Posts tagged as:

Behind the Scenes

I haven’t had the time to write my thoughts about Lost yet, but in the meantime, here is an anonymous post by one of the Lost writers. I’m being told it is legit.
Nonetheless, some of the points listed here are pretty interesting if you want to understand a bit more ‘what just happened’.

First …
The Island:

It was real. Everything that happened on the island that we saw throughout the 6 seasons was real. Forget the final image of the plane crash, it was put in purposely to f*&k with people’s heads and show how far the show had come. They really crashed. They really survived. They really discovered Dharma and the Others. The Island keeps the balance of good and evil in the world. It always has and always will perform that role. And the Island will always need a “Protector”. Jacob wasn’t the first, Hurley won’t be the last. However, Jacob had to deal with a malevolent force (MIB) that his mother, nor Hurley had to deal with. He created the devil and had to find a way to kill him — even though the rules prevented him from actually doing so.

Thus began Jacob’s plan to bring candidates to the Island to do the one thing he couldn’t do. Kill the MIB. He had a huge list of candidates that spanned generations. Yet every time he brought people there, the MIB corrupted them and caused them to kill one another. That was until Richard came along and helped Jacob understand that if he didn’t take a more active role, then his plan would never work.

Enter Dharma — which I’m not sure why John is having such a hard time grasping. Dharma, like the countless scores of people that were brought to the island before, were brought there by Jacob as part of his plan to kill the MIB. However, the MIB was aware of this plan and interfered by “corrupting” Ben. Making Ben believe he was doing the work of Jacob when in reality he was doing the work of the MIB. This carried over into all of Ben’s “off-island” activities. He was the leader. He spoke for Jacob as far as they were concerned. So the “Others” killed Dharma and later were actively trying to kill Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley and all the candidates because that’s what the MIB wanted. And what he couldn’t do for himself.

Dharma was originally brought in to be good. But was turned bad by MIB’s corruption and eventually destroyed by his pawn Ben. Now, was Dharma only brought there to help Jack and the other Candidates on their overall quest to kill Smokey? Or did Jacob have another list of Candidates from the Dharma group that we were never aware of? That’s a question that is purposely not answered because whatever answer the writers came up with would be worse than the one you come up with for yourself. Still … Dharma’s purpose is not “pointless” or even vague. Hell, it’s pretty blatant.

Still, despite his grand plan, Jacob wanted to give his “candidates” (our Lostaways) the one thing he, nor his brother, were ever afforded: free will. Hence him bringing a host of “candidates” through the decades and letting them “choose” which one would actually do the job in the end. Maybe he knew Jack would be the one to kill Flocke and that Hurley would be the protector in the end. Maybe he didn’t. But that was always the key question of the show: Fate vs Free-will. Science vs Faith. Personally I think Jacob knew from the beginning what was going to happen and that everyone played a part over 6 seasons in helping Jack get to the point where he needed to be to kill Smokey and make Hurley the protector — I know that’s how a lot of the writers viewed it. But again, they won’t answer that (nor should they) because that ruins the fun.

In the end, Jack got to do what he always wanted to do from the very first episode of the show: Save his fellow Lostaways. He got Kate and Sawyer off the island and he gave Hurley the purpose in life he’d always been missing. And, in Sideways world (which we’ll get to next) he in fact saved everyone by helping them all move on …

Now…

Sideways World:

Sideways world is where it gets really cool in terms of theology and metaphysical discussion (for me at least — because I love history/religion theories and loved all the talks in the writer’s room about it). Basically what the show is proposing is that we’re all linked to certain people during our lives. Call them soulmates (though it’s not exactly the best word). But these people we’re linked to are with us during “the most important moments of our lives” as Christian said. These are the people we move through the universe with from lifetime to lifetime. It’s loosely based in Hinduism with large doses of western religion thrown into the mix.

The conceit that the writers created, basing it off these religious philosophies, was that as a group, the Lostaways subconsciously created this “sideways” world where they exist in purgatory until they are “awakened” and find one another. Once they all find one another, they can then move on and move forward. In essence, this is the show’s concept of the afterlife. According to the show, everyone creates their own “Sideways” purgatory with their “soulmates” throughout their lives and exist there until they all move on together. That’s a beautiful notion. Even if you aren’t religious or even spiritual, the idea that we live AND die together is deeply profound and moving.

