Past Deadline

By Barry Garron

Look, I'm not the kind of guy who says "I told you so." No, that's not true. Who am I kidding? I am exactly the kind of guy who says "I told you so" because, in my case, those opportunities are so rare that they must be commemorated in some way.

So, yes, I told you. To be precise, I wrote in this very blog on July 30, shortly after ABC announced that the Emmy co-hosts would be Ryan Seacrest, Tom Bergeron, Heidi Klum, Jeff Probst and Howie Mandel. And here is exactly what I said nearly eight weeks before the telecast:

"With the exception of Mandel, an accomplished stand-up comedian, you'd have to go to the coroner's office to find a bigger group of stiffs."

I said other things, as well, but you get my drift. Naming reality hosts to be Emmy Award co-hosts was an idea on a par with giving O.J. Simpson his own syndicated daytime court show.

This, however, raises an interesting question: How can five people who are so prominent on some of the best-rated TV shows be so awful here? If they are the cream of the reality genre, why did they become the dregs of the Emmy telecast?

Here are two possibilities, neither mutually exclusive: First, the skill set for reality host has little in common with the skill set for Emmy host. A reality host must have a bland personality, a forced cheerfulness that seems vaguely sincere and an understanding that he or she is not the beautiful antique vase but the glue that holds the pieces together. Wit is not part of the equation.

An Emmy host, on the other hand, should set the tone and energy level for the show, be quick with an ad lib, possess impeccable comic timing and, essentially, lend the show a piece of their own unique persona.

Second, the Emmy telecast is real, at least in the sense that it is live. What you are watching is what is happening and not something that has been manipulated or massaged after the fact. For many reality hosts, such as Probst and Klum, the only reality with which they are familiar is the kind that's been edited, processed, heightened and reformulated.

For no obvious reason, both ABC and the TV Academy failed to understand these simple truths, even after the awful hosting performance of Seacrest in 2007. This time, though, I think it will sink in.

Let me just start out by saying that I'm an old, decrepit, craggy, doddering (actually very very doddering) elderly-type person who has seen many a Primetime Emmy show in his time. I'm one of these guys who starts out every sentence with "In my day" or "Back during the war -- MY war, the American Revolution..." By gum, I've been watching Emmy telecasts since before there were even television sets! We'd tune them in by shining tempered glass at just the right angle of the Moon, drilling 12 fine holes into the center, weaving through six cords of piano wire, laying it atop a propane-powered stove and then capturing the resulting reflection on a piece of #7 parchment. It was primitive, but it did the job. Of course, back in those days they handed out awards for stuff like "Outstanding Future Actor" and "Best Dramatic Flickering Images Projected Faintly Onto a Rotating Wall."

But I digress. My point here is that my aged condition notwithstanding, I have never seen anything quite like Sunday night's Emmycast on ABC. It wasn't merely bad, it was outrageously, unfathomably, surrealistically, monumentally awful. And that was just the first five minutes. I'm actually somewhat shocked, because producer Ken Ehrlich is a longtime pro who generally knows what he's doing. But during this ceremony, little of that veteran knowledge and savvy were in evidence. He somehow lost control, and along with it the show's bearings. It grew so dreadful that Congress should enact legislation to keep it from happening again for reasons of national security. I mean, if I'm the terrorists, I see this show and I figure, "Well, their entertainment culture clearly is vulnerable. We should feel emboldened, comrades!"

Nearly the entire show was marred by amateurish gaffes and baffling choices, bad transitions and timing errors. Consistency and perspective were virtually nonexistent. And it all began, of course, with THAT OPENING. I mean, What the Hell Was That? I'll tell you what, actually. It was an apt metaphor for a television culture that has officially lost its way and could well use someone to swoop down and drop pebbles every few feet to help it find its way back to sanity again.

Remember the notorious "Snow White" opening at the Oscars years ago? Well here, we got Snow White and the Four Dwarfs, aka Heidi Klum, Howie Mandel, Jeff Probst, Tom Bergeron and Ryan Seacrest, aka Four Guys, a Girl and an Armageddon Place. That they would bomb on a significant scale was really preordained. I mean, how could anyone think that hiring five reality hosts -- four of whom aren't entertainers -- to oversee an awards show was a genius idea? Was Jimmy Kimmel, who hangs out nightly on the broadcasting network, ABC, somehow unavailable? No, he appeared later on the show. He was in town. He's young and can pull the young people into the tent whom the TV Academy see as so important to the Emmys' future. But no, they go with the clueless quintet.

Yet no one could have predicted that it would grow so sublimely terrible so immediately. After a deadly dull address from Oprah Winfrey (who evidently doesn't have to be even remotely interesting because she's Oprah Winfrey), the five hosts came out and proceeded to do...absolutely nothing. It was, indeed, planned dead air! During what may have been the most painful three minutes in TV history, they launched into a skit that wasn't, rambling and talking over each other and continually assuring us that "this is completely unscripted!" as if we somehow might find that difficult to believe. It was bizarre to the point of delusion.

Who thought this was a good idea? As it turns out, no one. It was later explained backstage by Probst that the five couldn't come to agreement on what to do, so they did nothing, as if this were an acceptable option. Isn't this what writers and producers are for, to rescue guys who don't know what they're doing from themselves? It's actually completely unforgivable and a world-class humiliation for the TV Academy. Did no one vet this? Did the idea of three minutes of nothing right off the top somehow resonate? It boggles the mind. The idea that a show celebrating the best of television should be reduced to horribly awkward improv by design is just about as strange as it can get for a ceremony that rightfully suffered the worst ratings in its history. Someone besides me ought to be hugely angry about this.

