You know, Jones was good though his character had its limitations, but I felt Summer carried the show, and part of the problem with the show was that it steered away from Cameron. During the so-called Terminator-of-the-week phase that so many criticized, there was one superb standalone episode which remains one of my all time favorites, Self Made Man, which was all Cameron. It demonstrated, to me, at least, that if they wanted to rescue the series, there was a simple way to do it, and that was to change who the show focussed on. Alas, if anything, they reduced her involvement to the minimum by the end of the series, even when the character itself was important.

Jessica Alba apparently swore off television forever when Dark Angel was canceled. I know Glau is going to the movies right now, but I hope she’s not doing it with the same sour taste in her mouth about TV. Whoever’s to blame, Firefly and T:SCC, like DA, are both exercises in television mismanagement. She’s a fantastic actress, and I hope we see more of her.

You’re right, I don’t know why I wrote Anderson instead of Jones. Too many early morning posts.

But Jones screwed up one time in an interview. He was saying how in the “Mr. Ferguson” episode he finally got a chance to work with Lena, Tom, and…Cameron. Then he quickly corrected himself, “I mean, Summer”.

See – even the ACTORS actually thought of Summer as Cameron! That’s how good Summer was at that role.

I think at least one of the 3 new scripted dramas (Glee, Human Target, of Fox will get cancelled and Past Life.

OUTSIDE SHOT: Large building. Caption: Catherine Weaver’s Secret Lair
SCENE: Small concrete room with “John Henry Control Room” on sign. SARAH CONNOR is fussing around a box with a clock and some wires on a workbench. MCELLISON looks completely confused.

SARAH: By the looks of this timer, we only have fifteen seconds to defuse this bomb!

MCELLISON: What the hell? Why am I being played by Richard Anderson?

SARAH: It’s OK, you’re playing played by Richard “T” Anderson, not Richard Dean Anderson. Ten seconds McEllison.

MCELLISON: That’s still not right. What am I doing here? And why does this sheet of paper have a list of names on it followed by the word “Terminated”, including some guy called Richard Dean Hack? Who he?

SARAH: We don’t have time for this, it’s obviously just some mistake by the screenwriters. Five seconds McEllison!

MCELLISON stands there looking totally confused.

SARAH: Two seconds McEllison!

MCELLISON suddenly comes to his senses
MCELLISON: Quick! Pass me that bible!

*boom*

Even if you review several different actors performing the same audition, it could well be in any given case that the conclusions drawn pertain more to the material or the reviewers than the relevant and relative abilities of the performers. Naturally the goal is to prevent that from being the case. I’m just not convinced they’re always or even necessarily usually successful in achieving that.

Basically, what I am opposed to is the flat, unqualified statement that a specific performer is “abysmal” as an actor either in general or on a specific show because they didn’t test well on a panel or because some fans on a Web site say so. While it might be a true fact, it’s not provably so based on the evidence.

Saying that a show’s ratings are being primarily influenced by the wider viewing audience not liking a specific performer on the show based on the testing results of a panel does not seem to me to logically follow. It might be the reason for a show’s ratings, but that’s not automatically the case. Other factors may have much more influence. Only if you can establish that the other factors aren’t present or present in sufficient degree can you say a specific person’s performance is the primary issue.

In my time, I’ve seen way too many people claim an actor to be lousy when I saw no evidence of that. What I’ve seen evidence of is that everybody wants to be a critic and has no shortage of opinions. I get accused of that all the time because of specific criticisms I made of TSCC over the past nine months or so. So I find it hypocritical to make pronouncements about someone being “lousy” based on either personal opinion or some panel test the details of which no one knows and which clearly made no difference in the casting of the individual.

I assume that anybody who keeps working is considered a good enough actor to be bankable by the people producing the material they’re in. Or in the case of somebody like Raquel Welch, who *I* always thought of as “abysmal”, that they are at least bankable for other reasons if not good acting. You can claim someone is getting hired because their relatives own the company, and that will undoubtedly be true in some cases, but it’s really rare that you see an entire career based on that. (I’m sure someone will pop up with some individual example now, claiming it invalidates my last statement, despite the obvious logical fallacy!)

For me, if an actor delivers a line and I don’t care how that line was delivered, the actor was fine. Period. End of story.

I had some minor problems with Thomas Dekker in some scenes on TSCC in season 2. I think he’s adequate as an actor, but he needs better directing, maybe. But I don’t claim he’s “abysmal” or “dull” or whatever. He also did a lot of very good scenes on that show. I don’t think he’s anywhere near as good as Lena Headey or Summer Glau.

Some people found Richard T. Anderson dull and a bad actor on TSCC. I thought he was fine, given what his character was defined as.

I just don’t think I’m qualified to say who is a bad actor and who isn’t based on anything other than personal opinion or specific reasons I can point to in a specific scene. And neither are most other people who aren’t actors.

And I don’t think various fad technologies are a substitute for experience and expertise in the craft.

