Every year I try to resist, and every year it sucks me back in. The satanic minions last season were Melinda Doolittle and Blake "I wish he played for my team" Lewis, and this season it's likely to be David Archuleta.
Never mind the last name that makes me think of spiders. Never mind the fact that the boy just turned freaking seventeen (and therefore makes me feel like a wizened cradle-robber). Talent is sexy, and the guy's got talent in spades.
Many Doolittle critics last year complained about her being boring, but when Melinda Doolittle got on fire (which was often) she had the kind of magic that can't be trained or manufactured. You couldn't even articulate what it was that made the performance so great; you could really only sit back in awe. I'm thinking particularly of the Doolittle "My Funny Valentine" and "WOMAN", both of which amaze me even today.
And it's the same with Archuleta's performance of "Imagine" this past week. While he's been consistently good, this week was the first time he took good, sniffed at it, and tossed it by the wayside on his way to great. Far be it from me to proclaim myself an expert on music, but goosebumps are goosebumps, and I was shivery with them all through Archuleta's performance.
Does this mean he'll sail through to the finals? My bet at this point is a resounding yes. Where he'll go from there is anyone's guess; one only needs to remember LaKisha Jones to know that the finals are notoriously tricky. That being said, I agree with Simon Cowell's assessment during the Hollywood round: he's young, he's good-looking, and he's got an impressive set of pipes. Not a bad place to start; not a bad place to start at all.
Besides, he's been training from a really young age: it boggles the mind, the haircut in the video, but I guess if a kid could survive that, he could probably survive anything.
"American Idol" airs... oh, please. You know when it airs. It's only on about 3890473298473 times a week.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Gay.com Column: "Brothers and Sisters": The Spy and the Private Investigator
Arvin Sloane. Keith Mars. Possibly soon-to-be lovers. Now, I'm sorry if my bi-coastal shriek shattered your television set, but certain pair-ups just need to be celebrated as loudly as possible.
I don't know who on the "Brothers and Sisters" team pushed the idea of Ron Rifkin and Enrico Colantoni as lovers (here's hoping!), but such a couple would be genius on so many levels.
First of all, the two men are among the finest actors out there, with a history of amazing work behind them; my television crush on Colantoni began more than a decade ago with the sitcom "Just Shoot Me", and while I've only seen Rifkin in "Alias" and "Brothers", on his best "Alias" day Arvin Sloane could out-creep just about anyone. So these two actors have a demonstrated level of excellence in their work.
Which they will need, if they are going to play lovers on primetime television. Middle-aged gay lovers is probably not a network exec's dream couple, and while the creative team behind "Brothers" has more than proven itself, I also can't help but think of the many ways that this could go horribly wrong. So if the network steps in to interfere, or if the writers somehow bomb the storyline, you want actors who can do wonders with bad material, and I can think of few actors that would do a better job than Rifkin and Colantoni.
But more than all of this is the sheer compatibility of the match. Yes, Rifkin could have chemistry with a rock, and so could Colantoni for that matter, so it won't be surprising if they're compatible onscreen. But the fact that one is most famous as a diabolical spy, and the other is most famous as a do-gooder sheriff / private investigator - well, every time I think of them as lovers it just seems to fit.
And I haven't even mentioned the bonanza of meta-kinkiness that would be available to the writers.
So, as you can see, a Rifkin-Colantoni arc would be nothing short of heaven, both for the characters, the actors, and us. God knows Rifkin hasn't exactly been blessed with great material on "Brothers", and god knows a meaty role hasn't happened for Colantoni post-"Veronica Mars" either.
A storyline featuring them as lovers would change all that in a jiffy, and since these are two actors who've definitely earned the karma to good material, I'm going to be in the camp that's rooting for some middle-aged gay action.
Now, how do we wreck "Eli Stone" so we can get Victor Garber on board too...
"Brothers and Sisters" will hopefully be airing on ABC, on Sundays at 10 pm / 9 pm central.
I don't know who on the "Brothers and Sisters" team pushed the idea of Ron Rifkin and Enrico Colantoni as lovers (here's hoping!), but such a couple would be genius on so many levels.
First of all, the two men are among the finest actors out there, with a history of amazing work behind them; my television crush on Colantoni began more than a decade ago with the sitcom "Just Shoot Me", and while I've only seen Rifkin in "Alias" and "Brothers", on his best "Alias" day Arvin Sloane could out-creep just about anyone. So these two actors have a demonstrated level of excellence in their work.
Which they will need, if they are going to play lovers on primetime television. Middle-aged gay lovers is probably not a network exec's dream couple, and while the creative team behind "Brothers" has more than proven itself, I also can't help but think of the many ways that this could go horribly wrong. So if the network steps in to interfere, or if the writers somehow bomb the storyline, you want actors who can do wonders with bad material, and I can think of few actors that would do a better job than Rifkin and Colantoni.
But more than all of this is the sheer compatibility of the match. Yes, Rifkin could have chemistry with a rock, and so could Colantoni for that matter, so it won't be surprising if they're compatible onscreen. But the fact that one is most famous as a diabolical spy, and the other is most famous as a do-gooder sheriff / private investigator - well, every time I think of them as lovers it just seems to fit.
And I haven't even mentioned the bonanza of meta-kinkiness that would be available to the writers.
So, as you can see, a Rifkin-Colantoni arc would be nothing short of heaven, both for the characters, the actors, and us. God knows Rifkin hasn't exactly been blessed with great material on "Brothers", and god knows a meaty role hasn't happened for Colantoni post-"Veronica Mars" either.
A storyline featuring them as lovers would change all that in a jiffy, and since these are two actors who've definitely earned the karma to good material, I'm going to be in the camp that's rooting for some middle-aged gay action.
Now, how do we wreck "Eli Stone" so we can get Victor Garber on board too...
"Brothers and Sisters" will hopefully be airing on ABC, on Sundays at 10 pm / 9 pm central.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Gay.com Column: Post-strike wishes for "Brothers & Sisters", "Lost", "Friday Night Lights" and "Lost"
With the guild writers set to return to work, our favorite shows could see new episodes as early as next month. "Lost" fans will probably get their 16-episode season, "Desperate Housewives" fans can stop turning to the ersatz housewives of Orange County, and "Brothers and Sisters" fans can look forward to a happy reunion with their TV family.
As for me, I'm just glad that I can soon turn on my TV without feeling guilty. Withdrawal has not been kind, and I don't know if I could have survived much longer without my weekly "Friday Night Lights" fix. (Yes, it's that addictive.)
That being said, I'm also secretly a little glad that the guild has had some time off. As much I love "Brothers and Sisters", "Friday Night Lights", "Lost", and "Battlestar Galactica", some developments on these shows have seemed a little odd to me; so I hope that the strike has given the writers time to do some tweaking.
Take "Brothers and Sisters", for example. Last we heard, our favorite lawyer was getting emails from his ex-boyfriend, leading to some very uncomfortable standoffs with his current boyfriend. How will the Kevin-Jason-Scotty triangle resolve itself, and will it be resolved? This fan certainly hopes so, since Kevin seems to be stuck in a character rut.
From Scotty to Chad to Jason and back, Kevin seems to be the character who has undergone the least development in the past season and a half. Each boyfriend demonstrated that Kevin has commitment issues, but none managed to push Kevin into truly exploring those issues. For a while there, it seemed minister Jason might be in it for the long haul, but then "Viva Laughlin" shit all over those plans, and we were back to square one.
As much as I appreciate the parade of hot men through Kevin's revolving door love life, I think I'd appreciate much more Kevin having a steady boyfriend. The guy's got plenty of other problems; pigeonholing him as The One Who Can't Commit seems a little lazy and shortsighted. So I say: let Jason and Scotty go mano-a-mano for Kevin's affections, but let the winner graduate from guest star to permanent cast member, at least for the rest of the season. Hopefully this is the writers' plan, because it's time to move on; at least give Kevin a chance to suffer and rejoice in the vicissitudes of a long-term relationship.
If the problem in "Brothers and Sisters" is guys who can't stick around, the problem of "Friday Night Lights" is guys who can't stick together. As much as it pains me to speak ill of a show that's one of the best things out there in TV land, the second season of "FNL" seems to have forgotten - just a little bit - what made it so great in its debut season: that is, a kick-ass main cast who stuck and fought together for each other.
Football is a team sport, but you wouldn't know it by much of the current season. From the unity of the first season we've come to this: Jason Street, the paralyzed golden boy, all but disappearing for large stretches; previous best-pals Landry Clarke and Matt Saracen barely having a scene together; 'Smash' Williams seemingly only hanging out with his new girlfriend; and Tim Riggins getting bounced from home to home.
What I liked about the first season was the sense that these characters were truly a part of each others' lives: from the unlikely friendship between bad girl Tyra Collette and coach's daughter Julie Taylor, to the brief but striking interactions between Smash and Tim Riggins, to that memorable scene where Tim Riggins, Smash, Matt and Jason were all together on the soccer field. I get that characters have to move on, but this season seems to have taken that dictum a little too far.
Thankfully, there are signs that things may be righting themselves. In the last few episodes we've gotten glimpses of reunions in the making: Buddy Garrity, Lyla's father, offering Jason Street a job; Lyla and Tim Riggins' long-simmering romance building to a head; an actual scene with Landry, Matt, Tim Riggins, and Smash all in attendance; and more. All good, and all - fingers crossed - signs of things to come.
Moving on from a show that's hopefully found itself to "Lost", we have yet another show that seems to be on the uptick. I've never been an obsessive fan of "Lost", and certain creative decisions over the seasons entirely bewildered me: the first six episodes of season three, the point of the Tailies, who have been all but exterminated one way or another, and the by-now predictable influx of new Other Other Other Others at the start of seasons.
To me, the show has strayed so far from its initial premise that it's almost unrecognizable. That being said, however, the introduction of an end-point for the series may have been just the thing the show needed.
While I could be cynical and argue that the endpoint is a ploy to re-hook exasperated fans, I'm willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt. The use of flashforwards suggest that the writers know what they're writing toward, and the 'how did the Oceanic Six get off the island?' big question going forward might be enough to sustain the show for its remaining seasons. For a show that's floundered since its initial burst onto screens, this new creative direction might just be the thing to save it.
Of course, I could be horribly wrong, and the writers could still be blowing smoke out of their asses. Therefore, my post-strike wish for "Lost" is this: please let me be right about something for once. And, I guess, while we're at it: no more shaking the rabbit scenes, please.
And, finally, we arrive at "Battlestar Galactica". I really only have one wish for this show: Don't stop! Please! Keep going!
(You know you agree with me.)
"Brothers and Sisters" will hopefully start airing again on Sundays, at 10 pm / 9 pm central on ABC.
"Friday Night Lights" will hopefully have new episodes on Fridays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on NBC.
"Lost" airs Thursdays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on ABC.
"Battlestar Galactica" returns in March, on the Sci-Fi channel.
As for me, I'm just glad that I can soon turn on my TV without feeling guilty. Withdrawal has not been kind, and I don't know if I could have survived much longer without my weekly "Friday Night Lights" fix. (Yes, it's that addictive.)
That being said, I'm also secretly a little glad that the guild has had some time off. As much I love "Brothers and Sisters", "Friday Night Lights", "Lost", and "Battlestar Galactica", some developments on these shows have seemed a little odd to me; so I hope that the strike has given the writers time to do some tweaking.
Take "Brothers and Sisters", for example. Last we heard, our favorite lawyer was getting emails from his ex-boyfriend, leading to some very uncomfortable standoffs with his current boyfriend. How will the Kevin-Jason-Scotty triangle resolve itself, and will it be resolved? This fan certainly hopes so, since Kevin seems to be stuck in a character rut.
From Scotty to Chad to Jason and back, Kevin seems to be the character who has undergone the least development in the past season and a half. Each boyfriend demonstrated that Kevin has commitment issues, but none managed to push Kevin into truly exploring those issues. For a while there, it seemed minister Jason might be in it for the long haul, but then "Viva Laughlin" shit all over those plans, and we were back to square one.
As much as I appreciate the parade of hot men through Kevin's revolving door love life, I think I'd appreciate much more Kevin having a steady boyfriend. The guy's got plenty of other problems; pigeonholing him as The One Who Can't Commit seems a little lazy and shortsighted. So I say: let Jason and Scotty go mano-a-mano for Kevin's affections, but let the winner graduate from guest star to permanent cast member, at least for the rest of the season. Hopefully this is the writers' plan, because it's time to move on; at least give Kevin a chance to suffer and rejoice in the vicissitudes of a long-term relationship.
If the problem in "Brothers and Sisters" is guys who can't stick around, the problem of "Friday Night Lights" is guys who can't stick together. As much as it pains me to speak ill of a show that's one of the best things out there in TV land, the second season of "FNL" seems to have forgotten - just a little bit - what made it so great in its debut season: that is, a kick-ass main cast who stuck and fought together for each other.
Football is a team sport, but you wouldn't know it by much of the current season. From the unity of the first season we've come to this: Jason Street, the paralyzed golden boy, all but disappearing for large stretches; previous best-pals Landry Clarke and Matt Saracen barely having a scene together; 'Smash' Williams seemingly only hanging out with his new girlfriend; and Tim Riggins getting bounced from home to home.
What I liked about the first season was the sense that these characters were truly a part of each others' lives: from the unlikely friendship between bad girl Tyra Collette and coach's daughter Julie Taylor, to the brief but striking interactions between Smash and Tim Riggins, to that memorable scene where Tim Riggins, Smash, Matt and Jason were all together on the soccer field. I get that characters have to move on, but this season seems to have taken that dictum a little too far.
Thankfully, there are signs that things may be righting themselves. In the last few episodes we've gotten glimpses of reunions in the making: Buddy Garrity, Lyla's father, offering Jason Street a job; Lyla and Tim Riggins' long-simmering romance building to a head; an actual scene with Landry, Matt, Tim Riggins, and Smash all in attendance; and more. All good, and all - fingers crossed - signs of things to come.
Moving on from a show that's hopefully found itself to "Lost", we have yet another show that seems to be on the uptick. I've never been an obsessive fan of "Lost", and certain creative decisions over the seasons entirely bewildered me: the first six episodes of season three, the point of the Tailies, who have been all but exterminated one way or another, and the by-now predictable influx of new Other Other Other Others at the start of seasons.
To me, the show has strayed so far from its initial premise that it's almost unrecognizable. That being said, however, the introduction of an end-point for the series may have been just the thing the show needed.
While I could be cynical and argue that the endpoint is a ploy to re-hook exasperated fans, I'm willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt. The use of flashforwards suggest that the writers know what they're writing toward, and the 'how did the Oceanic Six get off the island?' big question going forward might be enough to sustain the show for its remaining seasons. For a show that's floundered since its initial burst onto screens, this new creative direction might just be the thing to save it.
Of course, I could be horribly wrong, and the writers could still be blowing smoke out of their asses. Therefore, my post-strike wish for "Lost" is this: please let me be right about something for once. And, I guess, while we're at it: no more shaking the rabbit scenes, please.
And, finally, we arrive at "Battlestar Galactica". I really only have one wish for this show: Don't stop! Please! Keep going!
(You know you agree with me.)
"Brothers and Sisters" will hopefully start airing again on Sundays, at 10 pm / 9 pm central on ABC.
"Friday Night Lights" will hopefully have new episodes on Fridays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on NBC.
"Lost" airs Thursdays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on ABC.
"Battlestar Galactica" returns in March, on the Sci-Fi channel.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Gay.com Column: "Make Me A Supermodel": The gayGayGAY one
Bravo's "Make Me A Supermodel" isn't a reinvention of the runway. Like the CW's "America's Next Top Model" and VH1's "America's Most Smartest Model", "Supermodel" relies mostly on a tried-and-true formula: fantastic-looking people + capital A Awkward situation = surefire drama. Witness the pairing of models who hate each other, the photo-shoots involving whips and other sexual festishes, husbands with wives back home, and et cetera.
But each modeling series has developed its own niche, and "Supermodel" seems to have chosen for its comfort zone the LGBT zip code.
I don't pretend to speak for the LGBT community, but in my opinion there's only one thing better than two hot smoking men, and that's two hot smoking men who are into each other. "Supermodel" seems to agree with me, because they've ratcheted up the homoerotic content.
Watching gay Ronnie and straight Ben do their dance around each other reminds me of the worst and best parts of high school and college: the instant attraction, the 'playful' friendship, the sinking knowledge that one can only ultimately 'play', if that, and the freaking out that gets piled on top of everything every part of the way.
Except, of course, this being television, everything gets dialed to eleven: instead of 'friendly' knee pats, we have R & B rolling around on a bed (albeit with the buffer of a woman), and instead of the stock girlfriend, we have a wife back home whose cheeks get redder every week. And that's where the problem lies.
There's manufactured drama, and then there's genuine drama for which reality show makers will sacrifice their children - and I bet the "Supermodel" producers shed tears every week for the blessings that are Ronnie and Ben - but the problem with genuine drama is that it tends to involve genuine trauma.
Pair two models who hate each other, and in the worst-case scenario you might end up with bruised egos and scratched faces. Put Ronnie and Ben together, however, and you end up with developments like married Ben supposedly telling Ronnie he'd experiment with a man if drinks were flowing. Or Ronnie saying he has real feelings for Ben. Both of which can only elicit one response:
Oh... no. No no no no no...
To quote the show's recapper on Television Without Pity: "I want to fly to New York immediately and rescue them both from themselves and each other. Ben, you don't want to be with Ronnie, you just like him a lot and he's hot and you really appreciate the sexual attention. Ronnie, you don't want Ben... Well, maybe you do, but there are so many other gorgeous gay fish in the sea who will not flip on you after six painful months of tearful confusion."
The show is only at episode four, but I'm already cringing at the possible ramifications of future Ben and Ronnie Epic Bromance installments. So much so that I was almost glad for the attempt at manufacturing gay panic drama in the third episode.
In that one, straight boys Perry and Casey were asked to pair up for a sizzling lingerie photo-shoot. A big bed was provided, as were briefs, handcuffs, and other props... including a lollipop.
Then, later, they were asked to give their runway interpretation of "equestrian with a fetish twist".
To both guys' credit, though, they rose above the gay panic drama bait in both instances, and acquitted themselves admirably. There was tonguing, tying, whipping, nibbling of ear lobes, pulling of waistbands, and all sorts of other collar-heating activity, but nary a bit of awkwardness or face-making (except the good kind. You'll see in the video).
Seriously, y'all. It's almost NSFW; that's how good those two were.
So, between this and the R & B Express Train(Wreck), I think I can safely say this: Miss Tyra, you better watch your back. There's another LGBT eye-catcher in town.
And to Ronnie and Ben: seriously. I love watching you guys, but please set some boundaries. Now.
"Make Me A Supermodel" airs on Bravo, Thursdays at 10 pm / 9 pm central, with repeats every day.
But each modeling series has developed its own niche, and "Supermodel" seems to have chosen for its comfort zone the LGBT zip code.
