On the Future of TV News

With reports of journalism jobs being hard(er) to find and discussions at conferences like the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications's annual convention, people in the news industry can't help but wonder about the future. Not just their individual futures but their industry's future.

It's a discussion we've had before, on various platforms and from various points of view. The conclusion remains that we don't know what the future will look like. We just know that it will be different.

I'd like to take a look at what is commonly referred to as journalism's main enemy: the Internet. Why does it work? Because it's customizable. It's targeted. Similarly, which TV stations/networks/coverage tend to make the most cash (and therefore survive longer)? Specialised stations and shows. Things like live sports, or channels dedicated to a single interest, like home design and renovations or fashion. These networks survive because they've found a niche market and they're feeding off of it, both in terms of ratings and ads - it's a targeted "sure thing" investment opportunity.

How does this apply to TV news? Journalists usually agree that all consumers should have access to a source of news that will educate and inform them as well-rounded citizens. In other words, just because your main interest is the stock market doesn't mean you shouldn't know what's going on in Parliament. But let's be honest. After the first five minutes or so of political news, you'll probably switch channels. A good news network will try to keep you watching despite your lack of interest, by using teases, for example. But that's not a commercially viable long-term strategy to retain your attention.

The only way TV news is going to survive in a future overtaken by the Internet, PVRs and "On Demand" is to give consumers what they want, and now. That, for lack of a better word, is what they want. So why not give it to them?

It's not just sports or specialised channels that draw audiences in. News events do the same. Remember #Obamawa? What about the #H1N1 scare or #Haiti aid or, the latest big issue, the BP oil spill? What do these things have in common?

People want to know. They want to know everything and they want to know it now. They just can't get enough coverage and they'll watch several news cycles on several news networks to get their fix. This effectively creates a niche market for information on this issue. But after a day or so, most of the viewers think enough is enough.

What is the future of TV news? Feed the monster. But only if it's hungry.

Every time an event or issue temporarily overtakes the news market, create a specialised "On Demand" stream that will broadcast anything and everything that has to do with the subject. Whether it's NASA's latest space mission or Canada Day, a natural disaster or a political faux-pas, create an individualised stream and feed the monster.

Most of the networks already do it online. Those who know about it and have access to the Internet at the peak of their interest will routinely stream press conference feeds or sporting event coverage. Currently, the networks offer these services for free, mostly because consumers won't pay for a service they're already paying for, whether they consider that to be their cable TV or Internet. Also, most people aren't comfortable paying for any kind of information on the Internet because they're certain they can get it somewhere for free.

But can anyone guarantee a high-quality, uninterrupted, 24h specialised stream? Not on the Internet. Not yet, anyway. But on TV? They've pretty much got it down.

My suggestion - and I want to note that I haven't crunched the numbers on this since broadcast finances are not something I'm familiar with - is to provide that specialised stream on cable TV. Users with a digital box can simply call up their provider (or use self-serve menus) and add CBC News Network 2 or 3 or 4 (for example), depending on which major news story they would like to follow non-stop. The subscription would automatically expire once the story and coverage dies down, or the user could call and cancel it at any time. Set a one-time subscription fee of under $5 per story/stream - my suggestion is somewhere around $3 plus any applicable taxes - and a minimum subscription period of 48 hours, and I'm sure people will pick up on it. I would.

The network would have to broadcast several signals, but since we're switching to digital anyway, it probably wouldn't put too much of a dent in the budget. Getting CRTC clearance is another story.

And what kind of coverage would our reduced newsrooms offer to their new avid customers? Live streams of any of the gazillions of press conferences going on about the topic, interspersed with airport-style "breaking news" segments recorded in a centralised studio, potentially by anchors assigned only to that specific developing news topic or perhaps by the anchor on shift recording for all the specialised channels. You could also throw in live hits from the network reporters on location assigned to the story, interviews with experts and people affected by the story, and related pre-packaged reports - which you're producing anyway. Add in re-packed news conference highlights - longer than the ones played in the main network's news cycle - and boards showing upcoming events related to story, and you've got a nice loop-able mix of non-stop coverage on the news event du jour for the modern news junkie.

In terms of staff, the only extra hires would be technicians to monitor the various streams and editors to package and produce the stream's content. Current online editors would be perfect candidates for this position since they already understand the technology and short attention span of today's news audience. Most of the content is already coming in for the 24h news stations and the live press conference feeds are usually provided as in-house service for a minimal fee.

