September 2003 Archives

So Much for 'Junkyard Wars'

Well, I just deleted Junkyard Mega-Wars off my Tivo Season Pass list.

I gave it an honest chance. I didn't want to consign it to oblivion just because it didn't have Robert Llewellyn or Cathy Rogers. But so many of the changes which at first seemed pointless actually turned out to be actively bad. Rotating crew members? Oh good, so that way the teams don't know each other. I would have thought the Junkyard Wars audience would be a bigger fan of friends working together smoothly than of strangers snapping at each other, but what do I know? I'm the dummy who thought that a new Expert Judge every week was a neat idea.

The new hosts, of course, are terrible. It's tradition! I can't put my finger on exactly what I dislike about them, unless it's the way they keep shouting at me about how great each episode's challenge is. Or maybe it was the little skits the hosts did together. Or the way they took a dental drill to my brain every time they opened their mouths.

I tell ya, it's almost enough to make me give up my pipe dream of learning to weld so I can make my very own Robosaurus.

Loose Slots, Looser Screenplay

I'm not sure if I'll end up writing a full review of Las Vegas. After all, I've only been to the town once, and Phil and Lisa go there all the time -- heck, they even got married there. And Lisa is the show's official recapper, so I guess a review from her is unlikely.

In any event, I watched the Las Vegas pilot. This time of year, I'm reminded that pilots really make terrible episodes in terms of judging how a show's going to turn out. After all, they're spiked with exposition and designed to sell a series to network execs, not to viewers. So it goes with Vegas -- too many characters, too much explanation, and way too much drama of the over-the-top sort. I thought Nikki Cox was really good, but her scenes with Josh Duhamel were ridiculous and redundant. ("It's the family business! The family business!") Duhamel also bears a striking resemblance to Farscape's Ben Browder -- even more than Chuck from Amazing Race 4 -- which kept creeping me out.

James Caan was, of course, James Caan. If there's anything that bodes well for this series, it's that.

A Few Early-Season Notes

Unfortunately for the whimpering husk of my social life, I am spending a lot of time watching TV. Here are few of the peaks and valleys I've noticed so far this fall:

UPN's Jake 2.0 is the best new show I won't be watching after Oct. 1. Heck, it's the best show to originate on UPN since the paranoid glory days of Nowhere Man. (No, Trek fans, I haven't forgotten anything in that assessment.) Christopher Gorham's supergeek hero actually looks and acts like the well-meaning dork he's supposed to be. As his adorably nerdy doctor, Keegan Connor Tracy tempts me to make off-color innuendo about slide rules and pocket protectors. Ace showrunner David Greenwalt turned in a second episode that actually improved on the few nagging flaws in creator Silvio Horta's pilot. If only the mouth-breathing imbeciles running UPN would realize that scheduling the show opposite both Angel and West Wing is a quick way to kill the only good show they've got left.

But the future looks bright for NBC's Ed. The first half of last season saw our hero locked in an inane passive-agressive death spiral with his reluctant paramour Carol Vessey, a plotline so repulsive I personally wanted to burn the quaint little town of Stuckeyville to the ground. But the writers wised up, the characters miraculously started acting like human beings, and Ed and Carol wound up happily together at last. With Ed miraculously snatched from the jaws of cancellation, this season's premiere gleefully spoofed the series' own notorious indecision while making Ed and Carol's jump to couplehood believably awkward. And the supporting cast is still as funny as ever. Provided they bring back the diabolical Dr. Jerome, and use super-spazoid Warren Cheswick wisely, I think I can finally watch this show again without keeping a gasoline can and a box of matches within easy reach.

And lastly, am I the only one watching promos for UPN's vile The Mullets and thinking that, if the network had a lick of sense, it could instead be airing new episodes of both Farscape and Firefly as we speak?

I've never really completely understood Einstein's theory of relativity, but tonight, for the first time, I suddenly grasped it with perfect clarity. Time does indeed stretch relative to the observer's frame of reference; especially when that observer is watching the annual Emmy presentations. It's just a pity that relativity doesnât simultaneously stretch the pain threshold.

Jesus Christ, that was a long show! As 11 o'clock approached, I thought relief was at hand. Never before have I so eagerly anticipated our horrible local news coverage. But 11:00 came and went, with no talking heads in sight and four more awards yet to be announced. At 11:13, Mike Myers finally bid the groggy audience farewell, and I was shocked when I glanced at the date on my watch and discovered that the spirits had done it all in one night. And here I thought Iâd missed Christmas.

Because my cerebrum shut down shortly after the seventeenth "lots of Gubernatorial candidates" joke, leaving the pons and midbrain to fend for themselves, I don't remember much about the proceedings. However, a few scattered thoughts have managed to emerge from the haze:

  • Taking three hours to build up the drama for the presentation of the "big awards" loses a lot of its impact when you then have only thirty seconds left in which to present all six of them.
  • Turning one host into ten hosts does not necessarily make an awards show ten times as funny as in previous years. In most cases it makes the show exactly as unfunny, but ten times as sad.
  • Playtex Bras as a major sponsor of this year's Emmys: inadvertent irony, or brilliant marketing synergy?
  • I like it a lot when comedians stand in front of an Emmy audience and caustically savage television for being witless and vulgar. Emmy audiences don't seem to like it very much, though.
  • What was up with The Cos'? First he busts on Wanda Sykes for butchering the Queen's English, then he gets up on stage to accept his humanitarian award and proceeds to ramble about everything but; including a thoroughly pathetic reminiscence about his dead son, Ennis, whom he apparently still speaks of in the present tense. Perhaps all that exposure to kids saying darned things has finally turned his brain to pudding in a cloud.
  • Does anybody else think that the way that Sprint PCS guy hangs around with America's housewives whenever the menfolk go out of town is just a little bit creepy?
  • I'd like to think that the reason Joe Pantoliano suddenly got all teary when he approached the microphone for his acceptance speech was that he got a good look at his outfit in the monitors.
  • The traditional part of the show where the Chairman of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences comes out to congratulate himself reminds me of any official presentation made by Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig. I get the impression that the audience is holding its collective breath, silently praying that he doesnât say something to embarrass their entire industry.
  • Was Martin Sheen off taking a dump when they announced the Best Drama win for The West Wing, or do they have some kind of special box in the back for guys who play the President?
  • Seriously, about the bra thing... I'm all for ladies going unsupported, but if your boobs are so small that they could be adequately covered by the spaghetti straps on your gown, going sans-brassiere isn't going to do your cleavage any favors. I haven't seen so many well dressed boards since my sixth grade field trip to the lumberyard.

Dead Pool '03: Ain't No Cure for the Summertime Blues

Summertime -- that glorious three-month period filled with swimming pools, string bikinis and nice, tall pitchers of Country Time Lemonade -- has always been a powerful muse for the leading literary lights of the Western world. After all, it was Shakespeare -- or quite possibly, Francis Bacon writing under a pen name so as not to jeopardize his five-sonnet deal with the Earl of Essex -- who first asked, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate." More recently, the Gershwin brothers -- George, Ira, and, quite possibly, Zeppo -- teamed up with DuBose Heyward to rhapsodize about how in summertime, the living was easy, what with the fish a-jumpin' and the cotton being high. But, when we think of summertime and all of the lyrical odes singing its praises, we keep coming back to the moving words penned by 1970s rocker and Phoenix-area restaurateur Alice Cooper. You know the words.

School's out for summer
School's out forever
My school's been blown to pieces
No more pencils
No more books
No more teachers' dirty looks

Mr. Cooper's meaning is not difficult to grasp. As anyone who's ever spent May's final dying days fighting off sleep during a trigonometry lecture will tell you, there's no feeling of relief quite as joyous as the moment the last school bell of the year rings and you're unleashed upon an unsuspecting world for three unsupervised months. Even a decade or more after cracking open our last textbook, there's not a Vidiot on staff who doesn't remember the tingly rush brought on by summer's arrival and its promise of freeform days and responsibility-free nights. Mr. Cooper's song is a paean to freedom, a musical prose-poem that captures the unfettered rapture of telling The Man where he can cram it. It's an anthem that strikes a chord within the heart of anyone who's ever dreamed of casting of the burdens and cares of the workaday world to live a life of sleeping 'til noon, eating cold pizza for breakfast and dancing around in your boxer shorts while watching Divorce Court reruns.

It also happens to perfectly capture the mindset of broadcast network executives and how they approach this crazy TV business.

Since the earliest annals of recorded time -- the 1950s -- broadcast network executives have religiously adhered to two commandments: 1) Thy season shalt begin in mid-September or thereabouts; and 2) Thou shalt stop broadcasting original episodes in early May. For many a generation, as soon as the last contrived sweeps month stunt of the last series has been aired, TV executives bolt from their desks like giddy schoolboys and leave behind their offices in New York, Hollywood and Burbank for more exotic locales -- the Hamptons, the Big Island, Sherman Oaks. In their absence, the networks under their care would broadcast... well, not nothing exactly, but certainly not anything worth your time or effort to watch. Reruns of shows you didn't much care for the first time around. Dusty and forgotten episodes of shows that were canceled the previous winter. Pilot episodes of programs the network green-lighted and then became too embarrassed to air when there was the slightest risk that somebody might actually be watching. And, of course, Cher specials.

It's easy to follow network TV's line of reasoning for waving the white flag all summer-long: Why waste expensive-to-produce programming when nobody's watching? Better to wait until the fall to unveil original episodes when a TV-addicted nation would be so desperate for something new that they'd watch anything, even if it wasn't very good.

How else do you think The Love Boat stayed on the air for nine seasons?

Well, that hoo-haw may have flown back when there were only a handful of channels broadcasting and a quarter cost a nickel and our boys were giving the Hun what-for at the Argonne. But these days, when you need a scientific calculator just to keep track of all the available viewing options, the notion of a September-to-May TV season seems about as quaint and antiquated as Sunday Blue Laws. And don't think the people running cable TV channels haven't noticed. They've discovered firsthand that when you put something new on the air during the summer months when network TV has taken a powder, people will watch. And if you're fortunate enough to put something good on the air, people will keep watching, even after the networks return from their long summer's nap.

Network executives were smart enough to notice the trend -- not smart enough to change their discredited, outmoded way of doing things, mind you, but the journey of a thousand miles begins a single, non-idiotic step, as Buddha might say, if he were cranky and out-of-sorts. Determined to find a way to stop viewers from fleeing to cable without giving up their three months of low-cost programming, network TV hatched a bold (for them), new plan: come up with original summer programming, but do it on the cheap. In other words, flood the airwaves with reality programming until the nation begs for mercy. And then air some more.

The strategy has met with some degree of success -- Survivor and American Idol both got their starts as summer fill-in programming, don't you know -- but for the most part, reality shows slapped onto the summer schedule make their debut, run their course, and fade from memory faster than last night's leftovers. Honestly, could you really rattle off the differences between For Love or Money and Paradise Hotel without first consulting flash cards? Can you remember anything about American Juniors, other than that it didn't feature Simon Cowell making little kids burst into tears? Were you even the least bit aware that not only is Big Brother still on the air, but that this is the fourth go-round for the most boring reality show in all of recorded history? I mean, what if they kept showing a sign of the Apocalypse and nobody noticed?

Normally, this would be the time of year for all this nonsense to wrap things up. Summer fill-in programming -- the tiresome reruns, the misbegotten pilots that only saw the light of day in the unforgiving August sun, the thrice-damned reality shows -- would exit the stage in favor of network TV's best and brightest new fall programs.

