missmediajunkie

"The Jim Henson Creature Shop Challenge" sounded like a concept to good to be true to a Henson geek. Syfy's new reality show gives ten special effects artists a shot at working for the much beloved Jim Henson Creature shop, best known for creating elaborate creature suits and puppets for movies and television. It follows the "Project Runway" competition template, having the contestants build a new creature every week, and evaluating them via a screen test. The show is a very much a Jim Henson Company affair, hosted by "Farscape" actress Gigi Edgley, and featuring mentors and judges who are effects industry veterans. The head judge is Brian Henson, current president of the company, who looks more and more like his father with every passing year.

As a Muppet geek, I had to get a look at this thing. So I watched the first two episodes, and came away with somewhat mixed but mostly positive reactions. The contestants are all clearly talented and experienced, capable of turning out incredibly impressive work. It's a lot of fun to watch them build their creatures. We're not at the stage where more than a few big personalities have emerged, but the weekly projects are strong enough to carry the show. Also, the folks behind the scenes are still working through some bumps in the show's formula. "Creature Shop" hews to the "Project Runway" formula a little too closely, and sometimes it's not a good fit. The judges aren't the type to drop one-liners, and the contestants' array of creative skills are more interesting than the usual manufactured drama you can sense is being played up. I wish the design and fabrication portions of the show were longer than the judging portions.

The two rounds so far have been promising. I wasn't thrilled with the first, which asked the contestants to design a deep sea creature that had to lurk along the ocean floor, and resulted in some pretty unappealing entries. The second challenge, however, was great. The contestants were given the much more complex task of creating their own villainous Skeksis character from "The Dark Crystal," which included puppeteering it for the screen test. The results were far more impressive, and I could imagine the characters actually appearing onscreen, unlike the contenders from the first round. It didn't hurt that Hensons furnished "Dark Crystal" props and shared trivia about the film, which was very gratifying to this 80s fantasy geek. And there was much more shop talk about the business of effects work, which I hope continues.

However, it's hard to escape the sense that the show is really one big promotion for the Jim Henson Company and its work. I've loved these guys and their output for decades, so I'm very receptive to the hero worship many of the contestants have shown in these episodes, but at the same time I think they lay it on a little thick. The most familiar Muppet characters like Kermit and Piggy have been notably absent from the installments I've seen so far, but with a new movie in theaters, I'm sure they'll show up eventually. I recognized plenty of other material from the Henson archives, though, including lots of clips and artwork from "Dark Crystal," "Labyrinth," "The Storyteller," and "The Jim Henson Hour." Of course, we have to keep in mind that this is what the Hensons have the rights to.

Still, in the back of my mind I can't help noting that so few of the featured examples of the Creature Shop's work are very recent. It's a sad reminder that the visual effects industry has largely been taken over by CGI, and a practical effects operation like the Creature Shop has become a rarity. They're surely one of the best at what they do, but the demand has been steadily dropping off for a long time. I stumbled across a reel of their recent work, which mostly consisted of character puppets for obscure ad campaigns. Their last really big project that I know of was creating the Wild Things for 2009's "Where the Wild Things Are," and even those characters ultimately had CGI faces.

As thrilled as I am to watch the show and see the way that it celebrates all the different crafts that go into creature creation, it also feels a little like it's operating in a different world. I can imagine similar reality shows built around the finding the next great PIXAR animator or the next great Nintendo game creator, but those are big companies that are part of thriving industries. Would the PR be worth it for them to commit so many resources to something similar? I don't think so. Meanwhile, "Creature Shop Challenge" feels sadly a bit like it's pitching for its own relevance.

Those Skesis sure looked impressive, but what film would actually use them in this day and age?
---

The media has a major impact on certain parts of our lives in the way that it sets expectations and standards for our experiences. I ran across a show on TLC the other day that is a perfect example of this: "Say Yes to the Dress," a half-hour reality show about brides picking their wedding dresses. At first it looks harmless enough, akin to paging through a bridal magazine. Brides come in for appointments to try on dresses, model for the cameras, get advice from boutique employees on hand, and eventually comes the big moment: saying "yes" to a dress.

However, the further I got into the show, the more it made my blood boil. The featured fittings on these shows always become events, fraught with emotion and drama. Most of the brides drag large numbers of family and friends into the boutique with them. The unspoken assumption is that they can't settle for any old dress, but they need the perfect dress to make their big day truly special. Sure, lip service is paid to financial considerations, but all the dresses we see still cost thousands and thousands of dollars, and are treated as the most important item on the bride's shopping list. The wedding dress acquires a holy mystique, with the ability to inspire all kinds of familial strife and tensions. The episode I saw had a bride and groom clashing over the style of the gown. She wanted something form-fitting. He wanted a poofy princess dress. Their clashing visions were played up to ridiculous extremes, and spun by the show as an early test of the couple's ability to compromise.

