If you haven’t already heard, FX has canceled their freshman drama Terriers, which just aired its finale. Despite critical acclaim, the series had very poor ratings, even for a cable channel (averaging no more than 700,000 viewers). I myself didn’t watch this, but I’ve only heard good things about it. Based on several articles (one writer at BuddyTV claimed it the new Veronica Mars, in terms of writing).

Starring Donal Logue (who previously was in the series Grounded for Life (which I believe had about 5 seasons across FOX and then the WB) and also the short-lived ABC series Knights of Prosperity, so no stranger to TV) and Michael Raymond-James (probably more known as Rene in the first season of True Blood), the series has nothing to do with dogs, despite the title. It’s actually about an alcoholic ex-cop (Logue) partnering with former criminal (Raymond-James) in an unlicensed PI business. If it weren’t for sites like BuddyTV, I wouldn’t even know what it was about, because, the name Terriers is an odd choice. Other possible issues could be the brief period when FX wasn’t on DISH, or it was too witty (?) for the network of typical push-the-envelope, serious drama you expect on the network. But, the likely culprit, that name. FX Cancels Terriers – Hollywood Reporter

Which has got me thinking, what other shows may have suffered because of their name. Think of just Veronica Mars, just having a female name for the title would have a person believe it to be feminine. Well, it was actually a very well-written drama, that, yes, had a very strong female lead, had appeal to anyone (young, older, male, or female). Though I liked the name, since she was the main character of the show. Almost any show of the WB/CW has feminine names, except the likes of Smallville and Supernatural, which explains why they have lower women 18-34 demo that CW targets more, but they do better (slightly) in overall adults 18-49 demo advertisers like (they are behind Vampire Diaries, which does well in both key demos, for scripted shows).

Another show, that I loved, was Dollhouse. The problems with the show was the title didn’t really tell you what it was about (though, it worked for what it was about), and most of the promo pics didn’t convey the plot of the series well (Echo pointing a gun, okay, it’s got action, but the name Dollhouse is still confusing). If you think it’s about prostitution, that assumption isn’t very far (people are essentially re-wired to be programmed for a client to take on a task (whether as a date, lover, hiking buddy, partner in crime, negotiator, whatever)). It was also on the dreaded Friday night.

Or maybe there are some shows that aren’t really suffering in ratings, but there are regrets for the name, such as Cougar Town. It doesn’t work, since the main character isn’t dating someone much younger than she is (probably only a few years, don’t think his age was actually mentioned, or I missed it), and her friend is younger, so no cougar-ness there, and her other friend is married. The only cougar would be that lady, Barb, that just pops up in weird places (kind of annoying). They even considered changing the name, before scrapping the idea since they couldn’t think of anything better (Cougar Town Keeping it Title – EW). Though, it’s a wonder if the series, which is quite funny, would retain more Modern Family viewers, had it had a better name.

So what titles do well? Well, on the cable side, The Walking Dead did VERY well, so maybe having ‘Dead’ in the title plus being about zombies, helps. Or have ‘Blood’ in the title; look at True Blood. One would say, on the broadcast side, look at Blue Bloods, which does fine in total viewers (over 10mil, so actually, it does well), but like everything else, not so much in demo (no longer in the 2s). Honestly, the older people are watching probably because CBS is part of their routine and, well, Tom Selleck. Titles that stand out work well too, like Big Bang Theory, it’s a unique, and geeky name, perfectly describes the show.

Other shows are more direct with their titles, such as How I Met Your Mother. It is a series about someone recounting to their kids ‘how he met their mother,’ and it’s a very long one. It would have to come to an end, but it is one of the funniest series since Friends, so hope it can have at least another season or two. And ratings-wise, it’s been solid.

But in the end, how much does a title really help/destroy a series? Are there people who are judging a book by the cover?  Did the title The Event made you want to watch the series (it did well in the beginning), but the show itself took you out of it (I’m even wondering it myself)?  I don’t think its the main factor for all cancellations, but it certainly was a factor for Terriers, and from what I hear, it’s a shame.