It’s a really cool and spiritual concept that fits the whole tone and subtext the show has had from the beginning. These people were SUPPOSED to be together on that plane. They were supposed to live through these events — not JUST because of Jacob. But because that’s what the universe or God (depending on how religious you wish to get) wanted to happen. The show was always about science vs faith — and it ultimately came down on the side of faith. It answered THE core question of the series. The one question that has been at the root of every island mystery, every character backstory, every plot twist. That, by itself, is quite an accomplishment.

How much you want to extrapolate from that is up to you as the viewer. Think about season 1 when we first found the Hatch. Everyone thought that’s THE answer! Whatever is down there is the answer! Then, as we discovered it was just one station of many. One link in a very long chain that kept revealing more, and more of a larger mosaic.

But the writer’s took it even further this season by contrasting this Sideways “purgatory” with the Island itself. Remember when Michael appeared to Hurley, he said he was not allowed to leave the Island. Just like the MIB. He wasn’t allowed into this sideways world and thus, was not afforded the opportunity to move on. Why? Because he had proven himself to be unworthy with his actions on the Island. He failed the test. The others, passed. They made it into Sideways world when they died — some before Jack, some years later. In Hurley’s case, maybe centuries later. They exist in this sideways world until they are “awakened” and they can only move on TOGETHER because they are linked. They are destined to be together for eternity. That was their destiny.

They were NOT linked to Anna Lucia, Daniel, Rousseau, Alex, Miles, Lapidus, (and all the rest who weren’t in the church — basically everyone who wasn’t in season 1). Yet those people exist in Sideways world. Why? Well again, here’s where they leave it up to you to decide. The way I like to think about it, is that those people who were left behind in Sideways world have to find their own soulmates before they can wake up. It’s possible that those links aren’t people from the island but from their other life (Anna’s partner, the guy she shot — Rousseau’s husband, etc etc).

A lot of people have been talking about Ben and why he didn’t go into the Church. And if you think of Sideways world in this way, then it gives you the answer to that very question. Ben can’t move on yet because he hasn’t connected with the people he needs to. It’s going to be his job to awaken Rousseau, Alex, Anna Lucia (maybe), Ethan, Goodspeed, his father and the rest. He has to atone for his sins more than he did by being Hurley’s number two. He has to do what Hurley and Desmond did for our Lostaways with his own people. He has to help them connect. And he can only move on when all the links in his chain are ready to. Same can be said for Faraday, Charlotte, Widmore, Hawkings etc. It’s really a neat, and cool concept. At least to me.

But, from a more “behind the scenes” note: the reason Ben’s not in the church, and the reason no one is in the church but for Season 1 people is because they wrote the ending to the show after writing the pilot. And never changed it. The writers always said (and many didn’t believe them) that they knew their ending from the very first episode. I applaud them for that. It’s pretty fantastic. Originally Ben was supposed to have a 3 episode arc and be done. But he became a big part of the show. They could have easily changed their ending and put him in the church — but instead they problem solved it. Gave him a BRILLIANT moment with Locke outside the church … and then that was it. I loved that. For those that wonder — the original ending started the moment Jack walked into the church and touches the casket to Jack closing his eyes as the other plane flies away. That was always JJ’s ending. And they kept it.

For me the ending of this show means a lot. Not only because I worked on it, but because as a writer it inspired me in a way the medium had never done before. I’ve been inspired to write by great films. Maybe too many to count. And there have been amazing TV shows that I’ve loved (X-Files, 24, Sopranos, countless 1/2 hour shows). But none did what LOST did for me. None showed me that you could take huge risks (writing a show about faith for network TV) and stick to your creative guns and STILL please the audience. I learned a lot from the show as a writer. I learned even more from being around the incredible writers, producers, PAs, interns and everyone else who slaved on the show for 6 years.

In the end, for me, LOST was a touchstone show that dealt with faith, the afterlife, and all these big, spiritual questions that most shows don’t touch. And to me, they never once waivered from their core story — even with all the sci-fi elements they mixed in. To walk that long and daunting of a creative tightrope and survive is simply astounding.


Email This Post Print This Post

23 comments

Post image for Lost Week

Lost Week

by Alex on May 19, 2010

in Announcements

Whether you’ve collected all the official posters, despise what Darlton have done to the mythology, or have barely seen an episode, you have been for the past six years, one way or another, impacted by Lost.

