"His best friend is his backpack."

My journey to the dark side is nearly complete.  I went back to the audiologist this morning to get my new hearing aids adjusted and wired up for blue tooth.  They are awesome.  I’m a huge fan of being able to hear.  Everything.  And wirelessly.  My goodness.

If you can’t hear well, go see your doctor.  Try out these cybernetic enhancements.  Talk about life changing.

Along the same vein of completely changing your life, my wife and I have started watching “The Middle.”  Four episodes in and we are hooked.  Actually, four minutes into the pilot we were hooked.  Totally our humor.  (Humor.)

Initially we were concerned about seeing Deborah in a different role.  How could she be different?  I mean look at the logline.  It’s a sitcom about a family and she’s the wife/mother.  Not sister/wife.  That’s a different show.

Within 30 seconds it was clear there would be no confusing the Long Island mom with the Indiana mom.  In fact, the transition was so complete that I hadn’t realized it was her as the mom in a clip I use from the show for a class I teach.  Admittedly she has a very small part in the clip – it’s mostly about Bric (Bric) – but still, I felt rather silly.

If you haven’t seen the show, watch it.  Very funny.  I mean, “Must eat today!” chicken, a basset hound with emphysema, and 3 extremely well written caracterature of children?  When you consider TV comedy, there’s over-the-top, there’s on-the-floor, and then there’s The Middle.

I’m still laughing at it.  “Find a can that sounds like peas.”  HA!  (Ha.)

"They weren't expecting me."

This week has been a bit off for my blogging.  Today appears to be no exception – I’m late getting to press.  It’s been a full morning.

Thank you to everyone who voted for me this week.  I lost in the last fifteen minutes but it was encouraging to have so much support.

We tried a new show on Netflix this week – Continuum.  Its logline made me cringe, a time traveling cop from the future hunting terrorists from the future in our present.  They pull it off.  Surprisingly.  Time travel can be very good when it’s done right but my goodness it so hardly ever is!

There’s a bit of language and the fighting is brutal.  It’s a Canadian show and is either cable or they have different rules.  Either way, it watches a lot like a movie.  Lots of action and great use of technology.

The writing is very good.  The characters are well drawn, unique, and memorable.  The two worlds have been created efficiently.  You know just what you need to know for it all to make sense.  It doesn’t beat you over the head with anything and the setting is NOT a character.  This is a show about people.

"No. It's the same as it ever was. The weak get taken."

Spring suffered a terrible setback last night.  I'm hoping this is the dramatic part of the fight, where it looks to Adrian and all the world like Rocky is going to lose but then he pulls out all of the stops and in a slow motion dance accompanied by a stirring rock ballad, he punches his way through blood and sweat and defeat into the final page's happy ending.

Wait a minute – Rocky lost.  That’s a terrible analogy.

Speaking of terrible, I caught another episode of "The Walking Dead."  It wasn't hard, they're zombies and they don't move very fast.  In this case, neither does the story and I'm sorry, I know there are a lot of people who absolutely love the show, but I just don't get it.

Go For a Walk Instead.

I mean, I get the show.  It's about survivors after the Zeds show up.  What I don't get is why so many people are in love with it.  I have to go to enough staff meetings that watching a bunch of aimless, brain eating creatures wander around doing nothing isn't entertaining to me.  (No offense boss, if you're reading this.  You're meetings are more like Fire Fly.)

The root of the problem for me is that I don't find zombies fun.  I don't like zombie movies.  (Except Shaun of the Dead.)  I don't play zombie video games.  (Except Plants vs. Zombies (but not the sequel, that one isn't as much fun.))  I don't read zombie books.  Or comic books.  I wonder how many people who are so infatuated with Zombies feel the way they do because of their friends, or the inertia of our culture.  That would be ironic, if they are fans because they want to stay hip, they embrace it as cool because they've been told it is.

Give me an alien invasion, an ancient nuclear winter, or even a computer taking over everything. Those are stories that bring out humanity, hope, a sense of purpose.  Zombies are just about falling to our own hunger - one by one.  You can't have a positive message in something about the zed.  Every fight is against someone who was human.  We are the enemy.  Depressing.

So I watched Arrested Development afterward to cleanse my palette.  Oh those silly Bluth boys.

"I once saw a horse kill a clown."