That way, when a major news story or event takes over the news industry, we won't be overwhelmed by endless reports on an issue, meanwhile getting less than satisfactory coverage of all the other going-ons in the world. And we won't be saturated by a constant flow of information that will make us stop caring about a potentially important issue, or worse, make us actually care about a non-important issue. Like Lindsay Lohan being sentenced to jail.

I don't know about you, but if I could buy non-stop quality coverage of the next shuttle launch, I would. Even if I know I could watch it for free online at NASA TV. Why? Because I can get everything I need to know about that one topic in one spot. And because I'm a space geek. And a political geek would buy coverage to Obama's visit to Canada, and a TV geek would purchase a CRTC telecommunications panel package. In this case, the repetition of the news cycle wouldn't be such a bore because you would choose to watch it.

What do you think? Could dedicated temporary cable streams be the future of TV news?

I guess there's only one way to find out... Stay tuned!

Local TV Matters vs. Stop the TV Tax

Can't decide whether to save local TV or stop the TV tax?

That might be because both sides are broadcasting ambiguous messages.

I think we can all agree that local TV matters. Local news is where we get information about the things, people and institutions that surround us. Local entertainment programming allows talented Canadian individuals to shine, whether it's in front of the camera or behind the scenes. Local TV gives us, the locals, a platform to express our thoughts and ideas about the things that matter to us.

And yet, we can't help but agree with some of the rebuttal from the Stop the TV tax campaign. With the Local TV Matters campaign constantly reminding us of the November 2 deadline to help save local TV, I thought now would be a perfect time to put the arguments from both sides head-to-head.

So here goes.


1. "Why don't cable and satellite providers already pay for local television signals?" & "What is 'Negotiation for Value'?" vs. "Cable companies steal local television signals, then sell them to customers" & "The big networks deserve to be paid for their television signals"

Yes, it's true. Cable and satellite providers don't pay for local TV signals. But this has always been the case, mostly because TV started as an over-the-air broadcast, meaning anyone who was able to capture the signal (Oh hello, bunny ears!) had access to the content. However, most of that content was created locally or at least, somewhere locally across that network. These days, local programming consists mostly of news and current affairs shows, and even that's put together with a national perspective. The rest of the content is purchased from distributors, whether it's documentary, reality TV or entertainment production company. And we've seen an increase in the American-based content being purchased to air on our local stations.

Yes, broadcasters deserve to receive some sort of payment for the content they provide, because it then provides added value to the cable companies that distribute said content. For example, the only channel in Canada where you can catch Dexter is The Movie Network. If Rogers were to have the exclusive carriage of The Movie Network, and Dexter was your favourite show (and assuming you're not one to download TV shows or stream online), you would probably opt for a Rogers cable package instead of the other cable companies' offering.

Cable companies pay for specialty TV stations. Obviously, they must see some value in their investment. Do they not believe that local TV is as valuable? They carry the channels, so clearly, they must think they have some value. And please, don't use the "over-the-air" excuse. Times have changed. All TV signals will be digital only by August 2011, so no one will be able to capture those old analogue signals.

Conclusion: Cable companies get free content from the broadcasters (who pay for theirs) and should pay up.
Cable distributors should have to purchase the rights to carry a station. This would then provide additional funding for local producers and talent to get paid by local stations for producing original content that's relevant to the local community.


2. "Why are Canada's television broadcasters concerned about the future of local television?" & "Why don't broadcasters just invest more in local programming?" vs. "Canada's big networks invest heavily in local programming" & "the new tax will prevent closure of local stations" & "Cable and satellite providers do not believe in local television"

This is a tough one. Both sides are right. Both sides are also wrong.

Canada's television broadcasters already invest heavily in local programming, including Rogers, also a distributor. The problem is that local programming is so much more expensive than ready-made, produced-elsewhere (or nationally) programming: no HR, no production assistants, no insurance fees or crew salaries... The production expenses add up quickly. As for local news? It takes staff to put together the stories you want to hear. All the recent cuts mostly affect local stations, who see their workload remain the same (or sometimes increase!), while having less resources to reach the targets set by their networks. Something's gotta give.