On the other hand, the lack of coherence stands as the perfect metaphor for where primetime has headed in the unscripted era. You want it America, you got it. Babbling desperation as a genre conceit. Sometimes, when you turn the keys to the kingdom over to the lame, what you get in return is lame-en-ade. I mean, these guys couldn't do a soft-shoe together? They thought the best way to settle it was to bring zero to the table? Wow.

The utter dearth of professionalism on display masked the fact this was quite a historic night. You had a miniseries, HBO's "John Adams," breaking the all-time record for wins by a single program by earning 13 all told. You had a basic cable drama, AMC's "Mad Men," becoming the first of its ilk to win a top series prize. You had Bryan Cranston of AMC's "Breaking Bad" pulling off one of the great upsets of all time in his well-deserved win for drama series actor. And you had the funniest show on TV, NBC's "30 Rock," and its funniest human, Tina Fey, getting treated like it.

But the embarrassments unfortunately snatched the spotlight away time after time. They had Josh Groban sing a medley of 30 TV show themes that would have been funny at maybe one-third its length but was just interminable as it was. Ditto a 40th anniversary salute to "Laugh-In" that was a good idea but so long it left you wondering what was supposed to have been so funny and revolutionary about this legendary series in the first place.

Partly saving the night were Don Rickles, now 82 but still dead-on perfect with his jabs; Ricky Gervais, whose British accent alone helped put the fiasco erupting around him in its place; and a few smart and funny acceptance speeches, especially that of Fey, who remarked, "I want to thank my parents for somehow raising me to have confidence that is disproportionate with my looks and abilities. Well done!" If he lived to be 1,000, Seacrest couldn't come up something even a tenth as witty.

However, what remains the biggest Emmy crime of all, one that continues on year to year, is the galling inconsistency of the acceptance speech stopwatch. Some can ramble on for two minutes. Others get 15 seconds. It seems to somehow involve where you and your category happen to rank on the entertainment-value scale.  Writers, as you might imagine, are down near the bottom, on a level commensurate with the guy you have to tip in the rest room who stands guard over a neat pile of paper towels and a teeming stash of 67 different brands of cologne.

It reached a nadir when "John Adams" scribe Kirk Ellis won for movie/miniseries writing and was cut off after less than 20 seconds, just as he was starting to say something more profound than "This one's for you, my beloved agent!". What he actually said was, "Thank you for this amazing opportunity to talk about a period in history when articulate men articulated complex thoughts in complete sentences. They..." And there Ellis was, ironically, cut off, since we are no longer living in that period when complex thoughts may be articulated without a band rudely playing the speaker offstage. Ellis was understandably fuming backstage that the five hosts would be handed 30 minutes to slum around while he was given the "Wrap it up!" cue as soon as his microphone opened.

If a guy who wrote a miniseries that won 13 Emmy Awards can't merit even 40 lousy seconds to speak from his heart during one of the biggest moments of his life, something's way out of whack with this system. As I've oft said, if awards shows aren't about hearing the winners accept their awards, what's even the point? Oh yeah, that's right: the point is now to say nothing, but to do so with cosmetic grandeur.

If the TV Academy can't balance its ratings-fueled requirement to be un-boring with the equally important need to honor the industry's best and brightest, it's clearly time to change up its focus. Maybe the academy should work on finding other revenue sources outside of rights fees and advertising. Otherwise, its annual ceremony looks to be in grave danger of implosion, if Sunday's show didn't supply ample evidence that perhaps it's already there. There can, after all, only be one show about nothing. The Emmys is supposed to be about everything. Instead, this year, it was about three hours too long.

By Barry Garron

Some people make a big deal out of predicting who will win an Emmy Award during the telecast on Sunday. They study what was submitted, they debate with each other online or on panels, they analyze past voting patterns, and they come up with elaborate theories. Then they make their picks.

They invest all this time in what is essentially a guessing game for a variety of reasons, most of which have to do with self-promotion. They perpetuate their reputation as authorities mainly by proclaiming they are year after year.

Fortunately, no one takes the time after each show to calculate the accuracy of their predictions, particularly in categories that don't have a consensus favorite (for example, "John Adams" in the miniseries category). I suspect that if someone actually measured these things, it would be surprising to see how often the so-called experts were wrong and how frequently other guessers were right.

I say this as one of the "other guessers." As a TV critic at The Hollywood Reporter and elsewhere, I've made Emmy predictions for about 25 years. Sometimes, I've been horribly wrong. Sometimes, I've been amazingly accurate. Overall, I've fared no worse than the self-proclaimed experts.

Over the years, those of us in the prediction game have developed a technique for covering our derrieres. We predict not only who will win but who should win. Simply by the law of averages, we get a 40 percent chance of being correct. If you factor in even a small amount of industry knowledge and background, it goes up to 75 or 80 percent.

If it turns out that our predictions of who and what will win are correct, we  pat ourselves on the back for being such astute students of the TV Academy.

On the other hand, if the winners turn out to be the ones we say should have won, the automatic follow-up column praises Academy voters for finally paying attention and getting it right. Heads we win. Tails we win. Hooray for us.

An interesting example of how the game is played can be found at the Television Without Pity Web site. It's interesting because, in this case, the "should win" category -- and not the "will win" category -- appears to be the one that will produce the winners. Obviously, we won't know for sure until Sunday evening, but it would be a shock if "will win" America Ferrera beats out "should win" Tina Fey (right).

