room in the town's bed and breakfast (owned by Granny and her harlot granddaughter who dresses in red, natch).

These many layers of mythology are easy to compare to the complex storylines of LOST.  But the pilot of LOST, as unarguably compelling as it was, consisted mostly of mystery after mystery being thrown at the wall just to see which ones would stick.  And six years later, some of those mysteries had been answered and some had not, to the fans' consternation.  The pilot of ONCE UPON A TIME, on the other hand, while mysterious and engaging, very clearly lays out the ground rules of the show and is presented in a clear enough way that makes me optimistic that the writers know exactly where the show is going.

The pilot is full of fun little winks at fairytale lore in the real world, such as when the Mayor stops to stare at herself in a large, oval mirror.  Here, some more heavy-handed writers might have inserted a line about "Mirror, mirror..." or how pretty she thinks she is or what have you, as though we didn't already get it.  Here, however, she simply stares at herself for a few seconds, and it's a beautiful, subtle moment.

There are many questions left hanging by the end of the hour: does the Mayor remember her past as the Evil Queen, or did she get caught up in her own curse and forget like everyone else?  How will Henry convince Emma that he's not psychotic?  And, my most pressing question, what will the series look like from here on out?  Now that we've seen the story of how the fairytale characters ended up in the real world, will we be revisiting the fairytale land at all?  I can see the show proceeding down one of two paths: either the show stays entirely in the real world until the fairytale characters somehow find a way back; or every episode gives us flashbacks into one or more characters' past in the fairytale land, elucidating some mystery important to the main plot.  Knowing that the show was created by the writers of LOST, I'm inclined to expect the latter.  Either way, I can't wait to find out.

Rating:
**** Certifiably ADDICTive. A must-see.
For anyone who loves shows with complex mythology, fantastical characters, stories of parallel worlds, or just thinks Jennifer Morrison is hot, this show is a must-see.  At least by the end of its first hour, ONCE UPON A TIME seems like the non-scary, family-friendly equivalent of AMERICAN HORROR STORY, in the way that both shows have many-layered plots, an ensemble cast, and clues to pick up on every week as the whole story is slowly pieced together.  And for me, it ranks right up with AHS as one of my favorite new shows of the year.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts? Were you as captivated as I was? Or did you find the fairytale focus too childish? What path are you hoping the show takes? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of ONCE UPON A TIME?

PilotWatch: BOSS

Starz Fridays @ 10

What's it about?
Mayor Tom Kane sits like a spider at the center of Chicago's web of power; a web built on a covenant with the people.  They want to be led, they want disputes settled, jobs dispensed, and loyalties rewarded.  If he achieves through deception and troubling morality, so be it.  As long as he gets the job done, they look the other way.  Yet despite being the most effective mayor in recent history, a degenerative brain disorder is ripping everything away from him.  He can't trust his memory, his closest allies, or even himself.

So, how was it?
This review already feels somewhat moot, considering the series was renewed for a second season before the first season even began.  It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, because it's going to be sticking around for at least two years.  But now that we've actually seen the first episode for ourselves, we can discuss: does it deserve it?

I felt very conflicted about this show.  Almost everything about it was top-notch: the acting, the directing, the cinematography, the score.  Kelsey Grammer is unsurprisingly stellar as the charismatic yet morally dubious Mayor Kane.  He is surrounded by less well-known but equally capable actors who portray everything from advisors to aldermen, from spouses to drug dealers.  The first hour was full of beautifully shot sequences that felt almost cinematic in their direction.  So why was I not blown away?

I think it's because, despite all these assets, the show itself is just not that good.  At least, not yet.  The first hour felt cliché, over-dramatic and extremely heavy handed.  Did we need to see Mayor Kane receive a victim's ears in a box in the last five minutes to understand that he's not a good guy?  Weren't the previous 55 minutes enough to show us that he's morally corrupt?  That kind of clumsily excessive writing doesn't add to the drama -- it undermines it.  It took the potentially-realistic series and made it an over-the-top tale of a gangster-mayor.  It's like Starz is trying to make Mayor Kane the Tony Soprano of politics.  Or, more accurately, the Walter White of politics.  Seriously, just take a look at this poster of the most recent season of AMC's popular BREAKING BAD:

Now, compare Bryan Cranston's expression in that poster with Kelsey Grammer's in the poster above.  Minus the facial hair, they are almost exactly the same.  Not that riffing off of other contemporary popular shows shouldn't be allowed (THE PLAYBOY CLUB and PAN AM both did it this year), but 

it generally doesn't lead to the most compelling original material.