Yet, there is no assurance than any additional fees given to broadcasters will be distributed to local stations. I'm sure it will trickle down in the long run, but on a day-to-day level, nothing's going to change for the hard-working staff in your local newsrooms. There won't be any innovative new programmes. No additional young doc-makers will see their footage to air.

Local broadcasters say they will negotiate with the CRTC exactly how much should be spent where. But if the goal of this fee is to save local TV, shouldn't local TV get all the money? Ah, bureaucracy!

Meanwhile, cable and satellite providers will simply pass on the additional costs to me and to you, the customers. And don't forget the taxes. At least the providers are being honest... They have no intention of actually paying for the local programming, if they're ordered to pay up by the CRTC. They will simply charge us again, which means we will be paying for the same content twice. And they say they truly care about offering us local programming. How underhanded!

Rogers is the only cable provider that is also a broadcaster. Yes, they care about local TV and air regional programming, which makes all of this even more odd, as they might actually save from not having to pay themselves for local TV programming, while all the other providers will pay them for the programming they say they produce anyway. They have nothing to lose! Even after paying for other local stations. If anything, they'd simply break even.

Conclusion: The CRTC must order the fee to be payed directly by the cable and satellite distributors and minutely monitor how the networks invest it in local TV. Do your job and regulate already!
The CRTC should not only order cable and satellite distributors to pay up for local content, they should make it illegal for them to pass this fee along to their customers or hike up their fees without valid reason in order to weasel out of paying for the product they provide. Also, the networks should be forced to spend this new income on local programming and should have to prove it by an annual audit of their financial records, showing that each and every cent collected was actually spent on producing local TV, whether it's on additional crew salaries, purchasing a locally-made documentary, or buying new cameras for the newsroom.


3. "I've noticed in the news that some people have referred to the issue as broadcasters wanting a bailout. Is this true?" & "Why can't broadcasters use the profits from their specialty stations to support local conventional stations?" vs. "Cable and satellite distributors earn billions in profits, but broadcasters are going broke" & "Cable and satellite providers pocket 70% of your bill" & "This is a 'one-time' fee to support local television to help them cope with lower advertising revenues"

First of all, the networks aren't claiming that this is a one-time fee, so you can take that one off your myth list. Nice try, though.

Guess what? Some broadcasters do want a bailout! (ahem, Canwest?). But this has nothing to do with the current discussion, which was a long time coming. Broadcasters are going broke, it's true, and that's a whole other discussion and a complicated one at that. You can't compare public and private broadcasters, for one. CBC's issue is that it doesn't get enough funding and isn't allowed to take advantage of all the advertising opportunities that other networks have. Of course, advertising is not working out so well for the private broadcasters either. Still, a business is a business and as much as media and journalism is important to the proper functioning of a society, you've got to take your responsibilities and own up to your failures. If you can't balance the books, you shouldn't be running a business.

However, the fees paid by the cable and satellite companies would contribute to turning the reds into blacks, and it's only fair to get paid for your work. Advertising alone no longer supports the costs of running a media company, and the free online content customers demand also comes at a cost to the broadcasters. Similarly, specialty stations make enough profit to be self-sustainable and more, but not enough to sustain sister conventional stations. And as always, you've got to consider the administrative costs too.

The cable and satellite companies claim that they're not as rich as the networks would make it seem and make most of their money from other ventures, namely as internet providers. And they charge us, the customers, disproportionately large sums of money for those services too. Sure, less than 6% goes to profits, but they're still taking that claimed 70% off our bills to pay for their expenses. Oh, and that "tiny 1%" profit they make is based on millions of dollars and ends up being not so tiny. They're not the victims here. Neither side is.

Conclusion: Suck it up and stop playing dead. Both of you.
The fact is that the cable television industry is reinventing itself and there will be tough times, especially in a harsh economical climate. The cable and satellite companies are trying to shy away from a change that should have been imposed ages ago, but because of the CRTC's poor understanding of the new face of the industry, they've managed to escape unscathed until now.

This so-called tax isn't a magical solution. It won't fix anything, but it might patch things up enough for local TV to re-invent itself successfully.... if the networks actually commit to it and listen to what the local community wants from its local stations.

Throughout this campaign, Local TV Matters and Stop the TV Tax have acted like rivaling siblings who will pick a fight about anything and everything just because. They're running to mom (aka the CRTC) at every twist and turn, wanting to be proclaimed the winner.

