LAX: a title, or a review?

Most people seem to simply not get something that is a common and popular taste. I’ve run into people who don’t enjoy chocolate, or can’t stand the Beatles, or the scent of flowers. And yes, I have some such things on my list.

Prime example: Heather Locklear. She’s a popular actress, she is credited with saving various series, but I don’t get it. And her popularity means that she is brought in to help shows that need ratings, shows I generally like. So I see her on Spin City (which was, admittedly, always less than the sum of its parts) or making multiple guest appearances on Scrubs, and for me she sucks any comedic energy out of the scene. It’s not just me; my wife agrees. Yes, weirdos marry each other. So you folks who like Heather Locklear aren’t wrong, per se, but we are just not among your number.

As such, LAX, the new light drama set at the Los Angeles airport, goes in with a major strike against it in my book. And then there are my memories of watching Moonlighting, and the one episode where David Addison (Bruce Willis) is coming up with his latest hairbrained scheme for success: a TV series called Bus Station where people are coming and going, each their own story, their own drama. And yes, there are plenty of people passing through a bus station or an airport, and yes they are coming from or going to, but still at the heart of it, it’s a place where people wait for transportation.

LAX very much follows on Las Vegas, with similar attempts at slick’n'sexy camera work, with the various little subplots arising from seeing to people’s needs and dealing with their security, but by the end of episode one I felt like they had run through the key tales they had to tell, hadn’t told them that well and they didn’t have places to go that were that interesting. I don’t foresee watching any more episodes of this show.

Published in: on September 18, 2004 at 8:36 pm  Leave a Comment  

Catching up

Okay, okay, the season is a-rollin’ and I’m well behind. I’m working on it!

Published in: on September 18, 2004 at 5:44 pm  Leave a Comment  

This season

Well, the season has started early, with NBC launching various shows in order to capitalize on Olympic momentum. So I may as well talk about my plans for this season: I’m gooing to watch shows. I’m going to watch new shows. But I may not watch them all. I may not review all that I watch.

Why? Quite simply, I’m a busy boy. And what I’m busy with is trying to get as much business as I can done before the arrival of our first child — who is scheduled to arrive while Fox still has shows to launch. Doing the blog is fun, but I’m gonne have a family to take care of (which may well be more fun!)

Published in: on September 5, 2004 at 8:29 am  Leave a Comment  

Father of the Pride

If you’ve ever seen a kid try to talk dirty just to make an impact, it is often unintentionally hilarious. They shoehorn the wrong word in the wrong place and it just seems so desperate.

Something similar can be said for Father of the Pride. It wants to be a dirty show. And yes, there’s a place for well-done sex-oriented stuff in sitcoms; Seinfeld’s “The Contest” episode demonstrated that in spades. But the raciness that ran through the first episode of Father of the Pride seems so effortful. It’s not unintentionally hilarious. It’s not hilarious no matter how your measure it. And while doing a full computer-animated sitcom is an aggressive move (although I don’t understand the claims that this is the first in prime time — admittedly, no one should have seen Game Over) it still falls flat with uninspired design. I don’t know who felt we need a show about Siegfried and Roy’s animals, but the whole humor of the S-and-R scene may be lost on the millions of us who have not seen their magic act. Really, I don’t see this going much of anywhere.

Published in: on September 3, 2004 at 12:21 am  Leave a Comment  

Method and Reconsidered

A while back, I endorsed Method and Red as a funny show. Since then, I’ve seen some complaint that it is a minstral show, showing even successful black men as clueless, sex-obsessed dolts. I’ll admit, this not something that I had had to consider. Being a white man, I’m not apt to be immediately as sensitive to such things, and not being particularly invested in those stereotypes, I was just looking at it as two specific sex-obsessed doltish characters, treating those aspects as separate from their blackness.

But looking at it from that angle, the detractors do indeed have a point. This work does reflect and feed certain negative stereotypes.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not retracting my statement that it’s a funny show. It is. But that doesn’t inherently excuse everything in mass entertainment (though it does give it some leeway.) Were the exact same show on in a world that didn’t have that stereotype, I would be able to endorse it more fully (although one might still raise concerns about the sexism in it, with the women fitting into certain primal categories). As it is, though, I gotta say that this show is now more of a gray area for me.

Published in: on September 3, 2004 at 12:12 am  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: