kimmy

It's a tremendously well animated video. I feel bad that my French is so dismal, because that's really about all I can say about it. Is there a parallel between the response this event elicits in Quebec to the response the NEP elicits in Alberta? By which I mean, is this a show-pony that a political party can trot out at its convenience to make a large section of the voting public feel a wave of anti-federal, anti-Liberal nausea? -k {the ghost of eureka1891 arrives, rattles chains, and moans "The provincialists, children! The provincialists!" ...then hovers off to reminisce about the time he debated Haultain at the Bagbeigh Theatre in Upper Yorkton before the great fire of '27. Hitchcock shakes his head disapprovingly.}

I'm not familiar with Honor Harrington or Anita Blake, but I have read a couple of Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum novels, and you're right, it could be the basis for a terrific TV series. Everything about the character, and the supporting cast, and the stories themselves, seems almost ideal. In fact, when you mentioned the idea, the thing that most surprised me is that there isn't already a TV or movie adaptation of Stephanie Plum. Found this on the "FAQ" section of Janet Evanovich's website: -k {terribly behind; will eventually respond to more posts in this thread. I promise!}

It appears that it's turning into a political issue because the prosecutor is a Democrat candidate for office and there appear to be accusations that this case is being used for political gain, or conversely, he is being attacked for political purposes rather than on the merits of the case. I haven't read enough about the facts of this case in particular to have much of an opinion. I do know one thing, though. Athletes can get away with murder. Almost literally. If one bothered to do a little research, he could find no end of scandals from the world of US collegiate sports. There have been cases where misconduct by student athletes has been swept under the rug by university officials, or given ridiculously light punishment. There have been cases where the justice system gives athletes special treatment. There have been cases where college sports programs have been caught bribing highschool students to attend their schools, using everything from expensive gifts like cars, to liquor and strippers and prostitutes. These are euphemistically referred to as "recruiting violations". And if accusations are made against student athletes, the university will be there to flex its muscle, putting its money behind the students and doing whatever it takes to make the case vanish. Why? Because US college sports programs-- football and basketball, at least-- make tons of money for their schools. US college sports is a world full of young men who've learned from a very young age that they can do anything they want and nobody will say no to them... because they can run faster or throw a ball better than other kids. The nicest thing that can be said of college athletes is that at least they're not as bad as the pros. -k

I saw the first episode of "Smith", and the reason I didn't watch any further episodes wasn't that the characters were bad-guys, but rather that the characters were all unsympathetic. Do shows like "Smith" or "The Sopranos" glamorize crime? I'm not sure. I'm not worried that impressionable young people will watch an episode and think "hey, let's rob an art museum!" or "hey, let's form our own mafia family!" It's quite different from something like street-racing. Movies or video-games might make street-racing seem fun and cool, and just about everybody who has a car has probably considered drag racing the guy next to them at a stop-light, at least once in their life. Somebody might think street-racing is harmless enough, as long as nobody gets run over and nobody gets caught. Glamorizing street-racing is something I'd see as a potential problem, because just about everybody has the means to try it, and if you glamorize it-- make it seem fun and exciting, while diminishing the dangers-- people might be tempted to try it. Glamorizing organized crime or high-tech robberies, on the other hand ... not many of us have the means to join a mafia family, crack safes, defeat high-tech security systems, and so on... and no amount of "glamorizing" is going to convince people that robbery and extortion and murder are harmless. I suppose it might be laziness. On the other hand, don't you think it can also provoke people to think about current issues? If watching an episode of a show that's inspired by some real event prompts somebody to ask "how much was the real case like that?" or makes them say "I never looked at that side of it before..." isn't that a good thing? The "ripped from the headlines" stories tend to apply some editorializing about current events, usually in the form some sort of preachy, ham-fisted moralizing. I watched the first season of Lost, but have scarcely watched it since. And strangely, for the exact opposite reason. I loved the character development during the first season, but found that I cared less and less about the mysteries of the island. The first season they did some truly wonderful episodes, introducing the characters through flashbacks of their lives before they were marooned... showing how in some sense each of them was 'Lost' long before the plane crash, relating some current dilemna on the island to some past experience of their former lives. Having the characters faced with new challenges that allow them to in some sense make up for the mistakes of their past (or conversely to remake them) or confront their demons made for some terrific character-driven episodes. "Lost" refered to not just their geographic location, but also to their personal lives in some way or another, and seeing the characters try to find what they had lost made for some wonderful episodes. I found the episode that introduced Locke's past to be particularly moving, and I thought the first episode about Sawyer's background was also exceptionally good. But as things went on and the episodes focused less on the characters and more on the mysteries of the island, I lost interest. -k

So, is the conflict of the future going to be Christians against Muslims? Or is it going to be rational people against knuckleheads? I vote for the latter. -k

That's largely true. Unlike network TV, specialty channels have subscription fees and money from cable providers to pay their bills. Network TV, on the other hand, depends on being able to show advertisers that their product appeals to millions and millions of viewers. How so? Can you elaborate? -k

Well, amongst all the griping and trashing of TV shows of different eras, I thought some interesting points were raised. --why is almost everybody on TV much better looking than Joe and Jane average? Why *do* all these lady cops look like models, anyway? --whatever happened to Family TV? Do families even sit down and watch TV together anymore? If not, why not? Should they? What programs are on TV that you'd feel comfortable watching with Dumb Little Jimmy, your 12 year old nephew? What programs would you watch with your nearly senile aunt Edna? --how much interest do people have in seeing realism? How much interest do people have in escapism? --taboos. Apparently toilets and married couples sleeping together were taboo on TV. Is there anything left that's taboo on TV? Does TV programming push the envelope anymore? Is there an envelope left to push? --does TV play a role in shaping our views on social issues? Or does what's on TV just mirror our views on social issues? Was Bea Arthur contemplating abortion in the 1970s relevant to the abortion debate of the time? Does a Law & Order episode about a suspect held without charges by homeland security serve some role in informing the public or provoking debate on the issue, or is it just exploitive, or is it irrelevant? How much can TV shows address social issues, and how much should they? --and who would impregnate Bea Arthur? Like, that is fucking ridiculous. -k

