The BillPages

According to Mark Morford at SFGate.com, the above quote can be attributed to the late and - unfortuantely - lamented Jerry Falwell.

It's out of context, of course. I don't personally know what the Reverend Falwell was yammering about when he said that. But I'm willing to bet that I disagreed with it. I disagreed with just about everything I've ever heard him say, so I figure it's a safe bet. Jerry believed - or said he believed - that God had revealed a truth to him, and that this truth involved hating gays, liberals, foreigners... everyone who wasn't Jerry Falwell, basically. A lot of his stronger statements drew protests, but never an apology. Not even this one, form the 13th of September 2001:

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen.

Yep. Nearly 3000 Americans died because, in part, of Jm J Bullock and Ellen Degeneres.

I'm happy to say the opposition to this kind of hate-mongering in the name of religion is seriously stepping up. The glorious interweb is a hotbed of valid Skeptic dialogue (as well as less-valid dogma-bashing), and the Agnostic and Athiest segments of society are finally finding a voice. Please do yourself a favour, and check out the following:

Kirk Cameron and his banana-loving buddy Ray Comfort are challenged to present scientific evidence of the existence of God (challenged only because they claimed they could) and are given no less a platform than ABC's Nightline from which to do it. They are opposed by The Rational Response Squad, a pair of outspoken skeptics. ABC's website offers the entire "debate" as free (with commercials) streaming video.

Christopher Hitchens is nearly impossible to argue against. It doesn't matter if you think he's right or wrong, he simply knows more than you do, and is much, much better at speaking to his point. His skills as a debator are enhanced by a dry, acerbic wit that can be devastating to those he deems unworthy, which seems to be almost everyone. He has at times said things as least as offensive as Falwell's comments, but unlike the late Reverend (an honourific Hitchens abhors) Christopher can usually back his statements up with case study and precedence. His new book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" is at least as provocative as the title suggests, and he got a chance to defend his point of view against another Reverend, erstwhile Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton. Slate magazine, for which Hitchens writes a regular column, has complete video of the event.

Hitchens has his own take on Jerry Falwell, as well. Quite the Eulogy, Chris.

But the biggest anti-God guy of the year has got to be Richard Dawkins. The Oxford University professor, sometimes called "Darwin's Bulldog" has been doing a world tour to promote his book, "The God Delusion", in which he uses many tools, not least his own considerable scientific knowledge, to refute the idea that God exists at all. His two-part BBC documentary "The Root Of All Evil" explores similar themes to Hitchens' "God Is Not Great", and a new documentary is apparently in the works. Recently he stopped by CBC's the Hour.

There's a lot of video out there. Unedited, free and unabashedly skeptical. Spread the word.

rAmen, brothers.

Late in February Craig (late of the blogosphere) asked what I thought of the current T.V. Season in general. I responded in far too much detail. Here, with a few updates to cover the six weeks, is what I've been watching...

I'm generally pretty up on this season, more so than the nets, apparently, who canceled a couple of shows I liked.

New shows that are keepers:

30 Rock: Alec Baldwin is hilarious. This show has been consistently hilarious.
Jericho: This one came back strong after it's hiatus.
Knights Of Prosperity: This one will probably fade on me, but for now I'm enjoying it. (update: it faded.)
Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip: Not as strong lately as when it kicked off, and getting put on hold in favour of "The Donnellys" won't help, but I still like it. Still waiting on official word of a cancellation, hoping against hope for a pick-up.
Shark: It's all about James Woods, which is fine with me. His daughter is getting annoying, though.
Heroes: Of course. Time-travel stupidity aside, I do like this show. And by the start of the next season, it'll be okay to lust after the cheerleader.

New shows that aren't:

The Nine: Gave up after three or four episodes. The net gave up after only a couple more.
Vanished: Aptly titled. Already canned.
Friday Night Lights: I just don't care about football. My problem, I guess.

Shows that I wish stuck around:

Justice: I really enjoyed Victor Garber as the unethical lawyer, but that ended up as a show-down between Garber and James Woods on 'Shark', and I don't think anyone ever doubted who the winner there would be. U.K.'s ITV aired a couple of eps that never got play in the U.S.
Smith: Not sure if this would have been great or not, but the acting was excellent, and three episodes was not enough time to really develop.
Daybreak: I was enjoying this, and I've managed to download a bunch more episodes that never aired, but I haven't got around to watching them yet. Maybe it starts to suck, soon.