Everybody has them. The littlest of things that just get on their nerves. There are people, for example, that have a problem with, say, the word “moist,” because it just sounds dirty. Okay, I get that, but I have no problem with much of any words. I do, however, have problems with how people may use words.

For me, it annoys me when people don’t know the differences between “there,” “their,” and “they’re.” It’s really not that hard to understand. I don’t want to sound like the English teacher that was upset with Alanis Morissette’s incorrect usage of the word “ironic,” (though I now question whether there is irony when people say it, but I’m not uptight about it), but these incorrect usage of “your” and “you’re” are just as annoying, if not more.

First off, “That’s the little flower that’s growing over there in their yard, and they’re pleased,” is a little example sentence using those three words, where “there” is pointing out a flower in a place, “their” is a possessive use clarifying that the yard belongs to a couple, and “they’re” is a contraction of “they are,” in this case, they are pleased with the blooming flower. Second one, “Your mom knows you’re lying.” “Your” is possessive, in this case, pointing out that this is someone’s mom, “you’re,” is the contraction of “you are,” as in “she knows you are lying.” See, not difficult.

Another one that annoys me, not knowing when to use “too.” “You’re going to go home too.” Basically, one person is going home, but the other is also going home, thus using “too.” It can also be used like this: “She was too tired to travel,” defining a degree to which she is tired.

I understand using some shorthands, such as “BTW” for “By the Way,” but replacing “to” with “2″ or “for” with “4″ annoys me. At some point, especially when people start using “8″ with words that end in an “ate” sound, such as “skate” becoming “sk8,” the really shortened message starts to look like a math formula. Again, I don’t want to sound like the stuffy English teacher, but maybe this is the reason for such bad grammar.

I’m not saying I am any better with proper sentence structure or whatever, but I don’t necessarily butcher the English language the way most people are.

It is not just words, but definitions, such as “tomato.” I hate it when people say it’s a vegetable, when it is, in fact, a fruit. (Here’s a link to Oxford Dictionary on this to explain the confusion, in case you don’t believe me).

What else annoys me, oh, I hate people who ask “how are you doing today?” or some variation of that. I don’t care how you’re doing, so don’t care about how I’m doing. It may seem mean, but I think it’s better that way. Just, never ask me how I am doing, ’cause I’m just gonna shrug it off and move on. This is a problem at work, I guess most people are raised to act like they care, it just disturbs me.

I guess this sort of stems from the previous, in terms of this “good manners” bullshit, but I hate being called “ma’am.” I don’t call people “sir” or “ma’am,” people may think it’s rude, but I find them pointless. They are useless words to my eyes. Plus, when I think “ma’am,” I think old lady. I’m not even 25 yet, so don’t call me “ma’am.”

I think that’s about it, maybe I’ll come up with another list of annoyances sometime in the future, until then, well, I’ll post when I post.

Now that I finally got a chance to watch the premiere of The Event (I recorded it last week with Chuck b/c of work, but wanted to originally wait to see the 2nd week ratings, but had to watch since I’m off today and can watch it) and decided against Undercovers (I was interested in it initially, I mean, come on, it is JJ Abrams we’re talking about, but as the premiere got closer and the ads ran, it looked less and less interesting, and the ratings for it showed that others thought so too). I caught the pilot of No Ordinary Family, which doesn’t premiere until Tues, Sept. 28 at 8/7c when ABC allowed 5,000 people to stream it online. I caught Nikita, watched the first two eps actually, but, didn’t watch the third one. I watched the pilot for Hawaii Five-O last week online at cbs.com, but ended up not watching CBS’s new Thursday comedy Shit My Dad Says (I still refuse to use the symbols) and new Friday series Blue Bloods like originally planned, so I can’t say anything about those.

So, of the new series I caught, how do they stack up?

