First Impulse: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees announced

Hat tip to my BOTNS co-conspirator Mike for telling me about this earlier: Today the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced this year's list of nominees. I think a Hall of Fame should feature people who you can judge pretty quickly: a HOF'er or not.  With that said, here's the list and my initial take. Remember that you can vote here. Oh, but you're limited to casting one ballot a day. So you KNOW it's legit!


Bad Brains: No.
Chaka Khan: No.
Chic: I guess if they keep getting nominated, they are bound to get in eventually, but no.
Depressed Mode: Wait, that's Depeche Mode. Sorry. Anyway, no.
ELO: I like a lot of the music, but no.
The J. Geils Band: No offense to Mr. Geils, but I was stunned to see this act on the list.
Jane's Addiction: The Lollapalooza Hall of Fame, maybe, but otherwise, I don't think two albums and a bunch of reunion tours make you worthy.
Janet Jackson: No, but she is about the only commercial heavyweight (not a reference to her body issues) on this list.
Joan Baez: I had the idea that someone should ask Bob Dylan whether he thinks Joan Baez should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and see what happens.
Joe Tex: No.
Journey: The only question: Why is this band not in there already? AM I RIGHT?
Kraftwerk: No.
MC5: No, but they will get in eventually.
Pearl Jam: My favorite music act of the last 25 years, but they don't really feel like a first ballot Hall of Famer. Tremendous peak, but how much impact after the first few albums? My heart says yes, but my mind says...yes, leaning yes on the longevity and enduring success as a live headliner. After Green Day getting in, though, you have to think PJ is an absolute lock.
Steppenwolf: No Mountain or Iron Butterfly?
The Cars: I like how they come this far down on the list because they are listed with THE at the beginning. If they get in, do we get a New Cars performance with Todd Rundgren? I love The Cars, but I don't think they are necessarily HOF. I lean no.
The Zombies: Short career. Much love for the act, but no.
Tupac Shakur: No, but he will probably get in this year.
Yes: No. (Can't resist)

Here's who I think WILL get in: Janet, Tupac, Pearl Jam for marketing/political reasons. Beyond that, they need a few actual older acts, but I don't know who they will choose.

First Impulse: CW's The Flash

Welcome to a series of posts in which I share my snap judgments after seeing trailers and clips hyping the upcoming slate of Fall network TV premieres. First up, we get a 5-mintue extended first look at "Arrow" spinoff "The Flash," coming to us from The CW (Motto: We are, too, a real network!)

I'm a Flash guy from way back. When I was growing up and devouring comics, he was my favorite character--well, right behind Superman. And Batman. And of course Spider-Man. Well, he was right up there, dadgum it! I enjoyed the underrated 1990s live action series on CBS. And while I haven't yet seen "Arrow," I've kind of been meaning to. Yes, folks, don't try to do the math on this yourselves: What this adds up to is, I'm looking forward to this new series.

This clip starts off in horrible fashion, though, and I'm not even counting the ad I have to sit through on Hulu before it starts--an ad before an ad! First we see the hero as a youngster witnessing his mother's murder in mysterious circumstances. That's not so bad in and of itself, but it instills some dread in me because I fear that the show will be saddled by some kind of ponderous mythology with Barry Allen trying to solve this mystery until the ratings start to sag. I don't even care about how faithful/unfaithful it is to the comic source material; I just don't want the show to go that route. We even get Jesse L. Martin telling an older Barry he can't keep chasing legends. This might make a great arc and something to come back to now and then, but please don't make it the driving force of the series.

That aspect is less evident as the trailer continues and Allen becomes Flash, so maybe it's just part of the build to his becoming a superhero. Let's back up to the one outright groaner in this thing: After young Barry gets beaten up by a group of bullies and bemoans that he "just wasn't fast enough," Flash-to-be's mother leans over and telling him, "It's better to have a good heart than fast legs."

Oh, brother! Talk about obvious. Viewers of course need to know that every hero's destiny is not only preordained, but foreshadowed by a sage piece of parental wisdom. Who can forget that classic moment when Mrs. Banner told Bruce, "It's better to have a good mind than invulnerable green skin and unimaginable super strength"? Or the time when Garrett Morris' mom said to her son, "It's better to have good comic timing than the proportionate strength of an ant?" The preview moves along quickly enough I can almost forget that clunker, but part of me still worries that line is indicative of the level of scripting on this show.

The good news is that soon enough TV's Ed, Tom Cavanaugh, shows up as a scientific genius of some sort, and Barry gets his powers and becomes really fast. The super speed effects look credible and actually kind of cool, even. Flash uses his speed to do a really cool speedy thing. Martin helps bring some gravitas to a series that will likely need it with such a young cast, none of whom really stand out in the trailer.

Best of all, it looks like we won't have to sit through an interminable artificial delay while the powers that be keep the superhero out of costume. Evidently, our guy dons his duds in the first episode and goes up against a genuine super villain. So this is a superhero show that isn't afraid to be a superhero show.

The first minute of this clip is not promising at all, but once things pick up, it looks promising enough. I can't say I'm super pumped up for it, but I am guardedly optimistic and will give "The Flash" a chance this Fall. I still might need some prodding to get on board "Arrow," (Green Arrow does make an appearance), but maybe this will be the push I need.

First Impulse: Ben Affleck IS Batman

I avoided all the Affleck as Batman backlash so far because I really don't think I have much to gain from reading it. I mean, the outrage from the fanboys is predictable. Me, I'm surprised that Affleck would risk the credibility he has built up as a filmmaker in recent years and risk making a bigger punchline than "Gigli." I gue$$ it'$ all about the Ben(jamins) in this ca$e.

He had to know what the reaction was going to be. More importantly, Warner Brothers had to know what the reaction was going to be. This is why I say maybe this is a good thing. I wouldn't have cast Affleck if only for the fact that he had his shot with Daredevil and failed big-time. But this movie is probably going to be terrible, anyway--I didn't bother to see "Man of Steel" and have yet to see any evidence that indicates I'll like it--so I don't care who they cast as the Caped Crusader.

