www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
The IMDbTV Blog
Header

Wil Wheaton Announces “The Wil Wheaton Project”

April 2nd, 2014 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in If You Only Watch One Thing... | Kick-Ass | Talking TV | Tune In Info | TV News - (1 Comments)

Claiming to be a geek or a nerd is fashionable these days… although as real-life nerds will tell you, life as a nerd is not as crazy-sexy-cool as pop culture leads the world to believe.

The vast gulf between perception and reality notwithstanding, if there’s social currency in being a geek, that’s partly because the cause has some pretty cool advocates. We’ve got people like Felicia Day, Patton Oswalt, “Talking Dead” host Chris Hardwick and Wil Wheaton in our corner. Shiny.

Hardwick, in particular, has built an empire out of geekery. He grew his Nerdist podcast in a powerful brand, and now he even has comedy panel/faux game show on Comedy Central, “@midnight”. But though we’re mentioning Hardwick for a reason, this post is not about him.

No, today we praise Wil Wheaton, the actor still known to many for his portrayal of Wesley Crusher on “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, and as Sheldon’s former nemesis on “The Big Bang Theory“. Geek & Sundry visitors also are quite familiar with Wheaton himself, and his winning personality as the host of “TableTop,” a celebration of board game fun with celebrity guests. He also won the Internet this week when this touching YouTube video posted in June 2013 made the rounds.

But it was a recent episode of “@midnight” where it became stunningly clear to me that Wheaton should have his own honest-to-goodness TV show. Flanked by a pair of professional comedians and challenged to craft funny one-liners on the fly, Wheaton didn’t just hold his own. Wesley crushed it, y’all. It was a beautiful sight, one that made me hope we’d see more of his quick wit and wry humor in action.

Wish granted! This morning, Wheaton announced on Twitter that he has a new series, currently known as “The Wil Wheaton Project”, premiering at 10pm Tuesday, May 27 on Syfy. The channel has ordered 12 episodes, scheduled to run through the summer.

“The ‘Wil Wheaton Project’ is a weekly roundup of the things I love on television and on the Internet, with commentary and jokes, and the occasional visit from interesting people who make those things happen,” Wheaton explained in a blog post he tweeted out to his followers.  “It’s sort of like Talk Soup for geeks, with a heavy focus on those hilariously bad paranormal reality shows.”

We can’t wait.

To read Wheaton’s full blog post, in which he explains the process of how his “Project” came to fruition, click here.

Fall TV: “Hello Ladies”, Goodbye Blind Faith

September 11th, 2013 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in HBO | Talking TV | TV Review - (Comments Off)

“Hello Ladies”: Warning! This series is undateable.

 

A chill crawled over her skin as the woman made her way home, the grey light of an early autumn sunrise illuminating the concrete sidewalk before her as well as the expanding hollowness in her chest.

Stepping past the threshold of her front door into her warm apartment, she inhaled deeply to fuel a mournful sigh, wrinkling her nose at the scent of stale beer, fermented sweat and unidentifiable sourness wafting up from a blouse in desperate need of laundering.  Gingerly placing her keys in the bowl by door, she crept inside so as not to awaken Ellen and Maggie… but of course, they were already up, seated on the couch and ready to greet her in their soft fluffy pajamas  accessorized with sympathetic but slightly amused expressions.

“So,” Maggie began carefully, “I’m curious if you’re still naming ‘Hello Ladies’ as best new comedy.”

The woman’s hangover sharpened to a knife’s point jabbing into the center of her forehead. “Huuhhh,” she replied. “Ohhh.”

“Have you seen it yet?” Maggie continued, but the question was posed in jest. Clearly the wreck of a human standing before her had seen it.

From another corner of the room, Ellen piped in. “I did think of you when I watched,” she said, shaking her head in empathy. “So dangerous to give our hearts to a guy who gives good press conference.”

The woman managed a wan wave as took the final ten steps of her Walk of Shame to her bedroom, where she would lock herself in and think long and hard about her most recent bad decision.

While I suppose this could be some weird lost passage from Bridget Jones’s diary, that’s a similar scene to what played out in my head (and in a Twitter conversation) after finally watching Stephen Merchant’s upcoming HBO comedy “Hello Ladies.”  A fairly disappointing new addition to the channel’s Sunday line-up– destined to look even paler in comparison to its spicy 10 o’clock-hour partner “Eastbound & Down” which, like, “Ladies” premieres Sunday Sept. 29 – Merchant’s comedy would not turn have merited much of my attention under normal circumstances.

The problem is, I had faith in it. Publicly-declared, blind (oh, so very blind!) faith. And faith, blind or otherwise, is a dangerous, foolish practice when it comes to evaluating the fall TV season.

You see, last month I was one of many critics asked by the Huffington Post (and my pal Maggie Furlong) to give my opinions about the fall TV season. What was the best drama? Worst new show? Star you’re most looking forward to seeing? Favorite new comedy?

What got me was the last one. You see, this season, like so many before it, is not exactly rich with recommendable half-hour chucklefests. In fact, I could only think of two comedies that could be considered shoo-ins for our Top 10 Picks list, and of those two, one was far and away the clear winner: “Brooklyn Nine-Nine”. The Andy Samberg-vehicle is terrific for many reasons, the most important being not that Samberg was starring in it, but that its executive producer is Michael Schur, one of the guys who gave us “Parks and Recreation”.

Star power is all fine and good, but the talent behind the camera, plugging away in the writers room, tends to be the difference between a show’s creative success and its failure.  A TV series’s odds of connecting with the audience are much harder to gauge and riddled with all kinds of X-factors, but at the very least looking at the creative sparkplugs under the hood will give you some idea of whether it is worth test driving beyond the pilot.

The thing is, if someone asks a bunch of people to give their individual opinions on a show, and everybody says the same thing, that’s not all that interesting is it? So, while everyone was mobbing Mr. Lonely Planet, a girl decided to consider other options and scanned the room. A girl saw a tall, impossibly gangly guy leaning against the wall. He’s funny. He’s self-deprecating. He’s Ricky Gervais’s writing partner, which is great, and unlike Gervais, a girl sees herself taking him home to meet Mother.

Hello, Stephen Merchant.

“Hello Ladies” was not available to screen for critics in July, but HBO did have a sizzle reel, and it was cut perfectly to make the show look hilarious and touching and sweet. Merchant took the stage and told funny tales from the dating front about his allegedly pathetic love life. Merchant’s body of work with Gervais includes “The Office,” “The Ricky Gervais Show” and “Extras” – all entertaining. A safe bet, right? I pronounced him “Hello Ladies” as my pick, because surely it would be better than everything that wasn’t “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” right? I wasn’t just ready for more episodes, I was ready for a commitment! In fact, I was so hooked on that Stephen Merchant feeling that I originally featured the show in our Top 10 Picks. The man really did have me at “Hello.”

Then I received the first two episodes for review, and I realized I had been wearing beer goggles.

Such clunky, juvenile sadness.  Not pathos, sadness manifested in the form of depressing, awkward set-ups anchored by a character you want to like but who is addicted to creating his own misery for no discernible reason. Frankly, I’ve been at this long enough to know better.

The fact of the matter is, most of the shows rolling out in the next couple of weeks will not be around at this time next year. Worse, a number of the ones that survive aren’t going to be nearly as well-made as some of them that get cancelled.  That Top 10 List we’re touting will be riddled with casualties, trust us. In case you doubt, consider that last year one of our top picks was “Last Resort” which starred Andre Braugher and was executive produced by the incredibly talented Shawn Ryan, who previously gave us “The Shield“. We maintain it was still one of last season’s best new series. It was gone by the end of January.

You will now notice, if you click on that link to the Top 10 list, that “Hello Ladies” is no longer there.  My shame, however, still lingers. Instead, we moved up “The Michael J. Fox Show,” which has its flaws but is quite watchable and proves that Betsy Brandt has more versatility than we might have thought, and allows Wendell Pierce to show off his funnier side. Is it comedy gold? No. But it’s starting from a solid foundation and has room to grow.

So does “Hello Ladies,” for that matter. Fall shows are like insecure middle-schoolers at their first dance in that sense: little foals lacking coordination, standing on wobbly legs and painfully unsure of which opening lines will work. Like so many series, Merchant’s may yet develop into something work sticking with. I truly hope it does.

But I will not be keeping my evenings open until that happens. Sorry, “Ladies”, but this woman’s on to the next.

“Hello Ladies” premieres at 10:30pm Sunday, September 29 on HBO.

 

 

, , , ,

Does “Revolution” Have Enough Spark to Succeed?

September 17th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Fall TV | Talking TV | Tune In Info | TV News - (1 Comments)

There’s no underestimating humankind’s reliance on electrical power.  Consider the means by which we get to work each day, the ease with which we’re able to procure food and medicine. Consider the platform upon which you’re reading these words right now. We take all of these things for granted, and without power, all of it would be vastly more difficult to access, and these words would be delivered to you on paper. Handmade paper.

This idea only begins to describe the premise of  “Revolution,” another series weaving adventure out of a post-cataclysmic scenario. Here, the story begins with a worldwide blackout that, as it turns out, becomes permanent. And when we say “blackout,” we  mean every single bit of electrical power is suddenly zapped away in a blink, and for years afterward, no source on the planet can produce even the smallest electrical spark.  As one might imagine (or, maybe, have already seen) this makes for some incredibly compelling imagery. Planes fall from the sky. Cars line up for miles, dead on the road. Mothers fearfully hug their children. All of that happens in the first five minutes of “Revolution’s” premiere (airing 10pm ET/PT Monday, Sept. 17, on NBC) and those first few scenes are indeed jaw-dropping.

Problem is, without counting commercial breaks, there are still 38 minutes or so to go after that. Plenty of time to rack up a large number of storytelling issues, character concerns, and more than a few flawed decisions that the pilot’s creators ask us to accept a little too early in the relationship.

“Revolution” is one of those dramas that viewers, and genre fans in particular, are right to meet with a hefty measure of skepticism. It sounds like a lot of fun, and in this Year of The Hunger Games, a show that reverts our technology-addicted culture to a nouveau primitive agrarian society, one that mixes elements of the American Revolution with the wild West, holds quite an allure.

At its soul, “Revolution” is an old-fashioned adventure serial propelled by a quest. Post-blackout, the story jumps ahead 15 years, where we meet Charlie (Tracy Spiridakos) and her younger brother Danny (Graham Rogers), children of Ben Matheson (Tim Guinee).  Moments before the blackout, Ben managed to download some crucial data onto a thumb drive before heading home to experience Technogeddon with his wife Rachel (Elizabeth Mitchell). Now Ben and his kids are digging out a living in a farm community in the Midwest along with an assortment of other people including, handily, a former tech-company executive named Aaron (Zak Orth). (It must be noted that while the rest of the community looks like they forage regularly at the remains of the Gap, Aaron has a disheveled appearance. We would give credit to the producers for making at least one character look like he went through a disaster if we didn’t know that Hollywood always makes tech company geeks look disheveled.)

When a branch of the  militia headed by the brutal Captain Tom Neville (Giancarlo Esposito) comes to town looking for Ben, the town pays a heavy toll. Danny is captured by the militia, spurring Charlie to embark on a dangerous quest to find him and her long-lost uncle Miles (Billy Burke). Miles has a family reputation of being something of a bad-ass, which culminates in the premiere’s most exciting scene.

NBC desperately wants viewers to know that “Revolution” is being brought to them by executive producers J.J. Abrams (“Fringe,” “Lost,” as if anyone needs to be reminded) and Jon Favreau, who directed Iron Man and is one of the EPs on The Avengers.

Mentioning The Avengers leads us to an important point worth calling out: Yes, Abrams and Favreau are EPs, and Favreau directed the pilot. But as “Revolution” goes forward, the person most responsible for shaping its storytelling is Eric Kripke, better known as the creator of “Supernatural“.

