Featured article: "'The Event' is One Big, Entertaining Disaster"

I came across this article on tv.com this morning and loved it. Whenever someone posts an article about how much they aren't liking a show or how much a show sucks, every commentor comes to its defense and insists that the writer is just a hater who doesn't even like TV. Yes, it's debate in its finest form. No one can acknowledge that some shows aren't as good as they think they are and some people aren't just being bitter, jaded, miserable humans when they criticize a show. I don't know why I'm still shocked every time a commentor insults the writer rather than their writing. Maybe because the writer made some good points and it's easier to attack a person you don't even know than address the points they raised?

Anyway, here's the link. "'The Event' is One Big, Entertaining Disaster"

It talks about how "The Event" is bad but, for the writer, it's still fun. I agree that it's bad but I was definitely not entertained. If anyone reads my blog and also watches this show, I'm very curious to know why you still do (watch the show, that is). I watched "Heroes" for years way after it got bad, so I'm always interested in why other people stick with bad shows. At least "Heroes" had one great season to get me hooked before it slid downhill.

Why has this Fall TV season been so lackluster?

At first, I thought it was just my busier life this year that caused me to watch much less television lately. But then the other articles started up, asking why there are no break-out hits this year. It made me stop and think about this season and realize that it wasn't just me - there really aren't any big hits this year.
It's been a while, but it's been a long time since there was not a single new show I was excited about. I decided to drop "The Event" this week, "Nikita" never grabbed me, "Undercovers" just felt unnecessary with "Chuck" still around, "No Ordinary Family" sounded like a perfectly ordinary family drama, and I couldn't even bring myself to watch more procedurals. You want to know what my big, new obsession is this fall? "Six Feet Under." I recently acquired the DVDs and have been making my way through that show, effectively extinguishing any desire for a new show actually on the fall schedule. But I've turned to old cable shows because I just can't see beyond the flood of more and more procedurals. At some point, the American viewing public has to get sick of cops and lawyers, right? I'm fine if cops and lawyers are done well (like in "Southland") or with some interesting premise that hooks you ("Life on Mars" or "Eli Stone"), but the majority of shows out there are just run-of-the-mill, boring procedural shows. And I suppose a lot of the new fall shows are okay, but they aren't anything to get excited about. I remember how thrilling "Heroes" was in those early days, or how "Pushing Daisies" transported you into a fantasy world unlike any other, or how riveting "24" was every week, and I still get glimpses of the heartwarming enjoyable hour "Grey's Anatomy" used to be and still can be.

It's like "Lost" just left a huge void in quality TV and everyone is afraid to try anything big again. Although if they do try something big, they will be inevitably compared to "Lost," whether they intended to copy it or not. "Lost" was just such a big sensation among all demographics that I think TV is taking some time to collectively catch its breath. Also, as my new "Six Feet Under" love has noted, it's just easier to find quality television shows on cable networks. Cable networks still have freedoms that basic channels don't so they end up taking more risks, producing fewer shows but concentrating on making those few shows stellar. It's why a lot of good TV comes out of the UK - their seasons are short and they end the shows after only a few seasons. It may not be as satisfying in the short term, but in the long term, you realize that's why it was able to maintain its quality. Who knows, maybe a show like "Firefly" wouldn't have gone down in TV history as one of the greatest shows of all time if it had had more than one season to screw things up. Sure, there are some shows that can last a long time at a great level. "Supernatural" has had ups and downs, but I think it's one of the most consistently well written and acted shows on television now. But the lesson here is that the basic networks rarely take chances on something big, and more often than not, it doesn't pay off anyway.

So that's why I'm not blogging as much about TV as I wish I was. Long-term loves have been my focus as some shows, like "Fringe", have finally become great while others have always been great. It's also about that time when shows five or more seasons in experience a revitalization of creativity. But nothing new this fall has captured my attention, and that's really a shame because I'm not too hard to please when it comes to TV. I guess we'll all just hold on until next fall and hope someone, anyone, takes a gamble and brings us something great. It doesn't have to be the next "Lost." Just the next show that doesn't rehash the same formula we've seen a million times.