I don't pretend to speak for the LGBT community, but in my opinion there's only one thing better than two hot smoking men, and that's two hot smoking men who are into each other. "Supermodel" seems to agree with me, because they've ratcheted up the homoerotic content.
Watching gay Ronnie and straight Ben do their dance around each other reminds me of the worst and best parts of high school and college: the instant attraction, the 'playful' friendship, the sinking knowledge that one can only ultimately 'play', if that, and the freaking out that gets piled on top of everything every part of the way.
Except, of course, this being television, everything gets dialed to eleven: instead of 'friendly' knee pats, we have R & B rolling around on a bed (albeit with the buffer of a woman), and instead of the stock girlfriend, we have a wife back home whose cheeks get redder every week. And that's where the problem lies.
There's manufactured drama, and then there's genuine drama for which reality show makers will sacrifice their children - and I bet the "Supermodel" producers shed tears every week for the blessings that are Ronnie and Ben - but the problem with genuine drama is that it tends to involve genuine trauma.
Pair two models who hate each other, and in the worst-case scenario you might end up with bruised egos and scratched faces. Put Ronnie and Ben together, however, and you end up with developments like married Ben supposedly telling Ronnie he'd experiment with a man if drinks were flowing. Or Ronnie saying he has real feelings for Ben. Both of which can only elicit one response:
Oh... no. No no no no no...
To quote the show's recapper on Television Without Pity: "I want to fly to New York immediately and rescue them both from themselves and each other. Ben, you don't want to be with Ronnie, you just like him a lot and he's hot and you really appreciate the sexual attention. Ronnie, you don't want Ben... Well, maybe you do, but there are so many other gorgeous gay fish in the sea who will not flip on you after six painful months of tearful confusion."
The show is only at episode four, but I'm already cringing at the possible ramifications of future Ben and Ronnie Epic Bromance installments. So much so that I was almost glad for the attempt at manufacturing gay panic drama in the third episode.
In that one, straight boys Perry and Casey were asked to pair up for a sizzling lingerie photo-shoot. A big bed was provided, as were briefs, handcuffs, and other props... including a lollipop.
Then, later, they were asked to give their runway interpretation of "equestrian with a fetish twist".
To both guys' credit, though, they rose above the gay panic drama bait in both instances, and acquitted themselves admirably. There was tonguing, tying, whipping, nibbling of ear lobes, pulling of waistbands, and all sorts of other collar-heating activity, but nary a bit of awkwardness or face-making (except the good kind. You'll see in the video).
Seriously, y'all. It's almost NSFW; that's how good those two were.
So, between this and the R & B Express Train(Wreck), I think I can safely say this: Miss Tyra, you better watch your back. There's another LGBT eye-catcher in town.
And to Ronnie and Ben: seriously. I love watching you guys, but please set some boundaries. Now.
"Make Me A Supermodel" airs on Bravo, Thursdays at 10 pm / 9 pm central, with repeats every day.
Gay.com Column: "Torchwood": Time to add more fire to the show
There are gay-friendly shows that you champion, and then there are gay-friendly shows that you defend. To me, the first season of "Torchwood" was one of the latter.
The series - which returns January 26th on BBC America - had much going for it before it aired: it was a spin-off of the invincible "Doctor Who" series, it starred the immensely popular Who-niverse character Captain Jack Harkness, and it promised to be a darker and edgier show. All things considered, comparisons to the successful "Buffy" spin-off, "Angel", were not entirely unwarranted.
The series was also likely to attract LGBT viewers in droves, thanks to the openly gay and incredibly affable John Barrowman, who plays Harkness. Teasers that played up Harkness's 'omnisexuality' probably didn't hurt as well.
But premise is only half the equation of a good show, and when "Torchwood" aired it quickly became evident that execution was a problem.
The lack of a compelling villain, episodes that varied all over the place in quality, and a general aimlessness to the season: these hurt the show bad enough. But worse than all of these was the transformation of Harkness's character - the insouciant bad boy of "Doctor Who" seemed to have been lobotomized, and reappeared as a vastly more uptight and moody version on "Torchwood". It was as if he had taken the Addison Montgomery train in reverse.
The LGBT showpiece episode 'Captain Jack Harkness' was, in this viewer's opinion, also a massive disappointment. It features Harkness traveling back to the 1940s, where he chances upon his namesake, a closeted fighter pilot with whom he falls in love and whose identity he steals. Mind-imploding time-travel problems aside, the episode not only mimics trite gay melodrama, but also mimics trite gay melodrama badly. At the end of the episode, before he steps back into the time portal, Harkness damns it all and kisses his namesake in front of all and sundry.
Romantic? Only if you don't think about how implausible it is, even by "Doctor Who" / "Torchwood" standards. Furthermore, Harkness already knows that his namesake dies in a training mission gone wrong the day after they part, and yet doesn't make the (possible) connection between that and any overt display of love. Romantic? More like deadly moronic.
And I haven't even mentioned the cheesefest that is Original Harkness's farewell to Harkness v 2.0.
This episode is essentially why the series is difficult for me to recommend, and why I defend it instead of championing it. The mere fact that the show exists is cause for celebration, and the mere fact of its starring a gay actor in a lead 'omnisexual' role is cause for celebration. But - it's not a good show. There are good episodes, but it's far too hit-and-miss, far too beset by pacing problems, logic problems, and ultimately 'unlikeable character' problems. We can do better on television. We have done better.
Given the series's return in a few days, I hope to change my opinion of this series. I want to like the second season of "Torchwood", and the signing on of James 'Spike' Marsters gives me hope. That his character and Harkness are supposedly due for a "horny and violent" encounter also gives me hope. The last time Marsters played a horny and violent person was on "Buffy", so hopefully "Torchwood" is heading in that show's direction, minus the UPN seasons.
More than this, the check-signers on the show have indicated dissatisfaction with the first season change in Harkness's character, so we can all pray this means sly maverick Harkness is on the way back.
If both of these happen, "Torchwood" can count on me to champion instead of defend it. Indeed, if it at all improves from its first season it can expect me to champion it. So here's to the first few episodes, and hopefully a better season in store.
"Torchwood" premieres on BBC America on January 26th, at 9 pm / 8 pm central.
--------
This post attracted a lot of backlash; admittedly, I was unclear in parts and didn't advance a very cogent point of view. I ended up clarifying and expanding on the post in a comment, which is reproduced below:
--------
Hi, all:
First of all, thank you for posting your comments. I'm (obviously) not the biggest fan of the show, but I think it's great that you guys feel so strongly about it.
A few points have been brought up in the above comments that make a lot of sense; however, in the spirit of discussion I'd like to point out the following:
To the comment that the others were frozen by the portal opening, and hence missed the Jacks kissing: it's not entirely clear if the people are frozen when the two Jacks kiss. When the rift first opens, you can see the hand of the band's bassist moving. That suggests to me that the rift might not cause people to freeze.
And even if the people are frozen when the kiss occurs, it's clear from their reactions to the two Jacks dancing, that they do not approve. Remember earlier in the episode when George, one of the real Jack's men, punches our Jack because our Jack invites him to dance? That's a very clear sign of George's homophobia to me - homophobia that seems mirrored in the people's reactions to the two Jacks dancing.
And that, to me, is the biggest problem of all. It is true that our Jack tells us the real Jack dies in a mission ambushed by the Germans, but we have only our Jack's word for it, and our Jack wasn't there. Are we really to believe that people like George, who would punch a guy for asking for a dance, would still willingly follow real Jack after seeing him obviously in love with another man? What happened after our Jack stepped into the portal? There's too much left unanswered between the portal closing, and real Jack dying.
I'm not disputing that there was a mission and that it was ambushed by Germans; I'm just saying that it's the writers who brought up George's homophobia, and the other people's homophobia, and we don't know exactly what went down in the ambush. It's not entirely impossible that George et al wouldn't act as hard to save their captain post-our Jack's dance with him. In fact, in my opinion, with people like George, it's downright plausible. It's just that I think the writers didn't think this through. They wanted a romantic ending with the two men defying society to dance with and kiss each other. They didn't seem to think of any aftermath.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
The series - which returns January 26th on BBC America - had much going for it before it aired: it was a spin-off of the invincible "Doctor Who" series, it starred the immensely popular Who-niverse character Captain Jack Harkness, and it promised to be a darker and edgier show. All things considered, comparisons to the successful "Buffy" spin-off, "Angel", were not entirely unwarranted.
The series was also likely to attract LGBT viewers in droves, thanks to the openly gay and incredibly affable John Barrowman, who plays Harkness. Teasers that played up Harkness's 'omnisexuality' probably didn't hurt as well.
But premise is only half the equation of a good show, and when "Torchwood" aired it quickly became evident that execution was a problem.
The lack of a compelling villain, episodes that varied all over the place in quality, and a general aimlessness to the season: these hurt the show bad enough. But worse than all of these was the transformation of Harkness's character - the insouciant bad boy of "Doctor Who" seemed to have been lobotomized, and reappeared as a vastly more uptight and moody version on "Torchwood". It was as if he had taken the Addison Montgomery train in reverse.
The LGBT showpiece episode 'Captain Jack Harkness' was, in this viewer's opinion, also a massive disappointment. It features Harkness traveling back to the 1940s, where he chances upon his namesake, a closeted fighter pilot with whom he falls in love and whose identity he steals. Mind-imploding time-travel problems aside, the episode not only mimics trite gay melodrama, but also mimics trite gay melodrama badly. At the end of the episode, before he steps back into the time portal, Harkness damns it all and kisses his namesake in front of all and sundry.
Romantic? Only if you don't think about how implausible it is, even by "Doctor Who" / "Torchwood" standards. Furthermore, Harkness already knows that his namesake dies in a training mission gone wrong the day after they part, and yet doesn't make the (possible) connection between that and any overt display of love. Romantic? More like deadly moronic.
And I haven't even mentioned the cheesefest that is Original Harkness's farewell to Harkness v 2.0.
This episode is essentially why the series is difficult for me to recommend, and why I defend it instead of championing it. The mere fact that the show exists is cause for celebration, and the mere fact of its starring a gay actor in a lead 'omnisexual' role is cause for celebration. But - it's not a good show. There are good episodes, but it's far too hit-and-miss, far too beset by pacing problems, logic problems, and ultimately 'unlikeable character' problems. We can do better on television. We have done better.
Given the series's return in a few days, I hope to change my opinion of this series. I want to like the second season of "Torchwood", and the signing on of James 'Spike' Marsters gives me hope. That his character and Harkness are supposedly due for a "horny and violent" encounter also gives me hope. The last time Marsters played a horny and violent person was on "Buffy", so hopefully "Torchwood" is heading in that show's direction, minus the UPN seasons.
More than this, the check-signers on the show have indicated dissatisfaction with the first season change in Harkness's character, so we can all pray this means sly maverick Harkness is on the way back.
If both of these happen, "Torchwood" can count on me to champion instead of defend it. Indeed, if it at all improves from its first season it can expect me to champion it. So here's to the first few episodes, and hopefully a better season in store.
"Torchwood" premieres on BBC America on January 26th, at 9 pm / 8 pm central.
--------
This post attracted a lot of backlash; admittedly, I was unclear in parts and didn't advance a very cogent point of view. I ended up clarifying and expanding on the post in a comment, which is reproduced below:
--------
Hi, all:
First of all, thank you for posting your comments. I'm (obviously) not the biggest fan of the show, but I think it's great that you guys feel so strongly about it.
A few points have been brought up in the above comments that make a lot of sense; however, in the spirit of discussion I'd like to point out the following:
To the comment that the others were frozen by the portal opening, and hence missed the Jacks kissing: it's not entirely clear if the people are frozen when the two Jacks kiss. When the rift first opens, you can see the hand of the band's bassist moving. That suggests to me that the rift might not cause people to freeze.
And even if the people are frozen when the kiss occurs, it's clear from their reactions to the two Jacks dancing, that they do not approve. Remember earlier in the episode when George, one of the real Jack's men, punches our Jack because our Jack invites him to dance? That's a very clear sign of George's homophobia to me - homophobia that seems mirrored in the people's reactions to the two Jacks dancing.
And that, to me, is the biggest problem of all. It is true that our Jack tells us the real Jack dies in a mission ambushed by the Germans, but we have only our Jack's word for it, and our Jack wasn't there. Are we really to believe that people like George, who would punch a guy for asking for a dance, would still willingly follow real Jack after seeing him obviously in love with another man? What happened after our Jack stepped into the portal? There's too much left unanswered between the portal closing, and real Jack dying.
