IJB's '04-'05 Season-End REVIEW: Part II (WED-SAT)
The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball
Your best bet is just to pick out the shows you watch, and read those
reviews - few people read my whole dang review!
A summary of the grading scheme can be found at:
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/grading-guide.html
THE SHOW REVIEWS:
-----------------
Reviewed shows are listed in the following order - starting with
Wednesday shows, and going through Friday (no Saturday shows this
season!) shows.
WED:
LOST (my pick as #3 SHOW OF THE YEAR) (ABC):
Overall Grade for Season: B+
OVERVIEW:
I've already outlined why "Desperate Housewives" got the 'nod' as "My
#2" over "Lost", so I'll just again note that the main difference
between the two shows is that "Desperate Housewives" actually gave us
answers, while "Lost" just piled on more and more questions without
really answering any of the questions already posed.
So that is effectively why "Lost" is My #3 Show of the Year, instead
on My #2 (behind "24", at #1).
Because, aside from the 'dangling questions' issue, and "Lost's'
distinct lack of humor as compared to the comedic "Desperate
Housewives", there really is very little separating the shows, in terms
of quality.
"Lost's" cast is every bit as good as "Desperate Housewives'." And
both shows are willing to take chances - e.g. killing of main characters
(Lost: Boone, DH: Rex Van De Kamp).
Unlike some, I generally like "Lost's" bifurcated episode structure
of present crisis/character-centered-flashback (though I wonder how long
they can keep that up without it getting tiresome - in season #2, I
would advise trying a couple of episodes completely devoid of
flashbacks). Of course, the problem with this is - if you don't really
care about the character featured in an episode, the developments in the
"present" probably won't be enough to overcome the "boring" character
flashbacks. As a result, while I loved all of the "Kate", "Sawyer" and
"Locke" episodes, I was significantly less enamored with the "Charlie",
"Jack", "Boone/Shannon", "Claire" and even "Hurley" episodes.
All in all, in some respect "Lost" has exceeded my expectations (by
being better than I probably expected it to be), while at the same time
being disappointing (for having obvious plot holes, and continually
'kicking the can down the road' on definitive answers to the questions
it has raised).
There is no question that season #2 is a "make or break" season for
this show - either it will succumb to 'cast bloat' and 'X-Files-itis',
or it will finally fulfill the promise that season #1 has set up.
Stay tuned...
WHAT WORKED:
I have to start out by giving kudos to, in my estimation, the show's
four best actors: Josh Holloway (as Sawyer), Naveen Andrews (as Sayid),
Yoon-jin Kim (as Sun), and especially Terry O'Quinn (as Locke) - in
Quinn's case, I doubt the show would half as good without him; the same
is also nearly true of Holloway.
I still love the Kate character most of all, even if I seem to be
nearly alone on that - but, for my money, the "best" episodes of
"Lost's" first season revolved around either Kate or Sawyer (or Locke).
I was also surprised by how affecting the Michael/Walt episode
("Special") was, and the Sun/Jin episodes were also quite good.
Great cast. Nice setting. Great set-up. Promising start.
Let's see where they can go from here.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
Pulling "The X-Files": I know these guys have said that they have
studied "The X-Files" with the intention of avoiding that show's
mistakes - but this show really didn't answer nearly *any* questions it
raised in season #1, and that kind of thing always makes me suspicious.
(They better start answering them soon, or the audiences' indulgence
will surely begin to expire...)
Some of the "character" episodes tended to be much less interesting
to me - I never really got into Jack's story, and Charlie's episode have
probably been the least compelling of the bunch.
I really wonder how many good seasons this show has in it. (The
numerous coming casting changes further add to the concern...)
Ultimately, this comes down to - Can they *deliver*?...
SMALLVILLE (WBN):
Overall Grade for Season: B-
OVERVIEW:
A show I'm more 'fond' of than one I 'take seriously', I view
"Smallville" as a relaxing 'lark' after a long day of work.
Taken in that spirit, the 4th season of "Smallville" has generally
delivered, putting out some entertaining episodes like "Devoted",
"Spell", "Scare", "Onyx", "Sacred", "Spirit", and, my favorites, the
'Alicia' two-parter, "Unsafe" and "Pariah".
"Smallville" has also continued its pattern that I noted previously -
even-numbered seasons have been better than odd-numbered seasons. It'll
be interesting to see where they take this show, post-High School, and
whether that pattern will continue in season #5.
WHAT WORKED:
Letting "evil" Chloe (still well played by Allison Mack) in on
Clark's secret (without him knowing it) was a smart move to rehabilitate
the character (though it surely dooms her by the series finale!). In the
same vein, letting Lionel (John Glover) go "good" for a while was
another good move (though turning him back "evil" again towards the end
of the season was a disappointment).
As said above, there were some good, entertaining episodes this year.
There also seemed to be more storyarc-planning on the season level, and
I always think that's a smart move.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
This show still seems to not know what to do with Lana (even if
Kristin Kreuk apparently had a ball going in different directions this
year in episodes like "Spell", Sacred" and "Spirit"). I still don't
think having Jensen Ackles and Jane Seymour around added much, or helped
the show any. I also don't think they used Lex very well this year.
Along with some good episodes, there were also some pointless ones
(see: "Crypto" and "Ageless").
KEVIN HILL (my pick as My GUILTY PLEASURE #2) (UPN):
Overall Grade for Season: C+
OVERVIEW:
There's no question in my mind that this show lost some momentum as
it went along. Not that I thought the pilot was any great shake either.
But they seemed to somewhat 'lose the thread' around the time that Dame
(John Seda) and Veronica (Kate Levering) were playing romantic/sexual
roundelay, and Kevin got hooked up with recurring 'shark lawyer' Monroe
McManus (Leila Arcieri). And I had some real doubts that this show would
have been sustainable into a second season and beyond.
But, that said, the show ended with a solid two-parter, and a whallop
of an ending and final scene, and, in the end, I think I'll miss it a
little. I'm also not sure that the objective ratings case justified
cancellation (though, perhaps, the creative issues did).
WHAT WORKED:
I said in the Mid-Season Review that Kevin "Man Crush" Diggs is a
charismatic lead, and that was true throughout the show's one season
run.
Janaya Stephens (who could also be seen in this summer's Lifetime
series, "Beach Girls") did a good job in the latter half of the season
as Dane's jealous (and potentially crazy?) assistant/paramour, Allison.
Strong finale (which, mercifully, worked equally well as a "series"
finale).
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
Diggs may have been charismatic, but as I said in my Mid-Season
Review of "Kevin Hill", he was also overused - I think the character of
Kevin Hill came to dominate the show too much, so that any time what
Kevin was doing wasn't interesting then the whole episode would become
uninteresting. Also, despite their best efforts, the "Kevin as a
dad/Kevin as a 'player'" dichotomy never really generated any interest.
Part and parcel with that was the underutilization (or improper use -
see the Dane/Veronica nonsense) of the show's three female leads -
Christina Hendricks (someone get Hendricks her own show, STAT!), Kate
Levering, and, yes, even Michael Michelle.
Some of the legal cases would tend to devolve off in boilerplate
Liberal Hollywood/NYC orthodoxy.
EYES (gets an SPECIAL MENTION) (ABC):
Overall Grade for Season: B
OVERVIEW:
[First, my RANT: The broadcast networks were down by double-digit in
viewers this Summer, mostly because they're running too many reruns (and
too many 'third rate' reality shows). ABC, one of these said "networks",
dumped a Mid-Season show named "Eyes" after airing only 5 of its
episodes. So, what does ABC do during this same Summer? *Not* air the
remaining 4 episodes of "Eyes" (when they might, you know, actually
*make* money) and go with low performing reruns of continuing series
instead. How dumb can you get?!... (RANT over.)]
The problem with "Eyes" was the pilot - the pilot showed a much more
downbeat show than the one that we ended up getting after episode #1
(good!), and ended with a cliffhanger that was immediately negated at
the start of episode #2 (bad. very bad.).
Which is a shame, because "Eyes" really did pick up after that pilot,
and became the kind of "fun" P.I. show that many of the reviews had
promised.
Current TV could use more shows like this.
WHAT WORKED:
Tim Daly, playing significantly against the 'type' of his "Wings"
role - in "Wings", Daly was the 'straight arrow' and Steven Weber was
the charismatic smart-ass; while in "Eyes", Daly got to play the
charismatic smart-ass - really excelled in the role of CEO and P.I.
extraordinaire, Harlan Judd. He tended to carry the show (he was in most
scenes), and did a great job with this. I especially like it when he was
paired with straight-laced rookie Meg Bardo (A.J. Langer).
And speaking of the supporting players, many of them were also good,
esp. A.J. Langer - also playing against 'type' for her!; Laura Leighton
(but I love her, so I'm biased!); and Rick Worthy.