“Supernatural” had a promising pilot, fell into a storytelling  slump shortly after that, but found its footing with the development of intriguing mythology that paid off handsomely at the end of season one. Under Kripke’s guidance, “Supernatural” evolved into an incredibly addictive hour. The series had its best run, creatively speaking, during the five seasons that he served as its showrunner.   Abrams and Favreau may be recognizable brands to a wider swath of the culture, but it’s Kripke’s attachment to “Revolution” that should buy the show a portion of patience with viewers.

That’s still a lot to ask.  “Revolution’s” opener has its moments, truly. The visuals of modern cities fallen into ruin are as haunting as they are beautiful, and the scene in which Burke proves why Uncle Miles has such a dark reputation is fun to watch…if you can accept the elaborately-contrived action choreography.

But viewers may soon grow tired of overlooking Spiridakos’s lack of emotional range, not to mentioned the blunders Charlie and her merry gang commits that are obviously manufactured to inject energy into a sagging plot. And though Kripke and Favreau assured critics attending a press event for the series that the reason for the blackout passed muster with a physicist, it’s hard to say whether the weekly promise of watching Burke suddenly explode through the landscape with lethal grace will be enough to keep viewers coming back for a full season.

Lastly, it must be said that  “Revolution” gives us the same feeling that “Terra Nova“, “The Event“,”FlashForward“,”Invasion“, and “Surface” left us with after seeing the first hour. All of those shows displayed promise, but none of lived long enough to adequately pay off the small bands of devoted viewers that saw them through to their early ends. At this point we can’t say for certain whether “Revolution” will join those ranks, but unless it improves significantly — and quickly — it’s tough to think of a reason to keep the lights on here.

“Glee” Returns, and So Does the Joy

September 12th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Fall TV | Talking TV - (Comments Off)

New beginnings within veteran series are a precarious proposal — especially when the series in question seems to be loved and loathed with equal passion.

This is where Fox’s “Glee” finds itself as season four begins. Certainly the dramedy has stumbled through its creative peaks and valleys, and over its first three seasons, it endured its share of overexposure, multiple backlashes, saturated media coverage of every casting rumor, and a sophomore storytelling slump that sacrificed good writing for stunts and endless quips that hammered us over the head with “how Sue sees it.”  As the latest season kicks off in its new timeslot (9pm Thursdays on Fox), “Glee” will almost certainly continue to be a ratings success and sell lots of singles on iTunes, thanks to ardent fans who will watch it come rain or come slushie.

The good news for the rest of us is that the fourth season opener pays off all of that anticipation and hype quite beautifully. It might even be good enough to win back those who abandoned it.

Confession: That love/loathe dichotomy? This viewer has been in both camps. Lately, save for a couple of noticeably outstanding episodes during season three, I’ve mostly reacted to the show with indifference.

So it’s great to see “Glee” return — and in some sense, reset — with a renewed sense of the joy that made people fall for it in the first season.

In past seasons, “Glee” sagged under the difficulty with keeping the development of multiple characters fresh and interesting — and that was when everyone was still within Lima, Ohio’s city limits. Now, the social order in McKinley High includes a number of new faces, while some old friends whose fates we’re still not sure of by the end of the season premiere about remain missing in action. One character, Kurt Hummel (Chris Colfer)  is simply stuck, which is painful to witness.

Layered over this is the show within a show, with Rachel Berry (Lea Michele) starting a new life at a New York Academy of the Dramatic Arts. As the star of New Directions, Rachel was the focus of countless emotional odysseys that could be touching…but to be honest, she often made our teeth ache, too.

But Rachel the art school freshman is significantly humbled. Where Will Schuester (Matthew Morrison) nurtured his students, NYADA’s faculty breaks them down to see which survivors can be re-molded into stars. And the once-perky Ms. Berry is now at the mercy of an undermining, ego-deflating authority figure in Kate Hudson‘s dance teacher Cassandra July.

Meanwhile, as the premiere’s title suggests, New Directions is on the hunt for a new star, and a couple of new additions to the school, Jake (Jacob Artist) and Marley (Melissa Benoist), are eager to fill in that role.  Their fellow students — even supposedly accepting glee-clubbers — don’t make it easy for them.

This  swirl of self-doubt and anxiety manifests itself into – what else? — a song, backed by visuals edited to bridge the glee club space at McKinley and NYADA’s thunderdome of a performance hall. That scene alone creates such a soul-stirring moment that even those who may have at some point wished “Glee” were off the air will be very happy that it remains.

There are a lot of familiar elements in the fourth season premiere, and it’s obvious that a few of the new actors are there to complete some mysterious recipe of cultural archetypes (some would even say stereotypes), the precise formulation of which only series creators Ryan Murphy, Ian Brennan and Brad Falchuk and know. And true to form, “Glee’s” premiere is frosted with a bit of after-schools special schmaltz in the form of  a lesson that touts acceptance and demonstrates the price one pays for fitting in versus standing out. Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) gets her moment of ridiculousness, and yes, somebody gets a slushie in the face.

But “Glee’s” premiere also delivers swells of warmth, even tears, in the bargain…which is why we fell in love with this show in the first place. Whether the fourth season can keep us hooked on this feeling remains to be seen; for the moment, it’s just good to be back in school. And that’s something this viewer hasn’t said in a while.

, , , ,

The CW Renews “Vampire Diaries,” “Supernatural,” “90210″

May 3rd, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Fall TV | Renewals | Talking TV | The Pick-Up Game | Tune In Info | TV News - (Comments Off)

 

Sam and Dean Winchester have been to hell and back, rebelled against angels and demons, taken out countless beasties and deterred a few more with, um, cleaning products. But their fans can now rest a little easier, knowing that the world is not finished with them yet.

The CW announced that veteran series “Supernatural” will return for an eighth season, as will the network’s top-rated drama “The Vampire Diaries” and the primetime soap “90210“.

Note that the announcement specified that each of these series have been renewed for additional seasons – the fourth for “The Vampire Diaries” and a fifth for “90210″ – not final seasons.