I didn't watch very much this week.  Read a lot and wrote more than usual instead.  [Curious thing on the elevator today – I was the only person (of 6) not wearing earbuds.]

We did catch another episode of "Leverage" and it was the best one yet.  It's been close to a month since we last watched but I didn't have any trouble picking back up with the characters.  Clearly it was better written than I initially gave it credit for.

This particular episode provided exposition on the backstories of 3 different characters.  1 was the basis of the episode but the other 2 were artful additions.  We were introduced to a new multi-episode nemesis (I'm presuming) from our hero's past.  And then there was the flashback.

Flashbacks were over used by "amateurs" in the last decades and are on the list of devices to never use.  I believe that list is just to separate out the people who can think from the people who can't -- sometimes you need a flashback and if you do it right it's awesome.

This flashback was done correctly.  1) There was absolutely no other way to provide the information about the character other than a dull monologue.  2) It was wicked short.  3) It was immediately relevant and was further paid off before the end of the story.  4) It delivered the information visually -- in this case the words, "I once saw a horse kill a clown," didn't describe what really happened but the words over the video made it work on multiple levels.  5) It was the only flashback in the episode.  The other expository elements were addressed using different tools.

All in all, very entertaining with just a hint of Psych's offbeat humor (which I love).

"In Rock-Paper-Scissors, I have a tell?"

I finished "One Man's Pirate" this week -- a short story of adventure and intrigue flying miles above the surface of the ocean.  The first draft came in at 8500 words.  Trimmed down to 6700.  It's amazing how much you can cut and keep the story.  In your own head.

                First reader thought it was flat.  She kept "waiting for the interesting part."  It's an adventure with heavy emphasis on the action side and low emphasis on the character development side.  She compared it to the TV show "Leverage."  It's a fair comparison.

                "Leverage" is the TV version of "The Italian Job" and attempts to capture that same fun and hip vibe for the small screen.  And do it week after week.  We've watched a few episodes and I like it, but she doesn't.  Discussing the short story helped us to figure out the difference in opinion.

                The show focuses on the heist element.  There's a lot of tradecraft and running around and fusion jazz on the soundtrack.  The cinematography is about "cool" and acts almost as another character, certainly like a voice over narrator.  It's reminiscent of  “Mission: Impossible" only the characters are thieves instead of agents.  And that's why she doesn't like it.  The cast is shallow and we have no reason to like them coming in because they're crooks.  I actually think that the first few episodes would not pass the anonymous script test -- any of the characters could say any of the lines.

                There are a lot of episodes so I know the show succeeded and I expect that as we go on the personalities will develop.  However, the engine of the show is not one that she enjoys so, much like the story, it really doesn't have a chance.

"What is a week-end?"

This morning I experienced 7 degrees of separation on my drive to the train station.  As in 7 degrees of separation between the outside temperature and 0 degrees.  Farenheit.  In the immortal words of the Claymation spokesman for Lipton Tea, "That's BRISK, Baby."

Being able to wander around my house in a t-shirt during such weather makes me very thankful that I live in a time with central heating, insulation, and with wealth to squander on staying warm. I suspect that, despite their fortune, the good folks living in Downton Abbey would be freezing on a day like this.

What?  Not a smooth enough transition?  A bit on the nose?  Sorry.

Friends have been recommending DA to us for a while now and after "everyone" was talking up the season 4 premiere, we just had to add it to our queue to find out what the fuss was about.  Now we know.  If you know, you don't need to read my take on it.  If you don't, read on BUT before you watch it, remember, it's English.  Check IMDB before you watch it with the kiddies.

First thing that struck me about it was that my wife enjoyed it very much.  It isn't that she doesn't care for period pieces or actors with strong accents, but both require a compelling story to overcome and the two together make for a Matterhorn worthy ascent.

The second thing that struck me was the brilliant writing that made me actually care about life in a lord's manor house circa 1912.  The logline was not the sort that would pull me in.  But it's compelling drama.  Everything is well done and, despite being a large ensemble, the characters were quickly identifiable and memorable.

I was so completely entertained by the show that I didn't even analyze it as it was going so I'm not sure quite how they did it.  I will have to go back and watch it again, perhaps even dig up a script of the first episode somewhere.  We've watched a dozen episodes of Flashpoint and I still don't know who is who.

"I know you know..."

#3 had another game last night.  They came from behind to win by 2.  Apparently those shirts that tempt you to the dark-side with cookies are a bigger threat than I thought because his coach told them that if they didn't pick it up in the 2nd half there would be no cupcakes.

I'm supposed to write about TV today but I don't feel like it.  I started working on a short story last night (the one last week was a big flop) and I'd rather be working on that.  And I haven't watched anything new lately that I'm prepared to comment on – although I will say that I enjoyed the episode of “Psych” that we watched last night.  But then I always enjoy “Psych” and totally interject obscure 80s references in everything I say too.

"On Any Given Friday Night at 10pm, 9pm Central"

I did have a successful go at the 5 minute fiction contest this week, snatching first of everybody instead of first of the losers during double-dog-dare overtime tie breaker voting.  This was the first week I wrote using a word processor instead of the text editor and even though I use a word processor every day, it was different from my routine and I found it incredibly distracting.

I am expecting my 2014 Writer's Market Guide in the post this afternoon.  I have 9 stories out for consideration.  2 of them in markets that I have aspired to but never submitted because they are the top of the heap (if you don't count fickle markets like "The New Yorker" and "The Atlantic") --  Analog and Glimmer Train.  I always used to think I needed to work my way up to them.  I’ve decided instead to work my way down.

"We're in their homes and in their heads..."

I did coverage notes for a script a few days ago and caught myself starting to write, "This would be fine for TV but it just isn't quite a movie."  I immediately switched courses but it got me to thinking about why I might consider something to be fine for one medium and not for the other.  (The script was well written, it just didn't have the emotional depth or plot to justify a $15 ticket.)

Why are our standards lower for TV than the movies?  Or aren't they?  “Airwolf” vs. “Firebirds” is a dead heat and “MacGyver” copied movie plots for the first season (even using movie footage).

There is clearly a difference in production quality and the amount of money spent per hour.  And, until recently, when a movie was finished the story was finished too, whereas with TV it just sort of kept going as long as advertisers would still pay for it.  And if you were a film actor you didn't do TV -- until about 1998.  So if film is so much better, why even bother with TV?

You could argue availability -- even with videotapes there wasn't exactly an endless supply of new content.  But now there is.  I could log into Netflix and watch a different movie every night for the rest of my life.  Most of them are awful, but I could.  Which brings up the question, if those movies really are awful, why bother with them at all instead of just watching…TV?

I've been reading pundits who argue that TV is now the superior format because you can address more characters with more depth and run a longer plot arc -- (“24”, “Lost”, and “Breaking Bad” all support this thesis).  Others point to CGI tentpoles like “Ironman 3” and say, "As good as ‘Agents of Shield’ is, it's still television.”

I think it depends on the show and the movie.  Any Bruce Lee movie is going to be better than an episode of “The Master.”  By the same token, any episode of “Arrested Development” is going to be funnier than a movie with John Candy in it.  And it won't take nearly as long to get there.

But maybe not.  Maybe what we see is that there are two different ways to tell stories.  “Firefly” was a popular show, but not popular enough.  Yet the movie “Serenity” was a huge hit for a larger audience.  It was a story better suited to film.  Most folks are done with zombies by the end of “Last Man Standing”, but they'll tune in season after season for “The Walking Dead.”

I guess it comes down to the fact that if you pick the right format, you've got a winner.  Pick the wrong one and my Netflix slush pile expands with content that sounds good, but isn’t ever quite good enough for me to get to.

What would Mike TV think?

Searching for Must See TV.  Not having much luck.  I sound like my parents.  What's really interesting today about the search is that, instead of using the online queue, #3 &4 are helping me and we're using the newspaper.

You remember them, right?  Big, flimsy sheets of dirty paper that coat your fingers with ink?  There's nearly a full page of TV listings.  The boys are trying to figure out how the grid works and were quite upset that coverage didn't start until 6pm.  I was hoping to convince them that meant that the TV wouldn't work until then but they knew better.

I expect that shortly they will discover several of the channels aren't available in our area/subscription package.  That will be interesting, considering how they already feel about certain shows not being on right now.

I will admit that I have now seen snippets totaling nearly 30 minutes of the infamous "Duck Dynasty."  I think I actually like the Alaska show better but still hold on to my "reality show" prejudice.  I just. don't. like. them.