Away from the major networks, I'm big on Psych, the not-really-a-psychic detective show on USA, and so far I'm enjoying The Dresden Files from Sci-Fi. Caught the first season of a U.K. show called Primeval (the second is greenlit) and really enjoyed it.

Kidnapped, Men In Trees, Runaway, Standoff, Ugly Betty, Brothers And Sisters... can't even think of the others I never bothered trying with. Most of the new sitcoms.

For returning series, both Veronica Mars and Lost are way less interesting this season. I thought the Liev Schreiber story arc on C.S.I. was really interesting, as was/is the Miniature Killer ongoing plot. On the L&O side of things, the two ex-Conviction cast members (who are both very hot) are fitting in nicely as detectives. Jennifer Love Hewitt is wearing some wonderfully revealing clothing this season on Ghost Whisperer but Medium continues to actually be a better show. Battlestar's finale ROCKED. The Atlantis finale was... interesting. So what, they're Voyager now? And in a recent SG-1, Vala Mal Doran dressed up in daisy dukes, so hooray. I'm going to miss that show. Criminal Minds benefits from the recent inclusion of Paget Brewster. Monk is still Monk, cute but insubstantial. House was on the verge of losing me with the David Morse storyline, but has been good since. We need more Lisa Edelstein! Supernatural is really good. Funny, good, action, nice mix of monster of the week/ongoing story. Solid stuff. And Las Vegas is a babe-filled wonderland. I'm very worried about the loss of James Caan (and a bit about the loss of Nikki Cox) next season. We'll see how Tom Selleck does...

That's my contribution. It's a little gauche, but what the hell.

Collective nouns are often odd, often of obscure origin and often quite fun. We all know "herd of cattle", and players of Trivial Pursuit learned "sleuth of bears", but had you heard of a "cast of hawks" or "peal of bells". "Peal of bells" is a fun one, being a sort-of self contained pun.

Not all of the collective nouns are officially recognized by dictionary compilers. Look up "cast" at Merriam Webster Online, for example, and there's nary a hawk mentioned. But they can be fun, and contribute to a more picturesque language all the same.

I was put in mind of collective nouns today by James Randi (nicely recovered from his heart ailments of the past year, and going on the attack against the woo-woos with renewed vigor). Randi wrote on his Swift commentary today:

I’ve invented a few collective nouns, which I think is a distinct service to the language. (A collective noun is one that designates a group of specific things. For example, the collective noun for “sheep” is “flock,” and for “geese” – when not flying! – is “gaggle.”) I choose to refer to a gathering of psychics as a “giggle,” for conmen, it’s a “fleece,” and for prophets, a “failure.” One wag on the JREF Forum came up with “Congress” as a collective for conmen, but that was unkind. I use an “absence” for a group of homeopaths, I refer to a “confusion” of parapsychologists, and a “cackle” of witches. Palmists are gathered as a “handful,” it’s a “struggle” of astrologers, and more than three phrenologists become a “bump.” And a group of spoonbenders can be called, a “desperation.”

I’m sure there are many more. Any offerings…?

And that reminded me of this offering, from author Jack Whyte...

LE MOT JUST...

We were arguing one evening, as the sun was going down,
About the names we give to groups: The old Collective Noun.
We had gone through prides of lions; schools of fish; brigades of foot,
When I wondered, "What's collective for the poor old prostitute?"

Well! I felt as though I'd stepped upon a hidden hornets' nest,
For each man proposed an answer, and each swore his was the best!
We'd a treasury of trollops, and a tragedy of trulls;
An entire Who's Who of hookers and a calamity of culls...

We'd a pastry cook among us who, in tribute to his arts,
Put forth the obvious image of a tempting tray of tarts,
While a fishmonger there present, who was more than slightly nuts,
Proposed the odious and malodorous catchphrase "a slab of sluts!"

Then our resident militiaman cried out "A troop of tramps!"
But he was shouted down in favour of a vile vendue of vamps;
A convention of solicitors; a haggling horde of whores;
Such invention for the ladies whom society deplores!