Well, obviously, because I no longer have a DVR, I find it a little difficult to just check out a new series, run the risk of actually liking it, and having to fit it into my schedule, which, though I work part-time, it’s still annoying. So several series I chose to not watch because they didn’t hold enough of my interest to begin with, they were more of a curious show, so that’s why I didn’t watch the new William Shatner (that and, I already had two shows I watch on Thurs. at 8, Vampire Diaries on the CW and FOX’s Bones), and despite wanting to check out Tom Selleck’s new series, I opted out to not have to record anything to DVD (let the damn thing rest) and watched Haven on Syfy instead. But, several shows I still HAD to watch, so let’s start with Monday:

Hawaii Five-O on Mondays, 10/9c PM on CBS, is a remake of the classic series. There were several key factors in my decision to continue as plan to watch the series (the next day online). One: Alex O’Loughlin. The guy can’t seem to catch a break. Moonlight, I still think, would’ve rebounded if CBS stuck with it and carried it into the vampire craze, but it got canned, as did his next series, also on CBS, the medical drama from last season, Three Rivers. Two: Len Wiseman directed (well, the pilot at least), and he also directed the first two movies of the Underworld franchise. Three: James Marsters is at least in the pilot, and given the character he played (the bad guy), looks like there could be more appearances? (see a pattern yet, kind of vampiric background in this show, don’t you think). Four: along with Marsters and O’Loughlin, two more stars of the genre line, Daniel Dae Kim, who was in Lost, and Grace Park of Battlestar Galactica fame. Five: Yes, this is a crime drama, but it is certainly a fun one, with a fantastic cast. Will I continue to watch? Based on the pilot, yes, I plan to watch, and recommend it if for some reason you don’t watch ABC’s Castle (which I do).  Oh, side note, anyone notice how William Sadler (Roswell, Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey) played Steve McGarrett’s (O’Loughlin) father, well he also played Dr. Yablonski’s (O’Loughlin) uncle on Three Rivers. Interesting? Another great casting choice, although Steve’s dad gets killed.

The Event on Mondays 9/8c PM on NBC, is, well, a very interesting drama. Despite the mass advertising for this series, I still wasn’t turned off from watching it. Maybe it’s because all the trailers made me really want to know what “the Event” actually is, and the pilot, though may be a bit hard to follow, moved fast and, well, ended with a shitload of questions. Is this the next Lost? No, most certainly not, but with Heroes gone, a strange new series is what NBC needed, and the ratings were strong with the pilot, but I’m worried that it may be lost to some people. I really hope that those that watched it weren’t turned away, because, right now, this is about as close to a Lost replacement we got. Factors for me to watch the pilot: One: Jason Ritter, sometimes, it just takes an actor or two to make me watch a series, again, he hasn’t had a lot of luck with shows, having been in two past CBS series that bit the dust (though, the drama Joan of Arcadia did manage a 2nd season, while the comedy The Class died after one, which was a shame b/c that was hilarious), I just think that though this is a show with a large cast, he stands out. Two: Large cast and lots of complexity, it’s the Lost formula, it was what NBC had with Heroes, bring in a huge cast of knowns and unknowns, make sure to start a lot of questions (“What happened to Leila?,” “Who are the prisoners?”, “What happened to the plane?,” and the main one, “What is the Event?”, that’s just the pilot, and I may have missed a few), it brings in mystery and intrigue, which I like. Three: Cast is pretty huge, along with Ritter, there is also Laura Innes (ER), Zeljko Ivanek (who has been on True Blood, 24, Heroes, Damages), Scott Patterson (Gilmore Girls, Aliens in America), and Blair Underwrood (Dirty Sexy Money serving as the President of the US, along with a decent cast of relative unknowns. Four: Action, yep it’s got that too, plus the jumps from one scene to another kind of remind me of 24, making is suspenseful. Will I keep watching? I’m on the edge of my seat.

