rec.arts.tv Commentary:

A show that's given me everything I've wanted from it (and probably some things I wasn't even expecting), "Desperate Housewives" is my pick as the best show of the 2004-2005 season (at least, so far).

Indeed, more than just a "soapy drama", DH works on several other levels as well - as sociological analysis, and more pungently as humorous satire (the latter accounting for much of why I'm so high on "Housewives").

And unlike some naysayers (who complain, variously, about either Teri Hatcher's slapstick, or Gabrielle in general), there's basically nothing about this show that doesn't work for me. The humor is just right and at just the right level, the legitimate drama leavens the more 'soapy' elements, the character detail is superb, and everything is topped off by a continuing storyarc/mystery which gives the whole series added gravitas.

Of all of the elements, my favorite is probably Marcia Cross' Bree, the shows most compelling and complex character, but I also have a fondness for Hatcher's goofy Susan Meyer. But that takes nothing away from the other characters - afterall, it was Felicity Huffman's Lynette (probably my least favorite overall) who delivered what may have been the scariest thing I've seen on TV over the last 5 years, when she dreamed her children had driven her over the edge of sanity.

I think the thing that I find most encouraging (and hopeful) about this show is that, unlike "Lost" or "Veronica Mars" (two shows I'm not convinced have life in them beyond season #1), there seems to be no limit to where "Desperate Housewives" can go and how long it can run - it's not cast-contingent (anyone here could probably leave and be replaced), and the storylines are all truly open-ended (beyond the season-long "mystery" storyarc, but they can just come up with another one of those next season, if they need to).

There's so much here to love that it's nearly impossible to pick some things out and list them. If you haven't checked out "Desperate Housewives", do so! There's a reason it's now the #2 show on the air right now.

The sky's truly the limit for this show.

Good! I hope to be watching it for years.

This show is basically kind of a mess, so it's strange than I am as fond of it as I am. Still, objectively, I have to say that, while it's not "bad", it's not "good" either...

One thing I can say - it has improved from the leaden and supremely uninspiring pilot. That's not unusual for a 'soap' - it usually takes half-a-dozen episode or so, before a show gets going.

However, in looking at it, I don't think "The Mountain" has ever worked for me as an overall effort. One reason is the setting - I'm not a "ski" guy; besides the series that have been tried, and failed, in mountain/resort-type settings are legion (e.g. High Sierra Search & Rescue, Extreme, McKenna, etc.). Another is that, frankly, few of the characters interest me - I like Elizabeth Bogush's Max, Tommy Dewey's Michael is occasionally amusing as the rich young slacker, and Johann Urb works as slimy operator Travis.

But when I've previously described Oliver Hudson as "charisma challenged(lacking?)", I wasn't kidding, and Anson Mount (who's done OK in other roles) isn't much better. I have no idea what Barbara Hershey is doing here (not much, apparently), and Mitch Peleggi needs a new agent (after this, and "Tarzan" before it). As for Alana De La Garza... well, let's just say she's having somewhat more luck here than she had on "All My Children".

On the borderline are the teens - Tara Thomspon, Penn Badgley, Dewey and (recurring) Kaylee Defer (as Scarlett), all seem more like an afterthought (odd, for a WBN show), though Thompson improved (even if her character didn't) as the season progressed.

Anyway, I'm not sure there was ever enough here to 'gel' into a series that might have stuck around. I do watch it (but only when "Desperate Housewives" isn't on!), and it is OK fun. But, now that it's likely cancelled, I won't really miss it either.

I kinda don't care what anyone says - I mostly like this show. And I mostly like it because of, A) Jason Alexander (as Tony Kleiman), and B) Daniella Monet as his bratty daughter Meghan.

And, needless to say, I *totally* disagree with "Entertainment Weekly" (gee, now there's a switch! Ha!) - IMO, the strongest segments on this show are the *family* ones, not the "Listen Up" show-within-a-show segments.

Now, I've never seen "Pardon the Interruption", and have no real idea who the genuine Tony Kornheiser is, so when I'm watching this show, these factors have no bearing on me.

