Friday, November 28, 2008

New Design!

Trippy, huh? I felt like I needed a change. I think I like it.

I'm going to try to get another post up by the end of the weekend, but I have some work I have to do first, so in the meantime, here is my 'Any Given Friday' post on NinersNation.com

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving!


Just ran across the street to the grocery store for some last supplies before I lock it down for the holiday weekend, and who do I see at the Bristol Farms on Sunset and Fairfax at 10:15 on the night before Thanksgiving? Well, I was in line behind Jason Segal of 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' fame, and ahead of Drea de Matteo of 'The Sopranos' fame.

And here I am, running right back home so I can quickly blog about it. How very 21st Century of me.

That's one thing I'll miss about LA -- it's always a little kick when you can buy bananas or play pick-up hoops with random celebrities, and you can't get that consistently anywhere else. Hope everybody else out there has plenty of stuff like that to be thankful for this year -- like maybe a turkey like this baby:

Photobucket

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Hollywood Horror Show: Development Hell, Part 2


This is a series detailing the strange, sometimes traumatic experiences I've had in the entertainment industry -- run-ins with celebrities, development execs, and douchebags of all shapes and sizes -- since I moved to LA 11 years ago. A link to the previous installments can be found on the right hand side of the page, and also here.

The exciting (not really) conclusion to yesterday's post in a moment, but one quick note first: I'm being purposely vague about the companies, projects, and names listed here to protect both the innocent and the guilty. I would like to work in Hollywood again, even if I'm not in Hollywood.

After losing two deals and my agent in the matter of a few weeks, I went into a depression, didn’t want to write, thought about how close I’d been to becoming For Real in the industry, ate a lot, slept late... You get the idea. But my mama didn’t raise no quitters. I wasn’t about to give up. I forced myself back into it, wrote a couple of decent scripts, got a new manager, and eventually hooked up with my current writing partner, Barry.

Writing with Barry, we had some success -- not at selling scripts, mind you, but at least we made some fans by the beginning of 2006. One was Brad, the old producer with Original Film, who we’d turned down twice. He was now running a company with overseas money looking to make genre films (comedies and horror) and wanted us to pitch him ideas.

For months we threw ideas at Brad, and he managed to find a small flaw in each of them. One of them had the exact idea which has since been written and made by someone else. One he loved, only to find out a similar idea was already in production elsewhere.

Finally, after three or four months, we found something. Our managers represented a graphic novelist who already had 10 projects in development, had a book Brad wanted us to adapt. It seemed to good to be true (usually a good clue) -- we didn’t even have to come up with the idea, just come up with a take on it and detail it in a treatment.

We did, then traded notes back and forth for another few weeks. Some of these were ridiculous -- first he said he wanted them to be stoners, then he didn’t; at one point he wanted us to put in a cameo for music producer Rick Rubin. Why? I have no idea at all. But finally, Brad had a treatment he liked, and just had to pass it by his boss. That was more than two years ago, and I’ve never heard from him since.

After about a month, he told our managers he could buy it, but not for another month or so -- after he got another project into production. He called a few months after that to say he still was interested, and loved the treatment, but said his company couldn’t make any comedies (despite the fact that was one of the only two kinds of movie he said they could make). Months later, our managers heard from him again, saying he still hadn’t given up on buying it.

Maybe he hadn’t, but I know I had. Barry and I had moved on, and in March 2007, nine and a half years to the day I moved to LA, we got an offer from a production campany on a pitch we’d made to them. It was a low-ball offer -- they knew we’re non-union and could acceot a less-than-scale offer -- but I really didn’t care. I’d sold a script. I was a failure anymore. I was a screenwriter! I mean, I’d been saying I was a screenwriter, but now it was really true.

I enjoyed that moment, and I’m glad I did, because it was all downhill from there. If I had thought getting random, nonsensical notes from producers on their project was tough, I had no idea what it was like to get those same kind of notes on my own project. But see, that’s the thing about selling a script -- they don’t give you that money for nothing. They get something, too: Your script. If not your soul as well. You don’t own your script, they do, so whatever note they give you has an ugly subtext: If you don’t want to do it, they can surely find somebody who will.

At first, the notes from the production company’s development team -- founding partners and exec producers, Marc and Trevor, and creative execs, Katherine and Anil -- were fantastic. I thought the first round of notes on our treatment -- mainly that we should change one character to a girl -- were very helpful. Their first round of notes on the script were even better. By the time we handed in our second draft of the script, I was actually looking forward to their notes. They then gave us the best round of notes I’ve ever had on a script.* I was thrilled.

And that’s when the roof caved in on me. The last round of notes is what’s called a “polish”: it’s supposed to be smaller -- and pays less -- than the other steps of the process. But it was at this time, that Marc and Trevor decided to drop a very big note of us: change the entire opening. That was a huge change to make that late in the process -- definitely a “screamer” of a note.

We did the best we could, but the new opening, based on a shaky concept given to us by them, didn’t turn out great. Both us and our managers prefered the original take (and still do), but the company went full steam ahead with the new script -- sending it out to directors, then studios.

They failed to attach anybody, or get the co-financing they hoped for, and I can’t help but wonder if the better opening might have pushed it over the top. Most people say a script either grabs you in the first 10-15 pages, or it doesn’t, and our first 10 were not as good as they had been just a few weeks before we went out with it. That’s hard to swallow.

Even harder to swallow was the handling of the announcement of the script -- or lack therof as it turned out. An announcement is vital because it tells the industry you’re a money-maker, someone they need to talk to. Most people I know of who’ve gotten announcements have had 20 or 30 meetings set up based on that along -- meeting where you can pitch your next project and often partner up with someone looking tom catch a rising star.

Upon selling them the pitch, they said they would announce it soon, and asked for publicity photos of Barry and I for the articles which would appear in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. We sent them in and waited.
Usually an announcement appears within a few days, so we were surpised when a couple of weks went by. They said it would happen soon, but hinted they wanted to have a copy of the script in hand before it hot the trades, so they could send it out to inquiring parties.

That made sense, so we wrote the script. When we were done, they wanted to wait until it was all polished and ready. When it was, they wanted to go to A-list directors first, because an attachment like that would make for a better story. Then they finally blew it off altogether and took it studios becuase they were so confident there would be a deal to announce in a matter of days anyway. There wasn’t. But that time, there was no point in announcing it -- everybody in town knew it didn’t get picked up.

The production company dropped the ball by not announcing not only because it cost us this priceless opportunity, but also because it could’ve gotten people excited about the project in a proactive, rather than reactive way. Our managers, who kept promising to announce it themselves if it didn’t happen soon, were also at fault for failing to follow through on their repeated promises. Though it was not the direct cause, the tension created by this, I believe, ultimately caused us to leave them.

And that’s how the sale of my first project -- as a pitch no less -- became the most frustrating, disappoint, and anti-clamactic moment of my career, if not my life. And it made me realize that even “success” in the industry (i.e. selling your idea for money) wasn’t necessarily going to make me happy. That was the first step to realizing I needed to move from LA.


* The best kind of development notes you get on a script are the one which make you wince just a bit when you hear/see them. A big wince (or scream) means they’re bad notes, impossible, or just stupid. No wince means they’re probably too easy to execute. But a little wince and queasiness in your stomach means the note is hard to execute, but badly needed.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Hollywood Horror Show: Development Hell, Part 1


This is a series detailing the strange, sometimes traumatic experiences I've had in the entertainment industry -- run-ins with celebrities, development execs, and douchebags of all shapes and sizes -- since I moved to LA 11 years ago. A link to the previous installments can be found on the right hand side of the page, and also here.

I’ve wanted to write about my mysterious, head scratching, and downright maddening experiences in the world of Hollywood development for sometime now, but some of the memories are painful just to think about. The first nine and half years I spent in LA were incredibly frustrating for me as I was unable to sell any of my scripts. Little did I know, the most frustrating episode of my career wouldn’t happen until I sold my first project.

I came here to make it as a screenwriter in 1997, and by 2000 that goal had not yet materialized. Sure, I’d made a little money as a screenwriter*, but it was uncredited, so officially I was still a nobody. I had encountered repeated rejections and failures, which never makes anybody too happy.

But I got a big break when my buddy Phil was coming off a big success (’Dude, Where’s My Car?’ grossed $50 million in theaters domestically) and wanted to co-write another idea based very loosely on my life -- my phone number somehow got confused with a man named Oscar Bertichevsky, and the mysterious phone calls and voice mails I recieved inspired an idea for a mistaken identity spy adventure comedy.

Phil and I wrote the script as a spec, then went out with it in February, 2001. Unfortunately, at that moment, the threat of a writer’s strike hung over the industry like a dark cloud. Studios had bought up scripts like crazy for a period of a few months in preparation -- “stockpiling” for the long winter -- and now the trades, usually filled with news of sales, had one had one or two a week.

I questioned if this was the wisest time to go out with the script, but was ignored by our agents -- in fairness, I am a screenwriter. The script, despite being taken to studios by several prominent producers (including Team Todd, who had produced the most recent hit spy comedy), it was ignored by studios. We never even got passes from all the studios -- they were just in a holding on everything until the strike was resolved.

The good news was (or supposedly was) several people liked the script a great deal and wanted to meet with Phil and I to talk about working together. One, Neal Moritz’s Original Film, wanted to discuss a rewrite deal on a script they already owned. I was thrilled...until I heard the title and concept -- ’Book ‘Em’: A library’s book detective investigates an overdue book only to stumble upon a big-time criminal.

It was lame, but I wasn’t in a position to be choosy, so we worked up a pitch. Brad, the producer at Original, was a big fan of ours, and Brian, the studio producer, was a big fan of Phil’s from his TV work. Everybody got along great, things were fast-tracked. Within a couple of weeks, we’d gotten down a pitch which the producer was ready to take to the brass. It was all happening so fast and easily -- just like all the people who’d know say it does. There was no way this going to fail.

Only it did. At the time, the “Greenlight Guy” at Paramount -- the man whose okay you needed to get a deal done -- was John Goldwyn, and he had an opinion we couldn’t have possibly anticipated. John Goldwyn didn’t like art thief movies, or at least, not comedies involving an art thief. See, that was what we’d pitched for our antagonist’s crime. “We’re not making ’The Thomas Crown Affair’” was the quote relayed from an incredulous Brian, who begged us to find another crime.

This as a bigger problem than it sounds like. Because it was a light comedy, a murderer was too dark. Because it had to do with overdue books, kidnapping didn’t make much sense. A bank robber wouldn’t need books either. Everything we thought of, either they had a problem with it, or we did. Finally, Phil became so frustrated, Brian actually told him to smoke pot. That didn’t work either.

Phil told me he wanted to pass on the project, which was heartbreaking to me -- to come so close to getting my first gig, a big studio job, only to say “no” -- but I understood. Our agreement was that if either of us wanted to pass we would. So, we passed.

The next day, I woke up with one of those, “Why even get out of bed?” moods. But when I checked my voice mail, I found a message from Brad, wanting to talk. He said he really wanted to work with us, and had another project we’d be perfect for. My spirits soared -- we still had a chance.

The new project, ’Employee of the Month’ (yes, that one), was a more palatable concept: Two best friends are torn apart by the love of one woman, fighting to win their company’s employee of the month award in order to win her heart. I knew it wasn’t Shakespeare, but it was a lot easier coming up with a pitch for this than for ’Book ‘Em’.

Brad quickly got us a pitch meeting with a producer from Lion’s Gate, and the Greenlight Guy at Sony, Matt Tolmach. Only that week, a stuntman had died on the set of ’Spiderman’ in Chicago, and Tolmach had gone to see to the situation personally. So instead we meet with another studio producer, Rachel. She heard our pitch, and clearly liked it. We waited while she relayed it to Tolmach.

Rachel came back with one note, which we quickly executed. We were ready to pitch it again, but Tolmach wasn’t back in town yet, but Brad relayed to us that Rachel claimed she was Tolmach’s “proxy”, and had the power to say “yes” to the project. Since it was hard getting everyone’s schedules to mesh, a conference call was arranged. We pitched Rachel, she had no notes, and once again we were on the doorstep.

We waited. And waited. After a couple of weeks, I could tell Phil started to sour on the deal -- he had another deal working for the ’Dude’ sequel. I tried to get our agent, Justin, to give him a pep talk, but he said that wasn’t his job. I prayed we’d get a offer from Sony before Phil completely quit.

Then, the very next day, Brad called. Surprisingly, there was neither an offer, nor a pass -- Rachel had tried to relay the pitch to Tolmach (despite the fact she supposedly had the power to decide on her own), and according to her, something was lost in translation. He needed to hear the pitch in person. I was pissed. Justin was pissed. Phil didn’t want to do it.

I thought Justin would understand this, since I’d just predicted it the previous day, but in stead he was shocked. He tried to give us a pep talk to do the meeting (despite the fact he said that wasn’t his job), but Phil wouldn’t budge. One meeting away from becoming a done deal, the project was dead. (At least with us -- obviously, the producers were able to find someone who would take that meeting). We had turned down two studio projects within two months.

Having two rugs pulled out from under me back-to-back like that was very difficult to take. Even worse, because of our “unprofessional” behavior, there was tension between myself and Justin, and soon he wasn’t returning my calls. I honestly thought my career might be over right then and there.

It wasn’t, but I hadn’t seen the last -- or even the worst -- the world of development had to offer. You can read about that tomorrow in Part 2.

* I’m sure just about everybody reading this knows this by now -- and at some point I’m going to get around to doing a post on it, so I can just link to that in the future -- but just for the record: ’Dude, Where’s My Car’ was written by my friend, Phil Stark, based on one my first nights in LA, when I (you guessed it) lost my car. I contributed a few ideas to the script, and got a nice little chunk of the big pile of money Phil sold the script for.

Detour

I'll have a post up later today -- actually Part 1 of a very special two-part holiday edition of Hollywood Horror Show -- but until then, you can bide your time by reading my latest post at Niners Nation, wrapping up Week 12 in the NFL here.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Detour/Link Dump

In case you missed this post, and came here looking for my weekly NFL picks, please head on over to NinersNation.com, where you can check out the first edition of my weekly Friday column, "ANY GIVEN FRIDAY" here. I've beefed up the game previews a bit, and tried to add a few more laughs, but it's still a work-in-progress, so any constructive criticism is more than welcome.

The big college game this weekend is clearly #2 Texas Tech at #5 Oklahoma. Tech is trying to complete their Cinderella-like regular season run and make it to the Big 12 Championship Game with shot at the National Title. Oklahoma, meanwhile, will be trying to upset their championship dreams, returning the favor for last year, when the Red Raiders did the same thing to them. For more on this epic tilt, check out Pat Forde's column on ESPN.com. My pick: Oklahoma 70, Texas Tech 69 -- the Sooners win when Tech scores to apparently send the game to OT, only Mike Leach elects to go for two instead, and the try fails (I'm only half-kidding).

A few more links to get you through the weekend:

--A new HBO biopic on legendary comic Sam Kinison is in production, and there a great story on it over at FilmDrunk.com which not only gives a rundown on the project, and a good-sized early clip, but also some excellent commentary on why the hell the producers would choose the sickly-sweet Tom Shadyac to direct a project that should anything but.

--Another link by way of Film Drunk, takes us to HolyTaco.com, where they have an amusing graphic article titled "If TV Shows Had Truthful Titles".

--I've seen a lot of crazy names in my life, but I don't know that I've ever seen one quite as crazy as this.

--Entertainment lovers should check out sister sites The Reel Addict and The TV Addict.

--Lovers of sports and making fun of sports, and especially making fun of announcers, should check out Awful Announcing.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

TV Review: 'Worst Week'


This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

The multi-camera sit-com has been dying a long, slow death the past few years, its stale interiors and studio audience laugh track pushed to the side by popular single-camera sitcoms like ’Curb Your Enthusiasm’ and ’The Office’. The single-cam shows have more life (partly because they don’t revolve around a small number of sets), and feel a bit more real, with no audience prompting you when to laugh. They are also able to take their storylines into a wider range of places due to their ability to shoot anywhere, and employ more actors.

But now that the tradional multi-cam sit-coms have largely disappeared (CBS’s ’Two and a Half Men’ and ’How I Met Your Mother’ are two of the last still-popular dinosaurs), a new type of show has emerged -- a hyrbid. These are shows that are filmed without a studio audience, have no laugh track, and can filmed in any number of locations, yet still hold true to many of the old multi-cam-type cast and storylines.