Now, I fully understand that the choice of wedding dress is very important to a lot of brides, and picking one is a valued part of the whole experience of putting a wedding together. And I also appreciate that weddings are big, momentous events that tend to attract lots and lots of drama. However, all the wedding shows I've seen, including "Say Yes to the Dress," treat the weddings like life or death experiences that require months of planning, ridiculous budgets, and a list of things that you absolutely, positively have to do in order to have the best experience possible. Sure, you can go get married at City Hall in a pantsuit, but that would be denying yourself the opportunity for the perfect fairy-tale day that you'll cherish for years and years to come. It's the message we've all been fed since we were kids: a wedding means the white dress, the dapper suits, the bouquet, the rings, the big venue, the reception, the showers, the bachelor and bachelorette parties, the dancing, the alcohol, and the multi-tiered cake.

A show like "Say Yes to the Dress" is another insidious piece of marketing, adding another stop on the way to the wedding. Now the wedding dress boutique appointment has become another oh-so-special event that a bride-to-be shouldn't deny herself. It becomes yet another focal point for potential disappointments. It becomes something else to worry about when you already have too many things to worry about. The show hit a nerve with me personally because I got married last year and encountered a huge amount of pressure to conform to the typical wedding narrative. The scary part was, a lot of the pressure was coming from me, from my own internalized ideas of what a wedding should be. It took some significant time and effort to figure out what I actually did and didn't want to do, and I ended up foregoing many things that people running these wedding shows would have been aghast that I had skipped.

And the dress? I don't like traditional white wedding dresses, but I decided to get one in order to look nice for the pictures that would be circulated among all of my relatives for the next few decades. I visited exactly one boutique, without an appointment, before deciding this approach wasn't for me. Instead, I went to a dress outlet store with some girlfriends, tried on the five styles of wedding dress that were available, and picked one. The process took an hour, and the dress cost me $200, including the dry-cleaning. I spent more on hair and makeup. I spent more on the flowers. The dress was not the perfect dress, but it did what I wanted it to, which was to make me look like a typical bride for a few hours that everyone could take pictures with. I'd have rented the dress if I could have, because now all it's doing is taking up closet space.

I'm not saying that nobody should buy an expensive wedding dress, or that you shouldn't enjoy wedding shows. I'm pointing out that nobody is obliged to say yes to the wedding dress experience that TLC is pushing or even any wedding dress at all. And I'm suggesting that it's a good idea to ask yourself why you really want something before spending thousands of dollars to make it happen.
---

On Friday it was announced that AMC was considering the creation of a new after-show called "Talking Bad," to accompany the final eight episodes of "Breaking Bad" as they air this summer. It would be patterned after the "Talking Dead" show that currently runs with episodes of "The Walking Dead." Initially, I thought this was a nice idea. I haven't been watching "The Walking Dead" for a while, but I'd seen other shows with companion programs, like the "Doctor Who Confidential" production documentary series, which contained supplementary material and behind-the-scenes footage that were often a lot of fun. The BBC also did one for "Merlin" for a while. A similar "Breaking Bad" show sounded a little indulgent, but I thought it could be interesting.

Then I actually went and looked at the format of "Talking Dead," and it became obvious pretty quickly that it wasn't like "Doctor Who Confidential" at all. No, this was more like the companion shows that ran with "The Deadliest Catch" or "Project Runway," which are all about gushing reactions to the episode that we had just seen. These are shows devoted to aggrandizing the main program, extra marketing essentially. Sure, they would offer extra interviews with the creatives, and other content you'd expect to find in the DVD or Blu-Ray sets, but the "talk show" was the main component. In "Talking Dead," this consists of celebrity fans of the show coming in every week to gab with host Chris Hardwick. And because the show is produced by AMC itself, or course nobody gets to say much negative about "The Walking Dead," making it a hell of a lot less useful than even the most amateur "Walking Dead" review podcast.

After-shows have been around for a while now, mostly tied to reality shows like "Teen Mom," though the first one I remember getting any significant push was "Oprah After the Show," which aired on the Oxygen Network for a few years starting back in 2003. There's no mystery why the studios like them. They're extra content that can be produced on the cheap, often using leftover bits of footage and production detritus that would otherwise go to waste. They share the same DNA with reunion specials, recap programs, exit interviews, and other time-fillers. They're also not far off from plain old regular talk shows, where the guests are acknowledged to be making appearances in order to promote a new movie, television show, book, or album. However, tying this kind of talk show after-show to a fiction drama series is a relatively recent thing. Aside from a few series finale specials, I think "The Walking Dead" is the first to do this, and certainly the first to run this kind of show on a regular basis.

These after-shows are proliferating because they feed off the audience's desire for more information and discussion about their favorite programs. Rabid fans will obsess over promotional pictures, plot rumors, and pretty much any other tidbit of new information. There's already a lot of chatter about the imminent return of popular series like "Game of Thrones" and "Mad Men," which recently started another round of publicity. I tend to stay away from these discussions because of concerns about overhype and the ever-present spoiler problem. Not surprisingly, one of the criticisms I've heard about "Talking Dead" is that it can sometimes get carried away teasing about spoilers for upcoming episodes. Some fans like this kind of thing, but I'm not one of them. I prefer sticking to more in-depth analysis and reviews, which I tend to get more out of, but which aren't a good fit for the format constraints of a show like "Talking Dead."

I'm not saying that these kinds of shows can't be done well and that they aren't entertaining. "Talking Dead" wouldn't have lasted more than a season if it weren't both. And it certainly wouldn't be expanding to an hour when "Walking Dead" returns next season. However, as far as I can tell there's just not enough real content being offered that would tempt me to seek out the proposed "Talking Bad," as much as I enjoy "Breaking Bad." The show already has an official "Insider Podcast" that is excellent, often featuring interviews with directors and other crew members. Last season, individual episodes of the show were discussed extensively on the Firewall & Iceberg and Slashfilm podcasts. The AV Club had reams of interviews and articles in addition to regular reviews. Why would I need a fluffy talk show that will spend the majority of its time on the opinions of celebrity fans when I already have access to all of this?

I don't think that "Talking Bad" will have much impact on "Breaking Bad" itself, so it's no skin off my back. However, I do find it disconcerting that AMC is essentially is using the same ratings grabbing gimmick that Bravo, Lifetime and MTV use with their reality programs.

But if it had been "Breaking Bad Confidential" - I would have watched that show.
---

I was catching up on this season of Project Runway on Lifetime's website, and couldn't help marveling that the network, which is pay cable, would allow one of their most popular shows to be streamed online for free. Most other cable networks, with the exception of Comedy Central, are extremely protective of their new content. You don't see current season episodes of shows like "Burn Notice" or "Breaking Bad" on Hulu Plus. One of the reasons I've fallen so far behind on "Top Chef," is because Bravo doesn't make it easy to watch them online. So I felt pretty good about Lifetime, until I was about halfway through last week's episode and I remembered what was offsetting any lost revenue - the product placement.

"Project Runway" is probably the perfect product placement show. Sure, there are some sponsors that are shoehorned into episodes with a notable lack of tact - the Lexus challenge where the designers were required to use the color of one of the new models in their designs was pretty ham handed - but others are so deeply ingrained into the format of the show itself, it's hard to imagine "Runway" without them. Any "Runway" fan will tell you that the workrooms are located at the Parsons School of Design in New York, and the one season when they tried to move shop to a new location was not a good one. The designers stay in the Atlas apartments for the duration of the competition. They get their fabric from Mood, home of a shop dog named Swatch. They sketch designs on HP tablets and use Brother sewing machines. The accessory wall has been stocked by various companies, including Bluefly and Piperlime. This season it's Lord and Taylor. And then there's the hairstyling segment of every show, where just before the models are sent out to the runway, they get a quick consultation from stylists wielding Garnier products, never mentioning prior sponsor Tresemme.

Challenges are often built around major retailers trying to appeal to different kinds of customers, or celebrities preparing for specific events. Then you have the judges. Michael Kors is a big designer with his own stores. Nina Garcia is an editor of Marie Claire magazine. Even Tim Gunn, who started out as a teacher and dean at Parsons, went and joined Liz Claiborne a few seasons back, and is always introduced as their man now. Everybody's selling something, and there's nothing wrong with that in this context. The fashion industry is all about marketing yourself, making your name into a recognizable brand that will fuel the sales of your products. So in an environment that is naturally obsessed with branding, the high amount of product placement is actually very appropriate. The producers have been good about picking their partnerships, and ensuring that while the promotions are obvious, they're also pretty well integrated. I mean, if you're going to have a whole challenge based on making clothing out of candy, why not get the candy from Dylan's Candy Bar in Times Square? On the other hand, they're not always successful. Again, the Lexus challenge.

I know all the arguments against product placement, that it's more insidious and blurs the boundaries between content and marketing in unwanted ways, but honestly I prefer advertising like this to the more intrusive commercials and the screen-obliterating pop-ups that are the blight of many network and cable programs. Especially in the reality shows, it feels odd when you don't see branded products everywhere, because brands are everywhere in real life. Blurring out logos actually draws more attention in some cases than if they were left alone. However, product placement has to be handled carefully, especially for the scripted shows. For every charming visit to a period Howard Johnson's in "Mad Men," or the Subway sandwiches that became a running joke on "Chuck," there are the more poorly considered ones. For instance, the infamous "Modern Family" iPad debacle, which read like too-obvious product placement even though Apple didn't actually pay to have anything promoted. Or Peter Parker's use of the Bing search engine in this summer's "Amazing Spider-man" movie, which was mocked from all sides.

There is a not-so-subtle art to this, and it'll be interesting to see how strategies and campaigns develop as more and more product placement is introduced into our content to make up for the waning effectiveness of more traditional forms of marketing. There is definitely a danger of some shows turning into extended commercials, but then, this is not a new problem. Keep in mind that television shows specifically created to shill products have been around for ages, and in the past they were often much less subtle about it than anything we see today. Look up the old "Mr. and Mrs. TV Show" episode of "I Love Lucy," for an eye-opening spoof, if you have the chance.

For now, the aggressive product placement on "Project Runway" isn't hurting the show much. Sure, some of the constant repetition of brands is annoying, but it's much less annoying than the high volume commercials for related products I used to have to sit through. And they don't interfere with the most dramatic moments of the competition - the judging, the eliminations, and the meltdowns. If the price of getting the show free online is more emphasis on all this product placement, so far I think it's been a good tradeoff.
---

When I think of "Project Runway," there are two personalities that come to mind first and foremost: the contestants' mentor Tim Gunn and the competition host Heidi Klum. "Project Runway All Stars," which features memorable contestants from the first eight seasons of "Project Runway," has neither of them. Also gone are the show's usual judges, Michael Kors and Nina Garcia. In their place, we have a new host, new mentor, and new judges. I was skeptical when I realized this, because changing the chemistry of a show by just removing one or two parts of its formula can be disastrous. I thought back to the sixth season of "Project Runway," which dipped in quality largely because of absent judges and moving the action from New York to Los Angeles. Were we in for even worse?

Well, after four episodes, I'm not getting very attached to any of the newbies. Supermodel host Angela Lindvall is lovely and well-spoken, but she's not very memorable. Ditto designer Georgina Chapman, one of the two regular judges. If you put the two women next to each other, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. Their personalities aren't coming across very well, and are a far cry from their more outspoken counterparts. Isaac Mizrahi, filling the other judging position is a familiar face, and immediately stands out for being the only male member of the new team. He also has a much more easygoing attitude and a good sense of humor which I appreciate.

As for the designers' new mentor figure, Marie Claire Editor-in-Chief Joanna Coles, she's been pretty grim-faced so far. I really didn't appreciate Tim Gunn enough until suddenly he wasn't there. Joanna's first critiques were awkward, her presence was cold, and she seemed to be the furthest thing from nurturing. I wondered briefly if her appearance was a condition for letting the show offer up a Marie Claire guest editorship as one of the season's big prizes. However, she's mellowed out considerably over subsequent episodes, and I expect she'll continue to improve. The lady clearly knows what she's doing, but I'm not sure the severity of her attitude meshes that well with the show's formula.

Thank goodness then that "Project Runway All Stars" fills the quota for big, memorable personalities with cherry-picked contestants from the early seasons. As talented as many of these designers are, their invitation back to the runway was clearly based more on their personalities than their clothing. And so we have the return of Season 1's Austin Scarlett, bearing a new Errol Flynn mustache, and the Bettie Page doppelganger Kenley, from season 5, and both drama queens from Season 8, Mondo Guerra and Michael Costello. It doesn't matter that the support staff might be a little lackluster when this bunch is onscreen, emoting and panicking and catfighting and getting weepy together, just like old times. Yes, I'm utterly shameless about loving the drama generated by this show.

After four episodes, I'm getting worried that the cast may be too imbalanced in favor of the male competitors. Every eliminated designer so far as been female, but when you look at their rankings in their respective seasons, this isn't much of a surprise. The first designer given the boot was Elisa Jimenez, that very earnest, earth-mothery , eccentric who barely made it into the top ten of Season 4, while everyone else managed at least a fifth place ranking. In fact, I'm just going to call it right here – the competition is probably going to come down to Rami Kashou and Mondo, who were both first runner-ups in their respective seasons. None of the other designers appears to have improved dramatically enough to offer much competition.

But just because the show is predictable doesn't mean it's not still fun to watch. Boy is it fun to watch. The weekly challenges, which so far have included designing cocktail dresses for Miss Piggy and whipping up garments inspired by gelato flavors on a strict six-hour deadline, have been great. The level of the competition is higher than usual, and the pace feels like it has been ramped up as well. With so many big personalities in the workroom, there have already been some minor clashes. While I do miss Tim Gunn, I'm not noticing his absence as much as I might have with a group of new and unfamiliar contestants. This was the right way to break in a new judging and hosting team.

"All Stars" suffered delays, and had a lot of bumps to work through, but I'm happy to report that they made it work. I look forward to the rest of the season and for the regular "Project Runway" to return for its tenth year soon.
---

I complain as much as anyone about how too much of current American television stinks, that many channels have been hijacked by cheap reality and talent shows that cater to the lowest common denominator. How I wish we were rid of all the "American Idol" clones and the gosspmongering dating shows and the brainless Kardashians and the cast of "Jersey Shore." But if the government stepped in and mandated that the number of these shows be cut back, I'd be the first to protest.

Because this is exactly what's going on right now in mainland China. The government recently introduced new programming guidelines that reduced the amount of entertainment programming shown on Chinese television by two thirds, down to 38 hours a week from 126. "Lowbrow" reality, talk, and talent shows are the chief targets, being replaced by more news and informational programs. Recent remarks by Chinese president Hu Jintao indicate that the move is part of a new effort by the Chinese government to rein in the power of Western-style entertainment. He recently remarked, "We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration."

Now let's be clear on what we're talking about here. Among the shows sustaining the most criticism are "Super Girl," a popular talent program that was yanked from the airwaves back in September for retooling, and the dating show "If You Are the One," profiled in this revealing New York Times article. They seem harmless enough to Western eyes, but the worry is that these programs place too much emphasis on what the Chinese media watchdogs consider to be frivolous activities, can be too honest about certain social issues for comfort, and build up cults of celebrity and influence that are outside the government's ability to control. Remember that this is the same Chinese government that railed against the use of time travel in drama programs, because they often inluded inaccurate or altered portrayals of history, and regularly frowns on fantasy programming for being too escapist. For them, entertainment is a secondary concern to pushing the "socialist core value system."

Against this lot, is is any wonder that Western programming is making such inroads? The secret of America's cultural power isn't much of a secret. We have an entertainment industry that is devoted to one primary objective: to make money. To that end, it does whatever is necessary to draw in viewers and keep them happy, be it appealing to the lowest common denominator or pumping millions into the development of fancier special effects. Hollywood may have its biases, but there is no real ideology being pushed aside from reflecting the tastes of the audience it wants to attract. If American values tend to crop up a lot in our television, it's because it's being programmed to Americans.

We have our own media watchdogs, and our own television regulations and requirements, such as the Children's Television Act that has full service television stations provide a certain number of hours of education and informational programming. There are content standards enforced by the FCC, but it only acts rarely in extreme cases. So the stations and networks and content producers are free to put shows that people want to watch on the air, in order to deliver more eyeballs to the advertisers who pay the bills. Out of this system comes a lot more crud than quality, but let's not sell ourselves short. American television is in the middle of one of its richest periods in history, turning out lots of quality shows like "Mad Men" and "Louie" that rival anything that came out in a movie theater this year.

Now American television shows don't get much play on Chinese television stations, because of strict regulations on foreign content. However, a recent influx of Western formats for shows have allowed Chinese localizations to be made of everything from Disney's "High School Musical" to "Britain's Got Talent." Nowadays this is a common practice, with many American and British shows spawning multiple versions all across the globe. In China, producers get a leg up by working with the framework of previously established hits, learning how to mount big productions on par with what you see on Western television. But even with most of the content of these shows carefully retooled to fit Chinese sensibilities and anything too Western stripped out, the government gets nervous when they become too popular and successful.

China talks up becoming a new media powerhouse, but they only want to do it on their own terms They don't want to give the Chinese people what they want, but to dictate what they should want from the top down. Even if television programming originates in China, from Chinese creators, and becomes a genuine hit with Chinese audiences totally removed from any Western influences, if it doesn't fit into the nation-glorifying, culturally conservative narrative that the Chinese government wants to promote, it's suspect. The whole spiel about Western cultural hegemony is a smokescreen to continue stifling free expression and creativity, a stance that is often counterproductive to the ends that the government claims to want to achieve. They want to build up Chinese media to compete with those who might become more influential that they are, but not at the expense of the state-controlled propaganda machine.

So the Chinese media may be doomed to plod along in a state of perpetual cultural stagnation, forever scolding the Chinese audiences who would rather watch "Idol" knockoffs than yet another highbrow historical drama that toes the party line.

Almost makes you grateful for Western crap television. I'd rather watch "Downton Abbey" over the Kardashians any day, but I do appreciate having the choice.
---

I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to the new television season that's set to kick off in a couple of days now. There are lots of new shows that are going to be premiering on network television this fall, so I figured it was a good time to take stock of some of the more interesting contenders. Who knows which are going to last a month and which will outlast "Entourage"?

"Prime Suspect" - Based on the long-running British crime serials starring Helen Mirren, the new version will follow an American policewoman played by Maria Bello. With so many other crime dramas out there right now, "Prime Suspect" needs to distinguish itself from the pack. However, with NBC's "Law & Order" empire in its decline, and the "CSI" format wearing out its welcome, this is as good a time as any to try.

"The X Factor" - The dominance of "American Idol" will be challenged by another British talent show import, "The X Factor," created by Simon Cowell. He'll also be appearing as a judge in the first season, along with fellow "Idol" alum Paula Abdul. The shows won't be in direct competition, though, since both will be on FOX, which will be running "Factor" in the fall and "Idol" in the spring. I wonder if that much reality will prove to be too much for the American public. Or if the two shows will just join forces to crush "The Voice."

"Once Upon a Time" and "Grimm" - The fairy tale bug has bitten this season hard. We have two shows that will use fairy tale elements and characters in modern settings to try and become a new genre hit. "Grimm," which uses the cop drama model, is starting out in a Friday night slot, so it already has its work cut out for it. I'm more interested in the mystery series "Once Upon a Time," which has a few "Lost" creators involved and Jennifer Morrison starring. And it'll be fun to watch the "Fables" fanboys flip out over any inevitable similarities.

"2 Broke Girls" and "Whitney" - I admit I'm not one to get too excited about sitcoms, but it looks like Whitney Cummings may be on the brink of becoming a TV superstar. She has somehow managed to come out of this year's pilot scrum with creator credits on two different comedies on two different networks. Moreover, "2 Broke Girls" will be on CBS's Monday Night comedy block, while "Whitney," where Cummings will be playing the title character, writing, and producing, will be on Thursdays on NBC after "The Office." You couldn't ask for better starting positions.

"Person of Interest" - What would a new fall season be without JJ Abrams? Add another high concept Bad Robot crime drama to the pile, one using science-fiction crime-predicting technology to stop major crimes before they happen, "Minority Report" style. "Persons" will star Jim Caviezel, Michael Emerson, and Taraji P. Henson, so I was already interested. Add some great buzz on top of that, and this is shaping up to be my most anticipated new series of the fall season.

"Pan Am" and "The Playboy Club" - Two 10PM dramas chasing the retro cool of "Mad Men." Both are trying to pull a "Sucker Punch" with their marketing, trumpeting women's empowerment storylines while plastering sexy visuals of its stars all over the ads. 60s stewardesses and Playboy bunnies? Oh yeah, that just screams women's lib doesn't it? I'll give the edge to "Pan Am" for now, since it features more reliable talent and Christina Ricci as the lead. However, controversy is sure to give "Playboy" a boost. One NBC affiliate has already refused to air it.

"Last Man Standing" and "Suburgatory" - There are lots of female-led new series this year, but ABC is pushing several sitcoms starring men, including "Last Man Standing," with Tim Allen as a last bastion of masculinity under siege, and "Suburgatory" where Jeremy Sisto will do battle with the horrors of suburbia and a few former SNL cast members. I'd say "Suburgatory" has a better shot, enjoying a nice Wednesday berth between "The Middle" and "Modern Family," while ABC hasn't had much luck lately with the Tuesday 8PM slot, where "Last Man" is standing.

"Terra Nova" - FOX's time-tripping adventure series has been in the works for ages and suffered multiple delays, because they keep tweaking those special effects that are supposed to blow all our minds. Having been bombarded by the extended trailers for this thing for months, I'm more worried about the cast of characters, who will have to sustain the series when the fancy CGI dinosaurs aren't onscreen.

There are also some more interesting titles coming up for the midseason, but that's a post for another time.

Happy watching!
---

I promised this list a while ago as a counterpart to my My Top Ten Guilty Pleasure Movies. Enjoy.

"Sesame Street" - As a kid, whenever I was home sick from school and still conscious, the television was usually turned to PBS so I could look in on "Sesame Street" and "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood." We used to live within range of three different PBS stations that showed everything at different times, so I could expect to spend at least two solid hours catching up with the Muppets and letting a few good old Joe Raposo songs make me feel better. I still can't help scanning the airwaves for "Sesame Street" if I happen to be home on a weekday morning.

"The View" - Yes, I'm one of those people. I originally started watching back when Lisa Ling was on the program out of Asian solidarity, but somewhere along the line I got attached to Joy Behar and Meredith Vieira, and I always enjoy Barbara Walters' visits whenever there's a notable guest. Yes, Elizabeth Hasselbeck makes me cringe, Sherri Shepherd is dead air, Rosie O'Donnell was a disaster, and I'm still not sure if Whoopi Goldberg is all there, but "The View" has somehow managed to stay relevant after all these years, and whenever I catch an episode, I feel a little more plugged into the present.

"I Love the..." - VH1's nostalgia programs can suck me in like nothing else. I've wasted whole weekends reliving the best and worst of 80s and 90s pop culture with various C-grade comedians providing tepid commentary. There's just something fascinating about barely remembered commercials and shows and other cultural artifacts. At least with other backward-looking specials like the AFI Movie countdown lists I can pretend there's something sort of educational or informative about them. With "I Love the 80s" and "I Love the 90s," I know it just amounts to collective navel gazing.

"The MTV Movie Awards" - I have a certain yen for award shows, but I really have no business watching the MTV Movie Awards ceremony. It's always terrible, a collection of vacuous promotions cobbled together into an awards-show format. Occasionally you might get a decent tribute or a few good parodies, but otherwise it's a strangely hypnotic train wreck. As actual awards, of course they have no integrity at all. You can't even call them populist anymore, as the "Twilight" franchise has swept the past three years, signaling that MTV has set its sights square on the adolescent female demographic.

"X TV" - I could fill an entire list with just the wretched anime I've watched over the years, but I think my favorite bad anime has to be the television series based on the CLAMP manga "X:1999." It collects together two group of superpowered people together in Tokyo, and because destiny says so, they proceed to kill each other off in various inventive, over-the-top ways. Occasionally they pause to angst. There's also a movie version that's goes to even further extremes with the big battle sequences, and manages to destroy most of Tokyo in the process. Yay carnage!

"Food Network Challenge" - Hey, a couple of cake decorators have been rounded up to make themed cakes based on PIXAR movies! Lets watch them run around in a panic to create these fantabulous confections, and maybe they'll drop them at the end when they have to move the cakes to the judging platform! I watch a lot of food-themed programming, and "Food Network Challenge" is definitely the most haphazard in every sense. If you've seen one you've seen them all, and with the recent shows the creators have fixed it so that hardly anything gets dropped anymore.

"E! True Hollywood Story" - Yep, sometimes I like the gossip shows too. However, I'm not particularly entertained by individual acts of celebrity debauchery unless they're on the level of a Charlie Sheen or a Mel Gibson. I prefer my dirt nicely aggregated into glossy, hour-long narratives, and if they can work in some nostalgia, all the better. What was really going on behind the scenes during "Growing Pains"? What has Lindsay Lohan been up to for the past year? I don't know why, but sometimes I just gotta know. Hollywood is a never-ending soap opera, and this is its Soap Opera Digest.

"Hoarders" - I gawk. I gape. I secretly feel better about myself and my Dad, who is something of a hoarder himself. The garage may be full of cardboard boxes, but at least he's not as bad as some of the miserable souls on this show. I'm slightly OCD about cleaning, and I always get an odd sort of rush seeing the homes of the hoarders transformed from nightmarish heaps of clutter into livable spaces again. The A&E show doesn't have the budget for the more dramatic, full-scale makeovers that "Oprah" and others have done with hoarders in the past, but they do enough to keep me tuned in.

"Dateline NBC" - Okay, once in a while "Dateline" will come through with some decent pieces, but let's be honest. It's one of the more salacious, dumbed down news magazine shows out there. It doesn't hold a candle to "60 Minutes" or "Frontline," or hell, even "20/20" most weeks. Much of its content revolves around true crime stories, and it's probably best known in recent years for "To Catch a Predator." But I have to say that "Dateline" is very good at what it does, and even as I'm rolling my eyes at the corny narration and musical stings, I still watch all the way to the end.

"Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" - I didn't mean for this list to have so much reality television, but I guess it makes sense. I have way higher standards for fictional narratives than I do for documentary and news programs. "SVU" has been bad for a while now and it's been getting worse. Chris Meloni and B.D. Wong are not coming back, and Mariska Hargitay is on her way out too. I miss the early days of this show, when it skirted the edge of good taste, but could be powerful television. Now it's all guest stars and histrionics and trying to out-sleaze "CSI."

But then again, maybe the new cast could help turn things around. I guess I could give them a few episodes...
---

You always hear bout how movies have supposedly warp young girls' perceptions of romance. All those romantic comedies and fairy tale films set them up to expect impossible happily-ever-after scenarios, and raises standards for potential mates so ridiculously high, they can never possibly be reached. I'm sure this is true for some unfortunate, starry-eyed kids, but I never really bought it. There are so many other messages about love and marriage embedded in our media, especially in TV. And we all watch a lot more television than movies. Portrayals and attitudes toward relationships can be entirely different depending on what you're watching. I've included some examples below.

Sitcom Love - There are several different kinds of sitcoms, but they can be easily separated into two categories: shows where the central couple is already married or in a long-term relationship, and shows following singles. In the former case, happily-ever-after means dealing with all the day-to-day aggravation of suburban life or coupledom, usually with the added complications of in-laws, wacky neighbors, cute kids, and colorful friends. Clashes with the significant other are rarely very serious, but they are constant. Expect an awkward dinner at least once a week. If you're still single, it will take two to five years of active pining for any serious attraction to be consummated, after which your life becomes very boring very quickly. All the excitement of sexual tension evaporates the second love is reciprocated, you see. On the other hand, being single provides opportunities for romantic experiences with a parade of attractive guest stars, who never stay longer than an episode and can be instantly forgotten once they're gone.

Soap Opera Love - In addition to the multi-year pining requirement, all sorts of other obstacles can crop up between potential lovers to keep them apart. Insane ex-lovers! Scheming relatives! Horrible secrets from the past! If a couple manages to get through the obstacle course and say "I do," their happily-ever-after tends to be short-lived. Someone will be kidnapped, or have to disappear because of mob ties, or one of them turns out to be a clone. It's all very exciting when it's going on, but it's also frustrating as hell. The more perfectly matched a couple is, the less likely it is we'll ever see them happy together for any meaningful period of time. If they're totally wrong for each other, however, fate and the writers will have them in bed together within an episode and a half, usually as part of a plan to wreck whatever storybook romance is in their closest proximity at the time. To raise the chances of success with the opposite sex on a soap, your best bet is a strong career in villainy.

Crime Drama Love - Most prime time dramas are really soaps, so I thought it best to single out the crime drama, which operates by a very different set of rules. This does not include such programs as "Castle" and "Bones," which have male/female pairings as their leads, obviously intended for future romantic entanglement. No, I'm talking about the cop shows and the investigation shows that are intent on showing audiences the seedier side. If you're a hero or a principal player, you're asexual. Love lives are kept almost entirely offscreen, unless somebody's significant other needs to be kidnapped or killed off for a season finale. If you're a suspect or a victim, your love life is a train wreck. Crime dramas are hotbeds for romance gone awry, or happily-ever-after endings that turned out horribly, horribly wrong. Falling in love leads to anguish and trauma and getting read your Miranda rights - if you haven't already been pushed out a window or shot in the head.

