Emmy Nominations

The Emmy Nominations were announced a couple of weeks ago. I could give my thoughts on them, but everyone else and their mother has already done that by now. How about I talk about the fact that an internet based show has nominations? Sound good? Of course you can't respond, I'll be done writing by the time you read it. 

"House Of Cards" was the smash hit of the beginning of they year that "Netflix" hoped it would be. It brought a sense of legitimacy to digital distribution that it desperately needed. This is a show that has gotten praise from both audiences and critics. I didn't start watching until a couple months after it came out. I still think that this happens to be one of the best dramas in the last decade. It is a well rounded show when it comes to; the director, the actors, and the writer. All aspects are simply perfect. It is no wonder why this has garnered multiple emmy nominations. 

Usually, a show this well received wouldn't be expected to get award nominations, but this show is different. A lot of people were surprised that it got nominated. Not because these people didn't agree with the choice, but because it is not technically a television show. "House Of Cards" has never been broadcast over a television network, cable or not. The entire run of the show was shown over "Netflix" instant. The only other way to view it is to purchase the dvd/blu-ray boxset. 

I honestly hope that this opens up a can of worms for digitally distributed media. There are a lot of shows that are made and distributed on the internet that are great pieces of work. Hopefully they can be recognized more now that shows don't need a broadcast run to be nominated for awards. Not only that, but I hope this will also hopefully show people that if you work hard and let your creativity flow, you will be rewarded for it.     

Worth The Cost?

I think we can all agree that entertainment isn't a necessity in life. It's more of a want, rather than a need. It is normally something that people use to wined down after a hard day of work, or just something to help fight off boredom. But do people treat it as a want or do they turn it into a need?

A lot of people now adays would probably admit that they wouldn't know what to do without internet or cable. Even though these are not things people need to live, most have integrated it into their every day lives. The problem with this is the fact that these services come at a high cost. Even the lowest of cable and satellite packages are quite expensive. Is the enjoyment entertainment worth the cost you pay to get it? 

Even if you don't use cable and just rely on services such as ; "Netflix" or "Hulu" you need to pay two costs to use them. You need to pay a monthly internet bill, along with the bill for the services themselves. That doesn't include any overage charges you may receive from exceeding your internet limit. I'm not trying to dismiss these services or anyone that uses them. I enjoy streaming television shows on regular basis. I'm just not certain weather the ends justify the means. 

Even if you want to go the alternative route, then you can still feel bogged down by the cost of it all. Watching television using an antenna isn't as simple as it used to be. Back in the day, you used to just be able to buy a cheap antenna, hook it up, and start watching. Now adays you have to get a converter box to even use an antenna. These cost somewhere from forty to fifty dollars, plus the cost on an antenna. If you don't live near broadcasting stations, then the cost is not worth the end result. 

Even though I do enjoy being entertained, it does make me wonder if the cost is worth it all. But I try not to think about most of the time. Can my hard earned money go to a better place? Probably. Will me or anyone else stop spending money on entertainment? Probably not.       

The Killing, Or Not The Killing

Last year I quickly became fascinated with the tv show "The Killing". I had streamed the entire first season in the matter of a week and watched the entire second season every Sunday night. I was very happy with the show and couldn't have wished for a better crime show to get into. That was, until the final episode of season two. I was simply shocked by what I witnessed that night. Sadly, it was not in the good way. 

It baffles me that they could screw up a last episode that badly. I watched for 26 episodes, only to be slapped in the face at the last minute. I waited for two season for the identity of "Rosie Larson's" killer. Only to be disappointed with the answer. The one I got wasn't the one I wanted. it felt like something that belonged at the end of an episode of "Law & Order". Not the end of a story that took two years to tell. 

At the time and point this episode aired, I had no idea that there was going to be another season. This seemed to be the end of the road. Talk of the show being canceled made that seem possible. At one point I heard that "Netflix" had picked the show up. This intrigued me because they have become the "HBO" of streaming services with their edgey programming style. That did not last for long. While watching the season three finale of "The Walking Dead" I saw a commercial for the third season of "The Killing". 

I have seen a few more ads for it since then. They have given me some interest in the show again. It will be nice to rejoin the characters that I enjoyed to watch grow, but I don't want to get burned again. This is the crossroads that I'm at. I would love to watch the characters and actors that I love again, but at the same time I don't want to be disappointed with a simple answer to a complicated question. This might the risk that I'm willing to take. You'll find out if it was worth it, when I give my review of the season premiere at the beginning of next month.          

Renew That Cancellation

Last week was the time of the year when television channels, big and small, decide what they are bringing back for next season and what is getting the boot. Today I'm going over a few of the big networks, to give my opinion on their decisions this past week. Let's get started! 

CW: I truly do miss the "WB" and "UPN" being two separate channels, but I shouldn't dwell on the past. One of the shows they decided to keep this year was "Arrow". This does not come as a surprise. We are living in an era where superheroes are the it thing. Nothing else is really notable for the "CW", unless you like vampires, assassins, or fairy tales. In that case you will be please with the "CW" fall line up. 

FOX: I honestly haven't watched fox for sometime now, except for a rerun of "The Simpsons" every now and again. All of their renewals are for shows that they just won't let die. The most interesting news to come from them this week has to do with both a cancellation and a renewal that have some relation. They canceled the "Kiefer Southerland" drama, push. Only to bring back "24" out of the dead for another season. I don't think it's fair to toy with the man. Taking away something new to force him to do something old.

NBC: I was going to give "NBC" a well deserved pat on the back. They decided to keep character based shows "Parenthood" and "Parks and recreation". They also decided to can crap like "Whitney" and "Smash". Things were looking up until I logged onto the internet last night. They are retiring "Jay Leno", again. Only to give "Jimmy Fallon" the "Tonight Show" and letting "Seth Meyers" take over the late night spot. This didn't work four years ago. Why would it work now? 

CBS: They decided on keeping a bunch stuff I don't watch and cancel a few things I don't watch or care about. That's actually not true. They did cancel the last two remaining "CSI" shows. I have to give them some props for finally letting them die. That doesn't make up for all of their horrible sitcoms though. 

ABC: I didn't have much to say about "ABC". They made some good moves. They got rid of some junk and kept some shows that people actually like. I don't tune in to this channel much, so I don't really care about either. But then, they pulled me in. The first footage for "Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D." was released this past week and I know for a fact that I will be watching this every week.

TNT: On Friday, I found out that "TNT" canceled "Southland". I could get worked up about it and go on a rampage like every other fan of the show is doing online, but I won't. It was a great show, one of my favorites in fact. I hope it gets picked up by another network. If not, then I still have five fantastic seasons to watch over and over again.

Death Of The American Sitcom

I grew up watching "Nick At Nite" before going to bed. This may seem like a simple thing, maybe even uneventful. But those are some memories that I still Cherish to this day. I would enjoy a block of classic sitcoms that included: "Happy Days", "I Love Lucy", and "Laverne and Shirley". That time has now passed. The network does not show these sitcoms anymore. They have update to more recent shows, such as: "Friends" and "That 70's show". There hasn't been a sitcom, like the classic ones I've listed above, in sometime. I feel that there never will be again. 

The era of the classic sitcom is gone and it does not seem to be coming back anytime soon. There are still funny sitcoms and ones that are trying to do things in a new way, but they are not the same as the ones I grew up watching. There is no way to capture that magic again or to make a sitcom as memorable as the classic ones are. The world is constantly moving forward and there is no way to move backwards. Any attempts just look foolish. 

Sitcoms seem to be moving in two different directions at the moment. The first way is moving forward with single camera comedies. These are shows that do not involve a studio audience and are filmed with only the use of a single camera. They are also use sets that look more realistic than the classic sitcoms used. The second way is the moving back with the three camera comedy. These are shows that use a three camera system, film in front of live audience, (Or rather a laugh track), and use sets that don't look anymore than just a studio set. 