One of these hybrids is ’Worst Week’, an adaptation of a British show (yes, another!), ’Worst Week of my Life’. This one was developed for American TV by Matt Tarses, a former writer for ’Sports Night’ and ’Scrubs’. It plays like an old-fashioned sit-com, with most of the action taking place in one location with a smaller cast of characters, but is shot with a single camera and has a new school life and energy.

The storylines stay within a very narrow framework -- how Sam Briggs continuously stumbles into trouble while staying with his soon-to-be in-laws, either through his own fault, or someone else’s -- but still manages to entertain. In this way, it’s very much like HBO’s animated sit-com ’The Life & Times of Tim’, only with a ton of physical comedy -- usually Sam taking some kind of pratfall or similar embarrassment. Like so:



This routine of poking our lead male character with pins like a voodoo doll for comedic value (or “Stillering”) can grow old quickly. What elevates this above the aveage sit-com, is the perfromances of Kyle Bornheimer and a terrific supporting cast. Bornheimer brings Sam an indefatigable good nature which steers him through even the most embarrassing and frustrating situations. No matter what happens to Sam, he manages to keep a smile on his face, and most of his “accidents” occur because he’s only too eager to help.

Sam’s polar opposite is his finacee’s father, the aptly-named Dick Clayton, a perptual grump, played perfectly by the veteran of both large and small screen, Kurtwood Smith. Smith is great at playing the curmudgeon, and he does again here with Dick, who clearly doesn’t feel Sam is good enough for his daughter, the beautiful and understanding Melanie (Erinn Hayes).

Melanie’s put-upon mother (played fantastically by Nancy Lenehan) also holds Sam at arm’s length, and Sam can’t seem to help from screwing up the Clayton’s house, cars, belongings, and just about anything else he gets close to. But, somehow, we don’t mind watching them all. On paper, we should root for this clutz, this glutton for punishment. Why? maybe the answer lies in the tagline for the show: “Good guy. Bad luck.”

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Worst Week':

RECOMMEND

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

TV Review: 'Summer Heights High'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

The previews I saw of HBO’s new sit-com, ’Summer Heights High’ didn’t interest me much. The gag of one actor playing multiple characters became exhausted sometime around the second “Nutty Professor” movie. But Chris Lilley, an award-winning writer/actor/comedian from Australia is more Peter Sellers than recent-era Eddie Murphy. That is to say, the laughs come more from the people's internal flaws than from their external ones. He has an amazing gift for characterization, the small habits and details -- dress, body english, expressions, vocabulary -- which make people feel real. This realness then becomes a wellspring from which the comedy can flow freely.

We laugh because the character quirks are at once ridicluous and familiar. We’ve all known the self-righteous know-it-all who feels the need to leave helpful, instructive notes around the breakroom, or the kid with no attention span or discline whatsoever, or the plastic, self-involved bitch. Lilley brings those three people to life in this mockumentary about a public high school in Australia and exposes all their flaws -- as well as the acidic atmosphere at many public schools -- for maximum comedic effect.

The fact that you can buy the 33-year-old Lilley as a teenage girl tells you how far he gets into character. That character is Ja’mie King, a holdover from Lilley’s previous show in America, ’The Nominees’, which aired on IFC and was based on his award-winning show in Australia, 'We Can Be Heroes: Finding Australian of the Year'. Ja’mie is a bitchy and spoiled exchange student from a private school who insults everyone at the public school she meets whether she means it or not, and doesn’t hesitate to tell her new friends she pities them for their meager surroundings:



She’s just one of the three characters Lilley inhabits -- another is “Mr. G”, a cutting and egomaniacal drama teacher at the school:



The last is Jonah Takalua, a Pacific Islander who probably resembles the most immature, disruptive kid you knew in high school -- as entertaining as they are annoying:



Each of the characters are so well-portrayed, you're disappointed when the POV switches away from, only to be excited to see what the next one is up to. They're like car accidents you simply can't look away from, and the interaction between them and their peers is so awkward you almost can't stand it. In that way, it reminds one of 'The Office', or that other HBO sit-com with the lead you love to hate, 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.

Following the lead of those shows is a good place to start, but it's not enough. You still need to bring your unique flavor to the genre to make it work, and Lilley clearly has plenty of that to spare. I have a feeling we're only just beginning to get a taste.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Summer Heights High':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

Monday, November 17, 2008

UPDATE


Let's stop and re-evaluate a bit, shall we? Some things have changed, and when that happens, it's nice to take stock of things. Here's a little Q & A to get you caught up.

Q: So, what's changed?

A: Well, for starters, I've just agreed to turn that weekly post at Niners Nation I wrote about earlier into a bi-weekly post. Starting this week, I'll have one post on Friday mornings previewing the weekend's games in the NFL, and another on Monday morning reviewing the weekend action. I'm excited about this opportunity to reach a larger audience, but it will of course mean I have to post a little less over here.

Q: What does that mean for this site?

A: Hopefully, not much. Of course, since both my Monday and Friday football columns will be running elsewhere, they won't be here -- that means no more "For Who? For What?" or "Theoretical Gambling" -- but I will still write short posts that day to at least link to those posts. I'm also going to still try to post once a weekday over here, it's just unlikely that those posts will include my thoughts on sports -- at least not until after football season. I may have the occasional post about a baseball acquisition (today, the Giants signed former Reds reliever Jeremy Affeldt, and I might write something about that shortly, for instance), or random rant about something which doesn't fit into my football pieces, but most of what you'll find here will be related to my personal life, the entertainment world, or both.

Q: Do you have a preview of what exactly is to come for this site?

A: I'm glad you asked that, made-up person. As soon as I'm done answering this question, I'm going to do a quick update on the TV shows I've reviewed up to this point, and in the coming weeks I plan to see several Oscar bait movies to review. I'll also be turning my attention to established TV shows. Up until this point, I've only been reviewing old shows, but I want to review the latest seasons of some of my favorite shows to take a look at how they rate against their previous work.

TV UPDATE

Before I get to updating my reviews, I want to update my Top 10 Shows On TV list, even though I just wrote it last week. After catching up on the last couple episodes of 'Dexter', I need to ammend those rankings to raise it up at least one slot, and maybe more. Right no, they are peaking, with the current storyline one of its most compelling. I'm shocked to be saying this, but Jimmy Smits is the best thing that's ever happened to that show.

In TV, things can also change quickly. When you review a movie, you don't have to worry that the movie might change after your review, turning you into a liar. TV shows, on the other hand, can start off shakily, then turn it around and become very good with a few key changes. Other shows can have a terrific pilot and back it up with a couple good shows before completely crapping the bed. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to go back and revisit the TV reviews I've done so far, which can all be found here.

LIFE ON MARS: This was very recent, and I haven't seen another episode, so my CONSIDER grade still stands.

ELEVENTH HOUR: I've seen a couple more episodes of this, but not much has changed. Still CONSIDER.

MY OWN WORST ENEMY: After giving it a PASS, I've seen one more episode (against my will), and there's been no change. I wouldn't hold my breath on it either -- it's been cancelled by NBC.

THE LIFE & TIMES OF TIM: I gave this a HIGHLY RECOMMEND, but while the show is still pretty good, it's become a bit spottier. Because of this recent inconsistency, I'm lowering my grade slightly to RECOMMEND.

FRINGE: Things are looking up a bit for 'Fringe' recently, as the last few episodes have shown it to be finding its own voice a little better. As with a lot of shows, the increased airtime has allowed the characters to become more three-dimensional, and thus the interplay between them is more compelling. They've also had some really cool bits on fringe science of late. Because of this improvement, I'm going to bump by original CONSIDER grade up to RECOMMEND territory.

TRUE BLOOD: Since I gave 'True Blood' a RECOMMEND grade, the show has stalled out a bit. I still like it, but I can see how somehow might say the characters are stagnating a bit as they run over familiar territory. I was prepared to drop their current grade until I saw the last episode, which I thought was better than the last few. I'm going to keep the original grade for now.

THE MENTALIST: The steadiest show on this list. You could argue that's because it's a predictable CBS procedural, and that might have some truth to it, but I like it, so I'll praise its consistency. Still RECOMMEND.

Detour/Link Dump

No more football weekend wrap-ups here as I'm now doing a regular Monday football post over at Niners Nation. My first one is here. I'll still give my college Top 10 when applicable, but since all the teams at the top either won or were off, there's not much different to look at this week.

I should have a post up later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, here's a few random links:

Screen Junkies has 11 Nude Scenes We Didn't Need To See.

Holy Taco brings us 40 Awesome Versions of Jesus.

A great t-shirt.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Theoretical Gambling: Week 11


It's Friday, and you know what that means -- time for imaginary gambling! A quick refresher on the rules: The entire "pot" (which started at $5,000 in Week 5) must be wagered, with every game having at least $100, and no more than $1,000, wagered on it. For previous installments, check out the link on the right hand side of the page, or simply click here.

Week 10 record: 11-3*
Season Record: 58-25
Week 10 vs. Spread: 12-2**
Season vs. Spread: 48-33-2
Week 10 Money won/lost: +$7,200
Season total (gain/loss): $14,800 (+$9,800)


* For the third straight week! That’s 33-9! Feel my heat!
** 22-6 over the past two weeks! 22-6! Against the spread! Seriously, you probably shouldn't even read this, your eyes might catch fire.

I’ve done so well of late, I’m having to change to the betting rules you see there at the top of this post. Not because I want to, but because the simple mathematics are forcing me to. See, when I started with $5,000, a $1,000 max bet made all the sense in the world. But now that I have built my fortune up to almost $15,000, I’ll be needing to bet nearly that on average.

So here are the new rules moving forward: Since the pot is now about 3x what it used to be, I’m adjusting the limits by the same ratio -- minimum bet is $300, maximum is $3,000. Hopefully, I would have to adjust this back down anytime soon.

Now, let’s make these picks before I cool off, shall we? I’m already off to a good start, going 1-0 both overall and against the spread after almost picking the score of the Thursday night game exactly:

JETS (+4) over Pats

PREDICTED SCORE: Jets 27, Pats 24
“MONEY” WAGERED: $300

*ACTUAL FINAL SCORE: Jets 34, Pats 31*

FALCONS (-6) over Broncos

Have I mentioned I was the first guy I know on the Falcons bandwagon. I have? Every week? Really? Well... Good, because it’s getting mighty crowded in here about now.

PREDICTION: Falcons 31, Broncos 24
WAGER: $300

Raiders (-10.5) over DOLPHINS

The Raiders look terrible right now -- maybe even the worst team in the league (no offense to Lions fans) -- and the ‘Phins are playing well, but I never like to give double-digit points, especially with teams who don’t put up a ton of points.

PREDICTION: ‘Phins 27, Raiders 17
WAGER: $300

Ravens (+7) over GIANTS

I’ve got the Giants as the best team in football (yes, even above the undefeated Titans). But I love the Ravens too, and they’re just the kind of defense-and-no-mistakes team which can keep the score close with them.

PREDICTION: Giants 27, Ravens 23
WAGER: $300

Texans (+8.5) over COLTS

The Colts are back, but not back to the blow-out-the-mediocre-teams Colts of years past. I say they win it, but don’t cover.

PREDICTION: Colts 28, Texans 20
WAGER: $300

Bears (+3.5) over PACKERS

The battle for the lead in the NFC Central. I like the Pack here, but these tough rivalry games are usually close affairs. On top of that, both Aaron Rodgers and Rex Grossman (if he plays in Kyle Orton’s absence) are QB’s who embody the whole saying, “He makes just enough throws to keep both teams in the game.”

PREDICTION: Pack 24, Bears 21
WAGER: $2,000

Titans (-2.5) over JAGS

12 straight regular season wins for the Titans, and I don’t think they’re running the table, so when will they lose? I do think it’ll probably be a division game, as those are usually the toughest -- teams you play twice, who know you well, and how they match up. So this the week? I’m saying no.

PREDICTION: Titans 20, Jags 17
WAGER: $1,000

Eagles (-9) over BENGALS

Here’s the Eagles in a nutshell: They struggle against the good teams in the league, and destroy the bad ones. Cincy = Bad one.

PREDICTION: Eagles 31, Bengals 17
WAGER: $2,000

CHIEFS (+5.5) over Saints

Despite their undeniable suckiness, the Chiefs keep every game close even against good teams (last three weeks: Jets, Bucs, Chargers -- all heartbreakingly close losses). But can they stay with a potentially high-scoring offense like the Saints? Since I’ve been successfully riding “Take KC and the points” train the last few weeks, I’ll stay the course for now.

PREDICTION: Saints 28, Chiefs 23
WAGER: $400

PANTHERS (-14.5) over Lions

Remember how I said I don’t like giving away double-digit points when taking teams who don’t put up a lot of points? well, a whole ‘nother set of rules are in play when you’re talking about the Lions.

PREDICTION: Panthers 31, Lions 13
WAGER: $500

Chargers (+5) over STEELERS

The Chargers are a complete mystery to me, so I refuse to take them against any good team, especially on the road. But I do think they can keep this one close, and an upset wouldn’t completely shock me.

PREDICTION: Steelers 23, Chargers 20
WAGER: $2,000

Rams (+6) over NINERS

The Niners giving 6 points? Seriously? I love the Niners, but I can’t be a party to that kind of fiscal insanity during this economic downturn. I can take them to bounce back from their ugly loss on Monday night to get Samurai Mike his first W, however.

PREDICTION: Niners 30, Rams 24
WAGER: $1,000

Cardinals (-3) over SEAHAWKS

What is up with this spread? I’m all for doubting the Cards, but this spread is really low in my opinion. Just what the gambler ordered.

PREDICTION: Cards 31, ‘Hawks 20
WAGER: $2,000

Vikings (+4) over BUCS

I like the Bucs, but I have a lot of trouble giving points in their games -- I just don’t trust their offense enough. Especially when they play quality opponents (or Adrian Peterson). I say the Bucs win, but the Vikes keep in tight.

PREDCTION: Bucs 23, Vikings 20
WAGER: $1,500

Cowboys (-1) over REDSKINS

Romo is back, so will the Cowboys be? My Magic 8 Ball says: “Ask again later”, but I don’t have that kind of time, so I’m just going to go with “Yes”.

PREDICTION: Cowboys 27, Skins 24
WAGER: $400

Browns (+5) over BILLS

The Bills are in freefall. Meanhile the Browns may be able to build something under Brady Quinn. Then again, maybe they won’t. Either way, I’m not giving them any points in this one.

PREDICTION: Bills 24, Browns 20
WAGER: $500

Thursday, November 13, 2008

TV Review: 'Life On Mars'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Yet another re-make of a British show, the new ABC drama 'Life on Mars' is reflection of its concept -- it looks great on the surface, but there's not much underneath. The conceit is interesting enough: NYC Detective Sam Tyler (Jason O'Mara) gets hit by a car and somehow ends up 25 years in the past, in 1973. What's more, he's still a cop in the same city -- just a different world.

It's a world which doesn't understand DNA evidence, and a force where he works with racist, homophobic cops like boss Lt. Gene Hunt (Harvey Keitel) and Det. Ray Carling (Michael Imperioli), who prefer beating up suspects to simply interrogating them. And there are hippies, and bell-bottoms, and sideburns, and cool retro tunes. This all sounds good, right? Only the entire show seems to exist for just this reason -- to be a cool idea.

Digging deeper, however, there doesn't seem to be any foundation to the story which necessitates any of this. In the pilot, Sam is dealing with real-life issues with his partner and love interest, Maya (played by Lisa Bonet), while following a serial killer suspect when he suffers his accident. Back in 1973, he meets the serial killer as a child, and the impression is given that Sam is able to convince to not grow up to be a serial killer. (I know, it's patently ridiculous, but try and play along.) But once this stpryline is over, Sam never goes back to the present, so there is no driving force keeping the story moving forward, no reason to be in the past.

As future episodes progress, a new motivation develops -- Sam wants to go home to his love, and therefore needs to figure out why he's here. But we're also given hints that maybe he's just in a coma -- he hears Maya calling his name, telling him it will be alright. He also sees her reflections in windows, the show's writers seemingly searching for any device which will allow them to keep that storyline alive, despite there being no real link. But Maya disappears in episodes three and four, and Sam seems to move on quickly, flirting with Gretchen Mol's Officer Anne Norris (called "No nuts" by her male colleagues -- clever, huh?) and a hippy chick down the hall.

They also go out of their way to remind us of the differences in our times -- like 1973's ignorance of terms like "hate crime" and "gaydar". It's an interesting idea, but it would help if there were some substance to go with all our style. It also doesn't help that the execution is ham-fisted -- the tone jumps from emotional and reverent to madcap and goofy and back in a heartbeat, and the switch is usually accompanied by an equally jarring switch in classic rock songs (the best thing about the show).

The cast is a strong point. O'Mara is believable in an unbelievable role, Mol is particularly good (always underrated, really), and Imperioli and Keitel are as good as advertised, albeit in roles well within their comfort zone. It's in the writing where the show becomes a bit cartoonish. This shouldn't come as surprise -- the creators (Andre Nemec, Josh Applebaum, and Scott Rosenberg) are the same team which brought us last season's one-and-done dramedy 'October Road', which served up syrupy melodrama with extra helpings of pap.

'Life on Mars' is just good enough -- and superficial enough -- to do very well with middle America, the folks who actually decide the fates of most TV shows (as much as us cultural elitists on the coasts would like to ignore that fact). For that reason, this is the kind of show which can be on for some time. But that can only happen if the creative forces behind it can make the concept last, and that will take a bit more than what they've delivered thus far.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Life on Mars':

CONSIDER

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

TV Review: 'Eleventh Hour'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

‘Eleventh Hour’ is a CBS procedural from producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and if that sounds familiar, it should. That relationship has became a veritable factory in recent years, seemingly comprising half of the CBS primetime programming ('CSI', 'CSI: Miami', 'CSI: New York', 'Close to Home', 'Cold Case', 'Without a Trace'). I guess, then, it should come as no surprise that their latest effort feels quite familiar -- even before you find out it's yet another re-make of a British show.

It’s not that ’Eleventh Hour’ isn’t any good. It had solid acting, competent writing and direction, and a decent premise. It’s more that it feels like a derivative of better shows which have preceded it. The basic structure of the show, in fact, is almost a carbon copy of a formula which has had great success of late: Couple a brilliant, but socially-challenged man with a sharp, pretty female handler/partner.

The list of shows which use this model includes some quality entertainment -- ’Monk, ’House’, ’Life’, ’The Mentalist’, ’Fringe’, Bones’ -- but the window is closing on it, if not already shut. Not all those are perfect fits -- House doesn’t really have one partner (they switch them around a bit), and Bones flips the genders -– but you get the idea. Maybe that’s why ’Eleventh Hour’ feels so flat.

It’s not because of the acting. Lead Rufus Sewell is fine as Dr. Jacob Hood, the FBI’s head weird science dude (sorry to get so technical on you), and Marley Shelton isn’t bad as his partner, agent Rachel Young. Although, Sewell’s smoky voice and aloof demeanor is a bit more suited for the villains he usually plays, and may not be warm enough to draw a viewer in week after week -- at least, not in this cold of a role. In short, his character isn’t the quality of the aforementioned shows.

Sewell and Shelton are also asked to carry the show completely, with no colorful peripheral characters to fall back on, as many of those other shows do, which leaves the show resting on two less than fascinating characters and that week's storyline. The storylines are solid, some quite interesting, but not quite enough to overcome a familiar formula, structure and subject matter.

In other words: Knowing CBS, and their love for all thing procedural and middle-of-the-road, this show will be on for a long time. And if not, it'll probably be replaced by another procedural brought to by the good folks at Jerry Bruckheimer Productions.*

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’Eleventh Hour’:

CONSIDER

* My writing partner and I actually had a meeting with a development exec at Bruckheimer's office once and it is amazing. It's located down at the end of a modest little street by the 10 freeway in Santa Monica, and doesn't look like much until you walk in to find a massive converted warehouse, done up in rustic Santa Fe-type decor, and a huge paining -- something like 20 feet high -- covering one wall. It was just like one of his movies -- big, expensive and cheesey.

Random List: Top 10 Shows On TV


This is not a year-end list, judging shows on only the most recent season. This is a list of the very best shows currently on TV. That means shows like ‘The Wire’, which could’ve (and should’ve) won an Emmy for their final season in 2008, it is not currently on the air so it’s ineligible. It also means shows get some credit for work done in the past -– if they’ve elicited enough interest in their narratives over previous seasons to make up for any weaknesses in their current episodes.

1. The Shield -- The whole reason behind this list. The show is almost over, and criminally underrated, so I wanted to have this last chance to sing its praises. The ballad of Vic Mackey may be reaching its conclusion, but it’s certainly not slowing down any. Instead, it’s doing just what it’s always has -– careening toward disaster, like a car with no brakes. Will Michael Chiklis’s Vic get arrested? Killed? If so, by who? (There are too many good candidates to name them all.) Whatever happens, it will be captivating, pulse-pounding, and unpredictable -– on ’The Shield’, it always is.

2. 30 Rock -- When it comes to lists, I normally rate dramas higher than comedies. I don’t know why, maybe it’s because I get more into the stories dramas offer up. Comedies are so based on contrived situations, the characters never really changing or growing in any way. ‘30 Rock’ is really no different -– well, except for the fact that it’s really, really good. The fantastic Tina Fey makes the show (both writing and acting), but the stellar supporting cast (Alex Baldwin, Tracey Morgan, Jack McBrayer) often steals the show.

3. The Closer -- The best procedural on TV barely edges out the best serialized dramas based on both it’s great ensemble cast centered around Kyra Sedgwick’s Deputy Chief Brenda Lee Johnson and her quirky genius, and its commendable consistency. Not only do they stage a mysterious crime filled with interesting characters each week, but they also manage to move along personal plotlines with aplomb –- and without the usual sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb transitions.

4. Breaking Bad -- The best new show on TV in 2008 made it all the way into the top 5 (and ahead of fellow AMC serial, ’Mad Men’) on its breathtaking premise –- a high school chemistry teacher who finds out he’s got cancer becomes a meth cooker to pay those extra bills. The show’s already been recognized with Emmy nominations -– including a win for lead actor Bryan Cranston –- and I think it’s got a strong future in store with creator Mike Gilligan (a former X-Files’ writer) at the helm.

5. Mad Men -- The best new show of 2007 started the ball rolling at AMC, which is beginning to look like HBO did almost a decade ago. With two of the best shows on TV on their slate, AMC may become the place to go for off-beat writers who tell idiosyncratic stories. That describes creator Matthew Weiner (a former ’Sopranos’ scribe) who HBO let slip away, as well as Gilligan -- many of Weiner’s storylines in ’Mad Men’ echo the anything-can-happen tone and feel of ’The Sopranos’. With characters this interesting, and an era so ripe for commentary, I have a feeling ’Mad Men’ is just getting started.

6. The Office -- Still going strong, ’The Office’, has fallen into a rhythm like many good sports teams do: They know they’re good, so they may coast for awhile, but they’re still better than everyone else, and they can turn it on whenever they need to.

7. Dexter -- This could easily be higher on the list based on its current season, when writers made the wise decision to give Dexter a partner in crime (played by Jimmy Smits). Seeing Dexter play his murderous feelings off of someone else’s is reinvigorating for the show, and reminds of the end of the first season, when he battled his brother.

8. House -- Like ’The Office’, this show has found it’s groove, and never produces a bad episode. They also manage to keep both the medical case and the personal lives of its characters fresh. House’s antics never get old, and Hugh Laurie’s performance is never anything short of note-perfect.

9. Lost -- I’ve lost a lot of interest in the show since the first couple of seasons, but as it nears the end, I’m still interested in finding out what answers the show can deliver. It’s currently not as good as a few shows on the “Honorable mention” list, maybe even all of them, but like a mystery novel I’m almost done with, I’ve put in too much time to give up now.

10. Curb Your Enthusiasm – This deserves to be higher, but I’m penalizing it for taking the better part of two years off. Still, I haven’t forgotten the show’s unique blend of both dry and broad humor, or the eminently watchable Larry David.

Honorable mention: Sons of Anarchy, Life, Damages, Friday Night Lights, CSI.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

BREAKING NEWS: TIM LINCECUM WINS NL CY YOUNG!!!


It's official -- there is a God. His name is Tim Lincecum, and he just won the NL Cy Young award in just his first full season in the majors (and second overall), joining the likes of Doc Gooden, Bret Saberhagen, and Fernando Valenzuela as the quickest to achieve the award. Turns out, the writers have more going on upstairs than I thought. I had anticipated a tight race due to some carrying a torch for the "old school" (read: "antiquated") methods of determining Cy Youngs -- i.e. just picking the guy with the most wins. Turns out, the vote wasn't even close:

Player, team -- 1st Place Votes (Total Points)
Lincecum, SFG -- 23 (137)
Webb, ARI -- 4 (73)
Santana, NYM -- 4 (55)
Lidge, PHI -- 0 (10)
Sabathia, MIL -- 1 (9)
Dempster, CHC -- 0 (4)

I, for one, welcome our new teenage-looking, bad teeth-having, acrobatic, fireballin' Cy Young overloard!

Photobucket

Monday, November 10, 2008

Random Rant: "Just when I thought I was out..."


The Niners suck this year, so I put a lot less thought into the team than I'm used to. Don't get me wrong, I still spend an ungodly amount of time watching their games, reading about them online, even posting about them. But growing up in the 80's and 90's, I was used to spending most of my waking hours thinking about them. Now, because of their record and recent history, I care whether they win or lose, but more of my thought goes toward the future -- how are the young players progressing, do they have the right coaches, is the ownership holding them back, etc. Back then, the next week's game was always foremost in my mind, as was the playoff picture. Those are two things I never think about anymore.

But still, come Sunday morning -- or this week, Monday afternoon -- I start thinking about the game, the match-ups, the team's chances. And once the game starts, the competitive juices really start to flow. If the Niners keep it close, I get into it and want to see them win. That's why Monday night's game was so painful. It was a Michael Corleone/Godfather III Special: Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.

I had low expectations going in, but then Rossum returns the opening kickoff for a TD, Morgan makes a circus catch for a TD, the Niners lead 14-3 and suddenly my hopes are raised. By the time the Cards had pulled within 14-13, I was pretty sure we'd seen the best the Niners had and the Cards were just warming up, but then Vernon Davis makes a circus catch for a TD, and I'm feeling hopeful again. When Shaun Hill turned from "effective game manager" to "JTO-like turnover machine" and the Niners lost the lead with 4:16 left (after leading for 55+ minutes), I was ready to throw in the towel, but then Hill drove them down to the Arizona 20 yard line.

After Hill's "Look at me, I'm Brett Favre! Wait, check that -- I'm not" interception, I thought for sure the game was over, but once the Niners stopped the Cards and got the ball back, drove to the 2 yard line and had a 1st and goal with 40+ seconds remaining, I thought for sure we'd win. Unfortunately, that's when the Niners finally decided to go ahead and cut to the chase by crapping the bed. The mistakes came in rapid succession:

1) After Jason Hill went down on the 2 yard line, the Niners were confused whether they should just spike the ball or put in their goal line package first (when there is absolutely no reason to). Because of this, and their inability to line up correctly, it took them 24 seconds to finally kill the clock.

2) Instead of doing the obvious -- and smart -- by calling at least one pass play (and probably two), they ran the ball. Quick passes, like a fade or quick slant for instance, take only 4 or 5 seconds, meaning the Niners could've easily fit in two before finding themselves in a 4th down situation. Even one pass before a run wouldn't have changed the situation much. As close as Frank Gore came from staying on his feet and getting in, his run for no gain changed everything -- by the time the Niners ran another play they only had time for one.

3) Having mismanaged their time so badly they changed a 4 down opportunity into a 2 play opportunity, the Niners used their last play -- their one chance to win the game -- to hand the ball to a backup RB. If this was from the 1 yard line, I still would complain about the ball not going to Gore. But the ball was on the 2 1/2 yard line. Any run from there is misguided. Especially given how the Cards had stacked the middle of their line. Double-especially when considering offensive coordinator Mike Martz and head coach Mike Singletary had extra time to think up/discuss this because officials were reviewing the previous play.

The bottom line: The Niners ran out of time with one down left despite having 44 seconds to play with. They gained 50+ yards on the first three plays of the drive (all passes to emerging star Jason Hill) in just 22 seconds, then proceeded to run only two real plays (if you can even call them that) in the final 44 seconds. That's inexcusable. Still, despite these mistakes, this was one of the Niners most exciting games, which only made the hurt worse, but it is a good sign. Considering the Cards were at home, it was Monday night, and some arizona players had made comments about this being a statement game, this would've been a tough test for a new coach, even if Singletary hadn't had a crazy debut two weeks ago. Everything considered, it was a impressive performance by Singletary's squad -- if a bitterly anti-climactic finish.

"We have to learn how to finish", Coach Sing said after the game, and he was right. It seems the team believes in him. A tough loss like this will be a good test. So will next weeks game against a very beatable Rams team. If the Niners win that in front of the home crowd, he may suddenly find himself with a following -- and some momentum he needs to retain the job next season. If he loses, not so much. And right now, just as I most want to completely give up on the team, I can't wait to see how they play next week.

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

'For Who? For What?': JoePa FTL!

This wrap-up of the weekend in both college and pro football is named after the classic post-game quote immortalized by all-time favorite whipping boy Ricky Watters.

A couple of week's back, I predicted Penn State would make the National Championship game. I underestimated their ability to implode. I never thought the Nittany Lions were the best team, or one of the best for that matter. I just thought their schedule gave them a significant advantage over the other unbeatens in major college football. I still believe that -- that advantage just wasn't enough to overcome Penn State's shortcomings. Alabama and Texas Tech, on the other hand, each survived the first of three obstacles on their path to a clash in the National Championship game.

Here's the latest Top 10 from yours truly:

1. Texas Tech (10-0)
2. Alabama (10-0)
3. Florida (8-1)
4. Texas (9-1)
5. Oklahoma (9-1)
6. USC (8-1)
7. Penn State (9-1)
8. Utah (10-0)
9. Boise State (9-0)
10. Oklahoma State (8-2)


Meanwhile, in the NFL this week, some things became a little clearer:

--The Patriots are re-emerging as a contender in the AFC -- something I predicted a few weeks back. At 6-3, they're tied atop the AFC East with the Jets, who they square off against this Thursday night. The winner emerges as the top team in that division (especially if it's the Pats, who would then hold the head-to-head tie-breaker), and joins the second tier of teams in the conference behind the Titans -- a group which could include the Steelers, Ravens, Dolphins, Chargers, and Colts.

--Speaking of Indy, they seem to be picking up speed as they head down the back stretch. They followed up a tight victory versus New England last Sunday night with a big road win at Pittsburgh this week. Suddenly, they appear poised for a stretch run along with the Pats. Could we see another big Indy/New England tilt in the AFC playoffs come January?

--The Giants are good. Like really good. You know they won the Super Bowl last year, right? Despite that, it's been easy to ignore them this year. First, even when they won the Super Bowl the big story was more about the Perfect Pats lost. Then they started the year in the shadow of rival Dallas, who prognosticators already had going to this year's Super Bowl. Then, when Philly and Washington looked strong early, the big story was how great their entire division was great -- they were just among the best. As the season stretched on, and they established themselves as clearly the best team in the NFC, they still found themselves in the shadow -- this time of Tennessee, the league's only undefeated team. But it's time people start to say it: The Giants have to be the favorite to repeat as Super Bowl champs.

With all that said, here's my take on the current hierarchy of the top teams in the NFL:

Elite
New York Giants
Tennessee Titans
Carolina Panthers

Flawed But Dangerous
Arizona Cardinals
Pittsburgh Steelers
New York Jets

Never Underestimate Experience
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
New England Patriots
Indianapolis Colts

On The Upswing
Washington Redskins
Baltimore Ravens
Atlanta Falcons

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Weekend Link Dump

-- Searching for the perfect gag gift for a buddy? Need to make a gesture for someone who's done you a favor? Pissed off your girlfriend, and need a way to make her laugh? Then I've got the perfect site for you. Show your loved ones you give a shit, by giving them a shit. That's right -- I shit you not.

-- I find this story funny, sad, frustrating, and several other conflicting emotions. How two old friends from high school couldn't figure out a way to share that kind of money when it literally appears from nowhere both boggles my mind and strikes me as typical at the same time.

-- This just might be the best link I ever provide: If you can think of a TV show from the 80's, then I can almost guarantee you can find a video of intro to that show here. It's a great time-waster. Seriously, I just wasted like 45 minutes on it just while typing out this blurb. I found these old favorites from my childhood:





And this forgotten relic:



Not to mention, this cheesey gem:



The only negative thing I can say about it is the intro clip for 'Manimal' has been taken down due to copyright infringement.

-- And finally, as we head toward the holidays, I decided to dig up this oldie but goodie:

Friday, November 7, 2008

Theoretical Gambling: Week 10


It's Friday, and you know what that means -- time for imaginary gambling! A quick refresher on the rules: The entire "pot" (which started at $5,000 in Week 5) must be wagered, with every game having at least $100, and no more than $1,000, wagered on it. For previous installments, check out the link on the right hand side of the page, or simply click here.

Week 9 record: 11-3*
Season Record: 47-22
Week 8 vs. Spread: 10-4
Season vs. Spread: 36-31-2
Week 8 Money won/lost: +$3,400
Season total (gain/loss): $7,600 (+$2,600)


* For the second straight week!

Finally found my groove last week with a new formula (which is really my old formula): pick the three to five games which seem the most obvious –- you know, the ones where you go “What is Vegas thinking with that line?” – and bet approximately 3/4 of the pot on them, and then lay the remaining ~1/4 of the pot on all the other games combined (or essentially, the as close to the minimum $100 bet as possible for each).

After one very successful week using this formula, I feel very good about my chances the rest of the year. Tune in next week to see how far my confidence has fallen. In fact, it’s already started:

BROWNS (-3) over Broncos

PREDICTED SCORE: Browns 34, Denver 27
“MONEY” WAGERED: $200

*ACTUAL FINAL SCORE: Broncos 34, Broncos 30*

That’s right, I’m already 0-1 this week, both overall and against the spread (and down $200), because I made the unforgivable mistake of having faith in the Browns. Of course, it would’ve been just as unforgivable to place my trust in the defense-and-running-game-deficient Broncos.

Without further ado, here are the rest of my Week 10 picks:

Jaguars (-7) over LIONS

I hate taking the Jags, especially after the week they’ve had – giving the Bengals their first win, followed by lots of off-the-field controversy in Jax-ville – but I feel significantly better picking against Daunte Culpepper, starting his first game for the Lions one week after joining the team.

PREDICTION: Jags 31, Lions 16
WAGER: $200

Titans (-3) over BEARS

Is this the week the Titans lose? I’m going to answer that question with a question: Did you realize Rex Grossman is starting?

PREDICTION: Titans 23, Bears 16
WAGER: $1,000

PATS (-4) over Bills

The Bills are officially on the skids. The Pats are paying better and at home. These is the kinds of superficial analysis you can expect from me – especially when trying to differentiate between all the very similar AFC East teams.

PREDICTION: Pats 24, Bills 17
WAGER: $400

FALCONS (-1) over Saints

I’m on the Falcon bandwagon. Do I have to write this every week, or have I made it clear yet?

PREDICTION: Falcons 27, Saints 24
WAGER: $1,000

Rams (+8.5) over JETS

The Jets consistently underwhelm (in part due to Brett Favre’s weekly Pick-6), so I’m not giving a TD+ to anyone, even the Lambs.

PREDICTION: Jets 24, Rams 17
WAGER: $300

Seahawks (+8.5) over DOLPHINS

The ‘Phins are playing well, so I’m taking them here, but I don’t think they have the fire-power to give 9 points, even to the lowly ‘Hawks

PREDICTION: ‘Phins 24, ‘Hawks 16
WAGER: $300

Packers (+2.5) over VIKINGS

The Pack almost pulled off the big upset against the Titans I predicted last week, and are playing very well. If they can hold Adrian Peterson reasonably in check this week and force Frerotte to beat them, they should do it again.

PREDICTION: Pack 27, Vikes 20
WAGER: $1,000

Panthers (-9.5) over RAIDERS
The Raiders are an absolute joke. That’s all I have to say about that.

PREDICTION: Panthers 30, Raider 13
WAGER: $1,000

Chiefs (+15.5) over CHARGERS

The way the Bolts have been playing, I can’t give away double-digit points. Also, the Chiefs have beat the spread and almost pulled off upsets two weeks straight.

PREDICTION: Bolts 24, Chiefs 20
WAGER: $300

Colts (+3.5) over STEELERS

The Steelers still likely win this one (whether Big Ben plays or not) because the Colts are not up to their normal standards this season, but I think they can still keep it close.

PREDICTION: Steelers 24, Colts 21
WAGER: $300

Giants (+3) over EAGLES

The Giants may be the best team in football. The Eagles are playing well again, but aren’t in the Giants class. Why are the eagles favored? Good question.

PREDICTION: Giants 27, Eagles 24
WAGER: $1,000

Ravens (PK) over TEXANS

I’m officially OFF the Texans bandwagon, especially with Sage “Don’t Trust Me” Rosenfels starting at QB for Houston.

PREDICTION: Ravens 23, Texans 20
WAGER: $400

49ers (+9.5) over CARDINALS

This is more out of hope the Niners don’t embarrass themselves on a rare national TV game than anything logical.

PREDICTION: Cards 30, Niners 21
WAGER: $200

To see which announcers will be calling your team’s game, or to get an early look at what game will be airing in your area of the country check out this site.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Random List: Top 10 Movies Still To Come In '08

It's the start of Oscar season, so what better time to rank the contenders coming out before the end of the year. I’m ranking these in order of how much I want to see them, not necessarily how good I think they’ll be. All I know of these movies is from a trailer and reading about them. This list is all about expectation, and personal taste.

1. 'Milk' -- Even if this wasn’t about a man whose murder was a local story I still remember from my youth, I’d be excited. I’m a sucker for anything with Sean Penn in it, and Gus Van Sant is one my favorites -– especially when he plays it straight (a la ’To Die For’), as he reportedly does here. And the supporting cast includes Emile Hirsch, James Franco, and Josh Brolin.

2. 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' -- I’m a huge David Fincher fan, and his two best movies starred Brad Pitt, who plays the title role here. It’s a great idea from a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, adapted by Eric Roth. And the trailer looks amazing. What’s not to like?

3. 'Frost/Nixon' -- Another true story from my youth, though I was a little young to comprehend. It was a hit play, and is adapted by playwright Peter Morgan. Ron Howard directs, and people are predicting an Oscar nomination for Frank Langella as Nixon.

4. 'The Wrestler' -- Darren Arnofsky. Mickey Rourke’s big comeback -– maybe an Oscar nod. I’m so there. And that’s before I knew personal favorite Marissa Tomei was in it.

5. 'Revolutionary Road' -- Sam Mendes directs an adaptation of a Richard Yates novel, reuniting Kate Winslet (his real-life wife) with her ’Titanic’ co-star Leonardo DiCaprio.

6. 'Valkyrie' -- Director Bryan Singer and screenwriter – the team which brought us ’The Usual Suspects’ -- reunites to relay yet another real life story about the German soldier (played by Tom Cruise) who tried to kill Hitler.

7. 'Defiance' -- Ed Zwick co-writes and directs this tale of bad ass Jews kicking Nazi ass. It stars Live Schreiber and Daniel Craig (who’s already been in one Jews-kicking-Nazi-ass movie, ’Munich’).

8. 'Doubt' -- The underrated John Patrick Shanley adapts and directs his Pulitzer prize-winning play about a priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who’s accused of molestation by a bitter old nun (Meryl Streep).

9. 'Australia' -- Baz Luhrmann can get a little fanciful for me, but he can create a spectacle with any filmmaker. Plus, I love Australia (I was there for my marriage/honeymoon). But if at any point Hugh Jackman breaks into song, all bets are off.

10. 'Seven Pounds' -- This Will Smith Oscar bait looks a little sappy/weepy for my tastes, but I needed to round out the 10.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Hollywood Horror Show: How MTV Picked My Pocket


This is a series detailing the strange, sometimes traumatic experiences I've had in the entertainment industry -- run-ins with celebrities, development execs, and douchebags of all shapes and sizes -- since I moved to LA 11 years ago. A link to the previous installments can be found on the right hand side of the page, and also here.

I’ve thought long and hard about writing this story. While, I spoken about this before to most of my friends, I’ve never put the whole thing down in writing, and certainly not on the Internet. Considering the only party it might offend is owned by a global media conglomerate worth billions of dollars, that fact deserved a lot of thought.

But here’s the thing: Everything I’m going to write here really happened. Yes, I’m making one leap, one assumption, but it is based on so much evidence, I think anyone reading will agree it’s a reasonable leap to make. That makes me feel a little better. So does the fact I once heard the best legal defense for slander is truth (it’s not libelous if it’s true). Lastly, I’m also calmed by the fact I don’t think many people actually read this blog.

The story began a few years back when my friend (and now writing partner) Barry came up with the idea of a parody of Cameron Crowe’s ’Almost Famous’, re-imagined in modern times, centered around a kid obsessed not with classic rock, but hip-hop. The title: ’Almost Gangsta’. I thought it was a great idea, and we ended up writing a script together. Later, we produced a short film out of it. The film didn’t turn out as well as we had hoped, and Barry didn’t want the idea to die.

Eventually, he came upon the idea to turn the concept into a reality show: Young aspiring writers who loved hip-hop would write sample essays to The Source magazine, who we had worked with a bit on the making of the short, and the finalists would do pieces, which would appear in the magazine. The winner would receive a one-year internship as a reporter for the mag.

However, we couldn’t get the bigwigs at the Source to sign on, so we broadened the pitch to include another take – the show could, like the original movie, could center around Rolling Stone Magazine. We called this version, ’Rock Journalism 101’. This take probably had the broader appeal, but because MTV was the obvious place to pitch the idea, and their programming was becoming almost exclusively hip-hop-related, we decided to keep ’Almost Gangsta’ on the title page of our treatment.

I was worried about pitching MTV because a former lawyer of mine had cautioned me about their pitch meeting practices. She had multiple friends who had pitched them and were told the network already had something similar in development, only to later see their exact show hit the air. When I relayed this to my manager, who had a friend in development there he wanted us to meet, he admitted that was MTV’s reputation within the industry, but advised they were still our best bet.

We met with this high-level development exec and pitched our idea. She seemed to like it, and peppered us with questions for more details. At the end, she asked for our treatment so she’d have something to show her superiors, and complimented the idea. But she left us with one haunting last remark: “Let me just make sure we don’t have anything similar in development.” The thing that has always bothered me about this: How could a highly-placed exec not already know what their company has in development?

You can probably guess the rest. A couple of weeks later, we heard back from the exec via our manager – they were passing because…(drum roll please) they had something similar in development. I was furious because I knew what was really going on, but both Barry and my manager played it pretty cool, saying, essentially, it probably wouldn’t come to anything anyway.

Then, a couple of months later, Variety ran a story announcing a deal between MTV and Rolling Stone for a new reality show based on ’Almost Famous’, titled, ’I’m With Rolling Stone’. Though the concept of the show was almost identical to our alternate take, which was registered with the Writer’s Guild of America, our manager saw no real reason to pursue the matter yet. “Wait until they get pregnant with the show” was the general advice – once the show is in production, the network is more committed to the idea, and might consider a “payoff” just to avoid any legal entanglements from delaying production.

But by the time ’I’m With Rolling Stone’ got into production, we were with a different manager. His reaction: “I know how that feels, dude. I used to work in development at MTV, and they stole two ideas of mine, too.” So could we do? “Not much, dude.”

But we weren’t going to take this sitting down. The parents of Barry’s then-girlfriend, now wife live is Pacific Palisades, next door a top notch lawyer specializing in intellectual property. Barry’s future father-in-law got him a face-to-face with the lawyer, who quickly told him it was a good news bad news situation. The good news: The good news was he knew that MTV had a reputation for this and had quite a bit of litigation against them. The bad news: they had top notch lawyers to battle this and it was almost impossible to beat them, and he knew this because… (another drum roll please) they had him on retainer -- and used his services often.

So there we were, with no real recourse but to spend money we didn’t have to pursue a case we couldn’t win. Sure, I dashed off a strongly-worded e-mail to said exec, calling her out for exactly what she did. I never heard back, of course. And that was it. Or, that was it until the show actually aired. I tried to watch, but it made me sick to my stomach. In fact, I could barely watch the one MTV show I actually like, ’The Real World’.

But, thankfully, the show’s ratings stunk, and it quickly disappeared. I don’t know what I would’ve done if it had been a hit. Something bad, I’m sure. But it still hurt – much worse than I had ever imagined it might. It’s something akin to intellectual rape. You feel angry at the perpetrator, but also at yourself for letting yourself be taken advantage of. And there’s the innocence lost.

I’ve written before about how my love for screenwriting has dimmed due to effect of peripheral parts of the industry. This episode with MTV might have been the first slide down that slippery slope.

Yes We Can!

CONGRATULATIONS TO PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

But it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops for the liberal elite Tuesday night.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

TV Review: 'My Own Worst Enemy'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

In ’My Own Worst Enemy’, Christian Slater plays two men –- a family man and super spy. That makes ’Enemy’ feel like two shows -– a family man drama and spy action thriller. That might be fun, except for one thing: Both shows are mediocre. And two mediocre shows do not equal one good one.

The concept could be solid: A man discovers he has two distinct personalities -– one a super spy, the other an ordinary husband and father from the suburbs. Not only has the government figured out a way to give him these personalities, they can switch it on and off whenever they want. Or at least, they can until it malfunctions early in the pilot episode, and begins to come and go at random times with very little warning (but just enough time for either personality to leave a quick video message to the other with vital information/instructions, conveniently enough).

But there's glaring flaw, and not a hard one to identify: Why? Why is it so vital to have a super spy who can double as a family man? If the agent half is so adept at a life of spying, why does he need such an elaborate cover, complete with a wife and kids who's lives are endangered simply by virtue of who their father really is? Is screwing with the lives of innocent women and children just so their agent will have a safe place to crash really the best way the government can come up with to disguise its agents?

The parts which do work – the plot keeps moving, it’s action-packed (though cheesey), and it has a pretty solid ensemble cast –- reminds of ’Prison Break’, only not as juicy. The general rule of thumb is, the cheesier the tone and the more over the top the acting, he further the line can be pushed. Over at the always adventurous FOX, shows like ’Prison Break’ and '24' maximize this rule. This should've been instructive to the minds behind the show -- especially when taking into consideration what '24' did for Slater's contemporary, Keifer Sutherland, when he was in need of a similar career resurgence/re-imagining. But at NBC, where vanilla meets cheese, the storylines don’t ever push the boundaries. That has damaged the milquetoast ’Heroes’, and it does the same to ’Enemy’.

While the entire cast, from Slater on down, seems to be on the same over-the-top page, the writers seem to be stuck in second gear in terms of plot-twists, curveballs, and juicy moments. In short, it’s not pleasurable enough to be a guilty pleasure. There are too many mundane family arguments -- like the wife of Henry, the accountant angry at him for spending $2,000 on a dress for his young daughter, when it was actually super spy Edward’s doing – and what action there is does not make up for the family banalities.

The writing staff (led by creator Jason Smilovich) may not shoulder the blame for the tameness of the show -- often the tone of a show has a lot to do with the studio producing it. Studio notes are mandatory if a show wants to be treated well -– given a good time slot, promoted well, shown patience if early ratings don’t take off. As mentioned earlier, NBC’s current management, doesn’t have a great track record for pushing the envelope, so it’s not very hard to connect the dots.

Slater’s performance is certainly good enough, but comes off badly because the show doesn’t match his intensity. Similarly out of place are Mike O’Malley, as Raymond, Edward’s super spy colleague/handler, and Alfre Woodard, as their superior, Mavis Heller. Only Henry’s wife, Angie, played by Madchen Amick feels the right tone for the show. But again, that says more about the show than it does the actors.

’My Own Worst Enemy’ has a chance to be a good show, but it isn’t yet, and there isn’t any indication the artistic direction behind the show is capable of the kind of change it needs.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’My Own Worst Enemy’:

PASS*

* Of course, this doesn't mean I won't have to watch it. My wife likes the show, and I don't have the heart to tell her how wrong she is, so I'll be watching it with her (probably while I'm doing something else -- like writing some future blog post).