Reality TV Love - The newest television genre is also one of the most versatile. You have the dating shows, where the only way to find love is to put your potential paramours through a long series of contrived contests, usually determined by luck and a willingness to embarrass oneself. Winners get the headliner until the next season of the show rolls around, and castoffs often get a chance to be the prize themselves. You have the freak shows, with titles commonly prepended by the words "The Real Housewives of," which suggest that a spouse is of secondary importance to material possessions and well-honed catfighting skills. Occasionally you will have the gentler documentaries about love in adversity, following dwarf couples, couples who never heard of birth control, and couples flaunting bigamy laws - until they inevitably become shows about lawsuits and breakups and why it's a bad idea to expose your personal life to a media circus.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Easily the television show that had the most impact on me in my formative years. "Buffy" had a little of everything. Buffy and Angel got the storybook romance, very short-lived of course. Xander braved a rough, demon-infested dating scene before, before he finally found the right hellspawn to settle down with - and then chickened out in the end. Willow had an adorable high school fling with werewolf boy Oz, but realized she liked girls when she got to college. Spike and Drusilla proved that even the most stable, centuries-long relationship based on mutual bloodlust and evildoing couldn't stand up to infidelity. Spike and Buffy were so very wrong for each other, which is probably why they were so much fun to watch. But what I really loved about "Buffy" was that there was ultimately no perfect person for anyone. The characters changed, they grew up, got over crushes and breakups, and their relationships changed with them. Destiny usually didn't work out and there were never happy endings, but nobody ever gave up on love either.

So yes, most TV romances are terribly unrealistic and shouldn't be taken at face value. But there are a few shows that can be candid and have some good insights into relationships and still be entertaining. Our media may be rife with skewed depictions of love and marriage, but there's good in there along with the bad. And sometimes a little idealism can be helpful. I mean, if hopelessly shallow kids like Bella and Edward from "Twilight" can be happy together, maybe the rest of us can find somebody to love too.

When "Top Chef" first premiered on Bravo, it was in the shadow of its production sibling "Project Runway," and I couldn't see how it could possibly be as compelling. Watching cooking programs has always been fun, but in a cooking competition a television audience is hampered by not being able to smell or taste the results. On "Runway," we saw as much of the designers' garments as the judges did so you could more or less follow along. But over the course of four years and seven seasons, plus spinoffs, "Top Chef" has been proving me wrong. Right now I'm keeping up with "Top Chef: Just Desserts," the newest variant featuring pastry chefs.

I really enjoy these shows for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with being a foodie or liking to cook. "Top Chef" is a very well produced competition program that understands all the ins and outs of the formula. The weekly challenges are well-conceived and fun to watch. While viewers don't get the sensory experience of the food, the judges and contestants are very good at being proxies for us. In a way it's more accessible than the fashions on "Project Runway," because not everyone gets the allure of a thousand-dollar dress, but everybody eats. And being fashion-forward is a harder concept to grasp than a dish being too salty or meat being overcooked.

There's also my favorite aspect of these competitions, which is watching creative people being creative. The amount of time actually spent depicting the food preparation is limited, but the efforts taken by the chefs comes across. The cooking is often secondary to the conditions in which it is being undertaken, usually limiting ingredients, equipment, and time. Past challenges included catering an entire wedding in two days, cooking on the beach in barbecue pits, and creating dishes from the contents of a vending machine. The resulting frenzy in the kitchen makes for very good television. An extreme cooking show on the Food Network, "Dinner: Impossible," gets a lot of mileage out of similar challenges.

However, "Dinner: Impossible" doesn't have the competition dynamics of "Top Chef." The show's usual panel of of judges includes Tom Colicchio and Gail Simmons, who don't have the personalities of some of their counterparts on similar programs, but come off as knowledgeable and outspoken critics with no shortage of zingers in their repertoire. The contestant chefs are usually a good mix of up-and-coming professionals with a few larger-than-life characters in the mix. Interpersonal tensions sometimes erupt, the way they have with contestant Seth Caro on "Just Desserts," but it's not really necessary to the show and doesn't affect its watchability. The competition itself provokes plenty of good drama.

There's also the benefit of getting what feels like an insider's glimpse into the world of professional chefs, the same way that "Project Runway" does with fashion design. I've picked up all sorts of interesting food-related terminology and can identify many ingredients and foods that I never encountered before watching "Top Chef." The show usually won't slow down to explain what a ceviche is or where jicama comes from unless it's specifically part of the challenge itself, like the time where the contestants were directed to make an amuse bouche, a one-bite appetizer. The more you know about food and cooking, the more you get out of "Top Chef," and I appreciate that the show doesn't pander and maintains that level of professionalism and authenticity.

Because they keep that nice balance between being a show that actual chefs won't groan at, yet novices will find accessible, I find that I keep watching. "Just Desserts" has been especially addictive because I have a sweet tooth and a yen for pastry shows like "Ace of Cakes" already. I wasn't surprised when "Top Chef" snatched the Emmy for best reality show away from "The Amazing Race" this year, ending its multi-year streak. However, I am a little worried about overexposure. Back when Bravo had "Project Runway," they would stagger their broadcasts or alternate between the two. However, with all the different versions and spinoffs, "Top Chef" has been going practically nonstop. Bravo will be rolling out "All Stars" version next and a "Juniors" competition for teenage chefs in the near future.

As for me, I had my first ceviche a few months ago, followed by my second, third, and fourth. I think watching "Top Chef" may be turning me into a foodie. Alas, for all my appreciation, my cooking skills have not improved at all.