Unlike some of the 'procedurals', the cases on "Eyes" actually tended
to be interesting. I also liked the 'high tech' sheen given to the P.I.
genre by this show.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
Problem #1: The aborted cliffhanger from the end of the pilot. Had
the demise of Jeff McCann (Eric Mabius) not been 'reversed', that pilot
would have ended with a heck of a 'kicker'. As it is, having that
development overthrown in the first minutes of episode #2 probably
turned a number of the viewers who stayed with the show into the second
episode right *off*. (Don't showrunners realize in this TV day & age
that you can't pull 'bait and switches' like this anymore and expect to
get away with it?! TV audiences expect too much now.)
In fact, in general, I never 'got' the character of Jeff McCann.
Similarly, of the 5 episodes we saw, I'm not sure Garcelle Beauvais and
Natalie Zea (both of whom I've liked in other things) added much to this
show either.
THUR:
THE O.C. (my pick as The BIGGEST DECLINE) (FOX):
Overall Grade for Season: B-
OVERVIEW:
Yeesh...
It's a truism: Shows built around a "gimmick" may get through a first
season unscathed; but the wheels will surely come off in season #2.
And so it was in season #2 of "The O.C."
I was actually fairly positive on this show at mid-season. But, as
the season progressed (especially after the half-way point), the
underlying 'rot' in this show became more and more apparent.
(Indeed, it's only the fact that the first-half of the year was
relatively good that let "The O.C.'s" season #2 squeak by with the 'B-'
- that first-half lifted the show's overall average for the season...)
Part of what saved the first half of season #2 was Shannon Lucio, and
her character of Lindsay Gardner (others will say that about Olivia
Wilde's Alex Kelly, but I disagree with them). Lindsay, at least, and to
a lesser extent Zach (Michael Cassidy) at that point, were sort of
refreshing characters for this show - they were well-meaning, uncynical
innocents (a needed contrast to the always decadent (and annoying)
Marissa).
But once Lindsay (and Alex) were gone, that which was apparent could
no longer be ignored - "The O.C." has (and perhaps never had), any idea
where it was going. A series of short-term guest stars (after Lucio and
Wilde, it was Kim Delaney, then Billy Campbell, then Johnny Messner,
then Marguerite Moreau, then Logan Marshall-Green, then Nikki Griffin,
etc., etc., etc.) paraded through, failing to stick around long enough
to bring much to the show nor interact meaningfully with any its regular
characters.
Instead, we got the umpteenth variation of 'heart-sick Seth' or 'Seth
vs. Zach' or 'Seth/Summer: Endless Love' or 'Will Sandy & Kirsten Break
Up for Real, This Time?' or 'Ryan/Marissa: Part XXIV'.
Basically, I'm getting the feeling that, at this show's heart, it's
just a deeply cynical exercise in self-aggrandizement. It's all
'dialogue-driven' nonsense, but "there's no there there". (I also see
that the roundabout of rotating short-term guest stars will continue
into season #3. Big mistake.)
It's hard to know if season-long story-planning in advance is enough
to save this show. But, at this point, it's the least they need...
WHAT WORKED:
I sometimes get the feeling that Melinda Clarke's Julie is
single-handledly keeping this show afloat, as she is "The O.C.'s" one
consistently watchable element. (But, of course, Clarke doesn't appear
in every episode, leaving a gaping hole when she's not in the frame...)
Also, I still like Benjamin McKenzie (and Peter Gallagher), and
Rachel Bilson is very good at what they (limitedly) ask her to do.
P.S. Someone please get Shannon Lucio her own show, preferably as far
away from Josh Schwartz and Mischa Barton as possible!
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
Problem #1: Lack of advance long-term or even season-long story
planning. It is very clear that they are just making this show up as
they go along, and it's not working. Not even close.
Problem #2: Don't even get me started on what a mistake it was to
kill off Caleb Nichol (Alan Dale). This is a hole that can't be filled,
I'm afraid.
Problem #3: In the latter half of the season, they took Zach, one of
my aforementioned "innocents", and turned him into yet another cynical
"villain". It was a mistake to do this. (It's even a bigger mistake when
you consider that I'm still routing for him over Seth.)
I'll leave the perennial Mischa Barton-bashing (more from others than
from me) aside for a minute, and just ask (once again!) - What is the
POINT of the Marissa character?! Is she supposed to be sympathetic? Are
we supposed to be rooting for her?! Because, if the answer to either
question is "Yes", they are failing miserably. (Frankly, this show would
have been much better off if they had just written Marissa out (and,
preferably, kept Lindsay instead!).)
