Posts tagged: television

3 Great Canadian TV Shows and Why They Work

I am a huge fan of Canadian entertainment, but for a long time, I didn’t realize it.

Sure, I knew some of my favorite comedians were from Canada. And there was Alanis Morrisette, of course.  But it wasn’t until recently that I realized Canada makes some great shows (not just U.S. shows produced in Canadian studios).

Being Erica

A young woman enters therapy, but instead of time spent on the couch talking about her dreams, she travels through time to relive the experiences that represent great turning points in her life.

Lost Girl

A succubus learns about her powers and the multitude of supernatural species of fae that inhabit the Earth. She and her human companion provide investigative services to the fae.

Rookie Blue

This is technically a co-production between the U.S. and Canada, but I included it here anyway. A group of rookie police officers learn to navigate their jobs and their relationships.

What makes these shows appealing? Three main components appeal to me.

  1. Diversity. All of these shows include characters of different races and sexual orientations without beating you over the head with it. Bo, the main character on Lost Girl, is bisexual, and her love triangle is treated just like any other love triangle.
  2. Tighter storytelling. I don’t know what it is about Rookie Blue, but I am sad when each episode ends. And I can’t wait until the next airs. Each episode flows into the next, with just enough of a focus on the weekly story that I can live if I miss and episode. Writers at other shows could learn a lesson.
  3. Strong and relatable women. Erica struggles with many of the same issues and questions we women go through as we come of age. But she solves them herself, rather than being rescued by the men in her life. Her therapist is male, and he helps guide her, but ultimately, the choices and their consequences are her own. And Bo is a great kick-ass heroine of the type we expect from our urban fantasy.

So, as an American, I am a fan of the Canadian TV we see here. But I know some Canadian TV critics feel their television isn’t living up to its potential. What do you think? And will you be watching Rookie Blue when it premieres Thursday?

1 person likes this post.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

My Love Affair with Game of Thrones is Floundering

I am struggling to get through each episode of Game of Thrones this year.

It is moving slowly. I believe that it is building a strong framework for the rest of the story, but oh my god, the building is mind-numbing.

In addition to the boring pace, each episode is filled with unsexy sex and unnecessary levels of violence against women. Seriously, I get that Joffrey is a bad man. I don’t need to see him force a prostitute to beat another prostitute to death to understand that. All that does is turn me off and make it hard for me to finish watching the episode.

I feel as if the first season had elements that appealed to both men and women, and this season is all boy stuff. Fighting and dirt and boobs all the live-long day.

I’m not giving up on it, but I am not watching it right when it premieres on Sunday anymore. This week, it wasn’t until late on Tuesday that I finally downloaded it on HBO On Demand and settled in. I made it through without falling asleep, but it was a challenge.

Tell me it is going to get better.

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

House of Lies

I’m not gonna lie. Showtime’s new show, House of Lies, was almost custom designed to get a glowing review from me. It features Don Cheadle, who’s amazing in just about anything he tries, and Kristen Bell of the late, great, Veronica Mars. It even has Jean-Ralfio from Parks and Rec – just looking at that guy makes me giggle!

This won’t be an in-depth review, but I do have a small laundry list of notes:

1) Thank you, Showtime, for giving Kristen Bell a role worthy of her talents. She’s smart, wry and funny, and way better at acting than you’d think from her recent string of rom-com movie bombs. Seriously, I know that working actors can’t always be choosy, but damn.

2) There were moments when I laughed out loud. Unfortunately there were far more that felt like the show was working a little too hard to be shocking. Honestly, though, it should fit right in with Showtime’s brand of 30-minute dark comedies that have far more in common with hour-long dramas than they do with sitcoms.

3) It was a very interesting peek into the world of spin-doctoring. While I kind of appreciated the fact that they’re taking advantage of their client by billing them for expensive restaurants and strip club trips, it really felt more like the public was getting screwed all over again.

Showtime has kindly released the first episode for viewing online. Check it out and let us know what you think!

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

Top Posts of 2011

Here are your five favorite posts of the year, based on number of unique visitors. As always, I have not included the Supernatural link roundups because of their inherent draw to readers and because they just don’t have a huge archival value.

Final Thoughts on Season 6 of Supernatural
In this post, Katie shares her reactions to a shaky season of Supernatural. Based on how the show treated the brothers and the fans over the year, she decided not to make Supernatural appointment viewing anymore. A lot of you shared your thoughts on the matter, and we both loved the discussion.