Well, guess what? No one's right, and no one's wrong. Stop bickering and whining and start getting along. The real issue here is mom, who is in serious need of parenting classes.

The CRTC needs to emerge from the dark ages, look around, and realize that the world is different, but that's okay. It needs to come to terms with the past and understand the present so it can properly plan for the future. Hip hop might not be its favourite musical styling, but that's what the kids are into these days. Like a good parent, it needs to accept its children's differences and that their modern world is different from its own experience. The CRTC needs to force the television broadcasters and the cable and satellite providers to work together and create a broadcasting environment that is truly the best for all Canadians.

So let's all agree that local TV matters, and stop the TV tax from being another completely irrelevant and mostly ineffective CRTC decision.

Stay tuned...

The Obama Factor

So the United States presidential race has finally come to an end, and not a moment too soon, as Quebec is going to be electing a new Premier on December 8th.

I know. Enough with the elections, already!

First, there were provincial elections in Quebec. Then I had a municipal election. Then the federal campaign, and of course, the crux of the USA election. And now Quebec elections again. Oh, and of course, the primaries about 2 years ago.

Yeah. I've got a headache too.

I'm to really into US politics. However, when Primary season started, I was curious. It was my first time exploring the American electoral system because it was the first time I was actually really aware it was happening, and so, intrigued.

Luckily, one of my friends, Alex Leduc, is a pro at American politics. (In fact, if you really care for the stuff, you should check out his blog. He's quickly becoming Montreal's next major US political analyst, with TV appearances to boot!)

Alex explained the basics of US elections to me, and though I can't remember most of it, it really helped me understand what was going on. Honestly though? I really didn't want to spend that much time on it. In fact, I can probably say that I didn't care what happened day-to-day, as long as I got the big lines. I do care in the sense that American politics affect what happens in Canada and around the world, but really, I don't need to know what each candidate was doing every moment of the day.

Unsurprisingly then, I don't tune in to CNN too often. I actually really dislike CNN and their coverage. Mostly because it's biased, often unconfirmed and poorly researched. I'm not talking about all their segments. But their style leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, since when is every story either breaking news or developing news?

Perhaps I should specify that I'm referring to CNN Headline News here.

What bugs me the most is that so many American citizens watch CNN (or worse, FOX News), and take everything they see and hear for fact, unquestioningly. Yes, this is a generalization, and probably encourages a stereotype or two. But you know what I mean.

Anyway. I'm not stupid, and knew that CNN would have the best election coverage on November 4th. And so I tuned in.

Boy, what a treat.

First off, the holographic interviews were way cool. Probably super expensive and uncomfortable for the anchor, but still an awesome piece of technology that I can't wait to explore.

Second, wow! Biased coverage or what?

Third, I realized that I'm extra picky about live TV productions, now that I've seen how some of it goes. And I should probably be a little less critical and remember how stressed out everyone is in the control room. Especially the audio techs. I complain about them a lot.

Want proof? Check out my Twitter stream below:

MUST know more about how the holographic interviews are done. Green Screen? 3D motion capture? 10:48 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox

--

A friend suggests green screen and 360 camera coverage. But how is it "projected"? On air graphics or actually in studio? Thoughts? 10:51 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox

--
I guess the USA doesn't have issues with revealing projections for closed States while others are still voting... ie like in Canada 10:55 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
How it's done: http://www.tvtechnology.com... 10:58 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
OMG Enough with the screaming. At least they're mixing it down... But seriously. I shouldn't have to turn down the volume. 11:03 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Also, #cnn enough with the "random black people in the crowd" shots. Do you know you're promoting racist stereotypes? 11:04 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
More dets on the holographic interview technology: http://tinyurl.com/57quvw 11:11 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
McCain admits defeat? I can go to bed now. Just one more holographic interview, plz! 11:19 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Why must we still differentiate by race? Why is Obama's victory a big deal for African Americans, as says McCain? It's a big deal for all! 11:21 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
I wonder what happens if a candidate admits defeat on a projected result - which then turns out to be wrong. Can he still claim presidency? 11:23 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
As much as I don't want to hear crowds screaming too loud, please mix in some bg audio when showing crowd shots. 11:30 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
I can't really blame the audio mixer(s). It's a tough situation, diff. mixes coming into HQ, and prob. a whole lot of control room yelling. 11:47 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Loving the sky shots. Wonder if it's a track or a jib... Does that make me a geek? 11:49 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Wonder if the mixers have time to adjust incoming audio for optimal broadcasting before putting it on air. 11:53 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox

--
@ #cnn This interview is totally ineffective. 11:54 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox in reply to cnn
--
omg! CNN showed old white people! They can't support Obama, can they? I thought it was all black ppl and youth! 11:55 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--
Me? Jaded? Naaaahhh 11:56 PM Nov 4th from TwitterFox
--

I wonder who wrote @BarackObama 's speech. And how long he's been memorizing it. 12:00 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
HA! Alabama Senate race: Sessions vs. Figures 12:02 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
That 106y old must feel so justified to have Obama mention her in his acceptance speech. Maybe a bit used, but it's for a good cause, right? 12:14 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
If I were producing or mixing, I'd add crowd noise to CNN's Chicago feed 12:18 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
And as if on cue, I think I hear some clapping... though it sounds like it's coming through the stage mic. 12:18 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
Quick! Spot the cameraman in the crowd! It's like Where's Waldo, but tougher! 12:19 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
Wonder how much they spent on getting Obama's kids' hair done... 12:20 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
It's 12C in Chicago. 13km/h winds, 67% humidity. They must be freezing out there. Thank God for all those warm stage lights! 12:22 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
LOVE! The behind the stage shot featuring the USA-lit building. And the Barack/Michelle snuggle as they walk off the stage. Cute! 12:23 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--
WOW. Just felt the weight of this moment. Historical. I wonder what happens next... 12:24 AM yesterday from TwitterFox
--

It's quite funny, isn't it? Partway through, I realize I'm hyper critical and start to feel bad.

Anyway. Hope you laughed, because I did.

Also, if you could answer any of my gazillion questions, that would be awesome.

Thanks, and stay tuned...

Timbits

* It is absolutely ridiculous that the Pittsburgh Penguins are pushing away their vets, including Mark Recchi, who cleared waivers last night. Ironically, Wednesday was Mark Recchi Bobblehead night in Pittsburgh.

* Maroon 5's latest CD is brilliant. It's fun to listen to, but not too overbearing or repetitive. It uses a few well known riffs from popular songs... but mostly to start off their songs, before going in an opposite direction. Still, it catches your ear, which makes me believe that this disc has at least 3 more good singles on it.

* The Habs have called up Ryan O'Byrne and Maxim Lapierre, as you're probably already aware. This means Grabovski's going to Hamilton. These changes, in my opinion, are long overdue... although you have to wonder about calling up two of the penalty minute leaders on the 'Dogs team. Hopefully, this shake up, a mini-shake-up really, will create a spark, add some energy, shuffle the deck, add your cliché here...

* The TV Strike officially sucks. Simply because I'm now on break and there's nothing on at night. I have to resort to going out and spending money (yay! Wings night!), or watching old shows.

* Speaking of which, I have finished re-watching all of ALIAS... Two years after I started, lol. But, to be fair, I didn't watch it regularly. And all my habitual TV viewing/hockey games/work/homework came first. The good news is, it's just as good as I remember it to be. The bad news is, it's so sad I cried. And now, I have nothing to watch. I'm trying a bit of Robot Chicken, but I'm definitely going to have to search the server for a new series to watch...

* Tonight is JSA Karaoke night. YEY! But travel time means that I'll probably miss some of the game... unless I watch from downtown earlier, which involves driving in traffic. And then there's the whole needing a car at the specified time thing...

* Star Trek is coming to town! We don't know when, or where exactly, but a Star Trek Tour has been announced, and for once, Montreal is on the list of stops. Attractions include a life-size version of the Enterprise bridge (the original, in case you're wondering), an opportunity to have a digitally-modified photo taken with life-sized members of the original cast, a few museum-like articles such as Jeri Ryan's Seven of Nine costume, tours, audio visuals, simulators, and more! :D You can be sure that when the details are revealed (including prices), I'm totally jumping on this bandwagon!