I'm not disputing that there was a mission and that it was ambushed by Germans; I'm just saying that it's the writers who brought up George's homophobia, and the other people's homophobia, and we don't know exactly what went down in the ambush. It's not entirely impossible that George et al wouldn't act as hard to save their captain post-our Jack's dance with him. In fact, in my opinion, with people like George, it's downright plausible. It's just that I think the writers didn't think this through. They wanted a romantic ending with the two men defying society to dance with and kiss each other. They didn't seem to think of any aftermath.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Gay.com Column: Clinton V. Obama: The Greatest Show On Earth
A confession: in the past month, my television viewing has largely been restricted to DVDs and the odd hour of network programming. As a student at NYU's scriptwriting department, it just didn't feel right crossing picket lines, even in the privacy of my own living room.
That being said, I've been getting my fill of comedy, drama, pathos and tragedy - and all of it, surprisingly, from the normally boring-as-hell C-SPAN.
Clinton V. Obama has been going on for some time now; but only recently has it taken on the dimensions of a soap opera. I was first hooked by the drama of Iowa, where months of groundswell for Senator Obama was capped by the candidate's victory. Suddenly, faced with Senator Obama's capture of the state's voting majority, Senator Clinton was officially no longer the inevitable Presidential nominee.
And, since then, each day of the battle has been like daytime television. In the period between Iowa and New Hampshire, Senator Obama was the hero, the underdog of yore made good. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, was the demonised shrew, the villainess who was finally going to be cast out of the running. Going into the New Hampshire primary, you could hear the knives being sharpened for Camp Clinton, the champagne bottles waiting to be popped at Camp Obama.
But wait, what was this? The votes were coming in and Senator Clinton was... pulling ahead? New Hampshire... rallied behind Senator Clinton? The votes came in and - shocker again - Senator Clinton actually won...?!
I swear, watching C-SPAN during the night of the New Hampshire primary, I was riveted as only the best television can rivet. You really had it all: the down-to-the-wire edging between the two candidates; the anticipation of a Senator Obama lead at any moment; the overturning of any and every 'authoritative' opinion; and, finally, the second amazing comeback in less than a week.
And as for the twists and turns before, after, and during Iowa and New Hampshire - well, sometimes I looked at C-SPAN and thought: "As the World Turns" and "All My Children", I hope you're taking notes. Hell - Aaron Sorkin, J. J. Abrams, and all the network writers - you guys should probably have your notepads out too.
You want stirring oratorical speeches that just might shape the world? Look no further than Senator Obama's J.F.K.-esque firestarters. You want a plot twist that could send newspapers into a tizzy? Here's Senator Clinton's brilliantly-ambiguous brimming eyes (and how's that for a song title while you're at it?). You want deliciously taboo underpinnings to stoke the audience's fire? How about a generous helping of racism and sexism? Factor in all the splinterings, reconciliations, betrayals and leaked memos, and Clinton V. Obama was really The Greatest Show On Earth.
Even the minor characters in this opera have been eye-catching and varied, from the powerhouse that is Michelle Obama, to the ego-driven and non-too-bright Bob Johnson. Senators Clinton and Obama have, if I may say, assembled around their stars some seriously television-worthy second bananas.
Some of you might be offended at my comparisons. At first I had some misgivings too, comparing something as weighty as the presidential race to television. But, and here's the thing: you couldn't fit a piece of paper between Senators Clinton and Obama. Both, if nominated, would make the history books. And their positions on 99 percent of the issues are virtually identical. This Democratic race, in my opinion, is likely to come down to nothing but perception. This Democratic race, in my opinion, will be fought not over issues and debates, but will be fought over who can craft the best televisual story.
And I say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The best television shows have the power to make us Google. After watching "Friday Night Lights", I dug up everything I could on that show. After watching the nail-biter that was the New Hampshire primary, I spent five hours reading up on the senators. And if Clinton V. Obama: The Show can make me, a non-American, so invested, imagine what it must be doing across the states of America.
And the best part of this entire saga? It ain't over, not by at least a few more months. Oh no; this prime-time opera is just getting started. So, if I were you, I'd get on C-SPAN now. You don't want to miss The Greatest Show On Earth.
That being said, I've been getting my fill of comedy, drama, pathos and tragedy - and all of it, surprisingly, from the normally boring-as-hell C-SPAN.
Clinton V. Obama has been going on for some time now; but only recently has it taken on the dimensions of a soap opera. I was first hooked by the drama of Iowa, where months of groundswell for Senator Obama was capped by the candidate's victory. Suddenly, faced with Senator Obama's capture of the state's voting majority, Senator Clinton was officially no longer the inevitable Presidential nominee.
And, since then, each day of the battle has been like daytime television. In the period between Iowa and New Hampshire, Senator Obama was the hero, the underdog of yore made good. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, was the demonised shrew, the villainess who was finally going to be cast out of the running. Going into the New Hampshire primary, you could hear the knives being sharpened for Camp Clinton, the champagne bottles waiting to be popped at Camp Obama.
But wait, what was this? The votes were coming in and Senator Clinton was... pulling ahead? New Hampshire... rallied behind Senator Clinton? The votes came in and - shocker again - Senator Clinton actually won...?!
I swear, watching C-SPAN during the night of the New Hampshire primary, I was riveted as only the best television can rivet. You really had it all: the down-to-the-wire edging between the two candidates; the anticipation of a Senator Obama lead at any moment; the overturning of any and every 'authoritative' opinion; and, finally, the second amazing comeback in less than a week.
And as for the twists and turns before, after, and during Iowa and New Hampshire - well, sometimes I looked at C-SPAN and thought: "As the World Turns" and "All My Children", I hope you're taking notes. Hell - Aaron Sorkin, J. J. Abrams, and all the network writers - you guys should probably have your notepads out too.
You want stirring oratorical speeches that just might shape the world? Look no further than Senator Obama's J.F.K.-esque firestarters. You want a plot twist that could send newspapers into a tizzy? Here's Senator Clinton's brilliantly-ambiguous brimming eyes (and how's that for a song title while you're at it?). You want deliciously taboo underpinnings to stoke the audience's fire? How about a generous helping of racism and sexism? Factor in all the splinterings, reconciliations, betrayals and leaked memos, and Clinton V. Obama was really The Greatest Show On Earth.
Even the minor characters in this opera have been eye-catching and varied, from the powerhouse that is Michelle Obama, to the ego-driven and non-too-bright Bob Johnson. Senators Clinton and Obama have, if I may say, assembled around their stars some seriously television-worthy second bananas.
