Gay.com Column: "American Idol": David Archuleta, Boy Wonder

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gay.com Column: John Krasinski from "The Office": the Everyman Star

Is it me, or has John Krasinski suddenly become a star? And I'm not just talking about playing Mandy Moore's boyfriend: the guy now shares top billing with the Clooney and Miss Zellweger (the latter of whom, by the way, looks like a midget next to him).

And if that's not proof enough, in New York you can't walk ten blocks without seeing the shaggy-haired actor. Between the gigantic Gap posters and AMC stand-ups for "Leatherheads", he's definitely no longer just That Guy from "The Office".

Which got me thinking: this has been a very good year for the Krasinski-type Everyman. Just look at the new guys on primetime this past season: what do Ned from "Pushing Daisies", "Chuck", and Sam from "Reaper" have in common? One bakes pies, another's a tech geek, and the last is Bret freaking "Grounded For Life" Harrison. I think that's about all one needs to say.

Reality television doesn't seem much different either: between any guy from this season of "The Amazing Race", Todd Herzog from "Survivor", and Brad Womack from "The Bachelor" - who looks vaguely neutered - I think John McClane would run away screaming and tearing his eyes out.

So what is it about Krasinski and these Everymen? Why are our primetime guys these days more likely to say "aw, shucks" than "yippie-kay-yay, motherfucker", more likely to be Plain Johns than the Brad Pitts of the world?

Part of it, I think, is a compromise between the John McClane Action Hero and the Ryan Seacrest Metrosexual. After leaping from the manly men of the early 1990s (think Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, etc.) to the Queer Eye revolution of the early 2000s, perhaps we're just now moving to a middle ground, where guys don't have to tote bazookas or slather on moisturizer.

Another reason for the Everyman's appeal might be his average-ness, especially in a real world that's increasingly messy and complicated. TV trends usually reflect cultural needs - see the rise of reality television with blogs, podcasts, and other Me-technology - so Krasinski's attractiveness may be his reassuring Average American-ness. I mean, look at him: there's no better embodiment of the 'white picket fence, two kids, and a suburban home' deal.

Last, but certainly not least, maybe the Everyman is simply unavoidable because it's television. Movies are only two hours long, but television series usually run for twenty-two hours or more: can you imagine watching Stallone do his schtick for twenty-two one-hour episodes? I got tired of watching Jack Shephard's Alpha-Male obsession in less than half of that.

So, because of all these reasons, perhaps it's not so surprising that Krasinski is raking in the attention. And I think that's a good thing: God knows we could use a few more not-so-unattainable (in every sense of the word) role models.

Gay.com Column: "I Love New York": Hell, no!

To be honest, prior to this week I hadn't watched a single minute of "I Love New York", and I didn't really have an opinion on it one way or another. When you consider the vast number of similar shows on the network, it seems unfair to single it out, positively or otherwise.

But that was before this week. Whether it's God sending me signs, or simply a mathematical inevitability, I couldn't avoid New York (the woman and the show) this week. It seemed like every time I channel-surfed her corseted boobs were jumping out at me, and the last straw was when a magazine I read infrequently featured her on the last page. So I figure these have to be otherworldly messages, from either up there or (more probably) way down there, and that's why we're here right now.

So, after my week of New York, how do I feel about the woman and her show? The concept of the show I have no problem with. If I did I would have to take issue with others like "The Hills", "Flavor of Love", and, hell, even "The Bachelor". It's not worse and certainly not better, although of course I'd prefer hot men over a self-styled inner drag queen.

But the woman, on the other hand. While reading her interview in Metro Source NY I kept waiting for the wink, the sly acknowledgment that this was her capital P Personality. But no. You'd think a woman in her position would at least have an iota of self-awareness, and would laugh off the descriptor 'classy'. But, oh no, there it is in the interview - Tiffany 'New York' Pollard would like you to know: she's not just classy, she's "so classy". And the universe implodes over the oxymoron-ness of the phrase.

But, wait, there's actually more. Barely ten questions later, she fields a question about what would tempt her to do "The Surreal Life". Her answer? If "Flavor of Love" rival Pumkin was put in the communal house for D-level celebs too. The reason? "So I could bitch-slap her face every day." Bitch-slapping is easy, but bitch-slapping classily? Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner.

It seems almost pointless to ridicule delusional reality starlets, because by now they're possibly literally a dime a dozen. And, quite frankly, I wouldn't have bothered with Pollard, but for the fact that a gay magazine - and one that I somewhat like - sat her down and gave her an entire page of space. And not only that, but also headlined the page "We Love Her, Too". Really? The magazine couldn't do better than Pollard, a woman whose self-delusion flies in the face of LGBT self-awareness?