It’s all just too amorphous to take seriously. So I take all this stuff with a deer size lick of salt.

I’ve been lurking for a while and don’t really post, but I think your reaction to panel-based evaluations of actors is interesting. You write that, “[C]laiming someone is a ‘bad actress’ based on hideously bad writing or directing or the actor’s reaction to that is inappropriate.” However, these panels often review multiple actors performing the exact same material, so I don’t think the fault always rests with some external factor.

More importantly, I don’t understand your basic aversion to networks using public opinion panels to make decisions, considering the fact that a broadcast network by its very definition traffics in the business of public opinion. They would be remiss if they didn’t utilize that metric.

I’m not saying that such panels produce “objective” data in the “hey, I just discovered penicillin” kind of way — but they certainly can serve as predictors for how networks can maximize profits, which is the networks’ purpose for existing. I don’t get why you object to the panels’ value so vigorously.

(In the spirit of full disclosure, I love “Fringe” and have no problem with any of the cast members.)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a153887/stephen-fry-on-well-everything.html

Since I’ve only seen either of them in one series so far, I wouldn’t presume to compare them other than to say I find them both quite adequate for the roles they’re in now. It’s how the those roles are written and directed that seems problematical for one or the other.

Anyway with this schedule I’d expect Fox to put up another strong year next season. Glee is a question mark for me as to whether it will be a success but it should get a decent rub from Idol/Dance. Dance should be enough of a hit to sustain itself, but I’m hoping that they just stick with it being a fall series next year, because a summer and fall season is too much.

It’s a shame Fox doesn’t have a 10pm hour, I think they could actually handle it properly, unlike NBC or ABC.

Micro-expressions have to be interpreted, and people are going to interpret them differently. The panel audiences may have more problems with Torv than Dushku, but I really doubt one can make the case that it’s solely the problem of the individual being examined. It could just as easily be a problem with the material being presented at the time which is used to represent the person being examined, or the selection of the panel audience, even if you use sophisticated demographic selection protocols.

It’s like blaming being gay or any other behavioral pattern on solely genetics. There’s too much going on between the genetic level and the behavioral level to make such a claim. It’s the old “genetics vs environment” argument.

While researching this, I came across a site that promises to improve profitability for feature films by analyzing them with this sort of thing and fixing “problems” with the films. But one page on the site says (heavily paraphrasing) they can’t make predictions about negative results on horror films because they can’t distinguish whether the negative impression on the audience is due to the INTENDED negative impression the film WANTS to produce or an UNINTENDED negative impression caused by poor representation of the intent of the film.

So I can easily see them running some clips or episodes of a series featuring an actor and getting entirely different results depending on the actor’s reaction to given scenes or even the intent of those scenes. No doubt they attempt to control for that sort of thing, but it’s never going to be perfect. Mistakes will be made.

So claiming someone is a “bad actress” based on hideously bad writing or directing or the actor’s reaction to that is inappropriate. One could only do that if one reviews a significant portion of the actor’s output over the course of their career from different genres, etc.

It’s just too hard to be set up a “control factor” for this sort of thing. I have real doubts about the accuracy of any sort of technology like this. Lie detection was used for decades – and still is – before scientists determined it was almost complete crap. The same applies to voice stress analysis.

These things are “fads” in science. They take an underlying reality of human behavior and extrapolate it way beyond where it is justified in being used to make decisions about human behavior overall.

Add in people trying to make money or careers out of it – and it becomes a con job.

You don’t do that at a PR event (although I’d love it if they did) intended to make people watch your “quality programming” (I love that phrase, every network exec uses it like “Mom and apple pie” or Dick Cheney used “Al Qaeda” in 2002.)

I fully expect Fringe to drop to 7-8 million live viewers tops and a 2.0-2.5 demo by end of its season. That could change up or down based on what Abrams does with the mythology and whether he adjusts the procedural vs serial ratio of the episodes and within the episodes up or down. But I think if it holds at the level I suggest it will be back for a season 3 unless Fox thinks they have something better in the wings.

I just find it funny that Anna Torv gets beat on for being a lousy, distracting actress when her show does a 2.8 in the demo, while Eliza Dushku is supposed to be a good actress while being the main complaint about a show doing a 1.0 demo. What’s wrong with this picture?

Fox Studios (who make the show and put out the DVD) and Fox Network (which decides whether to buy it and put it on television) are two different companies. Sister companies, but still two different companies.

Fox Studios HAD to produce the 13th episode, because they were contracted to provide 13 for their international distribution and they wanted 13 for the DVD.

Fox Television has not yet, as far as I know, agreed to purchase the broadcast rights for the 13th episode. They may never do so. If they do purchase the rights, they will definitely air it, as they aren’t a part of the other deals. (Thisi s why they’ll show the pilot for Virtualities July 4, even though they aren’t picking up the series.)

I know it gets confusing since everyone just says “Fox” most of the time, but they really are two different sets of decision-makers and two different budgets.