But not this year. Maybe it's because networks have been rolling out new shows helter-skelter -- Fox pulled back the curtain on The O.C. more than a month ago, and UPN, the WB and even NBC have been spitting out series premieres for the past week. Maybe it's because the weather's cooling and the leaves are turning, and yet, we still find ourselves ass-deep in reality programming. Maybe we really are living in an age of diminished expectations. Whatever the reason, the new fall season begins in full-force this week, and, to your TeeVee pals, at any rate, it just feels like more crummy summer television -- cut-rate, halfhearted and thrown onto the schedule just to spare the embarrassment of broadcasting dead air. It's as if the TV networks have taken a different lyric from Alice Cooper's seminal rock anthem School's Out to heart:

Out for summer
Out for fall
We might not come back at all
School's out forever

Overly pessimistic? You tell me. Especially after you consider that the shows making up the freshman class of the Fall 2003 season include:

  • one featuring the tiresome wit and dubious wisdom of Whoopi Goldberg;
  • one about Tarzan in which the title role was apparently awarded on the basis of how good the lead actor looked with his shirt off and not on whether he could string two sentences together without sounding like a gibbon -- a beautiful, beautiful gibbon;
  • one based on the dubious premise of how fabulous it is to be married to Brooke Shields;
  • one based on the dubious premise of how fabulous it is to be Will Smith and Jada Pinkett;
  • a drama that combines "Romeo & Juliet's" timeless story of star-crossed love with hardcore pornography's timeless story of explicit money shots;
  • a David E. Kelley-helmed drama in which the role normally played by an emaciated lead actress is assumed by Randy Quaid;
  • shows built around the questionable star power of Charlie Sheen, Kelly Ripa and -- as already might have been mentioned -- Whoopi Goldberg;
  • at least five sitcoms in which knuckle-headed siblings/offspring/parents move back in with their more sensible siblings/parents/offspring, resulting in much forced hilarity and wackiness;
  • two shows in which the lead character has regular conversations with dead people and/or God;
  • three sitcoms, including one starring Whoopi Goldberg, based on the hilarious premise of having people of different ethnic backgrounds, genders, and sexual orientation shout vicious slurs at one another for half-an-hour while the laugh-track hoots in canned delight at the alleged edginess of it all;
  • two stone-cold ripoffs of much funnier British shows, watered down beyond recognition so as not to offend our delicate sensibilities;
  • many, many achingly bad programs on UPN, which mysteriously remains open for business;
  • enough shoddy CSI knockoffs to flood a Hong Kong bazaar; and
  • I mentioned Whoopi Goldberg, right? Because, really, I can't emphasize enough how truly dreadful this development is. I mean, did anyone out there watch Goldberg sleepwalk her way through any of her Oscar-hosting gigs with a "The check cleared already, right?" look on her face and think, "Man, if only I could get 30 minutes of this every week?" Or watched her holding court from center square and decide, "Boy oh boy, these labored and spectacularly obvious one-liners are comedy gold?" Because someone at NBC has concluded that you have, and you and I really need to set them straight on this matter.

Sure, there are some bright spots. Joe Pantoliano heads his own crime drama, and you've got a show on NBC where Nikki Cox has been cast as a Las Vegas hooker. But, by and large, unparalleled pleasures such as these are few and far between. And a world full of punchless sitcoms, retread crime shows and haunting visions of Whoopi Goldberg grinning at her own warmed-over jokes is not one in which any of us should want to spend any amount of time suffering. What, then, is our motivation for even acknowledging the start of the Fall TV season instead of just selling our television sets for cash and investing the proceeds in various flavored liqueurs?

Well.. there is the annual TeeVee Dead Pool.

Readers who stuck with this site through our endless onslaught of awards doubtlessly remember the Dead Pool, but for the benefit you newcomers, we've been doing this contest amongst ourselves long before TeeVee.org was even a gleam of HTML code in Jason Snell's eye. The contest works like this: we all pick three shows in the order in which we think they will receive their justly deserved cancellation notice. Whoever picks correctly -- or the closest to correctly as determined by our Byzantine scoring system -- gets a prize, which may or may not be actually delivered.

And we're continuing our grand tradition of allowing you readers to correctly pick canceled shows and then not receive prizes for your efforts!

Um... that offer sounded a lot more appealing before I typed it. Anyhow, here's what you do:

1. Compose an e-mail that lists the three shows you think will get mowed down like dogs the fastest. Please list them in order.

2. In addition to listing your selections for the TV boneyard, include the date you think the first show will be canceled. This will be used in the event of a tiebreaker, or in case the actual winner does something to irritate us, forcing us to disqualify him on an obscure and arbitrary technicality.

3. Send that e-mail to teevee@teevee.org by October 1.

4. Please include a generous cash bribe, lest we invoke that irritating-reader-disqualified-on-an-arbitrary-technicality rule.

Points are awarded thusly: Pick the first show to get canceled, and you receive three points. Correctly pick the second show to get the ax, and you get two points. If your third pick is the third show to be sent to the happy hunting ground, you get one point. And if any of the shows you picked are canned -- but not in the order you picked them -- you receive a saucy half-point. The winner is the person with the most points, or the most generous cash bribe.

Just so that we're clear on this, a show is considered canceled when a network pulls it from the schedule with no plans ever to let it return to the airwaves. A show that's taken off the air temporarily? For our purposes, not canceled. A sitcom that goes on hiatus so that the network can burn the existing scripts and replace the cast with puppets before relaunching the show under an entirely new title? Not canceled. A program that network executives swear on a stack of Bibles will return to prime time, even as they're destroying every last evidence of its existence? Not canceled.

We call that last one the Fox Rule, by the way.

As to the prizes at stake, we know that there's another Dead Pool contest out there that's awarding a bevy of electronic devices to the winning contestant. Well, our winner gets electronic equipment, too -- except that in our case, the electronic equipment in question bears a striking resemblance to a T-shirt.

Yes -- we're giving away a TeeVee t-shirt. Got a problem with that? Then, we'll cheerfully refund your TeeVee subscription. Hmm? You don't pay anything to read TeeVee? Well, then we're both going to have to learn to live with disappointment.

Discount prize giveaway aside, we invite you to join in the fun of our annual Dead Pool. Study TeeVee's highly anticipated Dead Pool handicap, argue with friends and family over your picks, and send in your entry. But most importantly, try to enjoy a good chuckle at the expense of the rotten shows that will soon be darkening your TV set for the foreseeable future. Because that may be the only relief you get from the unrelenting misery of some of these programs. Take the aforementioned Whoopi, which, we must stress, may well be one of the most awful things to happen on television since the Oswald prison transfer. Thanks to its early premiere date, the stinky Whoopi Goldberg sitcom enjoyed boffo ratings. NBC is already hailing Whoopi and its nearly-as-bad follow-up Happy Family as the first hits of the new season.

That calls to mind a lyric from yet another Alice Cooper song:

Welcome to my nightmare.

Additional contributions to this article by: Philip Michaels.

TeeVee: The Anti-Emmy

I know that Phil's TeeVee Award Intro said we don't like the Emmy Awards. But honestly, I didn't expect that our worst hour show would win Best Drama Series. So if anyone who saw West Wing last year doubted that the Emmys are a load of horseshit, you have no doubts today.

Actually, I was kind of hoping Will and Grace would win Best Comedy Series, just so TeeVee would hit the trifecta of Anti-Emmys. (Anthony Foglia would remind me that it's really the exacta. But a letter from a reader correcting us on word choice in a TeeVee Emmy piece makes it the trifecta after all!)

At least we agree with Crazy Lady Emmy on Tony Shalhoub. That's something.

No Non-American Presenters Allowed

Sitting here, watching the Emmys, wondering to myself: have they banned foreign accents from the show this year? Because I know that the stars of Without a Trace, Anthony LaPaglia and Poppy Montgomery, are Australian. And yet when they presented the award for best drama, they used their American Without a Trace accents.

Who put 'em up to it? The show's producers? CBS, who was afraid nobody would want to sample Without a Trace if they found out it starred a couple freakin' foreigners? (Actually, three, since Marianne Jean-Baptiste has the double whammy of a French surname and a British passport.)

Whoever did it, shame on them. What's next? Presenters appearing in character? Brad Garrett accepting his award in the low dunce voice of Robert Barone, rather than in his own high-pitched squeak?

Let's let people have the dignity of using their own accents when they're playing themselves. I'd hope that we fragile Americans can handle the cognitive dissonance.

Things get pretty logy around the TeeVee office in the summertime, and many Vidiots rouse from their summer slumbers only when they hear the screams of shock and horror upon the release of the Emmy Awards. As you might have noticed, this year's TeeVee Awards were a bit later than usual, and in fact today we risk getting beaten out by the Emmys. That's not going to happen. So, without any more ado than we've already made you suffer through, presented here are the final TeeVee Awards.

There are many of us who believe that there are few strong female roles on television. It's an indictment of the television industry (and not the actresses) that from year to year, we can rarely pick up on any female performances that we really, really liked. Just this year, Nellie No-Award was the victor in our Best Hour Actress category, and let us tell you, she's a perennial contender.

However, when it comes to the Best Half-Hour Actress category, we had several more choices. In fact, our finalists came down to women who play excellent parts in one of our favorite half-hour comedies, Scrubs. As Elliot, former Roseanne fill-in Sarah Chalke provides a female counterbalance to the testosterone of J.D., Turk, and Cox. As Cox's ex-wife Jordan, Christa Miller was only a guest-star -- but in terms of impact, her recurring role carried as much force as any of the series' other cast members.

Yes, we admit it -- it doesn't hurt that both women are easy on the eyes. But perhaps there's something to the fact that we love a comedy that happens to have three (let's not forget Judy Reyes as Carla) strong female characters who can give as good as they get. As for who gets the virtual TeeVee Award statue, it's Sarah Chalke. Sorry, Christa -- blondes have more fun.

You've already heard us rave about Tony Shalhoub's performance as idiosyncratic detective Adrian Monk. That goes in spades for the Best Hour Show this year, that selfsame Monk. Perhaps betraying our love of comedy, we've chosen an hour-long show that's really a comedy. Sure, Monk is dressed in the clothes of a gentle murder-mystery show on the same level as Murder, She Wrote. And if you appreciate that sort of thing, good for you.

For us, the show's paper-thin mystery plots are nothing but an excuse to watch Adrian Monk get placed in unbearable situations, whether it's a trip to Mexico (where the phrase "don't drink the water" gets taken a bit too literally) or a visit to the circus. It's a delight to watch -- a confection, to be sure, but we don't necessarily need weight, darkness, and angst in our hourlong series. This year, we liked it light.

Yet we'll also give an honorable-mention nod to the darkness, courtesy of the least-honored of Joss Whedon's series, Angel. The fourth season of Angel, featuring an increasingly dark and nasty year-long story arc, was the series' finest hour. The final few episodes, which features Gina Torres as a beautiful (but secretly horrific) goddess come to rule the earth, not only gave the kick of a classic horror movie, but prompted some serious moral head-scratching as well. People may have been paying attention to Buffy the Vampire Slayer's valedictory, but Angel was where it was at this year, Whedon-wise.

Finally, we admit that we're fans of the animation. In fact, we have honored Futurama repeatedly in our regular Best Half-Hour Series category. But since we do indeed love the animation, we also offer a special TeeVee Award just for Best Animated Show. This year, we don't really have a lot to say. You know the shows. You know Matt Groening. We still love The Simpsons, which doesn't suck nearly as bad as it should after all these years, even though its batting average is not what it once was. And Futurama has proven to be a brilliant series in its own right, despite its mistreatment at the hands of Fox -- a point proven by its good treatment (and excellent ratings) now that it's found a new home on Cartoon Network.

And so it goes, the best and the worst of the 2002-2003 season. Let the fall season begin!

Additional contributions to this article by: Jason Snell.

Phil Gets a Reason to Watch 'Angel'

At last, Philip Michaels has a reason to watch a Joss Whedon production.