The CW’s Secret Circle: How Does It Compare to the Books
Julie Harpin visited us to share her thoughts on The Secret Circle soon after its premiere. I enjoyed her post a lot because she compared the books (which I haven’t read) to the show as it had aired so far. Do you find that her predictions of what would stay and what would go remained true as the season progressed?

Is ‘Grimm’ the ‘Supernatural’ Killer?
In this post, I share my thoughts on the new show Grimm. I stand behind my initial review: that it is more enjoyable on a weekly basis than a bad episode of Supernatural. And, since we never know when Supernatural will be bad, Grimm is often the show Mr. PCC and I watch live.

Ten Reasons The Vampire Diaries Is Better than True Blood
Katie and I got together to create this list. I stand behind it, even though I still love True Blood. Maybe one of these days we’ll do a debate post where we go over the relative merits of both shows.

Why HBO Leads the Emmy Nomination Field
In this post, I go off on a tangent about my view of Hollywood economics. I firmly believe that the network model is dying and, in the future, the relationship will be between production studios and consumers of the shows—no middleman needed.

What did we learn from this list? Genre television is definitely our stock in trade here at Pop Culture Curmudgeon, and we both like to complain about what is wrong with the pop culture landscape.

Are your favorites on the list? We’d also like to know what you would like to see more of in 2012. Let us know in the comments.

Like what you read here? Sign up to receive every post delivered to your inbox.

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

Ten reasons The Vampire Diaries is better than True Blood

We’re trying something new here at Pop Culture Curmudgeon – a joint post between our two regular contributors, Jen and Katie. As we’re sure you’ve realized by now, we’re fans of genre fare of all kinds. We’ve put together a post that you may find surprising if you’re a newcomer: 10 reasons The Vampire Diaries is better than True Blood.

“WHAT?!?” you ask. HBO’s True Blood is one of the most popular, talked about shows in pop culture today and it has in an impeccable pedigree. How can The Vampire Diaries, a show on the barely there CW network, compare? We’ll show you how.

In no particular order – we had too hard a time choosing! – here are our 10 reasons why The Vampire Diaries is better than True Blood. Oh, and just for kicks, see if you can pick out who authored which reason.

* Nina Dobrev. At first she seemed adequate as Elena. Then I saw her as Katherine and was wowed. She has created two completely different, fully realized characters. You can tell them apart just by expressions and mannerisms. It really is amazing.

* Unlike a certain other vampire show, the plot lines actually seem to connect the dots. (And, there aren’t any terrible Southern accents.)

* Chemistry between actors. Check out this dance sequence with Elena and Damon. They practically have sex just by looking at each other while dancing at a Cotillion-like event. It’s not just that pair either – the cast is filled with actors that have great chemistry together, as a large group and in pairs.

* Someone on the writing staff has an amazing ability to take (sometimes) borderline unlikeable characters and make them sympathetic. Witness Tyler’s transformation from jerky high school jock to semi-tragic, sometimes charming werewolf and Caroline’s change from bossy queen bee to funny, charming, amazingly supportive friend (but still bossy) queen bee.

* Ian Somerhalder. His portrayal of Damon has made him into an extremely interesting character, a sensitive bad boy with a sly sense of humor and an unpredictable dark side. And he has that eye thing… someone’s gone to the trouble of cutting them together, so enjoy.

* Pacing. Each episode of TVD seems to move forward, rather than rehashing everything ad nauseum until it all wraps up neatly in the last two episodes of the season. Filler is acceptable in a 24-episode season, but if you can’t keep a 13-episode season tight and well paced, well, I can’t help you.

* No unnecessary nudity. Now I am fine with the boobs and blood genre that is so prevalent on pay TV, but sometimes TB seems to put in plot points simply because we can see Anna Paquin’s boobs or Ryan Kwanten’s butt. (As a nod to my co-author, Joe Manganiello may remain shirtless forever.)

* A serious take on the genre. TVD is a drama; TB is camp. Enough said.

* A sense of realism. Yes, there is a certain necessary suspension of disbelief involved in both shows, unless you believe vampires and werewolves are real. Which is fine; I’m not here to judge. But TVD balances the unbelievable with a slate of characters who act in ways that are completely believable.

* Strong women. Many of the women on True Blood are capable and have supernatural powers. In fact, TB had one of my favorite characters, Nan Flanagan, a no-nonsense PR flack whose entire goal was to promote the pro-vampire agenda. But our main ladies are constantly needing rescue from the gentlemen of the show. Elena does stupid things (really, Elena, you want to go alone into the woods full of werewolf-vampire hybrids?), but she also takes care of herself when she has to.

