Buzz Blog

Odds are, you’ve got a friend who’s more than willing to say, “You should really watch this TV show.” At the very least, they’ll say something like, “Did you watch ‘Survivor’ last night?” Then you’ll have to shrug your shoulders and respond, “Isn’t that the show with the naked dude on it?”

In my office, I’m “that guy.” I try to stay up on the TV shows and other pop-culture happenings. I don’t obsess over TMZ every hour, but I watch my favorite shows and I check in with “The Soup” and “Best Week Ever” and call it good.

The thing is — after a week of trying to watch the new fall TV shows, I’ve come to the annual conclusion I’m not going to get to them all. I spent nearly all day Saturday watching recorded shows from the past week. The first seven hours of “The War” are a battle I have yet to engage.

There are some train wrecks that I want to watch (“Cavemen” and “Carpoolers” come to mind), just so I can have the experience of it. There are also some good shows I have no idea when I can watch them.

There’s a lot of enjoyable TV shows out there that have never entered my orbit. It happened last year with “Ugly Betty,” a show I have yet to watch a single episode of. It’s gotten to the point where I watch and thoroughly enjoy an episode of a “good” show, like “24” or “Lost,” but I have to pass on future airings because my viewing dance card is full.

I almost don’t want to watch another good show because it means there’s another series I’ll want to follow.

So, while other pop-culture enthusiasts say they’ll “watch it all for you,” there’s no way in heck I’ll do that. I’ll write about the amusing things I come across naturally. At some point in November, I’ll write about the most-viewed programs in the country (which often differ from what I watch).

I know most of my posts thus far have been about television. That’ll change as I get out into the Chico nightlife and explore other aspect of entertainment.

Lewis Black ranted about it during the Emmy ceremony, but few TV executives seemed to have heeded the sage comedian’s words. Black delivered a funny, yet obvious, monologue about the annoying -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- banners and bugs that clutter up the TV screen when someone is trying to enjoy their program.

It seems the Sci Fi Channel hasn’t gotten the message. I was trying to watch Tuesday’s airing of “Eureka” but my viewing was interrupted by -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- the constant presence of a large promotional ad for an upcoming show of another series in the -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- right-hand corner of the screen. It loomed above the station’s normal bug (which is unnecessary in this era of digital cable/satellite and DVRs).

This ad was on the screen for the entire episode. (UPDATE: You can see the image on TV Squad’s episode review. Grrr.).

Now, I can see why Sci Fi can -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- lend some of the screen real estate for some promotions, but did I really to have to be subjected to that annoying promotion for -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- the entire 42-minutes of actual programming? Not only did it consume a bulk of my viewing time, it ate into the screen image. The station bug and banner ad gobbled up about a tenth of the viewable screen (already reduced because the show is letterboxed). When you add Sci Fi’s -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- 18 minutes of commercials along with the show, a viewer ends up watching commercials the entire time.

Indeed, the banner was so -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- annoying, I paused my enjoyment of the show I wanted to watch to give the advertised show -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- “Three Thumbs Down” on my TiVo (The thumbs are a way of indicating show preferences on the DVR). Not only have I never seen the show -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!-, I know have no desire to ever seek the show out. If the show happens to be on when I watch TV, I will steer far clear of this -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- program.

Notice that I have not disclosed the -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- show that Sci Fi was so eager to -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- promote. I have no desire to give this program any inadvertent promotion on my -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- own.

As I’ve tried to illustrate with this blog with the -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!-, the constant presence of the advertising banner totally takes away from my enjoyment of -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- this -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- program. -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!- -WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!-

Now that the premiere of “Chuck” has aired, I can discuss what I view to be two big pitfalls in the series. Chicago Tribune critic Maureen Ryan mentioned them in her review of the show, but I’ll summarize. First, won’t all the secrets in Chuck’s head get old after a while? And second, the cold-blooded shooting of a character added a dark tone to the pilot.

Since her blog allows people to comment, here’s what I wrote:

I picked up on the potential “stale secrets” plot hole as well. I wonder how they’ll deal with it, but I imagine they have to especially because the pilot dealt with intel acquired within a matter of weeks, not years.

My theory — the trio of Chuck, Sarah and Casey will become the human version of the two intel agencies feeding data into the secret computer. It makes sense for the agents (and agencies) to keep providing information to Chuck — somehow.

My other concern dealt with the casual brutality of Casey telling other agents that it’s OK to murder another U.S. agent and on American soil to boot. Of course, how Sarah dispatched the agents was violent, but still executed in a fun, if implausible, fashion.

I’d be curious to see the longevity of the series after a few episodes. I wonder how the show will spin its wheels through weekly episodes while trying to drive a plot arc through a number of episodes.

I’m still gonna watch the show, but these things are in the back of my mind. A promo for an upcoming episode showed the spies and Chuck sitting at a table with photos. I hope they’re feeding him intel and proving my theory right.

The Nielsens are probably best known for the TV ratings the organization releases every week. The trouble is the ratings are less useful in this era where people watch shows from hundreds of channels on DVRs.

Nielsen is also facing problems convincing networks and their advertisers that its information is still useful. After all, who cares who’s watching “The Office” when it’s potentially possible to measure who’s watching the commercials between the show.

Nielsen has launched Hey! Nielsen, a new site which just seems geared to mine marketing information from the general public. On the face of it, the site appears to be a place for people to sound off about TV, music, etc., but Nielsen has plans for the information.

From Hey! Nielsen’s About page:

Using data from real users, Hey! Nielsen generates a Hey! Nielsen score — a real-time indicator of a topic’s impact, influence, and value. As users submit feedback, the score is created from a number of factors such as user response, blog buzz, and news coverage, as well as raw data from our sister sites Billboard.com, HollywoodReporter.com, and BlogPulse.com.

It seems to me Nielsen is trying to use the social-networking potential of the Web to build a new set of marketing data. I wonder how many people are going to divulge their opinions for Nielsen’s new data mill.

I also wonder how useful the data will be. After all, marketing data is used to help determine the Peoples Choice Awards and we all know how well a barometer of pop culture that event is.

With the fall TV season is in full swing, my free time is going to be totally sucked dry as I try to keep my TiVo’s hard drive from filling up. One thing I’ve noticed is that geeks are going to be pretty much ruling the roost this fall (until the cancellation ax falls).

There are a number of cool shows that I’m checking out — “Bionic Woman,” “Heroes,” and “Pushing Daisies.” “Beauty and the Geek” remains the only reality show that I can stomach on a weekly basis.

One new show I’m definitely adding to my Digital Video Recorder is “Chuck,” which premieres tonight. There’s not much I can add that hasn’t been said elsewhere — the pilot episode is tight. It’s full of polish and cinematic flares under the direction of McG.

There are some weird questions about the premise that could prevent the show from totally succeeding, but the strength of the cast and the general fun of the premise could keep it going for a long time.

From Ryan:

This was originally published on my personal blog, but is here now for your reading and digestive pleasure.

I don’t know why I did it, but I watched what seemed to be all 82 hours of this year’s Emmy telecast Sunday on FOX. The creative arts Emmy show (a two-hour affair Saturday on E!) was much breezier — they cut out the lists of nominees, most of the speeches and thankfully all of the singing numbers.

Anywho, I was interested to see Al Gore win an Emmy for his broadcast baby, Current TV. As I watched the audience’s resounding ovation, I wondered what was next for the former vice president.

Since he’s already won an Oscar (for “An Inconvenient Truth”) to go with his Emmy, what is his next entertainment conquest? I think he should form a barbershop quartet and go for a Grammy.

What do you think? A Grammy? I don’t think Al will go for an American Music Award because it’s not classy enough. Perhaps a Tony for a Broadway production of “An Inconvenient Truth”?

Heck, if they can turn “The Producers” and “Hairspray” from cult films to top-rated musicals, who knows what they can do to an environmental documentary. I can’t wait to see a musical “Truth” come back to movie cineplexes.