It's time for one final round of Gloomy Gus musings to close out 2010. Maybe my reaction to these two items is too cynical, but I'll let you be the judge.
ITEM: IFC airing commercials DURING its programming
--First of all, note the "brand name" IFC. The channel has been de-emphasizing the Independent Film Channel part of its name for a while now. It has added more types of films to its lineup. It has added different programming to supplement the films, including original shows and reruns. This is not news.
But now IFC is inserting ad breaks INTO its programs, and to me that's the last straw, the sign that we have left the "better keep an eye on this" phase and entered the "all downhill from here" phase. After all, does this strategy remind you of another movie channel? Like, say, American Movie Classics--I mean, AMC? Take a guess what other channel the parent company of AMC owns.
Sure, for now, the channel isn't hacking up its films and series; for now it is picking quirky or acclaimed TV shows with cult appeal like "Freaks and Geeks" and "Larry Sanders." But it's only a matter of time until they start boosting the ad content, then trimming the programming content to make way for it. And then, in order to attract more and better ad content, well, of course the people running IFC are going to look for more mainstream reruns to draw those eyeballs the advertisers will want.
So, yeah, basically, IFC is not a train wreck yet, but it's on that slippery slope towards abandoning its original reason for being and becoming just another channel.
ITEM: Antenna TV revises its launch schedule, eliminates the rare shows
--I'm delighted to see another digital subchannel programming outlet that relies on old-school programming, and I mean literally see it, as I just confirmed that it will be available in Cultureshark Tower. But this past week was a bit of a downer as far as Antenna TV goes because I went from the joy of seeing the original launch schedule, then days later learning it had changed.
The first schedule I saw included rarities like "Farmer's Daughter" and super-rarities like a 1950s anthology show, among other interesting programs that were not only not on DVD, but which had not been aired nationally in years and years.
Then a newer schedule came out, as announced by Pavan Badal at Sitcoms Online. Take a guess what shows aren't on the schedule anymore. Much of the product from Sony, the story goes, is either in terrible shape and/or isn't yet in a usable format for air, so Antenna is waiting until it's all ready so it can show each series from the beginning. In the meantime, we're left with some decent stuff--I'm not complaining about getting the post-season-1, not-on-DVD "Hazel"--and a lot of overplayed or too-new reruns ("Married With Children," "The Nanny," "Sanford and Son," etc.).
Oh, Pavan tried to talk us all off the ledge by assuring us that Antenna is still committed to running the good stuff when it's ready, but the fact is, most channels are best when they launch, and they gradually homogenize themselves and get rid of the more interesting stuff as time passes. See, for example, AMC and IFC!
I don't doubt the integrity of Sitcoms Online, and I really want to believe Antenna has its collective heart in the right place, but I fear this is gonna be a wasted opportunity, and by the time the rare shows are ready, Antenna will be moving on and adding the likes of "NewsRadio" (a quality show, but one that has seen ample rerun cycles already) and "Mad About You" and other TV Land rejects.
A lot of us desperately want Antenna TV to be what it claims to be, but this isn't a promising start. Let's just hope that the fact the schedule changes were made like this is because Antenna is rushing to get a foothold on the dial with the beginning of the new year and Sony just couldn't keep up...and NOT because of a RTV-style pattern of disorganization and chaos that will plague this outfit.
I'm disappointed but cautiously optimistic on this one, and I can enjoy "Father Knows Best" in the meantime, but I'm still worried.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Brooks on Books: Death to the BCS
This is not a "fair and balanced" look at the college football's (lack of) method for determining a champion at its highest competitive level. No, this is an attack on the current system, and if you are like me and think the sport is marred by its illegitimate way of deeming a team a so-called "champion," then you will enjoy this book by several writers from Yahoo Sports (Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, Jeff Passan).
These guys are out to take down the system from the get-go, and they do so in often scathing fashion, referring to the vested interests who prop up and protect the BCS as The Cartel throughout the book. But they have facts and logic on their side, and even if you don't like their specific suggestion for what SHOULD be done--a 16-team playoff system incorporating on-campus games while preserving the bowls outside of the tournament--you have to admire how they lay out the case against the current non-playoff mess.