I mentioned earlier that I had no problem with the concept of the show. That's still true. It's just the show itself - and the woman, natch - that makes me want to boil my eyeballs in bleach.

Gay.com Column: "Heroes": Godspeed, Nathan Petrelli

Killing off characters is a risky business at best, especially if those deaths are telegraphed as Very Special Events. Kill off too minor a character and it's anti-climactic (see: "Lost", Nicki and Paolo); kill off one too major and it's potentially viewed as a ratings stunt (see: "Lost", Ana-Lucia and Libby).

So when I first heard "Two Heroes will Fall", part of me approached the teaser very cautiously. Like everyone else I had characters I wouldn't mind dead (Mohinder, if only to make sure the voiceovers are gone, or Parkman), characters I preferred dead (Hi, Maya!), and characters I'd kill Tim Kring for killing (Elle, Noah Bennett, Peter, Angela Petrelli).

The two actual deaths therefore threw me for a loop, to say the least, if for different reasons. Niki / Jessica's death was obvious in retrospect, and the fact that I'd totally left her out of my Death-Watch means as a character she was done. So in this case I have to give kudos to the writers, for letting her go in a way that highlights the true heroes of our world: people who do noble things even without the benefit of superpowers. Niki / Jessica has always felt to me one of the less empathetic Heroes, but damn if dying while saving a child from a burning building - without her superpowers to boot - didn't make me feel for her in a hurry.

The assassination of Nathan Petrelli, on the other hand, shocked me for entirely different reasons. If Niki / Jessica I didn't expect because she was that superfluous, Nathan I didn't expect because there was just no reason to. Adrian Pasdar didn't get himself pregnant, the character had just reunited with his wayward brother, and, goddamnit, we were so close to a Petrelli-Adam-Petrelli manwich!

Okay. Deep breath.

To be honest I'm still not sure about Pasdar's stunning send-off. On one hand, Bra. Vo. to the writers. For a storyline that began with Claire's impetuous decision to 'out' herself, ending it with her father's death in service of that goal is unexpected and completely delicious. Already I can imagine the dramatic repercussions, and Angela Petrelli's chilling conversation with the assassin surely ranks among the Top Television Moments This Season. Cristine Rose is a fantastic actress; that Angela Petrelli is slowly evolving into a major character can only be good for everyone.

On the other hand - Petrelli-Adam-Petrelli. I'm just saying.

Regardless of my personal obsessions, however, I can say objectively that the two deaths only capped what has been an impressive "Heroes" resurgence. It's impossible to guess whether Volume Three: "Villains" can continue the trajectory, but, even if not, the tail-end of Volume Two has certainly built up a lot of credit with this fan.

Gay.com Column: Four Shows to get into during this Strike Time

So I was looking at my must-see television schedule, and next week marks the beginning of the WTF period. No more episodes of "Desperate Housewives", no more episodes of "Brothers and Sisters". No more episodes of "Heroes" after Monday, and "The Office" and "30 Rock" have already said goodbye. Sure, "Friday Night Lights" will still be brilliant on Friday nights, but what the hell was I going to do with my new television wasteland?

It was then that the answer came to me. Netflix. There have been so many shows that I've missed over the years, and now was the perfect time for me to get into them. "The West Wing". Early "Friends" and "Frasier". Heck, what about rewatching some of that brilliant "Freaks and Geeks"?

And it was while I was making my Personal Primetime Schedule, that the other obvious thought popped into my head. You know how you miss one episode of a show, and then you miss another one, and then suddenly you can't be bothered to keep up with the damn series? Or when your friends start talking about this brilliant new series, except the show's already on the tenth episode and you'd be hopelessly behind? What about using this strike time to catch up on those shows?

There are so many current shows that could use an extra fan, and these shows will need as much as help as they can when the strike is finally over. On that note, I'd like to recommend four of them to you. I realize not everybody will like every one of these shows, but if even one of you becomes a convert because of this post, I will consider this post my best one ever.

And so, without further ado, the four shows you might want put on your Netflix queue circa now:

"Damages": Little watched despite its star power, this sharp-edged series follows a single class-action lawsuit ala "Erin Brokovich". Where the movie is about one woman versus a criminal corporation, "Damages" pits Glenn Close against Ted Danson. Close plays yet another hard and brilliant woman, a ruthless lawyer who will do anything to win the legal battlefield. Danson, on the other hand, in a turnabout from his usual comedic roles, plays Arthur Frobisher, a corrupt and equally ruthless CEO. Toss in Rose Byrne ("Troy") as the ingenue who gets caught in the crossfire, mix it up with a dozen plot twists that will leave you reeling and slackjawed, and you get a sense of how intense the first season is. Despite low ratings, positive critical reception has led FX to renew this series, so now is the best time to get in on the action if you haven't already.

"Battlestar: Galactica": With the fourth and final season (hopefully) premiering in January, there's no better time to marathon-watch the first three seasons. Robots that look like human beings, a textured parable about what it means to be human, giant spaceships in space and - best of all - Jamie 'More Towel Scenes, Please' Bamber: seriously, what's not to like? Even if you're supremely anti-science fiction shows, this particular series will blow your mind. Just watch "33", the series pilot. After most of humanity gets annihilated in a single robot attack, the remnants try desperately to outrun the waves of following massacres. A superbly crafted hour of nail-biting escalating tension, what have you got to lose by watching it except maybe a few pesky nails?

"30 Rock": Otherwise known as 'the other behind-the-scenes show', "30 Rock" was all but crushed in the publicity battle with "Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip". Fast forward one season later, however, and "Studio 60" has been consigned to television purgatory, while "30 Rock" continues to, well, rock. "SNL" veteran Tina Fey provides snappy and quotable dialogue; she also stars alongside Alec Baldwin, Jane Krakowski and Tracy Jordan. If you haven't seen 'Werewolf Bar Mitzvah' - "where boys become men, and men become wolves" - or any of Baldwin's hilarious scenes, You. Are. Missing. Out. And that's all there is to it. Other highlights of the first season include Emily Mortimer as a gold-digging hollow-boned faux-Brit, Isabella Rossellini as Baldwin's estranged wife, Will Arnett as a gay short robe-wearing exec, and fellow "SNL" veteran Rachel Dratch as, well, just about everyone and everything.

"Friday Night Lights": I know, I know. How original, recommending "FNL". But I just wouldn't feel right without including this brilliant series. I mean, think about this: I'm a skinny Asian kid from the other side of the world, and I've never understood the point of football. But this damn show still has me crying like a crying crybaby cryster. The Panthers score the winning touchdown. I cry. The coach's daughter has the birds-and-bees talk with her kick-ass mom. I cry. The bad girl and the good girl join forces to get the footballers to strip. I - okay, I'm not so much crying as I am drooling, but that's beside the point. The point is, "FNL" is so rich, so full of great characters and actors, so freaking god-blessedly / godawfully real, that I dare you to watch it without leaking. It can't be done, I tell you! You'll be stocking up on Kleenex before the end of the first disc.

And that's the last of my four recommended shows. If you know of another series that deserves some love, remember to start telling people to watch them during the strike! If we all band together and support those shows when they come back, we might just be able to stave off that dreaded cancellation heartbreak.

Gay.com Column: "Friday Night Lights": Turning up the man-on-man heat

If frat houses are homoerotic, imagine how much more so football clubs are. Frat brothers only live together; football players practically sweat on each other. Why else would the locker room be the symbol du jour of raging man-on-man action?

So when you take a football club and make it one of 24/7 horny teenagers, you'd expect a little between-brothers experimenting, right? Sadly, for a season and a third, "Friday Night Lights" has steadfastly denied us that plotline.

That doesn't mean, though, that the past three episodes haven't given me cause for hope.

First there was that melt-my-screen hot scene from three weeks ago, between Jason Street, Lyla Garrity, and the ever-smoldering Tim Riggins. Lyla kisses wheelchair-bound Jason, then floats over into Riggins's arms, then kisses Riggins while Jason watches them, smiling. It was such a "Y Tu Mama Tambien" moment that I actually physically shivered, sure that the next scene would be the three of them slow-dancing their way onto a bed. It wasn't, but I like to think that's what happened anyway.

And there was the episode two weeks ago, when star player Smash Williams invited Riggins over for dinner. It was purely platonic, Smash's pretext for some football talk with Riggins, but the exchange put a smile on my face nonetheless. When Riggins replied: "Are you asking me on a date, Williams?", my instinctive reaction was "SAY YES, DUMBASS". If you don't understand this reaction, I direct you to any Riggins-centric scene; actor Taylor Kitsch could have sexual chemistry with a rock.

But if the Jason-Lyla-Riggins threesome was eyebrow-raising only by implication, and if the Smash-Riggins encounter was purely my wishful thinking, last Friday's locker room scene was explicit on its own terms.

As Lyla and bad-ass bad-girl Tyra Collette busted into the locker room, you could clearly see the half-naked guys horsing around. It lasted only fleeting moments, of course, before the guys behaved themselves in the presence of women, but that's what the 'rewind' button was invented for. And, in any case, that was peanuts compared to the later mass dance.

Guided by Lyla and Tyra's ingenious choreography, the Dillon Panthers put on a performance for the annual 'Pantherama'. Said performance included the stripping of clothes, the stripping of pants, and a whoooollle lotta boxers-only male bodies inches from each other. To give you an idea of how inneundo-laden all of it was, this was my straight friend's comment: "How many rehearsals did they have, again?"

Indeed. So there you have it: three episodes, three scenes of varying homoeroticism. It may not ultimately lead to anything, but we can always have hope, yes?

And in the meantime, there's always that 'rewind' button.

Catch the boys - all right, and girls - of "Friday Night Lights" on Fridays, on NBC at 9 pm / 8 pm central.

Gay.com Column: "Brothers and Sisters": Rob Lowe's Shiny New Flaw

With all the attention that's been showered on Matthew Rhys, you'd think that there were no other guys on hit show "Brothers and Sisters". But no more. Enter Exhibit A: Rob Lowe's Senator McCallister.

"Now wait a minute," I bet you're gonna say. "Hasn't the guy been on the show for like, forever?" And you would be right. Rob Lowe - and Robert McCallister - have been on the show for like, forever (and ever). But it wasn't until the past two episodes that the character became interesting.

As much as it pains me to complain about anything on "Brothers and Sisters", Robert McCallister was possibly the most boring character on television. He was so perfect that he wasn't remotely human: dream boyfriend, dream fiance, and dream Republican, he charmed the socks off everyone on the show and looked immaculately hot doing it. And every time it seemed like there was some scarlet letter in his past, it turned out instead to be a bleeding badge of honor:

As a teenager, he might have knocked up a girlfriend and dumped her afterwards? You got it aaaalll wrong. She cheated on him, and he not only forgave her but helped her have the baby (and helped her give it up for adoption). Isn't he a saint?

People think that he cheated on his wife? Ah, but they're wrong, you see - (again,) she cheated on him. He just didn't want the divorce to get any uglier in public.

He voted against stem-cell research? Only because he thought it was a decision best left to the states. Had nothing to do with any ethical beliefs either side of the fence.

He voted against same-sex marriage? But he has a gay brother! (And, really, he reversed his vote later on, so it's a total wash.)

His ex-wife accuses him of being emotionally withholding, and of always going it alone? Where did that plot thread lead to, again? Completely disappeared in the Kitty-Robert puppy wuv? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Maybe he didn't actually save all those people during the Gulf War? Are you kidding? He's just reluctant to talk about it because he's modest and doesn't believe in cheap grandstanding.

And so forth. Is it any wonder that the character bored me to tears? Not even considering the impossibly naive McCallister's Big No-No's in Politics, the character wasn't a human being: it was as if, in the writers' desperation to make the Republican Character Actually One of the Good Guys, they hit a massive blind spot that stretched all of twenty episodes.

Thank goodness they've finally stopped giving McCallister an Unlimited Free Pass.

In the past two episodes, Robert McCallister has been so much more relatable. Now engaged to eponymous 'sister' Kitty Walker, the couple suffered the tragedy of a first trimester miscarriage. Only, as it turned out, McCallister was already having misgivings about another child. Father of two children already, he thought he was done adding little ones to his life. And now, with Kitty oblivious to this and wanting children with McCallister, the stage is finally set for some depth to the McCallister character. How will this affect the two's relationship? Whether McCallister gives in or resists, there's bound to be bad and un-ignorable repercussions, which means that he'll finally get down and dirty on this show.

To which I can only say: Amen. And maybe: it took you long enough, show, but I forgive you.

Of course, this development has to happen on the cusp of an indeterminate hiatus, so I hope you'll forgive me for leaving now to go curse a blue streak.

"Brothers and Sisters" airs Sundays on ABC, at 10 pm / 9 pm central.

Gay.com Column: Fischer on the strike: "End the strike for Riggins!"

I heart Pam Beesly. Always have. The only sane woman working in "The Office", Beesly makes normalcy look so attractive I want to make sexy time with her.

Given that, it's a relief that real-life Beesly is a sweetheart too. Actress Jenna Fischer has always struck me as one of the proverbial good guys, but you can honestly never tell with those L.A. types (Ellen Pompeo on "Punked", anyone?). With Fischer, however, I'm glad to say that there's definitive proof of her basic decency.

It's not just the advice and encouragement that she pours out to aspiring actors. It's also that, in this time of strikes, she makes a damned good spokeswoman.

Even though she's only a fledgling writer, she certainly understands what's at stake. In posts on her blog here and here, she makes an intelligent, articulate, and impassioned argument for why the strike is necessary. When you consider that the strike isn't doing her any favors, and that it's in fact cutting to nada her steady "Office" income, it's even more obvious that this is a woman with a good head on her shoulders. A cynic might think that she's just looking out for her future earnings, but I think her track record more than speaks for itself.

Besides, she's a fan of "Friday Night Lights", so she must be on the side of the angels. And her call-to-arms that we must "End the Strike for Riggins!"? Easily the best motivator that I've heard.

Ah. Screw that. Easily the best motivator, ever.

"The Office" has officially stopped production, so there will be no new episodes until the strike ends.

"Friday Night Lights", however, is still on NBC, on Fridays at 9 pm / 8 pm central.

Gay.com Column: Solved! The Mystery of Shirtless Peter on "Heroes"

The two biggest mysteries since the beginning of the season: how did Peter Petrelli, played by the sizzling Milo Ventimiglia, end up shirtless in a shipping container? And, more importantly, how can we get him to do that again?

It turns out that the answer to the first question involves a black man and memory wiping. And the answer to the second? A trip to Flashbackland, Heroestopia.

Unlike last season's flashback episode, yesterday's episode revealed the answers to many questions. It revealed the connection between Peter and the mysterious Adam (they were both taken prisoner by the Company, and escaped together), it revealed how Peter and Nathan survived Peter's explosion last season (Peter regenerated, and used Adam's Claire-like DNA to regenerate Nathan), and it revealed how Peter ended up (shirtless!) in Ireland (when the Company tried to recapture Peter, the Haitian helped him get away, and wiped his memories to give him a new life).

All in all, it was a fine episode. A better than fine episode. It was a great episode, a big neon sign that said "Heroes" was back, baby. And not a moment too soon. After too many sprawling, unfocused episodes, the season finally has a sense of purpose again, a grand scheme summarized by David Anders's delicious line as Adam: "Shall we save the world?"

Hell yes.

But more than that, the episode also gave fans two more reasons to continue watching: for the fifth time in just eight episodes, Shirtless! Peter was on display again. That officially puts the hit-rate at over fifty per cent, which can only mean one thing: the writers are deliberately using Shirtless! Peter as a shameless advertising tool.

Which, as you can tell, is totally okay by me. It makes following his scenes a little difficult, what with the constant drool-wiping, but that's really a small price to pay.

Besides Shirtless! Peter, however, yesterday's episode also threw Peter and Adam together, played by two fine guys with a hotness sum much greater than its individual parts. While it was previously unthinkable (for me) that the unholy pairing of Milo Ventimiglia and Adrian Pasdar could ever be surpassed in fineness, it turns out that it very much could: with some finagling on the part of the writers, I'm sure a Peter-Adam-Nathan get-together can be contrived. Seriously, the heat graph would be exponential; I don't even care if they meet as enemies, or as the trio that saves the world, as long as they do. And if the meeting involves a return to the strip/hose-down room of the HAZMAT facility? So much the better for all of us.

The best part of that scenario? The fact that it's very probable - the three's meeting, that is, if not the HAZMAT fantasy. I can't imagine that the season will go by without a Petrelli sibling reunion, and since Peter and Adam seem to be likely partners, a round-up of the three should be in the cards sometime.

Add to that anticipation the twin plotlines of the murdered Elder Heroes and the Shanti Virus, and it's never been a better time to be a "Heroes" fanboy.

"Heroes" airs on Mondays on NBC, at 9 pm / 8 pm central. As if you didn't know.

Gay.com Column: This Week This Happened: What do "30 Rock" and "Heroes" have in common?

It's been a bad week for television. From reports of shows running out of episodes earlier than expected, to irrelevant guest stars on network blockbusters, the theme this week is capital D Downsizing, both quantity- and quality-wise.

The only good D news this week? A possible trimming of cast fat on the hopelessly bloated "Heroes". A massacre of meaningless characters that would make everybody happy. A return to a happier time when every character had a serious part to play.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

First up, the December farewells of more than ten network shows. Although previously thought to have enough episodes to last until January, many shows will in fact be forced into permanent hiatus soon, some as early as the first week of December. And these are not all second-stringers either.

The last new episode of "Desperate Housewives" will air on December 2nd, with new "Heroes" episodes drying up the day after that. "Pushing Daisies", "Ugly Betty", and "Grey's Anatomy" also only have four new episodes each, although judicious scheduling may stretch them to January. "Brothers and Sisters" will also say goodbye soon. As for the hilarious "How I Met Your Mother" - that will be gone by the end of the month.

For some of the early retirees, the timing really couldn't be worse: "Housewives" has had a creatively resurgent season so far, while this week's "Heroes" showed that its sophomore slump was finally over. But because production has shut down, both series will now only have four hours: four hours to win back and create new viewers; four hours to make sure those viewers come back after the strike - however long that lasts. With no resolution to the dispute in sight, the 'come back' part of the deal might be a very tall order indeed.

But for some of the other shows, an extended break might be better for all involved. I'm thinking specifically of "Bionic Woman", whose ratings have fallen faster than a roller-coaster on the downslope. As of this week's episode, this Woman has gone from a roaring premiere to a whimpering cry for any attention. It has the most-watched premiere of all the new shows, and yet has managed to lose more than half of that audience. Something is obviously very wrong, and - if it doesn't get canceled outright - this extra time to fix and repair will hopefully get it going again.

But it's not the only show that could use an extended time-out. To that list I would add "30 Rock", "Ugly Betty", and "America's Next Top Model". Don't get me wrong; "30 Rock" is still consistently brilliant, "ANTM" consistently whack-on-crack, and "Ugly Betty" pretty consistently fabulous. But the guest stars on these shows, on the other hand... let's just say that some people need to be threatened with pay cuts.

Just this week alone, "Ugly Betty" hosted Victoria Beckham, "ANTM" Enrique Iglesias, and "30 Rock" guest-'starred' David Schwimmer. I'm sorry; when did we time-travel back to the '90s? And Victoria Beckham? Really? When there's her infinitely better other half David Beckham on tap? Isn't showrunner Silvio Horta a gay man? Who chooses Victoria over David? The man is a god. The woman is bumps on a stick.

For "ANTM" and "Ugly Betty" these choices might not be that egregious; they are after all established shows, and should have no problem staying on the radar even without more enticing guest stars. But I don't think "30 Rock" has that privilege. Its current season is already due more to acclaim than actual numbers; and with the writers' strike threatening to pull it off the air in January, now is the time to grab some strangers with eye-and-promo-catching cameos. Now is not the time to make them go, 'David Schwimmer, huh'.

For a prime example of how to capitalize on its remaining episodes, "30 Rock" should take a look at the strategy of "Heroes". The shows have superficially opposite problems, but essentially those problems are the same: supporting characters that, however good for the story, aren't helping the show get viewers. But while "30 Rock" continues to cast the same downsized cameos (see: Seinfeld, Jerry; Fisher, Carrie), "Heroes" is taking the opposite tack, by out-sizing its problems and correcting them.

Besides the very public mea culpa, the creators of "Heroes" have also shrewdly hinted at some of those supporting characters' demises. This TV Guide interview is perhaps the most explicit, with producer Jeph Loeb promising a "housecleaning" in the December 3rd episode, the last episode before the show goes off the air. Retooled as a quasi-finale to deal with the strike, anticipation of those unpopular characters' deaths will undoubtedly help send the ratings sky-high. And, with any luck, those tuning in will be back for Volume III.

"30 Rock", on the other hand... I love the show to bits, but I also loved "Veronica Mars" to bits. And on that show, brilliant writing, great acting, critical acclaim, and a rabid fan-base didn't prove enough in the end. "30 Rock" needs something splashier, and if an extended hiatus can help it secure more ratings-friendly guest stars, then the strike might be a bonus after all.

So what's the moral of this week's happenings? Downsizing can have its benefits, but it's mostly bad for all involved. Upsize the writers' deserved payments, upsize the episodes of our favorite shows, and, please, dear (any) god, upsize the viewerships of shows that deserve them. Down with downsizing, and up with upsizing!

Gay.com Column: "The Amazing Race": The Groundbreaking Lesbians

After eleven seasons, 268 racers, and countless ratings grabs, you'd think there would be little that could surprise a seasoned "The Amazing Race" watcher. But when the new teams for the twelfth season were announced, there was one configuration that I certainly hadn't expected.

With the kickass chyron of "Married Ministers", lesbians Kate and Pat quickly became for me the season's most interesting team (the 'Goth' team be damned). Not only was there just one lesbian in the past seasons of "TAR", but such a partnership had never before been seen on reality TV.

Add to that their religious background, and you had the ingredients for an incendiary reaction.

But one episode into the popular reality program, the team has seemingly drawn no flak or homophobic backlash. While there are anecdotal stories of ex-fans now boycotting the show, there have been equal anecdotal stories of converts because of the couple. More importantly, there has been no reaction at all from the mainstream or online press corps.

This might be in part due to the angle of their "TAR" journey thus far. In the premiere, the lesbian ministerial couple were portrayed sans 'Lesbian!!!' or 'Ministers!!!'. Aside from a few throwaway lines about their religion, the two were depicted as any other couple.