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

Guest Post: The CW’s Secret Circle: How Does It Compare to the Books

Today, we welcome special guest Julia Harpin, from TV.com, to talk about The Secret Circle. And she writes one of my favorite types of posts: a comparison of book versus tv show/movie. Senior year in high school, that we pretty much our second semester of English, and it was one of the highlights of my high school career. But, you’re not here to see me reminisce. We’ll let Julia get started.

Book vs. TV: A Look at The Secret Circle Series

By Julia Harpin for TV.com

Tonight CW airs the second episode of its new supernatural teen drama, The Secret Circle. Like CW’s other Thursday night hit, The Vampire Diaries, The Secret Circle is based on a series of books by L. J. Smith. And like The Vampire Diaries, The Secret Circle television series is going to have some major changes from the book.

How major? The pilot gives us some clues about how the series will differ from its source material. If you haven’t seen the pilot yet, you probably want to get on it before reading this article.

Here’s what I see coming in future episodes.

Cassie’s relationship with her mom will be different.

On account of her mom dying in the first five minutes. Now, I’m not expecting any kind of Obi Wan Kenobi business here, but I do think that Cassie’s mother’s being dead is not going to keep her from being a major part of the series. At the end of the pilot Cassie finds a note from her mother tucked away in a hidden notebook. I’m predicting Cassie’s mother left her other signs and such to help her daughter learn about magic, solve mysteries, get the guy, and all that.

The parents are going to have new, more important plotlines.

In the books the parents were minor characters, but it’s looking like several of them will be prominent in the show. Diana’s father looks set up to be the main antagonist, at least for now. This is very likely one of the reasons why the number of teenagers in the circle was cut from the original twelve in the books to six. With Diana’s daddy taking on the major villain responsibilities, that probably means the show will wait longer to bring out Black John, the book’s major villain. It might even free up Faye’s character to be a little more complicated, and a little less straight up villainess. Which is awesome, because Phoebe Tonkin is making Faye really fun to watch in possibly one of the best performances in the show.

The town will not be connected to the Salem witch trials.

The first sign was that the name of the town has been changed from New Salem to Chance Harbor. In the books New Salem was a New England coastal town founded by witches escaping from the Salem witch trials. Not only is Chance Harbor not named after Salem, but it’s also on the other side of the country. The second sign was the Cassie’s mother’s murder. The Secret Circle book series has a series of murders based on the executions of the Salem witches; hangings, crushings, and the like. Cassie’s mother was burned alive, a method popular in European witch hunts, but never deployed in Salem. So either the creators are playing fast and lose with history (entirely possible), or they’re ditching the done-to-death Salem angle. It’ll be interesting to see if they have their own mythology to replace it.

There’s not going to be a big focus on the high school.

I’m sure it’ll pop up now and again, but I doubt we’ll be seeing these kids in school very much. The Vampire Diaries played this angle too. Creator Kevin Williamson consciously made the setting more about the town and less about the school. Though Secret Circle has different creators, they’d be foolish not to take The Vampire Diaries as a master class in “How To Turn L. J. Smith Books into Piles Of Money.” So far The Secret Circles does seem to be spending more time in Chance Harbor’s streets than its school hallways. The pilot had all of about two minutes by the lockers before jumping to after school affairs.

There will be no crystal skull.

Many of the events of the book series revolve around a crystal skull that houses the soul of Black John. I don’t think it’s going to be making an appearance in the show. Adam didn’t go to Cape Cod to get it. And unless I’m much mistaken, that was Black John who burned down Cassie’s mom’s house. Which means there’s no need to put in a skull for him to come out of. Besides, it’s too likely that having a crystal skull would make people think about the fourth Indiana Jones movie. And no one wants to think about the fourth Indiana Jones movie. Ever.

Did you watch last week? If not, you can catch up before tonight’s episode here.

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

Does HBO Hate Women?

Last Friday on Cocktails with Patrick, Patrick and his guest Jensen Karp were talking about how douchey the guys on Entourage are and how horribly they treat women. I have always thought that, but it got me thinking about the treatment of women on the other HBO shows as I was watching Sunday night.

Other than Sex and the City, most HBO over the years have been dominated by the male perspective. And, Sex and the City did have a male showrunner, though it has a lot of female staffers and writers.

I remember watching Dream On and The Mind of the Married Man and thinking how marginal the women were. I wasn’t able to watch either of these shows for their entire run because I just didn’t find them enjoyable in the long run.