Evidently, this season on Angel (in an episode called "The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco") there's a story about a legendary group of Mexican wrestlers who also fight the forces of evil.

Working in the mail room of Angel's new snazzy company is a Mexican wrestler room known only as Number Five. He never takes off his mask, of course -- he's a Mexican wrestler! And then he tells the tale of how, once, he was a member of the Luchadors, a legendary group of evil-fighting wrestlers who defeated the hideous Aztec demon Tezcatcatl.

Fire up your TiVos now.

TeeVee Awards '03: Worst Half-Hour Show

The worst half-hour show of 2003 was Will & Grace. Why sugar-coat it?

The worst thing about Will & Grace is that the main characters are Will and Grace. We don't mean that they'd be better off as supporting characters; we mean that they'd be better off selling insurance or as professional dog-walkers or in some other profession that wouldn't require them to be entertaining. Because they're dull. Not interesting. Their antics seem to entertain the studio audience, but that might be because NBC is pointing machine guns at them.

The audience, we mean. Not Will and/or Grace. Though the thought of either one fixed in the sights with Jeff Zucker's itchy finger on the trigger makes us feverish with delight.

So that's the main characters and their dreary lives dispensed with. You might disagree with this assessment, but that's because you are, no offense, a dope. If you took Will and Grace out of this show, you'd have much more entertainment. Plus, since the title would just be an ampersand, you'd get a huge savings on engraved letterhead.

Of course, there's a reason that Sean Hayes isn't the lead. It would be asking a lot of audiences to put up with him for 30 minutes when he normally only needs 3.4 seconds to go from Flamboyant to Spastic. When he got his big solo project in that Martin & Lewis TV movie, he made audiences long for the delicate, nuanced performance of the real Jerry Lewis. The monkey-like capering is entertaining in brief spurts, but it would be hard to sustain over an entire series.

Then there's that squeaky-voiced woman. Frankly, some Vidiots enjoy her a lot, but we had to look her up on IMDB to remind ourselves that her name is Megan Mullally. She seems like a lot of fun, but again, her role seems to be "crazy person."

So you've got two boring leads and two frenetic backups. It's like if the Ricardos and the Mertzes switched places. The effect is that whenever Mullally or Hayes comes on screen, the audience gets excited. "Oh boy!" they think. "It's time for some entertainment!" And then, three minutes later, the audience thinks "Would these people shut up already?" And by "the audience," we mean "us." It might not seem fair, but you can go ahead and start your own damn Web site if you don't like it. We voted, and Will & Grace were the winners. We like to think we're the last repository of democracy, even though a lot of the Vidiots do live in the lawless state of California.

Incidentally, it's very important that you understand that e-mailing us won't change our minds. We already know that they've got enough Emmys to start their own award show. Yes, the whole cast gets nominated every year. Don't care. Shut up. It's a terrible show featuring more stereotypes than a thousand Harry Potter fanfics. If they have room in their trophy case, they can just make room for the Worst Half-Hour Show statuette.

In case you're interested, the runner-up was Good Morning, Miami, which was last year's second-best new comedy about an imaginary morning show. Tied for third? Pretty much every other non-animated half hour show on television.

Additional contributions to this article by: Monty Ashley.

Death 1, Good Guys 0

I donât want to dwell on the sadness of John Ritterâs passing. But I have to admit, Iâm really fucking sad about it.

He didnât meet the usual criteria to be called a great actor. He wasnât classically trained, and I donât remember him ever starring in any âimportantâ films. But I fell in love with the man during his years on Threeâs Company. I enjoyed him in Hooperman, I even liked the guy when he was stuck in shitty movies like Problem Child. And how could you help but like him?

He was a good guy.

Because if thereâs one thing I always felt emanated from John Ritter, it was a basic decency. Itâs why he was so likeable onscreen. Jack Tripper was a horny lech, but you knew he would sooner die than let Janet and Chrissie down. And you knew the reason Jack was like that was because John Ritter was like that. You could see it in his eyes.

In fact, growing up watching Threeâs Company, I wanted to be just like Jack. He was smart, he was funny, he had a way with the ladies, but first and foremost he was a truly good guy. He made me want to be a good guy, too.

Looking back, though, the good guy I wanted to be wasn't really Jack Tripper. It was John Ritter.

Ritter was one of those TV stars that would periodically disappear from the public consciousness. And though he might not always be in the spotlight, somehow it was a comfort just to know that he was out there, being funny and smart and good and most of all making people happy. Heâs not out there anymore, and it makes my heart sore.

I donât want to dwell on the sadness of it, though.

John would have wanted us to laugh. We should laugh.

John Ritter, RIP

Last year, I watched 8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter as part of a piece I was doing on the state of the family sitcom. The show itself wasn't terribly impressive, but I remember really enjoying every minute John Ritter was on the screen. This was not surprising: Ritter had a gift for making you want to watch him.

Ritter defined professionalism, throwing himself into every performance and giving it his best, regardless of how crappy the source material was. It was evident that he loved what he did, because he did it so thoroughly and so well. Last year was also the year he played JD's dad on Scrubs, and his performance made me think of Willy Loman and Death of a Salesman: Attention must be paid.

It was impossible to ignore John Ritter -- not when he was playing manic horndog Jack Tripper, not when he was providing a quiet, vulnerable conscience in Sling Blade, not when he was bringing Clifford the Big Red Dog to life. Ritter was skilled in balancing comedy with the unfunny aspects of humanity -- pride, lust, greed or cowardice.

His real gift, however, may have been in making us relate to -- or even like -- his characters even when we knew they would drive us nuts in real life or, in one case, kill us on account of being an evil robot. That's a talent that too few actors bring to television. And now we have one fewer to do it.

End of Jack's Trip

Sad news that John Ritter passed away Thursday at the age of 54. He will always be remembered for his role as Jack Tripper on perhaps the definitive situation comedy, Three's Company. As someone who grew up watching that (admittedly cheesy) show, I've always been a fan of Ritter's work as Jack Tripper. He was really a very talented physical comedian, something that got lost in the '70s babe contract disputes and the clunky overheard-in-the-kitchen plot devices.

Granted, Monty didn't like 8 Simple Rules..., although I found it inoffensive. The show was, in fact, a little charming, largely because of Ritter's presence. In Monty's review of 8 Simple Rules, he said that his reaction to Ritter's appearances on TV or in movies was always the same: "Hey! There's John Ritter!"

I did that, too. But I did it with some measure of fondness.

TeeVee Awards '03: Best Half-Hour Actors

In case it wasn't obvious from the quality of the content, this web site is run on a pretty tight budget. You could say we're on a shoestring, but even Emmanuel Lewis' shoes aren't quite that small. "Penny ante" would be a pretty accurate description; except that sort of implies that after pitching in our ante we'd have some pennies left over to at least get around the table once, which, sadly, is not the case.

The point is, while a few of the Vidiots are content to subsist on a diet of tap water and Top Ramen, those of us who prefer to avoid scurvy have had to get real jobs. This means that, as much as we would like to, we simply can't spend all day fartin' around in front of the TV, poring through every single episode of every single half-hour sitcom. Even if we did, the subsequent binge on scotch and painkillers required to burn out the memory of a whole season of According to Jim would leave us in no state to write anything.

So we have to focus our viewing habits, filtering out the utter drivel and concentrating our scant free time on only those television comedies that entertain us most, or at the very least don't leave behind much lasting psychological trauma.

Which is why when it comes time to hand out our award for Best Half-Hour Actor, no cast member from Yes, Dear or Hidden Hills or any other carbon copy major network sitcom has a snowball's chance in hell. Frankly, apart from the contractually required couple of episodes we have to suffer through in order to render a decent review, we can't bring ourselves to watch the shit. So while there may be a brilliant comic actor frantically tunneling his way out of the comedic dung heap that is Good Morning, Miami, he's just going to have to keep on tunneling without an award from us. That may not seem entirely fair, but we believe that having the good sense to steer clear of any Mark Feuerstein vehicle is one of the essential qualities of a truly great actor.

As for us, we so loathe Feuerstein and his ilk that we steered ourselves clear across the Atlantic Ocean.

You see, here at TeeVee we're comedy people. Without a regular fix of the funny, we become belligerent and bitter and just generally unpleasant; more so than usual, even. If we can't get a decent supply of comedy from any of the major suppliers, we have to pursue alternate sources. And this year, the American sitcom supply finally got so bad that we had to outsource our needs to offshore labor.

More specifically, we spent a lot of time watching BBC America. Nestled unassumingly up in the triple digits of our channel lineups, BBC America surreptitiously rebroadcasts various high quality shows from the U.K. Among those are two comedies, Coupling and The Office, which rank as some of the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years. So entertaining are they, in fact, that when the votes for this year's Best Half-Hour Actor award were counted, we had a three-way tie on our hands, and no fewer than two of the winners were bleedin' limeys.

Now we realize that this move to internationalize our awards is bound to be controversial; it even spawned a bit of lively debate from some of the more rabidly patriotic Vidiots. So we'd like to take a moment to anticipate and proactively answer a few of the angry e-mails that some of you will no doubt send our way. As a service to you, we'll also take this opportunity to proactively fix your terrible spelling and grammar. You're welcome.

E-mail #1:

"Just wanted to let you guys know that the season of The Office that was on this year originally aired in Britain way back in 2001. So you just gave an award for the 2003 season to a two-year old show."

Our Response: Yes, we know how to use the IMDB, too. Anyway, the first exposure American audiences had to The Office was this year, during the 2003 season, so we don't see a problem.

E-mail #2:

"In these uncertain economic times, how can you hand out awards to British shows? They're taking up awards slots that should rightly be filled by deserving American programming! Award American, you pinko bastards!"

Our Response: It's called the free market, dude. When American television makes a product worth consuming, we'll consume it like the dickens. Until then, we'll gladly take bangers and mash.

E-mail #3:

"You're really comparing apples and oranges when you match British television up against American television. A British season, called a series, usually only runs somewhere between six and ten episodes in length. American writers have to come up with enough content to fill more than 20 episodes. The content naturally suffers as a result."

Our Response: Yes, season three of Coupling ran only seven episodes and season one of The Office ran only six. But if you can find any American sitcom that aired three hours this season that were as consistently funny and enjoyable as either of those two shows, we'll eat our collective hat.

Besides which, this is an acting award. British actors have considerably less time to bring their characters to life, so that compressed season actually makes the winners' respective achievements more impressive, not less.

E-mail #4:

"I read your article calling Buffy fans the Most Annoying Fans of 2003, and I just wanted to say, 'Fuck you.'"

Our Response: Oh, for God's sake, that was over a week ago! Don't you get to irritate enough people on your message boards each day? Give it a rest, already.

E-mail #5:

"In case you didn't know, Coupling is a blatant rip-off of Friends, proving once again that every other country in the world is unable to innovate. Instead, they have to steal our designs and improve on them."

Our Response: Far better for the U.K. to steal one of our designs and improve upon it than for the U.S. to steal that improved design back and turn it into crap (see Coupling, coming this season to NBC Must-See Thursdays!) But thank you, imaginary future e-mailer, for providing the perfect segue into our discussion of Coupling.

True, Coupling began its life as Britain's attempt to replicate the huge success of Friends. But the show differs from Friends in several important ways. For one thing, after three seasons on the air, Coupling is still funny; about a gazillion times funnier than Friends ever was, actually, thanks to sharp, clever writing from series creator Steven Moffat. Also, the actors are talented and likeable enough that even the purposefully obnoxious characters never become tiresome and irritating, unlike certain people on Friends we could mention -- yes, we're talking to you, entire cast of Friends.