And they point out how The Cartel likes to cite that "there is no clear alternative" as one of its reasons for sticking to the status quo. Well, this book offers a well-conceived alternative. I like how "Death to the BCS" exposes how Cartel members, such as Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney, use straw man arguments and misleading statements--including falsehoods perpetrated before Congress--to obscure the issues and distract from legitimate anti-BCS arguments. The authors do a great job of exposing the inconsistencies even within Cartel talking points.
Much of the information and ideas in this book have been available for a while, but it's all put together in a brisk, coherent presentation that is especially fun to read for fans who yearn for a legit playoff. Perhaps the most enlightening chapter in "Death to BCS" is the takedown of the current crooked bowl system. The authors show how the "guaranteed payouts" hyped by the bowl games are essentially shams, and their explanation of how many teams actually LOSE money by attending bowls is eye-opening.
One thing I like is how, despite their exposure of the inefficiency of the current system and how tons of money goes to wasted expenses (and the pockets of overpaid bowl execs), the authors state their love of the games themselves and find a way to preserve them. They say, hey, more football is always good for them, and they make a convincing argument that the bowls could still survive and even thrive in a post-BCS playoff era of college football. They certainly prove how shallow the talk about "tradition" is in the bowl system. Anyone who wants to protect the tradition of the bowls, well, hasn't it already been destroyed by the move of big games like the Orange Bowl off New Year's Day? And just how good have the games been this year, anyway? I haven't had a chance to watch much action so far, but when I do flip to a bowl game, it's usually a blowout. But they don't want to get rid of them. They just want to improve the system.
Of course, money talks in sports, as it does in everything else, and here the authors rip open the finances of the current structure, but rely on speculation (as opposed to the facts that prop up most of the book) to make the case that their system would make more money for everyone. Now, I agree with their conclusions and believe they are right, but I'm just saying. Still, they offer a great argument that a playoff could be big-time money, and a look at the NCAA basketball tournament should reinforce that belief. This is what makes the current BCS system, and the stubborn adherence to it of the Cartel, so puzzling: all the money being left on the table in order to avoid a reasonable championship tournament.
"Death to the BCS" provides lots of ammo to fans who want to convince their pro-BCS friends. But then again, how many people ARE pro-BCS? The only ones who are are the power brokers who preserve it, and let's hope some people with the influence to influence THEM read this and can do something. For us simple, old college football fans, we get a fun book that provides lots of insights and organizes the facts into an effective argument against what we have, while also providing a viable option to replace it.
These guys are out to take down the system from the get-go, and they do so in often scathing fashion, referring to the vested interests who prop up and protect the BCS as The Cartel throughout the book. But they have facts and logic on their side, and even if you don't like their specific suggestion for what SHOULD be done--a 16-team playoff system incorporating on-campus games while preserving the bowls outside of the tournament--you have to admire how they lay out the case against the current non-playoff mess.
And they point out how The Cartel likes to cite that "there is no clear alternative" as one of its reasons for sticking to the status quo. Well, this book offers a well-conceived alternative. I like how "Death to the BCS" exposes how Cartel members, such as Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney, use straw man arguments and misleading statements--including falsehoods perpetrated before Congress--to obscure the issues and distract from legitimate anti-BCS arguments. The authors do a great job of exposing the inconsistencies even within Cartel talking points.
Much of the information and ideas in this book have been available for a while, but it's all put together in a brisk, coherent presentation that is especially fun to read for fans who yearn for a legit playoff. Perhaps the most enlightening chapter in "Death to BCS" is the takedown of the current crooked bowl system. The authors show how the "guaranteed payouts" hyped by the bowl games are essentially shams, and their explanation of how many teams actually LOSE money by attending bowls is eye-opening.
One thing I like is how, despite their exposure of the inefficiency of the current system and how tons of money goes to wasted expenses (and the pockets of overpaid bowl execs), the authors state their love of the games themselves and find a way to preserve them. They say, hey, more football is always good for them, and they make a convincing argument that the bowls could still survive and even thrive in a post-BCS playoff era of college football. They certainly prove how shallow the talk about "tradition" is in the bowl system. Anyone who wants to protect the tradition of the bowls, well, hasn't it already been destroyed by the move of big games like the Orange Bowl off New Year's Day? And just how good have the games been this year, anyway? I haven't had a chance to watch much action so far, but when I do flip to a bowl game, it's usually a blowout. But they don't want to get rid of them. They just want to improve the system.