Some of you might be offended at my comparisons. At first I had some misgivings too, comparing something as weighty as the presidential race to television. But, and here's the thing: you couldn't fit a piece of paper between Senators Clinton and Obama. Both, if nominated, would make the history books. And their positions on 99 percent of the issues are virtually identical. This Democratic race, in my opinion, is likely to come down to nothing but perception. This Democratic race, in my opinion, will be fought not over issues and debates, but will be fought over who can craft the best televisual story.
And I say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The best television shows have the power to make us Google. After watching "Friday Night Lights", I dug up everything I could on that show. After watching the nail-biter that was the New Hampshire primary, I spent five hours reading up on the senators. And if Clinton V. Obama: The Show can make me, a non-American, so invested, imagine what it must be doing across the states of America.
And the best part of this entire saga? It ain't over, not by at least a few more months. Oh no; this prime-time opera is just getting started. So, if I were you, I'd get on C-SPAN now. You don't want to miss The Greatest Show On Earth.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Gay.com Column: "Cashmere Mafia": Brainless, but Fun
Okay, everybody, heavy sigh of relief. The premiere of "Cashmere Mafia" did not begin with, and nor did it contain, any Carrie Bradshaw-esque voiceovers. And that's just one of the improvements Darren Star has made to his "Sex and the City" follow-up.
After "Melrose Place" and "Beverly Hills 90210", Star hit the big time again with "Sex and the City". Depicting four women and best friends' sexual adventures in Manhattan, the HBO series quickly became a cultural zeitgeist and Emmy magnet. By the time the television curtain fell on Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda in 2004, the series had racked up some 50 nominations.
Now, Star is back with another four-best-friends-in-Manhattan series. And in this "City" fan's opinion, "Cashmere Mafia" hits the ground rolling.
Snappier, more polished, and certainly better-looking, last night's "Mafia" pilot proved the old geezer Einstein right: where the "City" premiere seemed longer than thirty minutes, "Mafia" seemed to zip by in less than its alloted hour.
As far as direction and visual flair go, two scenes in particular stand out: watch when Mia (Lucy Liu), Zoe (Frances O'Connor), and Caitlin (Bonnie Sommerville) band together to tell their friend Juliet (Miranda Otto) the awful truth about her husband. When they sit down to better break and receive the news, the scene is for a moment divided equally between the four women, and you just know that each character is invested in her best friends' troubles.
In the next scene, however, you can see Star knows when to give each woman her spotlight too. Ascending the stairs at a benefit given in her honor, Juliet appears sheathed in a stunning red gown and, framed by her black-clad friends, it is impossible to look away from Otto.
Indeed, in yesterday's premiere, Otto walked away with the episode in her pocket. Armed with the meatiest storyline, she was also given the two best scenes: one where she tells her friends why she stays with her philandering husband, and another where she quietly tells her husband how she will punish him for his affair. I haven't seen Otto in anything other than the "Lord of the Ring" movies, but damned did she win me over completely last night.
Even if Otto dominated the episode, though, the other three characters were given promising storylines. Mia's promotion to big shot at her publishing firm, Zoe's husband getting a job that will take him out of New York and away from her and their children, and, most excitingly, Caitlin's burgeoning lesbian relationship - all of these will undoubtedly lead to some fine material for each actress.
Don't get me wrong: there are some problems with the premiere: Caitlin's abrupt transfer to the gay-lovin' train, the obnoxious CrackBerry appearances, and the anvilicious soundtrack choices are just some. And whether it can transcend its "Sex and the City" roots is still uncertain, as is whether it can similarly define this generation. But as far as being comfort (if a little brainless) entertainment, it's already a hit with this fan.
Besides, you gotta give props to a show that features a lesbian kiss in its very first episode. If that's not gay-friendly I don't know what is.
"Cashmere Mafia" airs every Wednesday on ABC at 10 pm / 9 pm central.
After "Melrose Place" and "Beverly Hills 90210", Star hit the big time again with "Sex and the City". Depicting four women and best friends' sexual adventures in Manhattan, the HBO series quickly became a cultural zeitgeist and Emmy magnet. By the time the television curtain fell on Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda in 2004, the series had racked up some 50 nominations.
Now, Star is back with another four-best-friends-in-Manhattan series. And in this "City" fan's opinion, "Cashmere Mafia" hits the ground rolling.
Snappier, more polished, and certainly better-looking, last night's "Mafia" pilot proved the old geezer Einstein right: where the "City" premiere seemed longer than thirty minutes, "Mafia" seemed to zip by in less than its alloted hour.
As far as direction and visual flair go, two scenes in particular stand out: watch when Mia (Lucy Liu), Zoe (Frances O'Connor), and Caitlin (Bonnie Sommerville) band together to tell their friend Juliet (Miranda Otto) the awful truth about her husband. When they sit down to better break and receive the news, the scene is for a moment divided equally between the four women, and you just know that each character is invested in her best friends' troubles.
In the next scene, however, you can see Star knows when to give each woman her spotlight too. Ascending the stairs at a benefit given in her honor, Juliet appears sheathed in a stunning red gown and, framed by her black-clad friends, it is impossible to look away from Otto.
Indeed, in yesterday's premiere, Otto walked away with the episode in her pocket. Armed with the meatiest storyline, she was also given the two best scenes: one where she tells her friends why she stays with her philandering husband, and another where she quietly tells her husband how she will punish him for his affair. I haven't seen Otto in anything other than the "Lord of the Ring" movies, but damned did she win me over completely last night.
Even if Otto dominated the episode, though, the other three characters were given promising storylines. Mia's promotion to big shot at her publishing firm, Zoe's husband getting a job that will take him out of New York and away from her and their children, and, most excitingly, Caitlin's burgeoning lesbian relationship - all of these will undoubtedly lead to some fine material for each actress.
Don't get me wrong: there are some problems with the premiere: Caitlin's abrupt transfer to the gay-lovin' train, the obnoxious CrackBerry appearances, and the anvilicious soundtrack choices are just some. And whether it can transcend its "Sex and the City" roots is still uncertain, as is whether it can similarly define this generation. But as far as being comfort (if a little brainless) entertainment, it's already a hit with this fan.
Besides, you gotta give props to a show that features a lesbian kiss in its very first episode. If that's not gay-friendly I don't know what is.
"Cashmere Mafia" airs every Wednesday on ABC at 10 pm / 9 pm central.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Gay.com Column: "Lipstick Jungle" VS. "Cashmere Mafia": CATFIGHT?
Remember when Tina Fey announced she was doing a comedy about the behind the scenes shenanigans of a "Saturday Night Live"-like show, and then Aaron Sorkin was doing a drama about the behind the scenes shenanigans of an "SNL"-like show, and so for many a week we had both a comedy and a drama about the behind the scenes shenanigans of an "SNL"-like show?