However, I realize to many people, this is a big deal. Those are the folks I demeaned with the dreaded "fanboys" level up there. Maybe the general public shouldn't be so upset. This move is a clear sign that Warner Brothers doesn't give a damn what serious comic book and/or Batman fans think. It's obvious that the studio is going to plow through and make a movie it thinks it can make "cool" to everyone else. Perhaps this is the right way to go. Instead of paying slavish attention to continuity and arcane comic book concepts, the filmmakers can go ahead and do whatever they want, ignoring the whims of the Comic Con crowd that's gonna crap on the result no matter what.

So to me, this is no big deal.

Now, those Justin Timberlake as The Riddler rumors? Yeah, THAT idea bugs the hell out of me.

On the Road: I sample Me-TV

While on the road last weekend, I sampled the local Me-TV station. I had some strong opinions even before ever watching any Me. I love the concept--classic TV around the clock--but I wish the selection were more varied, and I dislike the editing of episodes that is reportedly becoming more widespread throughout the schedule.

Me-TV draws heavily from the CBS-Paramount and the MTM libraries with some other miscellaneous shows sprinkled in. This gives it a star-heavy, iconic lineup of classic favorites. Unfortunately, many of these evergreens are readily available on DVD and/or longtime fixtures of both cable and broadcast syndication. So the good news is, you get a lot of beloved oldies, but the bad news is if you're old enough, you've seen most of them many times over...or at least had the opportunity.

Yet while I would love to see a lineup more loaded with obscurities, I recognize there is a loyal audience for stuff like "I Love Lucy," not everyone has cable, not everyone buys DVDs, et cetera. But, jeez, do we need any outlet to run MASH multiple times a week nowadays? That said, I own all the "Honeymooners" episodes on DVD and don't need to watch possible cut versions with commercials, but it's nice to know it's on there.

I think the best thing about Me-TV is it provides the kind of comfortable presence TV Land used to give its viewers. You can turn it on anytime without risk of encountering George Segal making sex jokes in some horrible modern-day sitcom. I was hanging out with family quite a bit over the holiday weekend, and it was nice to have a channel we could just leave on as background or put it to if we wanted to wind down in between activities or whatever.

Another aspect of Me-TV that reminds me of the old TV Land is its extensive use of in-house promos, many of them with a light touch. I didn't see anything as funny as the old "Cannon" or "Mannix" spots TV Land used to run, but maybe they'll come later. Me-TV does do a good job of putting itself over as a brand and establishing a sense of virtual community with viewers who are looking for a place to watch the old-school shows they love. Me-TV acts like it cars. Whether it really does or not is up in the air; after all, the hacking of programs is a real concern, and if/when the network takes on more ad dollars, we'll likely see a lot less of those promos.

I didn't see a lot of the channel, but I enjoyed an episode of "The Odd Couple" and a little bit of "My Three Sons" and "Family Affair." I didn't even see any of "Honeymooners" or "Bilko," two of my all-time favorites which lurk on the network schedule, but I still found enough to enjoy. These older shows have a place on TV, and it's good to see they're still around. They're not around in my area, but they're around somewhere.

I like that Me-TV organizes the occasional theme or tribute marathon, and I like that there is an assortment of both sitcoms and dramas. Two similar services don't offer this type of lineup right now. When Antenna isn't running movies, it has a heavy focus on sitcoms, and since its recent revamp, RTV is even more drama-oriented than before. I like a classic TV channel to give me some variety, and while game shows, variety shows, and talk shows would be nice, at least Me provides both sitcoms and dramas.

Do I wish Me-TV would dig deeper into the Paramount vaults for shows like "Our Miss Brooks," "The Defenders," or "Ben Casey?" Well, yes and no. Yes because it would be great to see those shows, even in edited form, no because...I don't get this channel. I'd rather see Netflix dig into those vaults and start streaming stuff that isn't on DVD already. But don't get me wrong, Me-TV is pretty good for what it is, and if I had it at Cultureshark Towers, I'd probably park myself in front of the tube and watch it way more often than I should. I just hope it doesn't just coast on its "We're not TV Land" advantage and slowly become...well, TV Land, the home of butchered, overplayed classics, incomprehensible scheduling, and off-putting new programs to offend the tastes and sensibilities of the whole family.

First Impulse: What the networks are doing this fall: CBS

CBS is kind of like the network of shows I might watch if I had more time, shows like "The Good Wife" and "Blue Blood" and--well, that's it, I think, but that's something. As for the rest of it, I made an informal arrangement a while back. CBS doesn't bother me, and I don't bother it. So while I remain puzzled that shows like "NCIS" can be so heavily watched when I myself don't know anyone who watches them, eh, live and let live, right?

The only CBS show I watched weekly, or at all, really, this year was "How I Met Your Mother," whose creators promised a big bounceback year and then delivered an uneven season filled with disappointments and some weak storylines. I'll watch in the flal, too, though, especially since it's a "me and the wife" program.

The returning stuff looks like what it always looks like. The new stuff kind of looks like what the returning stuff always looks like, too. I don't see any remakes on the horizon. What, no "Streets of San Francisco" reboot? I'll check out "2 Broke Girls" because it's on after "HIMYM" and because it stars Kat Dennings, but nothing else looks exciting.

I am intrigued by CBS' bold decision to put new scripted programming on Saturday nights. Unfortunately, it's only one half-hour show, and it's "Rules of Engagement." Besides inspiring speculation about whether new shows can work on Saturdays, it will quash the annual moment a month or two into the TV season when we all slap our heads and go, "Midseason shows, hmm...Wait, 'Rules of Engagement' is coming back?"

I wish something WOULD work on Saturdays. In this age of DVRs, social lives or not, there is no excuse for the networks to bail on an entire day of the week when scheduling. Well, except for the fact that they can barely program the other 6 with quality.