Argus reflects on why everybody on TV is beautiful, sticks up for David E Kelley, and suggests some literary characters that would make good TV shows: Barney Miller? While I completely agree that people don't always want their TV to reflect real life, it's quite a generalization to say that people want bright shiny escapism. On sit-coms, for example, there seems to be a rule of thumb that most male characters ought to be out-of-shape, dumb, employed at laughable jobs, or losers in some other sense. Perhaps they just wish to mimic Homer Simpson, or perhaps the theory is that people have an easier time laughing at somebody who sucks worse than themselves. It's comedy, kid, comedy. Fat men are funny. Didn't you know that!? Comedy is the home of geeky Jews and dumpy assed middled aged men. First, he was only person in that squad room that couldn't have been a model. He was the exception that makes the rule. Second, he was an EX-alcoholic, coping nicely, thriving at work, with a gorgeous babe wife. Yeah, but the difference is LAO is all about the crime investigation. When was the last time you saw a scene of Briscoe at home, or with his family, or doing anything other than working? When did you see him crawling into his pathetic house - alone - with his cheap stick furniture, and staring bleakly at his cheap-ass tv as he pops a beer? Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. CSI - I don't watch it, but from what I've seen most of the "detectives" are again, models. So once more it's the exception that makes the rule. But yes, there have always been oustanding character actors. Not EVERY actor on TV would set female hearts aflutter, and not every woman is a babe - although damned near all are. Or maybe it had a good time frame? I dunno. I never watched it. I HATE shows where the bad guys win. Yes, I know that's unrealistic, but I don't care. Actually, it wasn't that bleak. Most of the shows wound up having happy endings. There was humour, and some awfully attractive teachers. There was more than its share of T&A episodes, too, what with cheerleader strippers, students sleaping with teachers, "bra strikes" and the like. And 7 of 9 made a great teacher. I thought the central thesis was that you could be a tough, smart, capable, educated professional woman and still wear a miniskirt to work every day? It's a thesis I strongly support. I would love to see the following shows on TV: SF space opera based on David Weber's Honor Harrington novels Comedy-drama based on Janet Evanovich's bounty hunter series Drama series based on the Anita Blake vampire hunter series by Laurell K Hamilton It's probably a good time for a military comedy series, too.

Kimmy ponders "different times" and waxes nauseous at the memory of West Wing: You're making assumptions. I never thumbed my nose at "everything" currently on TV. Some of it seems good, though flawed. And as I rarely watch TV any more I can't say that I've personally watched everything - especially the last couple of seasons. That's hard to reconcile with these comments: --"Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative." --"...if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting." --"What's great for this time? Which shows are routinely outstanding in terms of writing, acting and entertainment value, regularly tug at the heart strings, make the pulse beat faster, enlighten and inform, cause people to laugh out loud, push the envelope? Because believe it or not, the good shows in the sixties, seventies and eighties did that. I don't see any shows doing that today." And yet, when it comes to discussing what's actually being created today, your complaints aren't actually about quality at all, but rather your personal preference. --"Corner Gas and Earl are too bumpkinish for me." --"The Office seems to have too much meanness." --"The idea of a naive, plain woman constantly being insulted by snotty, stupid people just didn't strike me as something I wanted to sit through." --"They've reinvented the serial - which I never liked, mind you. " --"Mind you, I'm harder to entertain than I was." I'd disagree. The only thing better now are special affects. Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative. The sitcom died not because it was lowbrow, but because comedy is the ultimate test of a writer, and Hollywood doesn't enough good ones. As for production values - it's called colour - and yes, it has improved. Film quality has improved, and if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting. Funny, but having had the "pleasure" of watching some of your golden greats of yesteryear on DejaView when I was snowed in at my uncle's last year, I have the exact opposite opinion of which shows had lousy writing, terrible dialogue, implausible plotlines, and bad acting. I have a hunch that a combination of sentimentality and selective memory have distorted your view of how "good" the good old days really were. Like the baby-boomer who recalls the 1960s as the golden age of music because he remembers the Beatles but has thankfully forgotten the Archies, you remember the good shows, have forgotten the bad shows, and are happier that way. It's actually quite cruel of me to point out how many of the shows of yesteryear were complete garbage. The advent of colour and better quality film was probably a curse for the shows of the 1960s and 1970s, because there was no more hiding how fake and crappy their sets and props and special effects looked. Watch out, sherriff! One more step backwards and you're going to fall right through that backdrop painting! Careful, Captain Kirk! Don't trip over that foam boulder! Terrible acting? I keep having to remind you that I've seen many of your golden oldies and I know first hand that the actors back then weren't better than the ones on TV right now, and in many cases were a whole lot worse. Ditto the production work. TV was a fairly new art-form back then. The technology has advanced a lot, but so have the techniques. It's not just a matter of fancier special effects, it's things like using the camera more effectively. Older shows didn't (or couldn't) move the camera effectively, resulting in static looking scenes and often clunky-looking scenarios like characters pointing at stuff that the director wanted the viewer to take note of. Newer techniques move the picture to follow the action and emphasize details. And, viewers are more savvy as well-- you can do non-linear story-telling, or frames of reference, or flashbacks, and other literary techniques on TV now, that would have confused the hell out of viewers in years gone by. Kind of. It was a less jaded, less sophisticated time. You also have to remember that television had a wider reach. It didn't necessarily play to segment groups as TV does so much now. Most television was broadly aimed at everyone. When Hawaii Five Oh came on the whole family would watch it, including grandparents and teenagers, believe it or not. Same for All in the Family and the rest. Now everything seems aimed at people in their twenties - which is good for you, I suppose, but not so good for me. Well, perhaps that's part of the difference in our perspectives. You grew up at a time when a successful show had to be able to appeal to Dumb Li'l Jimmy, and Senile Aunt Edna, and everybody in between. I can't even imagine such a thing. As a family we often watch Saturday night hockey together, and sometimes Sunday afternoon NFL. But not much else. We used to watch "Northern Exposure" as a family when I was young. I am reminded of the adage "Design a system so simple that even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will want to use it." My feeling is that if you wrote a show so simple that even Aunt Edna and Dumb Li'l Jimmy can follow it... At any rate, I do agree with you on the point that there's very little family programming on TV right now. If I was a parent, I would not watch most of the shows on TV with my children. Or with Aunt Edna, for that matter. I would watch The Amazing Race with my kids, and Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune with Aunt Edna... but beyond that I'm somewhat at a loss. I think somewhat that the whole concept has changed, though. I don't even know if families watch TV together anymore. Maybe there's no family programs left because there aren't many families that watch TV together anymore. Hmm, I wouldn't doubt it. I've see a few episodes. I've been a big SF fan all my life, you see. But I almost never watch BG because it's so dark in every way. It has implausible, if not ridiculous plots, and seems determined to not only be as dark as possible in its storylines but in its lighting. Can't anyone turn a light on in those ships!? I'm surprised they don't bump into each other more. You know what? The original Star Trek might have had lousy production values but it was entertaining as hell. I'm not entertained by BG, I'm depressed by it. It's not something to enjoy, it's something to endure. ...you like bright, cheery shows where there's no problem so big that it can't be solved in a one-hour episode. Because he's an arrogant jerk? There were jerks on St. Elsewhere too. Because he's an arrogant jerk whose physical and mental frailty adds complexity to the show, and because the plots involve surprising twists and turns and often interesting or frustrating ethical dilemnas. Well, earlier you were talking about Archie Bunker flushing the toilet as if it was the greatest TV moment since the moon landing and asking why TV no longer shatters barriers like that. I got the impression that this pushing envelopes and breaking barriers was a big thing for you. I'm still curious as to what you think could "push the envelope" in 2006 in they way Archie Bunker and MTM did in the 1970s. The West Wing? I'm a little surprised. I didn't think that'd be your kind of thing. Personally, I only saw it a few times and couldn't stand it on the times I did watch it. I became physically nauseous at the end of an episode, watching our heroic cast walk in slow-motion to the strains of a '60s protest anthem, and decided I'd jab my eyes out with a pencil before I ever watched that again. Politicians who care too much? Please. That's about as realistic as Bea Arthur being impregnated. The West Wing gang transfered their efforts to the new "Studio 60" program, which appears to be on death row due to low ratings. It was highly acclaimed, yet as with many other critical favorites, that didn't translate into an audience.

