As has become almost a staple for all television dramas these days, the music in the background is modern and hip. The ensemble cast is comprised of young attractive rookies who are the focus of the series. In comparison to NYPD Blue, it made me, as the audience, a little skeptical and worried that the show would prove to be a bit trite and superficial. (Personally I have expected decent cop shows to have a bit of grit.)

I was relieved when the shiny, hopeful, wide-eyed newbies meet their wizened and jaded new partners. The older cops give us a dose of reality, and this adds a promising dynamic to the show. Shortly after this, rookie Andy McNally is on a call with her new partner taking a report of a disturbance when shots are fired, signalling that the real police action of the show has begun. As Mcnally and her partner approach the scene, rookie Traci Nash and her new partner arrive as the back-up unit. There is an overdose victim in the apartment who McNally tries to revive, which is her first rookie mistake.

Dov Epstein and Gail Peck are on desk duty their first day, and Dov applies for a permit to take his gun home with him. Gail is called in to search a transgender woman for stolen drugs, but because her driver’s license designates her as male, Dov is called in to do the search.

Meanwhile, rookie Chris arrives at the shooting scene disappointed to learn that he is only required to set up police tape around the perimeter and sit with the radio. McNally and Nash are called on to search the building when McNally finds and pursues the suspects. One of them turns out to be an undercover cop involved in drug sting operation and later tries to make up for it by confronting a volatile gunman.

I am not sure what to make of this police drama. It is fast paced, full of good character tension and has what I consider to be a good premise, but it seems to lack a little of the grit that I have come to expect from police drama. Time will tell as this series develops.

Like Jonathan Creek, this is a BBC show that thinks itself complex and quality writing – with which I vehemently disagree. But also like Creek, it’s something I find myself all too happy to watch.

I criticised Creek for having nothing to say and poor character development. This is not true of Spooks, with its irritating lower case and square bracket embedded title, which I will not be adopting here. But Spooks fancies itself a higher contender on the issues front than it really is.  And unlike Ashes to Ashes, also by Kudos production company, Spooks does not have the spiritual and inspiring aspect; and nor is it funny (though it attempts to be).

Spooks repeatedly says of itself (in interviews and companion volumes) that this is the non glamorous view of spies. It even makes a derogatory reference to other spy stories in Ep 1 Series 2, where a villain refuses a conventional spy film at the video store. But Spooks is pleased to quote itself being called ‘glossy’ in its companion books  and the cast openly admit to their designer clothing. In Series 2, the wages of a medium level employee is revealed – £32k; not really enough for the cost of the clothes regularly worn in the show. And the slowed down hairdryer in the wind shots of them in their Nicole Farhi long coats are only  there to look cool.

There are countless scenes of violence clearly choreographed to excite. I read a very irritating article in Sight and Sound on the very powerful Agora – a recent Spanish film on the 4th C female philosopher, Hypatia, played by Rachel Weiz. The reviewer said that Alejandro Amanabar – director of Agora – did not have the action scene finesse of Ridley Scott (whose 2000 film was also set in the Roman empire). But the reviewer contradicts herself and misses her own point. Whereas Gladiator seemed to be just about entertainment, Agora is not about violence being stylishly orchestrated or appealing. It is meant to be horrific – and even at a 12 cert – it regularly is. Often the point is made that what is disturbing about violence in the entertainment media is when it is no longer shocking. Agora brings the messiness and disturbance that being in such an environment would and should cause. Spooks happily does not dwell on scenes that it might – such as not showing all that happened when MI5 officer Helen is tortured by chip fat – but it does make spying appear cool and the violence is part of the thrill of viewing. I read that the MI5 got many new applications from those inspired by watching Spooks; when everything I saw gave me the opposite reaction.

I want to pause before commenting on the portrayal of the secret intelligent services to lampoon the so called high quality of the writing. I will make my point on television writing teams until it changes – that teams of writers make a mixed bag of inconsistent and frustrating and therefore poor television. The worst line and let down I can think of in any television comes in Spooks ep 1, series 2. The shoddily produced first official book, Spooks Confidential, was boasting of this superlative cliffhanger from the first series where senior officer Tom is left to watch through the window as his girlfriend and child are about to explode with a bomb. I pause again to attack the set up. We hadn’t heard enough about Ellie’s fears of safety to warrant the need to make a bomb blast proof door and window locking system with a swipe card for their home. How this wouldn’t have alerted the rest of Tom’s street to his being something unusual, I really question. And why can this money be found for him especially? Money found for spooking is another point I shall return to.

If the door is bomb blast proof then surely the threat to Ellie and daughter Maisie inside such a home is somewhat lessened? And fears that Tom might die should be allayed as he is the other side of that equipment from the bomb. The notion of the little girl getting cake mixture on the swipe card to make it jam just wasn’t believable and I was irritated by that whole scene, which we are made to rewatch at the start of series 2. We see a blast but learn that the fatal explosion caught a political target, and that this bomb – destined for MI5’s offices – was a decoy for IRA action. Whether the bomb in Tom’s lap exploded is immaterial – the diversion from their real target is what is important for the Irish independence fighters. The bomb could have been designed to count down and do nothing.

But as Tom clasped his emotionally frazzled family (a strange term considering Ellie is a pretty new girlfriend and Maisie is not his own daughter) in the ambulance, he explains the rather confusing let down with the crappest piece of dialogue: “36% of improvised bombs do not detonate” !! Why not just say that the bomb failed and it isn’t that unusual … why would you come up with stats at a time when you and our loved ones faced death only a short time ago?! You could call it character, but I consider it poor writing.

It’s an example of those who write about a world they do not have expertise in try too hard to make everything sound factual and knowledgeable. The actors often try too hard as well,  to sound confident and that jargon comes to them naturally. I sense that alot in Spooks.

I was rightly wooed to Spooks because I was told it was a people drama. I found the action plots of little interest, especially as most are wound up in under an hour. I think the returning series (of which Spooks is an example) is a poor model for television. I like dramas that continue each week with characters we care about and plots that unfold over time. I found myself skimming through this week’s terrorism to see what the story is really about, and found Tom and Ellie’s story was my only hook for series 1. It is moments like Zoe being unable to speak to an old school friend, or the feelings about being asked to carry out your first assassination, which made the story interesting. I had begun to watch because of Keeley Hawes’ involvement, but when she and her real life husband Matthew (Tom) left in series 3, I stopped watching the irritating and self important show and have had no further interest since 2004 until now. Like ITV’s prison drama Bad Girls, I felt that three series was enough and that when my favourite characters (in this case Nikki and Helen) left and their stories resolved, that I had no further need or desire to continue.

This next part is controversial. It makes me a little fearful. And I feel that I shouldn’t be. Britain is a free country, with freedom of speech. I am shocked by what has been written about the Queen, who has endured at least 2 dramas about her life in recent years and is readily taken off by comedians. I recall a very libel baiting channel 4 drama involving Margaret Thatcher,  whose many caricatures include the most famous Spitting Image puppet, when she was still Prime Minister. And offence to God and faith isn’t censored. Yet the Secret Services seem that shadowy body that is an unseen, unassailable and uncritiquable presence. They are right – along with the Free Masons whose hall the show borrows as MI5’s offices – to make their work better known and to be publicly accountable.

If Spooks is anything like right, then the intelligence service has huge amounts of money at the ready to open up shops, pay off informers and make gadgets at will if deemed necessary to snare threats. Meanwhile other government funding struggles.

 A big part of our democracy is from our free presses, but in the story, the press are often hushed and told to print something other than the truth. Spies rely on deceit, blackmail and false befriending, at the expense of being able to make real relationships. I saw a newspaper an advert to work for admin in MI5; and to even consider it (which I didn’t) the applicant was bound to secrecy. From even asking for the form, a blind comes down between the officers and their loved ones. We hear little of Spooks characters families and outside friends, and I think it would have been more interesting to see them recruited and lose touch with their loved ones.

The series shows people who challenge or ask the wrong question being bullied; and who break laws,  and who have blood matches on a database to any target they wish to follow.

And to these people, we give the safety of our nation.

I can only hope that the fictional portrayals are wrong, as an official MI5 comment suggests.

In the last episode I could bear to watch, a 2 day exercise taking the team way from their real duties faked the death of the Royal family and parliamentary leaders (isn’t that a kind of treason?!) and that MI5 (and not even the director or his deputy) assumed (note double meaning) control of the nation.

This defaults to a military unelected leadership. We were angry at how Gordon Brown got in as PM without election and the US was outraged about George Bush. So how would it feel to have this shadowy team (yes there’s that word again) who we’ve not even seen take over? Their skills and  training would be totally wrong for the running of a country. When many are pressing for greater accountability, honesty, and liberty – and a country based on better values than our current tired system of politics – the last thing we want is for a totalitarian dictatorship by spy leaders. Tom is commended for his leadership of that operation (which appears real) but I abhorred it. He takes guns to those that disobey, taking utilitarianism to its darkest extreme – that in the interest of wider good (as he sees it) he will kill a few to save a few more. When would MI5 let go of governing? Would they give the country a truly free choice of electing its new leaders? Is this better than the anarchy they so feared – or aren’t there better choices of temporary leader?

…Leaders to whom personal feelings are a weakness but their sense of morality is such that to kidnap and terrorise someone who’s tried to trace an officers’ car (not realising who they are), who can agree to ignore criminal activity to avoid a supposed greater calamity – are these the people we trust with our lives? Or those who send criminals on false passports to countries that they have no connection on false charges to kill them – defecting the death penalty we cannot give to another nation? (This scenario happened twice in 10 episodes).

The boasted of topical issues do try to show a little of the week’s targets’ views and that they are not wholly wrong. Yet the portrayal still shows little mercy or patience with them. I am totally against all forms of violence and do not support terrorism as a way of making a point at all, but the portrayal  we receive of groups like IRA and a few decades back, Russia, is very much Dangerous Enemy – must destroy. We are told that any such destruction is necessary and how much worse things they would do. It is implied that good fair Britain doesn’t torture or execute. I would like to think that is true, but Spooks here are shown as interrogating and ‘disincentivising’ targets – and in later series, they do torture. Do the writers ever wish us to question the rightness of this? I had assumed we were to see the Spooks team as always right, unless it’s Tessa embezzling money for paying imaginary agents (six of whom come to £150,000, I hope they paid their taxes). I would like the series better if it were clear that the team’s behaviour is not always right – if Tom hadn’t been commended for his leadership after that stupid exercise and we weren’t mean to agree with him for dumping his next girlfriend who had been kept waiting over a day for a call about her future. Tom needed to have explained he had a huge crisis on and not speak to loved ones like patronised minions.

It would have been better to have offered a subtle critique of MI5 and/or to have helped with its public image (or is that the unsuccessful plan?) and to have scrubbed the smart clothes and the split screens which offer nothing.  Perhaps such dramas are damaging to the work of MI5, making the public imagine we are being tracked by unscrupulous workforce whose remit is now worryingly broad, and that could be used to harass and silence non threatening dissenters rather than prevent real harm.

I like to be challenged but also inspired, and there’s sound advice from the apostle Paul and the new spirituality who both say: think on good things, especially your last thoughts at night. Creator of Spooks David Woolstencroft says he began to feel paranoid after writing the series. That does catch on, and a fear of modern day Francis Walsinghams following you seeps in. But to quote the Good Book again, we have not been given a spirit of fear, nor are fellow flesh and blood and their gadgets the ultimate. And neither is this unevenly and often unconvincingly written drama with crass jokes about the DG’s prostrate, inaccuracies such as canals in East Anglia the bees’ knees of television. But I’ll still keep hunting for Spooks material at the library – though of course, I shan’t borrow it with my card – I don’t want to arouse suspicion, just in case They are watching.

The show is based on four contestants having to run 19 yards to get to the buzzer. If that sounds easy, it is not the whole truth. The first round was called twin peaks and they had to climb these two obstacles using building blocks. The winner went through to next round, the other three went back to start. And they weren’t told that the rules had changed and that building blocks were missing for the second mountain, meaning they had to retrace to the first.

The questions were easy enough but obscure enough not to make the answers obvious. The contestants would start their course over the distance on the question they knew the answer to, or at least thought they knew it. Having an early answer didn’t mean that the contestant was the first to arrive at the buzzer, though. And after a wrong answer, the person reaching the buzzer next was allowed to answer their question.

Sounds exhausting? It’s exhausting to watch on all counts. And I for one, though the questions were easy enough, am not sure I could still remember the answer by the time I would reach the buzzer. With round two in blindfolds with paper wall, turning table, and a path broad enough to miss the buzzer completely, it was hilarious to watch. Add round three with all the goo and sticky stuff you could wish for, there was not a minute of boredom to find the winner who would play for the price of £100,000.

The final for the £100,000 pounds was a straight run, sort of. There were five answers to give to reach the top price. The first answer got £5,000, and the option to go for the double on the risk of losing all. The third answer brought £20,000, with the risk of falling back on £5,000, and so on.

The problem for the contestant in the final was that the buzzer was moving away from him, and the maximal distance allowed was 19 yards. The finalist used up seven yards for the first question, which meant apart from gauging if the next question could proof to be too difficult, he had to decide if he could solve it over the remaining distance. Dave, the finalist, called it quits at £20,000 and four more yards to go.

The show is, all in all, a mixture of a conventional pub quiz and Total Wipeout. And the mixture works, the sum total is bigger than its components. If you can, go watch it next week on Saturday. It’s well worth the while.

Like many other people, I love the ABC television show Lost. In fact I think ABC’s Lost is one of the most important television shows ever made. I even went so far as to write an article entitled “Lost,The Most Important Television Show, Ever”, however it was not the first show on U.S. Television to be called Lost. In the fall of 2001, NBC television aired a series entitled, Lost. Unlike, ABC’s Lost, it was not a series in the fantasy genre. It was another show in the emerging genre of reality television. NBC’s Lost was a show much like, the CBS show, The Amazing Race, as it had teams, who raced to reach a final destination. However, this show had one huge difference. These teams were put out in the middle of nowhere, with very few clues, as to where they were or how to get where they were going. This is why the show was called Lost.

The show was to feature three different sets of three teams. The teams of the first set, which had a starting point in Ohio, were told that they would win, $200,000, if they were first to reach the final destination. That being The Statue of Liberty in New York City. The teams were not allowed to carry bank cards or anything that would give them an unfair advantage. Contestants were searched by show officials, wearing latex gloves, to ensure they did not have any such contraband. The three teams of the first set had, one team that included Carla, a make-up artist, and Lando, a student,while the second team was made up of Celeste, a fashion designer, and Tami, a mother of four, and the members of the third team, were Joe, a graphic designer, and Courtland, an artist.

After being given survival gear, and a few items to barter, the teams were blindfolded and flown to an isolated location. In the first set, the location was somewhere in Mongolia. The teams then had to find clues and come to a conclusion as to where they were. When they figured out their location they had to then call the producers of the show to confirm, then from there find their way to the finish line. The series’ first episode, which premiered on Tuesday, September 4th 2001, appears to have left many viewers as confused as the series’ lost contestants. According to Melissa Gollob, in a September 6th 2001, article in The Michigan Daily, the show failed to excite viewers. The second episode of the show, which would have shown the winners of the series’ first set of teams, was preempted due to the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Because of this NBC, at the time, blamed the series’ poor ratings on the 9/11 attacks. However, Melissa Gollob’s article, on September 6th 2001, points to lack of interest in the show. Her article was written pre-9/11. NBC decided to put the show on hiatus during this time.

NBC brought the show out of hiatus on Sunday December 23rd 2001, in a 7:00 PM time slot, with the second set of teams, who were, this time, abandoned in Bolivia. Being a person, who at the time, was actually excited about the show, I tried to watch it. I tuned into my local NBC affiliate and there was a sporting event on, preempting the show until later that evening. I switched the channel to something else, then kept checking back until the show finally came on. I missed about ten minutes of this episode. The ratings of this episode were very low. The lack of information I have been able to find, on this set in the series, suggests that hardly anyone watched or cared about the series, at this point. Because of the low ratings NBC, reworked the final episode of this set, from two hours to only one. When it was scheduled to air, I, once again, tuned in to to my local NBC affiliate to find a sporting event being aired, instead of Lost. As I had done the previous week, I switched to something else, and flipped, back and forth, between channels, until the show was on. After another night of poor ratings, NBC scrapped the entire third set of this series.

This brings us to the questions, if if 9/11 had not have happened would would NBC’s Lost have been a hit, and would we then have ABC’s Lost. Certainly, if 9/11 had not happened, ABC’s Lost, if it was even produced, would be a very different show. For instance, I doubt the writers would have included, the character of Sayid, a Iraqi Republican Guard torturer. As with everything about ABC’s Lost, one could go on and on about all of the meanings in the show and where the inspiration came from. The question, of how ABC’s Lost would be different, had 9/11 not happened, would fill volumes. For this reason I am not going to examine all of that now. Getting back to NBC’s Lost, I do not feel that 9/11 caused the demise of this series. I feel that NBC’s Lost, was a show that would appeal to a very limited audience, and because of this NBC needed to place it more carefully. The series’ original Tuesday time slot was actually a better one for it, than the Sunday time slot. In that respect the only way that 9/11 could be blamed for affecting the series’ performance, would be for the preemption of one episode. Which would be a ludicrous conclusion, as everything was preempted on that Tuesday, back in 2001, even QVC, a shopping channel, gave up its air space to CNN for the night.

Ultimately, NBC’s Lost failed because, it was a show that appealed to a limited audience, and of its network, blaming a tragic event for low ratings, in the shows original time slot, which caused a move to a time slot, that spells doom for many shows. That time slot being one that is consistently prone to the preemption and postponing of shows, because of sporting events. New shows should never be put in time slots that are prone to preemption and postponement. For about the last ten years, it seems that, the programming department at NBC, more than any other U.S. Television network , has failed to see this.. Maybe this is why CBS and ABC, now have more shows, that are “must see”, than NBC does. Personally, I am very hesitant to get involved in a new series on The NBC Network. However, that being said, it could be that this lack of vision over the years, at NBC, set the way clear for, what I feel is one of the most important television shows ever made, ABC’s Lost.

Another version of the reality show, Lost, was aired on The UK’s Channel 4. It also aired during the fall of 2001. Having not seen it, I have little knowledge of that show. However, it is said that it also had a time slot that caused a limited audience and acceptance. If you have seen the UK version, please feel free to speak up about it in the comments section.

Related Links

Melissa Gollab’s September 6th 2001, Review of NBC’s Lost in The Michigan Daily

(I have to thank this review for refreshing my memory about the series)

Lost Trivia Quiz

The Real Failure of The Fitzpatricks

If you would like to earn money sharing your views on television, click here!

It’s inevitable. A teen drama on TV played by a bunch of definitely-NOT-teens. 90210 become the classic example (and apparent trend-setter) for a bunch of 20-somethings trying to pull off the teen angst of 16 and 17 year-olds.

I thought this “rule” was broken with Glee. Surely those actors can’t be much older than 19 or 20? Yeah, well I was wrong. Read here for a glowing review of Glee, including the ages of their main actors.

So back to Vampire Diaries, let’s start with the Vampires. Now, in fact, these actors are playing guys that are over a hundred years old, however “frozen” in their youth once they became vampires in the 19th century. Stefan claims he’s “forever 17”. But how old is the actor who plays him? Well, Paul Wesley just turned 27 this past summer. Yep, that’s right. He’s a whopping DECADE older than his character.

So what about Damon, his evil older brother? The charming Ian Somerhalder is actually the big 3-0… turning 31 this summer. But you have to admit, they both look great.

Alright, let’s get to the ladies. The star of the show – Elena Gilbert is played by Nina Dobrev. It’s safe to assume the character Elena is 17 years old, so how old is Nina? Would you be surprised if I said 20 years old? Yep, Nina turns the legal drinking age of 21 this January. Although she’s not a teenager anymore, that’s about as young as you can expect these “teen” actors to be anymore. Other neat fact about Nina – she was born in Bulgaria and grew up in Canada.

Image via Wikipedia

Candice Accola who plays the blonde Caroline is 22.

Katerina Graham who plays the bewitching Bonnie just turned 20. She was born in Switzerland.

Kayla Ewell who played the late Vicki the Vampire is really 24.

Zach Roerig who plays Elena’s ex Matt is also 24.

And lastly Jeremy, Elena’s brother. Actor Steven R. McQueen is 21 years old.

So, not a real teen in the bunch. But who cares? While those vampires don’t fool me as teenagers, the rest of the cast does. And they’re doing a great job. The Vampire Diaries is the break-out hit for the CW this year. The show’s season premiere had more viewers than any other premieres in the CW’s history. And while CW has been in very, very far last place among the networks since its inception… that could all change with this show. If the Vampire Diaries continues its growing viewership, it could surpass the ratings for NBC shows in the Thursday 8/7pm hour.

So, keep watching. And tell your friends to watch it, too.

For those of you out there who have been following and getting addicted to a bunch of British wankers who likes to do drugs and partying then this news should become a bit of a shock, whether you like it or not.

MTV has picked up the US remake rights to award-winning British phenomenon “Skins“.

The E4 and Channel 4 series follows a group of British teens who are trying to grow up and find love and happiness despite questionable parenting and teachers who more want to be friends (and lovers) rather than authority figures.

The show, which frankly deals with teen sex and drug use, starred the likes of Dev Patel (”Slumdog Millionaire“), Nicholas Hoult (”About a Boy“) and Jack O’Connell (”Eden Lake“).

The producers intend to set the US version of the show in Baltimore, Maryland and will use the original series successful model of using stories written by teenagers and starring essentially unknowns.

British translations however have rarely proven successful with only the odd exception (ie. “The Office,” “Queer as Folk”, numerous reality shows) catching on. Recent British hits like “Life on Mars” and “Little Britain” yielded notably inferior and quickly cancelled remakes.

More often however cross-Atlantic takes fail to get past pilot stage including recent attempts with “The Thick of It,” “The Vicar of Dibley,” “Spaced” and “Footballers Wives”.

Let us hope that MTV could make it right by creating the American version of these British twats that we love deeply and pray that they do not make a bunch of American trash instead. Imagine Cassie and Effie in their American version…oh wow, it’s like amazing!

Image via Wikipedia

True Blood takes place about two years after the majority of the world becomes aware of the existence of vampires. So, it makes sense that we would see a cultural struggle over acceptance of these people, just as the show portrays it.

At times, I find similarities between how people are treating Vampires in the show and how people treated Blacks through most of the 20th century (and some argue, still today). Fear. The unknown.

But I think the better comparison would be to the current civil rights struggle of homosexuals.

1. The Vampires Appear Normal

   While African Americans can’t hide a different skin color, you can’t usually tell a person’s sexual preference.

2. Religious Persecution

   In True Blood, you see fervent Christian groups speaking out about the immorality of Vampires. A group was created called “Fellowship of the Sun” – there is an actual website made for this fake organization: www.fellowshipofthesun.org

3. Marriage

   Near the end of season one you see something similar to what we saw in Massachusetts not too long ago: non-traditional couples getting married. Granted, if you look further back in US history, you see a time when whites & blacks weren’t allowed to marry.

I do find it interesting that in the first episode when it was pointed out a legitimate reason to fear Vampires is their history of killing people to feed on… a Vampire pointed out that they do not have near the violent history of wars and slavery that “normal” humans have.

Image via Wikipedia

Best Moments

• When Matt’s girlfriend was a man- I loved this.  I really didn’t see it coming, nor did I see her relationship with her adopted son, which bored on “too much” but was still really great.  I’m still waiting for good old Ava/Avery to come back into the show since she/he split and went to France.  I didn’t like her very much as a character, because there was something so obnoxious about her, but I really hope she comes back (maybe in cahoots with the Carver?!)
• When Matt’s girlfriend was his half-sister-Oh, Matt, can’t you put your dick in anything normal?  Matt’s half-sister was so cute, though, so I don’t blame him.  Only issue–that plot never got finished!  I’m guessing someone at FX decided incest had gone “too far” even though Nip/Tuck regularly does stuff like that.  I hope she comes back in season 6 and is pregnant with an incestuously conceived child.  Maybe that would be a bit much, but at least it would answer our question, “Whatever happened to Matt and his half sister?”  They had sex, they found out they were related, and then they seemed to still be into each other.  Did she just disappear?  WHAT HAPPENED?
• When Escobar’s face was surgically molded into that of a child molester- How clever could plastic surgeons be?  In an attempt to run from the law, criminal Escobar asked MacNamera and Troy to reshape his face.  Little did he know, they would reshape it to look exactly like a man who had sex with a six-year-old.  He ended up getting taken to prison and getting a lot of flack for what he didn’t do.  But he kind of deserved it, given everything else he actually was doing.  Way to go, guys.
• When the Carver had no penis and was having sex with his sister- Maybe this was the best thing that ever happened in the history of my life, I don’t know.  But Quentin being the Carver was unpredictable, and more unpredictable was the fact that he was born with five alpha reductase syndrome, which means he had no penis.  I looked it up online and it is very real, I assure you.  His sexy, cold sister who defended him was also pretty interesting, but better than anything is that they got away with it and fled to Spain.  I can’t wait for them to come back.  They have to.
• When Colleen (literally) backstabbed Sean- Stalkers are always fun to watch on TV, and Colleen was great.  She was Sean’s agent (during the weird time when he played a surgeon in a show along with being a surgeon in real life).  However, was she really an agent?  No, she was a teddy bear maker.  She turned people into teddy bears too, by killing them and stuffing them with cotton.  She also killed them with cotton, did I mention that?  Anyway, this whacko decided she was in love with Dr. Macnamera, and she ended up chasing after him and stabbing him in the back while he was operating on his daughter.  Luckily, he didn’t die.  Just ended up in a wheelchair for a while and then miraculously got out of it.

Image via Wikipedia

Worst Moments

• When Julia had a sex affair with a dwarf- I didn’t believe it any more than I believed her turning into a lesbian for a year.  I have nothing else to say about this.
• When Christian got breast cancer- I got that it was ironic that Christian would get breast cancer because he was always so concerned with being manly, but there was really no suspense there.  We all knew he wouldn’t die, because he’s one of the main characters.  So when the doctor called to tell him his cancer was in recession after he had married a chubby lesbian for security, I just rolled my eyes.  Good luck with the divorce, Christian.
• Julia giving birth to a deformed baby- This was sort of interesting, except the baby disappeared and we never really see him anymore.  Also, what’s going on with Julia’s daughter?  Where are these people?
• Sean becoming a famous actor- That whole thing was so surreal.  People don’t just become famous actors by accident when they move to Los Angeles.  Besides, it didn’t mesh at all with his character that he would even want to do something like that.  The “meta” idea of Nip/Tuck making fun of itself in the show Sean was on was just too weird for me.
• Matt Becoming a Meth Addict- I usually like the dark stuff on Nip/Tuck but this was just a bit depressing, especially when he decided to try out for the role of a “sloppy bottom” in gay porn.  There really wasn’t much of a shock with the whole meth thing, and when he burned himself or something while making meth, I also wasn’t surprised.  I thought they were going to kill him off, actually, but they didn’t.  Nip/Tuck always saves people at the last moment.

In a way it seemed like a series finale, not a season finale.  Perhaps, the producers and writers weren’t sure if they would be granted a season seven at the time the finale was made.

I am very, very grateful that the writers did not kill of Peyton.  I think it would have been a terrible way for her to go, especially when she had so much influence on the show and to the viewers. 

Now the question arises, how will the producers and writers get rid of Peyton, Lucas and Sawyer?  Will Luke get a writing gig that will cause them to move?  Or will Peyton’s record company all of a sudden take off and land them in Hollywood?  Maybe baby Sawyer have a medical condition that causes them to move for medical care.  We’ll just have to sit tight and wait it out.

Will One Tree Hill be able to survive without Luke and Peyton?  Afterall, they were the core of the show since season one.  It was always about their struggle to be together. 

Now, what if Luke and Peyton stayed on the show?  Would we be happy to see them live happily ever after with their new, baby daughter?  I don’t think we would.  Lucas and Peyton kept us entertained because it was drama, the timing was always off, it was a struggle.  If we saw them in their happily ever after stage I think we might get bored.

Now that their time together has lapsed and we see that they do indeed get their much deserved happily ever after, I think it’s best to leave their story as a distant memory.

We have to remember that after seven seasons there are other story lines other than Leyton that have developed.  There is Nathan, Hayley and Jamie and their struggle to find a happy medium between singing and basketball.  In season seven, Hayley’s sister, Quinn, will become a major character on the show.  Could this spark some much needed drama?

There’s Brooke and her soul searching; does she fill her heart with a child’s love or a man’s love?  Now that her and Julian are finally an item we have the potential of another great romance in bloom.  And now that she’s back in business with her mother, will their relationship continue to flourish or will it be short lived?

Mouth and Millie have worked through their differences and seem to be on the right track towards their happy ending.  I wouldn’t bee surprised if we see more of this couple in season seven.

Lastly, what about Dan?  We need to discover his story, his ending.  I can’t help feeling sorry for ‘ol Danny and hope that he does receive forgiveness from his family and is able to be a part of Jamie’s life. 

Don’t be too heartbroken Tree Hill fans, there is still much potential to be made of the lives, events, and drama that we will see in season seven of One Tree Hill.

This current series, which long ago aired in the US is nothing short of genius.  Me, the husband and the dog still mourn The Sopranos (sorry, but David Chase’s HBO masterpiece has left a pretty large void in the corner of our living room) but I can tell you that Dexter, Series 3, IS as compelling.  It has the sewer mouthed, charismatic sister (Michael C Hall’s real-life wife) who swears every bit as much as Silvio or Paulie from Tony’s Jersey crew and plenty of other fabulously quirky colleagues in the Miami police department.  They are refreshingly flawed, with every-day looks, truly appalling fashion sense and in this show, other than the slick opening credits, there is no air-brushed perfection.  And the best bit and how it links to Chase’s writing is that we forgive our brutal killer, just like we forgave Tony’s extortion, adultery and murder (up until the last series anyhow).  And like, Thomas Harris’ Hannibal Lecter, Dexter justifies his murdering sprees by cleaning up and ridding the streets of the morally repugnant.  It’s Hannibal’s intellect, sense of style and taste that appeal to us, allowing us to forgive even his cannibalistic acts.  And with Dexter too, his quick wit and self-doubt are so damn appealing, that we don’t even dwell on the fact that, after he’s finished bubble wrapping his victims, he will have been caked in blood and guts like a butcher in slaughterhouse.  I suppose our sympathetic response also isn’t hindered by the fact that Michael C Hall is also alluringly attractive and his softly spoken, conspiratorial voice over constantly gives us access to his inner-most thoughts.  We side with him right from the voyeuristic opening credits which allow us to watch him getting dressed.   As he pouts directly to camera, in a feline way, he’s like a cougar appraising his prey.  Meow!

And, over the Atlantic, we’re currently very excited about the forthcoming shenanigans in Bon Temps, True Blood airing here next month promises us quite a feast.  In the US the second series has just started, so the suspense for us is really growing.  And from what we hear, it is a feast that should satisfy our appetites for well written, challenging narratives.  It sounds like HBO have, once again, delivered through this Louisiana setting another show that makes us side with the bad guys.  It’s this positioning of the audience that is particularly interesting.  Of course, when we watch Disney’s Jungle Book, we know that we should be rooting for Baloo, the lovable oaf of a bear and the young boy, Mowgli.  But shows like Dexter, The Sopranos and True Blood, make us side with the equivalent of the evil snake, Kaa, with his hypnotic eyes and his Garden of Eden cousin, and this is what makes them both compelling and intriguing.  They encourage us to abandon the path of the righteous and gallop down into the burning flames of hell.

Michael C Hall as Dexter – a good looking good, bad guy

Courtesy of Google Image

So what is it that makes us forgive the most abhorrent, repugnant acts?  If you read a fairy story to a young child, they don’t need any encouragement to dislike the wicked stepmother in Cinderella or the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood.  And yet, there is something in these narratives that liberates us, albeit fictionally, and allows us to be complicit in the most heinous crimes possible.  We freely side with the baddies.  Dexter does live by his code, but he is nonetheless killing.  Surely, to fit into the paradigm of the good guy, he should, at worst, plant forensic evidence to implicate his victims, not butcher them!  So why do we forgive him his outpourings of blood lust?  Surely it’s not that we secretly all want to slit our neighbour’s throat, perhaps it’s just that maybe occasionally, as our boss criticises our best efforts, we do fantasise about it!  Dexter, Hannibal and Tony Soprano do what our fictional selves dream of doing.  And the writers exploit our temporary lack of mores and encourage us to constantly side and forgive our fictional alter egos.

Perhaps I should make clear, I am not advocating any physical harm to anyone, but next time your neighbour bickers over how late you partied with your friends, or your boss bitches about errors on your laboured over report, let Dexter and his fictional brothers, give you some imaginative vengeance.  Just imagine what they’d do!

I say long live the bad guy!