There's one show conspicuous by its absence in this post, and it undoubtedly will be the most discussed series on the network when it comes back in the fall. But I was never into it, anyway, and I don't feel like digging into its whole saga now, so...

First Impulse: What the networks are doing this fall: ABC

ABC. Ah, what to say about ABC?

No, seriously, what should I say about ABC? I don't have a heck of a strong reaction to any aspect of the new fall schedule. This past year, I watched "Modern Family" and "Desperate Housewives." I thought the former was a lot better than I saw it getting credit for in some circles this year, and the latter is just a show my wife and I watch together out of habit.

Otherwise, there are some solid shows on ABC I wouldn't mind sitting through. "Mr. Sunshine" showed potential but was canned; "Happy Endings" showed potential and was renewed. The procedurals like "Castle" and "Body of Proof" don't grab me, but I don't have anything against them.

Really the only significant way in which ABC scheduling impacts me is in the shows Mrs. Shark watches. "Dancing with the Stars" usually is on when I'm doing special assignments or secret missions or whatever it is I do when I'm not dashing off blog posts, but every now and then I do have to see a little of it because the wife does check it out now and then.

No, the big thing is Thursday night because after "Community," usually delayed somewhat for me after taking care of the kids and whatnot (our whatnot is doing quite well, thank you), I make way to the office, to another room, or at least to an easy chair where I can bury my nose in a book, because the Shonda Rhimes Night of Chick Drama is gonna be on my TV set, and I ain't gonna be a participant in even passive viewing of "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice."

And the hype has already begun for "Charlie's Angels" at 8:00 P.M. on Thursdays, and I have to say this seems a little forced. I was never a big fan of the original, never a fan of the movies, and now I'm supposed to like this why? Because Minka Kelly is in it? Well, OK, but why else?

So really, ABC's new fall schedule means little to me. "Grey's" and "Practice" are still on Thursdays at 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. The routine continues. I'm fine with it, she's fine with it, and we'll meet back up for "Desperate Houswives."

First Impulse: What the networks are doing this fall: NBC

I used to be an NBC partisan. It sounds silly now to be a partisan for any broadcast network--I can understand the passion of the multitudes of rabid Soundtrack Channel (god love them, I just noticed their official website is a Wordpress blog) fans that are out there--but I just felt NBC was tops for sports, entertainment, and even news. Growing up, I just liked the look of NBC, and maybe it was something as simple as the signal strength of my local affiliate, but I did favor the Peacock.

Now, though, I'm almost inclined to think if a show is good enough for NBC, it must be crap. There have been a few things that resonated with me in recent years, most notably "Community" and maybe the first seasons of "Friday Night Lights," "Chuck," and "Heroes," but other than that, NBC to me has meant football and a bunch of critically overrated comedies and weak dramas. So to me, once I learned "Community" was getting a third season pickup, the rest of the fall schedule held no suspense for me, nor any particular interest.

Then I actually SAW the 2011 fall schedule, and what stood out was this is a struggling network that will devote 4 hours of precious primetime space each week to "The Sing-Off" and "The Biggest Loser." I get that reality is cheap and NBC needs all the eyeballs it can get from returning shows, but, man, 4 hours? Weren't we supposed to get all sorts of quality dramas again as soon as "The Jay Leno Show" got the big boot?

I think a telling aspect of NBC's slate of new shows is that several weeks after the announcement, the most buzzed about program is still the one that didn't make it: "Wonder Woman." Maybe "Grimm" or "The Playboy Club" will get some attention, though in the case of the latter, it'll likely be from the misguided notion that A) there will be nudity and B) it will be as good as "Mad Men," and people will tune in, find quick disappointment, and tune back out.

For me, the strategy in dealing with NBC is simple: Watch NFL (if there is NFL this season), watch "Community," hope something else comes along.

First Impulse: What the networks are doing this fall: FOX

I remember when I used to be a big fan of Fox programming. "The Simpsons," "Married with Children"...The network promoted itself as an edgy alternative, and it really was! It was so edgy and alternative that I sat through shows that weren't either of those things, like "Duet," and didn't hold it against anybody. Now that I think about it, this outfit also brought us off-Showtime versions of "It's Garry Shandling's Show" and "Get a Life." Man, it's no wonder I used to love Fox.

Years later, after enduring hours of annoying sports coverage and witnessing the "American Idol" and Seth MacFarlane takeover, plus the slow decline of "The Simpsons," I don't really watch a lot on that network. When I do, it gets retooled and ruined--see "The Human Target"--or just plain canned--see "The Chicago Code." So while don't see a lot of "Arrested Developments" on the announced fall schedule, I don't see "Chicago Code," either, and that kind of angers me. So I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for this lineup.

The biggest deals are "X-Factor," a talent show deal from Simon Cowell, and "Terra Nova." If I never got into "Idol," why would I get into "Factor," and as for Steven Spielberg's "Nova," yeah, it's being hyped already, but I can't quell my own irrational suspicion that it's never going to actually air. I also have a more rational suspicion that even if it does, it'll stink.

"Raising Hope"? Pass. "House"? Pass. "Glee"? Throw a 50-yard bomb into the Atlantic Ocean and don't give it a life preserver.

There are a few new sitcoms, too, but I'm at the point now where I almost don't want to give comedies on Fox a shot. I mean, all the half-hour shows they've tried in recent years, some of them promising, and "Raising Hope" is the one that sticks? So even though one of them has Cutty from "The Wire," I'm not too eager to try the new comedies.

So, Fox, good luck and all, but your hits are aging, and it's been a long time since you really enthused me. And by the way, I still think you're not a true network until you try to program the 10:00 hour.

First Impulse: What the networks are doing this fall: The CW

For the next week or so, I'm going to share some quick initial reactions to the news coming out of last week's upfront presentations, when TV networks shared their plans for the fall. What shows are coming back? What news shows can we expect? I don't intend to provide any kind of comprehensive report on that. Instead, here are some things that stand out for me.

I start this series with the CW, and the reason I start with the CW is because I can fill post space with my introductory spiel and not have to fill it talking about the "almost a real network" network. I don't take the CW seriously, not being a teenage girl, but if you do, hey, no offense. I just don't watch any of its shows regularly and haven't done so for years. And though I am indeed a boy, I'm not a fanboy, at least not of the "Buffy" variety, so the presence of a new Sarah Michelle Gellar show ("Ringer") does not interest me.

Among returning shows, well, apparently everything is returning. What does it take to get rid of some of these stalwarts? "One Tree Hill" will surpass "Gunsmoke" and "Law and Order" as the longest-running primetime network TV show this year, while "Supernatural," of course, has already broken the record for longest-running show about brothers investigating stuff, beating "The Hardy Boys" and "Simon and Simon."

There's a new show coming called "H8R," in which celebrities are paired with and try to win over civilian detractors. What a terrible idea. The only way I'd watch this is if the celebrities totally acted like jerks and tried to show up the "regular folks" using the advantages of their fame and wealth. And of course, I hate this show already just because of the title. I see enough license plates on my commute to work without seeing them in the TV listings, too.

First Impulse: Emmy nominations

I can't get too worked up about the Emmys, both because I question the credibility of the awards process and because I seldom watch many of the current Emmy faves, so take my comments with a grain of whatever additive you prefer:

*There are some new nominees this year, sure, but overall it still feels like the same crop gets picked year in and year out. Sometimes I'm OK with that, but this year I'm really detached from many of the major choices. "30 Rock," "Monk," and some other shows mean nothing to me. And how does Julia Louis-Dreyfus get nominated every year while her show gets canned every other year?

*This "Glee" nonsense is way out of control. I mean, I said 3 months ago the "Glee" hype was out of control, and now the Emmy Academy (or whoever gives these things out) has given rags like "Entertainment Weekly" an excuse to fawn over this show when it's not even on the air.

*Amusing headlines the morning of the noms proclaimed: "Charlie Sheen Snubbed." OK, if we're talking awards for acting, can any exclusion of Charlie Sheen ever be a SNUB? His best work was in film, and, yes, I'm talking about the old ads he and Jon Cryer did for National Amusement Cinemas reminding us to pick up our trash as we left theaters. "That's a prop, Jake," delivered as he pointed out to the Half Man kid that the hot dog was a fake--ah, that line got me every time.

*Here's who I think should win:
Best Comedy: Modern Family (but I wish "Community" were nominated)
Best Drama: Breaking Bad
Best Actor, Drama: Bryan Cranston, "Breaking Bad"
Best Actress, Drama: Connie Britton, "Friday Night Lights" (I haven't seen this season, but I can't imagine anyone else in this category topping her)
Best Actor, Comedy: Larry David, "Curb"
Best Actress, Comedy: No opinion.
Outstanding Reality/Competition Program: I want to say "anything but Amazing Race" until I actually look at the nominees and realize I dislike every other program in the category.
Outstanding Variety, Music, or Comedy Series: "The Daily Show" ("Saturday Night Live" is the ultimate "legacy nomination")

First Impulse: "24" says good-bye

It would have been more appropriate if the long-running action series said something more like, "Dammit! We don't have TIME for this!" Or better yet, it could have hired a William Conrad soundalike (if there is such a thing, I want to hear the guy doing ads NOW) to intone, "Day 8, 4:00 P.M.: The time the running...er, kept going."

But still, it gave fans a decent good-bye and capped off an uneven season with a little emotion and some of that elusive "closure" people always say they want. It's too bad there is still talk of everyone monkeying around with a "24" movie. That knowledge lessened any potential impact of the last episode.

There were strong moments, though, and ultimately the Jack Bauer Power Hour went out giving everyone just what had it given for 8 seasons. That is a nice treat for loyal fans but also, of course, an indication that it's time to go. I didn't care for the story this year, but in the final run of episodes, Jack Bauer was as over-the-top bonkers as ever, kicking ass, biting ears, and eviscerating foes. At the beginning of this season, I assumed the end would feature our hero reunited with his daughter, enjoying life as a grandpa and finally finding peace. Of course, that didn't happen, and the show refused to absolve or condemn him. After all this time, Bauer remains a thoroughly damaged individual, incapable of assimilating into "normal" life for reasons his own and not and his own, once again a fugitive. But he's also a superhero, a patriot, a man who we're clearly supposed to admire on some level.

I like that "24" didn't compromise or change Jack Bauer. He won some and lost some while ensuring justice eventually prevailed. The show him and longtime tag team partner Chloe a poignant good-bye scene (with more than a slice of "24"-style cheese), then told us, OK, back to the Life for Jack. One of the great characters in small screen history limped off rather than walked off into the sunset, and it was a perfect bittersweet ending. Let's forget that movie and hope it never actually happens, and we can all enjoy the high point of this season, a fitting conclusion to one of the wildest, goofiest, most entertaining action sagas on TV.

First Impulse: The "Lost" finale

I think it worked as a finale. It seemed crafted to provide numerous emotional high spots for longtime fans, and it succeeded in that regard. It was an entertaining hour and a half (too bad ABC stretched it out to 2 1/2 by cramming in commercials).

It didn't much change my opinion of the series, though, which is that it started very strong and offered many high points, finished up pretty well, but featured a whole lot of subpar moments and episodes in between which, now that we've seen the whole series, can be regarded almost as filler, or at least "stuff I didn't really need to see."

As far as the "character vs. plot" discussions you will surely see on the Internet this week, I say that while I never was one to demand every single plot element be "explained," (hell, I'm barely swift enough to keep up with the basics) it's a cop-out to shrug off big inconsistencies or dead ends just because "the show isn't about character." "Lost" on one hand looks like one of the most ambitious shows in history, but at some point it got away from its creators and often settled for frustrating meandering and pat sci-fi elements that didn't really add up, either at the time or in the end. Even within this very episode, there were many puzzling and/or disappointing bits that didn't seem "worth it."

