If the bloggings seem light over the next couple of days, it's because I have a tremendous amount of stuff due in the paying side of my job, so apologies in advance.
Just a quick note today to deliver some good news. ABC announced that both "Lost" and "Grey's Anatomy" will have an extra hour apiece added to their post-strike orders.
The tricky bit is that "Lost" needed an extra hour to tell the season finale the way Team Darlton wanted to, but because of the way the schedule worked out ("Lost's" finale is essentially a three-hour long episode), ABC needed an extra hour filled, so it ordered another "Grey's."
The one bad thing, though, is that the first part of the "Lost" finale will air May 15, but we then get a two-week break before the final two hours air May 29, because Team Darlton felt it better not to break up those final two hours. So ABC will air the "Ugly Betty" and "Grey's" finales during that May 22 run, while the May 15 "Lost" will re-air in the 8 p.m. time slot May 29, making it an all-"Lost" night.
Ironically, none of this will help ABC much ratings-wise, because sweeps end May 21, meaning all of ABC's heavy hitters will be airing their finales after that key ratings period.
TUESDAY'S BEST BETS: Abby tries to prove a dog's innnocence on "NCIS" (CBS, 8 p.m.) That's one of the reasons I love this particular procedural - it's exactly the sort of thing Abby would do. Top that, CSI!
ABC airs a new "Boston Legal" at 10 p.m. following the "Dancing With The Stars" results show. Fox is all-reality with "American Idol" and "Hell's Kitchen," while NBC delivers a new "Law & Order: SVU" at 10 p.m. after the finale of "The Biggest Loser."
Finally, a new "The Riches" (FX, 10 p.m.) airs.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A Bit More 'Lost' And 'Grey's'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
While I still want ABC to give us back the OTHER 2 hours of "Lost" that were taken away because of that god forsaken strike, I am grateful to get anything back, especially an extra hour of the best show on Television. (with all due respect to "Battlestar" and "Mad Men" and a few others, I think I've settled on "Lost" once again as the best hour of TV, any week).
I know this isn't the right day, but we just watched the special Sunday airing of "Eli Stone" (the penultimate episode before this Thursday's season or possibly series finale) and wow...all I can say is after Sunday's episode, I am praying now for "Eli" to get a fall reprieve.
I know you're giving your good TV karma to the folks at "New Amsterdam", for me, I am giving it equally to the folks at "Sarah Conner" and now especially for "Eli Stone". The Sunday episode was, by far, my favorite of the series and Johnny Lee Miller's performance was dazzling...along with an extremely underrated supporting cast, especially Victor Garber.
Eli Stone has gotten better and better each week, and I'm giving good thoughts to all three shows. I listed a bunch of bubble shows last week and I would encourage the fans of those series to write the networks and speak up.
I haven't watched Eli Stone since the third week; I didn't particularly dislike it, but it wasn't high on my radar either. Good to hear it got a lot better, I'll have to go back and check out what I've missed.
I agree with Zod on New Amsterdam, I've enjoyed it, but if it doesn't come back, I will not be dissapointed. Terminator, I'm kind of wishy washy on as well, but I'm a lot more curious to see where they would go with this than I am New Amsterdam, so if only one gets picked up, I'm hoping for Terminator. It still annoys me that Prison Break gets to come back with marginal ratings, but these two are on the bubble.
It was nice to see "Bones" back as well last night, and it was a very fun episode to boot. I'm still a little indifferent toward the character of Sweets though. I think he's become a very fun character that has fit into the main cast nicely, but I've always been a little annoyed at how they wrote him in.
I still can't figure out why Bones and Booth would need to see a shrink; I could understand it for their professional relationship and its possible strife with Booth arresting Bones's dad and what not. However, lately it seems to be touching on a more personal level which confuses me. If this is simply to see whether or not they can work together as a professional team then why do we need to know if they can function as a couple outside of work as well.
Sweets makes it seem that the fact they only talk about work is a problem for them, but once again this is supposed to be about their ability to work together as a team at the office, so shouldn't they be discussing work?
I also don't buy them including Sweets in their cases as a temp profiler. The FBI would have a number of more qualified people for this posistion on hand, so putting Sweets into this role seems fairly contrived.
Sorry for the length; maybe this is me overanalyzing. But considering how well written this show is overall, I find it odd that they are having to leap to such contrivances to get an added character a little more screentime.
Well, Jonathan, if you want to get technical, why are Bones and Booth partners in the first place? If Booth is going on a case, he should have a qualified FBI agent as a partner and only consult Bones on forensic questions. That Bones finds herself in the field or in the interrogation room is pretty contrived in itself.
But I try to ignore all that and focus on the relationships, which is I why I don't mind Sweets so much. Yeah, he's too young, but he meshes pretty well with the cast and it adds a new dynamic to the Bones-Booth relationship.
Valid point, sir. Like I said, probably just overanalyzing. And like you said yesterday, it's not so much the crimes themselves but the interaction of the characters that makes the show work. And I agree.
But I guess in a fictional world the only thing I ask is that you make the actions in that world believable. While I'm sure Kathy Reichs herself did not end up in interrogation rooms, she has assisted the FBI on many cases which I'm sure has put her at quite a few crime scenes.
And I guess my main point is that Sweets has felt a little forced on us as a recurring character, and to justify putting him in the main cast, they have to come up with reasons to stick him in the proceedings. Everyone else involved, no matter how absurd it may seem, feels like a natural extension to the stories. Sweets does not (IMHO). That's all I was trying to get across in my usual longwinded fashion.
Well, I've questioned those decisions in the past as well. When they brought in Cam in Season 2, you added another beautiful, super-smart forensic scientist, when you already had Bones. They had her and Booth together for a while, but with them no longer an item, she seems redundant.
I think they involve Sweets with the cases so as to give him more to do. The only problem is that the more you add characters, the more you divide up the time for the rest of the cast. This isn't an ensemble like Lost, which can focus on one character per week. This is a show built around a group dynamic, sort of like NCIS, which i think does a better job of balancing things.
On the other hand, the best episodes of Bones surround the Bones-Booth dynamic (the Adam Baldwin episode last season comes to mind), so as long as they keep that focus, the show will be all right.
Wow...a dissertation on the character of Sweets! I think he's a rather unrealistic character because, frankly, he still looks like a kid to me, and he's still the kid that starred 7 years ago in NBC's short lived but brilliant, "Freaks and Geeks".
"Bones" across the board is an entertaining show but far fetched on a lot of levels. Don't even get me started on last season's squirm inducing season finale when they interrupted Hodgins and Angela's wedding with the beyond stupid plot device that she was 'already married' and it's some island sailor guy who lives in a far away country.
While "Bones" is an enjoyable little show, it's so far off the realism grid, I can't put it in my top 10 favorite shows.
Post a Comment