And, honestly, I'm tired of Seth. And all the triangles. And
Kirsten's "issues". And the rotating roster of short-term guest stars.
Oh, who am I kidding? - I'm just tired of this show, *period*.
As Summer might say, "This show is *so* OVER!"
POINT PLEASANT (my pick as My GUILTY PLEASURE #1):
Overall Grade for Season: B
OVERVIEW:
Rather than just naming it "My (#1) Guilty Pleasure", I almost went
ahead and rated "Point Pleasant" a "Special Mention", as well. "Why did
'Point Pleasant' merit a 'Special Mention'?" you ask? (Come on - I
*know* you're wondering!)
Because "Point Pleasant" improved more in a 6-episode period than any
show that I can name this season. (Perhaps only "24" came close.)
Which, of course, ultimately was a missed opportunity - in the
present TV environment, if you don't 'hit it out of the park' in the
pilot episode, you'll immediately lose audience that you'll never get
back. Which is exactly what happened to "Point Pleasant" - 11 million
viewers tuned into the pilot, but only about 4 million were left by the
time the show hit its stride by episode #6.
Ultimately, Skiffy is hard to do on a "Big Four" network. "Skiffy
Soap Opera" may be 'a bridge too far'; anywhere.
Nonetheless, I'm glad someone gave it a shot (even Marti Noxon!), and
I will be picking this one up on DVD in October (10/25) to see the 5
remaining unaired episodes.
WHAT WORKED:
This show seemed to build up a good "creepiness" factor as it went
along (I really wasn't "feeling" that early on).
Like any soap, some in the cast weren't very good, but some others in
the cast were quite good - of special note were Susan Walters (as the
'seer mom' (or was she just plain crazy?!)), Dina Meyer (as the
'conflicted vamp'), and esp. Aubrey Dollar (as the 'ingenue best
friend'; I hope to God she gets jobs from this!). The best of the lot
was, surprisingly to me, Grant Show - back during his "Melrose Days", I
never had Show pegged as someone with much in the way of range; after
"Point Pleasant", I'm pleased to concede I was dead wrong about him.
Meanwhile, Elisabeth Harnois *looked* great for the part, and seemed
to get better as the show progressed...
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
...Even though it's a legitimate question to ask whether Harnois was
miscast for the part.
And speaking of the cast, the male stars were uniformly weak, outside
of the previously mentioned Grant Show, and possibly Richard Burgi - the
other men on "Point Pleasant" barely merited notice.
Speaking of Marti Noxon, PP also shared Noxon's preoccupation for
kinky sexuality. My reaction? "Eww."
Ultimately, the show took too long to develop, and that killed it
with the audience. It's rare for the audience to give a show a break on
this - "Lost" is clearly one of the exceptions (ditto, "The X-Files",
back at its start).
TRU CALLING (gets an SPECIAL MENTION) (FOX):
Overall Grade for Season: B
OVERVIEW:
[Author's Note: Thanks to a helpful internet gremlin, I've seen
episode #2.6, the finale episode left unaired by FOX.]
"Tru Calling" merits a "Special Mention" because it was a show that
had improved so much from its (somewhat shaky beginnings). It didn't
make all the way up to a Top 5 tanking because it's hard to compare a
show that ran only 6 episodes to a show (e.g. "Veronica Mars") that ran
a full season.
As a result of its second season only running 6 episodes, we will
never know now exactly *where* "Tru Calling" was going in season #2.
Instead, we got only 'hints' of what was possibly to come.
But, in toto, I liked what we got in season #2. The
development/rivalry with Jack (a belated element that up'ed the suspense
aspect in the latter-half of season #1 of TC) continued into season #2,
yielding probably the series' best episode in "Last Good Day". In
general, just having Jason Priestley's Jack around up'ed the
'watchability factor' of the show.
This is a show that I'm going to really, *really* miss, and wish it
had lasted longer. :( (Luckily, the season #2 DVD is slated for
11/15/05.)
WHAT WORKED:
Jason Priestley (Jack) continued to be very good in season #2,
especially in the previously mentioned episode, "Last Good Day". Also,
Cotter Smith (used more in season #2) was another good 'heavy'.
Zach Galifianakis (Davis) continued to be a crucial element in TC in
season #2, and adding Liz Vassey (Dr. Carrie Allen) as a 'femme fatale'
preying on Davis was a fairly masterful stroke. Also Shawn Reaves
(Harrison) seemed to be much better integrated into the action in season
#2.