Kimmy reflects on realism, escapism, and why David E Kelley should have been drowned at birth: Barney Miller? While I completely agree that people don't always want their TV to reflect real life, it's quite a generalization to say that people want bright shiny escapism. On sit-coms, for example, there seems to be a rule of thumb that most male characters ought to be out-of-shape, dumb, employed at laughable jobs, or losers in some other sense. Perhaps they just wish to mimic Homer Simpson, or perhaps the theory is that people have an easier time laughing at somebody who sucks worse than themselves. Earlier on you complained about perfect, plastic people on TV, but many of the most popular TV characters both now and in days gone by have been anything but. On NYPD Blue, Dennis Franz portrayed a overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic-- well, a typical British detective. Sam Waterston, on Law and Order, is an aging guy with bushy eyebrows, weird twitchy mannerisms, an apoplectic temper, occasionally slurred speech, and a tendancy to spit when he talks. House MD is a loathesome man, and a physical and emotional cripple. As Gil Grissom on CSI, William Peterson plays an overweight, introverted geek who can't relate to people outside the context of work. I mention recent characters, but I'm sure you can go back as far as you like and find plenty of popular characters who are at least as flawed as the audiences that watched them. When it comes to characters, people want to see ...characters. You mentioned watching LA Law once upon a time. I don't have much experience with that, but I've watched some of David E Kelley's more recent work. I used to watch "The Practice" regularly, but I got sick of it. Once you discovered Kelley's secret formula, you could figure out how every episode would end. The formula: each episode will have the most unjust outcome possible. The more despicable the defendant, the more certain our stalwart heroes, defense attourneys Bobby Donnell and co, would be to get him acquitted. The more tragic the victim or the victims family, the more torment they'd suffer in the courtroom. The more unjust the situation, the more impotent the justice system was in dealing with it. The district attourneys were never able to convict anybody, except for Donnell's most sympathetic clients. If Donnell was defending a loving, cookie-baking grandma, she'd be the one defendant that Donnell and co couldn't keep out of jail. So why did people watch this, anyway? You'd think people would quickly get tired of seeing injustice dished out every week, but the show ran for years and years. What kept people tuning in? My theory is that it provided a catharsis. People sick of seeing outrageous crimes and outrageous verdicts on the news could tune in each week, watch fictional injustice, and vent their frustration in the comfort of their living rooms. Another of Kelley's shows, Boston Public, set at a highschool, worked on the same premise, I think. If your kids were attending a public school like the one on the show, your kids were probably being beaten up and bullied, being sold drugs, having sex with their teachers, getting raped in washrooms, prostituted by gangs, ...and the teachers and schoolboard couldn't do anything to stop any of it. Why would anybody want to watch something so bleak? Beats me. So they could vent, I guess. Maybe it's for the same reason that I sometimes read NDP policy documents or Rabble.ca editorials... sometimes it just feels good to have something to be mad at. At any rate, Kelley's experiments in tormenting the audience showed that there was an audience that wasn't looking for bright shiny escapism, but the exact opposite: a reality that's even worse than the one they live in. (of course, David E Kelley also produced lighter-hearted fare, like Ally McBeal, a show whose central thesis was that women are mentally impaired and therefore deserve special treatment.) On the other hand, the theory of beautiful people, beautiful cars, and so on does seem to hold some water. Most of the women on most shows, whether they're police officers, lawyers, housewives, or whatever else, look as though they've just stepped out of a soap opera. In another thread a few days back I was asked why 3/4 of the murder victims I've seen on TV this year are gorgeous blondes. There are three "Crime Scene Investigation" shows on TV right now, the original Las Vegas show, and spinoffs set in Miami and New York. All 3 are major hits, but the New York spinoff lags the other two by several million viewers each week. Why? It's the newest of the 3, but in its 3rd season that shouldn't be a factor. It's the same format and similar stories. It also has Gary Sinise, who is arguably the best lead actor among the three series. Could the "bright and shiny" aspect be the difference? All three of the shows have distinctive colour-palettes and visual styles. The Las Vegas show combines desert sand and sun with Vegas glitz and neon. The Miami show has bright sun, sandy beaches, palm trees and lush plant life, and David Caruso's freakish red hair. The New York show has... grey. And brown. Grey skies, grey and brown buildings, grey streets and alleys. Could it be that several million fewer people tune in for CSI:New York than for CSI and CSI:Miami because the Vegas and Miami look so visually appealing and exotic, while New York looks so drab and depressing on the show? It might be part of it, I would think.

Ricki and Jeffy join the fray. Argus contemplates realism vs escapism: Everyday.I have been in offices where i have thought it. One of the worse ones I actually witnessed far more depravity and evil beahviour than anything they could get away with on TV. Worst 15 months of my life... Yeah, okay but... I was recently reading an article on, I think, the Telegraph site, or maybe it was the BBC, talking about the success of American shows, and in particular, American police shows vs British police shows. The American shows featured hot, slick, sexy people, driving fast, shiny cars, working sexy cases, working in great offices with the best equipment, with great romances, etc. etc. British TV shows tended to feature overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic detectives driving rusting Fords working for miserable jerks in run-down police stations... The point they were making was that people don't want to watch television about people whose lives are as crappy as their own, they don't necessarily want to see real life reflected on TV. They want bright, shining, escapism that takes them away from their dull, ordinary lives into a fantasy world of fun and excitement. They want to be entertained, not depressed.

