You were just looking for crowns in all the wrong places.

I was pretty exited when I discovered that Slate was publishing a Fall TV Issue. Love Slate though I do, their television coverage isn't the most expansive, and I felt like it took a while for Troy Patterson to find his footing after Sufergirl Liz Penn moved on to film review. Besides, I watch a lot of TV. More articles from a source I love about those very shows? Sign me up.

The very first article I clicked on was Matthew Gilbert's "Too Many Heroes: The Plague of Cast Overpopulation." The title gives away at least one of the shows Gilbert will single out for his criticism, but he also briefly touches on the massive Grey's Anatomy cast. And there, my friends, is a missed opportunity.

It's simple: Heroes makes its massive cast work; Grey's doesn't. Gilbert claims that the cast overpopulation has turned Heroes into a mess: it's just too difficult to follow. Maybe years of watching soaps has prepared me for this challenge, but I don't find a damn thing difficult about the overlapping plotlines. I've watched a fair number of twisty and complicated shows in my day, and Heroes has to be one of the most deft at integrating the characters and plotlines in a way that is engrossing and rewarding for the audience.

How do they do it? That's pretty simple, too, actually: most episodes don't feature every character, and they regularly kill off secondary and tertiary characters (goodbye, George Takei!). Gilbert ignores the former and suggests the latter is a flaw. He alleges that, "In the last few seasons, Lost, 24, The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, and Heroes have all goosed their ratings and left fans buzzing by rubbing out a character or two." I don't or no longer watch a fair number of these shows, but I will tell you this much: I have seen every season of 24, and killing off a character is not a recent development. If anything, the show's willingness to kill just about anyone (except Jack, of course) is its claim to fame.

As for the rest of it, what, exactly, is wrong with goosing the ratings or leaving fans buzzing? Why shouldn't a show with too many characters, as Gilbert feels, get rid of a few? Especially a show whose major arc involves a serial killer. A ratings stunt, maybe, but Sylar was pretty much killing off a character an episode, not too mention those taken out by the other heroes or Bennett and The Company.

If anything, Heroes has to deal with its massive cast a lot more intelligently than other shows that boast larger groups. He mentions Brothers & Sisters, er, and GA. All of these shows link their characters through a single point: family or work. Heroes uses both and often neither. The cast is more geographically and generationally expansive, and, yes, the writers do use family and work to bring the characters together, but they also rely on the show's overarching mythology to bind them into working toward common goals and against a common enemy. They never have to stick together simply because they are family, and they never have to run into people they'd rather not see because they all work in the same place. It is their abilities that bind them, in the end, and how the show weaves characterization and ability together is not only clever, it's reminiscent of the genius that went into the first three seasons of Buffy.

Of course, when it comes to dealing with the negatives weigh down a voluminous population, Heroes has an ace in the hole: the graphic novel. Why waste screen time on reams of exposition and backstory? Put it in the novel! Want to introduce a new character? Give 'em their own novel or even multi-novel arc! And, if you want, you can kill 'em off there, too (bye, Hana!). Big cast or no, the novel streamlines things for the audience.

Heroes has two things going for it: the forward momentum of the plotlines (minus a handful of gaffes, e.g. most of the stuff that goes down with Hiro) and, yes, its many characters. We never spend too much time on anyone person or ability, so we get the impression that any time we do spend is going to be exciting and important. The opposite is true for GA: every character is shoehorned into every episode, but the writers have lost their ability to balance the focus between the different characters and their arcs. As a result, last season saw mass character assassination and egregious "twists" to the point of turning viewers off of watching the show.

So, think it through next time, Mr. Gilbert. Of course we're going to find someone to hook onto. The subtitle might as well be Parade of Pretty People who can do Cool Shit.

Actually, it's like comparing apples and . . . smaller apples

I just read this article in Newsweek by Devin Gordon. I can see where he's going with it, and I agree with his general point (TV's cool), but he's wrong. His argument ignores basic facts. I hate arguments like his. I dislike it that people write as though TV and film are comparable mediums but fail acknowledge what the similarities and differences are.

But let me first say that I agree up to a point. I agree that TV has abundant complex and exciting dramas available. I agree that TV seems to be more willing to push the envelope than film of late. I agree that the films are becoming more polarized in the sense that the middling drama is on the decline, although I fail to see what the problem with that is.