A large part of the press corps' silence may also be due to "TAR" history. While Kate and Pat may be the first lesbian couple, "TAR" has traditionally been good to the G in the LGBT community. From the first season's 'Guidos' Joe and Bill, to the fourth season's winners Chip and Reichen, to the tenth season's boyfriends Tom and Terry, to the many more unmentioned, "TAR" has gone out of its way to include gay contestants in its casts. So while a lesbian couple may be a little late, Kate and Pat's inclusion is not that surprising in hindsight, considering the G-leanings of "TAR" history.

But despite both of these highly plausible explanations, I can't help but hope that the non-buzz is caused by another reason: that it's not Big News because of a growing majority maturity. This, to me, would be the best reason of all.

However, having said that, I hope that this casting does create some waves - not on the part of audiences at home, but on the part of television writers and producers.

This is because the casting exposes a glaring and embarrassing imbalance: the paucity of lesbians compared to gays in mainstream television.

While gay men have had it fairly good in terms of mainstream TV roles - besides "TAR", a few other big names include "Desperate Housewives", "Brothers and Sisters", "Will and Grace", "As The World Turns", et cetera - I'm hard-pressed to think of many substantial lesbian roles. "The L Word" is canceled out by "Queer as Folk", and episode arcs on "Nip/Tuck" don't exactly scream exposure. Neither am I impressed by the fact that lesbian kisses are still sweeps or finale stunts (see: "The O.C.", "Dirt", et cetera).

So more than just an inspired choice on the part of "TAR" producers, Kate and Pat represent to me a big step forward for lesbians - and I certainly hope that others in power pick up on this example.

But, in the meantime, I'm glad that this couple is a team that I can root for without feeling guilty.

I didn't expect them, but I do like them, and even if they're not the definition of 'efficient', at least they seem to genuinely love the race and each other. Their interview quote that "TAR" is a "love letter to the planet" may also be the best summation of the show that I've heard.

So here's to unexpected and likable teams making it as far as they possibly can. And if they pave the way for other lesbians in television, so much the better. I look forward to the day when I won't be surprised by such casting.

"The Amazing Race" spans the globe on Sundays on CBS, at 8 pm / 7 pm central.

Gay.com Column: This Week This Happened: All You Need Is Faith

A lot can happen in seven days, so let This Week This Happened point you to the best and most exciting news. This week, the organizing theme is good ol' faith: who got it, who lost it, and who's in desperate need of a little.

Kicking off is my man Joss Whedon. Creator of cult favorites "Buffy" and "Angel", Whedon is set to return to television after a nearly three-year absence. It turns out that all he needed was a dose of Faith - and he got it in the lovely form of one Eliza Dushku.

Most famous for playing Faith the rogue Slayer in "Buffy" and "Angel", Dushku will team up with Whedon to present the new series "Dollhouse". Advertised as a cross between "Quantum Leap" and "Alias", Dushku will star as Echo, member of a cadre of 'human chalkboards'. Upon receiving their assignments, these blank agents are imprinted with special skills and memories, then wiped clean afterwards and returned to the 'dollhouse'. Through the course of the first season, Echo will gradually gain self-awareness, and struggle to discover her pre-dollhouse past.

Sounds like an excellent premise to me, and I'm already looking forward to its fall '08 premiere. Anything with Whedon or Dushku will already get my vote, so one with Whedon and Dushku? Consider me sold and sold again. (And I'm certainly not the only one, if this website is any indication.)

The only fly in the ointment might be the network involved. And that's - cue ominous music - the dreaded network Fox. Any Whedonites worth their salt will remember the great "Firefly" fiasco, wherein Fox destroyed the series with its inept scheduling. While Whedon has obviously forgiven if not forgotten, I'm taking with a grain of salt the PR reacharounds. Much is riding on this new series, and if it fails because of Fox, you can be sure I'll be one of those picketing the network.

Moving on from my personal god, if Joss Whedon finally got some good ol' Faith, network NBC lost theirs in a big way this week. Their faith in "Heroes", that is. The show that enjoyed super ratings last season has taken a mighty tumble, with numbers freefalling through the weeks since its sophomore premiere. And instead of publicly displaying a show of support, NBC has chosen instead to spread a message of doom.

Yes, that's right - "Heroes: Origins" has been unofficially canceled.

Envisioned as a way to stem viewership falloff in the hiatus, "Heroes: Origins" was supposed to introduce a new character each week, with viewers able to vote for their favorite at the end of the six-week run. The winning character would then be integrated into the flagship show. With big names like Kevin Smith and Eli Roth already on board, the spinoff was supposed to be NBC's big midseason splash.