Although the “Supernatural” news broke earlier on Thursday morning when producer Todd Aronauer posted a gleeful announcement on Twitter, the tweet was quickly deleted, leading to a bit of nervousness on the part of fans. Soon after, The CW sent official word via a press release.

While “Supernatural’s” renewal was not a given, its survival odds became a bit better following the early April announcement that the thriller’s former co-showrunner Sera Gamble was stepping down, but would be replaced by Jeremy Carver (co-executive producer of Syfy’s “Being Human“) for its (theoretical, at the time) eighth season.

The renewal of “The Vampire Diaries” comes as no surprise at all, whereas an early pick-up for “90210″ might strike some as a bit odd, until one considers that one more season will bring the series past 100 episodes, the magic number for syndication possibilities.

Meanwhile, the fates of other CW series, including “Nikita,” “Hart of Dixie,” “The Secret Circle,” “Ringer,” and “Gossip Girl,” remain uncertain.

The CW will present its official 2012-2013 line-up to advertisers at its upfronts presentation in New York on May 17.

 

, , , , , , , , ,

A Chat With “Mad Men’s” John Slattery

March 23rd, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Q&A | Talking TV | TV News - (Comments Off)

“Are you trying to trick me?”

An understandable assumption given that the man asking this question, John Slattery, is in the enviable position of knowing all sorts of delicious details about season five of AMC’s “Mad Men.” Sunday’s two-hour premiere (starting at 9pm ET/PT) will be the first new episode seen on TV since October 2010 — or to get even more specific, it will be first original “Mad Men” in 525 days.

The fans are thirsty for answers to all of the questions with which the season four finale left us, and other much more basic information. For example, what year will it be when the drama returns? We’re not saying because we’ve been asked not to.

As always, AMC and the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner, have issued a strict omerta to anyone involved with the production, as well as any members of the press fortunate enough to preview the premiere. Everybody’s lips are sealed, including those of the man who plays the suave and egotistical Roger Sterling.

“It’s the usual dilemma, which is talking about the show without saying anything about the actual show,” he explained during a recent phone chat.

What Slattery was happy to talk about, however, is one of the season’s major themes: change.  Granted, change might as well be a secondary character on “Mad Men”; through the years, some of the show’s most distinct and beloved personalities have proved to be far more adaptable than others. But this season, as women’s lib and the Civil Rights movement are spilling into the streets and taking over televisions, life at Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce is bound to transform along with the rest of the country.

And Roger, who’s almost always the wittiest guy in the ad agency’s board room, could at last find himself at a lack for words.

Even so, Slattery said, “(Matthew Weiner) gives you not what you’d expect, but he gives you a specific, peripheral angle or a different take on something momentous.

“…It isn’t a text book,” he continued, “it’s a conversation.”

Keep reading for the rest of our conversation with Slattery.

What were the highlights among the things you did during “Mad Men’s” very long hiatus?

Slattery: I did a couple of films, one called Return, which did pretty well at Cannes and is in release now, and I did another one called In Our Nature which just premiered at SXSW. And I was writing something that I’m hoping to direct someday when I can get the right people to do it. And, you know, stayed home. Didn’t do “Mad Men.”

Was it kind of a relief to leave Roger Sterling behind for a while?

Slattery: Well, yeah, for a while. We do 13 shows, and that takes about five months to shoot, obviously longer to produce from start to finish. The actual acting commitment is about five months. So it’s pretty ideal in that sense. But you know, if you get restless, you can go and do something: a play, a film, or just nothing.

But it’s probably great to have been back on the set, too. After that long amount of time, was it difficult to step back into Roger Sterling’s shoes?

Slattery: It takes a day or two to get comfortable again…yeah. You’re a little tight in the beginning. But at this point, I’m so used to that. It seems to happen every year. You get back into it, and you try to walk and talk at the same time… it’s a little disorienting at the beginning. And then it all falls into place.

One of the most endearing qualities about Roger is that he’s always there with a ready quip, he’s both purposefully and inadvertently hilarious. But one of the first jokes (of the season) really backfires in a meaningful way, so much that it looks like an indicator of major changes ahead.

That was one of the things that I found most interesting, and it made me a little bit fearful that your sense of humor might not strike us as so funny anymore.

Slattery: It’s a pretty astute observation. When (Matt) says it’s about change, that’s what change is. Some change willingly, and some go kicking and screaming. Or they don’t change at all, and the world changes around them. Without being specific to Roger, what’s interesting is to see the people who are willing to change, or welcoming the change that the world is going through. Can’t wait to reinvent themselves. Can’t wait to try to change their appearance. It’s not the people you expect that are going to change.

It really is an interesting time in the history of this country. The generation gap, the sexual revolution, all the cultural changes that happen to these people. It’s always unpredictable.

But you’re right, the things that worked before don’t necessarily work anymore. Things that were funny aren’t funny anymore. Things that are taken for granted shouldn’t be. And Roger’s had the rug pulled out from him already at the beginning of last season, losing the Lucky Strike account. There was an imbalance where we left off in Roger’s life. Whether he regains that balance remains to be seen.

So I take it you’re not going to say of which camp Roger is, the kicking and screaming camp or going gracefully?

Slattery: No, I’m not. (Laughs.)

It also looks like we’re going to see a major shift in the office that was hinted at last season between the younger employees and the old guard.

Slattery: Well, being that I lost the Lucky Strike account and I’m the senior partner in the place, someone has to bring in business. Pete Campbell isn’t shy about wanted to it for himself, or elbowing me out of the way to get what he wants – elbowing anybody out of the way to get what he wants. So yeah, people’s power positions change… and the young guys want what they feel like they have coming to them.

There was also an aspect of Roger than has always been a creature of emulation, but it also seems very blatant this time around. Is that part of the character going to be coming out more during season five?

Slattery: I think that’s part of it…that’s what culture change is, when you look at people who are your shining examples of position and power and wealth, and then all of a sudden you look up and those things don’t mean what they used to mean, and they’re not desirable any longer, and now they’re looked at as, ‘You’re overfed and greedy and selfish.’ What was the example prior isn’t necessarily the shining example any longer. And what do you do about it? Do you change yourself? Do you disregard what’s going on around you? Or do you look inward and realize that maybe there’s something to this?