It was entertaining enough, though, to keep me watching the whole way, though I might have jumped ship a few seasons ago had not my wife and I watched it together. "Lost" to me had elements of greatness but was never quite as good as its staunchest fans wanted it to be. I doubt that any kind of finale could have elevated the series from good to great for me, but that's not such a bad thing.

I abandoned any expectation of some grand, intricate design to "Lost" several years ago, and that approach really enhanced my viewing experience. Just sit back, enjoy, have fun puzzling over it, but don't think too much about it. It just doesn't hold up to that kind of scrutiny, which is why the show falls short of greatness.

Instead of complaining about what I didn't get from the show in general, or the episode in particular, I'm gonna try to admire what the show DID do: screw with the minds of millions of viewers, myself included, raise a lot of debate and discussion, and provide some decent entertainment value along the way.

Judging by the often contentious relationship between this show and many of its followers, plus the subsequent failure of many mythology-based TV dramas, I'd think it'd be a while before any weekly television program stimulates this kind of reaction. The fact that "Lost" itself is responsible for much of the fear that such a series won't work is part of its complicated legacy.

First Impulse: Meet Captain America

Yesterday we learned the identity of Captain America: Chris Evans.


Of course, we already met Chris Evans, perhaps most notably as the Human Torch in the weak "Fantastic Four" movies. Evans failed to stand out in those subpar efforts; in fact, I found his cocky hotshot (sorry) routine generic. He may have been told to just add some energy to the movie, but I kind of just thought of him as some kind of shallow WB Network type.

So, yeah, if I go see "Captain America"--and while I like the character and the comics, I'll be skeptical based on the majority of recent superhero movies--it won't be because of Chris Evans.

Currently, the comic character (the classic version, at least) is an icon of the Marvel universe, a moral compass, someone other superheroes look to for inspiration if not outright guidance. Cap is not just a patriotic symbol, but a real leader. He has, in short, gravitas. I consider it a safe bet that nowhere has Chris Evans been said to have gravitas. Therefore I guess we can assume they're going with a young Captain America, which I suppose is OK--Cap wasn't always the seasoned vet he is now--but it also means another boring origin type of movie. This origin has been rehashed too many times in the comics themselves lately, and I don't really want to see it on screen.

There's another aspect of this casting news that concerns me. Evans already plays the Human Torch. Yes, actors can play different roles, and, yes, they're only roles, but still, it seems like a real lack of imagination and talent in Hollywood. I'm not so upset about the fact that now we can't see Captain America and the modern Human Torch interact in a crossover movie as I am that we are apparently so lacking in solid male acting talent that the same guys are coming up for the same roles. The most prominent example is Ryan Reynolds, who somehow became both Deadpool and Green Lantern.

It's a sad day for Hollywood. Where have all the real men go? I mean, I know the current generation of young male actors was lacking, but this is sad. The scene is so barren that Chris Evans and Ryan Reynolds, neither of whom summon thoughts of John Wayne, are headlining multiple franchise movies. We need an influx of charisma, pronto.

First Impulse: The Oscars

Whether it's because I don't go out and see the movies like I used to, because of the increasing sense of sameness I get from the telecast, or because I'm slowly turning into a bitter old crank, I get less joy out of the Academy Awards each year. I did see the whole broadcast this year, as always, but I had my laptop at the ready so that during the dull patches--and there were many--I could...uh, do things besides blogging, which I now realize I should have been doing.

There weren't a whole lot of embarrassing moments, but much of the show just didn't work for me. Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin were OK as hosts, but didn't seem to have much impact after the monologue. Is that good or bad? I don't think the host matters that much anymore unless he or she (by "she" I mean Whoopi, of course) is a disaster.

Instead of going through the show and the awards (I was neutral on most of the categories, but I was happy to see Sandra Bullock won and enjoyed her heartfelt speech), let me be semi-constructive and propose the Academy and whoever runs next year's show get rid of the following elements:

*Big opening production numbers: Don't feel you owe us one. We'll be fine if you just go into a monologue...or even break the tension by giving out an award really quick. Seriously, begin the show with a lightning-fast presentation like the one Tom Hanks gave for Best Picture (the guy hasn't moved so fast since he was staying at the Susan B. Anthony hotel and had to scramble into his pantyhose), then go into the hubbub. Why not?

*Interpretive dance numbers: So the producers get rid of the Best Song performances, which people often enjoy, but insist on presenting an interminable series of dance routines "interpreting" the nominated musical scores. Year after year, someone behind the scenes thinks the audience needs some kind of dance number. Year after year, the number is mocked. Here's an easy way to speed up the show--no dance! And if you want to stage a "Footloose"-like rebellion the next year, bring it on.

*Introductions/clips of the Best Picture nominees: Especially now that there are *10* of them, each of these segments brings the show to a crawl. I realize that in a sense the purpose of the Oscars is to sell movies, but by the time the show's on, I know everything I need to know about the Best Picture choices. I don't need an actor to tell me how great it was and then, worse, show a clip. Save the clips for the actual moment of handing out the trophy (not to mention all the bits we see throughout the night in the other categories). Judging from this year's roster, it's not like the show is bursting with huge stars that need places on the show.

*Tribute segments: Not to disparage John Hughes, but I was annoyed that the Lifetime Achievement awards got shoved off camera while this segment got, what, 10 minutes? And please, enough with the "Salute to Horror" type montages. The history of the movies can be celebrated by giving out the lifetime awards again. And I hate to say this, but the In Memoriam feature may not be worth doing at this point if nobody can do it right.