Remember that? Well, I hope back then you managed to differentiate "30 Rock" and "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", because that 'huh? They're different shows?' confusion is coming right back at ya.
In the next surprisingly estrogen-filled month, we have two big-hitting shows, seven women, and one poetic match-up. Darren Star will lead off the femme-fest with a special January 6th premiere of "Cashmere Mafia", his follow-up to his HBO cultural zeitgeist "Sex and the City".
Chronicling the lives of four ambitious and sexy New Yorkers - female best friends who've formed the eponymous 'Cashmere Mafia' - you'd be forgiven for wondering whether Star is treading old ground. Hell, even I still can't tell "City" and "Mafia" entirely apart. Sure, the women in "Mafia" are mostly married and/or parents, but I'm still a little wary about the possible recycling factor involved.
That being said, if this is a thinly-disguised tell-all of what happened to Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda after the curtain fell on "City" - I could buy into that. One of the things I liked about "City", especially as the seasons went on, was how the women matured, even if only in little ways. Hopefully "Mafia" will continue that trajectory, and not be a backslide - or retread - for Star and his special niche in television.
Even if "Mafia" is quality television, though, there's always the chance it'll be overshadowed by "Lipstick Jungle", Candace Bushnell's own entry into the vacuum left by "City". Even if Star's genius is undeniable in crafting the "City" HBO series, let's not forget it was Bushnell who literally wrote the book on it - and first. Without Bushnell's best-selling book, Star would have had nothing to adapt.
Bushnell's "Lipstick Jungle" is also vying for the exact same eyeballs as "Mafia": according to network NBC's press notes, "Jungle" 'follows three high-powered friends as they support each other through the triumphs and tears that are part of making it big in New York' - sound familiar? Yep, that's right. Four or three women, these two shows might be entirely too much alike. Echos of the Fey-Sorkin death-match? You bet your Nielsen ratings.
Which makes this match-up even more poetic, of course. Although Star was the part of the brains behind soaps "Beverly Hills 90210" and "Melrose Place", there's no doubt that "Sex and the City" was his crowning achievement for this viewing generation. And although "Jungle" is Bushnell's first writing foray into television, she's practically the founder of the genre involved here. So the fact that it's these two who are going up against each other - it's like Mr. Sex and the City versus Madam Sex and the City. The Protege of the Genre versus the Mistress of the Genre.
Can't you already see the marquee headlines?
Whether one of them crashes and burns ala "Studio 60", whether they're both good but still too overlapping, whether all the whether's that plagued "30 Rock" and "Studio 60" - this is one catfight you won't want to miss. Let's hope that the competition spurs both creators to polish their gems even brighter, even sharper, and even more dazzling to our lucky eyes.
Besides: the fashion. The shoes! And last but definitely not least: where seven beautiful women go, how many ho-o-tt guys do you think will follow...?
"Cashmere Mafia" premieres on Sunday January 6th at 10 / 9 pm central, following the final pre-strike episode of "Desperate Housewives". "Mafia" then airs every Wednesday at 10 / 9 central, beginning January 9th.
"Lipstick Jungle" premieres Thursday February 7th at 10 / 9 pm central, and airs every Thursday thereafter at the same time.
Remember that? Well, I hope back then you managed to differentiate "30 Rock" and "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", because that 'huh? They're different shows?' confusion is coming right back at ya.
In the next surprisingly estrogen-filled month, we have two big-hitting shows, seven women, and one poetic match-up. Darren Star will lead off the femme-fest with a special January 6th premiere of "Cashmere Mafia", his follow-up to his HBO cultural zeitgeist "Sex and the City".
Chronicling the lives of four ambitious and sexy New Yorkers - female best friends who've formed the eponymous 'Cashmere Mafia' - you'd be forgiven for wondering whether Star is treading old ground. Hell, even I still can't tell "City" and "Mafia" entirely apart. Sure, the women in "Mafia" are mostly married and/or parents, but I'm still a little wary about the possible recycling factor involved.
That being said, if this is a thinly-disguised tell-all of what happened to Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda after the curtain fell on "City" - I could buy into that. One of the things I liked about "City", especially as the seasons went on, was how the women matured, even if only in little ways. Hopefully "Mafia" will continue that trajectory, and not be a backslide - or retread - for Star and his special niche in television.
Even if "Mafia" is quality television, though, there's always the chance it'll be overshadowed by "Lipstick Jungle", Candace Bushnell's own entry into the vacuum left by "City". Even if Star's genius is undeniable in crafting the "City" HBO series, let's not forget it was Bushnell who literally wrote the book on it - and first. Without Bushnell's best-selling book, Star would have had nothing to adapt.
Bushnell's "Lipstick Jungle" is also vying for the exact same eyeballs as "Mafia": according to network NBC's press notes, "Jungle" 'follows three high-powered friends as they support each other through the triumphs and tears that are part of making it big in New York' - sound familiar? Yep, that's right. Four or three women, these two shows might be entirely too much alike. Echos of the Fey-Sorkin death-match? You bet your Nielsen ratings.
Which makes this match-up even more poetic, of course. Although Star was the part of the brains behind soaps "Beverly Hills 90210" and "Melrose Place", there's no doubt that "Sex and the City" was his crowning achievement for this viewing generation. And although "Jungle" is Bushnell's first writing foray into television, she's practically the founder of the genre involved here. So the fact that it's these two who are going up against each other - it's like Mr. Sex and the City versus Madam Sex and the City. The Protege of the Genre versus the Mistress of the Genre.
Can't you already see the marquee headlines?
Whether one of them crashes and burns ala "Studio 60", whether they're both good but still too overlapping, whether all the whether's that plagued "30 Rock" and "Studio 60" - this is one catfight you won't want to miss. Let's hope that the competition spurs both creators to polish their gems even brighter, even sharper, and even more dazzling to our lucky eyes.
Besides: the fashion. The shoes! And last but definitely not least: where seven beautiful women go, how many ho-o-tt guys do you think will follow...?
"Cashmere Mafia" premieres on Sunday January 6th at 10 / 9 pm central, following the final pre-strike episode of "Desperate Housewives". "Mafia" then airs every Wednesday at 10 / 9 central, beginning January 9th.
"Lipstick Jungle" premieres Thursday February 7th at 10 / 9 pm central, and airs every Thursday thereafter at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)