IMDb's Fall TV Preview

The day will soon come when Rebecca Ferguson, star of Starz’s lush and lusty period drama “The White Queen,” will require no introduction to American audiences. Already an up-and-comer in the UK where the limited TV series began running in June, next year will find Ferguson sharing the big screen with Dwayne Johnson, Ian McShane, John Hurt and Joseph Fiennes in Hercules: The Thracian Wars, playing the King’s daughter Ergenia. The Anglo-Swedish actress also co-stars with Kyle Chandler, Anna Friel and Bruno Ganz in Showtime’s pilot “The Vatican“, which has yet to be officially picked up to series — but if (when?) it is, she’s likely to become a household name… at least among premium cable-subscribers.

As as far as the media is concerned, the red carpet is already waiting to accommodate our curiosity. Elle UK gushed that she  “shimmers like a young Cate Blanchett.” Vanity Fair, The Daily Mail and other publications have already categorized her as one to watch- quite a bit of attention for a 29-year-old actress who, until recently, had only a few roles in short films and a soap under her belt, and lived a relatively quiet life in the Swedish coastal town of Simrishamn.

Currently American viewers are getting to know her as Elizabeth Woodville, a polarizing figure in England’s War of the Roses and the titular star of Philippa Gregory‘s novels, upon which the series is based. Elizabeth is a perfect romantic heroine, a Lancastrian commoner who seduced Edward IV (Max Irons) after a flirtatious roadside encounter in 1463. Edward wed her and bedded her in secret, ruining the plans of his advisor Lord Warwick (James Frain) to forge an alliance with France through political marriage and earning his ire as well as the enmity of many other powerful women in the King’s court. In this week’s episode, airing Saturday at 9pm on Starz, the young Queen and her mother (Janet McTeer) use drastic methods to fend off their enemies.

Jumping from portraying a historic royal (Elizabeth) to a figure based on Greek myth (Ergenia) gave Ferguson, never much of a history buff in her youth, an interesting education.”What you do is you just go deep diving into history,” she said. “It’s fun. It’s a privilege.”

We recently caught up with Ferguson on a phone call from Budapest, where “Hercules” is currently in production, and chatted with her about what it’s like to play a pair of royals and how she won the role of Elizabeth Woodville after spending so much time out of the spotlight.

Ferguson also revealed that she has very interesting hobby.

IMDb: How much preparation did you do for your role in “The White Queen”?

Ferguson: I wasn’t really given much time to prep. When I was asked to cast for “The White Queen”…I was thrown into a chemistry test (with Max Irons) and I think it went really well. …I did some English lessons to see if I could work on my English accent– I’ve got quite a lot of Swedish intonations in my English –just to see if I could carry it.

Then I sort of gave up because I didn’t hear anything from them. Then they called me and said they wanted me to be… at the last casting. I flew over on a Sunday. On a Monday, I had my last casting. Tuesday morning they said, “It’s yours.” During that day I got to color my hair blonde. I had to read the script with all the actors in the room. I got some weird dyslexia, which I have never had – I was so nervous! – costume fittings, and two days later I had moved to Bruges. Three days later, we started shooting. It was sort of thrown in gear.

But since everyone was well aware of that, I had Philippa Gregory, I had Emma Frost – the author and the screenplay writer – they were on set. I got a breakdown of my character, where she starts and when she ends. My family was Googling things and e-mailing me until I said “Stop, that’s enough, I can’t even read right now.” And then I gradually I grew into it whilst filming and reading the script.

IMDb: Recently at the Television Critics Association’s Summer Press Tour, Chris (Albrecht, CEO of Starz) said that you sent in your own tape to audition for that role –

Ferguson: (laughter) He did talk about that! That was really weird!

IMDb: –and you were very, very coy about what was on that tape. So what was actually on it?

Ferguson: …I can’t stand doing these things, because I feel so stupid and I feel naked, and I never really know what to say. And I never prepare, because I think that always looks very fake. I mean, if you burp or laugh, yeah, OK, that’s life. I didn’t, by the way. However, I did build up this bookshelf thing, I put my camera on it, I pressed play and I just talked about various things: Who I am, my dreams in life – not too private, of course – that I own a windmill, that I love projects. And I just gave them a profile, everything that I know that a casting director does, because I’ve done it so many times. I just gave them a little private message.

IMDb: Wait a minute. Did you just say that you own a windmill?

Ferguson: I do. (Chuckles.) I know. Not a lot of people in Sweden do, by the way.

IMDb: So, um…what exactly does that do for you?

Ferguson: Nothing. (Laughter.) I love architecture. I love houses. I love buildings, and I love the idea of people buying old run-down houses and restoring them. Going in there and finding the authentic details. I’m not very good at it, but I love it. My partner, he had just found a windmill. And we sort of said, yeah, let’s buy it. Let’s renovate it. It was a good price and it came with an apple orchard. When in doubt, buy a windmill. It’s sort of our little hobby that we have great plans with.

…I’m going to give you a little secret now: I love weird things, and when I get to a new place when I travel, the first thing I’ll do is find out about the oddest, strangest places. I love farmers markets, and they have gorgeous ones here in Budapest. … I found this sort of bistro thing, and it’s a circus wagon that they’ve placed on a beach. And they serve great coffee… they have a couple of chairs and they have circus lights. It was literally, for me, being home in my garden.

…I think the world is moving so quickly when it comes to technology and God knows what. I think that owning a bit of land, if you have the possibility of buying it, and being able to grow your own vegetables, it’s a good investment for the future and for your children.

IMDb: OK, back to “The White Queen”. What was the most unexpected thing that you learned about this character as you started to embody her more over the process of the production?

Ferguson: …First of all, I hadn’t done much. I’ve done a couple of things in Sweden. Lots of short films. And then I was thrown into this massive production, so if you just talk about a learning process, it was school for me, going to set and watching these incredible actors like Janet McTeer, who is just marvelous, I love her. That was the basics of everything. That was my school.

But then, also, when it comes to history, just that deep diving into the facts of what happened in England during medieval times from a female perspective is very, very interesting. We’re still fighting the same battles today… when it comes to religion, when it comes to love and safety and children. It’s just we deal with it in different ways.

…At TCA, (Philippa said) there’s not a lot of literature or books or facts on Elizabeth. You have to follow the men, to see where the women were, and count backwards when it came to the births. Where would she be? You’d have these small letters of sanctuary, you’d have these different leads. It was so impressive. And there’s so much more that we don’t know.

The latest episodes of “The White Queen” make their U.S. premieres each Saturday at 9pm on cable’s Starz.