My Top 10: TV Heroes

It's been a while since I last did a Top Ten list, and everyone loves lists, so I figured I'd focus on the best of the best on TV. We all love a good hero and we know the basic short list for All Time Heroes (Batman, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, etc.). The list of movie heroes is long, varied, well-worn territory, so I'd like to salute my favorite lesser-known TV heroes and heroines. I'm defining a hero through the use of a hypothetical scenario. If the there was some sort of doomsday scenario and the world was in jeopardy, who would I want if I could pick a team of ten people to help avert disaster? Okay, not all of them are heroes in the epic, world-saving sense, but I would want every one of them on my side when I'm in a bad spot. And I'm admitting right now that I am clumping together some related people when they are absolutely necessary as a team. What can I say? My list, my rules.

10. Rupert Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

I'll admit, I'm not a big fan of "Buffy." I find it to be one of the most overrated shows out there. One of the reasons I have a hard time watching it is because of the fact that I don't like any of the characters. Any except Giles, that is (and Spike). I've only gotten four seasons into the show so my love of Giles is based solely on them, but from what I've seen he's the only person on that show who can get anything done. Buffy can kick ass but she's not very bright, Xander's a useless dork, Willow's smart but weak, Anya is a bitchy third wheel, and Angel was a moody miserable stalker who didn't become interesting until he got his own show. Giles, on the other hand, is brilliant and can kick ass if he needs to. The introduction of Wesley improved his image, but I liked him from the beginning. If the world was in jeopardy from supernatural forces, Giles would figure out what was behind it and how to stop it.

9. Malcolm Reynolds (Nathon Fillion) from "Firefly"

This spot would go to River Tam, but she got to be awesome in basically only one episode in "Firefly." "Serenity" is where she shined and if this was a movie heroes list she'd definitely place. But Mal is the hero of "Firefly" that I would want around when the shit hits the fan or any scary monsters are around going "grrr, argh." Okay, he wasn't exactly a hero in the strictest sense of the word, but he was a damn good leader of his little outfit and he did the right thing when making tough decisions.

8. Veronica Mars (Kristen Bell) from "Veronica Mars"

Some of my heroes aren't action stars, but they still fit my definition of hero. Anytime someone has screwed you over, Veronica is able to get to the bottom of it - and look great doing it. But more than just super sexy eye candy, she's clever and she knows how to work her appearance to her advantage. While someone like Giles could solve problems with his book smarts, Veronica would fill out the team with her street smarts. She's the kind of girl who could get a criminal to confess without him even realizing it. She's kind of ninja-like in that way.

7. Michael Westen (Jeffrey Donovan) from "Burn Notice"

He's sort of the male version of Veronica, but with much more experience in the professional world of espionage. He's also got that whole MacGyver thing going on which would totally help in my hypothetical doomsday scenario. He also has an ability unlike anyone else on this list to assume false identities for his jobs and that earns him a spot on this list.

6. Cal Lightman (Tim Roth) from "Lie to Me"
He's a human lie detector. What more is there to say? Lightman keeps a strong commitment to finding the truth and looking at a situation rationally. Sure, Dr. House can declare that "everybody lies," but Lightman can tell you who specifically is doing the lying and what about. He backs up his natural skill with years of scientific experience and study, so you can trust him to save the day when your ass is on the line. His expertise with interrogation would stop us from needing a Jack Bauer character to come along and torture an answer out of someone.

5. Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) from "Fringe"

I've raved about Olivia for some time now, so of course she earns a top spot on this list. She's another take-charge lady with nerves of steel who can travel through universes just to help someone she cares about. She can face the strangest of the strange with a level head and still serve justice. I absolutely love her and would have to enlist her in my team of fictional superheroes. (Super referring to their awesomeness, not their comic book based powers.)

4. Sarah Connor (Lena Headey) from "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles"

This might seem strange to put her so high on the list, as she wasn't my personal female hero like Olivia, but she had a lot more to deal with than Olivia did. In a world full of deadly machines, she was truly the unstoppable force to be reckoned with. She combined top-notch combat skills with fierce maternal instincts and I'm sure even the FOX execs who cancelled her show would agree that she would be ideal to have by your side when the world is in peril.

