NBC orders full season for GRIMM

Networks execs at NBC must have been breathing sighs of relief yesterday as they announced they were giving a full-season order to freshman supernatural drama GRIMM.  NBC consistently has the lowest ratings of the big four networks, and this season in particular it has been struggling to get new shows off the ground.  Of its six new shows this year (GRIMM, UP ALL NIGHT, WHITNEY, FREE AGENTS, THE PLAYBOY CLUB, and PRIME SUSPECT), the latter three -- a full half -- have already been canceled (if you count the all-but-guaranteed goner PRIME SUSPECT).  GRIMM was NBC's last chance to cement a new hour-long drama into its schedule this season, so it comes as no surprise that they're willing to give it a shot for at least a full year.

Despite the fact that I think NBC would've renewed GRIMM no matter what its ratings were just to keep a new drama, GRIMM has been performing decently.  Its latest episode drew in 5.4 million viewers for a 1.6 rating.  This may not sound like much, but remember it airs on Friday, where the bar is set significantly lower.  It came in second in its time slot after only CSI: NY, beating both of the other supernatural dramas at that hour, FOX's FRINGE and The CW's SUPERNATURAL.  GRIMM will also get a chance to draw in new viewers in a new timeslot when NBC allows it a one-episode trial-run on Thursday, Dec 8th at 10pm (PRIME SUSPECT's old slot).  If it performs well then, the move could perhaps become permanent (although I would argue that Friday is a more appropriate time for a show like GRIMM, which naturally attracts a smaller cult audience -- it would probably flounder and die a slow death on the more competitive Thursdays).

As happy as I am that NBC has at least one new drama that it hasn't canceled, I can't help but feel frustrated by GRIMM week after week.  The writing is so lazy: every week this cop gets called in on a strange case that IN A SHOCKING TWIST JUST SO HAPPENS TO INVOLVE FAIRY TALE CREATURES IN DISGUISE.  How many weeks are they going to be able to pull that off before it gets tired?  (For me: one -- it was old after the premiere.)  The show would have been infinitely more interesting if they had made the protagonist anything other than a cop: a writer, say, who week-by-week has to actively hunt down the fairy tale creatures wreaking havoc, as opposed to a cop who just passively and coincidentally gets handed the cases.  But whatever.  Beggars can't be choosers.  And this season, NBC are definitely the beggars.

How do you feel about GRIMM getting a full season?

ABC de facto cancels PAN AM and MAN UP!

Wave goodbye to those sexy stewardesses on PAN AM.  ABC's highly-promoted yet highly-disappointing (at least ratings-wise) show is conspicuously absent from the network's midseason schedule announcement.  Come the new year, PAN AM's time slot will be filled by another new show, the Kristin Chenoweth-starring comedy G.C.B. (which is short for Good Christian Belles, which was changed from the original Good Christian Bitches -- why do they keep making this title less awesome?)

Also missing from the midseason lineup is new comedy MAN UP!  No surprise (even though it's way better than the overrated Tim Allen dreck LAST MAN STANDING), as the ratings have been averaging a mediocre 1.9 with 6.7 million viewers.  It is unlikely that MAN UP! will ever see the light of day again after its original 13-episode run ends.  There is, however, a tiny glimmer of hope for PAN AM fans.  ABC did order five more scripts and is currently in the process of reviewing them in order to decide whether or not it's worth it to actually produce more episodes.  That alone doesn't mean the show is getting a back 9, and with its ratings in a veritable nosedive since its strong premiere (its latest episode garnered only a 1.8 rating with a scant 5.7 million viewers), I wouldn't bet any money on seeing the show last past Episode 13.

With the cancelation of the similarly-hyped THE PLAYBOY CLUB, could the (all-but-guaranteed) demise of PAN AM spell doom for the period drama on network channels?  Should period dramas stick to channels like AMC and HBO?  What do you think, Fellow Addicts?

Do you think this is the end for period dramas on network channels?

Showtime renews DEXTER for Seasons 7 & 8

Fear not, fans!  America's favorite serial killer will be returning for more blood-soaked fun.  Quenching fears that this sixth season may be Michael C. Hall's last as the infamous Dexter, Showtime has just announced that they are picking up the mega-popular hit for not one but TWO more seasons.

Here's to two more years of saran wrap, knives and voiceovers!

How do you feel about DEXTER getting two more seasons?

NBC shuts down production on PRIME SUSPECT

Although there has been no official word yet from NBC as to the show's ultimate fate, things are looking grim for freshman cop series PRIME SUSPECT, starring Maria Bello.  Production will be shut down after filming of the show's 13th episode, the final episode of the original order, most likely meaning no back 9.  Also, the show is conspicuously absent from NBC's newly-announced midseason lineup.  Instead, PRIME SUSPECT's current slot at 10pm on Thursdays will be occupied, starting in January, by new drama THE FIRM, based on John Grisham's novel of the same name.  Between the production shutdown, the lack of a back 9 pickup, and its absence from the midseason schedule, it's pretty safe to say that PRIME SUSPECT is looking at cancelation.