The women of Six Feet Under were more developed, although Nate’s love interests seemed to be cast in typical Madonna-whore symbolism.I enjoyed where they took the mother’s character over the years as she learned to be a fully realized woman rather than just her husband’s wife.

Arliss’s Rita Wu held her own in a male-dominated world, and the world of sports agenting comes with an inherent level of sexism, so I don’t expect a lot of female-centric storylines. As does the fantasy genre covered by Game of Thrones.

The women on Sunday’s episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm existed solely to service Larry, fight his battles and do his shopping, or serve as comic relief.

Entourage was pretty par for the course, with Turtle being upset that his girlfriend might have her own life and career and Ari freaking out that his wife might find someone who treats her better than he does.

True Blood is a pretty equal opportunity character torturer, so I will give it a pass.

What do you think? Do you think HBO needs more realistic portrayals of women? Or am I just being hypersensitive after listening to a couple guys rip Entourage a new one on the radio?

As an aside, Patrick and his guest thought Entourage was totally unrealistic, but Angelica Bridges said it was completely accurate but doesn’t go far enough in depicting how Hollywood is on Sunday’s episode of Hollywood Uncensored.

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

Why HBO Leads the Emmy Nomination Field

Katie and I have both long lamented the state of network television. The only high-quality shows on the big 4 seem to be canceled before they finish their first seasons (a few notable exceptions include Chuck, which struggles each year and is now entering its final season; Supernatural; and Glee.)

Cable is a bright spot, with shows that feature smart writing and interesting characters. And pay cable leads the pack, with envelope-pushing genre shows such as True Blood, interesting period pieces such as The Borgias, and character-driven comedies such as Entourage.

Why can the cable networks succeed where the big boys fail? Pure economics.

The networks sell content that consumers watch, but they aren’t selling to the consumer. Instead, they are selling to the businesses that will advertise on the shows. The investment these businesses make in the shows is big. Not only do they pay the networks to use their airtime to speak to consumers, but they also pay the production costs of the shows and the residuals to the creative personnel each time those commercials run.

For these commercial slots, pure numbers speak. The highest audience numbers command the highest value to these advertisers looking to speak to us. Because the content is being sold to the businesses instead of directly to the consumers, the shows need to be appealing to a wide audience, not offensive to some group who might boycott the business, and likely speak to older clients than the actual viewers will be.

And, each show is a single commodity. Yes, ad slots can be packaged to run over multiple shows, but each show must appeal to these advertisers or else its production costs can’t be justified.

The cable networks are still selling to businesses rather than consumers, but the costs to the businesses are lower, so they can handle a smaller audience. Businesses buy these slots to play commercials they have already produced for the major broadcast networks, and they are not required to pay residuals for commercials that run on cable. In addition, cable networks make a portion of their revenue from subscription fees, so ad rates can be even lower.

Pay cable is the only group that sells its content directly to the consumer. They have to create content that keeps people subscribing month after month, rather than satisfying advertisers first. They can take greater risks because they sell a slate of content, from original series and movies to reality shows and studio and independent films. One risky show may fail, and many on the pay cable nets have. But it is not likely that one show will cause a subscriber to cancel the network. They will just choose to watch something else during that time slot.

As far as HBO’s continued success, I think it is mainly that they are the most established of the pay nets as far as creating original programming. The others are getting better, and their Emmy nominations will continue to increase as they continue to increase their quality and viewer appeal.

What do you think? Are the economics I have outlined enough to explain HBO’s domination of the Emmy field? Or is something else at play?

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

The Inside Scoop from Reality Television Insider Irene Cazares

Today, we have a special guest here at Pop Culture Curmudgeon: Irene Cazares. Irene has worked on a ton of the VH1 reality shows you love (or love to hate). Check out her IMDB resume here.

Pop Culture Curmudgeon: What do you think draws viewers into reality shows?

Irene Cazares: I think what makes reality television so appealing to so many viewers is the reality of it. In essence as a viewer, you are not watching Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on screen. You are watching a normal person, who after their fifteen minutes will most likely return to their normal everyday lives.

Most “stars” of the reality genre are many times no different than the person sitting watching them on the other side of the television. Anyone can see themselves in front of Simon Cowell and imagine how they would react if they won American Idol, or for many, how they would react to his thorny remarks.

Reality stars are often the introverts, the dorks, the bachelors who can’t find a woman of their own if not for the help of a national television show.

But to put it bluntly, what draws viewers into these shows most is the drama. Watching Jack and Kate break up on Lost, a show where actors are playing parts and true emotions are not on the line, pales in comparison to seeing real couples devastated as they break up, like on Temptation Island, or watching the slow unraveling of a marriage on John and Kate plus Eight.