Of course, money talks in sports, as it does in everything else, and here the authors rip open the finances of the current structure, but rely on speculation (as opposed to the facts that prop up most of the book) to make the case that their system would make more money for everyone. Now, I agree with their conclusions and believe they are right, but I'm just saying. Still, they offer a great argument that a playoff could be big-time money, and a look at the NCAA basketball tournament should reinforce that belief. This is what makes the current BCS system, and the stubborn adherence to it of the Cartel, so puzzling: all the money being left on the table in order to avoid a reasonable championship tournament.
"Death to the BCS" provides lots of ammo to fans who want to convince their pro-BCS friends. But then again, how many people ARE pro-BCS? The only ones who are are the power brokers who preserve it, and let's hope some people with the influence to influence THEM read this and can do something. For us simple, old college football fans, we get a fun book that provides lots of insights and organizes the facts into an effective argument against what we have, while also providing a viable option to replace it.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wow, some big changes in my media diet this past year...
Longtime readers of this blog are familiar with my laments that I don't actually go out and see movies in theaters anymore but maybe once or twice a year. I don't know, though, if I'm actually lamenting that anymore. I used to kind of miss going as often as I did, before becoming a father and other lifestyle changes kept me away from the multiplexes. But the other day, I drove by the local theater, and it hit me that not only was I not gonna see anything there in the near future, I didn't plan to, and I didn't even really care that much.
I'm not gonna blame this on "stupid Hollywood product," either, as I spent plenty of good money on bad movies back in the day. No, I think 2010 was just the year I lost contact...with the moviegoing experience. It's not that I won't go or wouldn't like to go more given the opportunities, but I've become content with seeing them on DVD. I don't feel pangs of regret about "missing out," even if something really good hits the big screen. Not that many movies this year have sounded really good, but, hey, I said I wasn't gonna blame this on stupid Hollywood product.
Maybe when my leisure time goes up and my family obligations go down, I'll rediscover the joy of paying too much money for too little entertainment, but for now...I'm kind of OK with staying at home.
Another thing that hit me this week is my declining interest in recorded music. There are many factors involved in this: the dropoff in the CD as a viable medium, my discovery of podcasts for my listening pleasure, the shabby state of the music industry, lack of accessible product at reasonable prices, the pathetic state of terrestrial radio, my lack of interest in buying and consuming digital music...These have all been relevant for years now. But I never expected to listen to music as seldom as I do these days.
I still love music when I do hear it, and there are regular times that I do that. But this makes the first Christmas that I can remember that I didn't get one single CD (or cassette tape, if you want to go back a ways), and it feels weird. I mean, I had some music on my Wishlist, but there was nothing I felt I really needed to have, and though I plan to do some gift-card-shopping action after the holidays, I don't know if I'll be buying any music.
The fact that I hadn't even really noticed until now is itself proof of how weird this is. Maybe I need to dive back into it, but I am just not much of a music buyer anymore, and that feels odd.
I'm not gonna blame this on "stupid Hollywood product," either, as I spent plenty of good money on bad movies back in the day. No, I think 2010 was just the year I lost contact...with the moviegoing experience. It's not that I won't go or wouldn't like to go more given the opportunities, but I've become content with seeing them on DVD. I don't feel pangs of regret about "missing out," even if something really good hits the big screen. Not that many movies this year have sounded really good, but, hey, I said I wasn't gonna blame this on stupid Hollywood product.
Maybe when my leisure time goes up and my family obligations go down, I'll rediscover the joy of paying too much money for too little entertainment, but for now...I'm kind of OK with staying at home.
Another thing that hit me this week is my declining interest in recorded music. There are many factors involved in this: the dropoff in the CD as a viable medium, my discovery of podcasts for my listening pleasure, the shabby state of the music industry, lack of accessible product at reasonable prices, the pathetic state of terrestrial radio, my lack of interest in buying and consuming digital music...These have all been relevant for years now. But I never expected to listen to music as seldom as I do these days.
I still love music when I do hear it, and there are regular times that I do that. But this makes the first Christmas that I can remember that I didn't get one single CD (or cassette tape, if you want to go back a ways), and it feels weird. I mean, I had some music on my Wishlist, but there was nothing I felt I really needed to have, and though I plan to do some gift-card-shopping action after the holidays, I don't know if I'll be buying any music.