No, the task of giving pride of place was not a simple one.
The concubinage of courtesans might easily have won,
Or the hostile hiss of hustlers, but we had to share the rose
Between a bright fanfare of strumpets and an anthology of pros...

Check out Randi's writing here, and Jack's here.

And add your own collective nouns in the comments section, please. (Hmm... a "Bunch of Bloggers", a "Web of Bloggers", an "Annoyance of Bloggers...")

MSNBC has decided to stop airing Imus in the morning. This will disrupt my daily routine not at all.

Don Imus is sort-of the grandfather of shock jocks, known for being abrasively funny and politically incorrect before Howard Stern was even in radio. He has said a number of blatantly stupid and insulting things over the years. His recent remarks were not even close to being the worst.

In a recent airing of his show - which went out live on CBS radio and MSNBC - Imus described members of the Rutger's university women's basket ball team (consisting of a mix of black and white students) as being "nappy headed hos". He laughed as he said it. Clearly, he was joking. The incident can be viewed here, in a clip that includes enough of the show to give context for the 'joke'.

I think we learn two things from watching the clip in it's entirety:

1) Don Imus, whether he is personally racist or not, is not hesitant about using racial stereotypes as the basis for humour.

2) Don Imus is not funny.

Imus could very well be fired. CBS has done it before, for pretty much exactly the same reason. But they'll be firing him for the wrong reasons. He shouldn't be fired for saying something "offensive". He should be fired for saying something "not funny."

I mean, c'mon! You decide it's okay to do racial humour, and the best you can come up with is "nappy headed hos"? Why no Jungle Bunny jokes? No Spearchuckers? You didn't mention fried chicken and watermelon ONCE, you hack!

Let me give you an example of how unfunny Imus is. One of his first big "classic" bits was to call up a restaurant and order 1200 hamburgers. And then... laugh about it. That's the whole bit! Calling up some poor shmuck who's trying to make a living in the zero-margin world of burger flipping and ruin his day. Get this: Imus loved this bit so much HE NAMED A FUCKING RECORD AFTER IT.

Let shock-jocks be shocking. But don't let them be banal. Fire Imus.

Oh, and Whoopi Goldberg should go to hell, the hypocrite.

Why don't eggs taste like chicken?

Just wondering.

How can they call it the perfect bacon sandwich when they aren't even using any peanut butter? That's just wrong, I tell you.

Elvis would not approve.

And that British bacon... if I wanted a small pork chop, I'd eat a small pork chop. Bacon is supposed to be thin, and crisp.

As Adam Carolla says, "it's the candy of meat."

Mmm... bacon.

Imagine the following scenario:

You are an engineer. At an early morning meeting, a recently fired employee makes an unexpected appearance demanding his job back. The argument escalates, the fired man pulls out a pistol, and kills someone. Suddenly you're at mercy of a madman with a gun...

Or

You are a defense lawyer. At a meeting with the members of your firm, a strange man barges in with a former client of yours in tow. The strange man has a pistol, and is demanding that your former client's trial be re-enacted by those present at the meeting, as he is sure the man is guilty of killing his (the stranger's) mother. Suddenly, you're at the mercy of a madman with a gun...

Or

You are a prosecutor. At the sentencing of a convicted killer, a distraught man awaiting his own trial steals a service revolver from a bailiff, and holds the entire courtroom hostage, demanding that his case be reviewed as he is innocent. Suddenly you're at the mercy of a madman with a gun...

Or

You are the mayor of a small town, in a country recently devastated by war. The leader of a group of refugees, angry that they are being asked to leave the town, draws a pistol and shoots you, wounding you severely. He refuses to let anyone give you medical attention until the town is told that the refugees can stay. Suddenly you're at the mercy of a madman with a gun...

You don't have to try too hard to imagine these scenarios. Instead, you can watch last week's Medium, Boston Legal, Shark and Jericho. All four shows featured hostage-taking men who were portrayed as sympathetic because of their desperate circumstances. All in the same week. The same week, incidentally, that some actual high-profile hostage taking was in the news.

What I found interesting was how the criminals were portrayed in such a positive light. In Boston Legal and Medium they weren't evil people. They were people who felt they no longer had any choice. And in Jericho and Shark, the actions of the hostage takers were actually vindicated; it turned out they were right all along. I find this strange in light of the way Americans typically feel about anyone who takes hostages in the real world. Is this liberal agenda TV, or did the TV writers just get it, well, wrong?