Perhaps most importantly, the entire premise of the show felt almost unnecessary: that this corrupt Mayor learns he is suffering from a degenerative neurological disorder.  Kelsey Grammer is such a good actor, and politics are already such a minefield of complex storylines, that such a heavy-handed addition to the plot felt entirely superfluous.  I would have been completely content to watch Kelsey Grammer chew the scenery and partake in the machinations and backstabbings of Chicago politics without a fatal disease thrown in on top.  It reminded me of how the pilot of THE PLAYBOY CLUB started with an over-the-top murder of a gangster by a Bunny with the heel of her stiletto.  The idea that we need this extra hook to draw us in isn't engaging, it's insulting and betrays a lack of confidence in the material.  Now, I'm only saying this because after the opening scene where Mayor Kane finds out about the disease, it was barely an issue in the entire hour.  Perhaps as time goes on it will become more central to the plot, but for now, it felt like a quick addition on the top of an already complex plot for the mere purpose of hooking viewers.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets good.
If the material were as good as the actors and the direction, I would be very excited about this show.  As of yet, the writers can't seem to decide if they're going for realism or an exaggerated tale of corruption and betrayal that simply happens to be set in modern-day Chicago.  If they're going for realism, they need to cut down on the severed ears and injecting unassuming doctors with neurological inhibitors.  If they're going for the exaggerated version, then they need to cut down on the lengthy monologues about the nature of politics, and give in to the over-the-top absurdity inherent in a gangster mayor.  I may come back for another episode or two to see if the show strikes a better balance in one direction or another.  But if it doesn't, I'm not sure even Kelsey Grammer's admittedly stellar abilities will be enough to keep this one in my docket.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts! Were you turned off by the heavy-handed nature of the pilot? Or did you find it exciting? Do you think the show should go for more realism or more over-the-top?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of BOSS?

HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN now even more canceled

Just in case the announcement that CBS' new sitcom would be moved from its original Thursday slot to the Saturday night Death Zone quickly followed by the news that production had been completely shut down was not enough to trample the hopes of any HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN fan, the show has now been pulled from the Saturday night lineup after only one week.

Its single Saturday night airing drew in only 2.4 million viewers with a 0.7 rating.  That's a far cry from the ratings CBS is used to for its sitcoms (especially compared to the 15.14 million people that watched TWO AND A HALF MEN on Monday).  This means that CBS is not even willing to waste precious air time burning off the remaining episodes of HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN that had already been filmed.  It will be replaced on Saturdays by reruns of another (as yet unannounced) sitcom.

Sad news indeed for anyone still watching this show.  Good news for the rest of humanity.

PilotWatch: MAN UP!

ABC Tuesdays @ 8:30

What's it about?
Meet Will.  His evolved, sensitive nature is why his awesome wife Theresa married him.  But Will and his friends find themselves wondering -- in a world of body spray and manscaping -- what does it really mean to be a guy anymore?  Will is more interested in finding the perfect gift for his son Nathan's 13th birthday than in doing his job selling insurance, sensitive soul Craig still pines for his college ex Lisa, and Kenny clamps down on his anger and asks himself "What would Tobey Maguire do?" when his ex Brenda starts seeing a guy who is everything he's not.  And though it may not come naturally, each new day brings these lovable beta males another opportunity to Man Up and be like their forefathers.

So, how was it?
After last week's horrific premiere of LAST MAN STANDING, I was dreading sitting down to watch MAN UP!, ABC's other new sitcom about what it means to be a man in the modern world.  I assumed it would be a carbon copy of that show's sexist, homophobic, unfunny DNA (minus Tim Allen, of course).  Imagine my surprise then, when I actually enjoyed it.  And laughed.  Multiple times.

This show was, without question, the single biggest surprise of the fall 2011 TV season.  Thank goodness I had such abysmally low expectations after reading the synopsis and watching LAST MAN STANDING.  This show turned out to be much smarter, much better-written, much less offensive, and just downright funnier than I thought it would be.

