MINEAR GOODNESS

a.k.a lazy posting on my part.
Here's a blog dedicated to Tim Minear's Drive. Go have a look.

Here's a guy that's got the goods and never fails to do something different (which probably has a little something to do with the short life span of his shows). I look forward to Drive for that exact reason.

Here, have an unaired version of the Wonderfalls pilot, on which Minear was a producer, though not on this particular pilot. This was by Todd Holland and Bryan (Amazing Screw-On Head) Fuller.

SHOWS ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING STOLE'D

Vanished? No.

Kidnapped? Yes.

I'll get into detail later on in the week, when death is no longer something I'm aspiring to.

Actually, I'm just going to leave it at that.

coughHACKcough

PILOT (P)REVIEW: STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP

Disclaimer: I worship at the altar of Sorkin and cannot be counted upon for objectivity.

Blessed Betty and Veronica, yes!

This is The Sorkin. He brings it as only he can bring it. I'm not even going to get into too much detail because if you are a fan of quality television or a writer of any kind, you're going to want to watch this when it airs. If not, turn in your card. Whichever card you've got. Go out and get a card, then turn it in.

Obviously, I follow television in great detail. I know how to read the Nielsens. I read Hollywood Reporter everyday (thanks to their .pdf version). I track pilot development as best I can, de dit de dit de dah, but parts of the pilot made me sit up and think "that's really inside." As far as I know, I got it all, but how's it gonna play in flyover? It's not stuff you need to understand for the most part. You don't need to be a political junkie to follow The West Wing and that went for seven years. the stuff you need to know will get explained, just hang in there. My concern is that it's so inside Hollywood. How is that exactly going to play? Hopefully quality writing and an ridiculously awesome cast will handle that.

Matthew Perry is great, but I think he's proven that already (not just in that one show). Bradley Whitford shakes off Josh Lyman nicely (and I think there's some autobiographical bits of Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme in there). Amanda Peet is beautiful and perfect in her character's confidence. I just dig Timothy Busfield. Always have. Sarah Paulson perfectly embodies Harriet's dichotomous nature. Just, really, a great cast.



Now, being that it's Sorkin, the show has it's political bent. Sports Night had it and so does Studio 60. At first glance the show seems like Sorkin's second chance at Sports Night, but without all the sitcom trappings. Dispensing with the need for three jokes a page. It isn't that second chance, though, this is a whole new animal in...well, in seven different ways. You'll see.

The main political bent in the pilot (or social commentary bent I guess is more accurate) is going to be taken as anti-religion (ironically by the people who are exactly the target of it), but what it really is...is anti-religious bigot and anti-religious-based censorship. The thing though is that Harriet Hayes (the Sarah Paulson character) is a deeply religious Christian. That's going to be interesting.

Something I noticed when I read the script a few months ago (when it was still Studio 7) and still something that's here is that the show didn't have one real kickass moment. Sorkin really set himself up with that "I am the Lord, your God" moment in the West Wing pilot.

Or maybe it does have that kickass moment, but the thing is it happens in the first five minutes rather than the last and it belongs to a character who is done with the show in the second five minutes.

Two words. Paddy Chayefsky. Again, you'll see.

The Sorkin voice is still there. It's different, of course, but it's there.

It's good to have such high expectations so well met.

I've wasted no time putting this in the sidebar's Currently Digging.

And I've watched it at least 12 times as of this writing.

MCSWEENEY'S

What better way to start the workaday week than with some unsophisticated commentary on contemporary events?

My current piece at McSweeney's Internet Tendency explores an alternative theory to some of today's most vexing problems. Well, a most vexing problem.

I fully subscribe to the idea that the more ridiculous a conspiracy theory is, the more likely it is to be correct. And by fully, I mean a little bit.

Increasing Airline Revenue Through Fear

And no. No relation. You'll see.

PILOT (P)REVIEW: SHARK

Warren Ellis termed Shark a post-House show (right here). It really is, but I think this show could have gained a lot by being as stark (pun very likely intended) about it's main character as House is about Greg House.

Shark follows Sebastian Stark (James Woods), a big-time defense attorney who finds himself having won one case too many when the guy he gets off on an attempted murder rap goes and finishes the job. He is convinced to put his considerable talents to work for the prosecution.

He's a House. Full of himself and rightfully so. Well, that is until he completely breaks that façade and falls for some defendant's theatrical stand on the stand.

Gah. Hope that doesn't happen again.

Certain scenes follow the House style. I most thought of this when he demonstrated his mastery of whoever is on the stand by ripping apart one of his subordinates in a exercise. A subordinate who would be the one to resist. The one who thinks he's over-rated (one of them, anyway) and finds his presence repulsive. It was cool. I think the pilot could have greatly benefited from having at least one more "power" scene like this, where Woods/Stark knocks you down out of sheer ability. In the courtroom would have been perfect, but we didn't quite get there in act four.

Like House has his three doctors, Stark has lawyers, allegedly the unfavored of the D.A.'s office ( save for the one that volunteered because she recognizes Stark's brilliance (and could be shades of Dr. Cameron)), but he's got too many.

How is Shark unlike House? House probes Greg's personal life often very indirectly. It comes through in cases and in unspoken words. In subtext. Shark uses Stark's personal life for b-plot, directly. We meet his daughter and his ex-wife and are involved in his daughter's decision to stay in LA with Dad or move to NY with Mom. We witness him trying to bond with his daughter and (predictably) getting caught up in his work when he does. I think the show would gain something by, as I said, being more stark about it. Don't let us into his life so clearly. Let this complex man be a puzzle. This complex man who is so involved in his work that he has constructed a court room facsimile in his home (using artifacts from famous trials like O.J. or the Scopes Monkey Trial). It's video'd up and provides a danger room of sorts for Stark and his team to hone their legal acrobatics.

