Category: TV, Film and Radio

Tennis grunting and you

Much has been made of professional tennis players who grunt or otherwise emit loud noises as they swing at the tennis ball. BBC News did a large piece on it in late June. About 10 days later, ABC News did a piece, thus making the matter suitable for American consumption.

The BBC News article tells the story pretty well, including discussing why it’s an issue now considering that there have been a number of noisy players since the ’70s. Monica Seles and her auditory performances were cited as a landmark shift in the woman’s game.

Also, the article quotes trainer Nick Bollettieri who says the grunting (or just exhaling at the end of a maneuver) can be natural.

“I prefer to use the word ‘exhaling’. I think that if you look at other
sports, weightlifting or doing squats or a golfer when he executes the
shot or a hockey player, the exhaling is a release of energy in a
constructive way,” Bollettieri said.

I decided to put Bollettieri’s theory to the test. I wanted to see if grunting was a natural release of energy. So my friends and I went to the best court we could find — the table tennis set at The Oasis.

After a couple of warm-up rounds, I tested to see if grunting would help my game at all. With every swing of the tiny wooden paddle, I tried to push out a little more air and emit a loud “UGH” or a breathy “EH” as I reached out for the ping pong ball.

While it cracked my opponent up, I don’t believe it helped my game much. It also seemed artificial emitting a sound as I lined up my return.

Perhaps the field of play was too small — maybe table tennis isn’t ready yet for grunters. I wonder if grunting in tennis is necessary — I played racquetball over the years and don’t recall a lot of grunting.

I guess my experiment was rather silly, but at least it had a paddle and a ball. BBC Radio 1’s “Newsbeat” didn’t even have that — they asked people outside Wimbledon to play “grunt tennis,” where they pantomimed playing tennis grunting all the while.

So, to grunt or not to grunt? What do you think?

Winners and losers in the digital TV conversion

Digital TV converter boxI want to check out some winners and losers with the recent switch to digital TV over-the-air signals. Depending on where you live or what you like to watch, the switch had some pretty interesting outcomes.

Here’s a quick look at the scorecard:

Winner — The National Football League. The original conversion date was set in mid-February. Lawmakers took pains to avoid making the switch around the Super Bowl. Even the summer switch doesn’t affect the NFL.
Losers — The National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League. It’s pretty clear that Congress _didn’t_ consider these two when setting the new date of June 12. Both the NBA and NHL were the midst of their league finals. For the NHL, a pivotal Game 7 took place on the day itself.

Winners — Big cities. When I visited Salt Lake City in March, I checked the DTV set-up at several relatives’ houses. Not only was the set-up fairly easy with indoor antennas and strong local signals, the number of channels available was amazing — upwards of 20+. Of course, SLC has 3 public TV stations so it’s not a huge surprise (those three stations are responsible for about 12 channels alone).
Losers — Small cities. It’s more of a crapshoot pulling in DTV signals from more distant locations (such as trying to view Redding stations from Chico). My neighbor has been on the roof at least four times adjusting an antenna to pull in Redding’s PBS station, KIXE 9.

When you do manage to pull in a signal, the station offerings aren’t as robust, although there are some additional channels. In many areas, some viewers may give up over-the-air viewing and opt for satellite. This isn’t necessarily an option in the smallest of markets which currently don’t have local channels on satellite.

Winners — People with good converter boxes. Having a good converter box can greatly add to a viewer’s DTV experience. Look out for the ability to change the viewing options (such as zooming in on the image) and having a reliable on-screen program guide.
Losers — People with bad converter boxes. I tested a couple of boxes that stunk out loud. It was next-to-impossible to change some of the viewing options. Some of the boxes had a clunky interface, requiring scrolling through several on-screen menus.

Draw — People watching TV over-the-air. Assuming you can pull in DTV signals on your antenna, the viewing
experience is much better than before — clearer pictures, more
offerings, etc. It’s free, but you don’t necessarily get all the channels that other systems offer.
Draw — People watching over cable/satellite. Clearer pictures and tons of channels are something that cable/satellite viewers have enjoyed for years … at a cost. Also, the new DTV subchannels are just now being added to cable systems, but they’re often require a digital cable box (at additional cost) to view.

Undecided — The people who didn’t make the switch. In the lead-up to the switchover, there were concerns that some groups of people, including the elderly, indigent and non-English speakers, wouldn’t make the switch. The number of people who weren’t prepared for DTV was shrinking, but I don’t know if it shrunk enough.

So, how do you think the DTV switchover game played out?

Photo: A Digital Stream converter box used during a May 2008 E-R test.

‘Jon and Kate’ to do something that rhymes with ‘8’

Possible headlines from Monday’s announcement from Jon and Kate Gosselin of “Jon & Kate Plus 8.”

Jon and Kate GosselinTonight is the night where there is supposed to be some sort of pay off for months of hype regarding Jon and Kate Gosselin. The couple will make a “major announcement” on their show tonight (airing at 9 p.m. ET).

For those needing a refresher, the Gosselins have managed to parlay their ability to have many, many children into the reality show “Jon & Kate Plus 8” on a network that used to be called “The Learning Channel.”

Oh, the things that we have learned! Not necessarily on TLC or the show itself, but elsewhere in the infosphere–the tabloids, the ceaseless entertainment Web sites and TV shows and their ilk. Depending on where you look either Jon cheated on Kate or vice versa (the couple has denied both rumors).

Regardless of what happens tonight, I’m sure the headline writers of the world are preparing to chronicle the announcement with no shortage of plays on the show’s title. For example, we’re all bracing for the headline, “Jon and Kate separate.”

While a separation is possible, here are some other possible outcomes from Monday’s announcement:

  • “Jon, Kate, Octomom set playdate” — think of the ratings if these two child-making dynamos get together.
  • “Jon & Kate to legislate” — if they choose to announce a joint run for elected office.
  • “Jon & Kate to sell plates” — they’re taking their show to QVC.
  • “Jon & Kate EXTERMINATE!” — the couple announces they’ve become Daleks of “Doctor Who” fame with the sole goal of exterminating inferior life in the universe.
  • “Jon & Kate kids to emancipate” — Sure the sextuplets are just 5 years old, but they’re probably old enough to know when to pull the plug.
  • “Jon & Kate fail to placate” — the likeliest headline if the announcement turns out to be nothing but fluff.

Photo credit: AP Photo/TLC, Karen Alquist, File

Hasta la vista, Leno

Tonight is the last “Tonight Show” with Jay Leno. Although he’s not leaving our screens forever — he’ll be on in a new show at 10 p.m. this fall — I thought I would watch the finale and write a mini-review.
It won’t be available until early Saturday, but if you have any thoughts, please feel free to leave them here.
Personally, this will be the first Jay Leno show I’ve watched all the way through in about five years (I last watched all the way through when the Watersmeet Nimrod basketball team was on — in 1994). I just never thought “Tonight Show” was appointment viewing (especially when I have primetime shows stacked up on my TiVo).
What do you think?

Everybody’s talking about … ‘Supertrain’?

A publicity still of Supertrain from the TV series of the same name.In what is probably one of the year’s biggest headscratchers, I’ve noticed a number of bloggers writing about the failed 1970s NBC TV series called “Supertrain.”

Haven’t heard of this “Love Boat” on rails? Neither did I, until I stumbled upon a post from sitcom writer Ken Levine. Here’s how he described it:

Television at its worst but cheese at its very best.

This landmark example of how not to create a TV show was also mentioned by prominent blogger Jason Kotke and The Infrastructurist.

I’ve seen the first 10 minutes of the pilot and it’s pretty bad. I broke out laughing during the teaser with the train company’s leader launching the Supertrain concept. It wasn’t the line that the train would be powered by an “atom powered steam turbine machine” that cracked me up. It was the leader’s “reassuring” response to a critic’s charge that the train was a huge gamble that could ruin the company.

“So you think it’s a gamble, do you? Well, gentlemen … Since I can count my remaining years on the fingers of one hand, from my point of view, it’s not much of a gamble at all.”

How is that supposed to be reassuring in any way?

Other than the fact that the pilot is exquisitely cringeworthy (Steve Lawrence gets top billing), I have no idea why it’s still getting mentioned 30 years after the show went off the rails. Perhaps discussions of creating regional high-speed rail networks has sparked some fond memories of bad television. It also might be better than most of NBC’s fall schedule, but I’m hoping not.

Here’s the first 10 minutes of the pilot. The remaining nine segments are on the Infrastructurist blog.

Photo: NBC publicity still originally provided to J. Morrissey and hosted on the NBC Supertrain Web site.

NBC, please re-up “Chuck”

As the second season of the NBC spy spoof, “Chuck,” winds down, fans are gearing up to fight for a third season. Where else are you going to get a and witty spoof of both spy movies and geek culture expertly woven into 44-minute packages?
Marueen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune sums up the situation quite well.
Personally, “Chuck” is one of the best things about television on Monday night or any other night of the week. I was recording it along with “Heroes,” but it’s gotten to the point where I’ve dropped the superhero show from my lineup and focused on “Chuck.”
It’s a great combination of spy drama and geek comedy with just a touch of ’80s nostalgia thrown in for kicks. Some of the plot falls apart when you probe for specifics, but it holds up for most casual viewers.
Considering all the creative energy the show has in its tanks and the lack of many strong one-hour programs on NBC (can you name two?), I hope the network considers picking up the series for at least one more year.