I don't like them in a box, I don't like them with a fox.  I don't like them here or there.  I don't like them anywhere.  I do not like them on the train.  I do not like them on a plane.  I do not like them in the rain.  I think they belong in the drain.

Nascar looks complicated compared to most of what I've seen this week.  Even the football game was more interesting.  And then there's this whole "marathon" thing.  About watching TV.  Marathon?  As in, "an insanely long foot race that not very many people are capable of completing?"  And now that's applied to sitting on the couch eating Funions so that you can catch every. single. episode?  That's like sanitation enginer.  Nothing against the folks that pick up the garbage, but as my friend with an engineering degree might point out, words have meanings and a CDL does not an engineer make.

Maybe I'm just cranky with Castle withdrawal.  Maybe I can't believe that about the only thing on TV is "reality programming" or "The Chica Show."  It's not what you think -- unless you've seen it.

I could rage against TV as passionately as poor usage of our language, but why bother?  It's a mute point.

"Should've done what four years ago?"

We watched the season 4 finale of Castle this week.  It was extremely well done television.

But it raised an interesting question.  Why keep going?  It was the end of the story.  Huge, satisfying, and resolved.  If we weren't watching from the queue I'd hope that it was the last episode, but I knew it wasn't and I became worried.

The engine had been changed.  What would it be like?



"A sequel?  Uh hunh."



I've watched two episodes of season 5 now and I can tell you exactly what it's like.  A sequel.  Not a spinoff -- no Trapper, MD or CSI Bismark here.  It is a sequel.  Same characters, different situation.

And like most sequels, it's not as good as the original.  Fun?  Sure.  But a lot more predictable and the subplots are all starting over from scratch.  And I don't like them.

Sort of like what happened to the Mentalist.  I didn't realize it then, but we were watching a sequel.  Life?  Same thing.  The main dramatic force behind the original story was resolved and the quality of part 2 was lacking – it was like watching a completely different show but with [mostly] the same characters and setting.

Can you think of any other shows that had a clear part 1 and part 2?  Are there any that actually got better?

"She's the one."

Big night for us yesterday.  The dog ate a “bed buddy” then dumped the trash can it was in (along with some pencil sharpener shavings), #3 had to go to the doctor because of an ear infection (started medicine at once), #1 took #4 to basketball practice, and I won the 5 minute fiction contest.   Gosh, this parenting by numbers thing is pretty cool.

Today's Must See TV looks at a show I first encountered while riding on an airplane.  Since then, we've watched a handful of episodes here and there.  It's hit or miss and there was one entire season that was terrible, but "How I Met Your Mother" is clever enough to keep us coming back -- eventually.  Sort of a Sylvester Stallone "I'm so over the top you have to think this is a good movie, Adrian."

We are in the final season (?) and supposedly Ted is going to finally meet the woman of his dreams and we will too.   Ted is the character that is always trying to get married, always being left at the altar, always saying, "This is the one" and yet always ends up alone after a very brief and intense love affair.  Not like Barney.  He's just awful.  Lilly and Marshal have been together forever and it's been interesting to see how the characters have changed.  Robin is like Barney.   But not quite as bad.  But worse.  It's complicated.

I am not recommending the show.  If you've seen 5 minutes of it you know whether or not it's for you.  Instead, I want to look at the big reveal promised in the season I'm watching.  The mystery woman.  Ted has almost met her a few times, actually had a date with her roommate, and passed her on the street the month he made the cover of Architect Magazine.  We never see her face, just her umbrella (which Ted also possessed for a time).

This is a huge setup in the show.  We know she's the one because the entire series is told as a flashback to a couple of teenagers by their father - Ted - and the name of the show is "How I met your mother."  Even the FBI could figure that out.  The problem is that Ted is a romantic.  He's had many memorable girlfriends and they were written well.  How can you possibly have a satisfying payoff?

Ted's been at the altar before, that won't mean anything.  He's looked into a girl's eyes and lost himself before.  Actually, many times.  In short, he's had every happy ending out there at least once.  When we do finally meet her, whoever this mystery girl with the yellow umbrella is, it will be a letdown.

Of course this is where my wife and I disagree (but fortunately this is my blog so I get to be right this time).  I think that the only way to end the story with any kind of satisfaction is to never, ever, ever show us her face.  He's spent years chasing an ideal, not a person.  We have to know that "she is the one" because Ted knows it.  I can relate to that, I know what it means to find the one, and I can be there with Ted.  But if you put a face to it?  Bam, the ideal is gone and it becomes about the actress and the audience (and she's not the one for us).  Suddenly we're watching just another girlfriend and that's a very unsatisfying payoff.

"Nanu-Nanu!"

Big writing day in my house yesterday.  #1 entered the 5 minute fiction contest with me this week and, not only eked me out of a finalist spot, actually won the contest.  First time out.  Totally awesome, as they said back when my Z. Cavaricci's were still in style.  I'm thinking we need to dust off our "You write a chapter and then I'll write a chapter" project.

Of course that would require more time for writing or another project mixed into the limited writing time of the day.  I took a Myer-Briggs test yesterday and now I'm over analyzing everything!  It's like I'm an alien studying life on earth.  Speaking of which, today is Must See TV and in honor of the Nano theme, I'm going with "Mork and Mindy."



Don't miss the "Video Recorder"



I was pretty young when it was on and remember the show, but not what it was about -- until Jonathan Winters popped out of Mork as his backwards aging son.  And I mean popped, he hatched from an egg.  The rest of the show?  Apparently it was about the alien and the girl and was funny.  I remember the funny suit (looked sort of like Ralph Hinckley’s suit) and a big voice.  Oh, and "nano-nano."

What do you remember about the sitcom set in Boulder, CO?  I think the jeep was brown, but I'm color blind.

"Did you hear we're running out of bullets ?"

Today is November 21, the publication date of "Ebb and Flow" in Apocrypha and Abstractions.  See my name?  It's time to put up an "I love me wall."  Never heard of that?  I'll tell the story on the page when it goes live.  Meanwhile, be excited with me.  It’s been almost 10 years to the day since I’ve published anything else.

Must see TV this week takes another look at the show Revolution.  Why another look?  It's been quite some time since we tried it last and it keeps getting recommended so maybe we missed something.

Nope.

What Revolution does very well is create a world where society has collapsed.  The sets are good and it's refreshing that there are no aliens running around the carnage, or zombies, and because the collapse was brought about by the power going out we don't have cities laid waste by war.

Revolution also has an intangible going for it – somehow the show makes you want to like it.  And sometimes you do.  But not very often.  There are interactions between the "plot" and the setting that have dramatic inconsistencies -- like, is there an ammo shortage or not?  You keep saying there is but then everybody is always shooting, even when there are alternatives.  Alternatives that make for much more compelling drama.

I have found that there are a couple of characters that I like and, interestingly enough, they haven't had flashbacks to explain why they are who they are and act how they act.  The shallow characters need flashbacks or the show would seem even more random.

Maybe they should rename it to “Random.”  I will probably continue to watch it, in small doses when nothing else sounds good, until I get to the end.  As I said, it really wants to be liked.

"Would you like a mint?"

I saw several movies this week but only tried one new TV show.  It watched like a movie though, and I am once more reminded that the shape of moving picture media is changing, lines are blurring, and I’m entering an industry in flux.



This is NOT Footloose.



The show was Kevin Bacon's "The Following" and we watched the pilot.  It was well acted.  The production style felt fresh and kept everything moving very quickly.  There's a scene of Kevin waking up that cuts three or four times with him shifting position or action just a little.  Very neat effect and you sort of knew how he felt before he stumbled to get water.  Lots of water.

The writing was top notch.  Dialogue was spot-on, the characters were very, very distinct.  The premise -- half of the premise, anyway -- was pretty good.  This episode was one of the best pilots I've ever seen, you want to know what comes next.  You have to know.  The twists and turns, in that one episode, were amazing and flowed logically, even though we were only just meeting everyone.

It was all too good.  Critically I would have to give it top marks.  Personally, it wasn't for me.  We don't watch Criminal Minds because of its well-written, well-filmed depiction of gruesome violence.  To us that's not entertainment, it's depressing.  I'm not sure exactly where the line is (we do like shows that venture in that direction) but wherever that line is, if you stood on it and looked, you'd only be able to see The Following on a clear day.  A very clear day.

It's brutal.  It's gruesome.  It's suspenseful.  People get hurt and you care.  I've seen enough of that in life, when I turn on the telly I want to be able to laugh, even if it's only once.  I can’t, in good conscience, recommend this show.  It might be for you, and the people who like it really like it a lot.  It’s just really disturbing.

Have you seen it?  What's your thought?  Should fans of The Following be confined in the mental wards of our maximum security prisons?

"Thank you for stalking me, Dad."

It was foggy this morning - that cool humidity that diffuses light, hides the future, and turns life into a series of captured images.  Even with the sun struggling to shine, the wispy tendrils hang on.  The whistle blew, the bell sounded, and then the faintest of lights growing brighter until the Genesis engine broke through the cloud and pulled into the station.

Quite a fitting start to the 31st of October.

In today's "Must See TV" we'll look at Tim Allen's "Last Man Standing."  The pilot did not impress me (as you may recall) but just as you should never judge a book by its cover - unless it has my name as the author, of course - you shouldn't judge a TV show by the pilot.  Often there are substantial changes to the writing team and/or cast between episodes 1 and 2.

LMS was much better in the 2nd episode.  I laughed out loud a few times which is a great trick for Tim Allen.  He has been very successful and lots of people think he's very funny but I never drank the "Home Improvement" Kool-aid and find him just a bit, oh, I don't know... dull?  Repetitive?  He gets old fast.  The Santa Clause movie with him and Martin Short about sent me over the edge.  Alan Arkin saved me from stepping in front of a truck.

Point is, while I have nothing against Tim, I'm just not a huge fan of his work - although "Wild Hogs" was pretty funny.  On the surface, there's nothing new to recommend this show, either.  LMS is a typical sitcom with Tim playing his typical macho man but this time he's the married father of three daughters and the only other male is his baby grandson.  He works in a hunting supply super store (think Cabelas) for Hector Elizondo who is very, very good here.

Generally, LMS is contrived but fun.  It looks like there might be some chemistry in the cast and it was good enough that I plan to watch a few more to find out though I wasn't up for back to back episodes.  Oh, no.  That would have been too much and as I said to my wife, "Even something I'd think was funny on another night will be bleh now, he's always the same."

So we watched an "Office," laughed soundly, and went to bed happy.

"...and I would trade it all right now for a roll of Charmin."

Today's episode is brought to you by irony.  Irony: when the "gridlock problem" in DC was fixed, DC developed a problem with gridlock.  My trip to the train station took twice as long as usual and nearly three times as long as during the shutdown.  This is a funny moment, not a complaint.  Please join me appreciating the irony, say something like, "Wow, that really is ironic.", and then we'll move on to the rest of the post.

Which is Must See TV today.  Last night I watched what was, perhaps, the worst episode of "Castle" ever written.  Everything was contrived to create tension (undeveloped), shock (too fast and too random to be effective), and cliffhanger with closure (in case of cancelation).

I thought back to another show that struggled with a similar problem, "Jericho."  It was canceled twice so there were two rather awkward endings.  The first wasn't too bad, they knew it was coming and it was logical enough but it was TV cheesy going for high drama and didn’t really resolve very much.  The second was the sudden notice that they had to wrap everything up.  A huge, multi-season conspiracy and collection of mysteries had to be closed off in two episodes.  We (my wife and I) were very curious to see how they did it.  Again, high drama for TV, but they pulled it off.  I would have been upset if I'd paid to see it in a theater and I might not have finished the book, but after investing in the entire series, I didn't feel betrayed.  Just a little empty that it had to end so quickly.

We liked "Jericho" quite a bit.  It was unpretentious, filled with good, hardworking Americans, and most importantly, they got the balance of characters just right.  It wasn't soap opera complex or MacGyver simple.

I do recommend the show - starting from the first episode of season 1 - but you should hurry.  It's going to be old soon and I don't expect it to age well.  In case you are wondering, it's nothing like Bad Robot's “Revolution” - which we did not like and gave up on after three episodes.

When you do watch "Jericho", keep an eye out for Detective "Lassie" Lassiter.  Many of the major cast members have also had single episode appearances on other recent shows.

"Let's go to Brian Fantana who's live on the scene with a Channel 4 News exclusive."

I written about local news in the past (remember the hundreds of capitol district residents literally glued to their TV screens?) but there was a very important lesson they were trying to teach us and I missed it.

News should not, in itself, be entertainment but if it isn't entertaining, people don't watch it.  Why should they care about anyone else?  What local news taught us was that, in a competitive marketplace, there will be less news and more "personality" - be it schtick or pleas to help the local animal shelter.

And they thought "Ice Pirates" was dumb?

In the 90s my job required that I spend a lot of time watching CNN. There were gaping holes in the coverage though - for every good story about an event of global significance, there was a "human interest story" from East Podunk.  It isn't that I didn't care about the people of East Podunk, it just wasn't the sort of news I needed.

When the Fox News channel was first announced, I (and most of my peers) were excited.  Another source.  This will be great.  The whole, "only thing better than a 24 hour news network is two 24 hour news networks."  Boy were we dumb.  There's less news on both networks today.  It's all entertainment.  Do you remember the summer of the Shark Attacks?  I do.  It was 2001.  My boss said, "Something really bad is going to happen."  A month later it did.  He gave us a better news report than either of the main networks.

You’ve probably noticed I’m leaving a few networks out.  I don't consider MSNBC to be a 24 hours news network.  It's more like talk radio with a bit of Phil Donahue thrown in.  The foreign networks have a different feel, but are tailored to the North American audience for the feeds we get.  You have to be in England (BBC) or outside of the USA  (Al-Jazera) to get a less polluted report.  You don't have to believe me, but it’s true.  (By polluted I mean that international news exported to the USA is softened and then fattened with celebrity gossip, like a heifer in its last weeks.)

Here's the thing.  I switch back and forth between CNN and Fox every few hours but the sound is almost always muted because what’s being said is not news.  They are both more and more commentary, less and less reporting.  If I wanted to know about fashion, I would watch Style.  If I wanted to know about cooking there's the FoodNetwork.  I get that the road rage motorcycle gang in NYC is a big deal, but stop trying to find a new angle just to keep showing the footage.  There are much, much more important things to be reporting on.

"Like what?"  you ask.  What's going on with Edward Snowden and the NSA?  Are tax payers really paying to turn Bradley Manning into Chelsea – and what about the other big military court story and the pledge to close the detention center in GTMO?  Where are we in Afghanistan – specifically why has the heroin traffic increased despite the billion dollars spent by the FBI to stop it?  Why is there such a discrepancy between the programs/test scores in Los Angeles High Schools based on zip codes?  Or Chicago?  Or NYC?  Don’t all of the kids matter?  What happens to the 1 million Facebook accounts that are hacked - every single day?

Today I have to wonder - is 24 hour news still Must See TV?  Fox Mulder told us the truth is out there.  But where can we find it?  What do you think?

"I trust people. I trust you."

All sorts of change about.  The office is like a ghost town - which is as it should be, considering the label applied to our circumstance.  There's a new vendor running the coffee shop at the train station so instead of being presented with a cup of java, mixed to order, I am instead allowed to pay more for an empty cup - and I don't care how fancy the typeface or pretentious the name, the old coffee tasted better.  Then there's "The Mentalist".

We were hooked.  Completely.  The end of season 3 left us saying, in our best Keanu Reeves, "Whoah."  We were sad that it was over - no more episodes available and, really, where could they go with the story?

I wrote about our misadventure with the wrong season.  The right season arrived and I'm two episodes into season 4 and saying, "Hunh?"

Let me back up.  We've had the disc for a few days but we also had a "Castle" disc and opted to finish that before starting on Simon Baker.  I debated writing a top 5 list of why "Castle" is better than "Mentalist" and it would have been based on enjoying both shows.  I'm glad I waited, season 4 changes everything.  It's not very good.

It feels very shallow.  It doesn't have the fun of previous seasons.  The only character who actually seems himself is Cho.  That's good - he's my favorite - but not good enough to save the new storyline.  I've nearly fallen asleep during both episodes.  It's a huge disappointment.  I'll give it the full disc, but if there's no improvement I'm going to have a very hard time justifying the time investment for the rest of the season.

It just isn't fun anymore.  Is it because "Castle" is that much better (starting season 2) or has my old friend really changed that much?  What do you think?  Did the engine driving Patrick Jayne make a change for the worse after the mall shooting?

"OK, when the alert level goes down, and the terrorists have been caught, we can have some chamomile tea and I'll tell you all my secrets. "

Today's train car is especially bumpy.  Makes it hard to type with any accuracy.  If there's a funky word that I miss in my "once over" please forgive me.  Meanwhile, let's press on with "Must See TV".

Or perhaps we should get on with what's not "Must See TV".  The long awaited Netflix disc arrived yesterday afternoon with the new "The Mentalist" - season 5 disc 1.  Woot.  Except that apparently we missed season 4.  A fact that became apparent in the first thirty seconds when the voice over said, "Previously on 'The Mentalist'".

I stopped the player.  We discussed for a moment.  I was all for pressing on - it's television, who cares if an episode or two is out of order.  My partner thought that, based on the preview, we had missed significant story elements and should wait until season 4 became available.  We compromised and didn't watch it.

The entire incident got me thinking about television in general.  We haven't had cable for nearly 15 years.  The house we live in now doesn't get anything through the air so everything we watch is prerecorded and by choice.  (Saves us hours of not watching commercials and keeps the kids safer.)  Five years ago when I would tell people I didn't have cable or get TV they would act like I was crazy and walk away.  That doesn't happen anymore.  Now it's more of, "Yeah, I should probably get rid of it too.  I stream everything."

And that's the fundamental change in television.  On-demand streaming of personalized content.  It has led to binge watching - where you will go without sleep for an entire weekend to watch three seasons of some show.  Or you will watch one series every night until you finish it and then pick another (which is more like what we do).

As the viewing habits changed, the format itself changed.  With streaming and DVRs (so much easier than VCRs) the story tellers could begin developing complex plots across entire seasons where each episode built on the previous one without the risk of losing viewers when they missed an episode.

Shows like “Dallas” and “Falcon Crest” had done that before but they were considered "primetime soap operas".  “The Sopranos” and “24” really demonstrated the viability of the technique and now the majority of shows we call TV have critical story elements that direct the rest of the season in nearly every episode.

There were always changes in shows, but they were a big deal - like when Mac was killed on Magnum.  It was a double episode with lots of fanfare.  Then they introduced Maggie and that was that.  She stayed [the same] for the rest of the show.

Maybe I'm off here, but since every time I turn around there's a new service that streams to a new device, I don't think so.

But I could be wrong – what’s your exception to the new rule?  What show is like “Seinfeld” or “Cheers” where you can just pick up any episode, anywhere, and watch it?

"I'm the Doctor."

Today's "Must See TV" is "Doctor Who".  It isn't for everyone, but if you get it, well, there's nothing qutie like it anywhere.

I really like the reboot.  Usually reboots fall flat on their face - I liked Agent Cho in "The Mentalist" but the new Hawaii 5-0?  The show just didn't have legs.  "Dr. Who" on the other hand has had as many reincarnations as James Bond and, believe it or not, each Doctor's fan base is just as rabid about  who is the best.  Personnally, even if Sean Connery ever played the Doctor, I think David Tennet nailed the role.

The great thing about this show is that you absolutely never know what you're going to get - other than the obvious off-beat British humor.  Unlike Star Trek which is locked into it's own uiverse and has a sort of "here we go a warping"  "again" about it, this programme just has a set of rules for its main character and then pretty much anything goes, from Santa Clause hit men to pigs running parliment to a deeply evil spirt being banished to the edge of the universe.  And not our universe mind you.   They may be funny or terrifying.  They may be set on Earth or deep space.  They may be a single episode or part of a more complex multi-episode opera.

I first met the Doctor when I was about 7.  It was summer and I thought I'd see what was on our old TV in the attic that played Public Television - the screen wasn't black and white, it was red and white, very hard to watch, but without it I'd never have seen "All Creature Great and Small" which, while not inspiring me to become a veternarian, did start me off on a love for British roadsters...

I was struck, even then, by its uniqueness.  And then there's the theme song.  My oh my, the absolute best theme song ever.  For the reboot they kept the original.  Sure, it's been digitally remastered and touched up a bit, but it is the most distinctive, hard driving, synth fueled song on the planet - er - universes and perfectly captures the Doctor's personality.

The writing is top-notch, the acting and special effects are fitting of a successful TV show.  It stays true to its rules and has a loveable, yet tragic, main character with intriguing flaws and needs.  I would say it is the best science fiction series ever made, although that may require putting the "Twilight Zone" into its own category (original, not the reboot which, while entertaining, wasn't quite of the same calibre).

I know there are Doctor haters out there but I don't let them get me down.  Haters gotta hate.  For the rest of us, there's a hip and exciting alternative to the drudgery of another battle in the neutral zone.