MAN UP! and LAST MAN STANDING do have their similarities.  They both center around males who bemoan the emasculation of men in the modern world of tanning and pomegranate body wash while simultaneously striving to find what it really means to be a "man."  But whereas the protagonist of LAST MAN STANDING is supposed to be the very ideal of a man and what every man should strive to be, the three men on MAN UP! are not.  They are exactly the men that Tim Allen is complaining about: they use non-dairy hazelnut creamer, they spend the day playing video games and they strum guitars in chapels to the loves of their lives.  And that's okay.  They may talk about wanting to be more manly, but (at least in the pilot), they discover that what it means to be a man is not necessarily what they thought.  They decide to take a level-headed approach and confront the crowd of angry groomsmen (I'm not even gonna get into why there's a crowd of angry groomsmen...just watch it) to discuss their issues.  The one guy who decides to "be a man" and physically fight them gets arrested.  The three friends discover that sometimes talking, rather than punching, is the "manly" thing to do.  Or maybe the "manliest" gift to get your son for his 13th birthday isn't a shaving kit, it's just a sentimental family heirloom.  Cliché?  Maybe.  But far less offensive than the idea that to be a man you have to denigrate the female members of your family.

While LAST MAN STANDING spends its half-hour trying to tell its audience that to be a man you have to run a sporting goods store, talk about hunting and make fun of GLEE, MAN UP! teaches us that sometimes being a man just means bonding with your son, talking through your issues and listening to your wife.  Radical, I know.  Definitely not the same message that LAST MAN STANDING is going for, and will most likely actually alienate the kind of people who find Tim Allen's show funny, which makes me wonder why they were marketed so similarly.  While that show is targeted at people stuck in the 20th century who think it's still okay to be scared of gay people indoctrinating our children, this show targets people who recognize that what it means to "be a man" may have evolved over time, but just because you're not shooting something every day doesn't mean you're any less masculine.

To me, the most revealing difference between the shows comes in the last sentence of the show's description on ABC's website: "[MAN UP!] follows the struggles of three modern male archetypes as they search for their identities and try to prove that "real men" really can use hazelnut creamer."  That could not be farther from the point of LAST MAN STANDING.  In this show, rather than fighting the modern world, these characters will be finding ways to live in it and be okay with the fact that yes, they may use pomegranate body wash but yes, they are still men.

All this and I haven't even talked about the actors.  Briefly, then:  The three leads (Mather Zickel, Christopher Moynihan and Dan Fogler) are likable and identifiable, but maybe that's just because they're not busy talking down to their teenage daughters.  Teri Polo (MEET THE PARENTS) is drily hysterical as Will's wife Theresa, who quietly embodies the calmness and level head that Will is so desperate to achieve in his quest to be the man of the house.  Young Jake Johnson is a mini-McLovin as Nathan, Will and Theresa's awkward teenage son.  The whole cast is full of "no-name" actors who turn in believable performances, which is actually refreshing in this day and age of shows needing big names to attract attention.  Unfortunately, that may mean that this show continues to fly under the radar and see an early cancellation due to low ratings, which would really be a shame, considering that LAST MAN STANDING will probably survive based on Tim Allen's name alone.

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
In terms of sheer laughter, I would rank MAN UP! below UP ALL NIGHT, but about on par with SUBURGATORY and NEW GIRL and above 2 BROKE GIRLS.  It was a massive relief to see a show tackle the issue of masculinity while not delving into derogatory sexism.  It will take a delicate balance to continue broaching this topic without becoming cliché or offensive, but the pilot did it with aplomb, and I'm optimistic that the writers will continue to be successful.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Were you pleasantly surprised by the show or were you disappointed?  Which do you prefer, this or LAST MAN STANDING?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of MAN UP!?

ABC orders full seasons for REVENGE and SUBURGATORY

Rejoice, REVENGE fans!  The new vengeance-themed  soap has been picked up for a full season.  That means 22 glorious episodes of watching the beautiful Emily VanCamp wreak havoc on those filthy-rich Hamptonites.  What could be better than that?  What's that?  The brilliantly satirical SUBURGATORY was also picked up?  That'll do the trick!  The Jeremy Sisto comedy also received a full 22-episode order.

REVENGE's latest episode garnered a 2.7 rating in the adult demo with 7.9 million viewers.  SUBURGATORY did even better, raking in 8.9 million viewers with a 3.1 rating.  Both of these shows came in first place in their time slots, with SUBURGATORY beating NBC's WHITNEY by a landslide (which has also been picked up for a full season), and REVENGE edging out the long-standing CSI in the all-important 18-49 ratings (though CSI still drew in more total viewers).

Seriously, that's gotta be enough good news, right?  Say what?  Sophomore comedy HAPPY ENDINGS just got an order for six more scripts?  That's fantastic!  Great news all around for ABC (especially as the over-hyped yet subpar CHARLIE'S ANGELS has just kicked the can).