When that courtroom came up, it also put me in the mind of this being a sort of companion to Justice (which I have not seen, but have been inundated with promos for all summer). He puts huge resources into prosecution as they do into defense.

And I liked it better when Justice was called American Crime.

I can't say I am particularly familiar with the work of writer Ian Biederman. He's done work for Crossing Jordan, Law and Order: SVU and a short-lived 1995 series called Courthouse, so I guess he's got the background. The pilot's direction is notable for having been done by Spike Lee. As I've said before, I'm no director and I don't pretend to be able to judge more subtle direction work, but it seemed fine to me. "Nothing screamed out Spike Lee directed this." It didn't have any distinct identity to it of any kind, really.

Back to the House comparison. When I first saw House, I was impressed by Hugh Laurie and by the character. The puzzle of the week's medical case was okay, but it wasn't going to be what brought me back. When I saw the second one, it became clear there was a formula and I wasn't sure I'd keep watching, but I gave it another week. Somewhere around week 21 (of 22) or so ("Three Stories" specifically), I decided I'd stick with the show. Shark could be like that. The cases aren't going to be the draw, it's going to be James Woods as Stark. He's an amazing actor and the character can be very intriguing, but only if they are willing to screw with him and take chances somehow and let him be an unremitting asshole. The daughter thing is too much of a grounding thing for Stark, so I'd like to see something get really shaken up there.

I'll go week by week on this, as I did with House. It's 10/9c timeslot is favorable, though (for me personally), so I'll probably keep on it regardless, until there's a schedule shake up.

They should have just called it Stark.

PILOT (P)REVIEW: THE NINE

So, I'm writing this as I watch it, totally unfiltered and without overthinking. I'll also stay spoiler-free. Pretty much.

First thing that struck me on this was "Hey, Chi McBride's got a new look!" A mustache, some hair. Suits him.

Here's how the concept of The Nine is stated:

So much in life is beyond our control. Each day can change the rest of a person's life. Nine people face just such an unexpected twist when they are caught in a bank robbery gone wrong. They must endure a 52-hour hostage standoff that will leave two people dead and seven others changed for the rest of their lives. These nine people will be changed forever and their lives will be intertwined because of these 52 hours.

I'll just say, there's a ton of recognizable faces in this show. Kim Raver, John Billingsley, Tim Daly, the aforementioned McBride. Scott Wolf. More.
Oh, and how about the line that can elicit giggles in the immature. And me. And Kim Raver's character.

"Ma'am, I assure you. Nobody's been inside your box."

Okay, the ensemble drama by Hank Steinberg and K.J. Steinberg starts off with an interview component, apparently outside the show, not part of something in that world. Sometimes these work, and I kinda liked this one. it was a little off-kilter, but didn't come back. Maybe each episode will start like this or something. if it was one off, then it was stupid, because it didn't actually do anything other than let you know something was going to happen. If you're watching the show, you know something's going to happen.

Sometimes these things make or break on how the huge cast is introduced and this one seems to do it pretty effectively. You get a good sense of them going into as the first act builds a crescendo to the coming crime that will change their lives. Some of that is because ther's a lot of cookie-cutter characters in the bunch. Front and center, Tim Daly's gambling maverick cop.

When we come back from black, it's at the end of those 52 hours and very peculiar things happen as the police take action to end the hostage drama. Not supernatural peculiar. Relax. Clearly there's a lot going on in that 52 hours and eventually, I hope we'll see it all. It makes me wonder how much of that 52 hours is mapped out and how much of it is going to be seat-of-the-pants arc'ing.

It's got a good sharp look to it. Great use of color, director Alex Graves wasn't afraid to pop with the palette some. I like that. Too many NBC dramas (which this is not, it's ABC) seem to go with a muted thing. Do not listen to me, I'm not a fucking director.

Second act is short. Picking up the third act, there's no big time jump or other jarring element. Now, it's about the police interrogating the hostages, as they're all suspects in what went down.

At this point, the clues are just being tossed out left and right. Set-up, set-up, and set-up some more. It's not entirely graceful, but it carries through with the hectic situation going on. Someone recognizes someone. There's a connection here. There's an unanswered question there. It's going off like a string of firecrackers.

This clearly going on a variation of the Lost model (another one) where it's a big puzzle and it's success will depend on the suck-in factor. I can see that every week is going to be another tiny piece of information that's built up to be huge and revelatory and ultimately, only gets you a few inches forward. I think there'll even be extensive flashbacks in the future, but not in this pilot.

We get some character development about half way though, somewhat as a respite from the adrenalized infodump we'd been subjected to, and that development is minimal and easy. It's all the change they have coming out the other end of the ordeal. It's easy, but it's necessary. I'm not about to fault anyone for that.

There's not much here that makes me want to come back and watch it, though if nothing else grabs me in the time slot (Kidnapped), I might anyway. I can easily see this series surviving under the radar. It's got the aforemention Lost as a lead-in, so the puzzle-hound may stick around for it. it'll get some drop off, but if it can hold decently against CSI:NY, it'll live. Invasion managed to hang on there for a whole season.

Oh, and I think I see why there's that really short act. I could be wrong, because I stopped counting act breaks and there's no commericals as I watch it, but this might be that five act structure that I so loathe. That will make a less pleasurable watching experience, I think.

I'll tell you something I did like. I dug the candid tone of the restaurant gathering of the hostages near the end of the episode. They've bonded over their ordeal and now they're becoming fast friends (and more in some cases).