uh-oh, it's ON... That's kind of an elitist stance. Sitcoms can be great entertainment. What more do you want? I'm sure I can give you a list of great sitcoms from the seventies and eighties that will more than match anything on TV now in terms of quality, as well as entertainment. A guy who thumbs his nose at everything currently on TV is accusing me of elitism? Odd... You're making assumptions. I never thumbed my nose at "everything" currently on TV. Some of it seems good, though flawed. And as I rarely watch TV any more I can't say that I've personally watched everything - especially the last couple of seasons. Corner Gas and Earl are too bumpkinish for me. The Office seems to have too much meanness. I'd disagree. The only thing better now are special affects. Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative. The sitcom died not because it was lowbrow, but because comedy is the ultimate test of a writer, and Hollywood doesn't enough good ones. As for production values - it's called colour - and yes, it has improved. Film quality has improved, and if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting. Kind of. It was a less jaded, less sophisticated time. You also have to remember that television had a wider reach. It didn't necessarily play to segment groups as TV does so much now. Most television was broadly aimed at everyone. When Hawaii Five Oh came on the whole family would watch it, including grandparents and teenagers, believe it or not. Same for All in the Family and the rest. Now everything seems aimed at people in their twenties - which is good for you, I suppose, but not so good for me. Hmm, I wouldn't doubt it. I've see a few episodes. I've been a big SF fan all my life, you see. But I almost never watch BG because it's so dark in every way. It has implausible, if not ridiculous plots, and seems determined to not only be as dark as possible in its storylines but in its lighting. Can't anyone turn a light on in those ships!? I'm surprised they don't bump into each other more. You know what? The original Star Trek might have had lousy production values but it was entertaining as hell. I'm not entertained by BG, I'm depressed by it. It's not something to enjoy, it's something to endure. Because he's an arrogant jerk? There were jerks on St. Elsewhere too. Haven't seen them, but then, I never liked Matlock either. I did like LA Law for a time, though. I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I know I mentioned the "risk taking" somewhat, but really, the problem I have with modern shows has nothing to do with them taking no risks. It has to do with not being entertained by them. Mind you, I'm harder to entertain than I was. The idea of a naive, plain woman constantly being insulted by snotty, stupid people just didn't strike me as something I wanted to sit through. Possibly, but after a few years I get bored. I used to watch Law and Order every week, but after five or six years it all just seemed to run together. I stopped watching the Sopranos for the same reason. Well, admittedly, I haven't watched much TV for several years now, due to the continued deteriorating quality. I read up on what new shows were coming out, and wasn't tempted by them. Nothing sounded interesting. So however good the production values or scripts - well so what if they're not about anything I want to see? Put a couple of cops in a cop car and ride them around town for 44 minutes and I'll watch that. In the meantime, the last TV show I watched regularly was West Wing (which I admit, had great writing), and that's been cancelled, so I doubt I'll be watching much this year.

Barney Miller? Oh no he didn't... That's kind of an elitist stance. Sitcoms can be great entertainment. What more do you want? I'm sure I can give you a list of great sitcoms from the seventies and eighties that will more than match anything on TV now in terms of quality, as well as entertainment. A guy who thumbs his nose at everything currently on TV is accusing me of elitism? Odd... For the sake of argument, bring on the list. I've seen many of these shows and while "quality" and "entertainment" are pretty subjective, most of the sit-coms I've seen from the 1970s and 1980s was about as entertaining as my root-canal and as high-quality as my late Reliant. I'd much rather watch "Corner Gas" or "The Office" or "My Name is Earl". Well, that's true. I'd also suggest that the older shows had dismal production values, and by and large pretty mediocre actors and simplistic scripts. The fact that toilets flushing or a couple sharing a bed was shocking at the time is indeed a fascinating commentary on the times you grew up in, but doesn't do much to convince me that these astonishing innovations are evidence of quality. If being groundbreaking in 2006 was as easy as flushing a toilet, everybody would be breaking ground left and right. Archie Bunker would be played by a slick handsome man? Of course! Because all leading men on sit-coms are slick handsome men. Chiselled, rugged studs like Jim Belushi and Brent Butt, lady-killers like Jason Scott Lee and Michael Rappaport. Oh yes. Be still my heart. These shows talked about social issues? Ok. TV shows do in 2006, too, but I guess that's not risky or groundbreaking anymore. On the one hand you're asking me to admire the old shows because they were flushing toilets or sharing beds in an era when toilets were scary and married people slept in separate beds. On the other hand you're blasting today's shows for not pushing the envelope, in an era when there's no envelope left to push. And which of today's shows compares well with All in the family for daring, risk-taking, novelty and terrific writing and acting? The Mary Tyler Moore show was hilarious, but it was also cutting edge, showing a young, unmarried, working woman on her own. Bob Newharts shows, MASH, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Barney Miller, they were all great, inventive comedies with terrific writing. For their time. "For their time" seems to be a common refrain here. Were people just easily amused in yesteryear? As I said earlier, I'd rather watch The Office, Corner Gas, or My Name is Earl than the stuff you mention. I guess they're not "taking risks" like flushing the crapper and zipping up their pants after emerging from the can, but they're still inventive comedies with terrific writing, and a lot funnier... by 2006 standards. Ugly Betty is hilarious and socially relevant, though rather new on the block. Out of curiousity, what could a show do in 2006 that you'd consider "taking a risk"? Many of today's medical and legal shows have storylines that force viewers to think about social issues. The current Battlestar Galactica series has superb writing, a superb cast, and production values that are unequalled by pretty much anything TV has ever seen before. House is a great show and compares well to medical shows of the past. Courtroom shows aren't new or groundbreaking, but Shark and Justice are far better than Matlock and Perry Mason ever were. Fish-out-of-water stories aren't fresh or groundbreaking, but Ugly Betty isa charming and funny show. Even the shows that have been around for a while (the CSI franchise, the Law and Order franchise) still put good programs on the tube each week. In terms of the quality of the shows, I don't think you can look at any of the major networks and find scripted programming that flat out sucks, as you could have in the 1970s or 1980s. TV still takes risks. The series "Boomtown" of a couple of years ago was an extraordinary program. It was a cop-show, which is not "groundbreaking" or "innovative", but used a non-linear story-telling technique to recount events from a number of perspectives, to transform ordinary events (a kidnapping, a domestic disturbance, a string of robberies...) into an emotionally involving story. They unveiled the story a piece at a time by showing a new perspective (from one of the policemen, or the victim, or the criminal...) to add a new dimension to the story. By the time the whole story was revealed, they had created deeper understanding of the characters. It was truly outstanding, a wonderful program. Sadly, most viewers were just too dumb to "get" it. The show only lasted for a season. TV takes risks, but sadly most don't pan out. This season had some new shows that took risks in terms of style or subject matter, and some seem to have clicked (Heroes...) but more (Smith, Six Degrees, The Nine...) are either cancelled or heading that way.