If in fact, as we have heard from folks, that the reason Dollhouse is coming back is that its going to be crazy cheap for a scripted show, I understand why Reilly’s answer could not have been “We’re bringing it back because we got a screamin’ good deal”, but to infer that DVR viewing is important because it was an element of his smokescreen answers is goofy.

I expect that Dollhouse will be pulled before it finishes its run in the Fall.

In terms of who he’d play they’ve both apparently keen on the idea of him being the ‘anti-House’ – an excellent diagnostician who is insufferably nice to people. He has however said that he doesn’t think he’d play a patient, presumably because he wouldn’t get to work with Hugh enough and that would kind of defeat the purpose of it.

I don’t know how much of an event Stephen Fry as a guest star would really be for anything more than a small number of people.

Jason- Execs sugar-coat. And by sugar-coat, I mean lie. For Dollhouse, it’s not about fan bases. They only way the die-hard (read: small) fanbase would influence this show, is if Dollhouse merchandise was a huge seller. Have you SEEN any DH merch around? I haven’t. No Dollhouse headache medicine, no “Dollhouses Guide to: Being a Hostage Negotiator” book series, no fan mags, nothing. Like Robert said, this is about cost-cutting. Cutting the cost of a returning show is incredibly cheaper than paying development for a new show.

If those things were truly important, TSCC would be back. I still think cost/benefit is far more important (particularly, in this case, cost). Ask FOX how much more revenue they made on Dollhouse as a result of DVR viewing. You’ll be waiting a while for an answer. I’m sure they did make slightly more with the DVR viewers due to remote free limited commercial interruptions, but this was about costs.

I’m sorry to the Whedon fans, but Dollhouse was nothing compared to Angel, Buffy, or even had the potential of Firefly.

Dushku cannot carry a show, end of story.

After that blatant, straightforward statement, how can you still hesitate to buy DVR viewing as a factor at all?

@nkinsey, I get that feeling too about Earl. I was kind of hoping Fox would have picked it up (which they may still do) and put it on their Sunday night schedule, most likely as a lead-in to The Simpsons, Family Guy, Cleveland, American Dad, etc. It couldn’t do any worse than that woeful animated school thing which got cancelled after 4 episodes. Anyway, I know the Earl cliffhanger wasn’t as earth-shattering as either Bones or Fringe, particularly Fringe’s (which blew my mind), but I’ve been with Earl since the Pilot and I would like to see it end properly, even if only enough episodes are made to get it to 100. But even I’ll admit, Earl’s best days are behind it.

TomSD-America’s Got Talent started running into the fall season last year. Look for it to go well into August-Sept again this year.

third- I think he signed for two seasons. Granted, it was a Hugh Laurie contract, not a House contract. But still…

It’d be awesome if Fry came in for a few episodes as some sort of a doctor and competition with Hugh with them taking jabs at each other. Pipe dream, probably, but still cool to think about. How much longer is Hugh signed up for anyway? That’s by far my favorite show on air now and I’d like them to go for at least a couple more.

http://www.pvponline.com/

Also, just having thought it, and this is probably one for Bill and/or Robert, I notice that NBC’s “My Name Is Earl” is not on either Fox schedule. I was under the (misguided?) impression that if NBC decided to cancel “Earl”, even though it’s so close to the magical 100 episodes for syndication, that Fox would pick it up. Do you think we could assume that NBC will be renewing “Earl”, even it’s just for a fall season or the 6 episodes it needs to get that magical 100? I’d welcome some opinions on that, if people wouldn’t mind indulging me.

House has been pretty much a sure thing ever since they signed the amazing Hugh for a couple more seasons.

Kathy- I don’t think “competition” is the right word, since it is comparing FOX to CW. I think even if some of the Fringe audience picks Supernatural over Fringe, FOX will STILL get way bigger numbers. It’s all about stealing market share, and with Grey’s and CSI posting their lowest numbers, the time is right.

Also, I am very pleased that Fox have finally confirmed House’s sixth season because it would have been nothing short of insanity to cancel the highest rated scripted drama they have. Congratulations to everyone on House, still my favourite show on TV with Lie to Me not that far behind.

Frankly, I think the only reason SYTYCD does so well over the summer is because of the lack of summertime original programming — once it faces “real” fall competition, I have the feeling the show will sink and drag down “Glee” with it. I think it’s a lot bigger of a risk than maybe Robert thinks (IMHO), only because “Glee’s” fate is riding on the success of SYTYCD this fall.

Sometimes it feels like people enjoy the act of complaining more than the thing they are complaining about. Dollhouse is popular because it’s Whedon, but it fell on its face because it simply isn’t a good show. My bet is that it will get even lower ratings than last season.

My only fear is that if this doesn’t work, it could really hit FOX’s 18-49. We killed 3Q (the summer) with SYTYCD and Hell’s Kitchen. So now that both of those shows air fall and spring, that leaves summer without any proven performers.