Recently there’s been a lot of conversation about the controversy surrounding the show’s key art (the image of the falling man ) but one thing that people haven’t necessarily returned to discussing is that the show has gotten some heat for putting  the burgeoning Civil Rights movement on the sidelines — referring to it, and having some storylines involve the movement somewhat. But now it seems to be front and center.

Slattery: Yeah, but what’s front and center can’t stay front and center…It’s not a show about the Civil Rights movement. It’s not a show about the ‘60s. It’s not even a show about advertising. It’s a show about these characters that happen to live in this period in which the Civil Rights movement was, and is growing.

Yes, it was touched upon earlier, and is touched upon again, but a lot went on in a lot of different areas. And it really isn’t about those events, per se, it’s about how the people in the show lived that day, or get through that day.  The Kennedy assassination, someone gets married… It’s about the people the people who watched those events in that time period. It isn’t about the people who created those events, you know what I mean? It isn’t about the movie stars of that time, it’s about the people who, like us, watched the movies of that time.

It was still a Tuesday, and on Tuesdays, the trash went out. Just because a riot happened or someone was killed, do you not take the trash out? Do you not go to school? It’s interesting how much of one’s life gets put on hold during these things, and how much you have to live through.

So, are we going to see you direct any more episodes this season?

Slattery:  Yes, I did the fifth episode, which is an amazing script.

Can you give us any hints about anything that happens in that episode?

Slattery: No. No. I’m in it… which was easier. The acting and the directing at the same time got a little easier.  You know, it’s a great story. Vincent Kartheiser… has some amazing stuff in it. I’m such a fan of his, and I got to work with him.

His character has developed so beautifully through these seasons.

Slattery:  I agree, and I’m always amazed when the (awards season) accolades start, and I don’t want to bring attention to the fact any more than I do every year, that he seems to get overlooked. I don’t think people think he’s acting.

Why do you say that?

Slattery: Because this show gets nominations for all kinds of stuff, and he hasn’t gotten the attention I think he deserves. I think people just say, ‘Oh, he plays that weaselly guy,’ but I don’t think that’s the character at all. Pete’s the most forward thinking, and he’s certainly right more times than most of the other characters about what’s going on around him. He’s good at what he does. (Pete’s) a family man, he’s a really interesting character. And that character has a great season.

Last question: It hasn’t been written yet, but where would you like the story to end for Roger?

Slattery: Somewhere above ground, that’s where I’d like to be. I’d like to remain above ground.

So, no more heart attacks, you’re hoping.

Slattery: Yeah.  I’d like to not be in a box and six feet under. Beyond that, I don’t care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , , ,

Return of “The Walking Dead”: A Chat with Showrunner Glen Mazzara

February 12th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Q&A | Talking TV | Tune In Info - (Comments Off)

 

AMC’s “The Walking Dead” returns tonight at 9 pm with a lot more on the line than the simple question of whether Rick and his group will be able to stay on Hershel’s farm.

There’s the question of how much of a ratings hit the show might take, considering its long midwinter hiatus. AMC split the second season into two parts, and tonight’s episode, “Nebraska,” will be the first new hour that has aired since November 27. The show’s extended absence from the schedule may be less of a concern than the deep divide among fans about the first half of the second season’s storyline. Read a few critical analyses and fan posts about the survivors’ extended camp-out on a farm run by a veterinarian with a no-kill policy towards his zombified kin, and it becomes apparent that people are either loving season two or loathing it.

Maintaining a high level of fan loyalty through the six remaining episodes won’t just be a test for AMC. It’s also a trial for Glen Mazzara, the executive producer who assumed showrunner duties on the series after executive producer Frank Darabont was fired. From the moment he took the reins, Mazzara has been in a tough spot,  made tougher recently when details about Darabont’s scrapped  Black Hawk Down-inspired prequel episode (starring “Being Human‘s” Sam Witwer) was revealed in various media reports.

Mazzara, whose previous producer credits include FX’s widely-acclaimed drama “The Shield” as well as lower-rated titles such as “Hawthorne” and “Crash,” seems to be taking it all in stride. “I was just telling someone, this is the first time I’m working on a show that people are actually watching,” Mazzara joked. “So I feel very lucky.”

During the recent Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour, IMDb’s TV Editor had a conversation with Mazzara about where the second half of “The Walking Dead” is headed creatively, during which he revealed some details about upcoming episodes and discussed how a lesson that he learned in the writer’s room for “The Shield” will influence the show’s pacing from this point on.

My first question is a point of clarification: How much creative input did you have in the first seven episodes of the second season?

A tremendous amount of creative input. This is a Darabont question, I guess? I wrote an episode during the first season, and I was brought on before any of the other writers. I helped hire them. I was Frank’s number two. But  we broke these stories, we were locked in a room for weeks and developed these stories.

When things went down with Frank and I was asked to become the showrunner, we were shooting… I think it was our fourth episode. Our fifth episode came out. Our sixth episode I made changes to — just things where, you know, that script needed a pass. The (midseason) finale was written while Frank was there, but he had never given notes on that. That was a script that I polished and put into production. And then these episodes that are coming out are episodes that I broke with the writers. So I think that’s pretty clean.

But I will say, I went back and I had to re-cut these episodes. I cut these episodes, I’m responsible for all of the editing, post-work, music, I was responsible for all of the usual showrunner duties. So that was a tremendous amount of influence.

… Listen, I respect Frank and I’m happy that he wanted me as his number two. …I wouldn’t say we were partners, but it was a collaborative effort. Frank collaborated with us. But there came a point where the material was drying up in the pipeline, so I had to get in and do some polishing. That’s just normal business. But I will say that the overall arc of, a girl goes missing and then she’s in the barn, that was developed under Frank. The overall arc of the back half of the season, that’s all mine.