Argus fires back: I had this argument with someone here on MLW once before, a couple of years ago, perhaps. People say "American TV is garbage," and point to the continued existence of reality shows to prove the point. But "reality shows" have been on TV for a very long time. People gripe about "American Idol" and so-on, but forget that "Star Search" or "The Gong Show" were doing the same thing decades earlier. Uh uh. I disagree. First, game shows were dreck, sure. They were meant to be dreck, to fill in the afternoon for housewives who were mostly busy doing the dishes, the laundry etc. They were meant to cost little but fill in the day. Reality shows, on the other hand, are prime time entertainment now. Further, game shows weren't designed to degrade and/or humiliate the contestants, to dig and claw into the belly of the worst of human emotions and behaviour and pull it out into the light for everyone's amusement and shock. But Star Search, WoF and Jeopardy were not prime time TV shows. They weren't even network shows. They were syndicated dreck. Really? Cause there doesn't appear to be a lot of quality drama out there these days either. That's kind of an elitist stance. Sitcoms can be great entertainment. What more do you want? I'm sure I can give you a list of great sitcoms from the seventies and eighties that will more than match anything on TV now in terms of quality, as well as entertainment. Yeah, I know what you mean, and I know why you're saying it. You're forgetting an essential element in your assessment. The culture then was different than it is now. I don't want to sound maudlin, but society was much more innocent and much less sophisticated. Things which caused hilarity in the seventies no doubt just make you frown and shake your head. Drama which was cutting edge then is trite and hackneyed now. I felt the same in the seventies when looking at what were the great shows of the early sixties and late fifties. Leave it to Beaver? Father Knows Best? My Three Sons? Blech. But they were products of their time. But hey, I thought Adam 12 was a great show! And mine wasn't the the only family that would sit down together to watch Mannix, Cannon, Barnaby Jones, Beauty and the Beast, Quincy, McCloud, Ironside, Mission Impossible, Kojak, The Streets of San Fransico, Baretta, Lou Grant and the Rockford Files. Mind you, after watching Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue, well, those old time cop shows don't seem that great any more. Times change. Cultures change. People change. We're not innocent enough now to find many of the storylines back then surprising, or to accept their cultural no-gos. And I'll give this to those earlier shows. They were trying to be unique. They came up with novel ideas, and took risks. They might seem backward now, but they were cutting edge then. What's cutting edge now? Could All in the Family even get on TV today? And if it did, YOU KNOW that Archie would be a slick, handsome man, and Edith would be played by Michele Pfeifer or some other gorgeous doll, while Mike and Gloria would be plastic and perfect. Dick Van Dyke was the first show to show a man and a woman in bed together. Archie Bunker wasn't allowed to show a toilet, so the flush of a toilet off screen became a signature sound. Maude actually talked about abortion, while MASH was the ultimate show for questioning authority. All that now seems hackneyed. TV rarely takes chances any more. Everything is just a rehash of something which played last year, or ten years ago. And which of today's shows compares well with All in the family for daring, risk-taking, novelty and terrific writing and acting? The Mary Tyler Moore show was hilarious, but it was also cutting edge, showing a young, unmarried, working woman on her own. Bob Newharts shows, MASH, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Barney Miller, they were all great, inventive comedies with terrific writing. For their time. So what compares to them today? What's cutting edge? What has outstanding writing every week? What critiques society and pushes the envelope? Drama? What drama today can match The Waltons or Little House on the Prairie for outstanding writing and acting week after week? Mind you, entertaining dramas really came into their own in the eighties, with Hill Street Blues, China Beach, Magnum PI, Moonlighting, Miami Vice, St Elsewhere, Remington Steele, Cagney and Lacey, etc. But even they are products of their age and culture. Two decades later, much of them seem backward and unsophisticated. Still, they were great for their time. What's great for this time? Which shows are routinely outstanding in terms of writing, acting and entertainment value, regularly tug at the heart strings, make the pulse beat faster, enlighten and inform, cause people to laugh out loud, push the envelope? Because believe it or not, the good shows in the sixties, seventies and eighties did that. I don't see any shows doing that today. They've reinvented the serial - which I never liked, mind you. They've got a few soaps and a few kids shows. But really, where's the beef?

Kimmy rises to the defence of current-day TV: I had this argument with someone here on MLW once before, a couple of years ago, perhaps. People say "American TV is garbage," and point to the continued existence of reality shows to prove the point. But "reality shows" have been on TV for a very long time. People gripe about "American Idol" and so-on, but forget that "Star Search" or "The Gong Show" were doing the same thing decades earlier. "Reality TV" is generally used to refer to non-actors in unscripted situations competing for prizes... isn't that the definition of "game show"? Those have been around since the 1950s, if not earlier, were they not? I find it odd when people from the era when Star Search and Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy were on in prime time now point at American Idol and Survivor as proof of how TV has gone to hell since the good old days. And, it's largely beside the point, anyway. The popularity and prevalence of "reality shows" has declined sharply in the past couple of years. And, to further rebutt critics who point to reality TV as evidence that the quality of TV has declined, I point out that the rise of reality TV shows came at the expense of "sit-coms", not of quality drama. The sit-com is the lowest of low-brow programming, and it has become virtually extinct. I can listen to people who claim that movies used to be better, or that music used to be better... I don't generally agree, but I'll at least consider the idea. But when people tell me that TV used to be better, I generally knock over their table and pour my drink on their carpet. I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous. I might be younger than most of you, but I am not such an infant that I don't know what kind of garbage you guys used to watch on TV. I am old enough to remember some of the 1980s for myself, and I've seen even more of this crap on channels that re-run older programs. And frankly, this stuff sucked. It was crap. Aside from a small number of exceptions like The Hill Street Blues or Archie Bunker, very little programming from older eras compares well to today's shows. I mean, the evidence is out there. Anybody who chooses to do so can torture themselves by watching a few hours of the television of "the good old days" and find out first hand what dog-shit you guys used to watch. Very little of it deserves to be remembered, and very little stands up well against today's shows.

Argus throws down the gauntlet: Why not? I mean, that might once have been true, but most American tv programming now is crap. Reality TV is especially cheap to make, as you don't have to pay actors. Throw a bunch of people into the woods and watch them for a while. How expensive do you think that is? What do the actors in "Corner Gas" make? I'm betting a fraction of what a lousy American sitcom pays. What does it cost per episode? Again, a fraction. How much does the show make in advertising? A fraction. But the show has never had less than a million viewers. I bet it's making money.

In another thread, Argus and I got into a discussion about TV programming. The discussion started along the lines of "the new shows suck!" "no, the old shows sucked!" but I think that some interesting points were made in the discussion. The discussion didn't really belong in that thread, but I thought that there were some ideas raised that deserved to be read and discussed. So I will repost some of those messages into this thread. Why in "Moral & Religious Issues"? Well, I guess primarily because there's no "Culture" sub-forum, and this is the next closest thing. But I believe that art reflects the society that produces it. Television is (despite what detractors say) an art form. It's the first art form native to North America, and arguably the second or third art form to develop since the industrial revolution. As modern and North American, it's the art for that is the most "ours". It is also the art for that is most dependent on popularity. A painting or sculpture only needs one person to buy it. Live theatre survives with comparatively modest audiences. Likewise live music: even large concerts attract audiences in the thousands, while television requires audiences in the millions. A CD only has to sell a million copies to be considered a huge hit, while that number would get a TV show cancelled after a single episode. Consider NBC's Monday night dramas, "Heroes" and "Studio 60". Heroes has been a surprise hit for NBC, attracting over 14,000,000 viewers each episode. Ratings for the show that follows, Studio 60, have been bitterly disappointing: Studio 60 draws around 7,000,000 viewers per episode... a very low number, particularly for a show that is a favorite of critics. Now, this is interesting: 7 million viewers a night might sound like a piddly number, but consider how it compares to movies. Movie studios don't give viewership numbers, they give box office receipts. And at the present US box office price of $9.50 a ticket, the number of people viewing Studio 60 each week equates to a $66.5 million US box office gross. Many movies don't attract $66.5 million in US box office during their lifetime, and most that do are considered a modest success. Yet in TV, the same size of audience means the show is in danger of cancellation. Over its 6 episode life, at 7 million viewers per episode, that makes 42 million total views. If a movie were viewed 42 million times at $9.50 per view, it would rank as the most successful movie in almost any year. (Heroes, with close to 90,000,000 views over its 6 episode lifetime, would easily have outperformed the all-time box-office champion.) What I'm trying to illustrate is that TV is far more dependant on attracting a *large* audience than any other art-form... a number of sales that would make a movie a success or a CD a smash hit isn't enough to keep a TV show on the air each week. Other art-forms can survive with niche support, but TV requires a mass mainstream audience. A TV show has to appeal in some way to an enormous number of people just to be financially viable from one week to the next. If a TV show doesn't meet some desire or need for some viable portion of the viewing public, it just ceases to exist. As such, I feel that studying what succeeds and what fails is, to some degree, a study of what our society wants, or a study of ourselves. So, while the topic might not explicitly fall under the heading of moral or religious issues, I do feel that it is an examination of the tastes and feelings and desires of the public at large... a lot like morals and religion. So, without further ado... -k

Geez. Does anybody actually believe MacKay was trying to equate the invasion to Lebanon to Christmas shopping? I think it's pretty obvious that MacKay was trying to illustrate the difficulty of moving a large number of people in a rush circumstance using a familiar example. I imagine that if MacKay had used a chicken farm at feeding time to illustrate the chaos, the headline would probably read MacKay calls Lebanese Canadians "Chickens" Stupid headline. -k

g_bambino thinks he's the cock of the walk. Well I tell you, Black Dog, g_bambino is the cock of nothing! sorry. Simpsons fans might chuckle, everybody else is scratching their heads. Never mind. Is the phrase "bold-faced" or "bald-faced"? I've heard both used and I'm never sure which is correct and which is a malapropism. While "bitch" is theoretically a sexist insult, it's really kind of lost its punch through over-use and, in particular, through being applied to women who embody qualities that other women actually admire and aspire to.Spector probably *meant* it as a sexist insult. That says more about Spector than about Stronach. It shows that Spector is a jerk, but mostly it shows that he's just out of touch. A bitch is assertive, in charge of her life, stands up for herself, takes no crap, and doesn't get pushed around or bullied. In other words, a bitch is a formidable and probably successful woman. A bitch is probably a smart and independant woman who has the strength and resources to not be dependant on a man and not be led around by him. "Bitch" actually sounds like a compliment. The fact that you can go out and buy any number of tee-shirts, jewelry, bumper-stickers, belt-buckles, car-accessories, and the fact that many women buy this stuff and proudly wear it and put it on their cars, is evidence of how the word "bitch" has changed. If a man calls a woman a bitch, he's probably telling her that he feels intimidated by her, or unable to cope with her independence. Impotent, basically. Men can also be called bitch, of course, where it has a rather opposite connotation. Calling a man a "bitch" is to cast doubt on his manliness. It suggests that he is physically weak or cowardly. Or it can be a challenge-- a boast that you could best them at some activity, or a boast that you have just done so. Watch the greatest golf movie ever, Happy Gilmore, and observe the confrontation between Adam Sandler and Bob Barker to see this usage of the word illustrated. It's been pointed out that Peter MacKay broke his promise to David Orchard on an issue of considerable import. People at the time said that MacKay was damaged goods and the loss of credibility would ruin his political career. How many elections has MacKay won since then? Two? Three? I think those of you trying to represent this latest incident as a blow to MacKay's credibility are reaching. People recognize this for what it is: a childish dispute that's been blown out of proportion for partisan purposes. The "dog" remark is fairly tame compared to some of the insults that are flung in the House. The Liberals hoped to score political points by playing up the sexist aspect of it (much like the "knitting" thing last election, if I recall.) If it's officially ruled that MacKay lied in Parliament... so what? If there's one thing we learned from Hedy Fry, it's that you can get caught in a brazen lie to Parliament without facing any formal consequences. As for informal consequences... Fry won at least a couple of elections following being caught lying to Parliament. Rahim Jaffer has won several consecutive elections since the radio phone-in show fiasco. Peter MacKay has won several consecutive elections since breaking his promise to David Orchard. In short, people have bigger stuff on their minds when they go to the voting booth. -k