The fact that I hadn't even really noticed until now is itself proof of how weird this is. Maybe I need to dive back into it, but I am just not much of a music buyer anymore, and that feels odd.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Classic TV Christmas Festival: Meet Corliss Archer
Before getting back into the Festival, let me remind everyone of the CBS Christmas Eve lineup we get in primetime tonight: "CSI," followed by "CSI: New York," and concluding with "Blue Bloods." Just the kind of programming to enjoy with the whole family as you whip up some egg nog and trim the tree while waiting for Santa.
We're continuing our own Classic Christmas TV Fest with a look at something much more wholesome, an example of the primitive family sitcoms of early television, "Meet Corliss Archer." This is a show that is easy to find if you're looking for cheap old stuff online (I remember a previous incarnation of FamilyNet was even showing it weekly a few years ago), but I don't think it's very well known these days, though Old-Time Radio fans surely remember the original version of the program.
This series is a great example of what life was like back in the 1950s, or at least what life was like ON TV, and isn't that more important? Back then, married couples (and they were always married) didn't rush back to the boudoir and cook up their 2.5 kids, but rather they waited until they were well into their relationship and their careers--well, HIS career, anyway--and they were good and beaten down by life.
So instead of young whippersnappers raising kids, you had good, steady middle-aged people, if not downright oldsters, dealing with their well-meaning but humorous offspring. Take plucky teenager Corliss Archer. Her parents, played with typical fifties parental amiable condescension by Mary Brian and John Edlredge, look like pleasant enough people...who were BORN middle aged and stayed that way. Same thing with their friends, the Franklins, parents of Dexter, who serves as love interest of Corliss and foil for Mr. Archer.
There's nothing particularly memorable about any of the episodes I've seen, and this Christmas episode is itself rather unremarkable. One thing I kind of like about the series is the gimmick of using as transitions cartoonish gag illustrations while the narrator comments on the action with an amiable chuckle. This installment offers several of those to spice up its simple plot, a story that reflects the basic 1950s-ness of this program.
Mr. Archer has hidden the girls' presents someplace they'll never find them, and it's a good thing, too, because girls can't resist snooping, don't 'cha know? So while the womenfolk are trying to figure out what and where their gifts are, Father gets some quality comedy time with Dexter, who is making his own presents in Mr. Archer's tool shed/workshop. And the biggest tool in the shed is obviously Dexter himself. The guy means well, of course, but he's such a destructive boob in this episode that you figure the women better get those presents soon because Mr. Archer is gonna spend the holidays behind bars after being implicated in a tragic belt sander incident.
I won't dare give away the ending to this pleasantly generic half-hour, but suffice to say it culminates with a classic sitcom twist that makes no sense at all. Archer's hiding place meets Dexter's desire to help in a way that is even more contrived than you would hope an old comedy would be. It's just like the 1950s: Everybody means well, nothing much exciting happens, but you leave it more or less happy. The only thing that could have improved this episode? If Mr. Archer had hidden the presents inside a fallout shelter in the backyard.
We're continuing our own Classic Christmas TV Fest with a look at something much more wholesome, an example of the primitive family sitcoms of early television, "Meet Corliss Archer." This is a show that is easy to find if you're looking for cheap old stuff online (I remember a previous incarnation of FamilyNet was even showing it weekly a few years ago), but I don't think it's very well known these days, though Old-Time Radio fans surely remember the original version of the program.
This series is a great example of what life was like back in the 1950s, or at least what life was like ON TV, and isn't that more important? Back then, married couples (and they were always married) didn't rush back to the boudoir and cook up their 2.5 kids, but rather they waited until they were well into their relationship and their careers--well, HIS career, anyway--and they were good and beaten down by life.
So instead of young whippersnappers raising kids, you had good, steady middle-aged people, if not downright oldsters, dealing with their well-meaning but humorous offspring. Take plucky teenager Corliss Archer. Her parents, played with typical fifties parental amiable condescension by Mary Brian and John Edlredge, look like pleasant enough people...who were BORN middle aged and stayed that way. Same thing with their friends, the Franklins, parents of Dexter, who serves as love interest of Corliss and foil for Mr. Archer.
