US TV

What have you been watching this week (w/e September 3)

Royal Pains season two

Well, it’s been a month so you’d have thought I’d have caught up with everything. And I did catch up a bit. But two weeks away means that there’s a whole slew of things I’m still working my way through: I’ve got a load of episodes of The Gates, Mad Men, Scoundrels and Persons Unknown to get through for starters. Wonder Woman season 1 is turning out to be better, more subversive, more feminist – and weirder – than I remember though: Steve Trevor’s still a complete dick, mind.

But I have managed to see the following:

  • Burn Notice: Notably picking up in the final few episodes, but still hampered by that formula. And who could have seen that ending coming? Oh yes – everyone.
  • Dark Blue: Which should now more properly be called ‘Light Blue’, since the addition of Tricia Helfer to the mix has really messed the show up (although it’s not her fault). There were two things that made the show dark – it was about undercover cops doing things that might seem a little questionable and not especially enjoying it; and it was all shot in the dark. But now we have Helfer, suddenly it’s going all jokey and flirting with comedy. Fluffy haired Dermot M is off gardening and has a girlfriend, secondary characters that complicated storylines emotionally have been removed, Dermot no longer is his own boss so what they’re doing isn’t as dark any more. It’s all just a little bit less interesting now. There have been some good moments though and the secondary stars are all quite interesting in their own way. It’s just too far from reality to really make it a decent show any more. I wonder if that’s why TNT haven’t exactly been pushing themselves to promote it?
  • Covert Affairs: Has continued to be decent but not outstanding. Piper Perabo is great, but all attempts to make ‘Auggie’ interesting have been flawed. Sendhil Ramamurthy is getting more to do though which is good. I’m also liking the fact that while Annie can kick arse, she’s not as kick arse as most of the people she’s up against. Arrival of (spoiler) old boyfriend was anti-climactic though and Anne Dudek is largely being wasted. But it’s remaining an okay stab at action-spy realism.
  • Persons Unknown: Very much a chore, this has gone from excellent to awful. I’m hoping it picks up in the final three eps, when all will be revealed, but I don’t hold out too much hope.
  • Royal Pains: So a disappointing season overall, mainly because the first season was so good, rather than because this one was bad. It wasn’t bad, in fact, merely lacking in the edge the first season had. It was all a little too easygoing, too routine. The Jill/Hank relationship was sorely missing and much as I love Anastasia Griffith, her character wasn’t much of a replacement. I’m not that interested in Divya, and making her a mini-Hank didn’t make me love her more. Evan was at least less irritating this season, but the lack of Boris has been a problem, too. What the show really needed was the depth the first season had – the questions about Hank’s business, whether he would stay in the Hamptons, whether Jill was a holiday fling or not, Boris’s scarier qualities and so on. Fingers crossed for next season (or half-season) since there were hints in the final episode that it was all coming back.
  • Sherlock: So after an impressive first episode, written by Steven Moffat, we get a truly dreadful episode written by someone no one had heard of (he writes for the theatre, apparently). Should we be surprised that something written by someone other than Steven Moffat isn’t as good as something that is written by Steven Moffat? No, of course not. But this was bland and barely Sherlock Holmes at all. Then we get the third episode, this time by Mark Gattiss. Now this did at least recapture some of the fun qualities of the first ep – it does make me wonder about SM as a showrunner though. For Sherlock did he really only bother talking to Mark Gattiss and forget to talk to second guy at all, beyond “it’s Sherlock Holmes. You work it out,” or what? Because ep 2 just ignored all the series set-up that ep 1 incorporated (Watson’s blog-writing, his service revolver, etc) leaving almost all of it other than Moriarty for ep 3. Now ep 3 still wasn’t SM quality but it was pretty good. If you’re a Sherlock-lover, you’d have spotted the references to the five orange pips, the Bruce-Partington Plans, etc; the (spoiler)cliffhanger ending by the pool with Moriarty was of course an obvious reference to The Final Problem as well. Moriarty was a surprise and well handled, if a little OTT. But I do worry they’ve gone too far along the line of making Holmes almost sociopathic and uncaring. Watson’s lost his edge since the first ep too. But fingers crossed, with a second season, they’ll iron out the bugs.

But what have you been watching?

As always, no spoilers unless you’re going to use the <spoiler> </spoiler> tags, please. If you’ve reviewed something on your blog, you can put a link to it here rather than repeat yourself (although too many links and you might get killed by the spam filter).

US TV

Is The Daily Show sexist?

The Daily Show women

There’s been a bit of a storm brewing on t’InterWeb of late. Those minxes at Jezebel (Who they, m’lord? An online magazine for young women designed to be an alternative to traditional women’s magazines) recently wrote a piece accusing The Daily Show of sexism. The argument was that women were badly treated on the show, that it was “a boys’ club where women’s contributions are often ignored and dismissed” and there weren’t enough female ‘correspondents’.

Now the article did highlight a few issues, at least with regards to the show’s beginnings – including some ultra-dickery by then-host Craig Kilborn:

Back in 1997, the then-host was suspended after telling Esquire,”To be honest, [co-creator] Lizz [Winstead] does find me very attractive. If I wanted her to blow me, she would.”

But, in particular, it argued that unless you played into a particular kind of role – good-looking but willing to indulge in fratboy humour – you weren’t going to go far. So talented but plainer women would get overlooked in favour of new correspondent, Olivia Munn, for example:

Olivia Munn on the Daily Show

In case you don’t know who Olivia Munn is, she’s best known as one of the presenters of video game show Attack of the Show. Here she is in a Twilight spoof (that’s not her as Kristen Stewart, BTW – she turns up later in the vid):

She’s also written a book, Suck It, Wonder Woman: The Misadventures of a Hollywood Geek, and also appeared (briefly) in Iron Man 2, where Robert Downey Jr made the crew give her a round of applause for her improv skills.