* And in more Star Trek-related news, I was lucky enough to be one of the 300 people who got their hands on a limited, signed, hardcover copy of Wil Wheaton's latest book, The Happiest Days of our Lives. My paypal order has been processed, and my package is probably somewhere between California and Montreal right now... How wonderful! I love waiting for packages you can't track... it's all the more exciting!

* I wasn't selected as a Donaldson Scholar, but no matter! I'm applying for the winter semester internship with CBC News TV in Montreal. Sure, I won't get paid, but that's totally irrelevant. The experience is worth much more than a couple of sparkly tops.

And last but not least,

* Biorhythms are actually fairly accurate, from my experience. Very surprising, but very useful. If you believe in that sort of thing, I mean.

Stay tuned for more rambling...

Chuck

Okay, so far...

OMG IT'S MARSHALL!!! KEVIN WEISMAN!!!! Very cool. Also, Rachel Bilson!!

This episode looks like it's going to be complex (and exciting!)

Also, back to maturity, at least for a while...

Heroes promises to answer all our questions on what happened between the "We saved the world" and Season 2, episode 1.

EDIT: Britney Spears' Toxic on Chuck. And LOVE the truth serum bit. Just waiting for Sarah to say she really likes Chuck. But she says the opposite. But apparently she does love him. She can just withstand the drug. And this episode officially rocks. Next episode promises to be even better...

SPOILER!!!!!! I think the cryogenic body is Bryce.

Next up, Heroes!

HEROES SPOILERS!!!!!

Heroes reveals the location of the Montreal warehouse: 121 rue St-Jacques. It's totally visible on Google Maps. Who wants to go visit the place?

Concordia Reports - Remembrance Edition

Our second TV show is now on YouTube, published yesterday, just in time for Remembrance Day. Appropriately, there's a lot of memorial and veteran content in this show.

This time, I hosted, had a pack on carepacks to Afghanistan, and helped with the show packaging and opener. I also interviewed veterans from General Vanier Branch 234 in Quebec of the Royal Canadian Legion, aka the Roxboro Branch.

I really had a lot of fun on and with this show, and I think it came together nicely.

As always, I look forward to reading your thoughts and opinions on the show, so post away! Positive and negative comments are welcome, I always want to learn :)


Enjoy!!

TV Thoughts

Yesterday's Heroes was many ways of awesome. But first off, I need to point out that while Zachary Quinto could pull off a convincing Spock, he reminds me more of Christopher Higgins, of Montreal Canadiens fame.

Next, Heroes came to Montreal!!!!! Sure, it was sort of an obvious assumption based on the previous show (and the promos!), but it was really cool when it finally happened. Too bad the outdoor scene lasted all of 20 seconds, and I missed part of it. I wonder who that Adam guy is, and if they'll actually film in Montreal. So far, I haven't heard that they have...

I really like the split in Maya and Alejandro's characters, and the Claire storyline is getting more... dangerous, shall we say?
As for point two of awesomeness... The Ukrainian guy was in Red October. I know, I know... it's sort of geeky, but that's what I love about Heroes! They take all our secret geek fantasies and put them into one beautifully packaged show.

On to a different kind of TV...

Our first newscast is now on YouTube, courtesy of Elias Makos.
It was Group 3's first newscast, and my first Assignment Editor position of the term/year. I also did a reporting stint and a one-on-one interview with Mike Boone. I'd love to get feedback on anything from flow to visuals, to specific comments about reports...

Bonus incentive? The chimps!!!

Stay tuned...

Ah, Tuesday!

First off, can I just say... Cameron looks really weird with blond hair.

Good. Now that that's over, let us rejoice over the blessing that is House. What would Tuesdays be without our daily dose of the over competent and overly arrogant doctor?

Today's episode had a lot of guest actors... Kal Penn, and that actress that looks a lot like the girl from the Bourne series but whose name I don't know. Too bad IMDB isn't helping right now.

The case itself was very interesting, especially the description of the problem: "Hearing with your eyes". How crazy does that sound? I don't even understand how that works. Is it like echolocation except your eyes have different colours for elevations and distances and the like? Because that's definitely what they made it to look like. Too bad I can't remember the name of the genetic disease... I would totally look it up.

As usual, great production... and House's hallucinations are just hilarious. Not a lot of Cutty in this episode, but still enough for us to understand that House knows her, and is actually, well... In this episode, he was actually really nice to her. Doing things for her own good, and truly understanding what is important to her. Hmmm... a softer House? Maybe a sign of things to come with that plot development.