There's nothing particularly memorable about any of the episodes I've seen, and this Christmas episode is itself rather unremarkable. One thing I kind of like about the series is the gimmick of using as transitions cartoonish gag illustrations while the narrator comments on the action with an amiable chuckle. This installment offers several of those to spice up its simple plot, a story that reflects the basic 1950s-ness of this program.
Mr. Archer has hidden the girls' presents someplace they'll never find them, and it's a good thing, too, because girls can't resist snooping, don't 'cha know? So while the womenfolk are trying to figure out what and where their gifts are, Father gets some quality comedy time with Dexter, who is making his own presents in Mr. Archer's tool shed/workshop. And the biggest tool in the shed is obviously Dexter himself. The guy means well, of course, but he's such a destructive boob in this episode that you figure the women better get those presents soon because Mr. Archer is gonna spend the holidays behind bars after being implicated in a tragic belt sander incident.
I won't dare give away the ending to this pleasantly generic half-hour, but suffice to say it culminates with a classic sitcom twist that makes no sense at all. Archer's hiding place meets Dexter's desire to help in a way that is even more contrived than you would hope an old comedy would be. It's just like the 1950s: Everybody means well, nothing much exciting happens, but you leave it more or less happy. The only thing that could have improved this episode? If Mr. Archer had hidden the presents inside a fallout shelter in the backyard.
Last Week and This Week in DVD
This is the kind of time when you are glad Netflix is building up the streaming because a lot of interesting titles are subject to that cursed 28-day window. I doubled up to get one big ol' holiday post of This Week and Last Week in DVD:
The Other Guys: Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg team up in a buddy movie from Adam McKay. This will be either really funny or really stupid. Oh, who are we kidding? We know it'll be both.
The Town: I'm really looking forward to Ben Affleck's latest acclaimed directorial effort. Hey, isn't it time we stopped mocking him for Ben-Lo and for "Gigli"? OK, well, at least for "Gigli"?
Despicable Me: It seems like a lot of cartoons lately feature supervillains with lovable interiors. I miss the days when you had unambiguous bad-asses like Snidely Whiplash.
The A-Team: Available in a special "Extended Cut." Ah, I love it when a marketing gimmick comes together.
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole: I remember seeing the trailer for this in a movie theater a while ago, and while the animation looked kinda pretty and whatnot, I had to bust out laughing. I mean, it was OWLS. And it was all serious and stuff. With OWLS. I still kind of chuckle about this.
Cyrus: John C. Reilly woos Marisa Tomei, but her son Jonah Hill is kind of weird about it in this quirky indie-type comedy. It's hard to get excited about the inevitable Marisa Tomei nudity when you realize it could well be combined with some intolerable John C. Reilly nudity.
Nanny McPhee Returns: More moles! More warts! More chin hairs! MORE NANNY McPHEE!
1960 World Series Game 7: Recently broadcast on MLB Network, yes, but every loyal Pittsburgh Pirate fan--yep, the few hundreds of us--will want to own this recently rediscovered classic on DVD.
The IT Crowd Season 4: I've said it before and will say it again: This is one of the funniest shows I've seen in the last 10 years, and if you haven't seen it on IFC, try to catch it on video.
Honeymooners Christmas Special: This is all well and good, but I'm getting the sense that MPI is never gonna do a proper Complete Lost Episodes collection, especially now that the company is reportedly working on "The Donna Reed Show." And MPI decided to put ONE hourlong special on this release instead of putting both the 1970s Christmas episodes on the disc--an approach that, sadly, has been typical of the milk-the-fans approach the company has taken with this property. Incidentally, the "Classic 39" Christmas episode is one of my favorite yuletide TV efforts of all time.
WWE Top 50 Superstars of All Time: Wouldn't it be great if they did the BOTTOM 50 Superstars of all time, with profiles of Bastion Booger, T.L. Hopper, and so on? Yes, it would!
THIS WEEK:
Salt: Remember when Angelina Jolie was cool? Now she's starring in movies named for condiments.
Easy A: I think Emma Stone is adorable and a real talent, and I hope this movie is as good as it looks. I also hope my wife doesn't ask me if I'm renting it because I think Emma Stone is hot.