Well, they ought to be able to get it right now.

Two more sitcoms (ugh) and two dramas. The season remains fairly bland...

Standoff: Ron Livingstone shows absolutely none of the understated comic genius he displayed in "Office Space" as Matt Flannery, a crisis negotiator for the LAPD. I suppose that's fine, as the show is supposed to be a tense high-stakes drama. But the pilot was not tense, the stakes were not high, and the drama wasn't really... dramatic. Flannery is having an affair with his partner, Emily Lehman played by Rosemarie DeWitt, and those scenes REALLY could have used a sense of humour.

The pair display no real chemistry, the cliche situation of partners who compete on the job and make up in bed, and the hardcase lieutenant (played by Gina Torres) who lets the two get away with way too much because "your the best damn negotiators I've got" got tired real fast.

Happy Hour: A spin on the Odd Couple formula sees conservative Henry Beckham (John Sloan) rooming with rat-pack wannabe Larry Cone (Lex Medlin) after his girlfriend throws him out. Larry attempts to turn Max into a party animal, Henry provides Max with a stable influence.

Like the other sitcom offerings this season, there's not a lot original about this, but I still found a couple of things to laugh at. This one's neither bad nor good. Beth Lacke's "Amanda" is at least a different take on the girl-that's-a-friend-but-not-a-girlfriend stock character, playing an interesting combination of ditz and professional woman. Let's hope they keep it up.

'Til Death: Brad Garrett of Everybody Love Raymond (god, I'm so happy that show is gone) takes centre stage as hapless husband Eddie, who finds himself and his wife of many years suddenly comparing their marriage to the newlyweds next door. No precocious kids means this is at least not a cookie-cutter sitcom, but the laugh track and contrived situations do not bode well. Look for Garrett to be the first post-ELR victim to that show's version of the 'Seinfeld curse.'

Smith: Don't let the boring title mislead you, this is a decent little thriller. If not for the open-ended finish, this could easily be a feature film. Ray Liotta leads as Bobby Stevens, a poor man's Danny Ocean, head of a crew of thieves, each with their own specialty. Liotta is excellent in the role (no surprise) as is Virginia Madsen, playing the wife who suspects but doesn't know, and has a host of problems all her own.

The pilot was a single-caper show, giving the impression that we may see a new heist every week. This would seperate the show from last seasons mini series "Thief", starring Andre Braugher. Look for each of the series' supporting players to develop their own personal problems, particularly Amy Smart's Annie.

This was a nice opening effort, with some genuine tension and some cool action sequences. The purpose of some of the activity during the heist seemed a little vague, and was not cleared up despite the fact that we went over it twice. The Alias-style opener in which we see a glimpse of the climax and then flash back was not really effectively used to that end.

Still no gem for the new season. Still waiting to see Rob Cordry and Lenny Clark in "The Winner" and Tina Fey's "30 Rock." But I'm not holding my breath...

Well, it's been about a month since my last post. I know you've all been very anxious, checking this space daily, and worrying about what may have become of me.

Well, not surprisingly, I've been watching TV.

I've been watching, in fact, a whole pile of the new offerings hitting the networks over the next little while. And what a dissapointing bunch they are. A large number of new shows are using what I would currently call the "Lost" format; a single season- (or series-) long story, with little sub-plots evolving around each individual character. Science fiction is a lot less prevelant than it was this time last year, possibly because of the ultimate failure of shows like Invasion, Surface and Threshold.

Some new stuff so far:

Friday Night Lights: A television re-working of the 2004 Billy Bob Thornton film, which itself was an adaptation of Buzz Bisinger's book. The focus is on high-school football in Texas, and the insane - and I do mean insane - amount of pressure the local community puts on the team, and especially on the coach. If the environment is really like this, and I believe it may be, then the cliche movie character of the loser who has never been able to let go of high-school glory days makes a lot of sense. That is ALL some of these folks live for.

This pilot is really well put together, juggling a very large cast in a way that isn't disorienting. But as a non-sports fan and a non-Texan, the gravitas attached to a high-school sporting event seems strangely overplayed. Expect this one to get very soap-opera, with affairs, back-room dealings and small-town politics making this Dynasty on the gridiron.

