TeleValues

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

MOVED

This site has officially been moved to televalues.wordpress.com

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Lost Is In The Brig

I am a big fan of Lost. I am currently watching (or re-watching as the case sometimes is) the second season of lost just to keep myself up to speed. And I am enjoying even the episodes I have already seen and mysteries that I already know the answers too.

My re-watching of season one helped me to already figure out that Locke's father (Kevin Tighe) was Sawyer's (Josh Holloway) nemesis. And honestly, I knew that Locke (Terry O'Quinn) was lying after about 2 minutes of him telling Sawyer that he wanted Ben dead.

However, as I watched I kept telling myself that I didn't want Sawyer to do it. I knew he would, but I just wanted him to learn forgiveness. I would have settled for something else (like an earthquake or Jack) to get in the way of the murder, but it didn't happen either.

It's all about the murder. I was bothered when Michael killed Ana-Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez) last year and I don't like what Sawyer did in this episode. I understand that these murders play an important part in the development of the show, but I am not fond of them.

You might be thinking that after last week's episode, maybe they are already dead, so it shouldn't really matter. Or you might think that they too could be revived like the Russian (Andrew Divoff) was. However, there were too many references to them already being dead in these past two episodes for me to really believe it. You have to remember that this is the Hanso Foundation. They have power to cover anything up. Oceanic Flight 815 didn't really need to crash in the Pacific and they didn't really need to find the survivors, for others to be convinced otherwise.

The events of these past two episodes aren't about whether they are dead or not.

We have to remember that Ben (Michael Linus) is the mastermind here. Ben could have ordered Locke's father to the island. Locke's father's death could have been faked (remember the smiling man with the IV after the car crash, what was in that bottle?), he could have been brain washed into thinking that the Oceanic 815 passengers died, then he woke up in the box.

Also, this mystery woman (Marsha Thomason) from the helicopter could easily be an "other" that we haven't met yet. I am sure that the others have the back-story of Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) as they do for everyone else on the island. So they can talk about Penelope (Sonya Walger), and even have a copy of a picture with Desmond and Penelope.

All of this happened so that Locke could give Sawyer the tape recorder. Don't you think it was awfully convenient that Ben was listening to the tape just when Locke arrived at his tent? And I find it hard to believe that Ben would let the recorder get stolen that easily. This is just another masterly planned con by Ben.
Okay, I am getting too much into theories here. But it is to make a point. I think that the story line has gotten a little too obvious. The mystery is slipping a bit. Maybe I am just upset about the murder, but it just seems to me things are a little too obvious. It could also be that I am just being conned into thinking it is that simple when it is not really the case.

Either way, just like last year, it is near the end of the season and I am losing my interest in the show again. This is partly because of the murders, and partly because of the storyline.

Labels: Drama, Lost, Television, TV

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Identity Is Fun, but Too Much Skin

I really love family shows when it comes to television. And so that often leads me and my family to watch a lot of reality TV and game shows. I know that they aren't the best type of family television entertainment, but of the choices lately, it's about all that I have.

Friday nights are one night when usually the kids and I can sit down and spend an hour or two watching television together before bed. And this has meant that we watch a lot of Identity. I don't think that it is a great show, and I honestly though that Penn Jillette would do a lot better hosting. We watch, however, for the most part because it is family-friendly.

If you haven't seen the show, basically the contestant is supposed to match 12 identities (from a doctor to a horseback rider, or an Olympic Gold Medalist to a mortician) with 12 strangers standing on a stage. Sometimes is really obvious, like when the the identity is a clown and one of the people is actually wearing a red nose. However, as the identities are narrowed down, it can often get harder.

The nice thing about this is you can play along. You can make your educated (or sometimes not-so-educated) guess, and then be embarrassed or take bragging rights depending on your accuracy. I have hid my head in shame several times.

I have one big problem with this show, however. This show has too much skin. It seems that every female stranger has to be in either a bikini or strapless, naval revealing outfit.

Sure it has provided me with excellent opportunities to talk to my children about modesty. But it really is getting to be too much.