Television offers a bounty of guilty pleasures. Much rarer are the selections in TV’s endless guilty pleasure buffet that are as smart as they are fun to watch, such as Cinemax’s “Strike Back,” which continues its new season Friday at 10pm. Its latest mission takes viewers on an explosive ride-along with the stealth counterterrorism operatives of Section 20 as they run and gun their way through missions in Colombia and Lebanon.

Each episode of “Strike Back” plays out like an adrenaline-fueled action movie, strung together over ten weeks and never easing up on the gas pedal.  Anchored by the adventures of the expertly trained and battle-hardened Sgt. Michael Stonebridge (Philip Winchester) and Sgt. Damien Scott (Sullivan Stapleton), “Strike Back” runs on a tried and true formula. This season also features an impressive list of guest stars including Robson Green, Dougray Scott (who clearly relishes playing the bad guy), Milauna Jackson and Zubin Varla. Returning this season are fellow Section 20 agents Julia Richmond (Michelle Lukes) and Rhona Mitra‘s Maj. Rachel Dalton, the icy, unrelenting boss of the unit.

Watch enough episodes, and you know that seeing Stonebridge or Scott getting pinned down or captured is a regular occurrence that requires the other team members to save the day. We’ve lost count of the number of  situations in which the duo is impossibly outgunned and forced into searing firefights, grueling hand-to-hand combat and awesome displays of their deadly edged weapon skills.  Also as reliable as clockwork is the knowledge that, prior to every hot mission, Scott will find a beautiful woman to bed. This is Cinemax, after all.

And that’s just fine, because every episode also promises several payloads of shocks and surprises. The job never pauses, and that’s the point. The fourth season premiere– technically the third for Cinemax, since the first season was a British Sky Broadcasting production –proves this almost immediately. (If you haven’t seen the season premiere yet, it is available to subscribers via the channel’s Max Go service.)

As many have observed, “Strike Back” is as much of a workplace drama as it is a ten-part action film, only this workplace has seen its employees pay with their lives. Exploring that idea creates a delicious tension that’s perfect catnip for the action fan who prefers the comfort of a couch to a trip to the movie theater on a Friday night. But it also makes “Strike Back” more than garish displays of  brawn and bombs with a side of babes.

Here are a few quick details about what’s to come this season, including insights straight from the lips of the show’s two main stars.

Expect the emotional toll to weigh on Section 20 in more challenging ways. For all of its over-the-top action sequences, “Strike Back” has never shied away from portraying counterterrorism work for what it is: often thankless, grueling, and never-ending. Stonebridge and Scott don’t even get a proper vacation. One minute, they’re speeding down an open stretch of highway in California, enjoying a sliver of freedom, but that’s quickly interrupted when duty calls, plucks them off their motorcycles and drops the duo into a muddy Colombian river. Shortly after that, they’re neck deep into a stealth mission that goes sideways, leaving viewers with a cliffhanger that resolves this week.

This season puts the psychological weight of the job front and center. As such, Stonebridge and Scott’s miniature getaway serves as a point of contrast, not just for the mission portrayed in that episode it but for every nasty twist to come. We suspect at the end of the season, memories of that open road will feel more distant that ever.

“The residue of what came out of last year had to come into this year, especially with Stonebridge,” Winchester explained. “…We had to figure out where this line was for these guys. For Scott and Stonebridge to carry on, they have to figure out not only how to be physically fit, and emotionally fit, they have to figure out how to cope with this stuff. That’s something that we always said is something that happened in the subtext, or that happened offscreen. And we (the actors) said, no, this is something that has to happen onscreen this year. Otherwise these people are robots.”

And at some point, the stress will begin to fracture their relationship, which should be interesting to witness. As different as they are, Stonebridge and Scott have forged a fraternal relationship by having each other’s backs in all of those firefights. This season’s events promises to test that bond: “There is a point where it gets to a crisis point with Scott and Stonebridge,” Winchester warned. “And it had to happen. …But that’s the reality of relationships, even marriages. You choose your fight zones.”

Expect Scott to explore more than just the emotions connected to his libido. Yes, Scott’s dalliances with the ladies are so frequent that they’re almost humorous.  Indeed, in an upcoming scene, Scott reacts to hard news by mumbling something about seeing his therapist, which smash cuts to him in bed with a prostitute. But a more interesting future development allows us to see Scott’s more paternal side, which is something Stapleton says he urged the writers to explore.

“You can blow up as much s–t as you want. You can kill as many people as you want, and Scott can go to bed with as many girls as he wants,” Stapleton said. “But I keep pushing for the reasons why. For Scott, I don’t believe it’s just notches on the bedpost. I keep pushing for what drives him, how this job affects him, the need for stability, a family. That’s the hard part, finding that balance between the action and the drama, the ramifications on how this job affects these guys.”

Expect the body count to rise. No surprise there — these boys aren’t making donuts for a living. But it doesn’t take long to realize that being a core member of Section 20 does not lead to job security on this show. Fans will recall that last season, the unit lost a key member, and Stonebridge suffered an enormous personal blow. This season opened with another major death that muddies the path ahead for everyone. No character is safe.

“Some of (the story) gets wrapped up, some of it doesn’t, ” Winchester teased. “But that’s ‘Strike Back’. And some people die along the way. That’s also ‘Strike Back’.”

Copy that, Bravo.

New episodes of “Strike Back” air at 10pm Fridays on Cinemax. For an exclusive look at a scene from this week’s episode, click here.

To many American moviegoers, Mark Strong‘s face is one closely associated with villainy. When Green Lantern needed a believable Sinestro, producers cast Strong. Kick-Ass required a formidable mob boss, and he got the call. Thus a person can’t be blamed if, while looking at the poster for new original drama “Low Winter Sun,” (premiering Sunday at 10pm on AMC), he has an easier time processing the second part of the show’s tagline– “Cop. Killer.” –than the first line calling his character a “Good Man”.

But all of those descriptors fit Detroit detective Frank Agnew, “Low Winter Sun’s” central protagonist, which is precisely why Strong agreed to reprise the role he originated in a 2006 UK miniseries for a full series on AMC.  While not quite the hero, Agnew isn’t an antihero either.  As such, “Low Winter Sun” gives Strong the chance to play a deeply layered role: a fundamentally good man who commits an act of vengeance, only become the detective at the center of a swirling plot which, among other things, requires him to investigate his own crime.

We sat down recently with Strong to talk about his latest role and how it fits into the context of his career.