Heroes: Superheroes walk amongst us. They just don't know it yet.

They blow this one in the first 30 seconds, but after that it gets good. Superheroes are the vogue right now. X-Men, Batman and Spider-man are doing boffo box-office, and Superman didn't completely suck, so this take on ordinary people finding out extraordinary things about themselves should find a good audience. A very realistic take on people's reactions to their new abilities was fun to watch, and the subtle connections that are hinted at in the pilot should lead to some interesting developments. Do yourself a favour, though. Don't read the title cards that come up at the beginning. They really, really blow.

Jericho: Gerald McRaney stars as the mayor of Jericho, CO, a small town that just may be the last bit of civilization after some kind of nuclear holocaust. Skeet Ulrich is the prodigal son who returns just in time for the excitement. This could be good. McRaney's performance in the pilot is excellent, and the writing is tight and things could develop nicely here. I wonder about the longevity of a series like, this. Like "Lost", this is an isolated group in a high-pressure survival situation. After two years of "Lost", I'm a little tired of it. We'll see how "Jericho" fares.

Justice: Victor Garber (Alias, Titanic) stars as a high-profile attorney with a reputation for getting the guilty acquitted. The Fox Network show is a slicker, more stylish version of NBC's abortive Trial By Jury from last season, with the focus on the defense side instead of the prosecution. As always with Fox 'dramas', one wonders if the show isn't too stylized for it's own good. Garber is good, and has a strong supporting cast including Eamonn Walker from HBOs late and lamented Oz.

A nice twist is the very end of pilot episode, where we find out what REALLY happened, after listening to both prosecution and defense put forth their cases and never knowing who to believe. But that single innovation may not be enough to save the show from being lost admist the glut of murder-focused dramas on the small screen.

Kidnapped: This one is gonna have a tough time, being up against the very similar "Vanished" (see below). The son of a high profile businessman is kidnapped, and rather than call in the FBI he calls in a rogue expert (deftly portrayed by the excellent Jeremy Sisto). Of course the FBI figures out that something is up, and soon the rogue and the bureau must pool their efforts to save the boy.

This single kidnapping is presumably supposed to be the plot for the entire season, or perhaps series depending on how long they can keep audiences interested. Expect every single family member, friend, business associate and perhaps even cop to have a skeleton in their closet that comes into play at some point. This is a movie idea made into a series, and they're going to have to work hard to keep it up.

Knights Of Prosperity: The only actual original idea amongst the crop of new sitcoms so far this fall. Donal Logue (The Tao Of Steve, Grounded For Life) stars as a blue-collar everyman who, frustrated by his lack of success in life, hatches a plot to rob Mick Jagger's New York City apartment. He enlists a crew of fellow losers (and one very hot chick) and wackiness ensues.

I gotta admit, I laughed quite a bit at this. Mostly at the semi-surreal glimpses of Jagger's New York life, presented as a series of "Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous" type clips. Again, though, this seems to be a one-shot idea. More development required.

Our Thirties, The Class, The Singles Table: Why am I lumping all of these in together? Because they are completely interchangeable. Thinly veiled attempts at replacing the gaping hole left by the demise of Friends (no, seriously, some people miss that show) we have three different groups of thrity-somethings, who met in three different ways and each of whom have their own amusing quirks, and yet we end up with three identical sit-coms.

I don't want to sound too harsh. Each has it's charm. Peter "I'm the voice of Darth Maul" Serafinowicz is funny in "Our Thirties", "The Singles Table" is filmed single camera, with a much better look and no laugh track, and "The Class" ... well okay, not all of them have charm. In short, I wasn't a fan of Friends, and I don't need something to replace it.

Raines: This, I think, is set up as a mid-season replacement, waiting in the wings for the inevitable failure of some other show. This is JACS (Just another cop show) but they have all got a twist these days, and this one is no exception. Homicide detective Raines, played by Jeff Goldblum, talks to the victims of the crimes he investigates. They talk back. The victims, of course, are dead.