Coupling is still similar to Friends in one way, though: at its core, it's an ensemble show, with each character given approximately equal representation. The six main characters have all had their share of great dialogue and their own dedicated plot lines, and each of them is enjoyable in his or her own right. But whenever we reflect on what's great about Coupling, the first thing that springs to mind is always the same: Jeff Murdock.

Jeff is essentially the unholy spawn of Friends' Ross and Seinfeld's Kramer. Like Ross, he's a born loser, stunningly inept with the ladies and in a constant state of bafflement as to why life seems to have it in for him. Like Kramer, he has a singularly bizarre worldview and highly unfortunate hair. He's the consummate wacky sitcom buddy, unremittingly horny, always making inappropriate comments when the subject of those comments is standing directly behind him and doing profoundly ridiculous things to further the plot. And if you're thinking that this exact character was already pretty much played out by Larry on Three's Company twenty years ago and by about a dozen other sitcom characters since, we can understand your apprehension.

But you obviously haven't seen Richard Coyle play him.

Coyle chews into his role with such awe-inspiring gusto that he somehow manages to makes this highly implausible character plausible. Much of what the script requires Jeff to do is completely ludicrous; the typical wacky sitcom buddy stuff that no real person would ever actually do. That we come to believe Jeff would honestly do every last bit of it is a testament to Coyle's genius.

That genius is at its most obvious when Jeff is carrying out one of Coupling's somewhat forced, Seinfeld-like attempts to inject new terms into the popular lexicon. Tasked with introducing such ridiculous concepts as the sock gap, the giggle loop, porn buddies, and the melty man, most actors would play it with a wink and a grin, as if to say, "I realize this is preposterous as hell, but here it is anyway." Not Coyle, though. He imbues these monologues with such total seriousness and almost religious fervor that one can't help but believe that Jeff really sees the world in such terms. Any man who can utter the sentence, "Under the sexual arena of earthly delight, there lurks a deadly pit of socks," and look like he really means it, is an acting force to be reckoned with.

The most impressive thing about Coyle's performance is that while making this peculiar little man seem genuine, he also manages to give him an extra layer of depth. With minimal assistance from the script, Coyle, through subtle body language and deft facial expression, reveals that the source of Jeff's weirdness is a deep-seated fear of women and a heaping helping of insecurity. And that gives Jeff such an air of human vulnerability that you can't help but root for him.

Take one of the most memorable Jeff episodes, "The Girl With Two Breasts," as an example. In one scene, Jeff tries to work up the courage to talk to a beautiful woman at the pub. Given that Jeff has a history of saying wildly inappropriate things about nipples during such encounters, you would expect him to be a bit timid about doing so. But the way Coyle plays it, Jeff looks absolutely petrified, as though he's about to throw up all over himself at any moment. True to form, when Jeff does finally talk to the woman, he launches into an embarrassing stream-of-consciousness soliloquy that somehow concludes with him announcing that he collects women's ears in a bucket. But just when it seems that all is lost, it is revealed that his companion doesn't speak English and has no idea what he has been saying. The sudden transformation of Jeff's demeanor from utter humiliation to joyful relief is fascinating to watch. And only then do you realize how petrified, humiliated, and relieved you've been right along with him.

Moments like these are the reason that the episodes featuring Jeff consistently rank as the most memorable of each season. This year, Jeff was given the lion's share of a two-part episode and some more interesting subplots involving a steady girlfriend. His dealings with his girlfriend, and her eventual dumping of him for an ex, gave Coyle a chance to bring out more of the inherent sadness in Jeff's condition, and Coyle was more than up to the task, making us both laugh and... well, laugh, but at the same time feel really sorry for the guy.

Coyle is one of the best things about a show that's chock full of good things, and if the American version of Coupling crashes and burns spectacularly this fall, it will largely be because he is absent. That's why, limey or no, we honor Richard Coyle with one-third of this year's Best Half-hour Actor award.

Coyle caught our attention by playing a character who is horribly aware of his own shortcomings. Our other British winner, on the other hand, plays a man who is wholly ignorant of his shortcomings, though they are appalling and all-encompassing.

On The Office, David Brent, manager of the Slough branch of Wernham Hogg paper merchants, is the world's best boss. He's a dependable manager who looks out for his staff. He's prized for his strong leadership abilities and camaraderie with his subordinates. He's a laugh-riot with a razor-sharp wit. Hell, he's even one heck of a good songwriter.

That's what David Brent thinks, anyway. Everyone else thinks he's a total cock.

In reality, Brent embodies every bad quality you could think of in a boss. He's a boorish idiot who is convinced that he's exactly the opposite, and he spends most of his workday wandering through the office looking for self-validation from his underlings. He thinks he's side-splittingly funny, despite the fact that his jokes usually elicit little more than embarrassed looks and courtesy laughs from his captive audience; and that's when they don't elicit abject shock for their inadvertently racist or sexist content. He's also entirely incompetent at his job, as evidenced by the fact that the company seeks to Peter Principle him into upper management at the end of the season.

Ricky Gervais, The Office's co-creator and co-writer, plays Brent, and he gives the most pitch-perfect portrayal of a complete and total asshole that we've ever seen. Of course, TV assholes are a dime a dozen. The television landscape is littered with the likes of Louie DePalma, Archie Bunker, Frank Burns, even Britain's own Basil Fawlty. But all of these were obvious grotesques. Brent is the real deal. He's an asshole that each and every one of us has run across at some point, and Gervais does a fantastic job of bringing him to life.

Gervais brings so much to the table that it's hard to pinpoint what it is about his performance that's so damned good. Some of it is his mastery of the smug, self-satisfied smirk, certainly, and the way he preens for the camera. That he tries vainly to be funny, then looks from person to person in expectation of a laugh is also a nice touch. But the thing that really puts Brent over the top in terms of sheer assholiness is that Gervais has chosen to play him as a man who is in complete denial about being such an insufferable prick.

With this one nuance added to the character, Brent becomes a workplace Mister Magoo. He crashes through the office like a bull in a china shop, leaving horrified employees and pissed off secretaries in his wake, but he's totally oblivious to the irritation he's caused. Brent only ever seems to register that he's not completely adored when one of his employees comes right out and calls him a pathetic fool. The brief flicker of horrified realization that flashes across Gervais' usually smug face during these moments is priceless.

The irony of a show like The Office that relies on pathos to provide humor instead of jokes is that when the show is at its very best, it's at its most painfully difficult to watch. Every moment that the Brentmeister General is on screen is a deliciously excruciating experience, and for that, Ricky Gervais takes his rightful place in our troika of award winners.

Sadly, not all of the Vidiots have had the opportunity to enjoy Gervais' work. Owing to the fact that their cable or satellite package is not premium enough to include BBC America, they've had to make due with the two or three decent offerings that the networks make available. And as it turns out, there were just enough of those cheap bastards to vote in a third winner -- this one a red-blooded 'mer'can.

We used to think Malcolm in the Middle featured one kid too many. You had Frankie Muniz as the titular lead character, Christopher Masterson as the juvenile delinquent son, Erik Per Sullivan as the weird kid, and Justin Berfield as... well... er... nobody knew exactly, least of all the show's producers. As played by Berfield, the character of Reese was a ne'er-do-well... but so were many of the other characters. He was a bully... and not a particular likable one. He was constantly getting into trouble... as was every other kid on the show. But above all else, Reese was mostly redundant. And Berfield wasn't doing much to make him stand out from the furniture.

We still think Malcolm in the Middle has one kid too many -- but we've covered that award already -- but the extraneous offspring is no longer played by Justin Berfield. Somewhere along the way, as we hoped for the special Sweeps episode where Reese was abandoned at a roadside rest-stop never to be heard from again, Berfield began a weekly pattern of turning in funny performances. The next thing we knew, he's the reason we're tuning in to the show, and we're writing strongly worded letters to Fox asking them to change the name of the program to Reese Just Off To the Side of the Middle or That Guy Next to the Middle? That's Reese.

How the hell did this happen?

Looking back, it probably started with the driver's education episode from a few seasons back. Reese, now sporting a learner's permit, was taking a driver's education class. In a move born out of stupidity and poor planning -- two hallmarks of the character -- Reese sped off when his instructor got out of the car. He then proceeded to lead police on... well, not a high-speed chase, really, but an observing-the-speed-limit chase complete with proper turn signals and right-of-way yields. This was a driver's education class, after all.

It was at that moment that Berfield seemed to discover his character. Reese, as Berfield plays him, is a violent, easily outwitted idiot. But he's a violent, easily outwitted idiot with a rich, inner life.

Any idiot, after all, could think up ways to get out of taking his girlfriend to the prom. Only an idiot of Reese's caliber would decide his best course of action would be to lop off his own foot. And only Berfield's delivery can help lighten such a dark scenario -- "Let's see you chicken out this time," he hisses at himself as he nails his shoe to the chopping block. Yes, the writers give Berfield a lot to work with. But the ease with which Berfield handles this material -- the nonchalant way he tosses off even the most horrific of Reese's observations -- makes him the most valuable player in the "Malcolm" cast. In an episode from late in the season, the Wilkerson family -- bet you forgot that was their last name, huh? -- joined a church solely for the purpose of taking advantage of the free day-care service. The jokes were rather tired and forced, the story was choppy and rushed, and the whole thing was almost entirely forgettable -- all except for Berfield. In the episode, Reese undergoes a temporary spiritual apotheosis -- it ends in disaster, naturally, when he crashes through the church window in an effort to fly up to heaven in a balloon-powered lawn chair -- and the look of blissful stupidity on his face the moment he undergoes his moral awakening salvaged an otherwise substandard half-hour.

It says something that in a cast that includes Masterson, Sullivan and Bryan Cranston -- no slouches when it comes to bringing the funny -- Berfield is the standout performer. He's a gifted comic actor who knows when to play things broadly and when less is more. He also happens to be the best actor in a half-hour show this past year... at least on this side of the Atlantic.

Additional contributions to this article by: Steve Lutz.

TeeVee Awards '03: Biggest Disappointment

A couplafew of years back, toward the end of the summer TV drought, we here at TeeVee became captivated. A television show arrived. The ad campaign said to us, "Your whole life has been leading up to this." It was love at first sight: we immediately tuned to HBO just to see if this show could possibly meet the expectations set by that one powerful phrase. "Your whole life has been leading up to this." To the funeral home. To death. To Six Feet Under.

From the very first note of the opening theme, we were drawn in. From the very first scene we knew we were watching a great, great television show. No: That's faint praise. A great work of art, as monumental a work as any great film or novel. A masterpiece. Finally, television had its masterpiece.

We were determined to write a review of it, to convince the masses that they absolutely had to, had to watch this show.

And then we didn't. We just completely did not get around to writing the glowing -- nay, incandescent -- review we had planned. And so Six Feet Under wrapped up its first season and we here at TeeVee said not one word.

That was a mistake. An injustice perpetrated on our readers.

The second season of Six Feet Under rolled around and again we said nary a thing. We were busy, or something. There's an excuse to be had if we wanted to look for one, we're sure.

Again, that was a mistake.

Then we heard rumors of the third season cranking up, so we sent Rywalt out to cover the story and we finally broke our TeeVee silence with his "Love Letter," wherein he claimed Six Feet Under was possibly the best TV show of all time. No, he said, never mind that, watching Six Feet Under is the most transcendent experience open to the human mind. Go out, all of you, he exhorted, and watch the third season of this, the greatest show ever visible upon the television screen!

And that was a huge, huge mistake.

Now we're here to apologize. We're sorry.

The third season of Six Feet Under was, alas, the biggest disappointment of the 2002-2003 TV season. It was more disappointing than the final, dreadful season of Oz. It sunk below the lowest bar set by the doddering, infantile, not-yet-final, umpteenth season of Friends. Yes, it even made CSI look pretty okay this year.