IMDb: We’re so used to seeing you over the years playing the straight heavy. But here, you’re playing a good man who, when we meet him, has just committed a terrible act. Can you talk about the shift from doing rather straightforward villain roles to playing character that is operating in a very morally grey area?

Strong: That’s a really good thing to talk about, because I’ve been doing this for, what, 25 years maybe? I did a thing way back in England… called “The Long Firm“. I played a gangster named Harry Starks — a very heavy character, very dark, with heavy mental problems including depression. His favorite mode of torture was to heat up a red hot poker and shove it down somebody’s throat. He was a dark individual. (At first) they wouldn’t give me the job. They thought I was too nice. They thought I was unable to plumb the depths of darkness required by the character. This was the BBC. Luckily for me, the producer fought for me… Anyway, played the part, won the awards, it was all great. And that was what spawned the villains and the heavies.

…Now, I was conscious that I didn’t just want to play those parts, but the truth is, every single one of them was fantastic. I mean, how can you turn down Lord Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes, or Godfrey in Robin Hood, or Frank D’Amico in Kick-Ass, or Septimus in Stardust? These are great character parts, and they just kept coming.

So I just thought, ‘You know what? I’m going to play them. I’m not going to worry about typecasting, I’m not going to worry about the similarities– because actually they’re all completely different, when you look at them –and I’m just going to do my job, which is to play these fascinating characters.’ So that’s where I got this reputation for these heavy individuals.

IMDb: But would you say that you were typecast, in the end?

Strong: I think people felt that I was. I didn’t see it that way, because one is a Victorian magician-stroke-Satanist, one is a medieval knight, one is a New York mobster, and one of is a fantasy character from a fictional place called Stormhold. They’re all different in my mind. But I did definitely become, and certainly in America, I think people think of me as the Bad Guy from the Movies.

… So Frank is fascinating, because yeah, he’s a good man. But he’s a bad-ass. I mean, he’s a Detroit cop. You have to have your wits about you. You have to be intimidating, imposing. So I was able to use all of the stuff that I’ve been doing recently, but finally I’m playing a guy who in his heart and soul is a good guy, and who commits a crime for love, and is constantly trying to get back to where he was before, when he was loyal and true and trustworthy. That is his dynamic in this season, in this story. He’s a guy trying to reclaim the moral high ground and get back to where he used to be, but circumstances keep on dragging him down. So he’s a wonderful combination of good guy and bad guy.

IMDb: A couple of years ago, some showrunners stated that the age of the antihero was coming to an end, and this month, we see the beginning of end for Walter White. When you look at this character, is it your hope that Frank will be able to keep on striving to cling to his morality, or is that darkness something you wouldn’t mind exploring more?

Strong: …It’s fascinating you should mention Walter White, because obviously Walter comes from an environment that’s very comfortable, i.e. he’s a chemistry teacher, in a very lovely, peaceful kind of environment. Frank is a cop in Detroit. And the difference between the two is, Walter gets pulled to the dark side…but Frank is already a member of the dark side. He’s already seen some terrible things. He’s trying to prevent his slide into the dark…but circumstances keep dragging him there.

And that’s what I love about the show, is that your moral compass is really tested. You, as an audience, have to decide whether you like these people or not. …Because nobody’s black and white, and even if you do something bad, that doesn’t mean you don’t have good within you.

IMDb: It’s interesting that you brought up “The Long Firm” earlier, because there are so many movie actors who are shifting over to do more television, whereas that television role shaped the trajectory of your film career. Was there any hesitation on your part to coming back to television?

Strong: In England, it’s possible to move between the disciplines. Each is kind of a club of its own. I did theater for about 10 years. And when you do theater, you’re not really allowed to do television, because you’re a theater actor, and people don’t know you in the TV world. But then I had a break, which got me into TV.  Suddenly I was doing television, and then the theater people wouldn’t have me back, because they said, ‘Oh well, he’s a TV actor now, he’s not a true theater actor.’ But I couldn’t do film yet, because they were going, ‘Well, he’s a TV actor, he can’t do film.’ Then I had a break into film, and suddenly I was doing films, and then all of the theater people were interested again. ‘Oh, film actors can come and do theater’ for some weird reason. But the TV people were like, ‘What, he’s too snobby now to do TV? Well, we don’t want him! Let him go off and do his movies!’

There’s the whole strange thing about the different disciplines back home. But the truth is, you can move between them…  I wanted to try each discipline, and they just happened to fall when they did. For the last eight or nine years, I’ve been doing only movies. There isn’t any particular reason for that, it’s just that the movies have come calling. Those are the offers I’ve been getting. Having said that, there were a number of U.S. offers over the years, but I always turned them down because I didn’t want to go away from home. I still live in London, and most of the work would have been in America.

This one I couldn’t say no to, because it was a part I’d played before. I didn’t want to see anybody else play my part. I was intrigued by being a Detroit cop. What a great acting exercise that is for a guy from London! And my feeling is, I’d like to do this for as long as this can run, because I think we have an excellent writers room, I think they’re coming up with great storylines and I’m really enjoying doing it. …But that doesn’t mean I’m going to do more TV. On the contrary, this particular character on this particular show is what I’m loving… In my mind, I think that I’m going to try and do this and do the odd movie or two every year. If I could sustain that, I’d be very happy.

No series on the fall 2013-2014 schedule is surrounded by the astronomical level of secrecy and anticipation currently cloaking “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” Critics were not allowed to view it until Sunday. Even then, reportedly Marvel representatives hand-delivered a hard copy of the pilot to ABC via car.  Questioned about shooting locations, executive producers Jeffrey Bell and Marvel’s Jeph Loeb refused to give up any details besides revealing that at one point, the production filmed on a military base, and that they plan to take their cameras around the globe. (The pilot featured exterior shots filmed in Paris, for example.)  Even the most minor about details about future episodes of “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” are, ahem, shielded.

Marvel and ABC’s Level 7 lock on “S.H.I.E.L.D.” security prior to its on-air premiere ( 8pm Tuesday September 24 on ABC) in understandable when you consider the stakes. This is Marvel Studios’ first TV series, set to air on a network that needs more strong hour-long dramas to bring balance to its weekly primetime schedule. It also is connected to one of the most lucrative  and beloved superhero theatrical franchises of our time. To loosely paraphrase Peter Parker’s wise Uncle Ben (and the French philosopher Voltaire) with great power comes great responsibility… to deliver a sizable audience.

“What we’re trying to do with this show is bring back some of the urgency of television,” Loeb said of the extremely clandestine nature of the production’s day-to-day operation, explaining that by keeping secret as many details as possible, people will be more likely to watch “S.H.I.E.L.D.” live as opposed to letting episodes stack up on their DVRs and exploring streaming options. “Wouldn’t it be great if we could get back to a place where… everybody got together and decided to watch (the show) so that that social experience is actually one that’s immediate?”

For ABC’s sake? Yes it would.

There are a number of tactics producers could to employ in order to achieve that goal, including the promise of tie-ins to the “Avengers” movies and other fan bait. But in a panel for critics attending the Television Critics Association’s Summer Press Tour on Sunday, executive producer Joss Whedon delivered assurances that “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” would not simply be, as he put it, “an Easter egg farm.”

“We want people to come back because of (the cast) and not because of some connection to the movie universe,” Whedon explained. “This show has to work for people who aren’t going to see those movies and haven’t seen them before.”

Honestly, though, if you’ve seen The Avengers or any of the films leading up to it  — or any of Whedon’s television oeuvre — odds are you’re really excited to see this show. And you may be particularly excited about the return of Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) to lead the team assembled around him.

It’s not an exaggeration to credit the love fans have for Coulson for “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s” very existence. Gregg calls Coulson “a magnificent chain letter” that ran through the Avengers film series, first appearing in Iron Man to pester Tony Stark. Coulson gained more screen time with each subsequent Avengers-related flick until that climactic scene in the Avengers when…um…. well, let’s just say there’s a reason that when “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” was announced, the news was met with the rallying cry of “Coulson lives!”

“It’s really a great thrill to kind of have him expanded in this format, and to have him interact with this cast of young actors,” Gregg said.

Yet to be fully addressed is the question of how Coulson managed to come back for active duty… which will not be answered here, or anywhere else, for the time being. Even Gregg didn’t think the character had a shot at returning until months after The Avengers wrapped. “I got a call from Joss, and we talked about how much we wanted to have whatever reason Coulson had for still… walking around not be anything that undermines the reality of The Avengers,” Gregg said, adding that after said conversation, “I hung up the phone, very deeply on board.”

But with Joss Whedon in the midst of writing the script for The Avengers: Age of Ultron (currently scheduled for a summer 2015 release) as well as executive producing another project, In Your Eyes, how much will he be involved in “S.H.I.E.L.D.” as the season rolls out?

“As much as an executive producer can who is also making a movie,” he answered, going on to underscore his faith in the show’s other executive producers Maurissa Tancharoen and Jed Whedon by adding, “I got the best writers I know to do this and actors who can do pretty much anything so that I could do less. That’s always the way to run a show.”

Context is everything.

That’s a lesson network executives and producers find themselves learning time and again. Every season we get a few episodes of television born from scripts so swollen with lazy humor and poorly executed premises that critics are left slackjawed at by the idea that the concept even got in front of a rolling camera.

Rarer are the instances in which an episode challenges viewers by employing a plot twist that’s tough to stomach, even exploitative, on the face of it. But when one steps back and considers the entire storyline, said injection of horror can serve as a transformative, powerful engine moving the overall story toward its final destination.

Last week members of the Television Critics Association were presented with examples from diametric opposites of the context spectrum from two series that could not be different: Fox’s yet-to-premiere series “Dads,” and FX’s long established hit “Sons of Anarchy“. Fox has made the pilot for “Dads” available to critics since late May; FX previewed the “Sons” sixth season premiere to TCA members attending the Summer Press Tour.

Again, these two shows have virtually nothing in common — “Dads” is a half-hour network comedy, while “Sons of Anarchy” is a cable drama about an outlaw biker gang. But where the lazily executed comedy on display throughout the “Dads” pilot is what makes it unpalatable, the controversial moment in “Sons of Anarchy’s” season premiere (airing at 10pm on September 10), one that caused quite a bit of debate among a number of critics assembled  at Press Tour, arrives after a slow build, is tautly rendered and anything but thoughtless. It’s a twist that feels like a shiv to the gut.

“There’s a lot of blood and guts in my show, you know, and it is a signature of the show,” “Sons” executive producer and showrunner Kurt Sutter admitted to critics, “but it’s also I feel… that nothing is done gratuitously, that the events that happen in the premiere are really the catalyst for the third act of this morality play we’re doing.”

Granted, the immediate reaction of some will not be comprehension and acceptance. Without giving away anything explicit, let’s just say that Sutter revved up and rode the show into a place where the most of the entertainment industry fears to tread: straight into the messy heart of a debate that’s constantly raging in our culture. Calling Sutter a producer who is not afraid to play with fire is a mealy-mouthed assessment; no, Sutter is a man who juggles flame, swallows it, then blows it into our faces, hoping it will singe.

It will be interesting to witness long-time “Sons of Anarchy” fans take in this development. The sixth season is the show’s penultimate, which means the end is in sight and the pieces are being moved around the board in preparation for the endgame. And “Sons” is the kind of show that invites fans to place bets on which characters will get out alive, or out of jail, or whether anyone can get away at all. It has also earned its audience’s trust through the years, taking its characters through an assortment of nasty events and bringing them out the other end of the tunnel in ways that changes the individual’s portrait while also reshaping the plot’s ecosystem.

However, like other antihero tales that came before it, one criticism that has dogged “Sons” to some extent is that these fundamentally horrible people we’ve been rooting for manage to wriggle their way out of an assortment of capital offenses season after season. Sooner or later, we expect everyone has to pay for their crimes… and it’s tough to see a clean way to for the Teller-Morrow extended family to come back from what happens. Is it a bridge too far? Could be. But it’s one many should be willing to cross with Sutter — albeit cautiously.

“The conflict that has fueled the entire series and especially, you know, Charlie (Hunnam)’s character, the idea of ‘Can I really do what I do and follow this path and still show up and be a caring and loving husband, a good and loving father? Can I have all that and still be, you know, the leader of, ultimately, a criminal enterprise?’” Sutter said. “And I think we’re on that trajectory here going into season six, where we have to decide if the answer is yes or no.”

“Dads”, on the other hand, probably won’t be able to count on similar good will among critics. While the pilot will be addressed in greater depth closer to its premiere, its simplistic, offensive racial jokes and the misogynistic stereotypes did not earn it much love. A contentious Thursday afternoon panel fell flat on its face and ended early. Never a good sign, but not a sign that it’ll be cancelled either.

Understand, the “Dads” lineup alone makes us want to love it. It stars Giovanni Ribisi, Seth Green, Martin Mull, Vanessa Lachey and Brenda Song, all folks we generally like. It’s executive produced by Seth MacFarlane, who is well on his way to becoming to Fox what Chuck Lorre is to CBS.