Was supposed to, was supposed to. With the current (bad) situation with "Heroes", and with the looming writers strike, NBC bigwigs decided to pull the plug - for now, they say. Officially, "Heroes: Origins" is not actually canceled, only "indefinitely postponed".

I believe in networkese that means 'we'll have to see how the original show does first'. Which is a fair position for a business to take; I only wonder why this was not publicly said: with "Heroes" rapidly losing fans, this might have been enough to persuade those on the fence to give the struggling series more time. Done like this, the announcement only makes NBC seem like a heartless boss. And not only that, but a heartless boss with egg all over its face.

Having said that, let's move on to the final item for today: if NBC has lost some faith, it's definitely not the only one to do so. The Writers Guild of America has officially called for a strike to begin. Details of the strike are not yet forthcoming, and rumors put its actual start-date between this coming Monday and next January. But regardless of the strike details, it's clear that there is much bad blood between the writers and the entertainment industry at large.

Most of it stems from the previous contract, which gave writers a disproportionately small percentage of the spoils. That contract ended this past week, and so the WGA is angling for a new and more equitable replacement. Whether it will materialize, and how long the process might take, is beyond anybody's guess at the moment.

What is certain, however, is that when this strike occurs, it will cause much disruption to television. With the quick turnaround time on television programs, much of this season's scripted shows have not yet been fully written - and they are the lucky ones. With at least six to eight episodes already likely written, they will have enough material to last until January. Late-night talkies and similar programs, like "The Colbert Report" and "The David Letterman Show", however, will face difficulties immediately, since their content is generated on a daily basis.

What does this mean for TV watchers like you and me? It means one very horrifying thing: more reality television.

It's almost enough to make anyone lose their faith in any god. Networks big and small are already priming their reality and game shows, and in case you are expecting those to be of the caliber of "The Amazing Race", or even of the wickedly entertaining "America's Most Smartest Model" - I'm afraid I have bad news for you.

Upcoming titles include: "My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad", "Farmer Wants A Wife" (I am not kidding with this one), and "Jingles". While some of them will probably be somewhat watchable, hands up if you're with me in wanting our lovely writers to return.

I realize that there's probably little that prayer can do at this point to stop the strike, but if prayer can magically force those suits to come to a meeting point, then by golly I am going on my knees.

And on that note, with your hands up and my knees bent, this brings us to the end of the first installment of this roundup. And if you haven't already guessed who's the one in desperate need of a little faith - it's me.

Gay.com Column: Now this you should watch: "Cambridge Spies"

The British really do some things better. From the depictions of homosexual sex, to the comfort of the male leads with their naked bodies, "Cambridge Spies" achieves a level of gay frankness not even "Brothers and Sisters" can get away with.

Made in 2003, the BBC miniseries fictionalizes the infamous 'Cambridge Four', British spies who betrayed their country during World War II and beyond. If all that history sounds boring in print, you'll have to trust me that it's not so on screen.

That's because, rather than focus on the world-changing events, the miniseries instead concentrates on the four men's relationships. Although two are gay and the other two straight, and each has a distinctly different temperament, the miniseries-makers apply the same scrupulous attention to all. And if some storylines seem rushed and cramped, the actors go a long way towards excusing that.

Between Toby Stephens, Samuel West, Rupert Penry-Jones and Tom Hollander, there's a man to suit every stripe, and each actor brings his considerable talent to bear on his meaty role. Stephens's Kim Philby is a rough-and-ready Englishman, Penry-Jones's Donald Maclean is a pretty-but-straight scholar, and West's Anthony Blunt is the gentleman who holds the four together.

But the breakout star of this enterprise is undoubtedly Tom Hollander. Probably most famous stateside as the evil Lord Beckett in "Pirates of the Caribbean", here Hollander plays the role of the exuberantly gay Guy Burgess. Always ready with a witty quip, and never failing to command admiration, Hollander's Burgess is like the kid in school who did and got away with everything (and almost everyone).

But if Hollander's the one most likely to appeal to a wide swath of gay viewers, each of the other actors also deserves no less accolades. Together they elevate the miniseries from mere eye-candy to arresting, whether it's Blunt showing the strains of leadership in the group, or Penry-Jones struggling to decide whether to confess to his wife.

Also, in most other series the cheesecake sex scenes would be the shows' whole purpose, but here they are only the icing on an already substantial cake. In other words, you won't have to feel too guilty when you rewatch certain segments - over and over again.

So if you'd like to learn some history while watching gorgeous men, the four-part "Cambridge Spies" is likely to hit both spots at once. Add to that the British accents that say sexy in every syllable, and how can you actually refuse to watch this show?

"Cambridge Spies" is available on Netflix.