And while I missed A.J. Cook (even though her Lindsay character was a
superfluous afterthought back in season #1), the additions of Eric
Christian Olsen (as Jensen), Lizzy Caplan (as Avery), and Parry Shen (as
Tyler) gave Tru some much needed friends to work with (of these, Caplan
was probably the best addition (by a fair bit), and Olsen the weakest
(he seemed kind of 'flat' as Jensen, which is odd as he's been good in
most everything else I've seen him in)).
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
Whatever the show's problems with Jessica Collins, pretending her
character Lindsay (Tru's sister!) didn't exist (AFAICT, she was never
even mentioned in season #2) was a big, big mistake, and hurt the show's
credibility in my book.
F' YOU, FOX! F' YOU FOR CANCELLING THIS SHOW BEFORE EVEN AIRING
SEASON #2!!
WITHOUT A TRACE:
Overall Grade for Season: B-
OVERVIEW:
"Without a Trace" is another one of those shows that seems to be
declining with every passing season.
I was more upbeat about it at Mid-Season, but season #3 managed to
deliver only one "gangbusters" episode, like season #1's "There Goes the
Bride" or season #2's "Wannabe" - in season #3's case, it was the
episode "4.0" (guest starring Anthony LaPaglia's real life wife Gia
Caredes). But, outside of "4.0", pretty much every other episode was
pretty unremarkable.
Making matters worse, showrunner Hank Steinberg insists upon piling
on with the "personal lives" of the show's agents and, let's be honest -
it's gotten *boring*! I honestly don't care about Sam Spade's (Poppy
Montgomery) or Vivian's (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) issues (and I barely
care about Jack's), and the episode this season about Danny Taylor's
(Enrique Murciano) brother was a complete dud. These are all
distractions from the *cases*, which haven't been as well-written
recently anyway.
This show needs to refocus on the cases (and basically *drop* the
personal stuff), before it's too late.
WHAT WORKED:
Cast acting is solid. The show is well-filmed. "4.0" was the standout
episode.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
They didn't use my show favorite, Enrique Murciano, virtually *at
all* this season (and, as stated above, the one episode they did give
him was pretty bad).
Some of the episodes were downright weird ("John Michaels") or just
plain awful ("Party Girl", which, in addition to the writer's throwing
in a bunch of extraneous partisan political commentary, was also
probably the single worst episode of WAT, based just on its own merits).
FRI:
STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE (UPN):
Overall Grade for Season: B-
OVERVIEW:
Unlike many, "Star Trek: Enterprise" was never a show I had an axe to
grind with, even back in the show's first two seasons. While clearly
light in the acting department (only John Billingsley, and possibly
Linda Park and Jolene Blalock, rate plaudits), it was clear to me from
early on that "Enterprise" was significantly superior to its
predecessor, "Star Trek: Voyager". (And, yeah, that probably is 'damning
with faint praise'...)
That said, the show improved in its 3rd season (2003-2004), when it
was given a season-long storyarc.
Well, things improved yet again in season #4, when "Enterprise" tried
something a little unique - rather than pursuing a season-long storyarc,
season #4 instead utilized *SHORT storyarcs* (i.e. stories spread over
2-4 episodes). This structure allowed the writers to pursue a series of
better-planned and integrated stories, and favorably opened "Enterprise"
up in a way that it hadn't before.
This "short storyarc" structure concept is an intriguing idea - I
hope more shows try it.
Unfortunately, it was instituted too late to save "Enterprise", and
now the ST franchise is being given a much needed rest from the
airwaves.
WHAT WORKED:
The short storyarcs - not all of them succeeded (the "Terra Prime"
one at the end of the season was a significant bomb, in my book), but
enough of them did work to mark season #4 "Enterprise's" best.
Meanwhile, the best episode of the lot? "In a Mirror, Darkly (Part
I)" (it's unfortunate that "Part II" was such a disappointment in
comparison).
Another admirable aspect of season #4? Manny Coto's clever attempts
to link "Enterprise" stories this season with earlier (actually "later")
events in "Star Trek: The Original Series".
John Billingsley always delivered, while Linda Park (when she was
given something to do, as in the "In a Mirror, Darkly" two-parter) and
Jolene Blalock were quite good too. Dominic Keating was mostly decent as
well.
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Combs' recurring Shran character was the
unofficial "star" of this show.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
Scott Bakula, who I've liked in other things, never really did
deliver as Capt. Jeffrey Archer on "Enterprise"; frankly, neither did
Anthony "A.T." Montgomery nor Connor Trinneer.