This would mark NBC's third axed new show of the season, after THE PLAYBOY CLUB and FREE AGENTS and the fifth cancelation of the season (including CBS' HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN and ABC's CHARLIE'S ANGELS).  Not a great sign for a network already struggling in the ratings. The latest episode of PRIME SUSPECT drew in a scant 4.86 million viewers for a dismal 1.3 rating.

How do you feel about PRIME SUSPECT getting (basically) canceled?

Of Gods And Men: A Review of IMMORTALS

Expected grade: 6/10
Actual "film" grade: 5/10
Experience grade: 9/10

Tarsem Singh is not a director who churns out work.  IMMORTALS is only the third feature film he has made (after THE CELL and THE FALL), much like director Stephen Daldry, who to date has only directed BILLY ELLIOT, THE HOURS and THE READER.  Both directors also have one film currently in the works, MIRROR MIRROR for Singh and EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE for Daldry.  Other than that similarity, these directors could not be more different: Daldry favors intimate character studies while Singh experiments with the heights of artistry.  But what these two directors have in common is that, because of their limited number of projects, every time you go see one of their films, you know you will be watching a labor of love.

Based on the trailer, reviews and word-of-mouth, I went in expecting to enjoy Singh's signature artistic style, but was prepared to ultimately be underwhelmed by its lackluster screenplay.  It didn't help that the studio kept billing the film as "From The Producers of 300," another visually-impressive yet underwhelming movie about ancient heroes and mighty battles.  It is unfortunate that the studio itself decided to make that juxtaposition for its audience members, because now anyone who goes to see IMMORTALS will, consciously or not, be drawing comparisons to 300.  Of course, some similarities exist: neither feature a particularly unique or compelling storyline; both are populated by two-dimensional characters with well-oiled six-packs and straightforward motivations (liberty! vengeance!); both feature epic battle sequences with the trademark slow-motion-then-speed-up technique.  But there are just as many differences that set IMMORTALS apart and make it even better.

Firstly, 300 is based on previously-established source material, limiting director Zack Snyder's scope of imagination.  He set out to recreate a popular graphic novel, almost frame-for-frame, and he deserves recognition for his success in that aspect.  But because it was such a faithful adaptation, there was no room for Snyder to explore.  IMMORTALS, as an original work, doesn't have that problem, and I could really feel Singh exploring the boundaries of what was possible within the parameters of Greek mythology.  (Side note: Greek mythology buffs might want to steer clear or at least go in prepared -- the story here bears absolutely no similarity to real mythology -- Singh has taken completely free reign to write an original story using established mythological names.)  Singh was inspired by Renaissance paintings of Greco-Roman subject matter, and this film was his attempt to recreate that style in a visual format.  In that respect, he was remarkably successful.

Secondly, I feel that Singh is simply a better director than Snyder.  Both men definitely favor style over substance, but Singh continually shows impressive mastery over the style of his movies.  The only other director I can think of with an equally distinctive visual vocabulary is Tim Burton.  In IMMORTALS, the whole design -- the sets, the costumes, the colors, the fight choreography -- all blend into a breath-taking feast for the eyes.  There are moments of intense beauty, scenes of graphic violence, and sequences of pure adrenaline-thumping action.  As an example of Singh's superior capabilities as a director, while he uses the same slo-mo effects in his action sequences that were popularized in 300, they are utilized exclusively when the gods are fighting, so instead of becoming a mind-numbing gimmick, it sets the gods apart from the mortals and becomes an illustration of their superior speed, strength and agility.  Such a simple difference goes a long way in turning a mere special effect into a specific stylistic choice, and carves a noticeable (and helpful) distinction between battle scenes.

Henry Cavill (soon-to-be Superman in Zack Snyder's MAN OF STEEL) as Theseus shows himself to be a fully capable action hero.  He can give a rousing speech, glower at his enemies, show off his massive pecs, and shove a spear through countless throats with the best of 'em.  Then again, the script doesn't call for much intense "acting" from him, so we'll wait to see what MAN OF STEEL demands of him, but this film gives me hope that he will carry that franchise well.  Most of the "acting" in IMMORTALS comes from Mickey Rourke (THE WRESTLER) as the villain Hyperion.  He chews the scenery left and right, delivering a delightfully unbalanced performance and keeping the audience on edge as you wonder when he's going to commit his next act of atrocious violence.  The final fight between Theseus and Hyperion is one of the most brutal, realistic-looking mano-a-mano sequences I've seen in a while.  Pretty much the rest of the cast is filled with eye candy -- Freida Pinto (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) as the virgin oracle Phaedra, youthfully stoic Luke Evans (THE THREE MUSKETEERS) as Zeus, studly Kellan Lutz (TWILIGHT) as Poseidon, blandly beautiful Isabel Lucas (TRANSFORMERS 2) as Athena and Stephen Dorff (SOMEWHERE) with his newly-acquired six-pack as Theseus' sidekick Stavros.

IMMORTALS is the "prettiest" movie and the best use of 3D I have seen since AVATAR.  If you get the chance to see it in theaters in 3D and don't mind a bit of bastardization of Greek mythology, then I would highly recommend it and give it a 9/10 grade for pure visual experience.  After the lackluster script and cliché storyline are taken into account, I can only actually give the film a 7/10.  Hopefully someday Tarsem Singh will be able to blend his superior artistic capabilities with a compelling story and three-dimensional characters.  If so, I'll be first in line.  In the meantime, between the horrendous CLASH OF THE TITANS, the okay-but-not-great 300 and IMMORTALS, I'll take IMMORTALS.  Sure, it could also be accused of favoring "style over substance."  But what sets IMMORTALS apart from those other action-oriented swords-and-sandals epics is that here, the "style" alone is worth the price of admission.

Final grade: 7/10

What did you think of IMMORTALS?

Fall 2011 Favorite New Shows Announced!

Congratulations to ONCE UPON A TIME and 2 BROKE GIRLS for winning the first-ever SCREEN ADDICTION "Favorite New Show" Awards!

ABC's ONCE UPON A TIME cast a spell on fans this year, landing both the distinction of having the largest premiere of the fall, as well as the even-more-impressive honor of being the Favorite New Drama of you Fellow Addicts, with 18% of total votes.  CBS' 2 BROKE GIRLS was similarly strong in the ratings this fall, and landed a solid 24% of votes as your Favorite New Comedy.  Here's the line-up of all 28 new shows:

Favorite New Drama
1. ONCE UPON A TIME - 18%
2. AMERICAN HORROR STORY - 11%
3. RINGER - 10%
4/5. PERSON OF INTEREST / REVENGE - 8%
6/7. HOMELAND / PAN AM - 7%
8/9. GRIMM / THE SECRET CIRCLE - 5%
10/11/12/13. A GIFTED MAN / HART OF DIXIE / PRIME SUSPECT / TERRA NOVA - 2%
14/15. BOSS / UNFORGETTABLE - 1%
16/17. CHARLIE'S ANGELS / THE PLAYBOY CLUB - 0%

Favorite New Comedy
1. 2 BROKE GIRLS - 24%
2. NEW GIRL - 21%
3. SUBURGATORY - 12%
4. UP ALL NIGHT - 11%
5. ENLIGHTENED - 10%
6. LAST MAN STANDING - 9%
7/8. MAN UP! / WHITNEY - 3%
9/10/11. ALLEN GREGORY / FREE AGENTS / HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN - 0%

All in all, a fairly even spread, which means the networks did a good job this year of playing to diverse audiences.  While 2 BROKE GIRLS won a bigger percentage of comedy fans than ONCE UPON A TIME did of drama fans, NEW GIRL was stiff competition and ended up hot on its heels (24% vs. 21%).  So ONCE UPON A TIME still gets the distinction of having the biggest lead over its closest competitor, and also the highest number of total votes (169 people voted for the favorite drama, vs. only 110 for comedy).  Also important to note, ABC was the only network with two shows in the Top 3 of each category, with the #1 Drama and the #3 Comedy.

So that's it for Fall (minus the oddly-timed Nov. 23rd premiere of FOX's I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER)!  We'll start this all over again in January when the networks roll out their midseason premieres.  See you then, and thanks for your enthusiastic participation!

-Mr. Screen Addict

PilotWatch: HELL ON WHEELS

AMC Sundays @ 10pm

What's it about?
Tells the epic story of post-Civil War America, focusing on a Confederate soldier who sets out to exact revenge on the Union soldiers who have killed his wife.  His journey takes him west to Hell on Wheels, a dangerous, raucous, lawless melting pot of a town that travels with and services the construction of the first transcontinental railroad, an engineering feat unprecedented for its time.  The series documents the railroad's engineering and construction as well as institutionalized greed and corruption, the immigrant experience, and the plight of newly emancipated African-Americans during Reconstruction.  HELL ON WHEELS chronicles this potent turning point in our nation's history and how uncivilized the business of civilization can be.

So, how was it?
AMC is quickly establishing itself as the go-to channel for compelling dramas, right up there with HBO and Showtime.  Starting with MAD MEN and continuing with BREAKING BAD, THE WALKING DEAD and THE KILLING (and even the short-lived RUBICON), AMC has committed itself to dramas with complex characters and morally ambiguous plots.  It's more than clear that HELL ON WHEELS is meant to follow that basic DNA, but somewhere along the line it managed to fall disappointingly short.