No Ordinary Family on Tuesdays at 8/7c PM on ABC, like I said, I caught the pilot online, so I don’t need to watch the premiere, but it runs like your typical intro pilot. Since this has yet to premiere on broadcast, I don’t want to say much, but there really isn’t much to give away, since the ads cover it well. A family with some problems crash and find themselves with superpowers. Yes, it’s a family with superpowers, and the powers they get come from what they need (to overcome weaknesses, basically). The father feels less masculine, now he has super strength, the mother is busy and doesn’t have time for much, now she has super speed, the daughter is a typical teenager who basically just wanted to snoop into peoples lives, now she’s telepathic, and the son sucks at math, now he’s a math wiz. As far as what made me watch it, One: Julie Benz, who played Darla on Buffy and Angel, and was more recent on Dexter (before her character bit the dust), she’s got the fan fare behind her, as does Michael Chiklis, who was in The Shield. That’s pretty much it, other than being sci-fi/fantasy. Will I keep watching? I’ll check the next episode to see how it goes, sci-fi/fantasy shows tend to need a few extra episodes before you can get into it, but it doesn’t overly scream WATCH, just yet.

Nikita on Thursday 8/7c PM on the CW, ah, this show I already stopped watching. I never watch La Femme Nikita, but this spy chick going rogue wanting to take down a secret gov. agency, and she’s got a spy on the inside, blah blah blah. I’m sorry, sure it’s got the kick-ass action and attitude, but I just don’t really care about any of the characters enough to even watch one more episode. I don’t miss it, and it’s something I can’t overly describe as to what the main problem is. It is an oddball on the CW, I agree they kind of need more shows like that. I wanted to watch it because, One: an action show on the CW is very rare, but for the most part, the series was hyped and looked like something I could watch. Will I watch more? Eh, nope.

Now to wait to see 2nd week ratings to see if whatever shows I do watch can make it. And then in a few months, I should have some midseason shows to look forward to, one of which is the Matthew Perry comedy Mr. Sunshine on ABC, and I’m very much looking forward to it.

November is not far from now, and this year’s mid-term election cycle, or whatever, has brought in a host of Republican Senate nominees with ideas that are so fucked up, I keep wondering, just how stupid would voters of Nevada (Angle), Kentucky (Paul), or Delaware (O’Donnell) would be if the Republican ends up winning the Senate seat for their state. They all agree on such radical ideas: women victims of rape should be forced to bear the rapist child should they become pregnant; privatize, well, everything, including what’s working such as Social Security and Medicare; and one thing that seems to be most uniform through all Republicans: no tax breaks for poorer people unless the rich have breaks too, despite the fact that they wipe their asses with hundred dollar bills.

If you make less than $250,000, which is a majority of this country, you’d benefit more with Democrats controlling the House and Senate, and in terms of the Senate, it’ll be better if Democrats could gain seats in order to be filibuster proof. Because, what the Republicans aren’t gonna admit: they purposely filibuster because they have to protect corporate interest, well, because, otherwise, they’ll lose those donations.

Let’s backtrack more. Think about this, Republicans run on moral high-grounds, sanctity of marriage and whatnot, yet have been caught with their pants down. These are the same ones that criticized Clinton. Honestly, I don’t care if politicians have affairs, it’s none of our business, but if they run campaigns on some “morality,” they should act so, meaning they should follow their own beliefs.

Furthermore, Republicans continue to think gay soldiers are bad. If there were more progressive Democrats in the Senate, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would’ve been no more. Plain and simple. McCain can say all the bullshit he wants that DADT doesn’t seek gay people in the military out, but the truth is, they have [Washington Post blog entry mentioning Mike Almy, a man who served 13 years before being discharged in 2006 after his PRIVATE emails were searched to find if he violated DADT]. They blocked a vote to move forward with repealing such a stupid law (along with the DREAM act); they have no problem removing talented people from the military because they (the Republicans) don’t agree with their sexual orientation.

Republicans being against gay marriage is another little ridiculous view. They claim it could harm regular marriage, but in reality, they are against it because they are homophobic; plain and simple. And, like with their hate towards stem cell research and abortion, most of it is stemmed because of their religious views, which means they are violating the Constitution.

Where did I get to that? In my views, religion should play no part in government. Any politician, whose political views stem with a religious view, is therefore, violating the Constitution’s freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State policies that the Founding Fathers of this country established. There is no real reason behind banning gay marriage/abortions/gays in the military/stem cell research/etc. It’s just Republican bullshit. I will also note, yes, there are Democrats against gay marriage too (Obama himself has stated opposing gay marriage), but they at least propose a ‘compromise’ with civil unions, but to most, it’s not good enough.