If the bikini or skimpy outfit is directly related to their identity, then I can understand it (sort of), but when a missionary, preschool teacher, and morticians apprentice are all in bikinis, I just have to wonder if this isn't just blatant pandering to the perverts in the male audience.

Let's try to keep family friendly television to at least some level of decency. Between the poor hosting by Jillette and the immodesty, I don't suspect that this show has much of a future.

Labels: Identity, Television, TV

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Choice = Better Television

I often find myself disagreeing with Scott Pierce, the television columnist at the Deseret News. However, I find his articles usually quite enjoyable to read. However, he is wrong in his latest column.

While, I don't agree with the Parents Television Council's effort for more government control of television. I do agree that Cable Television should provide an a-la-carte menu. I don't think that it should be government mandated, I just wish that private industry would provide an a-la-carte cable option without force.

Peirce argues that by creating an a-la-carte style cable system then many of our favorite cable networks would disappear. His claim is that many of these cable stations make money from subscriptions. This is a complete lie. Most subscription services (magazines, newspapers, and even cable networks) make their money from advertising. Subscriptions are simply used to prove that the people view the ads are actually paying customers and not people looking for a free ride.

Of the 38 networks that Peirce lists, there are only a few that are free of advertisements. The rest rely on ads to pay the bills. They are also able to charge a premium ad rate because they can say that their viewers have a specific interest. DIY and TLC can charge more for home improvement ads, and Oxygen can charge more for ads targeted to women.

If people chose their favorite 20 channels, then the premium they could charge for ads would go up. I am sure that this increase would more than make up for lose due to subscription reductions.

Further, If you accept Peirce's premise that bulk rates are the only way for some of your favorite stations to survive, then I have one question. Why should my money go to support something I don't watch? If it couldn't survive without my minute contribution, then why should it survive.

Some might argue that if the a-la-carte style cable system would work, then why aren't they offering it. The simple answer is because people are willing to pay for bulk packages. It is cheaper to eat at a buffet and not at a cafeteria. However, there are many people who will go to a good steak house rather than get a tough slice of second rate beef from a buffet.

I don't subscribe to cable. I don't see that it is worth my money. However, if I could buy just a few extra channels, then I might consider paying more per channel just to get the best of what is available.

Labels: Cable, Television, TV

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Heroes Renews It's Energy

In gearing up for last night's return of Heroes, I re-watched every season 1 episode on-line. Yeah, I have to admit I am a little obsessed. Since I did the same thing during the last Heroes drought, I have watched the pre-December episodes at least three times.

While watching these episodes again, I couldn't help but think that they had tied up too many loose ends. We found out who Claire's (Hayden Panetierre) real parents are. We had my suspicions that Mr. Bennet (Jack Coleman) was a good guy, and only the "face" of evil not evil itself, confirmed. We met Mr. Linderman (Michael McDowell), however, who he really is hasn't been revealed. And many more important parts of the story have been discovered.

I was honestly thinking that if they kept up the pace, then the show would be all over by the end to of this season. However, with this one episode, while having several questions answered, we had many new questions to keep our interest. Some of these interesting new questions are:

Will Nathan (Adrian Pasdar) encourage his brother to explode?
What is Mrs. Petrelli's (Cristine Rose) power?
Does Claire need to stay in New York or go to Paris to save the World?
Can Mr. Bennet stop the Company?
- Does he meet up again with Claire when in New York?
- Or do they end up going to Las Vegas instead?
What happened 15 or so years ago to cause a former group of Heroes to separate?
- Was Mrs. Petrelli one of the group?
- Does Mrs. Petrelli work for Linderman?
- Who was in that group?

These are just some of the question that I have come up with, and I am excited to see them develop. I am also very interested to see what happens 5 years in the future that is so important to today, so next week is going to be another great episode.

It's great that I have Heroes to hold onto, because as of late, I have been losing a lot of interest in television. Sure, I am still watching Lost, but many of the other staples in my TV diet aren't as appetizing as they used to be.

I really don't want to get into the speculations about the show, I just want to point out how good this show is and has become. This show is so good; I even started to believe the tricks of this episode.

It should have been obvious to me that Peter just needed the glass pulled from his head. But for some reason, I was so caught up in mourning his loss (or trying to figure out how Linderman was going to save him), that I didn't really think too much about pulling the glass out of his head.