For those of you having a strange feeling of deja-vu, you're right. We've done this before. I went looking for our last chat on this topic. Here it is: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....=2291&st=30 You're making assumptions. I never thumbed my nose at "everything" currently on TV. Some of it seems good, though flawed. And as I rarely watch TV any more I can't say that I've personally watched everything - especially the last couple of seasons. That's hard to reconcile with these comments: --"Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative." --"...if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting." --"What's great for this time? Which shows are routinely outstanding in terms of writing, acting and entertainment value, regularly tug at the heart strings, make the pulse beat faster, enlighten and inform, cause people to laugh out loud, push the envelope? Because believe it or not, the good shows in the sixties, seventies and eighties did that. I don't see any shows doing that today." And yet, when it comes to discussing what's actually being created today, your complaints aren't actually about quality at all, but rather your personal preference. --"Corner Gas and Earl are too bumpkinish for me." --"The Office seems to have too much meanness." --"The idea of a naive, plain woman constantly being insulted by snotty, stupid people just didn't strike me as something I wanted to sit through." --"They've reinvented the serial - which I never liked, mind you. " --"Mind you, I'm harder to entertain than I was." I'd disagree. The only thing better now are special affects. Writing is almost universally pathetic and unimaginative. The sitcom died not because it was lowbrow, but because comedy is the ultimate test of a writer, and Hollywood doesn't enough good ones. As for production values - it's called colour - and yes, it has improved. Film quality has improved, and if the sets are fancier it's only to draw your attention away from the lousy writing, the terrible dialogue, the implausible plotlines, and the bad acting. Funny, but having had the "pleasure" of watching some of your golden greats of yesteryear on DejaView when I was snowed in at my uncle's last year, I have the exact opposite opinion of which shows had lousy writing, terrible dialogue, implausible plotlines, and bad acting. I have a hunch that a combination of sentimentality and selective memory have distorted your view of how "good" the good old days really were. Like the baby-boomer who recalls the 1960s as the golden age of music because he remembers the Beatles but has thankfully forgotten the Archies, you remember the good shows, have forgotten the bad shows, and are happier that way. It's actually quite cruel of me to point out how many of the shows of yesteryear were complete garbage. The advent of colour and better quality film was probably a curse for the shows of the 1960s and 1970s, because there was no more hiding how fake and crappy their sets and props and special effects looked. Watch out, sherriff! One more step backwards and you're going to fall right through that backdrop painting! Careful, Captain Kirk! Don't trip over that foam boulder! Terrible acting? I keep having to remind you that I've seen many of your golden oldies and I know first hand that the actors back then weren't better than the ones on TV right now, and in many cases were a whole lot worse. Ditto the production work. TV was a fairly new art-form back then. The technology has advanced a lot, but so have the techniques. It's not just a matter of fancier special effects, it's things like using the camera more effectively. Older shows didn't (or couldn't) move the camera effectively, resulting in static looking scenes and often clunky-looking scenarios like characters pointing at stuff that the director wanted the viewer to take note of. Newer techniques move the picture to follow the action and emphasize details. And, viewers are more savvy as well-- you can do non-linear story-telling, or frames of reference, or flashbacks, and other literary techniques on TV now, that would have confused the hell out of viewers in years gone by. Kind of. It was a less jaded, less sophisticated time. You also have to remember that television had a wider reach. It didn't necessarily play to segment groups as TV does so much now. Most television was broadly aimed at everyone. When Hawaii Five Oh came on the whole family would watch it, including grandparents and teenagers, believe it or not. Same for All in the Family and the rest. Now everything seems aimed at people in their twenties - which is good for you, I suppose, but not so good for me. Well, perhaps that's part of the difference in our perspectives. You grew up at a time when a successful show had to be able to appeal to Dumb Li'l Jimmy, and Senile Aunt Edna, and everybody in between. I can't even imagine such a thing. As a family we often watch Saturday night hockey together, and sometimes Sunday afternoon NFL. But not much else. We used to watch "Northern Exposure" as a family when I was young. I am reminded of the adage "Design a system so simple that even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will want to use it." My feeling is that if you wrote a show so simple that even Aunt Edna and Dumb Li'l Jimmy can follow it... At any rate, I do agree with you on the point that there's very little family programming on TV right now. If I was a parent, I would not watch most of the shows on TV with my children. Or with Aunt Edna, for that matter. I would watch The Amazing Race with my kids, and Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune with Aunt Edna... but beyond that I'm somewhat at a loss. I think somewhat that the whole concept has changed, though. I don't even know if families watch TV together anymore. Maybe there's no family programs left because there aren't many families that watch TV together anymore. Hmm, I wouldn't doubt it. I've see a few episodes. I've been a big SF fan all my life, you see. But I almost never watch BG because it's so dark in every way. It has implausible, if not ridiculous plots, and seems determined to not only be as dark as possible in its storylines but in its lighting. Can't anyone turn a light on in those ships!? I'm surprised they don't bump into each other more. You know what? The original Star Trek might have had lousy production values but it was entertaining as hell. I'm not entertained by BG, I'm depressed by it. It's not something to enjoy, it's something to endure. ...you like bright, cheery shows where there's no problem so big that it can't be solved in a one-hour episode. Because he's an arrogant jerk? There were jerks on St. Elsewhere too. Because he's an arrogant jerk whose physical and mental frailty adds complexity to the show, and because the plots involve surprising twists and turns and often interesting or frustrating ethical dilemnas. Well, earlier you were talking about Archie Bunker flushing the toilet as if it was the greatest TV moment since the moon landing and asking why TV no longer shatters barriers like that. I got the impression that this pushing envelopes and breaking barriers was a big thing for you. I'm still curious as to what you think could "push the envelope" in 2006 in they way Archie Bunker and MTM did in the 1970s. The West Wing? I'm a little surprised. I didn't think that'd be your kind of thing. Personally, I only saw it a few times and couldn't stand it on the times I did watch it. I became physically nauseous at the end of an episode, watching our heroic cast walk in slow-motion to the strains of a '60s protest anthem, and decided I'd jab my eyes out with a pencil before I ever watched that again. Politicians who care too much? Please. That's about as realistic as Bea Arthur being impregnated. The West Wing gang transfered their efforts to the new "Studio 60" program, which appears to be on death row due to low ratings. It was highly acclaimed, yet as with many other critical favorites, that didn't translate into an audience. -k

Barney Miller? While I completely agree that people don't always want their TV to reflect real life, it's quite a generalization to say that people want bright shiny escapism. On sit-coms, for example, there seems to be a rule of thumb that most male characters ought to be out-of-shape, dumb, employed at laughable jobs, or losers in some other sense. Perhaps they just wish to mimic Homer Simpson, or perhaps the theory is that people have an easier time laughing at somebody who sucks worse than themselves. Earlier on you complained about perfect, plastic people on TV, but many of the most popular TV characters both now and in days gone by have been anything but. On NYPD Blue, Dennis Franz portrayed a overweight, twice divorced, unhappy, alcoholic-- well, a typical British detective. Sam Waterston, on Law and Order, is an aging guy with bushy eyebrows, weird twitchy mannerisms, an apoplectic temper, occasionally slurred speech, and a tendancy to spit when he talks. House MD is a loathesome man, and a physical and emotional cripple. As Gil Grissom on CSI, William Peterson plays an overweight, introverted geek who can't relate to people outside the context of work. I mention recent characters, but I'm sure you can go back as far as you like and find plenty of popular characters who are at least as flawed as the audiences that watched them. When it comes to characters, people want to see ...characters. You mentioned watching LA Law once upon a time. I don't have much experience with that, but I've watched some of David E Kelley's more recent work. I used to watch "The Practice" regularly, but I got sick of it. Once you discovered Kelley's secret formula, you could figure out how every episode would end. The formula: each episode will have the most unjust outcome possible. The more despicable the defendant, the more certain our stalwart heroes, defense attourneys Bobby Donnell and co, would be to get him acquitted. The more tragic the victim or the victims family, the more torment they'd suffer in the courtroom. The more unjust the situation, the more impotent the justice system was in dealing with it. The district attourneys were never able to convict anybody, except for Donnell's most sympathetic clients. If Donnell was defending a loving, cookie-baking grandma, she'd be the one defendant that Donnell and co couldn't keep out of jail. So why did people watch this, anyway? You'd think people would quickly get tired of seeing injustice dished out every week, but the show ran for years and years. What kept people tuning in? My theory is that it provided a catharsis. People sick of seeing outrageous crimes and outrageous verdicts on the news could tune in each week, watch fictional injustice, and vent their frustration in the comfort of their living rooms. Another of Kelley's shows, Boston Public, set at a highschool, worked on the same premise, I think. If your kids were attending a public school like the one on the show, your kids were probably being beaten up and bullied, being sold drugs, having sex with their teachers, getting raped in washrooms, prostituted by gangs, ...and the teachers and schoolboard couldn't do anything to stop any of it. Why would anybody want to watch something so bleak? Beats me. So they could vent, I guess. Maybe it's for the same reason that I sometimes read NDP policy documents or Rabble.ca editorials... sometimes it just feels good to have something to be mad at. At any rate, Kelley's experiments in tormenting the audience showed that there was an audience that wasn't looking for bright shiny escapism, but the exact opposite: a reality that's even worse than the one they live in. (of course, David E Kelley also produced lighter-hearted fare, like Ally McBeal, a show whose central thesis was that women are mentally impaired and therefore deserve special treatment.) On the other hand, the theory of beautiful people, beautiful cars, and so on does seem to hold some water. Most of the women on most shows, whether they're police officers, lawyers, housewives, or whatever else, look as though they've just stepped out of a soap opera. In another thread a few days back I was asked why 3/4 of the murder victims I've seen on TV this year are gorgeous blondes. There are three "Crime Scene Investigation" shows on TV right now, the original Las Vegas show, and spinoffs set in Miami and New York. All 3 are major hits, but the New York spinoff lags the other two by several million viewers each week. Why? It's the newest of the 3, but in its 3rd season that shouldn't be a factor. It's the same format and similar stories. It also has Gary Sinise, who is arguably the best lead actor among the three series. Could the "bright and shiny" aspect be the difference? All three of the shows have distinctive colour-palettes and visual styles. The Las Vegas show combines desert sand and sun with Vegas glitz and neon. The Miami show has bright sun, sandy beaches, palm trees and lush plant life, and David Caruso's freakish red hair. The New York show has... grey. And brown. Grey skies, grey and brown buildings, grey streets and alleys. Could it be that several million fewer people tune in for CSI:New York than for CSI and CSI:Miami because the Vegas and Miami look so visually appealing and exotic, while New York looks so drab and depressing on the show? It might be part of it, I would think. -k