First off, the settings, the costumes, all of the art direction is amazing -- it's a fully immersive 1860s environment.  But it felt as though the AMC execs simply thought, "Let's take our trademark complex characters and their morally dubious actions and dump them in the Wild West!" without really stopping to think about what made those trademark characters and plots so intriguing in the first place.  What we get here is a mere shadow of AMC's superior shows.  The protagonist, Cullen Bohannon, is no Don Draper or Walter White.  This is no fault of the actor -- Anson Mount plays the rugged Confederate soldier to a tee.  But the shades of grey that have made those two now-iconic characters so compelling are absent here.  It feels like the writers were trying to make him complex and contradictory but didn't actually know how to write those qualities into his character, so instead they simply made him a Confederate soldier and former slave owner (bad!) who was convinced by his northern wife of "the evils of slavery" and freed his slaves before the Civil War even started (good!).  He now shoots men in cold blood in churches (bad!) but is really out to avenge the wrongful death of his lovely, progressive wife (good!).  The entire portrayal felt ham-fisted and poorly executed, lacking any of the subtlety or layers that make Don Draper so real.

The rest of the cast is rounded out by characters similarly draw in black-and-white -- there was not a shade of grey to be seen (other than in the bleached cinematography).  Common plays Elam, a former slave now working on the railroad, angry to still have a white boss, angry that his best friend dies on the job, angry about seemingly everything.  He even owns a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation to wave in Cullen's stupid white face.  Dominique McElligott plays Lily, the pale and delicate British wife of a railway surveyor -- but in the tradition of AMC's strong female characters, you know there's going to be more to her than meets the eye.  Too bad they had to prove this fact by having her physically overpower an angry Native American and stab him through the skull with his own arrow in a laughably unbelievable sequence.

Colm Meany plays Thomas 'Doc' Durant, the man in charge of building the railroad and the consummate villain of this story.  You can tell that Meany is a terrific actor and could play a deliciously nasty, love-to-hate-him bad guy -- so it's really too bad that he's given such a one-dimensional, cartoonishly evil role.  There is nothing real about this character, at least yet.  He seems to be evil just for evil's sake, and his only motivation is money.  Not nearly compelling enough to keep me invested in his story.  His monologue at the end of the episode about how he will be remembered as the "villain" of this "drama" did not come across as winkingly self-referential, but instead too meta for its own good.  We get that he's the bad guy and he knows it.

The on-the-nose dialogue poured in all episode -- a full-out discussion of  the morally dubious things war makes people do (show me don't tell me!), or my personal favorite, "We'll manifest our destiny!" (Clearly supposed to make the viewer feel smart for recognizing the phrase "manifest destiny" from our high school history class.)  Everyone kept saying precisely what they were thinking in broad swaths of generality.

But perhaps my biggest problem with this show thus far is its one-dimensional portrayal of Cullen as the noble Confederate soldier fighting for justice and Doc as the evil, corrupt Union government official.  Of course, I know that there were not strictly good guys in the Union and bad guys in the Confederacy -- it was much more complex than that.  But without any subtlety or deeper examinations of motivations, these portrayals feel heavy-handed rather than complex, revisionist rather than real.  TIME Magazine featured a story this summer titled, "Why We're Still Fighting The Civil War," about how our country has fogged up the true conflict with romanticized stories of the Lost Cause and noble Southerners fighting for States' Rights.  The romanticizing of the South, started by BIRTH OF A NATION and GONE WITH THE WIND, is exactly what's led our country to forget what the Civil War was about.  (The TIME article cites a poll done last year by Harris Interactive of adults all across the country -- a two-thirds majority of whom believed the Civil War was fought over states' rights, not slavery.)  I understand the desire to romanticize the underdog, and I'm all for morally ambiguous stories, but unless the writers manage to come up with more complex motives and truer portrayals of their characters, then this show will remain one-dimensional and ham-fisted, furthering the popular romantic notion that the South was nobly defending its land against the aggressive arrogance of the North.  Surely, in 2011 we have come farther than that simple stereotype.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
While I can't fairly give it a one-star rating (it still has AMC's superior production quality and some solid turns by good actors in sub-par roles), I will most likely not be tuning in again unless someday I hear that the show has dramatically transformed into something genuinely compelling instead of a parody of better AMC shows.  HELL ON WHEELS will undoubtedly finds its audience, as the Western is not a genre that has been seen on TV since HBO's dearly beloved DEADWOOD.  Fans of the genre will most likely find things to enjoy in this series, if only because there's nothing else that currently fits the bill.  But those who tune in out of idle curiosity because they like AMC will most likely end up underwhelmed.

What about you, Fellow Addicts?  Did you find the show more engaging and complex than I did? Or were you also bothered by the abundance of on-the-nose dialogue?  How does it compare to AMC's other shows?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of HELL ON WHEELS?

Occupy Wall Street - The Movie: A Review of IN TIME

Expected grade: 7/10
Actual grade: 8/10
(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

Before attending this film, I thought IN TIME had one of the most intriguing concepts for an action film since INCEPTION.  After a summer where the idea of action was largely: Giant Robots Fighting Other Giant Robots! or, Aliens Shooting At Badass Cowboys!, it's refreshing to see a movie that is simultaneously targeted at a mass, action-loving audience, and also attempting to take the genre to a slightly higher level.  So I was optimistically looking forward to the film, though not expecting it to be anything earth-shattering.