Reverse psychology, anyone?

The site, owned by Bravo, is also the home of the Tubey Awards, voted in 60 categories such as most improved show ("Lost"), least improved show ("Heroes"), least favorite actor (Charlie Sheen), least favorite actress (Katherine Heigl) and most appalling reality star (Tila Tequila).

Agree or disagree, the list of Tubey winners makes for a more fun read than those self-satisfied Emmy predictions (mine included).

By Barry Garron

In case you're keeping track, there are now 11 syndicated courtroom TV programs. And that doesn't count Lewis Black's "The Root of All Evil" on Comedy Central.

New this season is "Family Court With Judge Penny" (seen in L.A. at 2:30 p.m. weekdays on KCOP-TV, right after "Judge David Young" and before "COPS"). The title makes it sound like the judge is actually a friend of the family. I guess viewers are more inclined to watch these shows if the judge is seen as friendly and personable. So if you want a cranky judge, you've got to watch "Boston Legal."

Judge Penny is, in fact, Judge Penny Brown Reynolds, who was appointed and then elected to the trial court bench in Atlanta. In some ways, she's got a better story than Sarah Palin. She and her three sisters were raised by a single mother. Also, in addition to being a judge, she became an ordained minister.

But it's not her story that sets Judge Penny's program apart. It's the cases. Instead of hearing people argue over who owes the rent or who should pay for the dented fender, Judge Penny hears disputes over custody and hurt feelings and parental malfeasance.

Here's an example: In Monday's premiere, a mother was sued by two of her children for about $1,200. That was how much they were made to pay so that they could attend a sports camp that the mother thought was in their best interest. That amount also included lobster dinner on the mother's birthday.

On a typical court show, the judge decides who owes what. The money comes out of an amount set aside for each case. Anything left over gets split evenly between plaintiff and defendant.

In this case, though, the money is of relatively little importance. The mother is a bully who won't listen to her kids or let them pursue their own interests. This family desperately needs counseling. Although Judge Penny pointedly tells the mother she must change her approach, there is little to indicate the mother will take the advice to heart.

In the end, we're left with a family whose serious conflicts mostly provide entertainment for us but no resolution for them.

At the same time, the extent of Judge Penny's power is far from clear. If she orders a new custody arrangement, is it final? Can she enforce rights of grandparents to visit children?

Who knows? At the end of the final credits, there are two paragraphs on the screen. One says the show was edited, the judge's decision is final, property exchanges "may be facilitated by security" and the monetary awards are paid out of a fund.

The second paragraph says: "The advice and counseling given on this program by Judge Penny Brown Reynolds should not be considered a substitute for any form of legal, medical or psychological advice, counseling, treatment or therapy. You should seek help from a licensed practitioner in your area."

Viewers get less than two seconds to read both paragraphs. With that in mind, I'd love to see Judge Penny tackle a case about fair disclosure.

Well, that certainly didn't take long.

Before she has consented to so much as a single interview with members of the evil "liberal" media, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- whom you may have heard has been chosen as John McCain's running mate on the Republican ticket for President of these United States -- has been fashioned into a trio of uncannily realistic and monumentally creepy (redundant?) action figure dolls that are available for purchase right this minute at HeroBuilders.com.

All three of the dolls sport Palin's trademark specs and bunned-up hair along with an identical facial look and smile perhaps best described as demented. The no-frills Palin figure in black jumpsuit goes for $27.95. There's also a heat-packing Super Hero version in black overcoat and halter top and a 45-caliber pistol sidearmed to her thigh, and a truly frightening "School Girl" edition (in plaid miniskirt and bobby sox with lace bra and panties underneath, we're told). Each of the latter pair retail for $29.95.

Creator Emil Vicale says he's already sold "more than 500" Palin figures on Monday, the first day it's been available. "And the pace of orders is starting to step up big time," he added in a phone chat this afternoon.

Vicale also takes credit for Palin's cold war-ready buffed-out bod that sports not an ounce of fat a mere 4 1/2 months after her having given birth. In fact, she in many ways resembles a woman in the throes of a profound eating disorder, in contrast to real life. The man who made the pec-prominent Palins a reality refers to this as "creative license." And while her three-pronged toy alter ego evidently lacks the actual capacity to hunt moose, oppose abortion or preach premarital abstinence -- and has no more foreign policy expertise than does the politician from whom they were fashioned -- the three faux molded Sarahs are said to successfully inspire the populace with their pitbull-in-lipstick spirit, if not their hands-on experience.

Why not order all three and, for under $100 (plus shipping), turn your home into a Palintology shrine? (That's merely a rhetorical question, by the way.)

By Barry Garron

The guy behind "Family Guy" and the wag behind "American Dad" is set to launch a new attack on our funnybones. Beginning Wednesday, Seth MacFarlane will present "Seth MacFarlane's Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy," a series of animated shorts, each about a minute or so long.

Under the deal with Google, Burger King and Media Rights Capital (remember them? they're the company that has taken over the programming of CW on Sundays), MacFarlane and his writers will create a total of 50 animated shorts, rolling them out at the rate of one or two a week. You can find them at either youtube.com/bk or sethcomedy.com. (If you go to the site before Wednesday, you can see trailers of the shorts, each a few seconds long and without the punch line at the end.)

Late last week, some members of the press, myself included, got a preview of the first 10. They range from mildly funny to hilarious. There are no recurring characters, just fast zingers, typically with pop culture figures, programs, movies or trends. My guess is that fast food restaurants are probably off-limits.