Each new episode of Six Feet Under gave us a new reason to yell and throw things at the Toshiba. Not only was this year a disappointment because of how good the past two seasons were. No, shows of this quality would have been disappointing from Emeril. This whole season was just bad, bad, bad.

It started off with promise as it wrapped up the cliff-hanger from the season before. Nate Fisher went in for his brain operation and found himself dead. What would happen? Perhaps we'd spend a season with the Fishers as they got over one more tragedy and Peter Krause would hang around as a ghost (or a memory) just like Richard Jenkins. That would certainly be a novel twist in a novel show. Instead, the show went in a different direction: It seemed that Nate would get a chance to choose a new future, one in which he wouldn't be dead. An alternate future, perhaps.

Unfortunately, Nate chose the future in which all of the characters we'd come to know and care about would turn into boobs and losers. Worst of all, Nate himself turned into the biggest loser of them all.

After he made his choice, the SFU curtain rose on a new situation: Nate settled down and married to Lisa, the mother of his baby in season two; David and Keith in therapy; Brenda missing in action (although Rachel Griffiths kept showing up in the credits).

In this new universe, Nate was a henpecked, sullen mope with a drinking problem instead of a cockeyed optimist trying his best to make his way through a flawed world. Lisa turned from happy, dippy flower child into insane harpy. David came wildly out of the closet and began meeting some of the most ridiculously stereotyped gay men in any Hollywood production; and the formerly sensitive, strong, philsophical Keith turned into a violent, angry jerk. And when she got back, Brenda had gone from an extremely intelligent if confused woman to an insecure dim bulb.

The other characters weren't spared, either. Claire's entire character pretty much vanished in favor of reaction shots to everything going on around her, until near the end of the season; then she turned around and did something so incredibly un-Claire-like -- dumping ambiguously gay artist boyfriend Russell -- we almost threw our TVs out. Claire's abortion was handled pretty well, we must admit, but amidst the wreckage of the rest of the show it could hardly hold up. Ruth went off on this crazy affair with the supremely creepy Arthur for no reason any human could fathom, then followed that up with about ten seconds of screen time with Babe-magnet James Cromwell before announcing their wedding. Rico's wife got herself hooked on pills to show off how hopelessly adrift Rico's plotlines in the show were. Ruth's sister got herself hooked on pills, too, only this time so Ruth could make friends with sometime-SFU-director Kathy Bates. If Ms. Bates had gotten naked ala her turn in "About Schmidt" it might have redeemed an episode or two; instead, her character just beamed up partway through the season and never came back. Nate Fisher, Sr. hardly ever showed his craggy face any more. In fact, the writers seemed to jettison the whole concept of matching the dead person of the week to some theme.

In short: The writing on the show just wandered off. Maybe the story editor had a stroke or took up surfing or just stopped showing up for work in the morning. Maybe the best writer on the show got themselves hooked on pills like Ruth's sister and Rico's wife. Maybe Jack Daniel's started sending over a case or two for use as product placement and the writers snagged them all for medicinal purposes. Whatever it was, it was a calamity: The Six Feet Under we knew and loved, the one that made sense, followed stories through, developed well-rounded and interesting characters; that Six Feet Under snuck out the back and was replaced by a show that would be embarrassed to air on weekday afternoons on NBC.

Eventually we were down to spending every episode hoping for Lisa to get hit by a bread truck.

There were a few, very few, good moments. Peter Macdissi chewed up the scenery entertainingly as Claire's art teacher Olivier. The episode where David and Keith played paintball was funny in a cheap sitcommy kind of way. It was nice to see Arye Gross, late of Ellen and "Hexed," getting work as David and Keith's therapist. Not that he was given anything at all to do, but it was nice to see him. The scenes where Nate and Lisa worked out their relationship had a nice realistic ring to them. Too bad we came to despise both characters anyway.

By the end of the season, when we finally realized that Lisa had in fact been hit by a bread truck -- or something equally stupid but at least awful had happened to her -- it was too late. We had already grown to hate Six Feet Under with the fire of a thousand burning suns.

The show will probably be back for a fourth season. When exactly that will be, who knows? HBO is on its own little planet when it comes to "seasons." Maybe we'll see new episodes next January, or next August, or sometime in 2010.

At this point, though, we'd have to advise: "Your whole series has been leading up to this -- cancellation."

Additional contributions to this article by: Chris Rywalt.

The WB's Jon Seda?

Owen Lockett wrote us a note about our Worst Actor award that's too good not to share:

"I'm disappointed that Milo Ventimiglia didn't get a mention for his work in Gilmore Girls. On a show with a surplus of acting talent, Milo single handedly brings the overall talent average down to a more reasonable level. He's a bad actor. Very bad. He's Jessica Alba bad. He's Jessica Biel bad. On a show known for its quick wit and lighting fast dialog, his line reading is slow and sullen, his voice muffled and hard to understand. When Ventimiglia acts, he's reminiscent of the high school jock who's only taking drama to improve his grade point average: embarrassed to be on stage and resentful for having to take the class.

"His Jess is supposed to be a 'bad boy' character that teenaged Rory falls for. His character is supposed to have a gruff, tough-guy exterior, but turn out to be intelligent and a devoted boyfriend. Not only does Ventimiglia completely miss portraying "intelligent" and "devoted," but he manages to fumble "tough-guy" as well. His character comes off as a thoroughly unlikable, passive-aggressive jackass.

"I wish I could articulate how out of place he is in a well-acted show like Gilmore Girls and how Milo so reliably deadens every scene he's in. Maybe it would be clearer to put it into language you at TeeVee understand: he's the Jon Seda of the WB. And as such, he deserves at least a passing mention in the TeeVee Awards."

ESPN's Rushing Game

ESPN's revamped Sunday NFL Countdown premiered this week, and it was interesting to see how the best of all the NFL preview shows (CBS and Fox? Don't make me laugh.) transmogrified itself during the offseason.

First off, Bill Parcells (now coaching a penny-ante football team) and Sterling Sharpe have evaporated away. Newly coalesced at the ESPN desk is Michael Irvin, late of Fox Sports Net. Sharpe always used to shout everything he said at the camera, and Irvin is a bit of a shouter, too. He's also not too interesting, at least not yet. But there was one moment when Irvin showed a good sense of humor: his sheepishness at picking Atlanta over his beloved Cowboys. Still, I could live without him. Give me more Tom Jackson any day.

The show's second addition is Rush Limbaugh. That's right -- the radio's most famous conservative pundit is on the NFL tip now. Limbaugh's initial commentary seemed pretty fair, even a bit wimpy, but totally out of place. However, the show's other premise was amusing: three times during a show, Limbaugh gets to throw a (virtual) red flag and challenge the ruling on the field, or in this case, in the studio. In those give-and-take sessions, he was better.

But still, ESPN continues to dilute the purity of this great show. Give me a toned-down Chris Berman (please), the great Tom Jackson, and Chris Mortensen with the up-to-the-minute skinny, and I'll be happy.

TeeVee Awards '03: Most Unjust Cancellations

Every TV show is bound to be cancelled eventually. Except maybe Law & Order and The Simpsons. The only question is, when will that cancellation occur? When it's too early in a show's life cycle, we all end up missing out on what would have been many hours of solid entertainment. Too late, and a show risks outstaying its welcome. Hit it just right, and you leave at the top of your game and on your own terms.

The TeeVee Award for Most Unjust Cancellation is not a valedictory for a show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which pretty much went out on its own terms, if possibly a year or two too late. The key word is unjust. Our award is a final, wistful send-off -- or depending on our mood, a rage-filled diatribe -- for a show that died too soon, whether it was in its first year or its fifth.

This year, we had a large selection of choices. There was more than enough injustice to go around, and the grim reaper took several great shows before their time. When we tallied our votes, we found two lamented series tied in the voting, with a third series having plenty of strong support as an honorable mention.

So let us speak once more, admirably, about our beloved dead.

First up is a series we can only muster an honorable mention for, mostly due to the fact that it was cancelled a year ago, but only this summer bled off its final, brilliant episodes. It's Futurama, which has won our Best Half-Hour Show title not once but twice. Matt Groening and David X. Cohen's brilliant sci-fi comedy has managed to outdo The Simpsons since its inception, and it's a crying shame that its brilliant staff of writers didn't get a chance to continue churning out comedy until the year 3000.

At least with Futurama there's some hope. It's more likely that an animated series -- with no sets to build, no cast members to age inappropriately or leave for new job opportunities -- could be revived than your usual sitcom. The show's ratings on Cartoon Network are good. Hope springs eternal.

In fact, there's hope for our two Most Unjust Cancellation winners as well. Why, in a year or two we may look back on these awards with amazement at how, Lazarus-like, they returned to life when we thought all was lost.

First there's Sci-Fi's former flagship series Farscape, shitcanned by Sci-Fi even though it had previously been given a two-year contract extension. Instead of heading into a fifth season this fall, the series got yanked off the air unceremoniously, complete with a "To Be Continued" cliffhanger that served as a final screw-you gesture to the network executives who ordered the show cancelled after they couldn't come to terms with Farscape's owners.

As you might expect from a series about space puppets, Farscape was produced by the Jim Henson Company. Henson was owned by a company of cruel German overlords named EM.TV, who have since have sold the company back to the Henson family. Family leader Brian Henson was a Farscape executive producer and a big booster of the series -- so it's entirely possible that Henson will work hard to get Farscape back in some form someday.

But in the meantime, it's hard to say goodbye to this literate, intelligently plotted, and stylistically daring series. After a shaky beginning to its final season, it really picked up steam, having the guts to take the series' complement of aliens to Earth... and deal with the consequences of that visit. That the series was forced to end just as it was regaining its bearings is a crying shame.

Salvation is closer at hand for the series that shares the Most Unjust Cancellation title with Farscape. Joss Whedon's 13-episodes-and-out series Firefly is about to be released on DVD, and just last week Universal announced that it's proceeding with plans to shoot a "Firefly" movie, written and directed by Whedon.

But we still must wail against the cancellation of Firefly. Granted, the show's first aired episodes were a bit shaky. But those who saw the final part of its run (as well as the pilot episode Fox refused to air until it was far too late) saw the strength of its writing, its premise, and its fantastic cast.

A sci-fi western, Firefly really began to work when it more deftly mixed genres, shifting from western to action to techno-sci-fi with ruthless efficiency. It was uncompromising in its quirks -- all the outer space scenes were silent, since there's no air (and therefore no sound) in space -- and that idiosyncracy probably didn't help it with your average TV viewer.

But people who say Firefly was a flop probably didn't watch more than one episode. And many uneducated folks simply look at its sudden cancellation and jump to a bad conclusion: that after his success with Angel and Buffy, Whedon couldn't reach his built-in audience with Firefly. The problem with that reasoning is, more people watched Firefly than either of Whedon's other two creations last year. It's just that the ratings bar is set a bit higher on Fox than it is on UPN and The WB.

Could Firefly have worked as a long-running series? Undoubtedly. Airing it on Fox was clearly a mistake, as the network's rejection of the series' brilliant pilot episode immediately demonstrated. And isn't it telling that the "Firefly" movie is being developed at Universal, and not Twentieth Century Fox?

So once again, Fox has cancelled one of the best new shows on TV before it could even reach a second season. In the past three years, Fox has cancelled more young quality shows than UPN and The WB have aired in their combined existences. That Firefly, The Tick, Undeclared, Andy Richter Controls the Universe, and numerous other series have met their doom at Fox proves two points: First, Fox is really good at developing new series. Second, it's unable to make those shows succeed.

Or, to put it more succinctly: Joe Millionaire 2, coming this fall to Fox. Enjoy, suckers!

Additional contributions to this article by: Jason Snell.

Go Out and Play!