I will say that, (regarding) the script for the midseason finale, I think I was lucky that we had a great writer and a great director on that episode. That was sort of me coming out of the gate. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

What I didn’t want to do was my version of a Frank Darabont show. I wanted to follow, and I wanted to honor the world that he’s created because that’s a world that I love. But I didn’t feel an obligation to try to become Frank Darabont. That isn’t fair to Frank and it isn’t fair to me.

…The voice of the show became different with the midseason premiere. Did you see it yet? That’s my voice.

There are a number of articles and blog posts that have voiced strong opinions about this season. There are people who are kind to it, and there are a number of people who haven’t been so kind.

Well, what are your thoughts?

I enjoy the show. There was never a week that I wasn’t looking forward to a new episode. But I do think there were a number of issues that just seemed to be endlessly cycling and never quite resolved, so that the characters couldn’t move on. I don’t think the issue was being at the farm – that, for me, was not a problem. I know for some people it felt like a bottle episode and their thoughts were along the lines of, “Obviously, it was because the budget was cut.”

That is not accurate.

Yes… for me, there were some characters that were developed quite a bit. I enjoyed Daryl’s character development. But the love triangle between Lori, Rick and Shane… there became a point at which the characters seemed very static, there was very little development or evidence that they were moving forward.

Fine. Okay.  So how did you feel after watching the midseason premiere?

The thought that went through my head was, “OK, Rick has put his hat back on. Things are going to change now. Let’s go.”

That’s right. I think Rick got a little lost in the first few episodes. Since I have become showrunner, I have pushed Rick front and center. You can see that in the midseason finale. Rick is the guy who steps forward and puts the bullet into Sophia. Rick’s humanity is his flaw. And Rick is now very much the central character, as he should be, of “The Walking Dead.” And he’s a more compelling character, I think.

There’s a very, very interesting scene, written by Evan Reilly, coming up.

The scene in the bar? There’s a lot of tension there.

Yes. I’m very proud of that scene. Evan Reilly wrote that scene, and Clark Johnson directed it. I think that we are doing a much better job in the second half of the season of progressing the story. There’s a very, very interesting scene in the next episode, at the end of the next episode, between Rick and Lori. All of a sudden you are seeing new sides of characters that you weren’t seeing before, and that’s something that’s coming out in the back half of this season.

I do agree that we can push deeper into our characters, and that’s what we do. But we also amp up the tension. We amp up the action. We amp up the zombies. Everything is on full boil.  Again, it’s the back half of the season. So over the course of 13 episodes, you’re going to mark things out.  I’m lucky in that I’ve got all the characters established, so we can push things a little bit. I have a good example. You want an example?

Please.

There’s a scene in an episode that you already saw, where Lori confesses the affair (with Shane) to Rick. That is something Frank did not want to do. He did not want that to come out. I felt that that was important to progress the personal stories as well as the plot of finding Sophia.

One of my early jobs was “The Shield.” I did “The Shield” for a long time. We had a rule on “The Shield”: “Move it up. Move it up, burn the bridge right now, we’ll figure out how to get across the river later.” That is very much the motto I am using for “The Walking Dead” from now on. So if people felt like we were stalling, I’ll give it to you. But no more stalls.

In the midseason premiere, I think it’s denser storytelling. And yet, there’s not a lot of zombie stuff. It’s all character stuff.

But people do want the zombies, you know.
I love the zombie stuff! You know what? If you think about it, it’s only been a few hours after the barn…

And there are other survivors to contend with, too.

Yes. Couple of things. One is, the farm is no longer safe. The outside world will come crashing in. Two, the midseason premiere is taking place in a few hours after a HUGE zombie massacre. If we have another HUGE zombie massacre right then and there, it’s not going to feel real. It’s not going to feel plausible. It’s going to feel like a video game.

What’s interesting about this show is, if we do zombie attacks, some people say, “Ugh, it’s just the zombie attack of the week.” When we don’t do zombies, people say, “Where are the zombies?!” You can’t win!

(laughs)

But we’re trying. I’m very proud of the (midseason premiere). That episode is indicative of the type of storytelling  I want to do in the back half of the season, and I really think our best material is in these next six episodes.

Looking forward to it. Please develop T-Dog more.

You know what? I’ll tell you the truth: T-Dog is a character that has suffered because there are so many other characters. He has some great stuff coming up, some really great scenes. I think IronE Singleton did a terrific job, and it’s a matter of making room for him. That’s a character, if you really look at him, that character’s on borrowed time because he’s not tied into any major story. And yet, he keeps earning his place. T-Dog just gets through it, he’s becoming very interesting.

Sometimes those minor characters are on a slow burn. The Ronnie character was like that in “The Shield.” …We’re learning how to write for that character.

A Chat with “Justified’s” Neal McDonough

January 17th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Q&A | Talking TV | Tune In Info | TV News - (Comments Off)

As FX’s critically-acclaimed drama “Justified” returns for a third season, it will be very difficult for some fans to imagine the world of Harlan County, Kentucky, without its beloved and feared crime matriarch Mags Bennett. Margo Martindale‘s Emmy-winning role was so emotionally affecting that to call Mags a tough act to follow is beyond an understatement.

To meet that challenge this season, “Justified’s” executive producer Graham Yost is serving up not one, but two new crime bosses. Neal McDonough plays one of those heavies, a smooth-talking Detroit criminal named Robert Quarles. Quarles wears expensive suits and has a glaring white smile, and between that and his go-getter attitude, he is utterly frightening.

But he’s also a very different kind of villain than the ones we’re used to seeing Raylan Givens (Timothy Olyphant) face on his home turf.  Raylan knew Mags, just as he knows the reputation of the third season’s other great antagonist Ellstin Limehouse (Mykelti Williamson, who previously co-starred with McDonough in Yost’s “Boomtown“).

Limehouse, who lords over an African-American community known as Nobles Holler, has a long history in Harlan and is a hospitable man, offering barbecue to his visitors before he doles out threats. Quarles, on the other hand, is unerringly polite but uninterested in pleasantries.