How do you feel about REVENGE getting a full season?

How do you feel about SUBURGATORY getting a full season?

ABC cancels CHARLIE'S ANGELS

ABC announced today that they are pulling the plug on their glossy reboot of the 70s hit CHARLIE'S ANGELS.  The heavily-marketed show has been underperforming from the get-go when the premiere drew only 8.7 million viewers with a 2.1 rating.  However, this decision comes at an ironic moment, as last night's fourth episode saw the ratings climb instead of descend for the first time, up a 10th of a point from the previous episode to 6 million viewers.  Apparently that still wasn't good enough for ABC, and CHARLIE'S ANGELS will now join other short-lived shows such as BIONIC WOMAN and KNIGHT RIDER in the failed-TV-reboot hall of fame.

Eight episodes have thus far been filmed, four of which have already aired.  The remaining episodes will continue to air on Thursdays at 8pm, but it's unclear as of yet whether production will continue through the original 13-episode order or shut down immediately.  Either way, fans have at least four more episodes before they have to say goodbye to their beloved Angels.

CHARLIE'S ANGELS is the fourth show this season to get the axe after NBC's THE PLAYBOY CLUB and FREE AGENTS and CBS's HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN.

How do you feel about CHARLIE'S ANGELS getting canceled?

CW orders full seasons for RINGER, THE SECRET CIRCLE & HART OF DIXIE

In one fell swoop, the CW has announced that they are ordering full seasons for all three of their new dramas, the trippy twin mystery RINGER, the teen witch fantasy THE SECRET CIRCLE, and the fish-out-of-water medical drama HART OF DIXIE.

Surprisingly, Sarah Michelle Gellar's star vehicle RINGER has the lowest ratings of the CW's new shows, with a scant 0.8 rating and 1.7 million viewers.  HART OF DIXIE is doing barely better with an identical 0.8 rating but 1.8 million viewers.  THE SECRET CIRCLE is drawing the biggest crowd with a 1.2 rating and 2.7 million viewers.  None of these would be successful ratings on any other network, but the CW notoriously has a smaller target audience (aka tweens).

This decision makes these three shows the first dramas of the 2011 season to achieve full season runs.  They are preceded by the comedies NEW GIRL, UP ALL NIGHT, WHITNEY, and 2 BROKE GIRLS.

What's your favorite of the CW's new shows?

NBC orders more scripts for PRIME SUSPECT

NBC is showing a sort of cautious confidence in its new cop drama PRIME SUSPECT by ordering 6 more scripts, but stopping short of announcing a full season.  In this way they can have extra scripts on hand should they decide to continue, but not have to commit one way or another at this point in time.  I'm sure they're waiting to see if the ratings hold steady or start to drop off.

Last week the show received a 1.5 rating in adults 18-49 with 4.9 million viewers.  Those are not stellar ratings, but since NBC has already canceled both THE PLAYBOY CLUB and FREE AGENTS, it's likely that they're hesitant to cancel yet another show.  They're probably hoping that the ratings will climb a bit in the next few weeks, aided by reruns of the show airing in THE PLAYBOY CLUB's now-vacant time slot.

Are you hoping PRIME SUSPECT gets a full season?

FOX sets season finale for TERRA NOVA

In a non-decisive decision, FOX has declared that the end of the original 13-episode order will be the first season finale for its new dinodrama TERRA NOVA.  This means that there will be no back-9 pickup, but neither has the show been canceled.  Yet.

No word on whether there will be a second season.  The show's third episode on Monday garnered a 3.1 rating in the 18-49 demographic with 8.7 million viewers.  For almost any other show, these would be solid if not necessarily amazing numbers.  For a hyper-expensive time travel sci-fi adventure, only time will tell whether or not FOX deems these numbers good enough to warrant a second year with the Carnos.

The two-hour season finale will air on Monday, December 19.

What do you think about FOX's decision not to order a back-9 for TERRA NOVA?

PilotWatch: LAST MAN STANDING

ABC Tuesdays @ 8pm

What's it about?
TV titan Tim Allen returns to ABC as Mike Baxter, world voyager and one daredevil of a marketing director who is about to face his greatest challenge yet...his family.  After Mike's wife, Vanessa, receives a promotion at work, Mike must spend more time in his female-dominated household.  With years of advice and guidance from their nurturing mother, Mike's three daughters are not prepared for their old-fashioned, hotheaded father to take over.  Especially 20-year-old Kristin, who's trying to raise her own son, Boyd, with more of a liberal approach than Mike can stand.  When he isn't reclaiming the masculinity in his home, Mike works at the sporting goods man-cave, Outdoor Man: a place where men can buy guns, jerky and a camouflage recliner in one testosterone-fueled location.  Mike's boss, Ed, took Mike off of his thrilling magazine expositions and stuck him in front of the computer to supervise the company's website.  With the help of his naive subordinate, Kyle, Mike runs the Outdoor Man video log, which not only explores the store's stock of man-gear, but also helps Mike express his biggest concern with the 21st century: "What happened to men?"  (Pulled directly from ABC's website.)

So, how was it?
If simply reading the synopsis above did not make you gag on the horrific sexism and gender stereotyping, then stop reading this now and go watch the show because it was written for you.  On the other hand if you, like me, find the very premise of this show offensive and impossible to stomach, then avoid it like the plague.  Seeing it live was no better.  I didn't laugh once, I cringed through the entire twenty minutes, and I probably would have turned it off after five if I wasn't reviewing it.

At least the show is equal-opportunity offensive.  It portrays both women AND men in their basest, crudest, most one-dimensional forms.  Nancy Travis plays Mike's wife, Vanessa, a smart working mother of three who is always understanding and supportive of her husband's masculine ways.  I couldn't help but wonder why such a seemingly-intelligent women would have put up with such denigrating crap for so long.  His three daughters all fall into pocket stereotypes -- there's the plucky unwed mother still living at home, the fussy teenager obsessed with the Kardashians and mani-pedis, and the stock tomboy soccer player who tries to act like a boy but is secretly only concerned with getting the cute male soccer player to like her.

And then there's Tim Allen himself.  It's so depressing to see such a beloved TV actor completely destroy his charming, lovable persona from HOME IMPROVEMENT with a portrayal of the most insulting, distasteful cro-magnon man possible.  Being stuck in the 1940s is not funny, it's sad and offensive.  Wishing our culture was more like the times when men went hunting and the girls were subservient is not edgy, it's anti-progressive.  In one particularly horrifying scene, Tim Allen kidnaps his grandson from daycare because there was a gay couple there baking muffins for the children and, as he tells his daughter, that could only result in, and I quote, "Boyd dancing on a float."  This kind of blatant homophobia is not chuckle-inducing, it's abhorrent.

I thought HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN was the worst pilot so far because of how dated it was.  But LAST MAN STANDING takes the cake -- it's both dated AND offensive.  A truly off-putting combination.  Unfortunately I know that because the show stars the well-liked Tim Allen and because the first two episodes (I couldn't even watch the second half of the two-part premiere) drew in a decidedly solid 12.9 million viewers, that this show is probably here to stay.  I can only hope that a) most of those people don't tune back in or b) that those 12.9 million people are all of an older demographic who are watching because of HOME IMPROVEMENT nostalgia.  Because if there are any young, impressionable people watching, I am scared of the insidious message they will be receiving under the mask of a laugh track -- the message that if you do anything other than hunt or work in a sporting goods store or complain about women, then you are somehow less than a man; that if you enjoy watching GLEE or playing soccer, then you deserve to be laughed at; that if you are a teenage girl, you deserve to be dominated by a backwards man who not only doesn't understand your feelings, but doesn't even try to.

It's sad that Tim Allen has had to stoop to such a derogatory show that panders to the lowest common denominator to get back on television.  He, everyone involved, and everyone watching deserve so much better.  I know some people may accuse me of taking it too seriously, that it's "just a TV show," but Tim Allen himself said in front of dozens of reporters, when asked "Why are men always portrayed as douchebags on sitcoms?", "When you don't have material, you go to the lowest common denominator."  So the star himself knows and admits that this show consists of nothing but the basest jokes meant to attract the largest audience possible.  And the fact that it's marketed as a family-friendly sitcom for people of all ages is genuinely frightening.  Young children watching this show and thinking that these are accurate portrayals of gender-types can only result in a furthering of stereotypes and the idea that to be "different" from the "traditional" gender roles is something to be laughed at and ashamed of.  In a world where children are committing suicide more and more frequently because of bullying, it's truly depressing that ABC is encouraging this kind of thinking.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
I hate to put this on the same level as the awful-but-good-intentioned PLAYBOY CLUB and HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN, but unfortunately I don't have a zero-star rating.  I didn't just passively dislike LAST MAN STANDING like those other underwhelming shows -- I felt actively repulsed by it.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of LAST MAN STANDING?

Assemble!: The first full trailer for THE AVENGERS hits the web

In case you missed it, yesterday marked the release of the first full-length trailer for next summer's superhero-orgy-juggernaut-franchise-collision, Marvel's THE AVENGERS.  It stars Chris Evans as Captain America, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk (replacing Edward Norton who replaced Eric Bana), Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki.  This melding of hyper-successful franchises is unprecedented in the history of cinema and will either be the greatest thing ever...or a total dud.  But, in the hands of writer/director Joss Whedon (BUFFY, FIREFLY), I have faith that it will be great, even if some of the individual films leading up to it were less than stellar.  As they say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, right?  Let's hope that's true.

Fans were treated to a quick glimpse of about twenty seconds of footage after the credits of CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, which was more infuriating than exciting with its rapid-fire editing and lack of anything all that elucidating.  So this two-minute trailer couldn't come soon enough for the millions of rabidly salivating fans.

The trailer opens with an ominous voiceover from villain Loki, whispering (presumably to the whole human race) "You were made to be ruled."  I can't help but feel that he is speaking directly to the audience here, taunting us for our susceptibility to superheroes, explosions, big franchises and the whole Hollywood money-making machine.  I don't think that anyone who has seen any of the Marvel movies leading up to this and enjoyed them could honestly say that this isn't on their "must-see" list.  We'll find out when it hits theaters next May 4, won't we?

Anyway, here's the trailer in all its glory.  Watch it and let us know what you think! Does it look as awesome as you were expecting?  Or were you underwhelmed?  Do you think this will break any box office records?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

Which AVENGERS-feeding Marvel film is your favorite?

Et Tu, George Clooney?: A Review of THE IDES OF MARCH

Expected grade: 8/10
Actual grade: 9/10
(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

It's been one month to the day since I posted my review for CONTAGION, the last movie I saw in theaters.  A little something called Pilot Season has been taking up all my time since then.  (And let's face it, the past month has been that awkward period between the summer blockbusters and the late fall/winter Oscar-baiting prestige pictures.)  So I was super stoked to be making my return to feature-length projects with one of my most highly-anticipated films of the fall: THE IDES OF MARCH, adapted by George Clooney, produced by George Clooney, directed by George Clooney, and starring Georgey Clooney, Jennifer Ehle, Paul Giamatti, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood and Jeffrey Wright.  Phew.  I'm exhausted just typing all of those names.  That all-star cast combined with political themes and an of-the-moment plot makes this is one of the Oscar-baitiest films of the year.

I'm always a sucker for political intrigue, from the incestuous and power-hungry Lannisters in GAME OF THRONES to the bumbling yet conniving President Logan in 24 (whose portrayer, Gregory Itzin, happens to make an appearance here). The political backdrop of the film along with the presence of Ryan Gosling, whose star power is only rising thanks to the simultaneous release of DRIVE, as well as this summer's hit CRAZY STUPID LOVE, had me hopeful that this would be one for the books. I wasn't wrong.

Mr. Gosling portrays Stephen, one of the head campaign managers for Clooney's Governor Morris, who is competing in the primaries for the Democratic nomination for President. Stephen is whip-smart, good at what he does, and has the idealistic vision that only the young can have. By contrast, everyone around him is jaded, battle-worn and merciless in their efforts to get ahead. Mr. Hoffman plays Paul, Morris' other head campaign manager, who is a veteran in the game, valuing loyalty above all else and holding his coworkers to impossibly high standards. Mr. Giamatti is Paul's nemesis on the opposing campaign, a vicious little bulldog of a man not above using strangers as pawns.  Ms. Tomei is brutal as a New York Times reporter who's your best friend when she needs something from you...but will turn on you in a second for a good scoop.  Mr. Wright is sleazy as a potential endorser who is willing to support whichever candidate will give him the biggest promotion.  And Mr. Clooney is Morris, an outwardly genial, well-spoken, inspiring and intellectual man running for President on a platform of change and hope.  Sound familiar?  Even the campaign posters looked identical.  The only thing they could have done to make the parallels even clearer were if he were played by an African-American.  However, Clooney ends up playing surprisingly out of type, as Morris turns out to have dirty secrets of his own.  It was surprising to see the notoriously-liberal George Clooney portraying an obvious Obama-type as someone so massively, if secretly, fallible.  Then there's Ms. Wood's Molly, a 20-year-old intern brimming with life who accidentally finds herself in way over her head.  Molly and Stephen are the lone beacons of innocence in the mire of cynicism and backstabbing, and we watch them both get torn down over the course of a brisk 100 minutes.