*Actors and actresses kissing each other's asses: The whole "actors introduce the nominees" thing was nice last year as a fresh twist, but this year it seemed bogus. There just isn't a need to do this each year, and it gets awkward seeing all of the presenters pile it on so thick. Then it gets even more awkward when they don't, like Colin Farrell introducing Jeremy Renner: "I met Jeremy on a movie called SWAT. It was cool. It's about fookin' time he got a good part." Let's retire this.

*Barbra Streisand: Why not bump HER off camera and let her host the technical awards or something? At least don't give her a high-profile slot like presenting Best Director, thereby giving her a chance to act like she's some kind of big-shot director herself.

Removing these elements would be a great start toward making a better, crisper, and yes, shorter telecast. With the exception of maybe the ass-kissing presentation gimmick, I don't know too many people who would bemoan the loss of anything on this list.

First Impulse: Taylor Swift is very successful, but intriguing?

Understand that while I;m not a fan of Taylor Swift's music, I'm impressed by the way she carries herself and am happy for her success. But when "People" names her the most intriguing person of 2009, well, I have to speak up a bit.

I haven't read the issue yet--my wife hasn't even read the issue yet--so I apologize in advance if they reveal a clever formula that proves in empirical fashion that Ms. Swift is the most intriguing person of the year. But, hey, this is a First Impulse.

This is a terrible choice. It may sell magazines, and that's ultimately the point of lists and especially covers, but "People" has ample opportunities to put Swift on a cover without putting her on top of this group. See, it is my opinion that Swift's appeal is based on her wholesome persona, the fact she can still sing convincingly about princesses and white dresses and getting swept away and all that.

I don't want to "dis" that kind of persona; in fact, as father of a young girl, I'm glad that something so relatively tame can exist and thrive in today's culture. But I don't find it intriguing. I find it likable, charming, even refreshing, but not really intriguing at all. In fact, I think Taylor Swift's appeal is in her utter lack of intrigue. There's no mystery about her. She appears to be what she's selling, and while I don't think it can possibly be as genuine as you'd hope, the minute she drops that approach is the minute she loses a lot of that appeal.

It might make her more intriguing but less marketable, maybe even more intriguing AND more marketable. But right now what in the world makes her "intriguing"? The fact that she sells a helluva lot of records? The fact that Nashville and the music industry has latched onto her and is intent on boosting her to superstardom?

The bottom line is, she seems like a NICE girl, and I'm kind of glad she's not intriguing...at least not by my standards. Even her fanbase probably thinks of her as "real" or "cool," but intriguing?

First Impulse: NBC's Fall Schedule

OK, it's been a month and a half since I talked about ABC, even longer since the networks actually announced their schedules, and you may wonder how at this point my reaction can be a "first impulse."

Hey, do you really think I have spent any time thinking about NBC's fall schedule before I realized I needed to finish up the series?

Let's start on a high note for the Peacock, with Sunday Night Football. This is a novelty: Something on NBC people not only watch, but look forward to and enjoy. With the ability to cherry-pick match-ups and the prime-time spotlight, NBC offers a great showcase for pro football, even if they did screw fans by putting on an inferior highlights show and forcing off ESPN's 7:00 "Primetime." But this is a good night for the National Broadcasting Company.

Let's sit back and enjoy this for a moment or two.

OK, unfortunately, there are 5 other nights of the week (Saturdays don't exist for networks anymore), so we must move on to Monday.

Oh, yeah, before we get started on weekdays, thanks to NBC for putting Jay Leno at 10pm, basically giving up on 5 hours of prime time a week and, more importantly, slashing the number of snide comments wise-ass bloggers have to create to discuss its schedule.

Mondays offer "Heroes" at 8. This is how enthusiastic I am about this show: My wife and I let the whole second half of the latest season accumulate on our DVR and never got around to watching any of it. When the DVR got nuked recently and we lost all those episodes, our reaction was more or less, "Eh." Maybe it'll rebound this year, but we've heard that promise before.
Maybe "Trauma" will be better at 9. It's about paramedics, and it's not "Third Watch." That's about all I know.

Tuesdays, it's two hours of "The Biggest Loser." Maybe NBC has some kind of weight-related clever marketing hook to justify this, but really, devoting two whole hours to this is almost as desperate as devoting 5 hours to Leno.

In the middle of the week, it's a nurse show called "Mercy," followed by the 23rd season of "Law and Order: SVU," which can't seem to make any ground on the record holder, "Law and Order," which returns Fridays for its 57th straight season. NBC must stand for Never Basically Changing, because this lineup is looking stale.

I know there are a lot of people who enjoy NBC's Thursday night comedies. They just don't have Nielsen boxes, apparently. Critics may love "30 Rock," but as far as I'm concerned, even if it wins all umpteen of its Emmys, it just ain't my thang. Same for "The Office" and "Parks and Recreation."

Leading off the night, though, is a new effort called "Community." If you read any TV news sites, it probably feels like this community-college-set sitcom starring E! Network's Joel McHale has been in development forever. I swear I've heard about this one for years. I'll give it a shot, but I hope it has a distinctive point of view and isn't just aping the other shows in this comedy block. Oh, yeah, and of course, someone has come up with a brilliant casting move to ensure "Community" feels fresh: Ladies and gentlemen, the return to series television of Chevy Chase!

I mentioned "Law and Order" returns Fridays. In the works this year is a special live, black-and-white episode which pays tributes to the show's origins as "Philco Playhouse Presents the Law and Order 90-Minute Showcase." George Clooney will direct and produce. At 9, it's returning cop show "Southland," which, uh, I kind of meant to sample this past season but never did.

Saturdays on the network aren't worth speaking about; it's all reruns and "Dateline," and of course every God-fearing American boycotted "Dateline" as soon as it canned Stone Phillips.

Sorry for not mustering more enthusiasm for NBC's fall schedule, but it really does seem that the once-proud network is kind of throwing in the towel this year. Maybe next year they'll get Jon Stewart to do a 9pm show and save themselves the trouble of producing 5 MORE hours of content. And then it's My-TV territory, folks.