Indeed, while this isn't anywhere near the greatest action movie ever made, it was surprisingly smart, effective and timely.  The premise of a future where time is literally money is so straightforward it could easily have been ham-fisted and ridiculous.  Instead, the boiling down of our entire economy to its barest bones is a chillingly potent plot device.  Because when you peel away the layers of credit cards and mortgages and loans, time is really what society runs on: I'm willing to spend x amount of time to earn y amount of money, and then I judge a cup of coffee to be worth z percent of the time it took me to earn the money I'm spending.  IN TIME, while a futuristic metaphor, is really just a close look at what happens when a very small percentage of people control a very large percentage of the wealth.  In this film's case, it means that 99% of the population spends their entire lives scrounging for enough time to survive through the day, while the super-rich get to live forever.

It's a farfetched yet oddly prescient idea, especially considering what's happening on Wall Street as we speak.  This film's timing is impeccable, especially considering how long it takes a film to make the journey all the way from conception to the screen.  The screenwriter probably came up with the idea at least two or three, maybe as much as five or ten years ago.  The seeds of our nation's current economic climate would of course have been planted back then, but the fact that they have exploded to the forefront of the people's consciousness in the past couple of months is extremely fortuitous for the makers of IN TIME.

This film could easily be the manifesto for Occupy Wall Street: a grim look at what our nation could come to if things continue the way they are -- if the rich continue to get rich and the poor get poorer.  The main characters of IN TIME cry for the redistribution of wealth, just like the protestors on Wall Street.  The big differences are that the wealth in the film is time instead of money, and the characters break into banks and steal it instead of occupying financial centers.  But the core ideas are the same, and are probably ones that will resonate with many viewers, in the way that the pro-environmental message of AVATAR did.  Was AVATAR heavy-handed?  Did it lack subtlety?  Of course.  But that simple message also managed to reach more people than any movie's message in the history of cinema.  The fact is that the subtle, artsy independent films with deep meanings and hidden truths aren't reaching the masses and inevitably end up preaching to the choir.  So we should count ourselves lucky when a star-studded, mass-marketed action movie delivers some sort of a progressive message, even though that message may be boiled down and basic.  Awareness is being raised in people around the country who may not even think twice when they hear the words "redistribution of wealth" or "Occupy Wall Street."

For that reason alone, this film was elevated above the 6 or 7 I may have given it otherwise.  Because truth be told, as an action movie, it's not amazing.  Solid, but not superb.  Justin Timberlake proves again that he has the best managers around, as his film career continues to ascend to new heights.  He has made one of the most effective music-to-film transitions in recent years.  This is the first time he has headlined a film by himself and he proves capable of carrying at least a basic action-driven plot.  Amanda Seyfried is stunningly gorgeous and thrillingly rebellious as the daughter of the richest man in the world.  The pair has incredible chemistry.  And as wide as the supporting cast is, IN TIME is really Mr. Timberlake's and Ms. Seyfried's, as the film morphs surprisingly (at least for me) into a futuristic BONNIE AND CLYDE about halfway through.

That's not to say the rest of the cast isn't excellent, which it is.  The basic conceit of the film is that no one ages beyond 25, so the entire cast is filled with young, up-and-coming actors at the top of their game.  Vincent Kartheiser (MAD MEN) is slimy and repugnant as the wealthiest man in the world.  Matt Bomer (WHITE COLLAR) appears as a 100-plus-year-old who's tired of being immortal.  Cillian Murphy (INCEPTION) is relentless as a Timekeeper, charged with maintaining order in an increasingly unstable world.  And Olivia Wilde (HOUSE) is given the initially-hysterical role as Justin Timberlake's mother (hysterical just because of the idea of her being anyone's mother).  The film's best sequence occurs early on and involves Olivia Wilde's character -- you'll know it when you see it.  I was shocked when this film almost had me in tears a mere twenty minutes in.

To recap, this isn't the action-iest of all action movies.  There are no explosions, a couple car chases, and some gun play, but it's more of a what-if, futuristic look at our current economic climate, with a couple nifty action sequences thrown in to attract a wider audience.  I hope many people go and see this movie, just for the chance that they might talk about it afterwards.  The best movies inspire debate, not just about themselves, but about their applications to the world at large.  For IN TIME, those parallels are clear and easy to draw.  They are also incredibly important and deserve to be talked about.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Did you feel that the film was elevated by its real-world applications?  Or did you find it a run-of-the-mill action flick?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of IN TIME?