The first one has a dog giving clues on "The $25,000 Pyramid" and Super Mario saving a less-than-grateful princess. Each rates a solid belly laugh. MacFarlane supplies a lot of the voices but he also relies on voice talent from his other projects, including Alex Borstein, Seth Green and Alec Sulkin. Of the initial batch, MacFarlane said he wrote half and a small staff hired for the project wrote the other half.

I asked MacFarlane if he had thought about repurposing these clever shorts. He said it's possible they could be anthologized on DVD or on a TV program or even transformed into a book of cartoons but there were no definite plans. It's even possible that one or more of the shorts could inspire a TV show in much the same way "South Park" was born. That, too, is not yet in the cards.

Once the YouTube web site is up and running, visitors can enter a sweepstakes to--and I'm quoting the press release here--"win the chance to buy Seth MacFarlane dinner at a Burger King restaurant." Well, it beats getting one of those doofus paper crowns.

A federal court will decide today whether contracts written between personal managers and their clients are worth the paper they're written on -- or nothing at all. To be more precise, a hearing will determine whether the California Labor Commission is vulnerable to a lawsuit alleging that enforcement of the Talent Agencies Act deprives managers of their right to contract in violation of the Constitution.

It represents an important milestone in the longtime fight logged by Rick Siegel, himself a longtime personal manager via his Los Angeles-based Marathon Entertainment. Having piled up enough victories over the years to continue to carry on his legal quest -- including a major one earlier this year relevant to the TAA's enforcement in the California Supreme Court -- Siegel has carried the battle through a marathon (true to his company's name) of upheavals at once judicial, financial and emotional. He's largely had to fight this particular war on his own, pushing forward where others before him had been shot down and/or given up in the face of a legal brick wall.

But today, Siegel anticipates having plenty of company in the form of dozens of both fellow personal managers and former managers in attendance with him. Their goal, besides offering moral support, is to at last stand up to what they all consider nothing less than the siege on their livelihood, one that has resulted in hundreds of their fellow managers having contracts with clients broken while offering them no recourse to recoup promised wages. Among those attending the hearing, according to Siegel, will be Matthew Katz -- who in 1968 lost millions in commissions from managing the Jefferson Airplane rock band; and Brad Waisbren and Howard Wolf, who after losing several court of appeals battles walked away from their jobs as personal managers.

For five decades, Siegel maintains, the California Labor Commission has routinely stripped those who violate the TAA of their contractual rights. He believes that if managers are unable to be relieved of their contractual risk when sharing their actor, writer, director, musician or comedian clients with agents, their profession is in essence a joke. Today's hearing will not determine the merits of the case, according to Siegel -- who is representing himself in court pro per; rather, it will seek to answer whether Siegel has shown that 1. The California Labor Commissioner, Angela Bradstreet, is the proper party to sue in this case; and 2. There are clear and cognitive claims for relief that can be corrected by the suit going forward.

It is yet another pit stop on a long and winding road to justice, but the potential impact on the representation industry by a successful suit could be enormous, Siegel believes. Besides contractual enforcement for agents going forward, he foresees a possible massive class action suit that could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in previously deprived contractual property.

Siegel is confident. "There is a litany of precedents showing that not only is the Labor Commissioner the right party to sue, but that any immunity she might be afforded is waived when her actions are shown to be unconstitutional," he believes. "And as per the relevant case law, courts have a duty to dismiss a complaint based on statutes that do not contain a penalty provision. Not only does the Labor Commission ignore that imperative, it has routinely and unconstitutionally interfered with managers' rights to contracts."

By Barry Garron

Today marks the return of HBO's "Entourage," which is probably all the encouragement needed at Heavy.com.

The Web site, which specializes in recasting hit shows with youthful buzz, did it again. It posted three webisodes of "Tiny Entourage," in which Vince, Drama, Eric, Turtle and Ari are played by little people.

Each webisode runs about two minutes, give or take, and is a shot-by-shot remake of original scenes.

The "Entourage" parody is the latest on Heavy.com. Previously, the site recast "Sex and the City" with female body builders and renamed the show "Flex in the City." There's a parody of MTV's "The Hills," too. In that one, called "Over the Hills," the main parts are played by geriatrics.

Other parodies Include "Superficial Friends," "Behind the Music That Sucks," "Kung Fu Jimmy Chow" and ""The Burly Sports Show," which nabbed a Webby award.

The webisodes attract a young adult audience coveted by advertisers. "Tiny Entourage," for example, is sponsored by caffeine-laden alcoholic beverage Sparks. Please be safe and don't drink while you watch.

So I was just sitting around here and couldn't help but notice how this whole soap opera known as the Republican National Convention -- which concludes tonight with the Presidential nomination of you-know-who -- fairly cries out for a movie. Not a feature, mind you. It's a bit too declasse' for that. I'm thinking more of a made-for-TV flick. On Lifetime. Called "Maverick & Huntress: The John McCain and Sarah Palin Story."

It's the story of a hot babe who dons a pair of sleek specs to play down her Fox News-worthy sexiness quotient and is immediately elected governor of Alaska, where her refusal to terminate any of her multiple pregnancies and devil-may-care attitude toward all living beings that aren't human brings her to the attention of POW-turned-Presidential candidate John McCain. Together, they win over evangelicals with their pro-human life/anti-animal life platform and become the toast of Conservative America.