First Impulse: ABC's Fall 2009 Schedule

Continuing my series of initial takes on the networks' announced fall lineups, I'm looking at ABC today.

We'll start with Monday because isn't that the best way to kick off the week, with "Monday Night Football?" Only thing is, that's on ESPN now and has been for a few years, so there's really no reason to watch the Alphabet Network on Mondays. Two hours of "Dancing with the Stars" certainly isn't, and though I have heard good things about "Castle," which follows it at 10:00, I haven't seen them, so I'll stick to complaining about how bad "Heroes" is and piling up episodes of "Chuck" on my DVR that I won't get around to watching.

Tuesdays it's "Dancing with the Stars" again because, after all, you gotta have a results show. Preceding it at 8:00 is a new reality show from Mark Burnett called"Shark Tank." That's all I need, a reality show that makes us sharks look like idiots. At 10:00 is a crime drama called "The Forgotten," which is of course just begging smart-assed TV critics to comment.

ABC will do something interesting Wednesday. Lately it has been sprinkling its comedies throughout the schedule to fill gaps, like, "Hey, we need something before 'Lost,' here's 'Miss Guided'" or whatever, but this fall it presents a night of all-new sitcoms. "Hank" sounds the most promising, simply because it stars Kelsey Grammer, while "Cougar Town" sounds the least promising, simply because it's called "Cougar Town."

After the 4 new sitcoms, it's "Eastwick," a show with a supernatural premise that might sound sort of different if it weren't already a novel and a Jack Nicholson movie decades ago. Rebecca Romijn is the top witch. And, John Stamos, I said WITCH, W-I-T-C-H, witch. This show doesn't sound worthwhile, but I really like what ABC is doing with the 4 new sitcoms from 8-10. Maybe 1 or 2 will actually stick.

Thursdays begin with David Goyer's "Flash Forward," a high-concept show that could be cool or terrible. Either way, it's off of ABC at 9:00 because it's time for "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice." At least, the TV would be off of ABC in my house, but my wife likes those shows, and, well, she's welcome to them.

Fridays are "Supernanny," "20/20," and between them "Ugly Betty," and you can tell how solid "Betty's" renewal is by its placement here. It goes into the fall in the "just happy to be here"category. Wake me up when Salma Hayek does a guest shot.

Saturdays are college football nights, and if I'm not mistaken, the Big Ten made a stupid decision to end Saturday night conference games this season. Did I hallucinate this, or is it one more sign of how behind the times that league is? Either way. Go PSU!

On Sundays, I will still watch "Desperate Housewives"--yes, I'm man enough to admit it--but the other retreads aren't on my radar. I have no use for "Brothers and Sisters," but I can't help but marvel at the staying power of "America's Funniest Home Videos." Every year, I forget it's on. Thank goodness for pro football. As for "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," is the qualifier even necessary anymore? When was the last time ABC showed the surgery stuff?

First Impulse: Fox Fall Schedule 2009

Remember when Fox, some buzzy and smart shows notwithstanding, was the clear-cut fourth network in a 4-network field? Well, they never did add national news or 10:00 programs or some of the other staples of the Big Three, but what they did do was keep chasing young viewers with edgy programming. Somehow, they got some big hits that appealed to everyone, and now we have to admit, yeah, they're a real network, and often the biggest by some measures.

Here are my early, uneducated, uninformed reactions to the announced fall schedule for Rupert Murdoch TV:

Monday offers the 1-2 combo of Brits playing Americans with "House" and "Lie to Me." I never did get around to watching the latter; it just looked like something I had seen before. Similarly, from what I understand, "House" has been giving its viewers something they've seen before--already on "House." Not much here to excite me. In fact, I'm gonna spoil the rest of this post right now and tell you Fox as a whole will do nothing for me till "24" returns on Mondays in January.

On Tuesdays, it's "So You Think You Can Dance," which returns the next night with a results show. I like this show much better than "American Idol," if only because I'm not bombarded with its hype every week it's on the air. New show "Glee" follows it on Wednesdays. This one looks so different than anything else on TV right now that...it's bound to fail. Fox sure as hell wants to prevent that from happening, though, continuing to plug it every 15 minutes or so. It's a long way till the fall.

Thursday is the "Bones"/"Fringe" combination, also known as "The Night of Shows People I Know Watch But I Don't." Hmm, rather unwieldy name, at that. Fox really ought to promote its Thursdays better.

On Friday, it's a new Michael Strahan comedy, "Brothers." Strahan, of course, comes from that great breeding ground known as the New York Giants. He spent last year working on Fox's NFL pregame show, which only thinks it's a comedy.

At 8:30, good gravy, it's the return of 'Til Death, the most ironically named show on TV. Thing...just...will...not...go!

"Dollhouse" is back Fridays at 9:00. Oh, great, another season of Joss Whedon nuts bitching about how Fox is killing the show by putting it there.

Saturdays is a doubleheader of "Cops" at 8:00. Want to take bets on whether "Cops" will outlast "'Til Death"? Then it's "America's Most Wanted," and I could make a similar comment, but this is as close to a public service as we get in prime time these days, and I'm not gonna complain about it.

It's animation once again on Sundays, with "The Simpsons" hanging on for its umpteenth season, and though I bailed years ago, the first (insert your own number here) seasons were so excellent, I can never make fun of this show. Now, the Seth MacFarlane shows, on the other hand...

There used to be no point in planning to watch anything on FOX Sunday nights because football would always spill over and disrupt the evening, but now that the network schedules its postgame show in the 7:00-8:00 hour, well, it has no excuse. It kind of has to really try, and in this case, "try" means, "give the keys to MacFarlane."

And that, ladies and gents, is Fox. Looks like I'll be watching zero hours of this network till January, but--and don't ask me how--I think that'll still be more than I watch NBC.