Mostly, though, I disagree. The apples and tubas comment is ridiculous hyperbole because TV and film are similar mediums that feed off and compliment each other. I watch more TV than most people I know, going so far as to tape one show so I can watch two in the time slot or tape shows for others and then mail the tape to them. I say these things as someone who loves TV. I also regularly watch a battery of movies on my TV, both on DVD and on cable. I'm not immune to the charms of any of these mediums.

The majority of the shows Gordon chooses to discuss (The Wire, Rescue Me, The Sopranos) are late night dramas on speciality channels. They have bigger budgets and shorter seasons than the average program, leaving the writers, who he claims are "king" in television, more room to maneuver. It also gives them more room to pursue other programs and feature films in a way that conventional television does not. By putting the shows on later at night, the networks airing them can get away with more in terms of sexual content, violence, and language.

You know what else those programs have? Smaller audiences. Most people still don't get specialty channels like HBO and F/X. They don't watch these glorious programs of which he speaks. He gives mild attention to ratings juggernaut American Idol, which Fox has brilliantly decided to air three nights this week. It's a televised karaoke contest, and it's nigh impossible to counter program.

But Gordon doesn't really want to talk about those kinds of shows. He doesn't want to talk about what sits atop the Nielsen's, which is a closer comparison to what makes the Top 10 in box office receipts, because I think he knows deep down that there is no basis of comparison.

Instead, he wants to talk about The Wire, which I have never seen. I understand that's it's really good, and I'd like to see it, but I have no idea when it's on or where. Ten to one most people reading this don't either. I'm not saying any of you wouldn't watch it either, but most of us don't have that option. If I could afford to get every channel my satellite service provider offered, I would. But I can't, and neither can most people. So we watch basic cable.

Consider an argument like this one: "For decades, if film was the Four Seasons, TV was a Motel 6. You worked in television for the money, or to reboot your career, or just to hang on. Now actors like Alec Baldwin, Steve Carell and Salma Hayek go from hit movies to network-TV gigs, and no one thinks they're nuts." Of course no one thinks they are nuts. Before they had hit TV shows, not a single actor you named was enjoying a successful movie career. The three of them had either fallen from the A-list or never appeared there to begin with. 2/3 of your argument regards career resurgences. 1/3 of it regards a man who's famous for making two very funny movies in the midst of a successful television career. I like all the people you are talking about, but it's not as though Meryl Streep is on your list. You would have made a better point if you talked about Helen Mirren in film and on Prime Suspect. Heck, she's been winning awards for both this season.

"Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco ("Crash") went straight from the best-picture Oscar to creating "The Black Donnellys" for NBC." Yeah, okay, and before their feature film success, they created Walker, Texas Ranger for CBS. Even here the comparison is faulty. Movies, for the most part, tell one story from beginning to end in a matter of hours. Television programs tell stories over weeks, months, and years. Crash had fixed beginning and end points. Maybe The Black Donnellys doesn't. Maybe, like its lead (Heroes) it tells a sequence that takes place over time. He's right in that you can do that with TV when you can't with film, but that in no way indicates that one medium is better than the other. It all depends on the story you are trying to tell. Gordon celebrates the big-budget premiere of Lost and ignores the way the story has circled round and round itself because the writers and producers clearly don't know how to keep drawing it out and keep it interesting. Supposedly they are back on track, but we're years into the thing.

Which is another problem Gordon fails to address. Even if you wait for the season to end and pick it up on DVD, TV shows ask you to dedicate years of your life to following their ups and downs, often long after they have passed their creative prime. Movies only ask for a couple of hours. Sure, there are sequels and franchises (and yes, I am excited about Spidey 3, and no, I'm not 12), but years can pass between installments, allowing you to pick up other movies in the meantime without any real competition between the two. If I want to remain devoted to Veronica Mars , then I'll be at home Tuesdays at 9 pm for 22 weeks a year. Movies aren't finicky that way.

And, yeah, there is something to going to see a movie in the theatre, to the experience, but I'd still argue that it has more to do with storytelling than anything. If you only want to talk about a guy for an evening, why would you bother with TV?