While the 'storyarc' episodes were generally good ("Terra Prime"
excepted), the 'stand-alone' episodes (e.g. "Daedalus", though I don't
think it was as bad as many do) weren't so good.
The worst of the lot was the ill-conceived series finale, "These Are
the Voyages ..." (though even that was partially redeemed by the last 30
seconds), which was rightly denounced (by Jolene Blalock, among others!)
as a 'warmed-over episode of ST:TNG". (But even that didn't approach the
'suckage' that was the "Voyager" finale!) In any case, it was a truly
mistaken idea for an "Enterprise" series finale.
NUMB3RS (gets an HONORABLE MENTION) (CBS):
Overall Grade for Season: B
OVERVIEW:
"Numb3rs" (hereafter "Numbers") rates an 'Honorable Mention' by
virtue of this show's attempt to do something a little different with
the 'procedural drama'. Well, that and the fact that I generally give
'props' to *any* show that takes on the job of attempting to popularize
math and/or science! :)
But I very much the way that this show at least attempts to bring
some of the more esoteric aspects of math in to the show, and to explain
them in such as way that the (layman) audience of "Numbers" 'learns'
something in the process. This is probably "Numbers'" main selling point
AFAIAC.
Beyond that, I generally like the cast, esp. David Krumholtz as math
whiz, Prof. Charlie Eppes. And the episode cases are usually interesting
enough.
But, bottom line: It seems to me like "NCIS" (and soon, "Bones") and
"Numbers" are the only shows that are really trying "something
different" with the 'procedural' genre. For that alone, they deserve
kudos.
WHAT WORKED:
I really, really like David Krumholtz in his role as Charlie, and I
doubt I'd be as favorably inclined to this show if he weren't so good.
Helping matters out is Judd Hirsch and Peter MacNicol in the supporting
cast. (And Navi Rawat too! And it appears she'll be back in season #2!
Yay!!)
As I said, this show's yeomen-like work to popularize/attempt to
explain how math is used in real-world situations is very laudable, and
is the other main reason I like it so much.
In general, the episodic cases are fairly interesting.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
While she didn't add much, and they didn't really use her, I'm still
going to miss Sabrina Lloyd (though they're brining in Diane Farr to
replace her, and I like Farr as well).
Is it me, or is Rob Morrow a little 'flat' in this show? (Maybe he's
supposed to be?) Ditto Alimi Ballard.
This show is still a procedural - How much longer can they keep it
interesting? How much longer can they keep bringing in the math, before
it becomes distracting/unhelpful/unrealistic?
--
CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!!
"It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost
as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
William December Starr
<ijball***SPAM-No***-688C56.105...@news-rdr-03.socal.rr.com>,
"The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball"
<ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> said:
[ re the late and semi-lamented "Tru Calling" ]
> WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
> Whatever the show's problems with Jessica Collins, pretending her
> character Lindsay (Tru's sister!) didn't exist (AFAICT, she was
> never even mentioned in season #2) was a big, big mistake, and
> hurt the show's credibility in my book.
Problems with Jessica Collins? You have tasty behind-the-scenes
gossip, perhaps? (Honestly, I'd just thought that Lindsay had been
(extremely clumsily) jettisoned simply because once the show went
into weekly production they discovered that she was one character
too many.)
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article
> <ijball***SPAM-No***-688C56.105...@news-rdr-03.socal.rr.com>,
> "The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball"
> <ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> said:
>
> [ re the late and semi-lamented "Tru Calling" ]
>
> > WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
> > Whatever the show's problems with Jessica Collins, pretending her
> > character Lindsay (Tru's sister!) didn't exist (AFAICT, she was
> > never even mentioned in season #2) was a big, big mistake, and
> > hurt the show's credibility in my book.
>
> Problems with Jessica Collins? You have tasty behind-the-scenes
> gossip, perhaps? (Honestly, I'd just thought that Lindsay had been
> (extremely clumsily)
Erg. Typo on my part.
Lindsay was played by AJ Cook. (And, FTR, her character *was* referenced
in one of the season #2 episodes.)
Collins played Tru's sister Meredith.
> jettisoned simply because once the show went
> into weekly production they discovered that she was one character
> too many.)
Granted, it's a supposition on my part.
But if Collins and the show had parted on better terms, I'm nearly
certain she would have at least been a semi-semi-recurring guest star.
Generally, when the writers either kill a character off or, more
noticeably, try to purge all traces of the existence of a character,
it's usually because the actor/actress did not depart the show on good
terms.