We sat down with McDonough at the recent Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour to get more details about his work on this season of “Justified,”* which kicks off tonight at 10pm ET/PT on FX, and to find out about his upcoming appearances as  Timothy “Dum Dum” Dugan, one of the Marvel Universe’s better-known good guys.

(WARNING: This interview contains a minor spoiler about a subplot in an upcoming episode of “Justified.”)

IMDbTV: Your character is amazingly creepy.

McDonough: Yes,  and I didn’t realize how creepy he was until I saw the first episode the other night.  But it’s not so much that he’s creepy as much as he’s… I keep on saying this with the “Ds”: He’s despicable, he’s delectable, he’s delightful, he’s dastardly, he’s everything you would want as a character to play as a villain.

But I’m playing him as a hero. And in his mind, all of these other people are villains in the show, and I have to get rid of these bad guys.

Interesting.

The first time I introduce myself to these other actors in the show, I’ll just start giggling at them for no apparent reason. I can see, in their minds, that it puts them off, and it kind of stays with the character throughout the piece. It’s a lot of fun playing this guy.

The other thing that’s interesting about “Justified” is that, even though the story has protagonists and antagonists going at each other, in the preface to any conflict, there’s almost a Southern politeness about it. Your character is also very polite, but in a specific Northern way. Can you talk about the “carpetbagger” aspect of Quarles?

It’s great because I think that I’m the king. I graduated summa cum laude from Michigan, enjoy all of the great things – fine wines, foods – I’ve been bred really well. But I just have this horrible anger inside me, this temper and this rage that builds inside me and once in a while, it comes out. And when it does come out, it’s just deplorable.

It’s tough playing a guy like this, because I always want to infuse so much emotion into it. Before I do this horrible thing, my eyes just start to well up. There’s this really tight close-up of my face where I look really remorseful about what I’m about to do.

On that note, can you give any hints as to what’s to come for your character? (WARNING: Minor spoiler ahead!)

The things I do to this one boy in the series… I read the script and it says, “Quarles opens the door and sees pretty boy handcuffed to the head post.”  So I called (executive producer Graham Yost) immediately  and I asked, “So how pretty does this boy have to be?”  And he starts laughing. Then I asked, “Are you going to answer why this boy is here?” And he goes, “I’m not sure yet. I might not.” I said, “OK, great.”

Well, he actually did answer it and… it’s just awful.

(END SPOILER ALERT.)

Wow. You look like you feel awful about it right now.

I do! You know, when I do this I can always just say, “Well, it’s just fun, it’s entertainment.” But when I want to do it right, I really have to do it right. If you don’t have that remorse in a villain, it doesn’t work. You can’t play it like an android and not have any emotions. I think that’s what makes this role so chilling to play.

Is that something that Graham and (executive producer and author Elmore Leonard) inspired in you to do?

Graham doesn’t say boo. He’s come by the set once, maybe twice this year. He lets me just play… “In Graham I trust” has basically been my slogan for years. The stuff he wrote for me in “Boomtown” was just phenomenal, and the stuff he’s writing here is fantastic. I would love to see Graham write me another David McNorris, because I miss playing that guy…When you get to see the insides of a man’s soul, then you’ve got great television.

It seems that the villains from the first couple of seasons on this series, um, don’t come back.

Oh, I’m going end up in a slaughterhouse, or whatever, at the end of the season. I just heard, what is it called, “American Horror Story”? What a genius approach to have the whole cast gone after the first year and recast it for the second year. That’s genius, because you get to watch a whole new story. Like Graham has alluded to, if you have the same villain and he keeps staying around, he loses his shine. Even if they wanted to keep me around for another year or so, it wouldn’t make sense for the show. I don’t think they will. I think Graham is figuring out a beautiful way for my demise as we speak.

I understand that you’re going to reprise your Captain America role.

Yeah, they’re planning (to go into production for) Captain America 2 for the end of this year, because Marvel does one film at a time. So they’re going to do Thor 2 and as soon as Thor has wrapped, they’ll do Cap 2. Hopefully right after that, we’ll jump into Nick Fury because that’s the one I’m looking forward to more than anything.

Why is that?

Because it’ll be me and Sam Jackson. In the real Marvel universe, Dum Dum Dugan is Nick Fury’s right hand man.

…And  I just pray that they have a 1970s setting, because I want to see Sam Jackson with lambchops kicking people’s asses for Marvel universe. It would just be awesome. And to work with Sam would be a treat. We’ve become friendly over the years.

It sounds like you were a fan of the comic beforehand.

Absolutely.  I’m very well aware of the Marvel universe, and to be part of it is such a blessing. To go back to London and shoot there for four months, that was just a great year.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

TCA: “Cougar Town” Takes the Fun to the Fans

January 10th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Live Coverage | Talking TV | TCA Winter Press Tour 2012 | The Pick-Up Game | TV News - (Comments Off)

On Tuesday, ABC is hosting a comedy showrunner’s panel for reporters attending the Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour. Conspicuously missing from the list of names on that panel is Bill Lawrence, creator and executive producer of “Cougar Town.” Makes sense, considering that his show also is missing from the midseason line-up.  Paul Lee, president of ABC Entertainment Group, still has not assigned a premiere date to the third season premiere beyond saying it would likely return in March. (He told reporters that he expects to announce a specific date within the next few weeks.)

Meanwhile, Lee did announce dates for the midseason comedy “Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23” (9:30 Wednesday, April 11) and the new Shonda Rhimes drama “Scandal” (10 pm Thursdays, starting April 5) and explained that “Private Practice” is moving to Tuesdays at 10 from April 24 through May 15.

Needless to say, the continued delay of “Cougar Town’s” season premiere is making fans very nervous.

Having navigated the TV industry, and ABC in particular, for most of two decades, Lawrence decided to take matters into his own hands. On Monday night he hosted a cocktail party for TCA members to answer all of their questions about “Cougar Town’s” fate and get news (and spoilers) straight, no chaser, from the man himself.

Lawrence made it clear that his party-crashing party was not meant in any way to snub his employer ABC, saying that if he wanted to be on the showrunners panel he only had to call Lee and ask.

“But, why would I want to do that, and be up there acting like, ‘Hey, I’m so psyched to be here, with a giant question a mark!’? It also puts me in the position of being disrespectful to the ABC execs,” Lawrence said. “So I’m doing this event, and I’m footing the bill.”

We can only imagine what the final total was. A large crowd of critics showed up to drink and chat with Lawrence and the “Cougar Town” cast, including Courteney Cox, Busy Philipps, Ian Gomez, Dan Byrd,  and Christa Miller, all of whom were excited to talk about season three’s developments.  The “Cougar Town” folks believe in their show so much that they’re flying to cities all over the country to host watching parties with fans and stoke excitement for the new season. (Upcoming dates include Seattle, San Francisco and Las Vegas; follow @vdoozer on Twitter for details.)

Asked how he felt about the continued lack of a specific premiere date, Lawrence says he’s not worried. Besides, he understands ABC’s reasoning for keeping mum.

“I expect they had a date for the premiere,” Lawrence says, “but they’re not going to announce it because they expect the show will come on sooner.”

That is a veiled reference to “Cougar” possibly being called upon to replace the low-rated and critically reviled midseason comedy “Work It,” which debuted to soft ratings and is expected to shed even more viewers with the airing of its second episode. Lawrence didn’t refer to “Work It” by name — that’s not his style — but he knows where the next gap is likely to show up.

Besides, the real battle isn’t getting the show back on. That’s going to happen, and Lee confirmed it. At this point, the question is whether “Cougar Town” will be picked up for a fourth season.  Hence, the Cul-de-Sac crew’s viewing party tour.

Lawrence feels the difference between the show being picked up for another season and, well, a fate we’d rather not mention, is not insurmountable. “When I did ‘Spin City,’ the difference between being on and not, in the demo, was 4 or 5 million people. Now the difference is about 600,000,” he explained. “For us, it’s about turning the old core audience back on to the show by giving them good content.”

The cast and crew considers these events to be part of an unspoken contract with fans. In exchange for buying them free drinks, handing out “Cougar Town” swag and showing them a few episodes from the new season, they’re asking fans to 1.) watch it on the air when it returns; 2.) remind other fans that its coming back and urge them to watch it; and 3.) persuade five to ten new people to give it a shot as well.

He would not be paying for these grassroots promotions if he didn’t think it could work. And he truly believes it makes good business sense for ABC to pick up another season of “Cougar Town,” even though the network reduced this season’s order from the full 22 episode commitment to 15. In a word, syndication.  Lawrence frequently pointed to the fact that ABC owns the show, and stands to make more money if they make enough episodes to syndicate it.

“The bar is not very high on what number we have to do to be back,” Lawrence said. “I’d be truly bummed out and shocked if we didn’t make it.”

Lawrence also revealed details about what’s in store for the Cul-de-Sac crew in the upcoming season, so if you don’t want to know any specifics, stop reading now.

Last chance: SPOILERS AHEAD.

“Once we knew we were going to be a midseason show, which was early on, we shifted gears really quickly and made the first episode essentially like a third year pilot so that new people weren’t excluded,” Lawrence explained.  “It’s a big spoiler to tell you what happens in it, but it certainly eliminates all elements of any cougars. This is one show called ‘Cougar Town’ without any cougars in it.”

He followed this up by revealing specifics as to what happens:

– Jules (Cox) and Grayson (Josh Hopkins) are headed for the altar.

– Travis (Byrd) is going to spend a significant amount of time with a helmet on his head. Lawrence says that’s payback for Byrd refusing to cut his hair last season.

–Laurie (Philipps) is attempting to behave more like an adult, and is opening a bakery that specializes in whimsical cakes. It will be called Krazy Kakes by Keller. Note the unfortunate acronym.

–Andy (Gomez) is running for political office.

–Lastly, the romantic tension between Laurie and Travis will be resolved this season.

Bottom line?  Watch “Cougar Town” already, and keep a very funny comedy alive.

, , , , , , ,

TCA: NBC’s Party and Lenny Clarke’s Situation

January 7th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Live Coverage | Talking TV | TCA Winter Press Tour 2012 - (Comments Off)


 

Among the many joys of attending various Television Critics Association press tours are the extracurricular celebrity encounters.

Such inadvertent run-ins usually remain part of each reporter’s private reserve of war stories, saved to share with friends over cocktails. Some, however, are just too good to keep, including the tale that produced the photo you see here.

During NBC’s day of press presentations, I happened to be walking through the lobby when I nearly crashed face first into a very muscular torso in a workout shirt.  When I say muscular, I mean “ripped like a WWE wrestler” muscular.  Looking up to step out of the way, I was shocked to discover said torso belonged to none other than Lenny Clarke, currently co-starring in NBC’s comedy “Are You There, Chelsea?”

Clarke’s weight loss isn’t news. In fact, the comedian has been a Weight Watchers spokesman for quite some time, and his “Rescue Me” character Uncle Teddy was downright lean by the finale.  But chances are that very few people have any idea of what’s hiding under those loose shirts. (Not even the show’s publicist knew.)

A few hours later, I ran into Clarke at NBC’s evening press event. Gentlemanly, sweet and outrageously funny, Clarke is as shocked at his 170 lbs.-plus weight loss* as everyone else is.  After a bit of conversation, I floated the idea that I should snap a photo of him posing like The Situation.

“I can do you one better,” Clarke said, producing his mobile phone. He scrolled through his album, laughed as he found the right shot, and e-mailed this ab fab photo to yours truly. “I’m 58 years old!” he said with a mixture of pride and astonishment.

Apparently the “Chelsea?” studio is very close to where “Two and a Half Men” is produced on the Warner Bros. lot, and Clarke has shared a few good times with “Men” star Ashton Kutcher. One of those get-togethers produced this picture.

(To be clear, I asked if I could post this shot on the blog and Facebook. Clarke’s reply was a jovial “I don’t give a s–t.”)

*UPDATE: According to a reliable source, Clarke’s latest reported weight loss tally is 192 lbs. And counting, we’re guessing.)

, , , , ,