But, more importantly for Jezebel, she’s also a model, better known for appearing on the covers of Maxim and Playboy and for episodes of Attack of the Show in which she jumps into a giant pie dressed as a french maid, for example:

The argument is that Munn isn’t very funny or talented so was only hired for her looks.

To help you decide in a The Daily Show context, here’s pretty much her first appearance last week – which for reasons best known to Comedy Central is only viewable in the US, despite The Daily Show airing on More4 in the UK:

UK readers probably won’t be able to judge from that, but I saw her segment last week, and while she started off nervous and not desperately funny, overall she’s a whole lot better than some correspondents I could mention and was probably better than Wyatt Cenac in his first week. So was she hired because she was good-looking, because she was funny and could do the job, or both?

Whatever the case, virtually every woman who works on The Daily Show (possibly all of them, and they make up 40% of the staff) has contributed to a letter defending both Jon Stewart and The Daily Show itself from the accusation of sexism:

The Daily Show isn’t a place where women quietly suffer on the sidelines as barely tolerated tokens. On the contrary: just like the men here, we’re indispensable. We generate a significant portion of the show’s creative content and the fact is, it wouldn’t be the show that you love without us.

I don’t think the letter entirely disproves the theory that you have to have more of a traditionally masculine sense of humour to do well on the show, although the presence of both Samantha Bee and Kristen Schaal (best known from Flight of the Conchords) on the show as contributors would seem to at least partially disprove it. Indeed, Bee told NPR that “the show was a dream workplace for parents of young children” so it can’t be a total locker-room (or has she been got at?).

But what do you think? Is The Daily Show sexist? Is it lookist? Is Olivia Mann a good thing for the show, which currently only has one regular female contributor, or a bad thing?

PS For a counter-argument to Jezebel’s article, try Slate’s

Thursday’s “party over” news

Film

  • Judd Apatow and Paul Reubens working on new Pee-wee Herman movie
  • Meryl Streep to play Margaret Thatcher, Jim Broadbent to play Denis?

Comics

Theatre

  • Lily Allen writing songs for Bridget Jones musical

British TV

US TV

  • Starz cancels Party Down and Gravity
US TV

Review: Fantastic TV – 50 Years of Cult Fantasy and Science Fiction

Fantastic TVAuthor: Steven Savile
Price: £14.99 (Amazon price: £8.54)
ISBN: 978-085965420-3
Pages: 272
Publisher: Plexus Publishing
Published: May 2010

What do you want from a non-fiction book about television, specifically science-fiction and fantasy TV? It’s a good question, since there are so many possible options.

Do you want a reference book like the Encyclopedia of TV Science Fiction that’s exhaustive, gives a good description of each show and its themes, maybe an episode guide, and some production details?

No? How about a book like Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text that really goes to town on analysis, explaining the imagery, history, concepts, et al of a show so that you truly understand where it fits into modern culture and what it’s emblematic of?

No? How about a memoir like Paul Magrs’ The Diary of a “Dr Who” Addict, in which the author explains why a show holds personal appeal to them?

No? How about an ungainly, inaccurate mismatch of all three, where the author randomly cherry picks shows based purely on what interests him and that he either recalls quite well or has at best only a passing knowledge of; he then scribbles down a few ‘facts’ about the show, some of them wrong, together with descriptions that explain very little about the show to anyone who hasn’t seen it and misses out most of the characters and things that made them important; and then adds some meandering attempts to analyse the themes, importance to the genre and issues that would make a sixth-form media studies essay seem focused?

Yes? Then have I got the book for you: it’s called Fantastic TV and although it does have some things going for it, you do have to wonder not only why anyone would publish it, but whether it’s really an epic advert for the importance of book editors.

Continue reading “Review: Fantastic TV – 50 Years of Cult Fantasy and Science Fiction”

The original 1967 pilot for Wonder Woman

Wonder Woman is one of those comic book characters that everyone’s heard of, but not too many people know much about or especially like.

No?

Quick quiz: can you explain Batman’s origins? Superman’s? Spiderman’s?

How about Wonder Woman’s?

Probably not. You have to be a special kind of geek to know it (a princess from a hidden island of Amazons, imbued with the powers of the Greek gods).

Okay, there’s many a boy (and girl) who rather enjoyed Lynda Carter’s interpretation of the role in the 70s Wonder Woman TV series. But a previous attempt in 1974 with Cathy Lee Crosby in the role didn’t do especially well, recent attempts to get a film version up and running have fallen flat, despite Joss Buffy Whedon’s best efforts, and sales of the comic haven’t exactly been stellar.

What you may not know is that way back in the 60s, just as Adam West’s Batman had become popular, the powers that be tried to create another Wonder Woman TV series. Unfortunately, they tried to use Batman as a template, and turned it into a comedy.

Here, for your delectation, is the pilot episode in glorious YouTube vision. See if you can work out for yourself while it flopped – it’s only five minutes long. Enjoy!

PS If you ever want to be fascinated, read up about the original intent behind the character of Wonder Woman. William Moulton Marston – the guy who invented the lie detector and a Harvard-educated psychologist – created Wonder Woman to indoctrinate girls and boys, ready for the day he believed was coming in which women would rule the world. It’s true:

“Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world… Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.