ABC orders full seasons for ONCE UPON A TIME and LAST MAN STANDING

Apparently fairy tales really do come true.  ONCE UPON A TIME will live happily ever after... At least for the rest of this year, as ABC has announced they will be granting their new fantasy show its wish of a full season.  This was basically a foregone conclusion after OUAT had the largest premiere of any new drama this season -- its first two episodes have averaged a 4.0 rating with 12.3 million viewers.  Hopefully this happy ending will be just a happy beginning and the show will live up to its fantastic start.  Incidentally, OUAT is winning the prize of Best New Drama with 21% of the votes from your Fellow Addicts.  (The runners-up are AMERICAN HORROR STORY and RINGER at 12% each.)

Tim Allen's new sitcom LAST MAN STANDING (3.7, 12.7 million) simultaneously received a back-9 pickup, which, along with the already-picked-up REVENGE and SUBURGATORY, makes four new full-season shows for ABC.  That leaves only the fates of PAN AM (2.8, 8.4 million) and MAN UP! (2.2, 7.3 million) undecided for the network.  PAN AM, while not receiving a pickup, did get an order for 5 additional scripts.  Only time will tell whether the ratings for the show increase enough for ABC to consider it worthwhile to give the show nine more episodes.

In related news, ABC's sitcom HAPPY ENDINGS (3.5, 7.9 million), currently in its second season, was also given a full season order.  Great news for fans of this brilliant show.  More of you should be watching it!

How do you feel about ONCE UPON A TIME getting a full season?

How do you feel about LAST MAN STANDING getting a full season?

PilotWatch 2011 Wrap-Up

Well, Fellow Addicts, that just about does it.  This Sunday's premiere of ALLEN GREGORY was the last of the season -- except for FOX's I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER, which for some odd reason doesn't premiere until Nov. 23rd, and (if you include cable shows) AMC's HELL ON WHEELS, which premieres this coming Sunday.  But excluding those two, we will be having no more new shows until the networks roll out their midseason premieres come Jan/Feb.

So it's time to look back on what we've seen, what we've loved and what we've hated.  This year we witnessed 24 new network shows and 4 new cable shows; 17 dramas and 11 comedies; 4 cancelations and 10 full-season pickups (thus far).  In this wrap-up I'll present the stats, rankings, interesting facts and my personal picks for the best/worst new shows.  Then at the end, you'll get a chance to vote for your favorites!

STATS
I've included current status (where known), Nielson ratings (share of age group 18-49/total viewers) of the most recent episode, and the rating that you, Fellow Addicts, voted on for each show.

ABC
• CHARLIE'S ANGELS - CANCELED (40% Atrocious)
• LAST MAN STANDING - 2.8/9.9mil - 23% Solid
• ONCE UPON A TIME - 3.9/11.7mil - 53% Addictive
• MAN UP! - 2.0/6.8mil - 33% Solid
• PAN AM - 1.8/5.5mil - 53% Solid
• REVENGE - FULL SEASON - 2.7/8.7mil - 50% Solid
• SUBURGATORY - FULL SEASON - 3.4/9.7mil - 53% Solid

CBS
• 2 BROKE GIRLS - FULL SEASON - 4.2/11.1mil - 34% Solid
• A GIFTED MAN - 1.2/8.7mil - 50% Solid
• HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN - CANCELED (41% Atrocious)
• PERSON OF INTEREST - FULL SEASON - 2.7/11.6mil - 41% Addictive
• UNFORGETTABLE - FULL SEASON - 2.5/11.3mil - 38% Okay

CW
• HART OF DIXIE - FULL SEASON - 0.8/2.0mil - 52% Solid
• RINGER - FULL SEASON - 0.8/1.8mil - 38% Solid
• THE SECRET CIRCLE - FULL SEASON - 0.9/2.3mil - 43% Solid

FOX
• ALLEN GREGORY - 2.4/4.8mil - 80% Atrocious (as of publication -- poll still open)
• I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER - TBA
• NEW GIRL - FULL SEASON - 4.3/8.7mil - 50% Okay
• TERRA NOVA - 2.1/6.4mil - 52% Okay

NBC
• FREE AGENTS - CANCELED (31% Okay)
• GRIMM - 2.1/6.6mil - 45% Okay (as of publication -- poll still open)
• THE PLAYBOY CLUB - CANCELED (38% Okay)
• PRIME SUSPECT - 1.1/4.0mil - 26% Solid
• UP ALL NIGHT - FULL SEASON - 2.1/5.6mil - 33% Solid
• WHITNEY - FULL SEASON - 2.0/4.2mil - 69% Atrocious

CABLE
• AMER. HORROR STORY (FX) - 2nd SEASON ORDERED - 1.7/3.0mil - 57% Addictive
• BOSS (Starz) - 2nd SEASON ORDERED - 0.4mil - 35% Solid
• ENLIGHTENED (HBO) - 0.1/0.2mil - 42% Solid
• HELL ON WHEELS (AMC) - TBA
• HOMELAND (SHO) - 2nd SEASON ORDERED - 0.4/1.3mil - 62% Addictive