As the ground-breaking series comes to a close this Sunday, we bring back posting on TV Calling with a week’s worth of articles about the phenomenon (for better, or for worse).
For a show that provoked throughout the years so much heated debates and theories amongst the (non-) initiated, it seems only fitting that we honor it by doing the one thing we do best: discussing and dissecting all of its aspects (some more controversial than others).
From fandom and mythology to storytelling and what the future may hold for the (potential) franchise, we will try to cover as much new ground as “smokely” possible (ha ha, get it?) in the upcoming week.

And it all starts today.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for The iPad: Where’s the objectivity?

I came across an article by New York Times’ David Pogue about the polarizing aspect of the iPad.
He writes:

The haters tend to be techies; the fans tend to be regular people.
Therefore, no single write-up can serve both readerships adequately. There’s but one solution: Write separate reviews for these two audiences.
Read the first one if you’re a techie. (How do you know? Take this simple test. Do you use BitTorrent? Do you run Linux? Do you have more e-mail addresses than pants? You’re a techie.)
Read the second review if you’re anyone else.

Besides the fact that this article is stuck in a 1999 cliché of what a “techie” is, my problem with this is Pogue gives a false sense of objectivity (showing both sides of the coin).
The thing is, not only is the so-called “anti” review comprised of just a basic spec list, but the whole article is overwhelmingly biased towards the iPad.
The “pro” review (three times the size of its counterpart), praises the same aspects of the tablet that, well, everyone else seems to praise (regardless of if they’re actually good/relevant/comparable, or not).

As I was reading through the review, it became clear that the author was enamored with the device – and so was the rest of the press corps.
Save for those few “techie” websites, every news outlet raves about the iPad, totally disregarding its many flaws.
Everyone is saying how “revolutionary” is is. And both Newsweek and Time have made iPad their covers.

The problem is that they’re buying their own hype.

Apple declares the product “magical”, and then on the other end the press emphasizes it to the point where you don’t know if some massive brainwash has occurred.

It’s as if people are more than happy to jump on the Apple bandwagon instead of taking a step back, and provide reasonable critical thinking.

The press is duping the public in thinking that a severely limited $500 tablet is better than a versatile $300 computer.
We all know people love to touch their stuff, but come on.
You can’t throw away all your other devices (laptop, home-computer, phone), and just use the iPad (that kinda looks like a clunky iPhoto Frame).

Apple knows their niche and exploited it to the max.

Wall Street Journal’s Walter Mossberg says:

After spending hours and hours with it, I believe this beautiful new touch-screen device from Apple has the potential to change portable computing profoundly, and to challenge the primacy of the laptop.

If I understand this right, a tablet with a 4:3 screen and the same processor as my phone will replace my computer that has ten times the specs and power.
I’m sorry but intuitiveness is not the only thing that should make or break a technological device. Especially one that is positioning itself as a laptop-killer.

Going back to the New York Times article:

The iPad’s killer app, though, is killer apps. Apple says that 150,000 existing iPhone apps run on the iPad.

How are phone apps working on a fake laptop supposed to be a “killer app”?
For that matter, how is a laptop having apps anything new?
Ever heard of something called “software”? You know that your netbook can run programs too, right?
And they’re not limited by the iTunes store.
I can understand why having exclusive apps for the iPhone that no other phone can do might be interesting, but if your laptop-killer can’t even run laptop-level apps (Photoshop?) , you’ve got a problem.

And no, it can’t handle Adobe Flash.
What’s the reasoning? Steve Jobs says it’s “buggy.”
Nice personal vendetta.
Again, I can understand why the iPod Touch might not be able to handle Flash, especially seeing that web-surfing is not its primary component.
On the other hand, the iPad is marketed as a device made for web-surfing. And yet it can’t fully access it.
Steve Jobs called the iPad “the best web experience you’ve ever had,” though why shell out $500+ to only access a tenth of web content?

There’s also no multitasking, or more specifically app concurrency.
This is not hyped to be a one-app device, and yet you cannot run two apps at the same time (despite the size and speed).

Regarding its e-book capabilities, and the fact that the iPad is not an e-Reader, we’ve already covered that part in full detail.
Though I do get annoyed when the iPad’s e-reading function is praised for details like:

When you turn a page, the animated page edge actually follows your finger’s position and speed as it curls, just like a paper page.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that an animation of a page turning was more important than the actual book page.
When you read a book, do you spend much time looking at how cool the page turning is, or more time reading the actual thing?

