Before I go into my rant let me first say that I have no problem with adult-oriented content appearing on broadcast networks.  As long as it airs outside the time frame in which networks are supposed to air only family-oriented content, I see no issue with swear words, a little sex, and even the occasional nudity (hell, we already get that, don’t we?).  However, I think it’s silly to say that putting more sex, foul language, and nudity on broadcast networks will make more people watch.  This article pushes the idea that networks would be more profitable if they weren’t tied to the FCC’s decency rules using the success of cable shows that are allowed to air more mature content to back up that thesis.  What this article doesn’t get is that these cable shows are successful in spite of, not because of, their mature content.  Shows like The Sopranos, Sex and the City, Nip/Tuck, and even Mad Men are not successful because they’re free to show more skin, more sex, and have more bad words.  They’re successful because more often than not they are well written, well acted, and original in concept. 

Network television is filled one copy cat show after another.  Is there really that much difference between all the CSI and Law and Order shows?  Network television, in its never-ending quest of catering to a younger audience, is filled with unoriginal programming and bad reality shows.  If they want to succeed maybe they should take some chances, give series a chance to find an audience instead of cancelling it after two episodes.  I’m not a particular fan of Mad Men, but I can see why it has such a cult following, but that series barely draws a million people and would be a spectacular failure on network television unless given a chance to find an audience like AMC has done.  Moreover, adding more sex and bad language doesn’t make entertainment “sophisticated.”  I would call Mad Men sophisticated television, but it’s not riddled with sex and foul language.  This article completely missed the point, and the real problem, with network television; lack of originality.

I may not have liked some of Charlton Heston’s crazy politics, but man did I love a few of his movies.  To this day, his two great Biblical epics, The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur, are some of my favorite movies of all time.  Considering when it was made, the chariot race in Ben-Hur is still a spectable to watch. As a sci fi buff I loved him in Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green.  Charlton Heston may not have been the greatest actor of his generation, but he still appeared in some of the best motion pictures Hollywood ever produced.

Heston passed away today at the age of 83.  Hollywood has lost one of its greats.

So, it turns out the 80th annual Academy Awards presentation were a big flop in the ratings, as least compared to previous years. I know I didn’t watch, and haven’t really been an avid viewer for the better part of a decade.  I think the last time I was really interested in the Oscars was when The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was nominated and won Best Picture.  Some would say the Oscars are irrelevant to most viewers because they don’t see the films, and I think there’s some truth to that.  Not one of the Best Picture nominees was a box office smash and most will be lucky to recoup their cost with DVD sales.  I’m sure Marion Cotillard was well deserving of the award of Best Actress, but how many viewers have actually seen La Vie en Rose?  For that matter, how many viewers have actually see any of the other actress nominated films?

Of course, I’m not one of those people who thinks the Oscars should nominate for successful films.  Look 2007’s five most successful films:  Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  Were any of these five really Oscar worthy?  Some point to popular films being nominated and winning in the past.  For example, Gone With the Wind was hugely popular and won for Best Picture.  If this film has been made today, and if it could get past the PC Police, I think it would be like Titanic — makes lots of money and win Best Picture.  However, consider other Best Picture winners:  Rebecca, How Green Was My Valley, and Casablanca from the 1940s; All About Eve, An American in Paris, and From Here to Eternity from the 1950s.  Of these two groups Casablanca and From Here to Eternity might be hits today and I think it’s a big “might” for Casablanca, but would films like How Green Was My Valley and An American in Paris be any different than No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood?

What it comes down to, I think, is there really isn’t as much interest in these award shows as there used to be.  While a certain group will always be interested in the celebrity lifestyle, the cable-spawned, never-ending onslaught of celebrity news makes it all not so interesting anymore.  Who really cares what someone’s wearng on the red carpet.  Most of us certainly can’t afford to dress like, not even the knock-offs!  Networks will just have to get used to the idea that the days of old when half the television audience would tune in the Oscars has passed.

A New York Times columnist asks the question, “Is PBS still necessary?”  To his way of thinking, cable and the Internet have stepped in  to take over PBS’s historical role as a purveyor or hard-to-find entertainment, entertainment the networks wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.  In that respect, I think he’s correct; however, with broadcast television becoming even more of a wasteland featuring craptacular reality television that’s cheap to make and doesn’t require those pesky union writers.  The real problem for PBS is Congress, and in particular Republicans who see the Liberal bogeyman wherever they look.  They have crippled PBS financially and left it incapable of giving us the great entertainment of past.

Moreover, while it’s true you can find much of what PBS offers, or used to offer, on cable and the Internet it’s also true that for many people who live in rural communities with no access to cable other than expensive satellite services like DISH and DirecTV, and where broadband is non-existent, PBS is the only alternative.  True, rural communities are less likely to watch PBS than than more urban communities, but it’s still watched.  If PBS could be untied from the strings Republican Congresses have wrapped it up in, and if it could get the money it deserves, I think people would watch.  Granted, the network model is in decline, but I don’t think you can apply the broadcast network model to PBS.  Moreover, PBS could benefit from new media just like the broadcast networks.  Killing PBS would be a great mistake.

So, actor/commedian — and I use both of terms loosely — George Lopez has endorsed Barak Obama.  I find this interesting because it makes me think of the episode I watched of Lopez’ show that turned me off to the series forever.  In the episode, President Bush was coming to town to speak at the character’s place of employment.  The Lopez character’s daughter wanted to speak out against the president, but her father said it was wrong to do so.  Then, in a piece of irony, the mother (played by Constance Marie) talked about how her family once had no freedom and fled Communism in Cuba to grab their slice of the American dream, while at the same time reprimanding her daughter for wanting to use those freedoms to protest the president!  I never watced the series again (not that it was great to begin with).

There are reports all over the place today of a deal to end the writers strike coming together over the weekend.  That would be nice; not because I give  damn about the Oscars (does anyone care about this year’s nominees?), but because I’m starting to miss some of my favorite shows and don’t want to see others screwed over with short seasons (Lost and Battlestar Galactica are two that come quickly to mind). 

After all that’s happened, I hope the writers end up with a deal that’s worthy of all the crap that’s happened in the last few months.  Since this began, I’ve been more on the writers side because the positions of the AMPTP and the conglomerates they represent have just been beyond greedy and downright cruel.  If they could really get what they want, the union would no longer exist.  Hopefully, the writers won’t end up with a deal they’ll get stuck with and hate for the next 20 years as happened in 1988.

Of course, I guess we shouldn’t get our hopes up.  The Screen Actors Guild contract is up in June and their president, Alan Rosenberg (husband of the very hot Marg Helgenberger), just seems to be chomping at the bit for a strike.  After a three month writers strike, something tells me the actors won’t be so eager to strike unless the AMPTP tries once again to play hardball.

Considering the Democrats long support of labor movements I’m not completely surprised the candidates for president are refusing to cross the writers’ picket lines, but I’m also a tiny bit surprised.  Who would have thought this varied group of men and women could agree on something, something that could jeopardize their relationship with media moguls who raise a lot of money for them.  However, these media CEOs should know better.  I have to be upfront here: I totally support the writers on this issue.  I’ve done enough research on both sides to know the media companies are blowing smoke when they say it would break them to give writers the cents on the dollar they’re asking for in terms of DVD and Internet residuals, and I think they are on the losing side of this issue.  Missouri is far removed from Hollywood and the vagaries of the entertainment business, but we like to watch our favorite shows and I have been surprised at the number of people I know and work with who are following this mess; and how many of them seem to be on the writers side of this issue.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since the little man almost always sides against the big corporation.  When it gets right down to it, the Dem candidates are lot braver than they will ever get credit for by not crossing those pickets lines.  As that fool Sumner Redstone has often said, he votes for the candidate that will help his business, not the candidate that’s better for the country as a whole; and I think most of the media company CEOs are no different, so the Dems may not have that much to lose.

So, did you watch HBO’s new series Tell Me You Love Me?  You know, the series that features full-on male nudity?  Well, I did and I thought it was an OK series, nothing spectacular.  Granted, I don’t usually see so many penises and balls outside of the locker room and porn, but it just wasn’t all that.  Sure, watching one man get a hand-job from his wife along with the inevitable orgasm was, to say the least, shocking I really didn’t think the sex was anything outrageous.

Well, unbeknownst to me penises are popping up all over the place in film and television.  The New York Observer has an interesting article about the whole issue.  The writer brings up an interesting point about how we seem to have no problem completely exposing women on the screen, but to dare show a penis will often get a film an NC-17 rating.  Why?  Why is the penis so much more offensive than a vagina?  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  Of course, sitting in a theater and seeing some guy’s penis flash across the screen is not my idea of fun, but neither is some of the overly graphic female nudity I’ve seen.  If a good film features nudity of both sexes, it doesn’t really matter to me.  Guys just need to get over it.  Turn up the heat, grin, and bear it.  Besides, with computer technology these days even the tiniest pee-pee can be improved.

I am a huge fan of the Food Network.  When I have nothing better to do I’m often tuned into a few of my favorite cooking hosts:  Rachel Ray, Paula Deen, and Bobby Flay to name a few.  My absolute favorite, however, is Giada De Laurentiis’ Everyday Italian.  I love Italian food; it’s been the downfall of many a diet for me, but if I’m being honest I have to say that I enjoy looking at Giada much more than I enjoy her Italian food.  She has this penchant for wear low-cut revealing tops that totally distract from what she’s cooking.  She’s also hot and I can’t believe her goofy looking husband got a hot woman like Giada to marry him!  Well, I just might have a new favorite in Ingrid Hoffman, Food Network’s newest host and her show Simply Delicioso.  The new series brings a much need Latin flavor to the network and best of all Ingrid wear tops that even more low cut!  Yeah, I’m a sexist pig, but like I said, I’m OK with that.  The ladies are hot!

As much as I hate to add my two cents to what will surely be dubbed Hilton-gate, but am I supposed to feel sympathy for Paris Hilton?  The way this article is written it’s as if I should somehow feel sorry for the overly-pampered rich girl who blatantly broke the law and now has to pay the price.  It’s not as if the girl is being locked up with hardened criminals.  She’s in a small cell with a cot, a sink, and a metal toilet.  There are a hell of a lot of homeless people in California who would kill for accomidations like that.