Yes. The belief that there's no god is as much taken on faith as the belief that there is one. No. Agnosticism-- the recognition that we don't know if there's a god, and that there's no way to know which of the religions, if any, hold the truth-- is the middle ground.The agnostic looks at the Christian, and the Jew, and the Muslim, and the Buddhist, and the atheist, all equally, and says "I don't know if any of you are right." Yes. How can our society function if there isn't one? No. -k

HA! Reliant! "K" Car! "K" is for Kimmy! Woo! bahaha I bought and paid for it with my very own money! Sadly, it was exactly the kind of car you'd expect a 16 year old to afford on a McWage. I sold it a few years ago, but sometimes I still miss it. I did have some good times with the old beater. -k

That's kind of an elitist stance. Sitcoms can be great entertainment. What more do you want? I'm sure I can give you a list of great sitcoms from the seventies and eighties that will more than match anything on TV now in terms of quality, as well as entertainment. A guy who thumbs his nose at everything currently on TV is accusing me of elitism? Odd... For the sake of argument, bring on the list. I've seen many of these shows and while "quality" and "entertainment" are pretty subjective, most of the sit-coms I've seen from the 1970s and 1980s was about as entertaining as my root-canal and as high-quality as my late Reliant. I'd much rather watch "Corner Gas" or "The Office" or "My Name is Earl". Well, that's true. I'd also suggest that the older shows had dismal production values, and by and large pretty mediocre actors and simplistic scripts. The fact that toilets flushing or a couple sharing a bed was shocking at the time is indeed a fascinating commentary on the times you grew up in, but doesn't do much to convince me that these astonishing innovations are evidence of quality. If being groundbreaking in 2006 was as easy as flushing a toilet, everybody would be breaking ground left and right. Archie Bunker would be played by a slick handsome man? Of course! Because all leading men on sit-coms are slick handsome men. Chiselled, rugged studs like Jim Belushi and Brent Butt, lady-killers like Jason Scott Lee and Michael Rappaport. Oh yes. Be still my heart. These shows talked about social issues? Ok. TV shows do in 2006, too, but I guess that's not risky or groundbreaking anymore. On the one hand you're asking me to admire the old shows because they were flushing toilets or sharing beds in an era when toilets were scary and married people slept in separate beds. On the other hand you're blasting today's shows for not pushing the envelope, in an era when there's no envelope left to push. And which of today's shows compares well with All in the family for daring, risk-taking, novelty and terrific writing and acting? The Mary Tyler Moore show was hilarious, but it was also cutting edge, showing a young, unmarried, working woman on her own. Bob Newharts shows, MASH, Laverne & Shirley, The Odd Couple, and Barney Miller, they were all great, inventive comedies with terrific writing. For their time. "For their time" seems to be a common refrain here. Were people just easily amused in yesteryear? As I said earlier, I'd rather watch The Office, Corner Gas, or My Name is Earl than the stuff you mention. I guess they're not "taking risks" like flushing the crapper and zipping up their pants after emerging from the can, but they're still inventive comedies with terrific writing, and a lot funnier... by 2006 standards. Ugly Betty is hilarious and socially relevant, though rather new on the block. Out of curiousity, what could a show do in 2006 that you'd consider "taking a risk"? Many of today's medical and legal shows have storylines that force viewers to think about social issues. The current Battlestar Galactica series has superb writing, a superb cast, and production values that are unequalled by pretty much anything TV has ever seen before. House is a great show and compares well to medical shows of the past. Courtroom shows aren't new or groundbreaking, but Shark and Justice are far better than Matlock and Perry Mason ever were. Fish-out-of-water stories aren't fresh or groundbreaking, but Ugly Betty isa charming and funny show. Even the shows that have been around for a while (the CSI franchise, the Law and Order franchise) still put good programs on the tube each week. In terms of the quality of the shows, I don't think you can look at any of the major networks and find scripted programming that flat out sucks, as you could have in the 1970s or 1980s. TV still takes risks. The series "Boomtown" of a couple of years ago was an extraordinary program. It was a cop-show, which is not "groundbreaking" or "innovative", but used a non-linear story-telling technique to recount events from a number of perspectives, to transform ordinary events (a kidnapping, a domestic disturbance, a string of robberies...) into an emotionally involving story. They unveiled the story a piece at a time by showing a new perspective (from one of the policemen, or the victim, or the criminal...) to add a new dimension to the story. By the time the whole story was revealed, they had created deeper understanding of the characters. It was truly outstanding, a wonderful program. Sadly, most viewers were just too dumb to "get" it. The show only lasted for a season. TV takes risks, but sadly most don't pan out. This season had some new shows that took risks in terms of style or subject matter, and some seem to have clicked (Heroes...) but more (Smith, Six Degrees, The Nine...) are either cancelled or heading that way. -k

Except, I hear, Saskatchewan, where they're the envy of the gardener of a golf green. The time I drove on the Trans-Canada outside of Regina took a year off the life of my poor Reliant, and that thing's life expectancy was tragically short to start with. -k