Finally, while writing a TV show does mean you are "freed from the need to sell tickets," it does not mean you don't "have to swell to a crowd-pleasing gridiron drive." Instead of once in two hours, you have to do it every week. Instead of aiming for a big rush over a single weekend (when most movies make the majority of their profit), you have to consistently provide millions of eyeballs to the advertisers that pay for your show. You slip up or fail to catch on? Chances are you are going to get cut. There's rarely a second chance for shows on DVD. Patient distributors that are willing to let the movie sit in theatres for months while word of mouth builds. TV doesn't given shows the same opportunity to linger. New shows that don't provide a given audience or old shows that stop providing what they once used to disappear.

"I still occasionally hear someone say that they don't watch television," [Denis] Leary says, "and I always tell them, 'Look, I don't care what book you're reading—put it down and watch these five shows, because you really, truly don't know what you're missing'." Sure, Denis, and I could think of five shows off the top of my head too that prove TV is an important and worthwhile medium. But how many people do you meet who tell you that they never go the movies? Never hit up Blockbuster for a DVD? Yeah, Gordon and Leary, TV is good. But it isn't better. If Shakespeare was around today, Ira, he still wouldn't be creating TV series. He'd be making movies. If he had wanted to tell longer stories over time, he would have written novels.

Free Market Economy

a.k.a Watch a bunch of movies you’ve never head of day!

Recently, Graham made a tiny diction error, and it set off a fire storm of thoughts and a smaller one of comments. Nonetheless, I got to thinking about whether the individual reader is on the wrong cinematic train because most of the movies I review are ones they’ve never seen or heard of.

The short answer? Yes.

Perhaps I should indulge you (and myself) with a longer answer.

Simply put, how is I that I see so many movies/come to know about so many movies in order to see them? Long before Feria Films was a twinkle in my eye, I subconsciously made it my business to know about movies and their makings.

This next bit is going to sound really pretentious, hopefully unavoidably so: although many people are familiar with those behind the scenes of their fav films, I make a point of noting the director and/or writer(s) of everything that I like for one reason or another. It’s enough, I find, for most people to think that a certain movie looks “good” or has a certain someone they like in front of the camera. For the most part, that’s enough for me as well. Even so, I will often go see a movie with people I don’t like or that doesn’t look all that good in the promos because it’s got someone I like at the helm. Case in point? Elizabethtown. I love Cameron Crowe enough to put up with Jessica Biel, which is another way of saying a lot.

Future example? Despite its condescending labelling as “that gay cowboy movie” (is that a genre I don’t know about?), I will see Brokeback Mountain, probably on opening weekend. Why? Because it’s Ang Lee’s latest. I don’t need more than that. He had me at Sense and Sensibility.

Much like the people that make them, movie watching begets more movie watching. When you see movies or rent them, you have access to trailers, which only inspire me to watch more movies.

Of course, that last part is related to the cyclical nature of my blog. See, when I write I review, I hit up the movie’s IMDb page for information. I never would have found the page if I hadn’t been looking for a source for Feria Films’ sake. Now the site is its own related but separate addiction. Not only do I follow the filmography of any and all, but I check out the site even though it’s not related to the task at hand. If I suddenly remember that I like Sam Rockwell, for example, then I look him up to see what new projects he has on the go.

While an ordinary person might see a trailer or read about a movie and then promptly forget all about said flick, I – and this is where I just get nutty – make a note. Both Emily and Madison can attest to the fact that I used to keep pages and pages of double-sided post-its to make sure I saw everything that I intended to see. Now that I have a Zip account, the list is simply transferred there. So when I decide that I haven’t seen enough Jack Lemmon movies, I look him up on Zip and add a bunch of the titles to my list.

It’s an addictive and possibly degenerative disease.

It all comes down to three little words that Sarah was kind enough to point out: Free market economy. Graham, and all readers for that matter, are you currently reading interview books (The New New Journalism and Original Minds in my case) that are changing and challenging your interests and even goals? Are you addicted to high concept Fox dramas? Do you download Damien Rice songs and wonder why he’s suddenly the go-to guy for pathos in TV and movies?

No?

Does that make one of us on the right train and the other on the wrong? Probably not. There are more books you there than you will ever read, more TV shows than you will ever watch, and more music than you will ever listen to. Just the way it is.

Are you, however, on the wrong movie train if you are never interested in any of the movies I blog about? If I said no, that would deny the reason for the blog’s very existence. So of course you are. I watch more movies than most people will ever see, and I make no apologies for it. I read more reviews than you do, I watch more trailers, and I make more notes in my calendar about upcoming premieres. It’s my thing.

Happy Watch a Bunch of Movies You’ve Never Head of Day!