“Unusuals” harkens back to old police drama … not necessarily in a good way

I watched about 2 minutes of the premiere of the new ABC drama (or dramedy) “The Unusuals.” I didn’t give it a full 44 minutes Wednesday night, but the scene I watched was lifted from a classic crime show from 15 years ago. Well, I don’t know if it was a homage or lifting.
That show of yesterday was the incomparable “Homicide: Life on the Streets.” What was the scene? It was the one where Baltimore detectives are interrogating a suspect and they hook up to a “lie detector.” The gag is, and has always been, that the lie detector is really a photocopying machine but the detectives have done a convincing enough job to dupe the subject into thinking that it was a real polygraph.
The gag involves the subject placing his hand on the scanner while the detectives ask a series of three questions. The first two are gimmies — Is your name John Doe? Do you live on Clancy Street?
The suspect would tell the truth, the detective would push the “Start” button and, lo and behold, the copier would spit out a piece of paper with the subject’s handprint and the word “TRUE.” Of course, the detectives had arranged the paper tray in advance to obtain that very result.
The third question is crucial — did you kill the victim? The subject would lie and somehow the polygraph would know this — the paper that emerges says “FALSE.” Faced with such overwhelming evidence, the suspect then confesses.
Something similar did happen on the “Unusuals,” although it was after one of the detectives showed the suspect body parts in a cooler and imitated the victim’s voice.
I can’t say the creators of this new show were lifting from “Homicide” — It’s apparently a very old tale (according to Snopes.com). In modern storytelling, the Xerox polygraph was in David Simon’s 1991 book, “Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets” and it cropped up twice in TV shows based on Simon’s work or created by Simon himself — “Homicide” and “The Wire.”
That’s where I first encountered the story, although even the source material alludes to the incident happening in Detroit.
Regardless of where the polygraph by photocopier originated, I wonder why we’re seeing it again. It’s a good gag, but shouldn’t a new show strive for new ground at least for the first few episodes?

If “SportsCenter” was broadcast in the middle of a forest, would anyone notice?

ESPN started broadcasting its 10 p.m. edition of “SportsCenter” from Los Angeles this week (LA Times article). Can anyone tell me if they can notice the difference?
To be honest, it took me a while to realize that the switch was made. The LA broadcast looked very similar to every other edition (all other editions of “SportsCenter” continue to originate from Bristol, Conn.).
I was catching snippets of Tuesday’s “SportsCenter” while at The Maltese. Every so often, there would be background footage of Los Angeles — Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, stuff like that. I didn’t think there was any major sporting event originating from LA, so the whole thing threw me off until I remembered about the changes.
At first, there don’t seem to be any major changes — the sports highlights looked the same (although the graphic presentation looks to have been updated in the past few weeks). The studio looks pretty similar to its Bristol counterpart.
I think many of the changes are beneath the surface. Some commentators have said ESPN is throwing the West Coast a bone after decades of being headquartered in New England. I think the changes could be more profound than that.
Having a production center and “SportsCenter” in Los Angeles is an excellent move on ESPN’s part. Sports is increasingly becoming “sports entertainment” (to steal a phrase from pro wrestling). I think the network could have a better access to superstar athletes with their studio across the street from Staples Center instead of relatively rural Connecticut.
Being close to Hollywood could help with other things, such as their series of original movies. ESPN is also ready to kick things up to the next level of TV production — the new studio is the first capable of producing 1080p high-definition TV.
I guess we’ll see if the left coast has an influence on the worldwide leader in sports.

My “ER” memory

The long-running medical drama “ER” is ending tonight. I never was a die-hard fan of the show, but I do have one memory that I hold somewhat dear.
It was my first year of college and I was working at the student newspaper. We published the paper twice a week (Mondays and Thursdays, IIRC), but we were there other days of the week too.
Thursdays were always kind of a fun day — the paper had just come out and we had some breathing room before next Monday. Often times, we would hang out and watch some TV in the sports office.
“ER” was one of the shows we would watch. It was 1996 and the show was in full stride. The characters were interesting and the frantic pace of the drama was exciting (even if they did seem to intubate every patient that set foot in the hospital). It also didn’t hurt that our opinion editor looked like Dr. Greene.
Just as I lost track with most of my college newspaper colleagues, I haven’t kept tabs with “ER” as the years have rolled past. Nonetheless, the show will have a place in my heart for entertaining us all those years ago.

Saturday DVD release of “Twilight” is brilliant

Although I’m not the target audience to watch “Twilight,” I have to say the
Saturday release for the DVD is a stroke of brilliance.
If you need a refresher about what the movie is about, it’s a tale of “forbidden love between a vampire and a mortal.”
Most DVDs come out on Tuesday, but there’s nothing as far as I know to prevent a Saturday release. It’s like movies at the theater — most come out on Friday, but they can come out on other days as needed.
In the case of “Twilight,” it’s a great idea. The target audience for the film seems to be teenage girls. I can imagine the DVD fitting in well with many weekend activities, including get-togethers. A quick search shows several DVD parties are being set up (including in York, Pa..)
I like these group experiences although they can be easily mocked by outsiders. They are some of the things that make the cult movie experience worthwhile for the participants.