I was moved when Claire saved him and cited the all to cliche line "I guess we're even then." I just solidified their relationship in my head. Before it was just a young girl fantasy about an older brother figure. Now, it is a great uncle-niece relationship that I know will prove important through out the show, even perhaps during the next few episodes.

Labels: Drama, Heroes, Television, TV

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Jericho Gets Nuked

As Jericho is one of my personal favorite new shows this year, I am upset to report that I won't be watching any more. I have said in the past there is one thing that will make me stop watching a show. I have been accused of being a prude and of not understanding real life because of it too.

Last weeks episode had an allusion to the fact that Bonnie (Shoshannah Stern) had spent the night with her boyfriend at her house while Stanley (Bradley Beyer) was in New Bern. I started to question if I should even bother watching the show then. However, I couldn't determine if Bonnie was a teenager or not. While I had alway thought she wast, I didn't want to give up on the show just then.

According to Stern's IMBD bio, she is 26 years old. However, it isn't uncommon for television to have actors portray people younger (or older) than they really are. So, I decided to reserve judgment. Honestly, I was hoping that they would just drop the issue and let me watch in peace.

However, they continued the story this week, and during a conversation between Stanley and Mimi (Alicia Coppola), Bonnie's age is hinted to. She is referred to as a teenager, and it was specified that she was having sex with her boyfriend.

I struggled at that point. I love this show. While my interest in Jericho is starting to wane, I don't want to stop watching yet. I even contemplated not writing about it today and just letting the incident slide hoping that no one would notice my hypocrisy.

However, I can't do that. If I give in on one show, then I lose and those who are determined to normalize teen sex win. So, I am done with Jericho.

Before some of you start arguing that I don't know anything about teenagers, I want to point out, that yes I know teens are having sex. I also understand that sex is very much on most teenagers' minds. However, it isn't something that they should take casually, and too many television shows are treating this as a casual act.

I am also hopeful that there is still a large number of teens who are choosing to abstain. I am still waiting for a show that emphasizes that choice, and not as some fanatically religious reason for their choice. I am fine with religion being a part of the choice. I am just afraid that the media will make it some religious fanatical reason for the decision.

I predict that Jericho will lose a lot of viewers over the rest of this season, and I further predict that fewer will return for the next season. I am sure I am not the only person who feels this way. We need to have more viewers be more discerning about the shows they choose to watch. As for me, I am done with one of my favorite shows this year.

Labels: Drama, Jericho, Television, TV

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Imaginary Raines Entertains

When I first read about Raines, I was wondering how many more talking to the dead shows we need. Then I realized that Detective Michael Raines (Jeff Goldblum) doesn't really talk to the dead. He just imagines them.

So, then I start wondering if we really need another Monk. However, after watching the past three episodes, I realize that this isn't Monk, and frankly, I think it is a lot better.

Prior to any of the first episode, Raines' partner, Detective Charlie Lincoln (Milka Yoba) was killed and Raines is taking it pretty hard. So hard, that he sees the victims that he is investigating as he works on their cases. He even talks to his old partner in his imagination.

He is not however seeing their ghosts. He only imagines them, and the victim's character is slow developed as Raines learns more about them. Last week's episode started with the victim all covered in seaweed and half eaten by fish, until Raines sees a photo. Then the victim becomes normal.

Last night's episode we see the victim's clothes changes as Raines learned more about her. She went from looking like a homeless woman, to a suburban mother like individual.

These imaginary individuals, however, don't tell Raines more than he already knows. Sure sometimes they help him talk through problems to understand possible solutions. However, they don't tell him anything more than he already knows.

It really creates a very interesting story line, and helps you to understand better how Raines puts the cases together. It really is an excellent literary tool.

It is a really interesting premise and is very enjoyable. The monologue at the beginning is a little too Dragnet, but it does work for this show, especially when you take into account that Raines talks to himself (or his imagination) throughout the show.

I will keep watching and enjoying Raines. It is perhaps the best new premier among this mid-seasons releases.

Labels: Drama, Raines, Television, TV