Step Up 3: Good gravy, THREE? Someone stop this franchise before it replicates again.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps: Well, at least it isn't a THIRD. I'd rather see Oliver Stone do a sequel to "JFK." Since the original came out, millions of people have been born that can now be implicated.
The Films of Rita Hayworth: Still one of the classiest and loveliest of screen goddesses, and Sony pays her tribute with this 5-disc set. It also pays tribute to sneaky business techniques by including two movies that were already available on DVD.
The Other Guys: Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg team up in a buddy movie from Adam McKay. This will be either really funny or really stupid. Oh, who are we kidding? We know it'll be both.
The Town: I'm really looking forward to Ben Affleck's latest acclaimed directorial effort. Hey, isn't it time we stopped mocking him for Ben-Lo and for "Gigli"? OK, well, at least for "Gigli"?
Despicable Me: It seems like a lot of cartoons lately feature supervillains with lovable interiors. I miss the days when you had unambiguous bad-asses like Snidely Whiplash.
The A-Team: Available in a special "Extended Cut." Ah, I love it when a marketing gimmick comes together.
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole: I remember seeing the trailer for this in a movie theater a while ago, and while the animation looked kinda pretty and whatnot, I had to bust out laughing. I mean, it was OWLS. And it was all serious and stuff. With OWLS. I still kind of chuckle about this.
Cyrus: John C. Reilly woos Marisa Tomei, but her son Jonah Hill is kind of weird about it in this quirky indie-type comedy. It's hard to get excited about the inevitable Marisa Tomei nudity when you realize it could well be combined with some intolerable John C. Reilly nudity.
Nanny McPhee Returns: More moles! More warts! More chin hairs! MORE NANNY McPHEE!
1960 World Series Game 7: Recently broadcast on MLB Network, yes, but every loyal Pittsburgh Pirate fan--yep, the few hundreds of us--will want to own this recently rediscovered classic on DVD.
The IT Crowd Season 4: I've said it before and will say it again: This is one of the funniest shows I've seen in the last 10 years, and if you haven't seen it on IFC, try to catch it on video.
Honeymooners Christmas Special: This is all well and good, but I'm getting the sense that MPI is never gonna do a proper Complete Lost Episodes collection, especially now that the company is reportedly working on "The Donna Reed Show." And MPI decided to put ONE hourlong special on this release instead of putting both the 1970s Christmas episodes on the disc--an approach that, sadly, has been typical of the milk-the-fans approach the company has taken with this property. Incidentally, the "Classic 39" Christmas episode is one of my favorite yuletide TV efforts of all time.
WWE Top 50 Superstars of All Time: Wouldn't it be great if they did the BOTTOM 50 Superstars of all time, with profiles of Bastion Booger, T.L. Hopper, and so on? Yes, it would!
THIS WEEK:
Salt: Remember when Angelina Jolie was cool? Now she's starring in movies named for condiments.
Easy A: I think Emma Stone is adorable and a real talent, and I hope this movie is as good as it looks. I also hope my wife doesn't ask me if I'm renting it because I think Emma Stone is hot.
Step Up 3: Good gravy, THREE? Someone stop this franchise before it replicates again.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps: Well, at least it isn't a THIRD. I'd rather see Oliver Stone do a sequel to "JFK." Since the original came out, millions of people have been born that can now be implicated.
The Films of Rita Hayworth: Still one of the classiest and loveliest of screen goddesses, and Sony pays her tribute with this 5-disc set. It also pays tribute to sneaky business techniques by including two movies that were already available on DVD.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Classic TV Christmas Festival: The HUB brings the Garry Marshall
It's easy to forget about the rebranded Discovery Kids channel, now the HUB; though it offers a smattering of relative oldies in the nighttime hours, it's still essentially a family/kids channel with a ton of children's cartoons. But while I haven't been watching many of the classic reruns it does offer, I think it's good to have an outlet for shows like "Family Ties" and "The Wonder Years," and I appreciate the effort. This week, the HUB is running some Christmas episodes, and I put together a Garry Marshall double feature of sorts on my DVR with yuletide-themed installments of "Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley."