It's made clear early on that this not Ghost Whisperer with a badge. For one thing, Mr. Goldblum's breasts are not nearly as nice as Jennifer Love Hewitt's. But also, Raines isn't really talking ot the dead. This is just a cop with an overactive imagination, who has come up with an elaborate mechanism to talk to himself. As with any cop show (except Law & Order), the mysteries play second fiddle to the appeal of the hero, and Goldblum's trademark quirkiness serves him well here.

Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip: Aaron Sorkin, creator of the late, great West Wing, brings his walk-and-talk writing and liberal baggage to the world of televsion comedy in this hour-long dramady set backstage at a Saturday-Night-Live-esque sketch show. A stellar cast, including Amanda Peet, Matthew Perry (who I remember more from his excellent guest turn on West Wing then from his 9 year stint on Friends) and Sorkin alumns Bradley Whitford and Timothy Busfield all bring serious game to the show. Sorkin's writing has always sparkled with wit, and the setting of professional comic actors at work really lets him cut loose with that.

My only quibble is that the show's serious moments hold the same weighty self-importance as the serious moments of West Wing did. But we're not talking about world wars here, folks. We're talking about a late night comedy show. They'll have to be wary of their own significance here.

The Angriest Man In Suburbia: What can I say? Another sit-com straight out of the formula box. Wacky dad, precocious kid, hot and over-understanding mom. The shot on this one is the acts of violent rage committed by the central character Bill, portrayed by Mitch Rouse. One or two over-the-top outbursts can make for great comedy, but as the premise for a character - and a series - it's more than a little disconcerting. Especially played in scenes with his kids.

The Black Donnellys: Don't get your hopes up, Canadians. Despite the title, this show has nothing to do with the famous historical Canadian family, massacred in 1880. Instead, it's about a gang of young Irish brothers on the streets of New York, who find themselves caught up in the turf wars and gangland activity between the Irish and Italian mobs. The show plays like a wannabe Scorsese flick, cut for TV. This could shape up into a low-rent Sopranos, but this pilot shows that they've got a long way to go before reaching such heights.

The Nine: Good performances by a talented cast made this pilot more compelling than most I've seen so far this season, but the premise of the show could quickly get annoying. We are introduced to a cast of characters, most of whom don't know each other at all. They all wind up in the same bank at the same time, just as a robbery happens. Flash forward more than two full days. Our nine heroes emerge from the bank having endured a grueling hostage situation. Each has been changed by their shared experience.

There could be some really good stuff, here. Clearly a lot of things happened in the 52 interveneing hours, but we are shown none of it in the pilot. Presumably, flashbacks will play a large part in future episodes. Hopefully, the show's writers have solid ideas about what happened and how they're going to reveal it to the audience. Otherwise, this could get messy and boring real fast. Tim Daly (what happened to Eyes? I loved that show!), Chi Mcbride and John Billingsly all do great work here.

Traveler: The official ABC website for this one calls it a meeting of "The Fugitive" with "Enemy Of The State", but neither the iconic TV series nor the action-packed Will Smith vehicle are evoked by the pilot. Which is not to say it's not good. Two attractive twenty-something guys find themselves in way over their heads when they are implicated in a terrorist bombing, having apparently been set up by their college roommate. They head out on the run, fleeing the authorities and searching for the answers to the mystery surrounding them.

Like "Kidnapped" and "Vanished", the conspiracy-theory nature of this show may get a bit thick if it goes on too long. But if they keep everything as fast-paced and tight as the pilot, this may be another water-cooler conversation show.

Vanished: This one's already on, so you may know all about it. In a nutshell, read the description of "Kidnapped", above, and substitute 'congressman's wife' for 'businessman's son'. The entire second paragraph apples completely, though.

We've already seen the second episode of "Vanished", so we can get a better idea of how this is going to play out. It seems that every ep is a day in the investigation, and tempers and accusations will escalate accordingly. So far, it's good enough that I'll stick around for episode three. This doesn't seem to have the in-your-face brashness that is the hallmark of so many Fox shows. A defter hand is at work.

And that's it so far.

The sad thing is, nothing is really exciting this year. The pilot for Lost two season's ago, and the pilot for My Name Is Earl last season were mind-blowingly good. Nothing seems anywhere near that promising this time around. I guess I'll just have to wait for Battlestar Galactica to come back on the air.

Watch this space for more pilot-bashing as I view them.