Here is how I see the thing being cast:

• Dustin Hoffman is Sen. John McCain: Not the most conventional choice, I know, but kind of perfect when you think about it. Also considered were Sean Connery, Paul Newman and Brian Dennehy, but for various reasons none is as well-suited physically and in terms of temperament as Hoffman. A no-brainer, in fact. (UPDATE: My friend Lenni just suggested Ed Harris instead of Hoffman for McCain -- and she's right! Much better. Perfect physical match. So ignore what I said earlier about Hoffman and let's go with that.)
• Megan Mullally is Gov. Sarah Palin: One immediately thinks of Tina Fey for Palin, but that's just because of the glasses and the way she wears them. Mullally is really a better physical resemblance and has the kind of edge and sass to pull it off best. Fey is a bit too flippant and intellectual.
• Aaron Eckhart is Todd Palin: I'm thinking the Eckhart who starred with such sleazy perfection in "Thank You For Smoking." Everything about him kinda screams, "I'm Sarah Palin's long-suffering husband!".
• Jamie Lynn Spears is Bristol Palin: Well shoot, how much more perfect could casting be? We're talking pregnancy twins. I'll bet they walk alike and talk alike, too.
• Shia LaBeouf is Levi Johnston: While it's obviously true that LaBeouf lacks the athletic hunk factor of the hockey-playing Johnston, and lacks the GQ looks of the daddy-to-be of Bristol Palin's unborn, he's the only dude of much renown who is similarly youthful. So let's say this one is subject to change. Maybe. Eventually.
• Will Smith is Sen. Barack Obama: A big fat "Duh!". I mean, who else? Denzel Washington? Forrest Whitaker? Blair Underwood? Eddie Murphy? No, no, no and NO! It's really Smith or no one. So let's go with Smith.
• Robert Redford is Sen. Joe Biden: Absolutely perfect casting, if I do say. Redford can be made to resemble the Democratic VP contender and longtime senator from Delaware, and he embodies the ideal style to boot. Plus, Redford already starred with distinction in the classic 1972 political farce "The Candidate." Done deal.
• Felicity Huffman is Cindy McCain: The first thought here was of Amy Poehler, because she's a pretty good physical match if she puts a can of spray into her hair and has a few yards of gauze implanted surgically below her first layer of skin. But Huffman has it all: a reasonably similar look along with the acting chops to pull it off brilliantly.
• Regina King is Michelle Obama: Check out photos of King, who once starred in the NBC sitcom "227" as a kid. The physical resemblance is pretty solid.
• James Woods is Rudy Giuliani: This is a bit of a cheat, since Woods already portrayed Giuliani in a USA Network biopic in 2003. But he's still perfect for this job in every way. So bring it on.

P.S.: Any under-the-table casting director fees here would be greatly appreciated. (Only kidding! No, really!)

By Randee Dawn

So, Gustav has dialed himself back, and the real show can now get underway: The Republican National Convention. Conservatives and media all over St. Paul are wiping fevered brows that the news, as they expected it, can continue.

Our Paul Gough is down there and today reports on the latest way the Internet is pwning the MSM: Twitter and blogs. And it's a continuing battle between what grabs an audience interest and what keeps them reading and gets them talking. Writes Gough, "Nina Easton, Fortune's Washington editor and a Fox News contributor, said that gone are the days of the Richard Ben Cramer-esque long magazine-style pieces on the candidates. 'Nobody reads them. It's not the water cooler conversation. The water cooler conversation is what happened in the last second.'" Meanwhile, in this corner, Gough continues, "Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon, a pioneer political blogger, said that 50-word blog entries can't capture the entire issues of the environment, health care and other important topics."

Which is true. We've all got short attention spans -- look! shiny! -- but it's hard to imagine any actual progress or insight obtained in soundbites or 50-word stories. Balance, people, balance! And maybe a little focus.

Speaking of people who have short attention spans, today Shannon L. Bowen's article leads off the fantastic Showbiz Kids section of the magazine, with a discussion of how talent agencies are going after clients (natch) and also the best agents around. UTA's Mitchell Gossett notes, "The industry to some extent is shrinking. There are fewer jobs. So like General Motors did, you just swallow up your competitors as much as you can." There's also a list of the top 25 shorties who are "shaking up Hollywood" put together by Denise Abbott and Irene Lacher, which is grouped into "The Oscar Darlings," "The Drama Queens," "The Method Actors," "The Comedians," "The Next Big Things" and "The Musicians." Though in the case of The Jonas Brothers, that should have been The "Musicians."

And finally, "In A World" will never sound the same, now that we've lost the sonorous severity of Don LaFontaine's baritone, as Barry Garron writes. Fontaine was one of the great trailer/voiceover actors and was taken away too soon, at age 68. Here's a fantastic clip created by Aspect Ratio and used at THR's Key Arts awards a few years back which got all of the great voiceover men in the room (well, in a limo) at once, and proved they were also fantastic sports. To me, LaFontaine was the star of the piece -- which is enjoyed by those in the industry and out, based on the hit count. Enjoy -- you'll be missed, sir.

By Barry Garron

I can't say for sure this happened. I might have dreamed it. I've been watching a lot of convention coverage and, after a while, one interview flows into the next. Still, when I awoke this morning, there were these notes I'd made from the night before.

According to my notes, CNN's Campbell Brown was interviewing James Dobson of Focus on the Family about Sarah Palin, the new Republican candidate for vice president.

Brown: How do you feel about Palin on the ticket?

Dobson: I feel great. You're part of the liberal media and you're quick to put her down, but Americans are going to see through your phony criticism.

Brown: Actually, I hadn't criticized her.