Nickelodeon is running this wonderful ad campaign, as I discovered while I was watching SpongeBob Squarepants with my four-year-old daughter. In the ad, several celebrities presumably all the rage with the under-fourteen set, but all entirely unknown to me, exhort kids to turn the TV off and go outside and play. Since we all know that children simply do what the TV tells them, this is a great use of the medium and a noble sacrifice on the part of Viacom, relinquishing viewers like that.

After the commercial was over I turned to my daughter, slouched on the couch next to me.

"The TV just told you to go out and play!" I exclaimed. "What are you gonna do now?"

Eyes never leaving the TV, she replied, "Nothing. Watch TV, I guess."

TeeVee Awards '03: Worst Actor

A week or so ago, a couple of us Vidiots spent a lovely evening at the Oakland Coliseum watching the Oakland nine fend off the feisty Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The "Star Spangled Banner" that evening was performed by a local youth choir, and we don't think we're being overly critical when we say the little tykes didn't do Francis Scott Key and his difficult-to-sing prose poem any favors. The opening lyrics were delivered with a high-pitched, jarring shrill, and matters worsened rapidly from there, until the final lyric -- that bit about this being land of the free -- which the choir sang as if they were simultaneously strangling a dozen cats.

Admittedly, we were in the distinct minority with our assessment of the youth choir's performance. A housewife seated immediately behind us was far more effusive in her praise, applauding as if anything less than an enthusiastic response would doom the children to an evening of recriminations and canings. "They sing like angels," the woman burbled. "Like angels!"

If so, then perhaps the eternal rewards of heaven have been vastly oversold to us by our clergymen. We continue to hold out hope, however, that the heavenly multitude sounds nothing like a chorus of trilling, off-key boy sopranos, but instead that the seraphim and cherubim sound more like Sinatra during the Capitol years, with the archangel Gabriel providing Nelson Riddle-like arrangements.

The point of this story? We don't like children here at TeeVee. We don't like tow-headed moppets singing our National Anthem. We don't cotton to the rugrats sitting near us in fine restaurants or behind us at late-night showings of R-Rated movies. And we certainly don't like it when the little bastards ruin our favorite TV programs.

Because let's face facts -- the uncomfortable truth that obstetricians, the PTA, and the sales staff at your friendly, neighborhood Babies 'R Us don't want you to hear: short of casting Tony Danza or incorporating the words "wacky next-door neighbor who solves crimes" into your show's premise, adding a child to the cast is about the worst possible thing you can do to a TV program.

Remember Mad About You? We used to have nice things to say about that relationship-com back in the day, particularly when it came to the performance of Helen Hunt. Then, in the show's waning years, someone got it into his or her head that what Mad About You really needed was a baby... and the next thing you know, a once vibrant comedy transformed into a tedious death march (which, come to think of it, was pretty good preparation for watching most of Hunt's post-Mad About You movie roles). NYPD Blue was among the best dramas in the 1990s -- right up until the moment the producers decided America was yearning to see Detective Sipowicz as the parent to a sawed-off little runt. We have no idea if, in keeping with the grand tradition of unspeakable tragedies befalling Sipowicz, the disgustingly cute moppet finally met a premature and gruesome demise, as that would require us to actually watch the wheezing drama, but better him than Rick Schroeder, you know? And, in regards to programming of more recent vintage, it's probably no coincidence that both 24 and The West Wing are at their very worst whenever the chowder-headed offspring of the main characters are eating up valuable screen time.

Bottom line: Kids. Ruin. Everything. And when a TV show centers around the kiddywinkies from the get-go? Oh doctor, pour us another scotch.

So in a sense, you could say that Malcolm in the Middle defied the odds when it debuted back in 2000. After all, here was a show that not only featured a kid in the title role, but one in which all the action revolved around four hellions and their destructive ways. Yet, where other programs might have collapsed under all that baby fat, Malcolm flourished. And it did so, not by insisting that its under-age cast was precocious and sugary-sweet and dimple-cute, but by embracing them as the monsters that they were. That, coupled with some clever camera-work and top-notch writing made Malcolm in the Middle a stand-out comedy at a time when the sitcom genre seemed to be gasping for air.

Then, somewhere along the way -- some argue the second season, others believe it was the start of the third -- Malcolm fell flat on its face. The primary culprit: the ravages of time, which did a number on the pre-teen cast members. Growth spurts, rapid voice changes -- the lads of Malcolm in the Middle became a living, breathing seventh-grade Life Sciences film strip on the mysterious changes ushered in by adolescence. And while all that's great from a let-us-now-begin-our-wondrous-journey-into-manhood perspective, it sure took its toll on the show's format. Because the same chaos that's funny and frenetic when it's perpetrated by youngsters suddenly becomes alarming and sociopathic when those same perpetrators now have deeper voices than you and are shaving between takes.

To their credit, Malcolm in the Middle's production team and cast tackled the problem head on. The writers tweaked the scripts ever so slightly, making sure the characters stayed likable instead of eligible for the death penalty, and airlifted the oldest son Francis out of the dead-end Alaska wilderness plotline. The actors stepped up their game as well. Christopher Masterson took the Francis character in a new direction, as did Erik Per Sullivan, who transformed youngest child Dewey into a delightfully demented little boy that uses his Lego-like building blocks to create an imaginary totalitarian world. Justin Berfield, who plays Reese, gave the best performance on Malcolm this past year and, in our estimation at least, one of the best performances you'll find on television. After carrying the show through its lean season, Bryan Cranston, the harried and hopelessly over-matched father, continued to turn in fine comedic work. Everyone, it seems, pitched in to help Malcolm in the Middle not only find its footing, but regain its place among the best sitcoms on television.

Well... everyone except for Frankie Muniz. And since he plays the title character, that's kind of a problem.

We have nothing against Muniz personally. To our knowledge, he's not planning a liquor-store heist, and it's not like anyone dragged us off to see "Agent Cody Banks." In every interview we've seen, Muniz has come across as a very pleasant young man, largely unaffected by the monetary and societal benefits of fame.

That doesn't make him any better in Malcolm in the Middle, however.

The trouble with Muniz's performance is that it's no different today than it was when Malcolm premiered more than three years ago. Muniz has shot up a like a weed while his voice has dropped several registers; yet, he's still playing Malcolm like the know-it-all middle-schooler we met back in 2000. Consequently, the things that used to be endearing about the character -- the exasperation with his family, the awkwardness with his classmates, even that blasted talking directly to the camera -- now come across as annoying and grating. Other characters in Malcolm in the Middle faced a similar dilemma; they managed to correct it. That Muniz has not means he's either unaware there's a problem or unable (or worse, unwilling) to fix it. Either way, Malcolm the character isn't a lot of fun to watch.

Now normally, that would be more than enough to clinch our Worst Actor award. Save for Jane Kaczmarek's increasingly shrill and one-note performances, Muniz's the-character-was-like-this-when-I-found-him approach is easily the worst thing about Malcolm in the Middle. Then again, we are talking about an actor who only recently became old enough to legally vote. By saddling Muniz with Worst Actor honors, we're essentially picking on a child -- karmically speaking, that's just a few steps above baiting bears and booing a parade of aged, armless war veterans. Are we really so cruel that we have to stoop to belittling the accomplishments of teenagers -- especially in a year filled with so many worthy Worst Actor contenders?

The past season, after all, gave us the chilling sight of David Caruso, preening in the Florida sun, playing his crime-scene investigator as a pompous, all-knowing automaton. Mark Feuerstein certainly wasn't the worst thing about Good Morning, Miami, but he wasn't exactly helping the ipecac go down any smoother. We're not sure what it is Eric McCormack does on Will & Grace -- we think it's something along the lines of "Take up space while Sean Hayes capers like a monkey" -- but we certainly wouldn't classify it as acting. Speaking of Hayes, after watching his portrayal of Jerry Lewis in the Martin-and-Lewis telepic, we have a greater understanding for deteriorating Franco-American relations. As for Jim Belushi, the According to Jim star gave an interview with TV Guide earlier this year in which he proclaimed his hatred of television critics, particularly those who were not bright enough to grasp the subtle intricacies of his program.

Believe us, Jimmy, the feeling is more than mutual.

If anyone was going to snatch the Worst Actor crown away from Muniz, however, it would have been Justin Louis, the bug-eyed simian who helped run the irredeemably idiotic Hidden Hills into the ground. Like Muniz, Louis was the focus of his show. Like Muniz, a chunk of his dialogue was delivered in oft-painful, straight-to-the-camera monologues. Unlike Muniz, he's long past the legal drinking age, meaning Louis would at least be able to drown his sorrows after we handed him our booby prize.

But at the end of the day, it turns out we are cruel enough to name Frankie Muniz Worst Actor of the past season. Because as bad as Justin Louis was -- and it was a Michael Jackson's "Bad" kind of bad -- he was bug-eyed and ape-like on a show that nobody liked and that nobody watched and that nobody will ever see again until Trio unveils its "Shitty And Cancelled" series. Muniz is on a hit show -- a good show -- and thus figures to be with us until he leaves behind television for good to make "Agent Cody Banks XIV: Midlife Crisis Undercover."

What swung the pendulum in Muniz's favor was a single episode from last season, featuring Jason Alexander in a guest-starring role. Alexander played a whining, thoroughly unlikable complainer a little bit too impressed with his own book-smarts; naturally, Malcolm took a shine to him. Because Jason Alexander was just like Malcolm, you see. "This annoying man is who Malcolm is going to grow up to be," the writers seemed to be saying. "Ha ha ha ha!"

And it was pretty funny. Until you realized that Jason Alexander's annoying character was gone for good after this episode. Malcolm we're still stuck with.

Additional contributions to this article by: Philip Michaels.

TeeVee Awards '03: Best Half-Hour Show

Pilot episodes of television shows are great fun. It's not only due to post-modernist irony that the Other Network and now Trio can get people to watch failed TV pilots. It's also because pilots make fantastic TV.

Think of the pilots you've seen. The Law & Order pilot, aired as the third episode of the series. The first Star Trek pilot, eventually edited into the wonderful two-part episode "The Menagerie." The All in the Family pilot with the Bunkers and their anniversary party. This is some of the best TV around.

Pilots are great fun, and what makes them fun is that they show television series as works in progress. In pilots, the characters aren't rounded and realistic; they've been painted with the wide roller, big and flat. They're not characters, they're caricatures. There's the Womanizer, the Snob, the Innocent. The Wacky Neighbor and the Weirdo. The Moron. No attempt is made to humanize these parts. They're just thrown together into some situation and allowed to make comedy. At this stage, too, the situation hasn't yet run out of locomotive power. In the pilot, we're just learning about the situation.

As the series ages this will no longer be the case. The situation will start to break down, necessitating all sorts of paraplegic attempts to leg it up one more comedy hill. The writers will succumb to the desire to be more "serious" and so they'll round out the characters and script the oft-maligned Very Special Episode, usually at odds with logic (Alex Keaton getting hooked on diet pills), humor (Edith Bunker getting raped), or both (Hawkeye Pierce boating on a lake filled with spare body parts). Even the most absurd comedy relief characters will have cumbrous flesh added to their bare humorous skeleton: Eventually we will see Cliff's mom, Wilson's face will be revealed, Remington Steele's past will be unearthed. In every series they will have to catch the one-armed man.

But not at the pilot stage. That early, no one is even thinking about how they'll fill their entire first season, never mind the long downhill slide into Raven-Symoné Land.

Rare indeed is the series which can avoid this sad, sad fate. Most shows are content to diminish themselves. But some of the best refuse to compromise. The show's creators simply keep the show on its original track, never allowing the characters to "mature," never pushing to make the show's world realistic or believable, never once having the set builder put together a soapbox for the writers to stand on. Married... with Children. Malcolm in the Middle. Seinfeld. The Honeymooners.