MacFarlane’s animated series dominate Fox’s Sunday night lineup. He’s a multifaceted talent, evident in the fact that he also put his producing heft behind getting “Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey” up and running in the hopes of further cementing Neil deGrasse Tyson‘s position as this generation’s Carl Sagan. He even crooned showtunes in a primetime special. Above all he’s the guy who gave us “Family Guy‘s” self-absorbed, jovial idiot Peter Griffin  and Ted, the Dionysian teddy bear best friend of a live-action loser played by Mark Wahlberg. Both are wildly successful slices of entertainment.

It’s important to note those last two credits not only because Fox’s Entertainment Chairman Kevin Reilly invoked them as a shield against the criticism lobbed in force at “Dads”, but because they provide perfect examples of what’s wrong with the pilot. Reilly, for his part, is comfortable betting on the talent in front of and behind the camera, urging critics to be patient and believe in the long game. “Family Guy” and Ted sailed to success on a torrent of low-brow humor that the sensitive would probably find to be childish and offensive.

“Ted was not an accident. It was not a fluke. ‘Family Guy’ is not an accident or a fluke,” Reilly said. “These guys are going to try to test a lot of boundaries. They are going to try to be equal-opportunity offenders. Do I think all the jokes right now are in calibration in the pilot? I don’t. But I can tell you right now, I have never seen a comedy in which all the jokes are in calibration. That’s the nature of comedy.”

The problem with this argument is that its being made to defend of a live-action comedy. It’s a long-held truth that animated series can use their characters to get away with much racier content than live-action series can. “Family Guy”? Animated. In Ted, the rudest jokes came out of the mouth of what could have been a fabric softener mascot.  Indeed, a better idea of the perils “Dads” may face can be found in the bit Wahlberg and Ted did during The 85th Annual Academy Awards, most memorable for the bear’s oddly delivered racial humor. There’s a difference in snorting at those intentional displays of ignorance in a darkened movie theater, where they were part of a weirdly heartwarming story and earned by likable characters, and watching them fall dead in a hot, glaring spotlight before a live audience of millions.

Betting on a series to fail based on its offensiveness or laziness is just silly, of course. (Friendly reminder: “2 Broke Girls” is headed into its third season.) The bigger test will be whether “Dads” can earn a full season pick-up by actually being funny. In its current incarnation, even without the controversial humor, it would fail on that front. But there’s still quite a bit of time between now and its debut. Let’s see whether “Dads” can recalibrate enough to sync up with the wider television audience.

Most actors, producers and directors will probably tell you that they didn’t get into this business for the awards. But very few have refused them when offered.

Actually getting the offer is where things get tricky. Emmy plays favorites, often nominating the same contenders over and over again while passing over breakout performances noticed and praised by people who actually watch television. “Sons of Anarchy” executive producer and director Paris Barclay put it best when he recently observed, “The Emmys are very, you know, generally monogamous…They fall in love with people, and they stick with them until they die.”

But the Television Critics Association has no problem passing the love around. Shows on BBC America, FX, HBO, AMC, ABC Family, NBC, CBS and PBS were honored at The 29th Annual TCA Awards Ceremony, held August 3 at the Beverly Hilton, including several contenders that received no Emmy love whatsoever. Most notably, “Orphan Black” star Tatiana Maslany was honored with an award for Individual Achievement in Drama, while ABC Family’s “Bunheads” won the award for Outstanding Achievement in Youth Programming. The “Bunheads” win is particularly bittersweet considering that it was recently cancelled.

Sure, AMC’s “Breaking Bad“, this year’s Program of the Year winner, is in the running for an Outstanding Drama Emmy, as is HBO’s “Game of Thrones“, the winner for Outstanding Achievement in Drama. But FX’s “The Americans” deserved a place in that category with Walter White and Daenerys Targaryen. Where Emmy snubbed “The Americans, ” the TCA gave it an award for Outstanding New Program.

The best part about any TCA Awards ceremony is that everybody can relax. The winners know they’ve won because if they hadn’t, they would not have been invited. There is no red carpet, but you’d better believe there’s an open bar. The awards show goes quickly, everyone enjoys a lot of laughs — especially this time around, thanks to Saturday night’s hosts Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, stars of Comedy Central’s “Key & Peele”.  Afterward, everyone enjoys coffee, dessert and conversation. Always a low-key good time.

Mind you, most TV producers and stars don’t even list their TCA wins among their career accolades in their public bios, and that’s OK.  We’re content with knowing that the programs listed in the press release below join the ranks of such legendary Emmy-snubbed TCA winners as “Boomtown,” Hugh Laurie, and Yo Gabba Gabba!

Read the full list of winners, taken from the TCA’s official press release:

• Individual Achievement in Drama: Tatiana Maslany (“Orphan Black,” BBC America)
• Individual Achievement in Comedy: Louis C.K. (“Louie,” FX)
• Outstanding Achievement in News and Information: “The Central Park Five” (PBS)
• Outstanding Achievement in Reality Programming: “Shark Tank” (ABC)
• Outstanding Achievement in Youth Programming: “Bunheads” (ABC Family)
• Outstanding New Program: “The Americans” (FX)
• Outstanding Achievement in Movies, Miniseries and Specials: “Behind the Candelabra” (HBO)
• Outstanding Achievement in Drama: “Game of Thrones” (HBO)
• Outstanding Achievement in Comedy: (Tie) “The Big Bang Theory” (CBS) and “Parks and Recreation” (NBC).
• Career Achievement Award: Barbara Walters (ABC)
• Heritage Award: “All in the Family” (CBS)
• Program of the Year: “Breaking Bad” (AMC)

On Sharknado‘s gloriously over-the-top poster, the tagline reads “Enough said!” Not quite. As it turns out, the title was merely the conversation starter.

Since social media got wind of the project, the Sharknado phenomemon — and the audience hunger for it — has only grown. First, Sharknado became the biggest social telecast in Syfy’s history, generating nearly a half-million mentions associated with its July 11 premiere. Though its first telecast netted a modest 1.4 million viewers, its encore attracted 1.9 million. 2.1 million tuned in for its third run on Syfy, and tomorrow at midnight, movie theaters across the country are unleashing Sharknado in a special midnight showing. The frenzy doesn’t stop there. In addition to Syfy and the production company behind the project, The Asylum, announcing plans to manufacture Sharknado branded merchandise for fans, the channel has already chummed the water by announcing Sharknado 2, to be set in New York City and premiering in July 2014.