In my opinion, the first method seems to be the only logical one to use nowadays. Laugh tracks feels patronizing in this day and age. By going with the old methods of constructing a sitcom, you are just trying to recapture the old days. The golden age of television, if you will. This doesn't make any sense to me. These shows may not even gain popularity and if they do, then they won't be memorable years from now. Do you honestly think that audiences will look back at "The Big Bang Theory" with fondness in sixty years, like they do with "I Love Lucy"?

I still enjoy watching the classics to this day, but I don't think they can be made today. For all I know I could be wrong. A funny, imaginative, and heartwarming show could pop up out of no where tomorrow. At this point and time the classic American sitcom is gone from the air waves, but not forgotten.  

      

Censors**p

A couple of weeks ago I was watching "Pulp Fiction" on cable. My first viewing of this movie was on cable. The last few times that "I've watched it have been on DVD, but I didn't think much of it.That is until one of the characters started cursing. it trough me off when I hear silence instead of the curse word I had heard when I would watch the DVD version. It's almost like I had forgotten the censorship of words on television. This made me give some thought about it. 

I honestly don't understand the reason behind censoring certain words on television in this day and age. I can wrap my head around the reason why people began to do this. When television was invented people were more strict when it came to the media. Parents were upset at the fact that women in comic books were drawn with curves. This was surely a different time. There was no rating system for any content at that time. There was no way for inappropriate content to be shown to only certain age groups. It was just shuned away instead. 

We live in a very different time now. I don't understand who we're keeping these things away from anymore. Who is going to be offended by the foul language of "Pulp Fiction"? Children? If so, then why would you be showing them such a violent film in the first place. Some adults find using these words to be offensive, but there is no reason they would be watching this either. I can't think of a single person that would gasp at the sound of "Samuel L Jackson" dropping an "F Bomb", yet at the same time be alright with watching a man's head explode. 

There are certain channels that do let it all out. "HBO", "Starz", and "Showtime" can show whatever they want without any censors touching there content. Is this because these are extra channels? Channels that not everyone needs, but can be bought for an extra price. But can't you say the same about thing about most cable channels? Yet they do not have the privileges that the movies channels do. 

I simply want to know who we're protecting when we censor curse words. I feel that their aren't many people to protect anymore. Maybe I'm wrong and there are people out there who prefer their content censored for them. For now I'll just enjoy the content that television has provided me. Censored or not.

Tube Talk Recommends: Luther

It's no secret that "BBC America" has become more popular over the years. The credit of this channel's success goes to a few different shows that are widely popular around the world today. Arguably, the most popular of the bunch is "Doctor Who", which would be followed by "Sherlock" and "Top Gear" respectively. I'm not writing this to recommend those shows. That would be redundant, since those shows are already popular. Today I'm recommending my personal favorite "BBC" show, "Luther". 

I stumbled on to "Luther" last year when I was looking around "Netflix" out of bored'em. I had heard of the name before, but I had no idea what the show was about. That's when I decided to just jump into the show, blind. Not knowing what to expect, I was completely surprised with what I saw. "This was not just any crime show", i thought to myself. "Luther" was and still is like nothing I've ever seen before. 

"I can not recall ever seeing a pilot for a television show this well made. I don't think I have ever been invested into within the first 20 minutes of a show before." This is what running through my mind while watching the first episode of this revolutionary crime drama. There are only a handful of shows that I can hold up to this level. I'm not sure what I can describe about the show without giving anything away. It might be best to go in blind like I did. All you need to know is that the show is about the title character "John Luther", who has a very complicated life that gets involved with his career as a detective. 

In my opinion the buzz around this show should be larger then it is now. Up to this point it has only had brief glimpses in the spotlight with a couple of "Golden Globe" nominations and one win. The first two seasons of "Luther" can be found for stream on "Netflix". The third season is expected at the fourth quarter of this year.