Because there were so many actors/actresses in this show, some of them get lost, and it feels sort of crowded for a while... like having too many voices in your brain (You hear them too, right?)

But, /me loves because, well, I need my weekly dose of House.

As for NCIS, I love love love the ending. The Jeanne issue was present throughout the episode, but it was not apparent, in that it was not the main storyline, just something to bug Tony with. Still, when he was making his calls, he was defending himself, not trying to elucidate more information.

And is it just me, or did the son seem really young? Like, 17 or 19 at the most? The girl looked way older, at least in her mid twenties. It's a sad story really, but it's a good one. It's a tough one to tell too, because of all these recent child abduction cases. Also, it reminds me of the Lindbergh case, but that's probably because I've been studying too much ;)

The letter from Jeanne was what made the episode amazing. You saw the duality between family and business all through the episode. In fact, I'd say it was this week's underlying theme. What to do when those two sides compete, and, let's face it, they will always compete, no matter how separate we try to keep them. And while it was obvious that Tony would choose his jobs over the girl, it seemed like a really heart wrenching decision, and one that will probably change him forever. I do doubt that the girl won't come back though... I'm sure we haven't seen the last of her, even if she just comes looking for her dad.

A loose end, by the way, I'm surprised they didn't tie up, although it's probably for future use.

Last but not least, can you imagine that I've know my cousin since we were born (same year, same city, different hospital, and 8 days apart), and yet I never knew she was a hockey fan? A huge hockey fan? How random (and totally awesomely cool!!!!) is that?!

Ah, coincidences everywhere...

Monday fun

As usual, Monday was Heroes night. And though I was exhausted, you just can't miss Heroes. You just can't! Unless you have a really good excuse, and I didn't.

So I exercised to Chuck (fun!), and while the exercise was mostly rewarding, Chuck was just good. Actually, that's not true. The episode as a whole was lotsa fun, and it was interesting to see the characters develop in their interactions with each other. The whole Casey vs. Sarah thing worked well, but it'll get old really quickly, so I hope they find a new gimmick for next week.

The thing that really brought the episode down was (SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!) Chuck landing the helicopter. I mean, seriously? Just because you played a flight simulator game? Pfft. I've spoken to plenty of pilots who've said that it's nothing like a game. PLUS, a helicopter is one of the toughest vehicles to master. Furthermore, the rotors don't randomly just turn off. Once you hit the ground, there's a bunch of stuff you have to do. And helicopters land vertically, not horizontally. Aaaand, when he was battling with the doc in the helicopter at the beginning of this absurd plot twist, the helicopter appeared to be going in circles. Too bad the pilot was dead and wasn't putting any pressure on the joystick (or whatever it's called).

Anyway. The ending was disappointing and waaaay too obvious. It would have been cooler for him to flash of a memory of how to land a helicopter.

Next, Heroes! It was really good. I can't believe she cut off her toe. Seriously!! I love how it grew back though, that was wicked! Hiro was stellar, as usual, and I was really impressed by Mohinder's French! It was actually really good!

The Haitian... well, I didn't realize he was the same guy as the kid from the comics. THAT was a revelation. Or at least, I THINK that's what they revealed. It was sort of ambiguous; maybe they want to keep us wondering.
I love that Bennet and Mohinder are working together, and that the Haitian is back and better than ever. And he's speaking ;)

That's enough Heroes gushing... on to Journeyman, which I thought really improved this week! It built on the setup from last episode, and inserted some comic relief moments... The plane being turned back? awesome. The no fly list? Absolutely fantastic. lol.
A lot of good character development, but I think we need to see more about his work as a journalist, and a bit more of his kid. I had totally forgotten they even HAD one. Inserting a line like, "I guess we can call the babysitter off" would help.

Journeyman's still not on my "Must Watch" list, but it will always be on. It's just a matter of whether I mind skipping a few minutes to go to the washroom.

Fall Premieres: Tuesday

Today, I penciled in NCIS (CBS/Global) and House (Fox/Global). Both excellent choices, and both shows that have proven their worth.