This ode to the iPad has even reached television, with Modern Family dedicating this week an episode to the device.
I don’t know what is scarier: the fact that an entire storyline was crafted around the iPad, or that Apple didn’t have to pay for it.

Time Magazine’s review does have an interesting point towards its very end:

The iPad shifts the emphasis from creating content to merely absorbing and manipulating it. It mutes you, turns you back into a passive consumer of other people’s masterpieces. In that sense, it’s a step backward.

The iPad is a media consumption device, but it’s too damn limited.

Which brings me to Final Draft.
You’ve probably heard by now that the company is developing an app for the iPad.
The Final Draft app will primarily be designed to make small edits here and there, but I get the feeling that, even with a great screenwriting app, the iPad isn’t comfy enough for script edits.
Typing pages of text on a virtual keyboard? You must be joking. You can’t even write on your lap.
Except for short e-mails or messages, not much will be able to be done it feels like.
I’m still waiting to see how this one plays out though.

I think Engadget’s Ross Miller nailed it when he described the iPad as:

A jack of some trades, a master of none.

The press felt bummed out they didn’t call the iPod or the iPhone as the game-changer they were, so this time around they’re all too keen to declare the iPad as the greatest gadget that ever was.
I’m not saying the iPad will bomb (it probably won’t), I’m just expecting a little more neutrality from a medium that is supposed to be unbiased and shouldn’t get “all tingly inside” when reporting about a flawed device.

And as for why ABC and CBS putting their TV shows on the iPad for free is a dangerous thing, that’s a story for another time.


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

Post image for Ding Dong, Appointment TV is Dead

With 24 being canceled and Lost ending its run next May, this season will mark the last year of so-called Appointment Television.

Everything is now available at our finger tips, and denying it is simply delusional.
It’s a given that people are currently watching television in a very different way than how they were used to for the past last 50–60 years.
Pure made-for-TV content is virtually gone. Networks are constantly thinking of new ways to use new media to promote a show on the air.

Appointment TV itself has gone through some changes throughout the years.
At its core, it can best be described as a can’t-miss show you have to see every broadcast week.
The reason you “can’t-miss” it is exactly what has evolved.

Appointment TV has been in existence since the early days of television at a time where only a handful networks existed. Everyone around the country would tune in to watch one of the few shows on the air, week after week.
When a finale aired, it was an event like no other that a majority of Americans would follow. M*A*S*H*’s series finale achieved a 77% share with 50.15 million households. Three years prior, the Dallas reveal of who shot J.R. attracted 41.5 million households for a 76% share.
To compare, this year’s Super Bowl, the most-watched television program in television history, “only” achieved a 68% share.

But don’t think this viewer problem is anything new.
Over twenty years ago, in 1988, LAT’s Peggy Zeigler wrote in an article entitled “Where have all the viewers gone?”:

And everyone has to figure out how to make network television back into a hits business. The buzzword is appointment television, industry shorthand for the kind of “can’t miss” shows that people make sure they’re home to watch — or they tape. Appointment television translates to hit shows: “Cosby” was appointment TV, so was “Moonlighting” and “L.A. Law.” Appointment television brings more viewers to the set; “The Cosby Show” single-handedly boosted Thursday night HUT levels when it debuted in 1984.

By the mid-1990s, NBC’s “Must See TV” brand was starting to die down, and so was widespread Appointment TV. Due to an increasing number of channels, everyone had their own little personal “Appointment TV Show,” but few were nationally-recognized as such.

A crazy storytelling form became at that point a bit more common: serialized narratives.
Though heavily-serialized shows wouldn’t catch on for another ten years, “softer” mythological ones would in the meantime not only become critical hits, but also cultural ones. Series, such as The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, succeeded in keeping an episode format while creating arcs over a full season.
Appointment TV was at that point apparently dead, replaced by Cult Television.

Then something happened: the Internet.
People could share thoughts and discuss mythological components, dissect a show, relay tons of behind-the-scenes information. But it needed content.
No new series had appeared to fill the void since the end of The X-Files.

