No moe Glee-fulness

This time of year, shows wrap up for the holidays and networks switch into holiday special mode, so many of our favorite shows go into a hiatus until after the holidays. That's just the way things go. However, Fox, in all of their infinite wisdom, has decided to hold off their hit show, and arguably the best show of the new season, Glee, until April.

What is the reasoning for this, you may ask? Well, part of it is to make room for American Idol. As an Idol fan, I understand this part of it, but at the same time, there is no need to wait until April to bring the show back.

That's not the only reason they're holding the show off the air. Apparently they have a new....wait for it...reality show (big surprise, right?) that they will be trotting out in its place. Something about little kids and their careers. I forgot what its about, but just like every other show its ilk, it is sure to be a waste of airtime that could go to the far superior Glee.

This layoff is going to either help or hurt the show. It may have helped it initially since the pilot aired last spring, but the show didn't start until late September. On the flipside, think back to last couple of years...how many shows were going full swing only to get yanked because of the Writer's Strike killing their momentum and network's not bringing them back. *COUGH* Pushing Daisies *COUGH*

Ho-hum...I guess I just have to wait 4 months for one of my favorite shows to return and find something else to watch in that spot. Wait! Modern Family comes on during that slot, so maybe I can see what all the hype is about.

Don't you just hate it when shows go on these obscenely long hiatuses?

Stay tuned for a full fall TV rundown post in the next week or two.

Did they REALLY win?

3 competition shows I watch all ended in the past few days. All of which seemed to have a front runner for most of the season only to pull a swerve in the last two episodes and have someone else win. It's kind of odd the way these happen and brings to question...did the REALLY win?

Let's start with Hell's Kitchen. From day one, anyone could have seen that Paula was going to be the winner, then somewhere in the last 3 weeks or so, after the teams merged, Danny started stepping up, or at least getting noticed. Needless to say these two faced were the most talented of the entire season, but it seemed as though Paula was set to be the next winner. That is, until the finale when her team let her down. I have to wonder if they really are that inept, or if that was staged by the producers. I mean, these are supposed to be world class chefs and all. I could spend an entire blog on that Lacey girl. --rolls eyes--

Regular readers of my blog, now that I like Dancing with the Stars (especially Cheryl Burke). The finale went down this week. Everyone, and I do mean everyone had picked the unknown French guy, apparently he was naked in Sex and the City which is his claim to fame, and the Bachelor runner up to have a showdown. Gilles was there, but Melissa was replaced with Shawn Johnson, the Olympic gymnast. Johnson went on to shock the world and win it all. Of course, the track record of the show seems to be that athletes win. So, I wonder if that was the case here, not to mention the whole stalking that was going on at the beginning of the season probably brought in a few sympathy votes for her. I can say this, though, at least Melissa didn't come in second on two shows...lol

Finally, we have the big one, American Idol. Unless you've been living under a rock or something, then you no doubt know that Kris Allen pulled the biggest upset ever and stole the crown from Adam Lambert. I have no malice towards Kris, but Adam was the superior talent and should have won this. America got it wrong, just like they did a couple years back when they voted Melinda Doolittle (one of the most talented and humble contestants to ever grace that stage) off in favor of Blake Lewis and eventual winner Jordin Sparks. With the exception of Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, winners haven't exactly had the most spectacular of careers (jury is still out on David Cook). Those that don't win, such as Chris Daughtry, Jennifer Hudson, Kelly Pickler, etc., tend to do bigger things. So, as long as Adam doesn't go the Clay Aiken route and become a bitter queen, he'll be fine. As for Kris, I wish him the best, but something tells me he'll be joining Taylor Hicks on the county fair circuit sooner than later.

...didn't think I was gonna go through all that without mentioning the real reason why Adam didn't win, do you? Well, apparently, Bill O'Reilly brought up some pictures of Adam kissing a guy. Not sure if it was brought up before then, but I digress, he made this whole big spiel that America's "idol" doesn't need to be homosexual. You know, typical conservative, closed minded viewpoint. This brought up the whole debate about whether folks would vote for him or not. On top of that, there was Danny Gokey getting voted off the week before. Gokey and Allen are similar in style and lifestyles in their Christian/family ways of life. As a matter of fact, Gokey was supposed to have been in the final with Adam, but I won't go into that. The final reason is that the voters of Idol are mostly teens who don't like being told what to do, and since the judges all but gave Adam the crown in like week 3, or whenever it was that he did that totally awesome version of "Ring of Fire", they wanted someone else to win, just to prove them wrong.

Guess it worked, but this time next year, we'll see who has the better career, Adam, Kris...or maybe neither. What do you think of these winners? Do you agree that something fishy seemed up with the way they happened to win, or was it just coincidence?

What is the point of a remake?

This weekend I saw Get Smart. I was a big fan of the show when I saw it on Nick at Nite back in the day. I liked the movie, but I felt a bit of a letdown since it didn't resemble the show. I read somewhere that it was meant to bring it into the 21st century. WTF?!?

Why does everything have to be brought into the 21st century? Is it such a crime to leave things where they are and enjoy them for what they are? This happens in TV and music as well. for example, just look at American Idol this season. David Cook covered plenty of good songs, but he said they needed to be brought into the 21st century. It worked for him, similar to the Get Smart movie, but there's nothing wrong with the original. Is it such a crime to leave things the way they are? Honestly, its just frustrating.

Television is the same way. This fall, Beverly Hills 90210 is getting remade. Not sure if its a remake, or just 15 yrs later or what, but one has to wonder. Are they just that hard up for ideas that they have to remake the show. Guess I shouldn't complain...it won't be reality. I have noticed that they waited until Aaron Spelling died before they did this, though. Makes you wonder, huh?

Another show they're remaking, is one of my faves from the 80s. Knight Rider. I watched the TV movie and while it was good. I wasn't excited about it. It just didn't have the feel of the original show. It just feels like they wanted to show how much gadgets have evolved since then. Most shows and remakes are like that, though.

This fall, The Day the Earth Stood Still is being released. It's a remake of a classic alien movie from the 40s or 50s or so. Not sure when it came out. It's not as well known as War of the worlds or some other movies of the genre, but still a good one and I have to wonder, what's wrong with the original. Yeah, its cheesy, but that's the good thing about watching it. Everything does not need to happen in the 21st century. Someone needs to tell these writers, producers, and directors to come up with their own stuff and leave the old stuff alone.