Left to my own devices

Confession: I've never watched Game of Thrones . Well, that's not technically true. I watched the first episode a few years ago, found it mildly entertaining but not terribly gripping, and never watched another one. Life has been fine without it. Several people I know, however, love the show, and that's great, but something I've noticed is that folks really, really don't want episodes of the show spoiled for them. Like, really. Game of Thrones isn't the only program to elicit cries of 'Don't spoil it for me!' from its fans. LOST comes to mind. I actually had someone unfriend me on Facebook because I posted something about a LOST episode a few minutes after it aired. They hadn't watched it yet, and we even got into a discussion about time zones and what not. It was way more intense than it needed to be. On another occasion, a friend chastised me for openly discussing events of The Walking Dead that were six months old. He explained ho...

I have a little joke with myself that goes something like this: Q: When are a TV show's ratings in trouble? A: When the fan updating its Wikipedia page uses both live + time-shifted numbers for its viewership numbers. That may be a somewhat obtuse private joke, so allow me to explain. First, television ratings are handled by a company called Nielsen. Many of us have, at one time or another, been part of "Nielsen families," wherein our household television viewing habits were monitored for a period of time. Next, "live" ratings are those based upon who watched the program at the time that it originally aired. "Time shift" viewings are those officially counted on stuff like DVR and iTunes, within a reasonable period of time after the original airing. Finally, "rating" is a bit of a dinosaur term these days, as Nielsen pretty much reports a show's viewership these days, and not its actual rating, which is a different nu...

Meeting celebrities is an awkward business. The above conclusion is one I've reached over years of going to the Roger Ebert Film Festival , and having visited Hollywood, California back in the 1990s. Perhaps it's just me, but there really doesn't seem to be any real connection that we, the public, have with those who produce and star in some of our most beloved pop culture touchstones. Take, for example, Ebertfest of 2002. One of my favorite movies from that year's festival was Kwik Stop , starring and directed by Michael Gilio, who was in attendance. The film moved me and, after Gilio's Q&A on-stage, I decided to approach him and say what a marvelous movie it was that he'd made. Of course, once I was in his presence, it was more like gibberish that came out of my mouth, followed by a perfunctory request for an autograph, which he provided. Then there were several years where actor Scott Wilson attended the festival. Known then for his role ...

Last night saw the season 4 premiere of AMC's The Walking Dead . By now, almost everyone knows what the show is about, but in case you don't, it's about people trying to survive during a zombie apocalypse. The series has seen some stellar viewership since it began in October 2010, and I admit to being a regular viewer, despite my better judgment. What I refer to is how The Walking Dead never leaves me feeling... good. That may sound like an odd qualifier for a television program. After all, I was a stalwart supporter of NBC's Homicide: Life on the Street , and it rarely left me feeling happy about the world. But at least Homicide was a quality program that actually delved into character development, rather than simply pay lip service to it. Walking Dead is a very gory show, sometimes (in my opinion) just for the sake of it. Zombies are shot, or stabbed through the head. People are bitten and/or disemboweled. Very little is left to the imagination. And the...

Last night saw the 3rd season finale of AMC's The Walking Dead zombie apocalypse series. Although its ratings will no doubt be massive, the episode appears to be garnering some dissent among fandom (at least if you read the online reviews, comments and message boards). Personally, it seemed lacking as a season-ender, even if it had its moments. I'm about to delve into a morality issue regarding certain aspects of the episode so, if you haven't watched it, turn back now. Ok, here we go...

In a recent episode of AMC's The Walking Dead , that mega-popular series about surving during a zombie apocalypse, the Governor of Woodbury ordered the firearms confiscated from his town's citizens. This was seen by some as a furthering of what they consider to be a conservative agenda fostered by the program. Others disagree, simply citing it as a storytelling tactic. Regardless of the gun confiscation issue, the argument can be made that The Walking Dead is somewhat conservative in nature. This is neither praise nor a rebuke of the program, simply a (subjective) observation. Of course, I'm conflating conservatism with how it manifests itself within modern day America and, also, within the Republican Party. That in and of itself could be cause for an argument.

Last night was episode 6 of Season 2 of AMC's hit series The Walking Dead . It's a show I came to late. Well, after a few episodes, anyway. The program premiered last year on Halloween, and I had little desire to watch yet another depiction of a zombie apocalypse (there's only been, what, 50 million such movies about the subject within the last decade or so?) At any rate, the first episode proved to be a monster success, and I kept hearing good things about the show, so I tuned-in around episode 4 of Season 1, got caught-up with everything during one of the many all-day marathons that AMC aired for it, and was suitably hooked. After 6 episodes, the show went on hiatus until this Autumn. So far, Season 2 has been a pale shadow of its predecessor, and last night's episode was part & parcel of why that is.