I've come to expect product placement in my reality shows. Idol judges drink coke products and the contestants shill in the commercials they perform in. On The Apprentice every episode is one long advertisement (those companies certainly aren't getting any work product out of the actual tasks!). And over on Bravo Project Runway and now Top Chef have taken this to new levels. I was watching Top Chef the other night and not only did they drive around in glossy SUVs, but when they unpacked them the hatch came down and the camera lingered lovingly on the vehicle name and logo. Cheesy, yes. But sort of to be expected in reality shows.
What's been more then a little creepy lately is the product placements happening in dramas (and comedies too I suppose). I've gotten hooked on the new HBO series Big Love (more on that in my next post), but it's been more then a little distracting to have products not only shown but mentioned quite prominently. In last Sunday's episode the products named and shown included the Ipod, an SUV, several brands of shoes, and a movie store. How's that for getting a bang for your buck?
This is HBO we're talking about. The channel I, and every other subscriber out there, pay an arm and a leg to watch. Do they really need to be making money shilling products in their highly regarded dramas? It's not even that I'm morally opposed to the idea - I'm not sure what I am. It's that it lessens the quality of the show. If I'm jerked out of the story every time a character stops to advertise something, there goes the dramatic impact and if they do it often enough, there goes me.
If HBO is that hard up for cash, maybe they should just put some commercials on in that dead space between movies.
I always thought that I should write some kind of self-help book and make buckets of money. Come up with some basic system and make everyone think it was profound. A library co-worker and I used to throw ideas at each other - he wanted to write about what your library books say about you. I thought of Pooh, Winnie that is.
My idea is to study people based on which character in Pooh they like and identify with. My older sister is a Piglet fan. And like Piglet she worries about what people think and wants to please, but she always has that sort of hopeful tone. My younger sister loves Tigger and that fits her perfectly. She's volatile and quick with the emotions and then she gets over it. I don't know that I'd call her bouncy, trouncy, but she is fun, fun, fun. People love to go out with her because they know she'll have a good time and so will they. My mom's an Eeyore. Slightly cynical and convinced something bad is probably coming but lovable all the same.
Me, I'm a Pooh. Kind of clueless about a lot of things, but happy to just keep getting along. Like Piglet, Pooh experiences anxious moments about the situations he gets into, but he doesn't dwell. And though I'm a worrier (my motto is to imagine the worst so the reality ain't so bad), I also think I'm a fairly sunny person. Pooh and I worry but we also figure it will all work out somehow and there's no point in not looking for the next good thing. Oh, and the potential emptiness in my belly takes up a lot of my time too.
So which Pooh character are you? Anyone identify with Rabbit? Christopher Robin? I'll use all of you as research for my book.
I think I'm over Lost. At the start of this season they put Veronica Mars on opposite the ABC show and that meant I could only watch when VM wasn't on or in repeats. That's turned out to be just fine. I'm pretty caught up with the show (thanks to video and repeats) and I've lost interest.
In terms of television, dramas are where it's at for me. I rarely watch current comedies - in fact the only one's I've watched with any regularity this season are My Name is Earl and The Office. Give me drama and character development and long-term relationships that have ups and downs and I'm yours.
That's what I thought I'd gotten with Lost. During the first season I loved the set-up of forty people stranded on a mysterious island. How would they cope? How would it change them? And despite the fact that I'm not a fan of flashbacks, I liked the use of them here. By discovering what led them to the island we got to learn so much about them. But the flashbacks continued. And nothing changed. And I realized that very little character development was actually happening. How is that possible?
Every episode focuses on one character and we get flashbacks. Problem is, nothing comes of them. We discover something about them and next episode it's basically dropped so that the writers can flash back in someone else's life. So many story lines are dropped or used for dramatic effect. But very little progresses on the island. Even in the real time of their lives on the island. Kate and Claire and Rousseau go off to find medicine for Claire's baby. They find another hatch and a facility and Kate finds evidence that the Others are faking their mountain men look. Is there a conversation about this? Not that I've seen.
These characters don't behave like real people. Sure I get that this is tv, but give me a break. Why is there no discussion of anything? Comparing of notes?
This isn't supposed to be a rant about the plotting. But the plotting is what is getting in the way of the dramatic potential of these characters. I'm probably in the minority but I want to see how these people are dealing emotionally. They've been on this island for two months and yet, outside of each episodes little action/adventure plot, they seem just fine. They live on a nice beach and have plenty of food. No drama there.
I'll probably still tune in from time to time when VM is on hiatus, but I'm not dying to see it anymore. Okay, anything about Sawyer will probably keep me coming back too.
First and foremost I thought Jon Stewart was hilarious. But then I thought Dave Letterman did a 'heck of a job' too. I watched the Oscars with a group of friends and we were all laughing out loud at Stewart's jokes and the campaign commercials. Stupid hollywood people. As for the show itself, I wasn't really in a rooting mood. Most years I'm rooting for one or two but this year, meh. I didn't even have a strong anti-rooting campaign going. Not sure what that means.
So since I didn't have particularly strong feelings about this one (well, I did hate Charlize Theron's dress and I do think that Jennifer Aniston needs to change her hair or dresses or something and I did think it was kind of cute/awkward for Jennifer Garner considering J-Lo, the former Bennifer gal, was in the audience) I'll talk about my award show theories.
Golden Globes
No. 1 - If there's a hot young thing nominated in the best actress in a tv show category who's never been nominated before, and probably won't be nominated again, then she wins - think Jennifer Garner, Jessica Alba.
No. 2 - If there's a non-american actor nominated, he/she will win. This is the Hollywood Foreign Press after all.
No. 3 - Shows with scads of beautiful people win. Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, Lost
No. 4 - This one trumps all the others. The HFP likes to be 'edgy' and independent and what they'd consider as trendsetters, but at the same time they like to be in with the popular gang. It's a fine line. Which translates to wins for Felicity Huffman and Brokeback Mountain and Weeds winner Mary-Louise Parker as well as the wins for Lost and Desperate Housewives.
The Emmys
No. 1 - Safety. If if was good enough to win last year, it's definitely good enough this year. Witness Frasier and though it pains me to say it, The West Wing
No. 2 - If there is a "movie star" guesting on a tv show or starring in a made for tv movie, they win. Of course, if they're a "movie star" they must be better then the lowly tv hacks.
The Oscars
No. 1 - Similar to the Emmy's number one, but I'd peg this one more as having to do with being "it". This applies especially to the ladies but can work for movies too. They've all had big popularity momentum going in. Reese and Crash this year.
No. 2 - If there's an actor in the category who has a tony accent (read British) they get the win. Oscar is just snobbish enough to think that British actors are better because a lot of them have done theahtah. Rachel Weisz this year.
No. 3 - They reward people a year too late. When they've had an oversight in nomination, that person gets to be nominated the next year (and frequently wins). Think Whoopi Goldberg.
Now none of these is hard and fast and these frequently trump each other, but take a look at their histories and tell me if I'm wrong.