Southern states are highly red states, and highly religious states. They have higher teen pregnancies, ’cause guess what? Most Republicans don’t approve of comprehensive sex education, along with being against Family Planning laws (which they argue their typical anti-abortion rants, but Family Planning is also about sex education, access to contraceptives, and the overall reproductive health of women).

Now, maybe as an Atheist, I tend to spot the worst of religion, but if it’s the only way for people to have morals, then I guess it serves some good (though, why can’t people be good for the sake of being good). I bring this up, because it happens that some Republican candidates would attack a Democratic candidate with religion. Remember, there are still people who think that Obama is a Muslim. And even if he was, why does it matter? Well, to them, the Republican/Conservative yahoos, well, they hate non-Christians, typically. You know, there are several states, that have it in their state constitutions that a politician can’t be without a god. But Democrats are more likely to hold the 1st Amendment, while Republicans care more about the 2nd one (probably, because they like to kill things, such as CIVIL RIGHTS).

So, if it is easy to pick one of the other, why did loonies (who the Republican Party weren’t endorsing, but the Tea Party were) become Republican nominees for this November’s election? And why could there be a chance they could win vs. a Democrat? The answer lies with the more extreme Republicans refusing to actually being interviewed by journalist in favor of have talks with friends in order to reach who they already have in their pocket in order to put more money in their pockets.

Great reads: Why the Tea Party Candidates are so Afraid of the Media – Huffington Post
Remembering the Dark Side of the Tea Party Movement – Don’t Tea on Me

Remember, if you think that the richest 2% should get tax breaks to create those invisible jobs by putting their savings into banks to rot instead of keeping breaks for middle class who would actually spend money which would help businesses afford hiring people, (meaning it’ll create jobs), then, I guess you are a loss cause, but if you agree that those 2% don’t need anymore breaks, then speak up and spread the word. Democrats need to hold all their seats this mid-term (and with the Senate, they really need to gain some), then we can say bye-bye to DADT; healthcare reform that passed can stay in place, but maybe it could extend what it should’ve had (public option, anyone?); The rich won’t get richer while the poor stay, well, exactly like they are, poor; cap and trade; better safety regulations; clean energy; net neutrality; these all have a better chance of surviving or being created with Democrats behind the wheel. It’s not Rocket Science folks.

Decided to go ahead and talk about what I think is one of the more annoying products advertised like crazy on the market. It’s been around for a while, but if you live in a bubble, here is the point to it: apparently there are people who have problems with regular blankets, that when reaching for something, their poor arms would have to be exposed in order to grab something. So, in comes the Snuggie, which to me, looks like a fleece night gown. Because it is a wearable blanket, more or less, it has arms, so your arms are never exposed. Now, maybe the way I put it makes it sound stupid…no, it’s pretty much a really dumb product. Save a few bucks, just get a goddamn blanket.

Oh, and what made me talk about this now? They have a new ad, to the tune of the “Macarena,” b/c we all want to remember such a low point in the 90s. And b/c no one should have to suffer through such a terrible ad, I’m not hunting it on YouTube and embedding it. If you want to ruin your eyesight and hearing, you can go to YouTube and search it. But, be warned: It’s stupid, plain and simple.

[Please, excuse what is babbling on my part, I've had about a 3-4 hr nap in the last 24 hrs, yesterday evening actually, so I'm a bit tired]