To that illustrious list add Scrubs, at least as of the end of the 2002-2003 season, for which we are awarding Scrubs the Best Half-Hour Show Award.

Scrubs debuted as a sitcom in the Malcolm in the Middle mode: No laugh track, elaborate and pointless fantasy sequences, camera pans accompanied by a "whoosh" on the soundtrack. This style has been aped by a fair number of other, more pathetic series (Hidden Hills comes to mind), and even on the brilliant Malcolm it can be trying. And yet on Scrubs it works seemingly effortlessly. Somehow, the show's creators have managed, for two seasons, while using this difficult format, to perfectly balance pathos with comedy, to weave small moments of seriousness into a big humorous blanket, and to get us to care about the show's characters.

And we care despite the fact that not one of them has emerged as a true character. You would never mistake any one of the amazing roles on Scrubs for a real person. Every one of them is cardboard. No real person on Earth, at any time, has ever behaved like any of the characters on this show.

Did we say "despite the fact"? Wrong. It's because of this that we care about them. Because each one is a facet of ourselves, enlarged and magnified and sent out walking around in the world.

J.D., as played by Zach Braff, is the person most of us wish we were. He's sincere and hard-working. He's funny. He's insecure, but when he really needs to step up, he does. And he gets all the babes. Braff manages to fall into this role so totally, we're still surprised to see his name in the credits: In between shows, we forget his name isn't J.D. Dorian.

Sarah Chalke makes us forget her stint on Roseanne by hamming it up as Elliot, the flip side to J.D. She's really insecure, but shockingly competent when it matters. And she gets all the studs, including Ricky Shroeder. Chalke shows incredible comedic timing, a fantastic gift for physical comedy, and a willingness to strip down to her underwear on the flimsiest of premises. And she's a hottie! Who doesn't, in some sense, feel that there's an Elliot Reed inside them? Enough cardio and diet pills and we could all be Dr. Reed!

Then we have J.D. and Elliot's parallels, Turk and Carla. Donald Faison takes Turk and turns him into a brilliant combination of boyish, immature behavior and the demanding competence of a surgeon. Faison makes us believe that Turk can manage to be one of the most childish people in the room and yet be smart enough and strong enough to succeed in one of the most difficult of professions. And Judy Reyes perfectly captures Carla as a strong, beautiful woman who doesn't always feel strong or beautiful, working in the often overlooked but challenging field of nursing.

If the four main characters of Scrubs are our good sides, the people we like to think we are, then the various supporting players are the people we wish we could be but aren't. Ken Jenkins' Dr. Kelso is the driver's seat sneer we'd love to turn on the little people who get in our way every day; Neil Flynn's nameless janitor is all rampaging id, the kind of torment we wish on all our evil co-workers and stupid relations. The Todd, played with an admirable lack of protective ego by Robert Maschio, is the narcissistic pig in all of us; he literally wallows in his own waste and is utterly ignorant of how repulsive he is, and that makes him irresistably loveable. Don't we all want to be accepted despite how gross we can be? And latecomer Christa Miller takes her role as Jordan to brilliant new depths of sheer, castrating, womanly evil in every episode, playing the powerful nasty bitch every woman at some point dreams of being.

The remaining background characters are so rarely seen and so sketchy they're not even done in pencil, they're done on one of those magnetic mustache tablets, but they each illuminate a corner of ourselves: Nervous Guy, perpetually frozen in fear; Nurse Laverne, gossip and holy roller; and Ted the lawyer, a singing, slouching, job- and self-hating disaster, always on the brink of some kind of breakdown.

But we missed one character, didn't we? Yes we did.

Finally, there's the center of the show. The man around whom every episode eventually revolves. A character so crazy his shrink could only be played by Eric Bogosian. Dr. Perry Cox as played by John McGinley.

Maybe someone with more experience with McGinley's vast filmography could have forseen what he'd do with the part of Dr. Cox, but for us, we've always seen him as the Asshole. Need an Asshole? Hire John McGinley. Need someone to make the good guy look good? Hire McGinley. Need some wiseass to get his comeuppance? McGinley. Need someone who's a dead ringer for Norman Osborn? McGinley's your man, but you hired Willem Dafoe instead, you idiot.

John McGinley wears the character of Dr. Cox so perfectly, though, that we've forgotten about all his previous roles. Perry Cox was made for McGinley's screen persona: The Asshole with a Heart of Gold.

As McGinley plays him, Dr. Cox is the guy we'd all like to be coupled with the guy who does all the terrible things we wish we could -- and he gets away with it. He says things we only want to say, he says them better than we ever could, and he is so insufferably cool he makes the Fonz look like the Beav. He tosses off one-liners and then follows them up with whole huge dense paragraphs of taunting: ridiculing his superiors, his inferiors, his peers, his lovers, anyone within earshot. And then he turns around and does or says just the right thing and we love him. We root for him. His happiness, as small and fleeting as it is when he finds it, is our happiness. And his defeats are our defeats. But he can never truly be totally defeated because he is simply too smart, too good at what he does, and too indispensible.

Face it: We all want to be Dr. Cox when we grow up.

Those, then, are the characters, the caricatures, that the creative team of Scrubs has brought together to tell their stories. Not one of them is realistic. When you add in the usual sitcom plots (J.D.'s dad was played by John Ritter, fer cryin' out loud) and the wild fantasy sequences (sometimes it seems those at the helm are less interested in their own show than in getting work for career-free former stars like Fred "Rerun" Berry, Jimmy "Dyn-o-mite" Walker, and Colin "Man at Work" Hay), when all of that is added in, the show looks as two-dimensional as a postcard.

And after two years the show has stayed the course. No one has matured, no one has developed, nothing has been opened up or rounded out.

But the show's not two-dimensional. It looks like it should be, but it's not. By pulling out our best and worst selves and having them bump into each other each week, Scrubs is funny, and it's weird, and it's also moving. It reaches some moments of truth untouched by shows which try harder and more seriously. It's a never-ending pilot episode, forever showing us possibilities, always teetering on the edge of potential but never succumbing to the urge to actually become.

For that, it deserves TeeVee's Best Half-Hour Show Award.

Additional contributions to this article by: Chris Rywalt.

Obsessive Losers, Rejoice!

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Joss Whedon's lamented Firefly is headed for the big screen.

There, that should hold 'em.

Mini-Mailbag: Whedon Fans React

Letters, we get letters from Joss Whedon fans when we call them the most annoying.

From Gnzlzkent: "Well, anyway, I can agree that most Buffy fans are annoying, so are those from Angel, especially since the Angel producer's fired Charisma Carpenter this last season from playing Cordelia Chase. My point, the other half of the fans of 'Buffy' and 'Angel' are really normal, and calm. I think the fans that are the most annoying of these shows, are probably because they're younger than the older fans of the show. Mostly! But the oher half, very respectful citizens."

From Wendy: "Rock on! Your article was hilarious and true beyond the telling. As I am involved in planning an educational symposium whose guests *happen* to number among them some actors from the Jossverse I struggle to sidestep the crazy fans of whom you so amusingly and eloquently spoke. As for the Angel fans, all I can say is 'Beware.' ;-) "

From a Buffy webmaster: "Thank you so much for (hopefully) giving some of those Buffy fanatics a wake up call. Theyâre insane! I am a Buffy fan (obviously since I run a Buffy website) but canât understand the weirdness of some of the fans. You talk about strange emails... I could show you a few."

From Kat: "I don't know what it is about the shows but if you ever really get into them they suck you in like a black hole. I do however hate people who are now 'huge' fans of Angel because Buffy is gone. Ummm.... sorry if you weren't big fans before you're not one now. I however have watched both show since their creation. So please do not lump me (or my kids) into the fantics lounge (okay we have one foot in) not all joss wheadon fans are off their rockers."

From John J. Mesh of Michelle Trachtenberg Net: "I can sum up my opinion of your rating system on the most annoying fans -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans -- in two words that were eloquently expressed by Buffy herself: 'Bite me.'" This from a 40-something man who spends much of his web time devoted to writing about a 17-year-old girl.

And from DP: "suprised to see my mail? Probably not since you wrote the Buffy-fans-are-the-worst-kind-of-fans comment, you clearly have thought of the consequences of getting thousands of mails accusing you of being a facist dick (like most of americans are) Well: hereby my comment: you are a big asshole. I hope I hereby contributed to crashing your mailbox. Have a worse day."

Actually, DP, our mailbox is fine. But thanks for trying!

TeeVee Awards '03: Worst Actress

You've got to feel bad for poor, hapless Emily Procter.

The squeaky-voiced blonde thespian has probably spent the weeks leading up to our annual TeeVee awards bouncing about in giddy anticipation and clearing off space on her mantelpiece for yet another trophy. Procter, you see, has been lauded for two years running with one of our coveted awards, provided you define "lauded" as "razzed mercilessly" and "coveted award" as "recognition for horrific acting."

Still, a win's a win.

And a win this year seemed like a mortal lock. After all, Procter's previous victories came during guest-starring stints, first on a recurring role that helped hasten West Wing's descent into madness and later on a one-and-thankfully-done crossover episode of CSI. This year, Procter got herself cast in a starring role on an actual series -- the inconceivably stinky CSI: Miami -- meaning the American viewing public would have to endure 24 installments of full-frontal blandness. The only questions remaining for Procter appeared to be whether it would come across as unseemly if she began her victory lap in November and who to blame in her acceptance speech after her undisputed win.

Because a win would have vaulted poor, hapless Emily Procter into heights that few actors of her lack of caliber will ever know -- a state of bad-acting nirvana as perfect and improbable in its own way as Shakespeare's first folio, Mahler's nine symphonies, Nolan Ryan's seven no-hitters. Win the worst actress award this year, and that's three consecutive Pyrrhic victories for Ms. Procter. No one has ever pulled that off -- not even Jon Seda, and we're so sickened by the sight of him, we named our worst actor award after Seda. An unprecedented three Worst Actress Awards in a row, and Emily Procter ascends from the merely woeful to the sublimely Danza-lithic.

Which is why, after two-plus years of unadulterated cruelty toward Emily Procter and her craft, we wound up doing perhaps the cruelest thing of all -- passing her over at the very moment she stood on the cusp of immortality. We have two very worthy worst actress recipients for 2003, and ain't none of them named Emily Procter.

Oh, Procter tried her level best to score the hat trick. Cast by CSI: Miami's producers as a... snort... ballistics expert, Procter never was able to convince viewers that she could tell the difference between a Glock and a Super Soaker. She delivered every line with a sing-songy chirp, even when telling the families of victims that their loved ones had been horribly murdered, and, perhaps even worse for the survivors, that David Caruso was on the case. All of this while wearing enough makeup to make us think her character joined the crime scene investigation team by way of Ringling Brothers. If that's not crying out your Worst Actress credentials for all the world to see -- or, at the very least, a cry for help -- we don't know what is.

Only one hiccup: Procter wasn't even the worst actress on her own show. That distinction goes to one of the winners of this year's Worst Actress prize -- the inimitable Kim Delaney.

Most recently seen leaving nothing but scorched earth in her wake on the forgettable Philly, Delaney held several advantages heading into the Worst Actress race. First, she was cast on CSI: Miami, a show whose many terrors and inadequacies we have chronicled before and will continue to hammer home until the mass of men rise up in revolt and drive this misbegotten spin-off into the sea. Second, the producers of CSI: Miami did Delaney no favors by saddling her with a character so hopelessly moronic that even the most gifted and resolute of actresses would find herself snogging whatever director, writer, gaffer, and foley artist would have enough pull to get her bounced from the project posthaste.