A largely overpraised, if still very watchable show, "Veronica Mars" is one of the two new shows in which I'm not at all convinced there's any more than one season in it.

(Note: I did not see the pilot of VM. In fact, I picked this show up c. "You Think You Know Somebody", so that may color my appraisal of the show somewhat.)

In any case, the thing that sets "Mars" apart from what would otherwise be a generic P.I.-type 'genre' show is its "meta" storyarc, involving the murder of Veronica's best friend Lilly (Amanda Seyfried), the subsequent town-splitting of Veronica's mother (Corinne Bohrer - great to see her in something, again!), and (possibly) the true paternity of Veronica herself.

This is all good stuff, far better than the rather pedestrian High School-centered "cases" Veronica deals with. The problem is, the "meta" story is only good for one season. What's "Veronica Mars" supposed to do in season #2, though? Well they have just two options - 1) just concentrate on the episodic cases, or 2) come up with some new, unnatural season-long storyarc. The problem? The former would reduce this show to the teen-equivalent of a police procedural (been there, done that!), while the latter would be wholly contrived (and would probably sport a storyarc/mystery inferior to the first season one).

I guess I like this show - the lead is certainly appealing. But I don't think it's as great as everyone says it is. And I'm not sure it's got much life left in it, if it even sees a season #2.

In an earlier posting, I described my thoughts on "House" thusly:

"What I like about "House", aside from House himself (and looking at Jennifer Morrison), is that it shows that a lot of medicine (more than you think) is 'shot in the dark' style treatment. IOW, oftentimes, the doctors don't know any more about what's wrong with than you do!"

And, indeed, "House's" greatest strength is that it's not formulaic in the way that other 'medical shows' are: on any other medical show, one (or more than one) doctor would correctly and heroically diagnose all of these patients' conditions on the first try.

But "House" is about "differential diagnosis" which is, simply, what diagnosticians like brilliant Doctor Greg House (a strongly effective (and British!) actor Hugh Laurie, masterly pulling off an American accent here) do when they have no idea what's wrong with you - throw conditions and treatments at the wall, and see what sticks.

And that, my friends, is a very refreshing change for the 'medical' show genre. For it shows the truth - that when you go into a hospital, the odds are fair-to-good that the staff there will have no idea what to do with you! And if you're expecting more than that, your expectations are unrealistic.

Add in a supporting good cast, some really smart dialogue from Dr. House, and some great direction (e.g. set design, lighting, etc.), and you have a recipe for a surprisingly engrossing show.

"House" is probably the "pleasantly unexpected surprise" of the new season.

A clever, and apparently intricately plotted, "Skiffy" show, with a huge cast of basically unknowns, on ABC, and it's the #2 New Show of the Year, ahead of even "CSI: NY"?... Apparently, miracles do happen!

There's not much more to add to what's already been said about "Lost", so I'll try to keep this short.

Clearly, to me anyway, the thing that is "Lost" distinguishing feature is the intricate planning that has clearly gone into, 1) the overall series storyarc, and 2) the individual character plotting. Lindelof(?) has (hopefully) put the thought into this series that was lacking from Abrams on "Alias".

Having said that, while "Lost" is a series I like a lot, it's not a series I "love" like a lot of people seem to - something seems to be "distancing" me from "Lost". And I think I know the reason for this - like "John Doe" (and a hundred other shows like it), I just don't have the confidence that the 'payoff' from "Lost's" 'resolution' is going to live up to the hype. In addition, I don't have great confidence that "Lost" is going to keep up this level of quality into season #2 and beyond.

So, for right now, I'm enjoying the "Lost" ride. But I'm also bracing myself for what I fear will be an almost certain decline in quality down the road.

I joked back in a December posting that:

"The problem with "Kevin Hill" is that there's too much *Kevin Hill*!"

Well, actually, I kind of meant it.