3. The Winchester clan (Jared Padalecki, Jensen Ackles, Misha Collins) from "Supernatural"

This is the start of "my list, my rules" because I am counting the next two as package deals. Sam and Dean Winchester with the help of Castiel are quite the team. Sure, they started the apocalypse, but they also managed to stop it, sort of. The self-sacrificing goes beyond what they do for each other and extends to what they sacrifice to help other people. When Dean lives a Twilight Zone version of his life if he wasn't a hunter, he cannot accept a life where others died because he wasn't around to rescue them. Sam agrees that their lifestyle "is unfair, and it hurts like hell, but it's worth it." Castiel rebels against the corrupt establishment in Heaven to try and save the Earth and gives up everything he had to do it. It's a shame the Heaven in the "Supernatural" universe is in such disarray because if anyone deserves it, it's these three heroes.

2. The Torchwood team (Naoko Mori, Gareth David-Lloyd, Eve Myles, Burn Gorman, John Barrowman) from "Torchwood"

Talk about more self-sacrifice in the line of duty. Three out of the original five team members died and Captain Jack Harkness had to sacrifice his grandson to stop a horrifying alien threat. Jack is a dashing hero who can't even die which makes him an incomparable hero. He's smarter and much more responsible than he seems and he picks loyal team members. An immortal ex-Time Agent, a cop, a doctor, a computer genius, and the tea boy who was so much more made one powerful group of heroes. Which is why it's that much more painful that the show insists on killing them off! (Oh, and you're pretty much ensured crisis sex with this horny bunch).

1. The Doctor (David Tennant or Christopher Eccleston) from "Doctor Who"

This is no shocker. The Doctor saves the universe every season and does it without firing a gun or throwing a punch. He'll take care of those damn Daleks every time they come back, he'll stop the Cybermen whenever they reappear, and he'll even burn his own planet out of existence to stop a threatening race bent on genocide. River Song put it best, when she commented that "now and then, every once in a very long while, every day in a million days when the wind stands fair and the Doctor comes to call, everybody lives."

"The Event" - a show that wants desperately to be riveting and intriguing

I was hoping the second episode would hook me, or at least get me more excited about "The Event." Alas, I'm still lukewarm on this show. But lukewarm is better than cold hatred, so I'm sticking with it for now.

I was really surprised that they decided to break out "not of terrestrial origin" in the second episode. So much for not embracing SciFi. That said, I'm still not intrigued by their human-looking aliens, why these aliens are here, what they're doing, are they good or bad, etc. I just suddenly feel like I'm watching the less promising bastard offspring of "V" and "Flashforward." There are aliens infiltrating our society for some unknown reason, there's a mysterious event that happened, and meanwhile Jason Ritter is off running around in the desert. The plane crash victims' untimely end surprised me, but I still feel like this show is incredibly scatter-brained. We know that Jason Ritter's missing girlfriend/plane crash storyline is somehow connected to the alien prisoners, but I just don't care because they're going to have to take some giant leaps to connect the conspiracies. I don't know what the plane stunt was for, but I highly doubt the answer is going to be anywhere close to satisfying. These days, shows write giant mysteries to hook viewers then write themselves into corners because they didn't think to develop an eventual conclusion to their narrative. The result is unhappy, bitter viewers who are less willing to trust the Next Big Show. After "Invasion," "Flashforward," "Heroes", and "The Nine," we're just less willing to commit and put our faith in the showrunners. Additionally, the fractured timeline is needlessly confusing and isn't adding much of anything to the show. There are bits and pieces of character development, (Jason Ritter meeting his girlfriend, the CIA agent who is an undercover alien) but not enough at any one time to make us care especially about any one character.

I will say this for the show: I can't help but like Jason Ritter as the sort-of protagonist. Yeah, he hasn't done anything really spectacular or heroic yet, but he does have that Everyman quality every critic has been mentioning. But I could just be getting that impression because I haven't seen him in many things. I think the show needs to stick with him for a little bit as the main protagonist to get us invested in at least one person's business, then they can add on all the other characters they want in more depth. If they narrow the focus from this epic scale a la "Flashforward" and give us a more intimate look at one man's struggle to find the woman he loves while being wrongfully accused of murder, they could just make viewers care about the vast conspiracy. I really think they should take some tips from an older, semi under-the-radar SciFi show, "The 4400." They managed a big mysterious event that changed the entire world while focusing on fascinating characters. That show made you care about what happened to their fictional world because you cared about the people in it. If "The Event" can focus more on its characters and less on its EVENT, then it will turn out to be a much better show. Oh, and if they could get someone to write dialogue that doesn't sound like it was written by a high schooler, it would be greatly appreciated.

"The Event" - It's the next 'Lost'!

I had to title it that because you know it's what they wanted to market it as, but after the abysmal failures of "The Nine" and "Flashforward," they didn't want to go that far. But the "Lost" vibe is what it's going for, and it's no surprise that it's no "Lost."
Take the crazy crisis situations, minority President and Jack Bauer tactics of "24," add in elements of the first, second, and fourth "Die Hard" movies, multiply it by "Lost" with all its vague mysteries, throw in a little "Independence Day" action hero and "need to know" dialogue, add a whole lot of "Flashforward"'s ambitions, and "Flashforward"'s, "The Nine"'s and "The 4400"'s emphasis on a big occurrence, and you've got NBC's "The Event." I was struggling to find something, anything, that was original or at least a fresh spin on tried and true elements of the mystery/SciFi genres, but I don't recall finding any. So many elements just felt lifted from other projects with recognized, recently free actors thrown in. The dialogue was nothing special and downright irritating in the scenes with the politicians, where they talked in broad, noble rhetoric without any real arguments on the situation they were discussing. No one character had any distinct personality which made it hard to care about any of them in particular. "Lost"'s main strength was their characters and I give them all due respect for creating realistic, distinctive, multi-dimensional, morally ambiguous characters.


I'm suspecting I've become jaded after being let down by "Heroes," "Flashforward," and "Lost." Again and again, I've learned that the payoff is hardly worth the investment so you have to be content with the journey. The problem is when you get shows like this that so emphasize the mystery primarily, (it's called "The Event" after all. And no matter what fans say, "Lost" was unique and lit up the fanbase because of its mysteries) you have to hope they have a good plan for the mystery and they aren't just stringing you along.

"Flashforward," "Lost," and it looks like "The Event" as well all had the same problem for me. I feel like they were terrified of outright embracing their SciFi side. Executives still think SciFi could never be mainstream, so I get this feeling that these shows skirt SciFi, insisting on bizarre mysteries to draw in viewers but not going deep enough into the SciFi realm to give satisfying payoff to their mysteries. Everything stays in this vague middle-ground where they try to please everyone.

Regarding the event itself, I hate the whole "too soon to reference real-life terrorism in pop culture" argument, but it still bothers me a little to see a hijacked plane getting flown into a building in a fictional setting. It wasn't fun watching Clark Kent burn down twin towers on "Smallville" and it wasn't fun watching a plane plummeting to the ground on "The Event." I guess using planes gives you an automatic, built-in anxiety about the situation due to real-life plane crashes/hijackings and fictional ones. Still, when you name a show "The Event," I expect a little something bigger than a strange occurrence during a plane hijacking. This just felt like an old episode of "The Twilight Zone." So did they go through a wormhole? Was is some weird, man-made technology like on "Flashforward?" Were they transported through time like in "The Twilight Zone" or "The 4400?" Is everyone on the plane dead and now in purgatory, getting prepped for their journey to heaven? (I couldn't resist.) Did they just get transported somewhere else on Earth? That seems unlikely since the plane still would have crashed, just somewhere else. All in all, I'm not so sure I care. Maybe they'll do something interesting with the concept, but I'm not holding out hope.

There were so many moments in the pilot that took me out of the show. As a frequent flyer who gained all her flight experience in the post 9/11 world, a lot of security issues took me out of the episode. How did Jason Ritter get a gun on the plane? I saw that he ditched some clothes or something in the bathroom after boarding the plane, but didn't notice what they were. If they were a uniform for airplane personnel, wouldn't the other airplane personnel have noticed him? And if it wasn't a uniform, then still how did he get the gun on the plane? How did that guy in the car just drive onto the tarmac? Why were there no people on the tarmac at all? I was incredibly relieved they didn't ignore the existence of Air Marshals, though, so they gained a couple points back for that.