Delaney played Detective Megan Donner, who, as the first season of CSI: Miami began, was returning to work after an extended leave of absence that began when she had the great misfortune of watching her cop husband get murdered in the line of duty. To make sure that this vital plot point was driven home to the audience, the producers arranged for Donner to mention it in nearly every subsequent episode, usually to establish empathy with some pitiable soul who had just watched his or her loved one get gunned down, thrown off a moving airplane or otherwise forced to prematurely shuffle off this mortal coil. In one episode, Donner was dispatched to convince a pair of grieving Cuban emigres to cooperate with a police investigation; sadly, she delivered her "I too have known loss" spiel in English, thus robbing America its chance to howl in derisive laughter as Delaney stammered "Mi esposo esta muerto tambien."

So Delaney was dealt a loser of a hand to start with; and like all Worst Actress contenders, she played her hand like a chump.

It was probably her delivery that clinched the award. On CSI: Miami, Delaney had this habit of reciting her lines with a series of fits and starts and ill-placed, Shatner-esque pauses; then, after a pause so pregnant you could birth quintuplets during it, Delaney would say the rest of the line at 2X speed. A simple ho-hum piece of dialogue like "We work for the victim" would, once it lolled off Delaney's tongue, come out sounding like "We work (pause... pause... still pausing... almost there... OK... OK... now!) forthevictim." That Delaney would then punctuate her lines with a series of inappropriate hand gestures -- a Hong Kong Fooey-like judo chop in this instance -- would merely add to the comedic effect. Which is not really the sort of impact you're looking for in a drama.

Instead of a competent crime-solving professional, Delaney's theatrics made it seem like her character had spent the last seven years stashed away in a meat locker before she thawed out and began studying forensics. Or that she suffered from a series of verbal and facial tics caused by prolonged exposure to fumes from open paint cans. Or -- to crueler viewers -- that she spent her entire screen time in the midst of a particularly debilitating stroke.

The end result? Delaney -- who was only added to the show after the producers worried that guileless waif Emily Procter didn't have the on-screen gravitas to mesh with David Caruso -- was so lamentably bad that she was booted off the show. And not even on camera, in one of those hail-of-bullets-I'll-avenge-you-Megan-Donner moments that earn people Emmy nods. Instead, Delaney's exit took place off camera, with the other characters barely registering that she ever existed. If only the audience could have been so lucky.

To their credit, the producers were right about Procter's gravitas.

For all her sins, Kim Delaney merely made a bad show worse. What do you do when an actress is the worst thing about an otherwise decent program? Why, you split up the Worst Actress award and present half of it to that witless thespian.

And you call her Elisha Cuthbert.

In the first season of 24, Cuthbert's Kim Bauer was a necessary if regrettable plot device. Without her, who are the terrorists going to kidnap, and without blood relative hostages, how are the terrorists going to convince Kiefer Sutherland to pump that nice Dennis Haysbert full of holes? Sure, Kim fell in and out of the terrorists' clutches with laughable regularity during season one, but if it got us one scene closer to Kiefer matching wits with Balkan war criminal Dennis Hopper, then so be it.

But in season two, the multitude of woes befalling Kim Bauer made "The Perils of Pauline" look like "Ma and Pa Kettle Back on the Farm." Consider that in one 24-hour period, Jack Bauer's dippy little kid:

  • Lands smack dab in the middle of a domestic dispute between her employer and the employer's wife-beating husband;
  • Gets chased by said wife-beater;
  • Is falsely accused of her employer's murder;
  • Shows up at CTU headquarters just as terrorists blow it to kingdom come;
  • Is involved in a car accident as a sheriff's deputy is transporting her off to the pokey for attempted kidnapping and that whole murder thing;
  • Gets chased by a mountain lion;
  • Is held captive by a moody mountain-man loner who thinks she's got a purty mouth;
  • Erroneously believes her father dies in a nuclear explosion over the Mojave Desert when, really, the blast just took out that nice Xander Berkeley;
  • Gets taken hostage in a liquor store robbery gone wrong;
  • Is chased once more by the murderous wife-beater; and
  • Is egged on by her father to put a bullet in the murderous wife-beater's brain so he can get back to saving the president from the complexities of the 25th Amendment.

As far as bad days go, finding out that Nina Myers gutted your mom like a trout suddenly doesn't seem so terrible.

Faced with these ridiculous plot twists, Cuthbert opted to play her character -- if such a thing is possible -- even more ridiculously. There was none of the intensity brought to the table by the other actors in 24 that makes you overlook how eminently preposterous most the show's twists and turns are. She didn't even play her part with a wink and a nod, a look that said "Yes, I know I'm being chased by a freakin' mountain lion; just go with it, OK?" Instead, Cuthbert approached each new trial and tribulation with distracting equanimity, facing mountain lions, murderous wife-beaters, and the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation with a vacant, open-mouthed look and body language that suggested all of these hardships were more inconvenient than terrifying. It kind of killed the mood.

In fairness to Cuthbert, the moody mountain-man loner is right about her purty mouth, however.

The byproduct of all this is not necessarily that scenes involving Cuthbert are wretched, so much as they are boring, and boring is far, far worse than wretched. The Vidiots blessed with TiVo found themselves making liberal use of the fast-forward button whenever Cuthbert was on the screen, and while that certainly helps the hour zip along, it's probably not what 24's creators were shooting for.

We have a simple solution. The folks behind 24 should follow CSI: Miami's lead and give Kim Bauer the Delaney treatment. Have Nina Myers return to try and notch the second leg of the Bauer-women Daily Double. Bring back the mountain lion and make it best two-out-of-three falls. Just keep Elisha Cuthbert off camera until the 59th minute of the 24th episode of Season Three, when she can walk on screen and say to Kiefer, "So how was your day, Dad?"

Then, maybe Emily Procter can finally get the recognition from us she so richly deserves.

Additional contributions to this article by: Philip Michaels.

TeeVee Awards '03: Worst Hour Show

It takes a special kind of awful to snatch the Worst Hour Show title away from runner-up CSI: Miami. We thought the David Caruso comeback vehicle would walk off with the award like a Williams sister at the U.S. Open, since CSI: Miami featured acting that ranged from the unfortunately competent (Caruso did an excellent job playing Horatio Caine as a preening jackass, something we sincerely hope was a deliberate move on his part and not an unfortunate side effect) to the supernaturally egregious (Kim Delaney and two-time Worst Actress winner Emily Procter) combined with storylines that were tasteless, exploitative and a little too fond of giving sexually-assertive women a lethal comeuppance.

However, even these formidable factors weren't enough to push CSI: Miami into first place. The Vidiots examined the littered landscape of the season and found a show they deemed even worse. Some of you may remember this show as our Biggest Disappointment in 2001. Now, The West Wing returns to the TeeVee awards as Worst Hour Show of 2003.

This is the point where everyone is wondering, How on Earth did a show that probably has special insurance riders to cover the possibility of Allison Janney barking her shins on a crate of Emmys get to be Worst Hour Show?

Let's start with the Emmys -- or the actor-showcase Very Special Emmy episodes. We have nothing against seeing a thespian bask in well-deserved professional acclaim for a job done above and beyond expectations. We do, however, bear grudges over showcase episodes written and executed for the sole purpose of dazzling the Emmy voters. A good show shouldn't have to resort to Very Special Emmy episodes just to maintain everyone's attention. The West Wing's free pass for doing this since season one has expired. Although we lost money on which actor would get the holiday Emmy episode this year (an episode that won Richard Schiff his Emmy in season one, Bradley Whitford his Emmy in season two, and John Spencer his Emmy last season) because the show broke with that tradition, it picked up the habit of giving nearly everyone the scene which was all but captioned "EMMY CLIP HERE."

We'd also complain about how a pointless hour spent watching CJ Cregg revisit her high school memories derailed the storylines on the show just to ensure that Janney could elbow her way past the Amy Brennemans of the world for that Best Actress Emmy nomination, but that would imply the existence of contiguous storylines on The West Wing. We are implying nothing of the sort.

This brings us to the second reason The West Wing is taking home the bum's-rush trophy: it recklessly squandered what should have been the dramatic high point of the series by completely blowing the storyline around the president's re-election. The night the president kept or lost his job -- and, by extension, kept or lost the jobs of his underlings -- should have been a nail-biting hour where viewers recalled three previous seasons of administration mis-steps and triumphs, remembered a tense campaign following on the heels of the admission that a chronically-ill president had lied to the American public, and wondered if what the outcome of a well-matched contest between two candidates would be.

Instead, the campaign for re-election barely registered as a blip on the dramatic radar -- not even for the president, who presumably would have been interested in the outcome. Moreover, the outcome of the election was never in doubt. In every episode we saw, it was evident Bartlet was running against a straw man. Where's the suspense in knowing that there's no way the president's going to lose to a complete boob?

Mind you, every single viewer who tuned in knew Barlet was going to win -- but the real question was how. This could have been a good story: you have a president with a chronic illness who lied to the American public, and following right after that revelation, he begins telling people why they should vote for him again. It's a tricky proposition, especially since this is not a well-liked president, so watching him win should be interesting, right?

Not when a) the presidential challenger is set up as a doomed idiot from the first scene he's in, and b) all the factors which would make the re-election campaign close aren't even addressed. Thanks to exceptionally poor writing, the re-election storyline was a snoozer that ended with a yawn.

The weak denouement of what was originally set up as a huge dramatic arc is but one example of how The West Wing has consistently demonstrated tone-deafness in its pacing. The other extreme is the annual May Sweeps Dramatic Event. This year, the president's irritating daughter was kidnapped on the very same day that Toby's divorced wife gave birth to his twins, thus prompting the president to summon John Goodman and hand him the keys to the Oval Office in the season finale. Kidnapping the kid is one thing -- to the show's credit, they did set out a smoking gun in the form of a Eurotrash collaborationist boyfriend a few episodes earlier -- but throwing in the twins on top of it is overkill. At the rate The West Wing tears through overdone sweeps cliches, we are in imminent danger of seeing CJ rescue Toby's twins from drowning when an explosion sends the White House rocketing into the Potomac river. Or of Janel Moloney finally getting her Emmy when Donna's abducted by aliens during this year's holiday episode.

That is, if she's not busy with any one of the two dozen stunt-cast characters littering any given episode.

So there's showboating and bad plotting, you're saying. I still don't see how this beat out CSI:Miami for the prize?

There is a crucial difference between The West Wing as a bad show and CSI: Miami as a bad show. The latter has never pretended to be anything other than franchise-flogging pablum. On the other hand, The West Wing openly aspired to be more from the word go. This was no Beltway soap opera -- this would be a well-written show, a civics lesson that enlightened as it entertained. Run a Lexis-Nexis search on The West Wing and see how often the phrase "one of the best-written shows on television" pops up. In fact, go through the last year's worth of articles chronicling the show as it veered into total unwatchability; despite reasonably pointing out plot holes you could drive a Mack truck through, nearly every member of the Association of TV Critics seemed to have a Word macro installed so they had only to hit a key for the phrase "still one of the best-written shows on television" to appear in the story.

We beg to differ with this assessment. After four years, we still can't tell the characters apart because they all sound alike. That's not good writing. We can't recall the last time a straw man wasn't used to help one of the insufferably noble main characters make a point. That's not good writing. We can remember watching what promised to be one big story after another disappear so something bombastic could happen at sweeps. That's not good writing.

Next year, we have no doubt that the articles will come out thick and fast decrying the changes in the show now that Aaron Sorkin has been shown the door. We're leading the curve: this year was the year The West Wing went from occasionally aggravating, but watchable to utterly devoid of entertainment value. That it seems not to realize it is what makes it this year's Worst Hour Show.

Additional contributions to this article by: Lisa Schmeiser.

Categories

Monthly Archives

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from September 2003 listed from newest to oldest.

August 2003 is the previous archive.

October 2003 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.