All of this attention comes as a bit of a surprise for Anthony C. Ferrante, the man who decided to run with the idea that sharks and tornadoes are two great tastes that go great together. Before directing Sharknado, Ferrante helmed Asylum’s Hansel & Gretel, wrote the scripts for such modern Syfy classics as Leprechaun’s Revenge and American Horror House, and toiled for years as a special make-up effects artist.

We recently sat down with Ferrante to talk about where the idea for Sharknado grew from, why audiences have fallen in love with it, and the similarities between Ian Ziering‘s surfer hero Fin Shepard and John McClane from Die Hard. That’s right. Keep reading.

IMDb: How did you transition from make-up effects into directing?

Ferrante: It’s special make-up effects. I broke into the business, supervising blood and gore and creature effects, stuff like that.

IMDb:  How and why did that happen?

Ferrante: By default. I was always making short films and writing scripts and stuff. I got hired as a PA on my first movie, and I showed the line producer one of my short films. It had a lot of makeup effects in it, and  they said, ‘Do you want to help supervise the make-up effects?’ So I said, ‘Sure,’ because I liked it. I was able to use that to negotiate on other films to do second unit directing for makeup effects stuff. That’s how I built up my reel. Everything I did, there was a purpose to lead into writing and directing.

IMDb: And leading to Sharknado.

Ferrante: Yes, leading to Sharknado.

IMDb: I must note that as you were saying that, you were scratching your head and looking slightly tired.

Ferrante: I am exhausted.

IMDb: Are you surprised at the Sharknado frenzy?

Ferrante: I love it, actually. The thing is, you do these movies for people to see. It’s the last movie that I would have ever expected to be this crazy, but I’m totally appreciative and love the fact that it took off like it did. It means more people are seeing the other stuff that I did, and it means I get to make more movies.

IMDb: Right. Like Sharknado 2.

Ferrante: Well, everybody’s still waiting to hear what’s going on with that. They just announced it so that they could to that (event) at Comic-Con. Now they’re kind of getting around to deciding what they want to do.

IMDb: Do you have ideas?

Ferrante: Oh, we have ideas…there’s a lot of leftover ideas that we never got a chance to do. They want to do it in New York. There are so many things we could do to make it a really cool movie.

IMDb: It needs to be coastal, right? Because you have to pick up the sharks from somewhere, unless there’s  a tornado that hits a really big aquarium with… a shark exhibit.

Ferrante: …The way we treated it is very, very simply:  It’s a phenomenon. It happens. It gets sucked up somewhere, and that’s it. I think the less explanation about what a sharknado is, the better. It’s just like an earthquake. Earthquakes happen. It’s not like someone’s drilling and starts an earthquake. It’s now a natural disaster. We’ve created a natural disaster. It can strike anywhere.

IMDb: I don’t know if you saw this, but someone wrote an article asking a scientist… if a Sharknado was possible. Were you surprised that the movie’s popularity picked up to the point that scientists were asked to prove or disprove the theory?

Ferrante: …There is some backstory to, I think, storms picking up sharks and throwing them into people’s backyards. I saw some videos online about that.

IMDb:  You “saw some videos online.” Come on, now.

Ferrante: No no no, there were actual fish and I think there was a shark deposited,  after some storm in the Midwest. There are things, like perch, and other fish that get picked up by storms. But, you just kind of have to accept it for what it is. If every movie I did, I worried about the scientific basis of the third ghost or banshees and stuff like that, you’d kick yourself in the head.  People are going to attack the movie because they’re going say, ‘It’s physically not possible.’ We know. Yes. If the sharks get out of water, and they flop on the ground, they’re going die.

But it’s Sharknado. It’s a safe disaster movie because it will never happen. And that’s why I think people like the movie. You don’t have to worry that you’re going to end up on the Santa Monica pier and sharks are going to rain down on you.  You can see it destroy things and have fun and never, ever fear that. So it feeds into the idea that, until it actually happens, there’s no tragedy of an actual Sharknado.  That’s the fantasy of it. I think that’s why people liked it. Just turn your brain off and have fun.

IMDb: When you pitched this, did you have Sharknado in mind as the title?

Ferrante: I made a reference to a sharknado in a script I did for Syfy last year, couple of years ago, called Leprechaun’s Revenge. It’s been floating around. It’s just an obvious evolution of the shark genre. Once you do Sharktopus, and once you do Two-Headed Shark Attack, you have to go farther out. …My biggest fear, when people were saying “Hey, there’s probably going to be a sequel,” was like, well, if we do it, we have to top ourselves. Now they want to do New York — there’s a whole bunch of stuff that could be done. …You want Ian Ziering to be John McClane from Die Hard, except he ends in situations where sharknados attack, just like John McClane ends up in situations where terrorists are attacking.

…I would love to see a building filled with water, sharks, and on fire, and Ian Ziering trying to get out of the building with all that going on. Not for the whole movie, just a set piece. I think that would be fun. … We were totally having fun with this. How could you not?

Want to make some middle-aged media consumers bristle? Mention the term “Millennial”.

While a significant portion of the population still does not know exactly what or who a Millennial (i.e. a member of the 18-t0-34-year-old age cohort) is, those who do may already be familiar with the narrative that age group has been saddled with. They are entitled, the story goes. Selfish. They are the most catered to, disaffected generation of our times. So when Evan Shapiro calls Millennials The New Greatest Generation, he knows that to some degree he is courting criticism. He’s fine with that, because he believes Millennials are a winning bet — so much so that he’s taken the helm of a cable channel created just for them called Pivot.

Launching today, August 1 – 32 years to the day, by the way, since MTV made its debut and transformed television — Pivot is billed as a channel dedicated to entertainment that “sparks conversation, inspires change and illuminates issues” with its televised content and through its website Pivot.tv. It is owned by Participant Media, the production company behind the Oscar-winning films Lincoln and The Help, as well as many other critically acclaimed projects.

Pivot is not entering into the cable game timidly. Its schedule already includes an original scripted comedy, “Please Like Me“, created by comedian Josh Thomas. The first six episodes of the series have already aired in Thomas’s native Australia; Pivot is repeating all of them in a three-hour primetime block starting tonight and has ordered a 10 episode second season already. The burgeoning cabler is also debuting “TakePartLive,” a late night issues-oriented talk show airing Mondays through Thursdays and co-hosted by Jacob Soboroff and Cara Santa Maria.