RANKINGS

The Highest-Rated New Dramas: based on share of 18-49 age group
1) ONCE UPON A TIME (3.9)
2) PERSON OF INTEREST (2.7/11.6mil)
3) REVENGE (2.7/8.7mil)
4) UNFORGETTABLE (2.5)
5) GRIMM (2.1)
TERRA NOVA tied GRIMM for fifth in 18-49 ratings, but GRIMM had more total viewers

The Highest-Rated New Comedies:
1) NEW GIRL (4.3)
2) 2 BROKE GIRLS (4.2)
3) SUBURGATORY (3.4)
4) LAST MAN STANDING (2.8)
5) ALLEN GREGORY (2.4)

Your Favorite Dramas: based on % voted Addictive
1) HOMELAND (62)
2) AMERICAN HORROR STORY (57)
3) ONCE UPON A TIME (53)
4) PERSON OF INTEREST (41)
5) THE SECRET CIRCLE (26)

Your Favorite Comedies:
1/2/3) ENLIGHTENED / LAST MAN STANDING / MAN UP! (19)
4) 2 BROKE GIRLS (13)
5) UP ALL NIGHT (12)

Your Least Favorite Dramas: based on % voted Atrocious
1) CHARLIE'S ANGELS (40)
2) THE PLAYBOY CLUB (33)
3) UNFORGETTABLE (25)
4) PRIME SUSPECT (20)
5) BOSS (15)

Your Least Favorite Comedies:
1) WHITNEY (69)
2) HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN (41)
3/4/5) FREE AGENTS / ENLIGHTENED / LAST MAN STANDING (21)


INTERESTING FACTS

• Your two least favorite dramas were the two dramas that have been canceled so far.  You clearly have great taste, Fellow Addicts!

• On the list of Least Favorite comedies, both of the canceled comedies fall well below the most reviled new comedy of the season, WHITNEY, which 69% of you voted as Atrocious.  WHITNEY, go figure, has been picked up for a full season.  My question remains: Who is watching this show??

• Both HBO's ENLIGHTENED and ABC's LAST MAN STANDING ended up on the list of Most Addictive comedies AND Most Atrocious comedies.  Apparently these two shows are very divisive.

• In the battle of the fairy tale shows, ONCE UPON A TIME is the clear victor.  In a poll, 85% of Fellow Addicts declared that they preferred it to GRIMM.  (The poll is still open, but I think the gap is already wide enough to declare a winner.)

• ABC definitely wins the War Of The Networks this fall, with 6 out of 7 new shows being voted either Solid or Addictive, and their only dud (CHARLIE'S ANGELS) has already gotten the axe.

• The CW remains the least-watched network of the Big Five, but those who are watching are pleased with what they see: all three new CW dramas were voted Solid this year, with THE SECRET CIRCLE landing on your Most Addictive list.

• CBS fared pretty solidly this year with one Atrocious rating (for the canceled HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN), one Okay, two Solids and one Addictive.

• NBC had quite a mixed bag.  Out of its six shows, four have had their fates determined, with two being canceled and two being picked up for a full year.  We'll see what happens with GRIMM and PRIME SUSPECT to break the tie.  The network had one Atrocious, three Okays and two Solids.

• FOX was definitely the dud of the season: they had the least new shows and the lowest ratings (at least from Fellow Addicts) with one Atrocious and two Okays.  At least they have the fact that NEW GIRL is the most-watched new comedy to take comfort in.  And we're still waiting to see how I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER will do.


MY PICKS FOR BEST/WORST

Best Drama - AMERICAN HORROR STORY: This delightfully spooky, disturbingly atmospheric, jump-out-of-your-seat mystery is the most creative, unique and fun-to-watch new show of the year.  Watching this show every week is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle -- a puzzle that drips blood, conjures up rubber-clad strangers and might try to murder you.  But putting the various pieces of this story and its obscured timeline together episode after episode is simultaneously satisfying and infuriating.
Runners-up: HOMELAND, ONCE UPON A TIME, REVENGE

Best Comedy - UP ALL NIGHT: Christina Applegate, Will Forte and Maya Rudolph combine to make a comedic force to be reckoned with.  This comedy about new parents and their struggles has been both hysterical and honest from the get-go, a balance that most shows struggle for seasons to find.  Not everyone's cup of tea, but if you enjoy character-based (rather than situation-based) humor, then this just might be the new comedy for you.
Runner-up: SUBURGATORY

Worst Drama - I could go on about how much I despised THE PLAYBOY CLUB, but it's already been canceled, so that just seems like beating a dead horse.  Instead I'll talk about HART OF DIXIE, an insipid little show about a doctor who moves from the Big Apple to Alabama only to discover that the people there listen to Taylor Swift, wear huge Gone With The Wind gowns, and own pet alligators.  The stereotypical depiction of all southerners as an adorably backwards people, combined with the stereotypical depiction of all city-folk as soulless automatons who need to learn to slow down and appreciate life, was all just a bit much for me.
Runner-up: UNFORGETTABLE