Dobson: No, but you were going to. I'll swear to that on a stack of Bibles. In fact, I'll use this stack that I brought to sell on the convention floor.

Brown: That won't be necessary. Mr. Dobson, you've spent a lifetime stressing the importance of family values ...

Dobson: You bet I have. Someone has to speak out against a leftist media that is destroying the country by encouraging teenagers to fornicate before they're married. Well, it's not OK. It's wrong. The Bible tells us so.

Brown: So how do you reconcile that with the pregnancy of Palin's unmarried teenage daughter?

Dobson: That's entirely different, though I would expect someone on the far left not to recognize it. That girl got pregnant to demonstrate that abortion is wrong. She is standing up for life. We need to praise this example.

Brown: OK, but doesn't Sarah Palin, by running for vice president, make it harder on her daughter? Now this young lady has to deal with her pregnancy in the public spotlight. Shouldn't the focus on the family start with your own family?

Dobson: Before I answer that, let me say this: "Devil, get thee out of Campbell Brown." OK, now let's untwist this from the liberal agenda. By running for vice president, Sarah Palin is making all of America her family. She's teaching her family to respect life, to learn creationism in public school, to put God and guns in every home. It's what we've been praying for.

Brown: Thank you, Mr. Dobson for joining us ...

Dobson: Wait a second. You haven't let me explain how Sarah Palin is ready to lead the free world. She's going to be a light to all nations. Unless, of course, one of her kids adopt that gay lifestyle.

Brown: Back to you, Anderson.

By Randee Dawn

Mark Urman, you'll be missed at ThinkFilm. Mark's one of those great guys who always makes himself available and always has salient, interesting things to say -- and according to Steven Zeitchik and Gregg Goldstein's article today, he has now decamped from his longtime home at Think to "take the post of president at the revamped Senator Entertainment U.S." In some kind of amusing twist, Senator is producing a film (with Samuel L. Jackson) called "Unthinkable," which is what I'd have told you before today about Urman's departure. However, notes the article, this really says more about ThinkFilm than anything else: "Despite a track record of quality and creative marketing since its inception, ThinkFilm has faced financial troubles, and was sold two years ago to Capitol Films entrepreneur Bergstein."

Another person of interest, Gregg Kilday, uses his Take Two column today to note that whatever movie seems to come out these days, "someone, somewhere, is lying in wait, preparing to launch a protest." Between the self-appointed arbiters of reason who went on the attack for releasing "Disaster Movie" on the third anniversary of Hurricaine Katrina and those who took offense at "Tropic Thunder's" coining of the phrase "going full retard," it is true that the PC wagons circle just about every film made these days, and as Kilday notes, "the media is only too happy to rush in to cover the 'controversy.'" There's even a shortlist of films you may have forgotten drew protest -- including "Shark Tale." Apparently it was protested by Italian-Americans, who said it characterized Italians as gangsters. Do sharks have ethnicities?

By Barry Garron

If you really care about what gets said at the political conventions, what network should you watch? After four days of Democratic activity, I realize there is no easy answer.

The broadcast networks, with their "be-grateful-for-the-one-hour-we-give-you" attitude, missed the boat. This is a historic election for many reasons, and there is enormous public curiosity. One hour is not nearly enough to summarize the speeches, analyze the content and report on the impact inside and outside the convention hall.

Someday, historians will struggle mightily to understand how, for example, NBC can justify a couple hundred hours of network time for gymnastics and beach volleyball but only eight hours to set the stage for what is arguably the most significant event on the planet this year.

So what's left? There's Fox News, if you like your coverage tilted to the right, or MSNBC, if you favor a more leftward bent. Instead, I gravitated to CNN and PBS.

The best thing about CNN, at least in my home, is that I got it in high definition. Second best, it provided some reasonably good analysis, especially from David Gergen but also from Gloria Borger and John King. I tuned to CNN for most major speeches and a little reaction afterward.

Every time CNN was on, though, I wished I had the power to remove all of those distracting elements that some consultant with attention deficit disorder told them people wanted to see. I didn't need an omnipresent box telling me what day of the convention this was. I sure didn't need lights dancing up and down to tell me the noise level on the convention floor (thankfully, they got rid of them).

Like the other cable news operations, CNN talked over many of the speeches, including some significant ones. (I gave up on MSNBC when it covered over the John Kerry speech, considered by many to be the best one given at the convention after Barack Obama's acceptance speech.)

Most of all, I didn't need the historical trivia that told me over and over again that Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first nominee to deliver an acceptance speech in 1932 or that, in 1936, a black person was a delegate for the first time. With all due respect to history and the makers of "Trivial Pursuit," the sequential flashing of these facts was hugely annoying.

That left PBS. It had all the speeches of significance. It had a small number of analysts, all of them with more wrinkles than their counterparts but also more cogent observations. If only the picture I got from Dish had been sharper, or just less grainy, I don't think I would have picked up the remote for the entire night.

It took a while, but I now have a TV viewing game plan for when the GOP on Monday starts telling me how much better off I am than I was eight years ago.

By Randee Dawn

And then there are those days when a doctor's appointment just makes the whole day run a little later, so just try and excuse the lateness of your friendly neighborhood Front Page.

So let's get down to business.