Let me thank this network for the unusual but welcome programming decision it implemented for its overnight airing of "Happy Days" the other night. About halfway through the episode, the picture got a little funky, and the audio fell out of sync. At first, I found this irritating enough to turn me into a Scrooge, but I soon realized the genius of this: The HUB was cablecasting in Festive Drunk-o-vision, attempting to simulate for the viewer the sensation of being agreeably inebriated after downing a few spiked egg nogs. Well done, folks!
The episode itself is one of the more heartwarming of its time, "Guess Who's Coming to Christmas" from the second season. Richie and Mr. C. realize that Fonzie's big talk about visiting his cousins is just bluster because of his pride, and that he in fact will be alone on Christmas Eve. So the Cunninghams talk Howard into giving up his dream of an old-fashioned holiday with just the family, and they invite the Fonz to celebrate them.
Looking at this one again from a modern perspective, it's interesting to see some of the vestiges of the early, single-camera days of the series: Fonz mock-threatening the guys, Fonz still being an outsider, and of course most notably, a Chuck sighting. It's clear from this episode that the Fonz ain't a hood, and there will be no turning back from the babyfacing of the character.
"Happy Days" really went off the rails eventually, but this episode is a great example of the quieter, nostalgic aura the show cultivated at first. It's sentimental without being pandering, and it's a genuine, heartfelt piece of Christmas cheer. Even if you're watching it in Festive Drunk-o-vision.
I'm not gonna spend a lot of time talking about "Laverne and Shirley," as I've never been a fan, but I can't resist "Let's put on a show" episodes of classic sitcoms. Somehow, the whole gang winds up putting on a revue at a mental hospital overseen by Howard Hesseman. It's corny, contrived, and cliched, but aren't most of these kinds of vanity episodes that let the cast "show their talent"? The only thing missing was the cast breaking character at the end to directly wish the audience a Merry Christmas.
While watching this, I started wondering what sitcom today would be best suited to do this kind of show, and it hit me: NBC's "Community." They just did a great holiday episode, but for next year, I think the creative team should work on something that pays homage to/mocks this kind of sitcom staple. I'll bet it would offer the same blend of stupid and smart that has made other "Community" episodes memorable. Dan Harmon, make it happen, please!
Let me thank this network for the unusual but welcome programming decision it implemented for its overnight airing of "Happy Days" the other night. About halfway through the episode, the picture got a little funky, and the audio fell out of sync. At first, I found this irritating enough to turn me into a Scrooge, but I soon realized the genius of this: The HUB was cablecasting in Festive Drunk-o-vision, attempting to simulate for the viewer the sensation of being agreeably inebriated after downing a few spiked egg nogs. Well done, folks!
The episode itself is one of the more heartwarming of its time, "Guess Who's Coming to Christmas" from the second season. Richie and Mr. C. realize that Fonzie's big talk about visiting his cousins is just bluster because of his pride, and that he in fact will be alone on Christmas Eve. So the Cunninghams talk Howard into giving up his dream of an old-fashioned holiday with just the family, and they invite the Fonz to celebrate them.
Looking at this one again from a modern perspective, it's interesting to see some of the vestiges of the early, single-camera days of the series: Fonz mock-threatening the guys, Fonz still being an outsider, and of course most notably, a Chuck sighting. It's clear from this episode that the Fonz ain't a hood, and there will be no turning back from the babyfacing of the character.
"Happy Days" really went off the rails eventually, but this episode is a great example of the quieter, nostalgic aura the show cultivated at first. It's sentimental without being pandering, and it's a genuine, heartfelt piece of Christmas cheer. Even if you're watching it in Festive Drunk-o-vision.
I'm not gonna spend a lot of time talking about "Laverne and Shirley," as I've never been a fan, but I can't resist "Let's put on a show" episodes of classic sitcoms. Somehow, the whole gang winds up putting on a revue at a mental hospital overseen by Howard Hesseman. It's corny, contrived, and cliched, but aren't most of these kinds of vanity episodes that let the cast "show their talent"? The only thing missing was the cast breaking character at the end to directly wish the audience a Merry Christmas.
While watching this, I started wondering what sitcom today would be best suited to do this kind of show, and it hit me: NBC's "Community." They just did a great holiday episode, but for next year, I think the creative team should work on something that pays homage to/mocks this kind of sitcom staple. I'll bet it would offer the same blend of stupid and smart that has made other "Community" episodes memorable. Dan Harmon, make it happen, please!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