24 premiered in 2001 and was an instant hit. Many reasons were given, a major one is linked to its serialized format.
It wasn’t only made to enhance “the watercooler factor,” but more importantly allowed the show to introduce a brand new concept: addictive television.
At the other end of the box, people had started to proactively change their schedules to fit a given show into their lives.
You wouldn’t necessarily want to do a Hill Street Blues marathon, but we’ve all heard countless stories of people watching several seasons of 24 back-to-back in one sitting.
After that shift occurred, virtually no episodic Appointment TV remained. Friends’ finale became an actual Television Event (thanks to the show’s influence on pop-culture), but the show never actually reached on a regular basis the levels of 80s sitcoms.

In 2004, Desperate Housewives brought back soap-opera to primetime with much success.
The same year, Lost smashed the mythological show rulebook and paved the way for new forms of television-related transmedia storytelling. Its complex mysteries also brought viewers, who tuned in week after week, wanting answers, or at the very least more clues. For its six seasons, countless time has been spent talking about the series and its content.

The void was filled, and the ultimate form of Appointment Television was born. If only with a decade to live.
Slowly but surely, the tool that helped it resurface was causing its very downfall.
The shows had become so serialized that you couldn’t miss an episode, and needed to use technology to catch up on them. From there, it wasn’t much of a stretch for “can’t miss shows” to become DVRed and streamed instead of live-watched.
Ironically, Appointment TV had become a “must-see,” but not necessarily on television’s schedule.
What works best on television are episodic shows, and what works best outside television are serialized ones.

Meanwhile, Event TV (sports competitions, award shows, etc.) was emphasized as such thanks to Twitter, and other live-communities.
It now has grown into something new: Social Television.

Lost’s series finale in May will be Event Television. Everyone around the country might not watch it, but they will surely talk about it. By that time however, Appointment Television will be gone forever.
Whatever the case may be, massive weekly viewings of a show are a thing of the past.
Welcome to the world of crossmedia.


Email This Post Print This Post

2 comments

Post image for The Future of eBook Readers

Today I went to the 2010 French Book Fair in Paris which usually has great debates dedicated to new problems relating to e-publishing and eBooks.
This year was no exception with an incredible array of talks on the future of publishing (one even about Augmented Reality).
I went to a few, though the one that caught my eye and found most interesting was the last:
E-Readers, where are we now?
The panel was comprised of Jacques Angelé (Nemoptic Vice-President), Pierre Geslot (Head of E-paper and Digitization projects at Orange), Alex Henzen (R&D Vice-President at iRex Technologies), and Anthony Slack (Commercial Development Vice-President at Liquavista).
As you’d expect, it was mainly about the future of e-Readers, and as a matter of fact, not only were we able to see with our very eyes amazing prototypes (pictures below), but a couple of announcements were made.
I will go over what was discussed in a minute, but first, let’s check up on some basics.

What is not an eBook E-Reader?
I’m sorry to break it to you, but first and foremost, the iPad, and all other tablets of its kind, are not e-Readers (more on that later).
Neither is your iPhone for that matter.
If they were, then your current computer, or even your TV, would be considered eBook Readers.
The truth is they do not contain the one key component to it all: e-paper.

What is e-paper?
As the name implies, it’s basically a display imitating to the fullest and ordinary piece of paper (with ink).
That also means it does not use backlight (unlike, say, LCD/LED screens). Given that, it doesn’t strain the eye.
E-papers actually act like a normal piece of paper, meaning they reflect ambient light.
In addition, once an e-page has been set, it remains static and can’t be changed, simply because it does not at this point need any electricity to sustain (it’s in stasis).
You could set your e-Reader on a specific book page and theoretically leave it like this for months (years?), and it wouldn’t switch off.
This of course sharply contrasts with any other battery-based devices that barely can stand a day without a charge.
The only time a Reader needs electricity is when it needs to change the screen (like when you turn the page), but even then, you’d have to do about two weeks of continuous change for the battery to drain.

It might shock you to learn that not all e-papers are using E Ink (yes, it’s a brand).
Different technologies are used, each with their advantages, and disadvantages.
In fact, although last year it controlled about 90% of all sold e-Readers, it is expected that, by the end of 2011, E Ink will only be carried on 50% of displays.
As for the actual technology involved, I won’t bore you with how this stuff works, as it has been detailed much better elsewhere.