First Impulse: CW's Fall 2009 Schedule

I'm giving my uneducated, unreasoned takes on the networks' new fall schedules announced last week. Oh, yeah, and I'm also talking about fake networks like the CW.

It's funny how the powers that be combined two netlets with small but relevant niches--UPN and WB--and turned them into one netlet that, despite theoretically combining the best of each, is less relevant than the two put together, still has identity issues (what kind of a name is the CW?) and faces rumors of its demise every few months or so.

The fact that CW (is it CW or the CW? Much like "The Batman" vs. just Batman, I get confused. Unlike that debate, I do't really care) is giving back Sundays to its affiliates doesn't inspire confidence, but that's the new trend. NBC gave up 10:00 PM, CW gave up Sundays...it's only a matter of time before someone gives up Saturdays. I mean, really gives it up; I know the majors already have for all intents and purposes.

I think I'm stalling, so let me get to it and try to discuss the new fall schedule for (the) CW.

Mondays bring "Gossip Girl," AKA Entertainment Weekly's favorite show ("30 Rock" doesn't count because to "EW," "30 Rock" is HIGH ART), followed by another teen soap, "One Tree Hill," which returns for its 17th season, breaking the previous teen soap record of "Beverly Hills 90210," which was on for 16 long seasons, overstaying its welcome and making sure we'd all be sick of it for decades to come.

On Tuesdays, CW leads off with...uh, "90210." It seems like many people want this show to succeed, but nobody actually watches it besides Diablo Cody. Well, at least CW has a new show at 9:00 PM. That is, if you count a "reboot" of "Melrose Place" as new. Christ, are they saving a revamp of "The Heights" for midseason? No wonder this network doesn't matter.

Wednesday offers yet another season--excuse me, cycle--of "America's Next Top Model." After that, it's "The Beautiful Life," a fashion drama produced by Ashton Kutcher, who is becoming like the Aaron Spelling of crappy reality TV. Sure, these two shows may look like perfect matches for each other on the schedule, but so what? A White Lion/Winger concert bill might be compatible, but...

On Thursday, CW goes goth. Seriously, that's what they're gonna say. They'll try to get some of that "Twilight" action with a vampire show at 8:00, then follow that with "Supernatural." Is that GOTH enough for you?
Fridays this fall, it's "Smallville," which has been on almost as long as "One Tree Hill." It actually went past the stage where he went from Superboy to Superman years ago; this year he leaves Metropolis, gets a condo in Boca Raton, and fights supervillains only 4 days a week and only before 4:00 PM. After "Smallville," it's "encore presentations" of "America's Next Model."

I'd say a network that can't even program 5 nights a week, two hours a night, without resorting to repeating itself doesn't deserve to be on the air. But, really, look at what else is on TV. How many options are there?

First Impulse: Comedy Central's new shows

Over the next week or so, I'll be giving my early reactions to the new fall schedules announced by the networks. Comedy Central is a cable channel, and it doesn't really have a schedule so much as a "Find new show, play it 10 times a week" strategy, but I'll start by expressing my first take on the new shows that CC ordered for the near future, a lineup which I first saw listed here.

*Ugly Americans: Comedy Central could use some fresh animated blood, and this one sounds interesting. It's New York City, and "creatures from the horror and fantasy genres live among ordinary people." I'll give it a try, but I fear it could turn out to be another "Drawn Together."

*Untitled Jamie Foxx Project: Uh, no. An animated show based on his satellite radio show? He HAS a radio show? Does he sing like Ray Charles for 45 minutes, then talk to his entourage for 15?

*Untitled Andy Dick Project: The article says this sketch/variety show will be 11 minutes long, which seems odd but is even odder when you consider it's about 9 more minutes than most of us can stand the guy. I don't know why people keep thinking there's some kind of untapped genius in Andy Dick that doesn't involve him passing out in nightclubs or scuffling with Jon Lovitz. Hey, that would be a show right there.

*Untitled Ron White Project: I just don't "get" Ron White, but I guess I'm not a Heartland kind of guy. Heartland, this one's for you. (True story: I didn't even read the description before I wrote my comment. Then I went back, read the synopsis, and saw that it actually used the word "heartland" and, unlike me, not in a smart-ass context.)

*Best Buds: Marijuana comedy. Probably lame. But I can't believe Method Man and Redman haven't already made a movie with this title.

*Midwest Teen Sex Show: This can't possibly be as interesting as its name. It sounds like "Loveline" lite, but I'm wary of anything that promises to discuss subjects with "comic verve."

*Gypsy Cab: Judah Friedlander is a nutty cab driver who picks up a bunch of guests that, from the article's indications, happen to be a bunch of comedians. I don't know if they play "themselves," like sort of a taxi-driving "Dr. Katz," but that could work.

*The Life: "will reunite Ice Cube and DJ Pooh for their first project since the film 'Friday.'" FINALLY! Hallelujah! How can Cube have gone so long without reuniting with DJ Pooh?

*Boys and Girls Guide to Getting Down: Hey, a show based on that movie that's on cable all the time but that I never watch.

*The Sklar Brothers Sports Comedy Show: I like the Sklars and, believe it or not, I miss their ESPN Classic series "Cheap Seats." This sounds promising--they play brothers who own a trading card company--but haven't they been doing the same thing on the web?

*The Invadersteins: Good title for this animated show about an alien couple that is left behind by its invading brethren when the attack goes wrong. This sounds like it could be kind of good.

*Ghosts/Aliens: A comedy about "stoners that expose the truth about ghosts and aliens." I bet someone was pissed that the title "Best Buds" was taken.

There are some promising projects here and some that I promise not to watch. But Comedy Central can always use some new blood. I respect that it remains true to its roots in showing standup as often as it does, and I can't argue with the success and impact of "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report." But its original scripted series often miss with me, and the ones that I do like pop up in short batches, then disappear to reruns for months. So I welcome the network giving a bunch of green lights and seeing what sticks.