Worst Comedy - LAST MAN STANDING: As we already established, this was one of the most divisive new shows of the season, so I know half the people reading this are probably going to disagree with me.  But in my opinion, this show may be the most offensive, potentially harmful comedy to come along in a while.  The idea that all guys must go hunting every weekend and frequent sporting goods stores to be able to call themselves men is so dated its not even funny.  Literally.  There is less to laugh at and more to cringe at in this show, made all the more painful by the fact that it stars Tim Allen, the formerly beloved star of HOME IMPROVEMENT.  Unfortunately, he couldn't have picked a worse way to return to television.  For a funnier, less offensive look at "guy's guys in the modern world," check out the better (if not perfect) MAN UP!, also on ABC.
Runner-up: WHITNEY


Well, that about does it for now!  If you've made it this far, congratulations!  It's now time to vote for what you thought were the best new shows of 2011.  And sometime between now and January, keep an eye out for my Midseason Television Preview, where I'll give you the scoop on more new shows like NBC's SMASH, ABC's GOOD CHRISTIAN BELLES and FOX's TOUCH.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts!  Vote below for your favorite new Drama and Comedy of 2011!  (And for those of you who may still be mourning the loss of one of the shows that's already been canceled, I've included them just in case.)

What is your favorite new drama?

What is your favorite new comedy?

FX renews AMERICAN HORROR STORY for a second season

Happy Halloween, horror fans! FX has announced that they are renewing Ryan Murphy's spooktacular new show AMERICAN HORROR STORY for a second season.  This should come as a shock to absolutely no one who's been paying the slightest bit of attention, as AHS has been making a killing (pun intended) in the ratings and also happens to be a damn good show.

Ratings for AHS have only been climbing in the four weeks since its premiere, and it is now averaging 4.2 million viewers per episode (a huge number for a non-network channel).  At the rate it's going, AHS is on track to have the highest-rated first season of any show in FX history.

If you have yet to tune into this show, now's a great time to catch up.  Part 2 of the Halloween episode that began last week airs tomorrow night at 10pmET.

How do you feel about AMERICAN HORROR STORY getting a second season?

PilotWatch: ALLEN GREGORY

FOX Sundays @ 8:30

What's it about?
A new animated series that tells the story of one of the most pretentious 7-year-olds of our time.  When he looks in the mirror, Allen Gregory De Longpre doesn't see a child.  He sees a young man who is intelligent, sophisticated, worldly, artistic and romantic - characteristics he inherited from his doting father, Richard.  The pair share an extraordinary father-son bond - a bond that is sometimes annoyingly interrupted by Richard's life partner, Jeremy, for whom Allen Gregory has minimal respect, if any at all.  They live together in a stunning architectural loft, along with Julie, Allen Gregory's adopted Cambodian sister.  Although Allen Gregory has allegedly composed operas, written novels and dated Chloe Sevigny, he's about to embark on his greatest challenge yet: leaving the safety of his father's homeschooling and attending elementary school with children his own age.

So, how was it?
It's a basic rule of television that if you want your audience to keep tuning in week after week, you need to have a main character who will keep people coming back for more.  That's not to say they have to be a goody two-shoes; people also love a bad guy -- as long as he's got some relatable, redeemable qualities.  Allen Gregory has none of those.  He is a disgusting, vain, oblivious, rude, selfish person who doesn't care about anybody else and treats everyone like crap.  It's funny for about three jokes, but as soon as we see that there's absolutely nothing deeper or remotely identifiable about the character, we no longer care.

We quickly learn that Allen has adopted these qualities from his equally obnoxious father, Richard.  Watching Allen and Richard throw insult after insult at Richard's partner and their adoptive Cambodian daughter is not hysterical, it's tiresome.  Then somewhere between Allen condescending to his new teacher, having sex dreams about his 60-year-old principal, and crapping his pants, I lost all interest in this show.

This "comedy" was created by Jonah Hill, who also plays Allen.  Jonah Hill has managed to attract talented actors such as Leslie Mann and Will Forte to voice various characters.  I imagine they did this as a favor to their friend, a young man very excited about his new pet project.  I don't know who else thought this show would actually be a good idea, but it seems like no one involved in the production was willing to say no to anything Mr. Hill suggested.  Thankfully, it seems like the American people know how to say "No," as the show's premiere only drew 4.8 million viewers, immediately following the 8.1 million people who watched the third episode of the 23rd season of THE SIMPSONS.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
I don't need to waste a half-hour of an already jam-packed Sunday (ONCE UPON A TIME, THE GOOD WIFE, DEXTER, THE WALKING DEAD, HOMELAND) to watch people verbally abuse their family members.  This show is definitely not getting a subscription in my Hulu queue.  Better stick to sidekick roles in Judd Apatow comedies, Jonah.

What about you, Fellow Addicts? Did I miss something? Or did you find the relentlessly abusive humor tiresome as well? 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 ALLEN GREGORY?