First off, Kevin Cassidy is my new hero because he's got a Music Reporter column today which turns on the tin ears of (most) Republican and (some) Democratic candidates who try and co-opt songs for their campaigns. If you ever needed to know just how many "yes" men are surrounding a campaign, take a listen to the song used for the campaign's anthem -- because that number is directly disproportionate to the likelihood that the candidate a) listened to the song and b) has any idea what the lyrics mean. Notes Cassidy, "Republican strategists would be wise to concede a point that has become abundantly clear over the years: By and large -- with the notable exceptions of Ted Nugent and Alice Cooper -- rock stars don't like you. Why they don't like you should be plenty obvious: You're the Man. We know you don't like to think of yourselves that way, but when you own seven houses, golf, wear $500 loafers or travel by a private jet, that pretty much makes you the Man by default. You're better off just accepting this fact and abandoning attempts to show us how cool you are because you like Springsteen." Hear hear! (Or maybe, try to start listening, rather than just hearing.)

Second: this may be the first time in 20 years I tune in, but I'm going to check out "Saturday Night Live" on Sept. 13. Why? Michael Phelps is going to host, according to James Hibberd, who writes: "Though it might seem like an awkward pairing, several professional athletes have hosted the show in years past (Wayne Gretzky, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning)." And, of course, it's great synergy.

Here's my prediction: He'll swim laps around everyone. People who don't think he's funny are all wet! (All right, all right, enough. But please, oh, please: Bring back the Olympic sport of Men's Synchronized Swimming, even if for just one night!)

By Barry Garron

The 2008 Summer Olympics are over, the medal counts are finished and the factories around Beijing have reopened and begun once again to belch pollution into the air.

Throughout the games, I've been impressed at NBC's coverage of events and depressed at NBC's repeated failure to dig into controversies, both outside and inside the various venues. The disappointment was all the more keen because I've always considered NBC host Bob Costas to be the most trustworthy of all big-time network sports anchors.

I haven't changed my opinion about NBC's strengths and failures but, based on coverage the night before the closing ceremony, I need to give the network some credit for tackling, albeit belatedly, some thorny issues.

That night, Costas interviewed IOC Ppresident Jacques Rogge on a wide range of topics, including the serious questions about the age of Chinese gymnasts and the virtual stifling of any protests during the games.

Rogge defended the IOC against charges it was soft on Chinese repression. He said that many foreign leaders had tried to get China to liberalize its policies and failed. Why would anyone expect the IOC to succeed where they failed?

Costas pressed as far as he could but the fact remains that, had Rogge called a press conference during the games to denounce China's beating of reporters and protesters, it might have gone a long way.

By the same token, had NBC's announcers spoken up louder and longer, that, too, might have had an impact.

The interview with Rogge, broken up and shown in three parts, was an important step in answering NBC's critics and asserting its journalistic integrity. What a shame it didn't come at least a week earlier.

By Randee Dawn

Watch out what you say on the Internet. And especially watch out what you Twitter. (Can we now use "Twitter" as a verb?) Apparently AMC managed to outrage "fan-penned feeds" using character names and alleged "voices of 'Mad Men' characters." Fans of the show could sign up for updates from virtual Don Draper or Peggy Olson, for example, but when the Twits (Twitterers?) behind the voices appeared to be promoting products other than the show, AMC decided it was time to have a sit-down chat with its Virtual Twits. Twitter, however, yanked the accounts, and melee ensued, as it often does, on the Web, as James Hibberd reports.

Elsewhere, Wednesday's issue features an "Anatomy of a Hit" -- not on a TV show as is the usual fare, but on "The Dark Knight," a film I really, really should try to see before it leaves theaters. Alex Ben Block today examines just why this film has become such a juggernaut -- everyone thought it would do well, but not this well. "No one could have anticipated this kind of success," says Warner Bros.' Alan Horn. "It surprised us. And, once in a while, it is kind of fun to be surprised on the upside." An $871.5 million box office cume worldwide is a surprise I'd like to wake up to, also.

And finally, in the continuing saga of the Democratic National Convention, Elizabeth Guider reports from Denver, highlighting Day 2's Hollywood angles -- including a speech by Lifetime CEO Andrea Wong, who spoke to about 1,500 delgates at the Women's Caucus. "This is the culmination of an incredible journey: Less than a century ago, we didn't have the vote. Now we can vote for one another," she said. Meanwhile, actress Anne Hathaway made me wonder why all of us actually do get to vote -- she was at a jazz brunch "to honor old-guard civil rights activists," representing the Creative Coalition. Her statement? After hanging out with the old guard and politicos, she noted, "I'm getting smarter by the minute."

Time can't move fast enough.

By Randee Dawn

Out in Denver, Michelle was wowing them in the aisles, Ted was bringing down the thunder, and Jon was ... the voice of mediation?

Yes, according to Paul J. Gough's report from Denver, "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart held a press conference Monday and noted he didn't mind who won the presidency: "The jokes will be there, I'm confident," he said. "I think they would both be decent presidents." And then he added, either one would be better than the Bush-ocracy, saying either candidate would "govern from a place that is far less imperious." Amen to that, brother.

Meanwhile, James Hibberd has another television take, parsing NBC's "Olympics success story," according to the headline in his Inside the Box column. He notes six important things: The network ain't broken, you gotta spend money, online is important but telecast is still king, don't lie, ducking controversy works (or at least doesn't hurt), and go big in research. Of course, that thing about controversy as something to be avoided might not exactly leave a good taste in some mouths. Writes Hibberd, "NBC figured its job wasn't regime change but instead to broadcast the Olympics the best way it could amid sometimes trying circumstances and keeping quiet publicly -- sometimes painfully so -- while fighting for access behind the scenes." Yes, it may not have been their job. It may have -- shock, horror -- turned off some advertisers. But I bet there are plenty of viewers who were expecting a little more to emerge from beneath the Peacock's finely groomed feathers. They had the power to do a lot more than they did, and chose not to exercise even a little bit of it. Hope it was worth it, folks.

