New Fall TV Shows 2011

[Dan]

Alright alright - I'll check it out when I'm bored. Don't know when that'll be ... and I'm not sure if I'm ready for that kind of an emotional roller coaster again.

[Dan]

I felt like Zooey's character was a bit forced and awkward. I know that she's SUPPOSED to be awkward, but that level or style of awkward wasn't what I mean - her awkward was more like "this couldn't ever really be happening and I don't buy that she's actually like this" awkward.

The roommate characters were also rather, umm, unreal? Normally I would look for these characters to be zany and hilarious, like the supporting characters on Will & Grace (can't remember their names). But these were just not believable. Maybe it's because I'm a single dude who is, give or take, about the same age as them. I've lived with girls before, and I've lived with dudes, and nothing about that show felt like any situation I've ever been in.

Sadly, I might watch another episode or two if they are free and downloadable, but I don't know. Zooey still is pretty cute.

[rva]

I may check out Pan Am.  I like Cristina Ricci, I kinda pull for her.

She's also small with gigantic doe eyes and huge forehead so that should pull in the Dan set.

[Butter]

I actually enjoyed UP ALL NIGHT.  Probably in the minority.  Maya Rudolph was almost too good at playing an Oprah clone, while I just generally enjoy watching people struggle with parenthood. 

[Dan]

I read a quick review in the Times yesterday about how there's new TV banking on the female perspective of comedy and all that. I was really interested because they talk about Zooey and "The New Girl" but also because there's a new show called "2 Broke Girls" or something like that with Kat Dennings. I fell in love with Ms. Dennings after watching "Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist" (plus she was in "Thor," which I just saw) so I was intrigued about her new work.

Sadly, the review says that she's great in it but she's surrounded with mediocre writing and unoriginal gags. The review did not seem confident that the show would be around for very long.

[rva]

Yeah, I'm not surprised to hear that 2 Broke Girls sucks.  Whitney Cummings is not funny at all.  I'm sure "Whitney" sucks as well.

I'm pulling for Up All Night because all three of the leads... but I've also seen them in too much crap to watch it right now.  I'm gonna wait a couple eps and if people are raving about then I'll take the plunge.

[Butter]

Whitney Cummings is not funny at all.  I'm sure "Whitney" sucks as well.

I was shocked to see that not only did they give her a show, but they gave her the vanity title as well.  Is she really that well thought of?  News to me.

[va_vacious]

I saw part of "Up all Night" and liked it- I could definitely watch it. I also kind of liked the Hank Azaria sit-com, but I don't remember its name or what station it's on. Not very promising.

[cuddlyevil]

I keep wondering how long Terra Nova will stick around. It seems like it has super high production costs and it's on Fox which is, well, Fox.

Whitney Cummings is not funny at all.  I'm sure "Whitney" sucks as well.

I was shocked to see that not only did they give her a show, but they gave her the vanity title as well.  Is she really that well thought of?  News to me.

I have no idea who she is, but the ads for the show are painful to watch.

[Dan]

Re: Terra Nova. I hear that their pilot had massive production costs, and therefore the longer that the show is on air, the more they can cook-the-books so that episodes costs are reduced. You know, they divide the cost over the course the entire series so it looks more financially viable. I'm sure the individual episode costs are high, too, but not as much as the pilot.

This all means that they are definitely going to let it run for awhile before finally giving up on it.

[kcneon]

I have no idea who she is, but the ads for the show are painful to watch.

Incredibly painful.  This made it thru pilot season?

[Juliana]

I liked Up All Night too.  I thought it was really smart and funny.
We also liked the Hank Azaria show, Free Agents.
Both had a lot of funny lines.  Excited to see what happens after the pilot.

[cuddlyevil]

Caught 5 minutes of the new ideration of two and a half men--it was five minutes too many. Painful.

[Poolio]

Caught 5 minutes of the new iteration of two and a half men--it was five minutes too many. Painful.

Edited for me. 

Yeah, I had only caught a few episodes of the "Sheen years" and never really got it but really didn't understand how Ashton was going to improve on it. I have a feeling this fall is going to be a crapshoot with new shows. The great ones won't last and the crappy ones will have legs.

[Dan]

I keep wondering how long Terra Nova will stick around. It seems like it has super high production costs and it's on Fox which is, well, Fox.

Sourcity Source

Gregg Easterbrook offers some random thoughts about Terra Nova....

----------
If Only We Could Time-Travel to 1966, When "Star Trek" Premiered: Fox is saying its sci-fi series "Terra Nova," which premieres on Monday, is the most expensive television show ever made.

The premise: In the year 2149, environmental problems place humanity on the verge of extinction. No stardrive has been invented, so people can't flee to other worlds. But time travel has become possible. A group of plucky settlers is sent 85 million years into the past to "restart civilization" as kind and good, so the extinction scenario of 2149 never happens. But -- though possessed with the ultra-sophisticated knowledge necessary to build a time machine -- scientists of the future forget that 85 million years ago, there were dinosaurs. The travelers emerge from the time portal to a settlement surrounded by killer dinosaurs, and the show becomes what Hollywood likes best, a succession of chase scenes.

Recently the networks have given viewers big-budget sci-fi series "V," "Flash Forward" and "The Event." The common elements: lots of money was sunk into production, lots of overpaid people with connections were listed as producers, and terrible writing. All three were financial fiascos. "Star Trek," "Stargate" and "Dr. Who," TV's moneymaking sci-fi franchises, do have special effects, but the emphasis is on plot, story and sense of humor. The sci-fi audience is smart and seeks these things, reflecting the fact that well-written sci-fi series make money while poorly written sci-fi series lose money. But modern Hollywood hates the notion that shows should be well-written. This sets the bar too high! Modern Hollywood wants to believe the television audience is composed entirely of fools. So viewers get explosions and drek, while the networks' shareholders don't get ratings. Why doesn't actual experience make it obvious to television executives that well-written sci-fi shows earn returns and poorly written shows do not?

Now about "Terra Nova." Even if, in the year 2149, everyone somehow forgot that dinosaurs once existed, why would the people be sent 85 million years into the past? That's an unimaginable span, about 17,000 times as long as the period between the present and the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza. Supposing the plucky group did "restart civilization" that far back in the past, after 85 million years had gone by, their civilization might have vanished, or its people have evolved into a form unrecognizable to us.

If heading into the past made sense, the place to go to restart civilization would be 15,000 years ago -- when the last ice age was ending and the Holocene beginning. The world of 15,000 years ago would be recognizable to people of the 22nd century, and near enough in time that any better society they created might last into the present.

Another silliness, noted by reader G L Crosslin of Biloxi, Miss.,: The "Terra Nova" expedition is going back to a point before the mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs, when our world was struck by an enormous comet that ended much of life on Earth. Wouldn't you rather materialize after that nasty business concluded?

Other time travel premise problems:

• Suppose it is possible to travel into the past and change things. If so at the instant you step into the time machine, any changes you caused already happened long ago, and the present would already be transformed. The instant the first settlers stepped into the "Terra Nova" time machine, whatever impact they were going to have they've already had. The year 2149 would already be a result of their past impact. [Dan's note: Michael Crichton's novel "Sphere" dealt with this to some extent]

• If people emerged from a time portal in the past, they wouldn't forget how they got there. They might conclude that unless the Earth of 2149 was falling apart from pollution, the time machine would never be built, they would never be sent back, so they would cease to exist. Therefore they would have to conspire to ensure that human history unfolded in such a way as to cause calamity in 2149. Maybe the whole reason the world of 2149 needs a time machine is that a prior world of 2149 had a time machine!

These kinds of paradoxes are among the reasons time travel is almost surely impossible on a physical basis. Beyond that, the big objection to time travel is not how the time machine would function. The big objection is that even if you had a time machine, where would it travel to?

In order for your time machine to open a doorway 85 million years in the past, there must be another complete universe, with another Earth and another 100 billion galaxies, suspended forever in the moment of 85 million years earlier. If you jumped instead 84 million years into the past, there must be a third complete universe, with another 100 billion galaxies, except it's 84 million years earlier. If you wanted to use the time machine to go back to yesterday, there must be a fourth complete universe, with yet another 100 billion galaxies, suspended forever in yesterday. Jump to last week? A fifth complete extra universe is required.

For your time machine to jump to different years in the past or future, there must be billions, even an infinite number of different universes -- each with 100 billion galaxies, each suspended forever in a different instant. OK, I cannot prove there are not an infinite number of universes, each suspended forever in a slightly different moment. But unless there are, a time machine would have no destination to which to travel.

Reader Al Vyssotsky of Greenville, S.C., adds another complication: "The solar system is rotating around the galactic center at approximately 43,000 miles per hour. Thus if a person were to travel back in time, he or she would wind up many billions of miles from Earth's position in the past. Our Milky Way galaxy is moving at 1.3 million miles per hour or about two-tenths of the speed of light, in the direction of the constellation Hydra. This suggests that even a short time-travel trip would place the traveler trillions of miles from Earth's position in the past. Going backward 85 million years, as is depicted in "Terra Nova," would result in being about 170,000 light years from Earth's position at that time. That distance is roughly twice the diameter of the galaxy. So you'd need to bring along quite a starship with you through the time machine."