As is probably apparent, this is not a movie to see if you want to walk away feeling good about life.  It is depressing, but also thought-provoking.  It is not pointlessly cynical -- it is pointedly cynical.  It doesn't contain an easy-to-swallow, feel-good message like, say, AVATAR -- it is a message to be chewed on, digested and discussed.  And its timing, released in the middle of primary season leading up to next year's Presidential election, could not be more intentional.  Whether the American people like the message they're being presented with here and what effect it may have on their decisions is unpredictable.  But at least one point is clear -- even the most promising, hope-inspiring, change-promising person will inevitably prove to be a letdown.  If they seem too good to be true, they probably are.  The film asks us, does knowing someone is fallible mean they shouldn't be President?  In the end, being President is just a job.  We shouldn't expect these people to be saints, because they're not.  They are people full of flaws and capable of making mistakes.  And the higher we reach, the farther we fall.

That's an age-old message, and the film does make an attempt to be timeless.  Take its, title, THE IDES OF MARCH: it implies that the themes of betrayal, revenge, backstabbing and corruption can be traced all the way back to Caesar, ancient Rome, and beyond.  But the film is so of-the-moment, so clearly taken from contemporary headlines, that it is hard to think of it as anything but a cautionary tale.  Right here.  Right now.  In this time and place, the people have become so disillusioned with the government that it's almost hard to believe Gosling's character is as idealistic as he is when the film starts.  Just look at Occupy Wall Street.  Politicians keep letting us down, the players are all corrupt, and the basic system is broken.  In a political system that essentially only provides its people with two options, how will we ever be choosing anything but the lesser of two evils?  Is it possible that a morally corrupt man could really be the best choice for President?  Maybe it is.  Maybe it would actually behoove the President to get a little more down and dirty.  A compelling thought.

To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the film was viewing it as an example of what can happen when someone has total artistic control over a project.  It was very clear that George Clooney found a project he believed in heart and soul and, in order to ensure that its message was undiluted by Hollywood bureaucracy, simply decided to take all the reins himself -- financing it, writing it, directing it and acting in it.  It's the kind of power only a very select few have (a couple more that spring to mind are James Cameron and Guillermo Del Toro -- and they don't even act).  Rarely do we see a film marketed so widely with such a thought-provoking message.  Usually the mass-appeal movies are the ones with the simple, feel-good themes and the controversial messages are confined to little-seen indie movies.  It is refreshing to see that a movie can be both commercially successful and intellectually stimulating.  Unfortunately, if one has to have George Clooney's pedigree to pull it off, I don't think we'll be seeing it happen again anytime soon.

By its very nature, this film will most likely be very divisive.  But all politics aside, I think it's a superb example of a successful artistic endeavor.  George Clooney knew what he wanted to do and he went out and achieved it.  He made exactly the movie he wanted to make.  It is the kind of film that asks questions without providing solutions.  It's up to your interpretation of what art means as to whether or not that qualifies as a successful work of art.  If you want your films to offer solutions, then you may feel that this one falls short.  If you like your films to simply ask the hard questions and then require you to find the answers for yourself, then this is a film for you.  Personally, I enjoyed it, both while I was viewing it, and during the three-hour-long conversation/debate I had about it afterward.  That, to me, is the mark of achievement: whether or not it leaves you talking.  Whatever else THE IDES OF MARCH does, it will surely do that.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts!  Were you drawn in by Clooney's pièce de résistance?  Or were you turned off by the overwhelming cynicism?  Did you agree with the parallels to Obama or do you think they went too far?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of THE IDES OF MARCH?

PilotWatch: ENLIGHTENED

HBO Mondays @ 9:30pm

What's it about?
Laura Dern is Amy, a self-destructive health and beauty executive who has a very public workplace meltdown.  After three months of contemplation and meditation at a treatment center in Hawaii, Amy returns rested and ready to pick up the pieces of her old life and reshape the world she left behind.  The series follows Amy as she navigates an unconventional path between who she is, who she wants to be...and what everyone is willing to tolerate from her.

So, how was it?
This show seems like HBO's attempt to replicate SHOWTIME's formula of the half-hour "comedy-that's-actually-kinda-serious" starring a troubled woman (NURSE JACKIE, THE UNITED STATES OF TARA, WEEDS).  And fortunately, I think they were mostly successful.  By the end of the pilot, I felt as though I had just watched a short independent film, complete with conflicted characters, beautiful cinematography, flowery voiceovers, an indie-friendly soundtrack, and Laura Dern (INLAND EMPIRE).

Ms. Dern, who also helped create and write the show, is painfully honest as the mentally-unstable Amy.  The pilot opens with a truly unflattering shot of her sobbing in a toilet cubicle, tear-streaked mascara running down her cheeks and her face a gaping, twisted mask of pain (see poster).  The fact that Ms. Dern was willing to let this unsightly image of herself be plastered all over subway stations in NYC shows the commitment she has to this role -- she didn't create it to flatter herself, but to explore the very real problems of a very real person.

That's what struck me most about the pilot -- how real it was.  There was no neat, straightforward agenda -- it would have been so easy to write a show just about the healing powers of meditation or, conversely, a show simply satirizing the self-help culture.  ENLIGHTENED does a little of both.  It is unclear from the first half-hour whether Amy has actually changed, or whether this is simply another side of her mental instability, waiting to be broken apart.  We get glimpses of her former rage coming through, mostly as she struggles to apologize to the boss she had an affair with, so I am leaning towards the latter explanation.  What that says about self-help is unclear at this point, but I imagine that will be one of the focuses of the show as it progresses -- to what extent can we actually change our basic nature, and what is required from us to maintain that change?

In its first half-hour, ENLIGHTENED is a believable, contradictory little mess of a show, just like its protagonist.  It's not organized, it's not clear, it's both funny and depressing.  It's earnest enough for us to take it seriously, but not serious enough to become full-on sanctimonious.  (Though it's not always subtle -- the evil corporate company Amy works for is called Abaddonn, Hebrew for "Hell.")  The show's struggle will be in maintaining that balance and not becoming too much of a satire or too self-important.  Because life isn't that simple.

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
Partly because I've never watched a comedy on HBO before, but mostly because of Laura Dern's brave performance, I'm interested to see where this show is going.  I hope it manages to maintain its ambiguous mixture of tones and doesn't veer too much in either direction (like how WEEDS sadly morphed from smart satire of the suburbs into bloated, over-the-top drug kingpin drama).

What about you, Fellow Addicts? Did you find the pilot true-to-life or unbelievable? Do you think Amy has actually changed or is she still mentally unstable? Will you be tuning back in to find out?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of ENLIGHTENED?

CBS cancels HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN

In a move that surprises approximately nobody, CBS announced today that they were canceling their new sitcom HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN.  If simply watching the horrendous show wasn't telling enough, there was yesterday's announcement that it was being moved to Saturdays, a.k.a. Where TV Shows Go To Die.

The only thing puzzling about this cancelation is why CBS didn't just announce it yesterday when they said they were moving it to Saturdays.  They must've known by then.  Oh well.  The good news is, production of the show has been shut down and all remaining episodes that have already been filmed will be burned off on Saturday nights when everyone is doing anything that's got to be better than suffering through a half hour of this mess.

Strangely, and destroying all my remaining faith in humankind, this was the highest-rated show so far to get the axe.  That's right, more people watched this dated dreck than hot girls in bunny suits on THE PLAYBOY CLUB or Hank Azaria on the mediocre-but-not-dreadful FREE AGENTS.  Hang your head in shame, America.

How do you feel about HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN getting canceled?

CBS moves HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN to Saturdays

In an eyebrow-raising move, CBS has pulled its new sitcom HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN from its Thursday night lineup...but hasn't canceled it.  Instead, the show has been transferred to Saturday nights at 8:30pm.

This schedule change comes after a disappointing performance last night, when the show only managed to keep 7.8 million of the 13.6mil of its lead-in, THE BIG BANG THEORY.  Starting October 20, GENTLEMAN's slot will be filled by RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, now in its sixth season.

It is unclear whether or not this is a move to try to save the show, or a step towards getting rid of it.  Thursday night is prime comedy night, so the show losing its slot there is not a good sign of the network's confidence level.  However, there is less competition on Saturday nights (read: none), so maybe CBS is trying to give it a shot.  After all, if they wanted to cancel it, why wouldn't they just do it?  I remain ambivalently puzzled until further news (because the show is terrible anyway).

Why do you think CBS moved HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN?