THE VERY LAST MOMENT FOR THIS QUIZ

Given my oft-expressed-in-previous-years feelings about Halloween, I don't think there's any way I'd end up with a smiley face pumpkin....

You Are

A Distressed Pumpkin Face You would make a good pumpkin pickle.

What's Your Pumpkin Face?

IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND...

We have a script going out to production companies and studios tomorrow. About ten different people will be reading it... then hopefully their bosses... then hopefully their bosses.

Best case scenario, someone wants to buy it. Next best case scenario, everyone who reads it wants to meet with us and talk about other projects.

I don't usually write about my own career here (it's just not that interesting). But a spec script going out is a special case. So if anyone reading wouldn't mind sending up a prayer or two. (A prayer for favor. A prayer for a sale for mondo bucks. Whatever you feel comfortable with.)

Thank you very much. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

WHAT KIND OF CANDY ARE YOU?

This week's quiz is in honor of the granddaddy of all candy-related holidays, Halloween...

Though doesn't it seem as if all holidays are now becoming candy holidays? Easter, Valentine's Day, even Mother's Day (and my kids make a pretty good case for St. Patrick's Day). When did that happen?

At any rate, this particular quiz pinpointed me exactly. My favorite candy, ever since I was a kid. Some things never change.

Reeses Peanut Butter Cups

Very popular, one of you is not enough.

What Kind of Candy Are You?

What kind of candy are you? Let us know before the 31st!

TV THOUGHTS: DEAL OR NO DEAL

Lee and I are giving the keynote talk today for the Cinema Studies Conference sponsored by the Los Angeles Film Studies Center, which is itself sponsored by the Christian Colleges Coalition, on "The Role of the Moral Hero." Maybe I'll post some of that (not-quite-finished-but-hey-we-have-5-hours-still) talk here later.

But as we discussed what to say, we ended up talking a bit about Deal or No Deal.

Now, DOND has all the feel of the early days of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire -- the kind of show that gets a massive tune-in for a short time, then the ratings dissipate and it fades away or goes to syndication. Maybe I'm wrong, and it'll stick around for a while. It could, because it has the right ingredients.

What are those ingredients? Well, following the late Prof. Brian Stonehill of the Claremont Colleges, we teach our students that the elements of a successful story are "heart, smarts and sparkle." DOND has the opportunity for smarts if one wants to take advantage of it: Trying to outguess the Banker. What will he offer this time? What are the odds of winning? At what point does it make financial sense to take the deal? Some of us who don't use the math centers of our brain much get a chance to work them out here.

And it certainly has sparkle. The set itself is incredibly well-designed; staying tuned last week to the premiere of 1 vs. 100, the second show was almost unwatchable because its set was so boring to look at after DOND. Howie Mandel (whom I will always think of as Dr. Fiscus from St. Elsewhere) is absolutely compelling, and runs the show with a wicked charm that's incredibly watchable. And oh yeah, there are those 26 lovely, always smiling "ladies" in their short, tight dresses. Perhaps that might add a little "sparkle" for some viewers (all I know is, Lee is always in the room when they enter the set. Hmm.).

DOND is a little short on heart. I think it's interesting that they've been adding that in their choice of contestants. More and more, the contestants seem to be "themed," so that the show can make offers that tug on the heartstrings. The woman last week who was a major Jets fan, and had offered the ultimate Jets package (season tickets, meet the team, and more, plus about $100K) -- Would she give up a temptation specially designed for her just to keep earning her daughter's college education?

But what Lee and I found interesting was the fact that every week (actually, 3 times a week), the audience gets to watch a little morality play. The show isn't about gambling, because the contestants aren't playing with their own money. No matter what, even if they walk away with $10, they end up with more than they came in with. No, the show is really a test of personal integrity and character.

How greedy are you? How easily manipulated are you? Will you listen to the crowd screaming "No deal" -- or to your daffy husband/wife/best friend screaming "no deal" -- when logic says you should hit the button and take the deal? Do you have the courage to say yes to something good rather than holding out for a fantasy that, odds are, will never happen? Do you give in to temptation when Howie becomes the voice of the devil, saying "But you could have the $1,000,000 in your case," even though you know the odds of that are astronomically low?

I think that's the appeal of the show, which, face it, is otherwise pretty lame as a game show (I mean, the contestants don't have to know a thing, they just guess their way through it all). It's the Garden of Eden, three hours a week, with pretty ladies thrown in for good measure. It's a chance for us to test our own levels of greed, of manipulability, of susceptibility to temptation.

All in the guise of a dumb game show. Who knew?

THIS IS SO ABSOLUTELY WRONG...

I love easy Halloween costumes. Last year, Cory wore a blue shirt covered with cotton balls and carried a squirt bottle of water around -- he was "Partly cloudy, chance of rain." This year, he is covering himself with "Hello My Name Is" name tags with a different name written on each one, and going as an identity crisis. (The 99 cent costume. Gotta love it.)

Sabrina is a bit more complicated this year. She is velcroing toy cars all over herself and going as something really scary: the 405 Freeway. (Okay, you have to live in L.A. to fully appreciate that one.)

I doubt I'll ever have need of a Halloween costume again. Somewhere in a box I have the pieces of my old can-can dancer costume, which I suppose I could squeeze into if I had to. But in the meantime, all I know is that this quiz came out so very wrong.....

Your Haloween Costume Should Be

Elvis

What Should You Be For Halloween?

How about you?

GIVING UP ON STUDIO 60

I'm genuinely sorry to say that I think I've watched my last episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

I wanted to like it. As I said in my initial review, I love many of these actors, and I'm a big fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing in general, especially his dialogue. I don't think I missed an episode of The West Wing, and I was a huge Sports Night fan.

But they lost me completely and totally in the opening teaser last night.

No, it wasn't a remark about "crazy Chrstians" or the like. Actually, I've found the "Christian" storyline rather ham-fisted not particularly realistic, and not very interesting. It hasn't bothered me at all the way it's bothered others.

What lost me was a speech by the character played by Christine Lahti, apparently a "real" news reporter assigned to write a story on the show-within-a-show. On and on she went about how IMPORTANT Studio 60 is. And when the Matthew Perry character demurs, trying to say, hey it's just a TV show, she didn't shrug and say, "Yeah, you're right." No, instead, the speechifying continued: This show is IMPORTANT!!!!! And by implication, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is also IMPORTANT!

Sorry. But it's just a TV show. Yes, pop culture is important, sociologically, spiritually. But any one TV show -- especially a show purporting to clone SNL, which was so over a couple of decades ago -- is just not IMPORTANT in and of itself.

I truly hate to say it, as I really am a fan. But I think Sorkin needs to get over himself.

At any rate, that one speech lost me, one of his biggest fans. I won't be weighing in on future discussions of "the" Christian character in prime time... because I won't be there.

Let me know if anything happens, okay?

TV THOUGHTS: HEROES

This was our family's most highly anticipated new show of the year. The incessant promos over the summer really drew us in. We couldn't wait.

And now, three episodes in, I'm not really sure if I hate the show or love it.

The concept, if you haven't seen it, is that people all over the world are newly discovering superpowers of one sort or another, pretty much simultaneously. And they've come up with some interesting characters and some interesting superpowers.

There's the cheerleader who can't be hurt (burns heal, bones snap back into place, etc.). There's the Japanese comic book geek who has managed to bend the space-time continuum, rolling the clock backwards and teleporting from place to place (without much control so far). There's the pair of brothers, one a politician, the other a loser, who can fly -- but the politician needs to keep it all secret. There's the down-on-her-luck single mom in Vegas who has a violent and vengeful doppleganger who lives in a mirror. There's the well-meaning cop who can read thoughts. There's the artist who finds himself painting scenes from the future -- both as fine art (which he then finds mirrored in front page photographs) and as comic books (which tell the story of the Japanese comic book geek). There's the son of the Indian professor who was tracking all these phenomena.

And to drive everything forward, there's the still-shrouded-in-some-mystery villain who is trying to track them all down and presumably stop them. And he happens to be the dad of the cheerleader (who's adopted, by the way, so maybe he could take her down without much compunction).

It's all a great character design, and the show works incredibly well on a "What happens next?" level.

But.

First, I have some serious problems with how this show was promoted. Our kids really wanted to see it. And based on the promos, we let them see the pilot. Oops. Mistake. The pilot contained what bordered on soft porn (the Vegas girl doing phone/video sex to pay off her debts to the Mob) -- Cory actually ended up putting his hands in front of his face and saying "Mom, I don't think this is appropriate."

At first we thought, well, we'll fast forward through the inappropriate scenes. But by episode two, when we were dealing with cut up bodies in the trunk of a car, it was clear that this show was not going to be appropriate for kids in any way, shape or form. So why did they market it in a way that (older) kids would be so attracted? Frankly, this should be a 10:00 show, not a 9:00 show.

My other problem is the unevenness of the show. Some of the character storylines are just not that interesting (the two brothers, for instance, and even the professor's son tracking the "heroes"). Because there are so many characters, you don't have to wait long to have someone you care about show up onscreen, but it would be nice to even things out a bit. Not by dumbing down the storylines that really work, but by bringing the weak ones up to the level of the top storyline--

Which is, without a doubt, the story of Hiro (ha ha), the Japanese comic book geek. So very wonderfully played by Masi Oka, with a level of pure joy and exuberance rarely seen on TV. I could frankly bail on all the other characters, but he's worth coming back to week after week, just to see what happens to him.

Maybe we should just cut together Hiro's scenes for the kids -- all appropriate, all paying off the implied promise of the promos, and all wonderful.

Bottom line: An adults-only show worth watching -- at least for a while. But if they can't develop the "What happens next" intensity of Lost, they may not hold on to the extremely healthy ratings they've enjoyed so far.

THE BOOK IS ALMOST HERE

I received the proof copy for What Will Harry Do?: The Unofficial Guide to Payoffs and Possibilities in Book 7 today. That, if you just started visiting this blog, is the cleaned-up, prettied-up book version of all the set-ups and payoffs posts about Harry Potter that first appeared here. (But just 'cause you read them here doesn't mean you don't have to buy the book!)

I have a lot of proofing to do -- I don't like the margins, so that'll be a significant change. And of course, there's the page by page read-through to do. And I realized I forgot a spoiler warning -- probably pretty necessary!

But, oh, does it look pretty! (Thanks to the stunning cover designed by Joseph Rubio. Thank you, Joseph!)

Should be available in a matter of weeks. Keep tuned!

THOUGHTS ON A PLANE CRASH

I listen to the news often while driving around, and today was a big errand/driving day. So I was listening to the news of the plane crashing into the condo building in New York City for quite a while.

A few thoughts...

1) How in the world does a pilot crash into a building by accident? (Pete, if you're reading this, maybe you can elucidate us. Use language we can understand, please.)

2) Most of the L.A. coverage consisted of them basically feeding us the live feed from WCBS in New York City. I was very impressed with the coverage. No extraneous chitchat, no speculation as to what "might" have happened, just straightforward reporting of facts in the clearest and most concise possible manner. Quite a difference from the "happy chat" and personal interjections that invade even the 'hardest' of L.A. news. (It was odd to listen to the NYC traffic reports though, and hear reports on bridges and tunnels rather than freeways.)

3) Do you think a plane crash in NYC would ever have been covered in L.A. minute-to-minute, live, without even breaking for commercials, before 9/11/01? I certainly don't. A major incident, sure, but a local one, not one that merits wall-to-wall coverage 3000 miles away. And any other kind of plane crash, even in New York (say, a plane that crashed into the Hudson River), probably wouldn't have gotten such coverage. But things are different now.

...Remember the days when we could hear of a plane crashing into a building and not immediately think about terrorism?... Remember...?

HOW MUCH IS YOUR LIFE WORTH?

Gee, I would have thought the answer would be somewhere around $.16.

Your Life Is Worth...

$225,500

How Much Is Your Life Worth?

How 'bout you? (If the comboxes are deigning to work...)

AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US

For me, as for many, the stunning point about the massacre inside the Amish schoolhouse a few days ago was not that it occurred -- though the location certainly did feel like something you'd only find in a movie.

It was the reaction of the Amish community to the murder of their children.

Their immediate response -- not one that had to be summoned up as the "right" thing to say -- was to forgive the murderer.

Huh?

Yeah, I mean, I know Jesus says we're supposed to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, yada yada. But when was the last time you actually saw someone do that? And we're in a battle, right? We're soldiers! Soldiers don't forgive! They decimate whatever stands in their way, right? ...Right?...

The stories about the Amish choice to forgive -- including this by Terry Mattingly and this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- ripped at my heart.

I was glad because the world was seeing truly Christian behavior modeled before them. No hypocrisy, no "do what I say, not what I do." Just unimaginable, mysterious, makes-no-sense love.

And I was sad because I know that I couldn't respond that way. I was raised by parents who devoted much of their emotional energy to holding grudges -- grudges against people who had wronged them 20, 40, 60 years previously... even grudges against people they'd never met. The mere concept of forgiveness was a completely unknown quanity in my house.

But now, thanks to the Amish, I have a very real and present image before of what forgiveness really looks like, even in this fallen world. And millions of other people have that image as well.

And that, even more than the thought of those horribly murdered little girls, makes me want to cry.

TV THOUGHTS: STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP

I like to catch two or three episodes of a show before weighing in, so I realize I'm voicing my thoughts a little later than everyone else on Studio 60. Maybe that's not a bad thing.

Oddly enough, Studio 60 made me think of Bay City Blues. You may not remember BCB -- it was an extraordinarily short-lived show in the '80s about a baseball team.

Why would Studio 60 remind me of Bay City Blues?

Here's the thing. Way back when, Stephen Bochco summed up Hill Street Blues this way: "Life is hell, but we're cops." In other words, the show is about people who can at least try to make a difference. Bochco explored the same theme with NYPD Blue, and many of his other shows were variations on a theme: L.A. Law ("Life is hell, but we're lawyers"). Even Commander in Chief ("Life is hell, but I'm the President.") And of course, there have been tons of "Life is hell but we're doctors" shows through the years too.

But "Life is hell and we're baseball players" just didn't work. Imagine that.

Well, Studio 60 has much the same fundamental flaw. There's really nothing at stake if these characters succeed or fail. All they're doing is putting on a TV show. The fate of the free world is not an issue here ("Life is hell but we work for the President of the United States" -- yeah, that works).

So all we're left with is a soap opera -- a clever, very well-cast soap. But that's fundamentally the primary source for the episodes' storylines: the conflict between the characters.

Except structurally, Studio 60 is presented as a procedural show -- think CSI or Law and Order. The weekly "case" for Studio 60 is not a murder, it's an episode of late night TV. Will the show get on the air?!! Unfortunately, the lack of stakes pops up again. Justice is not served if our characters meet their goals. Lives are not saved if our characters meet their goals. No, all that's at stake is whether the fictional audience of the fictional show-within-a-show was pleasantly diverted for 90 fictional minutes.

Ultimately, nothing happens by the end of every episode. The show will go on. The main characters will all keep their jobs. So we have no incentive to stay tuned to see what happens next -- something that reality shows have mastered beautifully (Who gets voted off? Who doesn't finish the race?).

"Let's put on a show!" can get old fast. Can Aaron Sorkin sustain it for 24 hours? Maybe. He's an awfully clever writer, he's designed his characters well, the show is quite watchable. But I can't believe anyone else could have sold this show, because anyone else would have had to answer the question: How do we get to 100 episodes?