At the same time, the three things that help reality thrive? Cheating, fighting and flowing tears. Real people. Real feelings. Real situations. That’s reality at its best.

PCC: What would viewers be most surprised about if they were able to go behind the scenes of their favorite shows?

IC: I think viewers would find the grand production that goes on, both boring and fascinating. For a show like Big Brother, thousands of hours of footage is shot. To sort through that and find those interesting moments that fans would most like to see takes tons of manpower and requires weeks, sometimes months per episode. It’s a very daunting task at the beginning of a new show.

Also, here’s some food for thought. With that much footage and only an hour per week of airtime — 42:30 after commercials — a lot of great material is left out based on time constraints.

PCC: What memorable experiences have you had on the set?

IC: I don’t spend much time on set as an editor, but I must say the most memorable moment had to be when season one of Flavor of Love. One of the girls could not control her bowel movements and pooped on set.

PCC: That is no good! What happens in the editing room? (I hope nothing quite as messy!)

IC: Despite there being so many cameras surrounding them, there are always those cast members who think they can sneak away from the camera. When this happens, and we catch them going about their “private” business, we usually get some of our best footage.

It’s another reason people love reality, because its voyeuristic. Like watching a soap opera, but with real people’s lives and feelings at stake.

Also, cutting it down to the wire literally. Teams of people stressed having to do the creative and technical work almost at the same time in order to make air.

PCC: What do you look for in the footage to decide what makes it on the air?

IC: The footage has to be compelling. Something that evokes emotion, whether it be laughter, hatred or sympathy. Boring footage will not be received well, and your show will be canceled. When looking through footage, I tend to go with a scene that grabs me for some reason or other. One that is so scandalous I cannot look away, one so funny that it makes me laugh out loud, or one where the character is just so charismatic that I recognize something within them that people at home would enjoy.

But my opinion isn’t the only one that counts. After I turn in my first cut, it goes into a screening room where producers and other people who are involved with the show get to add their input. From there, it’s a collaborative effort to make a show that is unique and one audiences will love.

PCC: You have had quite steady work. What lessons have you learned that have helped you stay employed in a business that is known for the constant hustle for the next gig?

IC: Keep honing your skills and realize where you are. It’s Hollywood baby. While I don’t consider myself much of a schmoozer, networking and putting yourself out there is key in this industry, even behind the scenes, so if you’re not up to it, then this isn’t the business for you.

However, if you still think you want to break in, cut a demo reel together and have it ready. It’s not a bad idea to have it on the internet, so prospective employers can view your work immediately.

PCC: Do you have any new projects in the works that we should be on the lookout for?

IC: Yes, but none I can officially talk about as our air date is pending. I will let you know as soon as I can.

PCC: Thanks so much for visiting with us today, Irene. I learned a lot — and had some suspicions confirmed — about reality television.

1 person likes this post.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

Girls Aren’t Funny, and Other Pop Culture Stereotypes

So, I had the hardest time trying to convince my husband that Bridesmaids would be funnier than The Hangover 2. It took not just my testimony but also hearing from his friends and tons of reviewers. I don’t think he consciously realizes that he doesn’t think girls are as funny as boys, but the belief is there under the surface affecting his viewing choices. And it drives me crazy. Girls are funny, dammit. We girls have had to watch movies and TV shows with guys as the leads for years. Why can’t guys just calm down for a second and watch a female lead?

But, then I started looking at my own preferences. I am white, and I don’t watch BET regularly. Why am I typically drawn to shows with white main characters? Sure, I loved All-American Girl (heart Margaret Cho), and I still watch Everybody Hates Chris on reruns because it is awesome, but is that the television equivalent of saying “I have plenty of [fill in your favorite minority here] friends”? Why should every minority have to watch only white people living their lives on TV? And when there is a minority character, they still fall into the old racist archetypes popular in the 1920s. (Did you watch Joey? How was Zach’s character not just a modern-day “Uncle Tom“?) And, why should all of us, no matter how old we are, be subjected to teen show after teen show as if life ends once you graduate from high school?

I like to think that my viewing preferences are not a symptom of a deep-seated racism, but I think it is worth examining how my own prejudices affect my view of the world. It is uncomfortable to do that, but it is valuable.

What do you think? Do you find that you only want to watch people who are like you in some way? Is it racial? Age? Economic circumstances? Or are you cosmopolitan in what you watch?

Be the first to like.
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Related Posts:

WordPress Themes

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
This work by Jennifer C. Rodland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.