Suffice it to say that E Ink is part of a bigger group named Electrophoretic Display, or EPD. Such displays use charged pigment particles (pixels) that get rearranged based on an electric field: black or white.
The two main problems with E Ink are its response time, and its lack of color.
Ironically, E Ink was originally tested using other bi-colored pigments:

Constant R&D is able to increase each year the E Ink refresh rate by about 30%.
As for the color, that’s a different problem entirely.
iRex’s Hanzen did however announce that colored E Ink would be arriving later this year (albeit at a different company).
For now, it’s not in their priority as colors on E Ink are simply not that efficient at the moment.
At best, you would get a sombre screen, since brightness would be limited. RGB additive color uses a third of the available pixel space, so you would only get a ninth of available brightness for “true white”.
Reflectivity would also be pretty limited.

Nemoptic presented prototypes of its BiNem (Bistable Nematic) Displays (manufacturing starts at around end of 2011):


Display size: 6.1 inches (73 x 107 mm)
Resolution: 300 x 400 x RGBW (QSVGA), 100 ppi
Color depth: From top to bottom, 16 colors, and 32,768 colors (32K for real)
Contrast: 12:1

Perhaps the most promising new tech are what’s called Electrowetting Displays (EWD), represented at the panel by Liquavista.
Like E Ink, it works via electric fields. However, instead of pigment particles, it uses colored oil and water. The liquid therefore becomes wettable.
EWD has been described as “the most versatile,” with multiple use going from reflective applications to transmissive and transflective ones.
The tech can also go from low refresh rates (less than one frame per second) to super-high ones like 200 frames per second!

Liquavista presented three of these EWDs.
One was B&W:


Display size: 6 inches (92 x 123 mm)
Resolution: 800 x 600, 166 ppi
Grey levels: 16
Brightness: 60% higher than standard EPD
Contrast ratio: 2 times higher than standard EPD

The other was color:


Display size: 6 inches (92 x 123 mm)
Resolution: 800 x 600, 166 ppi
Color levels: 4,096; 30% more reflective than standard EPD

They were both announced as being released in Late May/Early June of this year (no price tag yet), and named Liquavista Pebble.

We also did get to see a prototype of a functioning touch-screen colored EWD, with such a high-refresh rate it could do video (let alone be able to handle an iPod Touch-type interface).
Although still a prototype, Liquavista’s Anthony Slack did say the touchscreen could be compatible to both Projected Capacitive Touch (fingers) and Resistive Touch (stylus).
By June, the prototype should achieve at least a 24-bit color depth.
Later this year, manufacturing will be announced, with a release date slated around mid-2011.
The presentation on the touchscreen e-Reader was not unlike the one used here (right-side; the one on the left is Sony’s PRS-600BC).

When talking about the (currently) sole competitor in the color e-Reader market (Fujitsu’s newly-released FLEPia), all the panel guests unanimously bashed the Reader, stating it was “too slow” and had “washed colors.”

The panel then shifted to the iPad, discussing if it was going to be a big e-Reader competitor.
This is when Orange’s Geslot stepped in.
He talked a bit about several focus groups his company had recently made around the iPad.
The tablet had been pitted against major e-Readers (Kindle, Nook, etc.), not for a spec comparison, rather to see which one the various users (of all ages) would feel more comfortable reading books on.
He disclosed the results which were, as he puts it, “surprising.“
The focus groups revealed that two core opposing sides were emerging:
– Half the people loved the idea of a multimedia platform that could also let you read while still being connected (therefore preferring the iPad)
– The other half, in total opposition, considered that reading was sacred and a private journey that shouldn’t be interrupted by ringtones, pop-ups, or IMs (therefore preferring a dedicated e-Reader)
Geslot was keen to point out that the latter group actually wasn’t made up of only seniors but actually youngsters too.

At the end of it all, the panel agreed that there would probably be two kinds of usage that would call for two different devices.
A dedicated e-Reader, that has perfected its sole function, will be preferred for heavy-reading. Multimedia tablets (with or without e-paper), will offer more flexible use than their counterpart, but will only be used for quick reads here and there.

The moderator concluded by asking the guests what they thought an e-Reader will be like in ten years.
One jokingly replied: “I’m betting on a flexible 3-D e-paper display that can play Avatar.“
James Cameron would be so proud.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Today it was announced that Yankee’s A-Rod “turned down multiple overtures to host Saturday Night Live.
As he puts it:

I finally figured out to make the game the priority. Ultimately I am a baseball player. This is what I do best and what I should be concentrating on.