And finally, Craig Rosen reports in on what was surely one of the best shows of the year -- not the convention, not the Olympics -- but of Radiohead performing at the Hollywood Bowl. "Over 7,000 fans lucky enough to score a ticket ... witnessed not only a band at the top of its game but an act that at times seemed to be the best on the planet," he notes. I've seen this band, and they really are electrifying, even on songs you may not be so familiar with. (I'm glad they feel comfortable enough to excise "Creep" from the setlist, but that is an amazing song to hear live.) Can we maybe give them a gold medal?

By Randee Dawn

I wasn't one of them (I think my Olympics viewing tally was around 12 minutes, tops, most of which was seen on someone else's TV screen at the gym), but according to Nielsen Media Research (as reported by James Hibberd and Jonathan Landreth -- see here and here), 211 million viewers tuned into the Olympics over its 16 days of coverage (2 million more than the Atlanta Games, which was the previous record holder. They also note, "The numbers will likely result in greater competition among broadcast companies for rights to air the Games." No doubt. But do you want to be the one gambling on whether the Olympics you paid the Earth for will actually have a Michael Phelps to keep things interesting?

From one party to the next: Our beloved Paul J. Gough is off in Colorado, trying to pin down things at the Democratic National Convention. He writes today that there will be a certain amount of nonpolitical star wattage there, including Ben Affleck, Kanye West and Spike Lee -- and 15,000 journalists. Sheryl Crow opened things up last night, and John Legend is scheduled to debut a new song. "We're bringing our delegation from the 51st state of Hollywood," Creative Coalition exec director Robin Bronk tells Gough, while Rick Kaplan (EP of "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric") quips, "They've produced, in a sense, their own four-day 'American Idol.' " Which may or may not be the message Barack Obama wants to be sending. ...

By Randee Dawn

Yes, yes, I know it isn't all about me. (Hard as that is to comprehend.) But as I've mentioned to friends for years, whenever there's a new Bond film, it comes out right in time for my birthday. Well, when I obsessively checked out the trailer for the (dreadfully-titled) new Bond flick, "Quantum of Solace" a few weeks back, I was surprised to see it was coming out Nov. 7. As I well know, my birthday is November 15. So thanks, Sony! Carl DiOrio's article today informs me that they clearly have heard my psychic pleas and will now be opening the film on November 14. Apparently I can thank a certain fictional young magician: "'Harry Potter' moving out gave us an opportunity to get a little closer to the holidays, which has always been the traditional Bond spot," Sony worldwide marketing and distribution chairman Jeff Blake told DiOrio. "Bond has a really good history of not only playing through Thanksgiving but going deep into the Christmas holidays." Now, if Sony would just mail me Daniel Craig, I'd be all set.

In other areas that aren't about me, the "clubhouse for guys," Spike TV, is turning 5. Ah, how they grow up fast -- it seems the network was just a testosterone-laden baby a mere few months ago. "The challenge I came into was how to take an emergent brand and give it some real buzz," Spike's Niels Schuurmans tells Ray Richmond. "We had off-network runs of 'CSI,' we had WWE wrestling, and young guys already loved us. What we didn't have is a strong brand voice and personality. We made the decision to position Spike as a place that speaks to guys the way guys speak to guys, with honesty and no bullshit. And that ultimately led to going with action and identifying ourselves as being edgy and taking chances, but getting away from the whole 'Stripperella' vibe."

By Barry Garron

Too bad no one's counting because NBC probably set some kind of record at the Beijing Summer Olympics for the greatest number of human interest stories ever reported. Still, there was an incredible story that NBC has not mentioned to its millions of viewers...and probably won't.

It's a story about two older Chinese women, Wu Dianyuan, 79, and her neighbor Wang Xiuying, 77. If they qualified for equestrian competition or archery, NBC Sports would have been all over them but, alas for them, they came to the Olympics with even loftier goals.

The women applied to hold a protest at one of three parks in Beijing officially approved by the Chinese government for demonstrations. The sites are far from any Olympic action but that hasn't mattered. Out of a reported 77 applications to hold protests, the Chinese government has approved none. As in zero.

However, it would not be fair to say that Chinese officials took no action on the application. The government notified the women they would have to undergo re-education through labor. In other words, at any moment, perhaps even while you read this, the women may be whisked away to a forced labor camp.

As Wu's son asked, "Wang Xiuying is almost blind and disabled. What sort of re-education through labor can she serve?"

It's a great question but not one that NBC Sports or NBC News will pursue. Standard issue for NBC personnel in Beijing consists of network blazers and rose-colored glasses. Network reporters, announcers and analysts won't touch any controversy with a 10-foot javelin.

As we near the end of this two-week extravaganza, it is clear NBC left its journalistic integrity stateside. Even the most lightweight of controversies -- such as why Mark Spitz, previous Olympic gold medal record holder, was not invited to Beijing -- has been virtually ignored. It seems not a single NBC backbone made it through customs.

So while other reporters get roughed up and while demonstrations are suppressed by gangs of plainclothes police and while little old ladies are ordered into forced labor, NBC News is capable of reporting only bright little featurettes on athletes and their families and fluffy stories about acupuncture.

Too bad there isn't a gold medal for kowtowing to Chinese authority. NBC would lead from start to finish.