I found out that Syfy has a bit of a weird programming issue. Originally I thought the new series Haven was gonna end its freshman season with a 2 parter on Sept 24 (starting at 9pm, against the premiere of the CW’s Supernatural.) I had already made my mind to watch the one true best TV show ever, Supernatural, and catch Syfy’s Haven in a late night encore. Turns out, Haven will be new through Oct. 8 and will remain in the 10PM timeslot. So, yay, I can still watch the CW (Smallville returns for a final season starting the 24th of September, leading into Supernatural‘s 6th season return), then flip and watch Haven. Then after Oct. 8th, I only have 2 shows to watch on Fridays. But the issue is, Smackdown starts on Oct. 1 and will be a new lead-in for Haven, with only 2 eps to go at that point. And the 2 eps before those will be on after, I believe, Warehouse 13 repeats, because its current lead-in, Eureka (another fantastic series), has its summer finale on Sept. 10th. This leaves a freshman series on its own for 2wks and then with a new lead-in (which, based on the wrestling show Syfy stupidly still airs, WWE NXT, which sees a little over a million viewers, it makes sense that Smackdown will be a poor lead-in). This means, the last 4 eps of Haven in the series will see a major ratings drop. I hope Syfy understands that enough that they’ll still renew it and consider keeping it paired with Eureka in some way. What I don’t get, is if Warehouse 13 only got a 13 episode renewal, why not have had it paired so they would’ve been new together and there wouldn’t have been some lead-in change up toward the end of Haven and Eureka could’ve been on Tuesdays before WWE NXT, but I’m just a viewer, what do I really know about programming.

So, really, this post is my way of advertising a pretty good series Syfy has now, Haven, that now looks to stand a possible cancellation if that ratings drop occurs b/c of their great programming. I like it better than Warehouse 13, Stargate Universe, and Caprica.

Speaking of Caprica, remember it debut its 1st season back in January of this year, ran through, I think, March for its spring finale. Well, it was supposed to have returned in the fall, but Syfy felt it necessary to damage its ratings more by not airing the 2nd half of its still 1st season until, well, January. 9 months between episodes is a LONG time. Only premiums can really get away with that. I still stand by that the 9-10 month hiatus ABC had for Pushing Daisies b/c they failed to order post-strike episodes to keep some episode flowing in April and May of that 2007-2008 season, is what killed its ratings enough to cancel it. As well as NBC doing the same thing to Chuck which caused what was a no-brainer renewal for it in its 1st season to on-the-bubble status since. Luckily, NBC had ratings fails with Heroes and others that Chuck managed to make it to a 4th season.

And Syfy isn’t the only cable net doing weird things with a freshman series. Because White Collar has a 16 episode 2nd season, it’ll be split, so it’s summer finale airs on Sept. 7th, while Covert Affairs will still be on for another week, with a 2-hr finale (it had an 11 episode order, apparently) on Sept 14 (so it’ll be on at 9PM). Now, Covert Affairs has the luxury to have built on its White Collar lead-in, seeing about a million more viewers actually. So, it’s not in trouble, but it could still see a hit if a good portion of those viewers watched because it was on after White Collar. Another thing, this 2-episodes on the 14th puts it in the 9pm hour where CW will premiere Life Unexpected (yes, I do like watching that, shut up). Not to mention the fact that Warehouse 13 will also still be new. Not that those two shows could dent Affairs, its just, it makes my TV schedule crazier than it already is.

But probably the one that annoys me, and this affects Eureka and True Blood (I know, completely different shows). Labor Day Weekend. Syfy and HBO aren’t showing new episodes, so that makes 1 week between the penultimate episode and the finale (in Eureka‘s case, a midseason finale, but the rule still applies). I don’t like a week in between the last two eps of a season (or midseason, whatever). It’s ANNOYING. And it was exactly the same last year on HBO, so start True Blood a week earlier next year, so the finale occurs before Labor Day Weekend (then you can have a marathon of the whole season or something, during). Also, it would make there be 4 new episodes in the beginning of the season before the 4th of July Weekend (another weekend without new eps), instead of just 3.

—
EDIT 9/14/10 – it’s getting weirder, Syfy has decided to bring Caprica back a little sooner (Oct 5 at 10pm) pushing the return of Sanctuary to Friday Oct 15 at 10pm. So those of us looking forward to a new season of Sanctuary have to wait a little longer, while Caprica fans who were already aware of a January premiere, get it sooner? (wouldn’t it have made sense for Caprica to take the Friday 10pm spot. Afterward, Syfy tweeted that it’s a good thing for Sanctuary fans, then they can promote it longer. They barely promote it now, but it didn’t take long to promote the quick return of Caprica, just a note.