Welcome Back to the Rock. Again.

It’s time we all just faced up to the really horrible truth of this year’s television season: Despite some valiant efforts to bridge new territory in storytelling or reality exploitation, TV networks really, really just miss Lost and want it back.

The latest heir apparent to the landmark show about mysterious happenings on a time-traveling island is Alcatraz, a show about mysterious happenings on a time-traveling island. Some of the cast is even the same. The premise is that Something Happened on the infamous prison island in 1963, just before it officially closed, whereby 302 inmates suddenly vanished. They are now reappearing in our time and a team of plucky heroes is on the case to hunt them down. No word yet when the polar bears will emerge, but one assumes they’re coming.

But seriously. Which one of us is the Kate?

It’s tempting to say that Alcatraz is learning a little something from Lost’s mistakes – namely that while you need a good mystery to keep people tuning in, audiences will only trust you for so long and so you’ve got to dish out some of the goods. And it doesn’t count if you just keep adding questions that you have no intention of answering. In that sense, Alcatraz does a fine job of helping us to feel like the story is going somewhere. By the end of the first episode, we know that there’s a secret cabal of men who have some nefarious plan for these reappearing criminals and we even know something of their backstory. We’ve been treated to an intriguing, albeit brief, view of a secret prison where the villains (or ARE they?) will be housed after being caught and we even get the sense of a much bigger story, what with the promised interconnections of our two lead characters.

It fizzles a bit, however, when after four or five episodes we’re stuck with the exact same formula each time. Mysterious psychopath from the past emerges in modern day San Francisco, the detective and her nerdy sidekick hunt them down and along the way manage the seemingly irrational and secretive behavior of their new boss. The big reveals don’t even pack that much of a punch because the story is formulaic enough that we know when to expect them. Also, some of the plot holes are big enough to build the Golden Gate Bridge through. To wit, why do none of these recently re-emerged criminals just hop the first bus to Mexico rather than stick around San Francisco to commit new crimes? Hopefully, this is only a case of networks needing a Dollhouse-style opening, one that doesn’t demand the mythology overtake the individual stories, thus letting new viewers on board.

The problem with that approach is, unless your television show has the words “law” and/or “order” in the title, most people don’t watch scripted television just to tune into the story, they also want to get to know the characters. Watching the growth and development of your leads is really where most television dramas get their mojo from. Ironically, that’s a lesson from Lost that the creators of Alcatraz haven’t quite picked up on yet. Although you can easily go overboard with characterization to the point where you make the audience forget if it’s watching a television show or reading someone’s diary, we’re far more interested in hearing about people than about things.

“I could do something that moves this plot forward, but then when would I find the time to stare wistfully out to sea and remember my past transgressions?”

I’m hopeful that Alcatraz pulls it together, even if some of the conceits in the show are a bit laughable. Parts of the show are total nerd-bait, including the notion that you can successfully live in San Francisco when you are paying off your school loans after two PhDs and your only income is running a comic book shop. The show is really at its best when it’s showcasing the cruel and bizarre inmate torture of the 1960s prison system and how the inmates, themselves not exactly sympathetic characters, deal with that torture. The potential for this show is significant, let’s just hope the network’s need to create another Lost doesn’t interfere with what the show should actually be.

Warning: no spoilers, but shameless fangirling ahead.

BEST EPISODE OF SUPERNATURAL EVER!

Ok, maybe not, but I hope you will forgive me the hyperbole since the latest episode of Supernatural that I watched had me literally jumping up and down with glee. And I promise, no major plot spoilers here, only squeeing over casting.

I know a lot of you have checked out of Supernatural, and I am definitely guilty of letting some episodes pile up on my DVR. In fact, the episode I referring to (Time After Time) originally aired back in January and I am just getting to it now.

I can't judge anyone for giving up on the show; it's clearly gotten bogged down in the mythology involving the angels and demons the past few years. Remember when it was about a pair of brothers driving around the country fighting urban legends and looking for their Dad? Those are days are far behind us. But I have stuck with it and enjoyed even these later seasons, especially since they brought us Castiel and Crowley.

And oh boy, did I get a pay-off. It's like Supernatural's writers have been reading my diary! Because guess who co-starred on the episode I watched last night?

 

 JASON MOTHERFUCKING DOHRING!

AKA, Logan from Veronica Mars. 

If you read this blog AT ALL, you know that Caroline and I are bit, ahem, obsessed with Jason Dohring. We have suffered through Moonlight and now Ringer all out of love for this guy, and here he turns up completely unexpectedly on Supernatural along with my other fangirl crush, Jensen Ackles. It's like Christmas! And my birthday! Combined in a beefy man sandwich!

And then, just when I didn't things could get any better...

Krycek!

Everyone's favorite morally questionable recurring guest-star of dubious loyalty. If you're an X-Files fan, you'll know who he is...but for those not in the know, this is Nicholas Lea who played the character Alex Krycek on The X-Files. So this episode of Supernatural was basically a big Valentine to me. Thanks, Supernatural!

Oh, and I think forgot to mention the hotness that was the 1940s style clothes.

Can I get these two wrapped up to go?

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

HULK SMASH BROADWAY

After months and months (and months) of hype, NBC's new drama, Smash, debuted this week. I have to admit I've been looking forward to it; after all, it's about the creation of a new stage musical and you know how I feel about musicals.

Well, if you've ever been around me for longer than 10 minutes you probably know how I feel about musicals since I am prone to bursting into song at every opportunity.

Think of Smash as an adult alternative to Glee. You've got your fantasy singing sequences, and of course the songs featured in the show are immediately available for download on iTunes. But no matter the reason why the show is here, the real question is, is it any good?

 

 Well, it made me do this. For reals, I have not seen so many "throw my head back singing and raise my arms over my head" shots in my life. And I gotta admit, by the end, I was right there with them.  It's easy to get swept up in the drama and the music and the excitement.

But when the afterglow wore off I would say that I'm cautiously optimistic. I really liked the pilot; the characters are all great, and the behind-the-scenes stuff on the creation of a new musical is hella interesting.

There's essentially two stories being told here: Debra Messing and Christian Borle (from Spamalot!) are a song-writing duo (think Oscar and Hammerstein) who are struck with the idea to write a new musical about Marilyn Monroe. Meanwhile, you've got Broadway veteran Ivy, who has been stuck in the ensemble for 10 years, and newbie Karen who is also competing for the lead role.

My only complaint at this point is the heavy reliance on cliche. Katherine McPhee as Karen, is the ingenue who has moved from the midwest (of course) with stars in her eyes (of course) but this could be her big shot at stardom (OF COURSE)! And then there's Ivy, the busty blonde (of course) who is tired of wallowing in the background (of course) and might be willing to do anything to get ahead (OF COURSE).

What I found a lot more interesting were the stories of the writers, producers, and directors who are actually creating the show within a show. As someone who did high school and college theater, I've got some small insight into how a show gets made, but seeing how things get done when you've got millions of dollars and reputations at stake is really fascinating. And so far the songs are catchy and the original songs are really great. Which honestly, if the musical that formed the backbone of the show sucked, the show wouldn't have a prayer. But it looks like it's going to be good, and as one of the characters pointed out people are crazy about Marilyn right now.

And for another perspective, I decided to check in on what my cousin, Susannah, a Broadway expert, had to say. In short: she loved it. She's been eagerly looking forward to it and sounds like it didn't disappoint her (I believe the words "love" and "fabulous" were used multiple times).

The only thing that she wasn't absolutely crazy about was the casting of Katherine McPhee, which fair enough. I'm not an American Idol fan and don't really know anything about her, and while I wasn't blown away, I could see the beginnings of a spark in her. Let's hope the show can bring that out. And Susannah and I are in agreement that the rest of the cast is amazing, and we hope they get a chance to sing since most of them are Broadway veterans (on that note this article teases some promising things on the horizon...).

In short, I think people are going to fall into two camps on this. If Broadway and musicals are your thing then I think Smash is going to be must-see viewing for you. If you are meh on either than you probably won't be interested in the show. As for me, I'm definitely tuning in. What can I say, I'm a sucker for a musical. 

Smash airs Monday nights at 10pm on NBC.

Are you ready for some PUPPY BOWL!

Apparently there was some kind of football game on Sunday night? Something about the Super Bowl? If you want to read about that, then I suggest that you scroll down to Clovis' coverage of what sounds like a less than spectacular game.

But we all REALLY know what the highlight of Superbowl Sunday is, right? PUPPY BOWL, BITCHES!

You've got puppies running around and being adorable, the kitty half-time show, the hamsters in their blimp providing camera coverage of the entire field, and this year the piggy pep squad along with Meep the bird who provided entertaining tweets throughout the game. In fact, I think Monkey Sri enjoyed the twitter feed more than the actual game.

While the Superbowl may have been a lame game, this year's Puppy Bowl might have had the most action of any bowl so far. There was a record number of touchdowns (when a toy is dragged or carried into the end zone) and it was a real contest to see who would take MVP. In the end there could only be one, and though he was outscored by the adorable Aberdeen, this year's MVP went to...

Fumble! A 9 week old Chihuahua/Terrier Mix who started things off with a bang by madly frolicking with the other puppies...although sometimes he got flagged for unnecessary ruffness. I think at one point he fell asleep and another dog stepped on his face. Payback's a bitch, Fumble...literally.

But the viewer's choice MVP (which also happened to my pick) was the Aberdeen, the high-scorer of the night!

 He's a 10 week old Australian Shepherd Mix and I thought he was the cutest puppy out there!

IMO the great thing about the Puppy Bowl is that it doesn't really require anything of you in terms of active viewing. It's puppies running around being adorable. The end. Sure they dress it up with hamsters and pigs and kittens and birds, but at the end of the day....puppies. Playing. That's it. If you want to write an email, chat with your friends, do some knitting during the game, no problem. You'll find yourself "awwwwing" in the middle of whatever you're doing though, so watch out.

My only complaint? It's gotten so commercial. It used to be about the game, you know? Not vacuum cleaners. Oh, and one more thing:

WHERE ARE THE BEAGLES, ANIMAL PLANET? Beagle fans demand satisfaction.

"Super" Bowl?

In terms of epic-ness, it should have hit its mark. Two storied teams fighting for the top position both managed to outlast other upstarts throughout the season in order to make it to the final game. If that wasn’t enough, the same two teams met four years previously, the added value of a rematch potentially permeated the air. Plus you had the New York Giants squaring off against the New England Patriots, two teams with fan bases so devoted they could form de facto religious sects. So with all that promise, why was this year’s Super Bowl so, well, boring?

It could...go...all...the... oh, who are we kidding - no, it couldn't.

From the ridiculously lopsided first quarter (the Giants kept possession of the ball for almost the entire time, giving it to the Patriots for only one play before a technical error ended up costing New England a two-point safety in the end zone), this game looked hard fought, but frankly no more astonishing than a typical Sunday game. The fans in the stadium didn’t even really seem all that into it. New York gave a solid, and ultimately winning, performance but it wasn’t one that seemed especially inspired. And the Patriots, with the exception of a record-breaking 98-yard long drive from their own two-yard line into the opposing end zone, pretty much only got by with short, 10-yard passes and the occasional run up the middle.

Unfortunately for Boston, much of the fault for the low-excitement game likely lies with the Patriots. That failed Hail Mary drive in the final moments of the game aside, none of the team’s playing was exactly dramatic. That’s not to say that the Patriot’s short play style wasn’t strong. As my father used to say, if every play you run gets you three yards, that’s always going to be enough for a first down and that’s how you move down the field. Given that the only thing that counts at the end of the game is the final score, that style is the basis for solid, winning football. It’s just that when compared with the Giants’ muscular, relatively angrier playing style, the Pats just came out looking a little worn.

I’m typically the last person to fault a team for a solid playing style that doesn’t look that flashy. I come from the world of Big Ten college football, where the knock on the entire conference for years has been that the low-scoring games and lack of relative flash makes for bad ball. Of course, that’s because the Big Ten’s stock in trade is defensive playing, which by definition exists to shut down football plays. Compared with other conferences, such as perennial chart-toppers in the SEC, the Big Ten often looks slower, putting a larger emphasis on the size of players and their ability to break apart offensive lines. Meanwhile, those whiz-bang Heisman trophy winners in the SEC can put the football wherever they like it, rack up a combined total of over 100 points per game from both teams and have heard about defensive players and secretly have made plans for what they might say to a D-line if they ever meet one.

Right. Now, which one of us runs and which one of us blocks again?

The difference between my crabby defense of reliable, if not glittering, football and my boredom at this year’s game is actually the game itself. This was the Super Bowl. For all that I’d prefer to watch an actual game where the low score means higher stakes per touchdown, the reason we watch the Super Bowl is for the big plays, the explosions and the twirls and twists. The Super Bowl is all about spectacle and special effects and as such it is far more akin to entertainment than sports; it’s the Glee to the rest of the regular season’s CBS Nightly News. This year the league ended up with a game that lacked the pizzazz that it needed for such a night of event television. It didn’t feel fake or overcooked like some other Super Bowls in recent memory, but it didn’t exactly live up as the sheer entertainment machine that it’s designed to be either.

But as they say in the game, there’s always next year. Detroit Lions for XLVII, baby!

Glee Squee-cap: Michael Jackson

I adored last night's episode of Glee for several reasons - the main reason being that it is one of the few episodes that utilized almost the entire ensemble cast, and did it well. We didn't have to sit through Rachel's insane internal monologues and/or endless self-indulgent solos. The main plot was a feud between the New Directions and the Warblers (Blaine's old show choir at Dalton Academy). Blaine is caught in the crossfire of their turf war, and Kurt has to make the tough choice: petty vengeance or moral victory? We also find out that Kurt is selected as a finalist for NYADA, and the scene where he opens the letter with Burt was SO. FREAKING. CUTE.

Don't cry, because then I'll start- Oh, too late!

The assignment of the week was Michael Jackson, one of the most iconic - and controversial - pop idols of all time. Glee didn't feel the need to address MJ's lifestyle, or his death, and I agree with their decision. It's not this show's place to ruminate on the scandals, but to celebrate an amazing body of work. Artie fantasized about getting out of his wheelchair for an awesome dance to "Scream" with Mike, Sam and Mercedes got to duet-it-up with "Human Nature," and Quinn's rendition of "Never Can Say Goodbye" charmed me and her ex-boyfriends alike. I would've liked Santana to take more of a lead in her "Smooth Criminal" duet with bad boy Sebastian (leader of the Warblers). Admittedly, for me it's less about the music itself and more about letting the various characters shine.

 Also, I wouldn't mind seeing more of this hat.

Oh, and before I forget, Rachel and Finn are going to get married, or something. *yawn*