Yeah, yeah, I know - this show was conceived (sort of) as a vehicle for Taye Diggs, so they're going to use *Taye Diggs*, right?! Well, yes, but while the show focuses mostly on Diggs' Hill, along with guy pal Dame (Jon Seda, mustering all his efforts not to annoy the audience, i.e. ME!) and gay-guy-nanny George (Patrick Breen), I find myself far more interested in Hill's female lawyer colleagues (Christina Hendricks, Kate Levering, and, yes, even Michael Michelle!). I mean, really, do they need Taye Diggs to be in virtually *every scene* of "Kevin Hill"?! Give the guy a break!

At the time of my posting someone pointed out that I probably wasn't in the "target audience" for this show (which, presumably, is supposed to be females over the age of 12 who drool over Taye Diggs). Yeah, probably true. But if they ever want to spin off the "girl lawyers" from "Kevin Hill" off into their own show, they've got at least one guaranteed viewer, right here!

I never watched "Whose Line Is It Anyway", but I must say I really liked this effort from Carey, which integrated improv comedy with animations added later - much of the added animation was quite clever, and added a lot to the improvised sketches.

The thing that gets me about this show is that they had (over) a year to develop it, which should have been more than enough time, and they still screwed it up.

I can guess the thinking process that went into this:

Suit #1: "Well, we can't just rehash things as "Friends in L.A."! We need to do something different."
Suit #2: "Hey, we'll just do for Joey what we did with "Frasier" - we'll move him cross-country, and move him in with family!"
Suit #1: "Great idea!"
Suit #2: "And, as with "Frasier", we'll move in a 'job component' as Joey searches for work in L.A.!"
Suit #1: "Superb!"

The problem is, that thinking turned out to be exactly *wrong*.

The one element of "Joey" that does consistently work is Joey's job search, and interaction with his agent (played by Jennifer Coolidge).

OTOH, the elements that consistently DON'T WORK are those same family elements that worked in "Frasier". (Talk about "unfunny, in the extreme!")

The irony is, "Joey" would have been *better* if it *had* been more like "Friends in L.A." - transplanted Joey probably should have been put into a group of characters who were also struggling Hollywood types, and the focus should have been on the indignities the characters went through in Hollywood ("The Jackie Thomas Show" or "Almost Perfect", redux, anyone?!). The "family" element is totally superfluous, and unneeded!

Oh well - 20/20 is hindsight. And "Joey" won't be around much longer anyway.

A show that is still getting critically knocked (and undeservedly so, but it's a mindlessly easy cheap shot for the elitist TV critic 'braintrust' at places like "Entertainment Weekly" to take, so...), "North Shore" is still the pleasingly fun show I found it to be this past summer.

However, the Fall run of the show is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, they actually managed to give Corey Sevier's surfer character, Gabriel, enough things to do to justify keeping him around (I'd called for him to be written out at the end of the summer). Similarly, they also gave Jay Kenneth Johnson's Chris stuff to do as well, something I wasn't sure they'd be able to.

OTOH, they also made changes that *didn't* work. Bringing Shannen Doherty on was an unnecessary gimmick, that served the function of devaluing both Brooke Burns' and James Remar's characters, while giving us little-to-nothing in return. And backing off Tessa's (Amanda Righetti) "bad girl" qualities (somewhat) made the character a little less interesting than she had been (though the tradeoff was that it made her a little more sympathetic).

Anyway, even with the 'churn' (so to speak!), I still got a lot of "fun" enjoyment out of this show. In fact, I hope FOX defies expectations and brings the show back for next summer.

The funny thing about CBS's short-lived "dr. vegas" is that while it was conceived as a vehicle for Rob Lowe first (and Joe Panoliano second), it was only any good when supporting player Amy Adams (who played Lowe's physician's assistant, Alice) was on screen (usually with Lowe's Dr. Billy Grant). When it was Alice and Billy, the "banter" worked; when it was anyone else with anyone else, it didn't.

In the last aired episode, they made the horrible mistake of writing Adams' Alice out. Needless to say, I don't miss "dr. vegas" as a result.