Starting September 14, viewers will also get to see Meghan McCain‘s docu-talk series “Raising McCain,” on which she tackles topics such as feminism, bullying and gay rights by fusing her perspective with that of various co-hosts who bring strong points of view to the discussion. “Raising McCain”, airing at 10pm, is followed by the docu-series “Jersey Strong” at 10:30pm, also making its debut on the same night as “Raising McCain’s” first outing.

Within the next 12 months, Pivot intends to present more than 300 hours of original programming, including “HitRECord on TV !” from  Joseph Gordon-Levitt. And to sweeten the deal, Pivot also is where viewers can watch reruns of  beloved series such as “Farscape,” “Little Mosque on the Prairie” and “Friday Night Lights“.

We sat down with Shapiro, President of Pivot, to talk about his channel’s mission and the unfortunately popular misconception about its target audience.

IMDb: With MTV, Nickelodeon, and ABC Family already catering to young people, and a lot of network TV timeslots catering to Millennials… one would think this would already be a saturated market.

Shapiro: “I couldn’t disagree with that more. There are channels dedicated to Millennials: ABC Family, MTV… Nickelodeon not so much, but others.  But it’s the largest generation in the history of mankind. And to think that a network, or five networks, could serve the entire need of that generation is folly. In fact, there are fewer networks dedicated to this demographic than, say, 25-54.”

“The other networks that are out there, they’re great. But they don’t do what we do, which is create entertainment that is for somebody who wants to think a little bit, and has concerns about the world, and wants to see stories that help them imagine a way to change the world.”

IMDb: There’s a perception of Millennials that, because of the way that technology and media has worked, they are very personally targeted as consumers.  You can drill down on just the things that you like, which ostensibly would lead to a person who might not necessarily be engaged with the larger world and learning about the things outside of their own experience.

Shapiro: “First of all, anybody who says that about this generation is projecting. That’s infinitely true about Gen Xers and most Boomers, that (idea of),’ I’m either in this camp, or I’m in that camp.’ Things are black and white. This generation does not believe in black and white. They believe in shades of grey. They’re more comfortable with complexity than anyone else. They’re more involved with finding new things and new ways of looking at the world than any generation that’s ever come before them.”

“That’s what explains Twitter. That’s what explains YouTube. Have you ever been to the front page of Reddit? Yes, you can look at different chapters, but it’s a torrent of wildly different ideas being thrown at you all at the same time. What’s interesting is that this generation is open to it. They let it all come in. But they are completely overwhelmed with the amount of information and misinformation that’s coming at them on a daily basis. The vast majority, 80 percent of them, believe that it’s impossible to know which sources of information to trust. A third of them say they’ve posted or tweeted something that they didn’t vet, that they didn’t read all the way through. And they desperately are looking for a resource, a destination, and a community, that can help them figure this (stuff) out. That’s what this channel is meant to be.”

IMDb: The idea of Millennials, and having a name like Millennials — just like Gen X and Gen Y, and anything else — any time there is a “branded” name that is assigned to a generational cohort, it’s always met with a certain amount of trepidation.

Shapiro: “And while I get that, I don’t know that I understand why. Everything has to be called something. The Greatest Generation was called The Greatest Generation. The Boomers were called Boomers. It’s useful….By the way, it’s the Gen Xers that complain the most about the Millennials.”

IMDb: Why do you think that is?

Shapiro: “Because we graduated from college into a recession the same way that the Millennials are doing. But we just put our heads down, and we went to work, and we got a job. True. All true. But people seem to forget there are half as many of us as there are in this generation. So, yeah. You got to work because you could find a job. And this generation got the shaft. They were promised the world on a silver platter, and that’s not what they got. They were handed a sh*tstorm by the generations that came before them, who totally (messed) the world up, and now they have to step up and fix it.”

“The cool thing is, that’s what they’re doing. They will do that. When you look around the world, at what’s going on around the world right now, who’s taking responsibility for making change? It is this generation. And this generation will continue to do that. But like the Greatest Generation, the New Greatest Generation, they need to be called into service. They need to be provided direction on where to go. We’re not going to be the only ones out there, but we’re going to provide voices like Megan, and Jayda (of “Jersey Strong”), and Josh, and Brooke, and Joe, and Cara, and Jacob, who can help lead the way.”

IMDb: Let’s talk about your calling Millennials ‘The New Greatest Generation’. When the term ‘The Greatest Generation‘ was created, it was in the wake of all of that generation’s accomplishments. It was after that generation had laid the groundwork, and the generations after them came in and built on that foundation. Isn’t it a little early to call this generation ‘The New Greatest Generation’? I understand the call to service aspect of it, but even using the term the ‘Greatest Generation’ will lead people to wonder: Yes, some of these kids fought in wars and are still fighting overseas. But we haven’t seen the groundwork yet –

Shapiro: “The longest war in American history they’re fighting, thanklessly, only to come home to sh**ty health insurance, or no health insurance, to be shafted when they’re looking for a job, and then to be called entitled on top of that? They are the New Greatest Generation just by having to go follow leadership that was questionable, and do the things that they did without bitching and moaning about it. That’s Thing Number One.”

“Thing Number Two is, yeah, it’s not like this generation is calling themselves the New Greatest Generation. I am calling them that. Why? Because I hope that they are. Because we need them.”

“…It’s a bit of a prediction. It’s also a wish. And it’s a call into service. “

On Tuesday during lunch, members of the Television Critics Association got buzzed.

There was no open bar, understand. Rather, a few enterprising fans of the recently-cancelled period drama “The Borgias” rented a small plane that trailed a banner pleading for us, and Showtime, to save their favorite series. The fan campaign was also represented a lone protester standing in front of the Beverly Hilton holding a sign that read “Give us Season 4!” and “Sardines 4 Showtime.” Seeing an opportunity for a display of good will, The CW — which, like Showtime, is owned by CBS Corporation — sent a few pages dressed in Renaissance costumes in support of their sorta historical series “Reign” to stand with the man — who, as it turns out, was paid to picket and reportedly hadn’t even seen the show.

Be that as it may, every television executive wants viewers to be that passionate about their programming. The problem is that more often than not, the passion for a series is not necessarily matched by the size of the audience or strong enough to justify the cost of said show.

Filmed entirely on location in Budapest, “The Borgias” was sexy, visually lush, featured solid performances and, like most period dramas, was probably quite expensive. It had to be. Cut the costs and… well, visually speaking, we’d probably get something like The CW’s new Renaissance romp “Reign,” premiering 9pm Thursday, October 17. “Reign” filmed its pilot in Ireland but will produce subsequent episodes in Toronto, and dresses its Mary Queen of Scots (played by Adelaide Kane) and her four ladies-in-waiting in gowns that look more fit for prom than for court. That may suit the shopping needs of The CW’s target audience — whether it’s a good fit for the network’s primetime line-up is yet to be seen — but Showtime’s viewers pay a subscription fee for its content and expect to get their money’s worth for that extra dough.