The show is well-cast and well-acted. I like seeing Brad Whitford on the small screen, ditto with Matt Perry, Amanda Peet, Steven Weber. Heck, I even like the bald guy whose name I can't remember but who was hilarious on the short-lived It's, Like, You Know. (I can't figure out why they're wasting Tim Busfield, though. And what is Weber's character's job title, anyway?)

But there are problems. I think it's a problem that Amanda Peet appears to be the funniest person on the show -- and she plays the network exec. The people who are supposed to be funny largely aren't. The show-within-the-show looks pretty lame. Not as lame as SNL has become. But lame.

And then there's the "Christian" non-controversy. Ooooh, a Christian character in prime time! Ooooh, the show-within-the-show is doing a sketch called "Crazy Christians."

Sorry, but I can't get too worked up about any of this. Yes, he put a Christian character on his show (Harriet, played by Sarah Paulson). Good for him. He hasn't written her particularly well, however. She gets the Christian jargon wrong often. She seems to totally define herself by her religious stance, which is totally unrealistic for any Christian in Hollywood. But it's a start, and there are interesting places the character could go -- whether Sorkin realizes what those are I'm not so sure.

Why did he create this character? Was it to have a convenient means to slam Christians? I actually don't think so. I think he's trying to write her right -- he just doesn't know how.

I think he created the character of Harriet for two reasons: (a) He deep-down-inside knows his show is about nothing, and he needs to create conflict by any means possible. And throwing a Christian into Hollywood certainly feels like the ultimate fish-out-of-water, with conflict ready made. (b) He dated Kristen Chenowyth, a Christian, while she was working on West Wing, and clearly she got under his skin in some ways. I trust she has some thick skin, because I'm guessing we'll see elements of their true-life relationship played out in the Harriet-Matt relationship.

And I think that's pretty much it. A Christian character, in this venue, is interesting. It allows for controversy, both fictional and real -- and a show like this needs controversy to find something to write about week after week (witness how quickly the show resorted to the 8-year-old DUI mug shot story surrounding Amanda Peet's character -- the kind of storyline that feels like a 3rd or 4th season "What-story-haven't-we-done-yet?" episode. Yet they trudged it out in the 3rd episode).

Of course we'll never see the "Crazy Christians" sketch. It only exists to provoke enough controversy to get people to tune in (and maybe to see if Christians would foolishly take the bait and protest in real life a sketch that never existed -- and we all know there are Christians gullible enough to do just that). The "patriotism" issue brought up in the 3rd episode (with no payoff, by the way -- sloppy plotting) is the same thing -- It's an effort to make the show feel edgy, relevant, important... and at the same time, an effort to get people to tune in by courting non-existent controversy (and probably also just a little bit of a West Wing hangover for Sorkin).

People who are all incensed about the show need to take a deep breath and see if they're incensed about something that's actually on the air, or something they think might be on the air. And then change the channel, if need be.

I think many people will change the channel over the upcoming episodes. Not because they're offended, but because ultimately, nothing is happening. That's a problem endemic to a "backstage" show. What that means is, in any behind-the-scenes show we have to enjoy the ride, because it's not really going anywhere.

I enjoy the ride. I've always been a fan of Sorkin's dialogue, and I love some of these actors. So I'll stick with the show, for this season at least.

But it's no Sports Night.

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?

I actually started off doing a "How Much Do You Weigh?" quiz which was astonishingly accurate -- only one pound off! -- and that's without asking any height questions. But no way am I going to post that here or anywhere else!

So instead here is a question I'm sure my kids have wondered about me many times...

You Are From Saturn

You're steady, organizes, and determined to achieve your dreams. You tend to play it conservative, going by the rules (at least the practical ones). You'll likely reach the top. And when you do, you'll be honorable and responsible. Focus on happiness. Don't let your goals distract you from fun! Don't be too set in your ways, and you'll be more of a success than you ever dreamed of.

What Planet Are You From?

How 'bout you?