NCIS was on before House, and what a lead in! The team was still tracking Tony and Jeanne... and La Grenouille (a word nearly no one on the show can say properly). Some hyping, exciting scenes at the beginning followed by the typical NCIS investigation procedure on a not so typical case provided some interesting, but mostly predictable twists. THE twist, was, of course, obvious because in the age of the free flow of information on the Internet, fans mostly know what real-life situations with actors and shows are and therefore, we know if someone is having contractual problems... I'm sure you all know what I'm getting at, but I'm not about to spoil the surprise!
I wanted more of Abby and Ducky, and I'm sure I'll get it next episode.

It was a nice wrap of the season finale, and I think it could have done well as a two parter... but then there wouldn't have been any suspense. We learn a lot about Shepard's character, and the show ends with a crime... which usually not the case. Too bad the main characters aren't aware it happened yet...

This episode is a must watch for NCIS fans, even if you don't plan on following through the season.

As for House, well... what can I say! The doctor is in, and even an apple a day won't keep him away. Minus Chase, Foreman and Cameroon, House seems vulnerable. But don't fear, for Cutty and Wilson are near! Too bad they're still trying to get him to change. Well, Cutty's trying to do it the good old way, which means it won't work. But Wilson is very bold and daring in his House manipulation this episode... as sign of things to come maybe?

The case is an odd one, and it seems House is just pulling at straws, mostly because of laziness. With no team, he talks to himself, random nurses and docs, and... the janitor. Cutty can't stop others - or herself - from bouncing the idea ball with House... even though she tries. Silly people who care about people! Don't they learn? House will get what he wants in the end.

And in the end, he was right AND wrong. But neither conclusion is contradictory. It's simple, really, just not at all what you'd expect.

We have to wait until the end of the show to see how House is going to threaten his new hoard of potential employees, and what a nice setup for next week!

Wilson's gag just makes the whole episode even better, and I can't wait to see how House will get him back, because you know his mini payback will totally not be good enough.

Recap?

NCIS = Yes!
House = YES!!

Fall Premieres: Monday

I have another post to write between the last one and this one, but... this just can't wait. Today was the Monday Fall Premiere night. On the agenda: Chuck (NBC), Heroes (NBC/Global) and Journeyman (NBC/Global).

Today it a totally NBC night.

Chuck was highly recommended by critics, and for good reason. The show got off to a semi-slow start... the first episode as a whole was not as amazingly spy-ish as a random ALIAS episode, but that's to be expected. Still, it was a great first episode, a perfect set up for an awesome season of geekiness and spyness. Captain Awesome? amazing. Nerd squad or whatever it's called... also awesome. Buy More is the name of the "Best Buy" like store. Wasn't that used in some other movie?

Chuck is definitely on my must-watch list. And the girl is hot. The concept is sort of similar to 5th element, in that images are encoded with information. There, Mila's character, the 5th element, absorbs all of the world's information through a series of images. But the overall flow and premise of the show is different. Also, it makes me laugh. And it has that, "so true" or "I could see that happening in my life" feel to it, because the guy is an everyman.

Then, Heroes. Obviously not as amazingly jaw dropping as last year's premiere, and if you've read the comics over the summer, there's definitely extra information that made it easier to understand some stuff... But it was just as wicked as ever. The Kenshin twist is... better than great, but I don't want to abuse "awesome" and "amazing". It's also really funny :P
We meet Maya and Alejandro, learn what happens to Matt and Mohinder... and the Bennett plot is interesting... Claire still keeps her first name, but must resign to going un-noticed. Too bad her classmate and love-interest-to-be has totally noticed her. The pictures bring an interesting aspect to the whole company thing. And the twist at the end is of course, "OMG"!!!

Now, I'm watching Journeyman. It didn't get great preview reviews... It's presented in a very confusing way, with tight shots when they're not needed and wide shots that are just too wide. Cool side note... we know it's set in San Francisco... but they use the Charmed house.
The storyline has a lot of inside talk... the brothers don't get along, and it seems there's a problem with wives or girlfriends... The lead actor played in Rome, on HBO, and for a journalist... he's just too military. Rolls away from oncoming trams, rescues someone from committing suicide... It looks like he does it for a living.
I do like the premise, but the casting seems weak and the editing of the show, in terms of style... I just don't think it works. We need a little more information at the onset than they've given us.
Judging from the first 30 minutes, I might or might not continue to watch it.

Verdict: Chuck = Yes, Heroes = YES, Journeyman = eh.