Thus Italy’s most infamous and corrupt Renaissance-era family has joined Showtime’s history books, and the premium cable channel is redirecting its resources to developing new comedies and dramas — including the following projects announced this week.

Showtime greenlighted a pilot starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Kathryn Hahn called “Trending Down,” a comedy and commentary on our youth-obsessed society.  Hoffman plays Thom Payne, described in the press release as “a man facing his own obsolescence after his advertising agency is taken over”. Hahn plays his wife Lee.

The cable channel has also picked up a six-part documentary series executive produced by Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz, the Magical Elves production team (i.e. the folks that gave us “Project Runway” when it was on Bravo, and “Top Chef“) that tackles end-of-life issues from the viewpoint of several terminally ill men and women titled “Time of Death”. It will premiere on Showtime this fall.

Adding to the previously announced pilot orders for “The Vatican,” which stars Kyle Chandler (“Friday Night Lights), and  “The Affair”, helmed by Dominic West and Ruth Wilson, the premium channel also announced that Eva Green and Josh Hartnett will co-star in the channel’s genre series “Penny Dreadful,” which goes into production this fall in time for a 2014 series premiere.

Also premiering in 2014: “Shameless“, “House of Lies,” and “Episodes” return to the schedule on January 12 at 9pm, 10pm and 10:30pm respectively. “Californication” and “Nurse Jackie” will make their season premieres in spring of next year.

Meanwhile, with The CW’s schedule already set — view the updated list of premiere dates by clicking here  — CW president Mark Pedowitz teased reporters by confirming that the network is developing spinoffs for “Arrow” and “Supernatural“.  Seeds for “The Arrow” spinoff will be planted during the upcoming season with the introduction of the recurring character Dr. Barry Allen, whose origin story we will follow until we know him as… The Flash.

“We do want to expand upon the DC universe,” Pedowitz told reporters. “We think they have rich characters that we can use, and we felt this was a very organic way to get there.”

Asked about the previously mentioned Wonder Woman project in development currently known as “Amazon,” Pedowitz characterized its status as being on pause right now, explaining that the script isn’t where the network needs it to be. “It’s an iconic DC character, and we are not going to put it on unless it works, ” Pedowitz explained, adding that with Black Canary joining Arrow along with The Flash, “it’s better to wait and get it right.”

Meanwhile, “Supernatural’s” spinoff will be set in Chicago, featuring monster and hunters that the show’s fans will meet during an episode airing within the upcoming ninth season.

As for the fate of the mothership, Pedowitz says he doesn’t see an end to the adventures of Sam and Dean Winchester for the time being.

“As long as the fan base is there and the ratings are there,” Pedowitz said, “there’s no reason why this couldn’t continue.”

The citizens of “Chester’s Mill” won’t be emerging from that mysterious dome any time soon.

CBS has renewed its summertime hit “Under the Dome” for a second season, set to air in summer 2014. In addition to the pickup, CBS Corporation President and CEO Les Moonves also confirmed that series executive producer Stephen King, who wrote the book upon which “Under the Dome” is based, will write the second season premiere episode.

Moonves made his remarks to the journalists assembled to cover the Television Critics Association’s Summer Press Tour, as he kicked off a day of panels touting CBS’s fall lineup.

“Under the Dome” also streams on Amazon’s Prime Instant Video service, which makes new episodes available to its Prime members for free every Friday, or four days following its over-the-air premiere on CBS.  Moonves says that while Amazon has not revealed its streaming numbers, “All I can tell you is that when I ran into (Amazon CEO) Jeff Bezos in Sun Valley, he literally sought me out to tell me how proud he was of “Under the Dome” and what a great show it was.” Moonves went on to add that he hopes to continue CBS’s partnership with Amazon.

More than 13.5 million people watched the premiere of “Under the Dome” over the air during its first telecast, Moonves said. He then pointed out that,  counting the Live+7 numbers gleaned from delayed viewing (but not counting the streams on Amazon, which has not released its numbers)  that viewership count swells to around 20 million. “Under the Dome” is averaging 13.84 million viewers per week, according to Nielsen ratings stats, and handily and consistently wins its 10pm timeslot. For example, the episode that premiered on July 22 raked in 11.6 million viewers. Coming in second place:  ABC’s “Mistresses“, with 3.95 million.

Speaking to increasingly common idea that the broadcast television model is doomed, Moonves told reporters “The model’s never been dead. It’s just changing. It’s just evolving.”  Broadcast TV will increasingly rely on online platforms including Amazon and Netflix, Moonves says, which help build followings for TV series. Moonves adds that he expects Netflix and Amazon subscribers to catch up on shows like “Hostages” on their services, which in turn could stave off viewer erosion as  its season goes on.

Moonves theories aren’t unfounded. Consider the success of “NCIS” well into its lifespan. CBS’s most successful procedural was never a low performer for the network, but following a period that saw its syndicated repeats in heavy rotation on cable, its viewership grew by leaps and bounds. With more viewers replacing their cable subscriptions with Prime subscriptions and Netflix memberships to supplement their broadcast TV options, it makes sense for CBS and other broadcasters to expand their presence on these platforms.

Speaking of “NCIS,” reporters asked Moonves to comment on the unexpected departure of Cote de Pablo, a development that has dismayed a number of fans. Moonves maintains that the actress’s departure was completely her decision alone, and that CBS did everything they could to keep her.

“We offered (her) a lot of money, then we offered her even more money, because we didn’t want to lose her,” Moonves told reporters. “We did everything humanly possible. We feel like we exhausted every opportunity, and she just decided she didn’t want to do the show.”

Lastly, there remains the question of whether the so-called “limited event series” model isn’t just a more industry palatable way of adopting the so-called “British model” of committing to shorter seasons and more limited plot arcs. To be fair, NBC is the main perpetrator of the “limited event series” branding; CBS is merely picking up shows like “Under the Dome” for 13-episodes in the summer, and the upcoming series “Hostages” for 15-episodes to air until midseason, rather than committing to a full boat of 22-episodes of either.

Moonves told reporters that he sees still prefers to have a schedule of strong series that run for the full television season — which he does, for the majority of his schedule — and that he doesn’t plan to fill CBS’s line-up with many shorter-run shows like “Hostages.” Then again, if it’s a success? “I don’t know,” he said jovially. “Ask me again in January.”