I say that’s very good news.
However, some people seem to disagree:

What???? How could that be? Doesn’t he know that hosting “SNL” is one of the perks of being a superstar New York athlete? Turning down the chance to host “Saturday Night Live” is like telling Oprah Winfrey, “No thanks, I’d rather not be on your show.” It’s just not done!

This might be a good analogy if you were an actor/actress, or an entertainer.
We’re here talking about a professional sportsman.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but I doubt many people enter pro sports to one day host SNL.
“Geez I wish I could meet Lorne Michaels… If only I had 14 gold medals. I bet that would be a good way to do it.“
Not only that, but if I were an athlete even remotely interested in this, I’d reconsider simply based on the fact that, you know, I can’t act.

Need I remind you peeps of the last time a sports guy hosted the show?


Reading from a teleprompter is not the same thing as being funny.
Even Christopher Walken knows that.

This trend has especially intensified these last couple of years with Peyton Manning, LeBron James, Michael Phelps, and, point out above, Charles Barkley (arguably one of the worst SNL host of all time).
As we already saw last September, the latest seasons’ hosts (save for a few) haven’t really been varied, or even good.
We should rejoice that an athlete turned down Saturday Night Live and save us eye-bleeds (even for the wrong reasons).


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for The CW 2010: It’s for dudes too

For my first blog back on A TV Calling 2.0, I will try to continue the trend talking about what teenagers like, to Alex’s great dismay.

And what they (seem to) like is The CW. Born from the merger of The WB and UPN, The CW is equally the property of Time Warner and CBS Entertainment. All of their pilots in development are produced by both their production arms, Warner Bros. TV and CBS Paramount TV. Problem is, since fall of 2006, the netlet barely produced an original hit, focusing on the sure bets of both the WB and UPN. So, it carried the last seasons of “Gilmore Girls”, “Everybody Hates Chris”, “7th Heaven”.

The only sure-fire hit born under the CW banner is “Gossip Girl”. And one can argue that this show is mainly watched by female teenagers. And yes, this season has brought us “The Vampire Diaries”, who is also targeting the same female viewership, and whose showrunners’ mission is to try and not resemble “Twilight” too much. If you think I’m joking, go read this Paley Festival recap.


But for this fourth season on air, both those hits can be attributed to luck, and hide a network who has trouble expanding the soap-opera fare, and more crucially, beyond female viewers. It brought back “90210” last year and “Melrose Place” this year, but the scandal-ridden storylines barely mesmerized viewers. One is struggling in its second season, and suffered a showrunner switch in the middle of the first season, and the other returned last week to catastrophic ratings. It’s not expected to make it past this season, a shame when you know the original series lasted seven seasons.

So Dawn Ostroff, The CW’s President of Entertainment, decided to take drastic measures: having male viewers back to The CW. What better than a highly-trained female assassin played by the cutie from Die Hard 4? Yep, “La Femme Nikita” is about to be resurrected with Maggie Q as the lead. And Lyndsy Fonseca (“Desperate Housewives”, the upcoming “Kick-Ass”) is to play her hunter, a 19-year old felon that makes a deal with a secret organization (what else?) to escape a lengthy prison sentence. It sounds good and all, but don’t forget that they can make it lighter, a la “Alias”, than the original USA Network show. But ass-kicking females playing cat and mouse is sure to bring back boys to the yard.


Another pilot, still untitled and penned by Amy Sherman-Palladino, centers on a hunky horse trainer that becomes the patriarch of his parent’s Wyoming ranch after the parents die. And “Nomads”, produced by Ridley and Tony Scott, features globetrotters working undercover missions for the CIA. This last one sounds more FOX-like than CW-like. But it’s all about finding a hit outside their comfort zone, or this could spell the end of Dawn Ostroff’s tenure of the netlet.
Or it could be just a bluff move, where none of the shows are picked up and Ostroff’s people decide to go with companion shows to “Vampire Diaries”, like “Betwixt”, or “Grey’s Anatomy”-lite like “HMS” (Harvard Medical School).

Author Image

About the Author

Based in Southwest France, Lordy is a local reporter in all areas of France (really, look it up). As a hobby though, he has a keen and often deconstructing look on the entertainment business, even as a simple fan. — You can follow him on @lordofnoyze






Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

</