Stray other thoughts:

• So I figure some conspiracy group took Scott Patterson aka Michael Buchanan's daughters hostage after shooting his wife, then forced him to crash the plane. That was quite an elaborate plan then since they bothered to disappear the older daughter, going so far as to take out her cell phone.


• Couldn't Jason Ritter have just asked the guard or the hotel manager to look at the security footage to show he and his girlfriend were there? The footage would probably be gone since the kidnappers went through so much trouble to make it look like they were never there, but it didn't even occur to Jason's character to try?


• "I'll explain everything once we're on the ground." You can't at least say something, like someone is hijacking the plane as the pilot? Or just something?


• I'll be honest, it took me some time to realize that the names before certain scenes were the characters' names, not the credits. I was thinking the credits were taking a long time to come up, but then I realized that I wasn't recognizing any of the names. Yes, it was a dumb moment.


• Once they're on the ground, "you can arrest me all you want." Lol.
  
  
• Why didn't ANYONE try to drive the President away from a plane rushing towards him? Where was his Secret Service detail? He was already in the car with his family, and they all just sat there.


• That whole post-drowning scene where the couples are hanging out and drinking felt exactly like the setup for a horror movie. The young lovers on vacation, the exotic locale, the mysterious strangers forcing their way into your life, the odd way they met...


• Without distinctive characters, I still have to resort to saying "hey, now we're talking with Dr Kerry Weaver, and now we're talking with Luke Danes, and now we're talking to that "Joan of Arcadia" guy, and is Zeljko Ivanek on every single damn show?"
  

I'll tune in for the next few episodes. If it's going somewhere interesting or there's actually some character development, I'll stick with it. If the dialogue and cast are still bland as all get-out and they drag out the mystery forever like it's the most fascinating question to plague mankind, I'll drop it.

My Top 10: Unfairly Hated TV Characters

One of the unfortunate products of the Internet is the fact that people are allowed to spew all sorts of hate in comfortable anonymity. Now, I take TV kind of seriously but I also realize it's all fiction intended for our entertainment. Other people, however, take things very seriously and apparently get very worked up over certain plotlines or characters. I've noticed that a lot of characters that get chastised for being annoying are often very realistically written and perhaps people just don't want to spend time with fictional people who whine and complain just as much as real people do. I also love the irony of people complaining about characters who complain too much. Some of the hate heaped on certain characters is, in my opinion, unwarranted. And when I say hate, I don't mean so-bad-it's-good, love-to-hate hate. I mean hate-to-hate, revulsion, cancel-this-monstrosity-now-it's-burning-my-eyes-out hate. So I made a list, in increasing order of unfair hatred, to defend some of them. The standard caveat applies: I can only cover shows that I'm familiar with. I'm sure there are plenty more unfairly reviled characters, so feel free to comment away with other suggestions.

10. Susan Meyer (Teri Hatcher) from
"Desperate Housewives"

There's a LOT of hate for this character, even more than the hate for everyone else on this show. I think most of it stems from a general hatred out there towards Teri Hatcher for some reason. I'd like to clarify that I don't even like Susan Meyer - in fact, she irritates me quite a bit when her neurotic side takes over (which is, let's face it, often). But I also find her neurotic disposition and gossipy lifestyle to be painfully realistic sometimes. These qualities are exaggerated for comic effect, but I think there are plenty of people in the real world who are just as annoying. People get really nasty about this character because of lots of reasons that combine into one giant force of annoying. Lots of people hate Teri Hatcher. Lots of people love to hate "Desperate Housewives," since it's cool to bash it and try to make yourself look smart and superior. Lots of people hate Susan because she's silly, clumsy, and immature. Some complaints on this subject are warranted, but it shouldn't take the nasty form it often does.

9. Luke Danes (Scott Patterson) from
"Gilmore Girls"

I put this one low on the list because it's a rather dated reference by now. Luke is a good example of character assassination because the writers demanded it but didn't bother to make it realistic at all. After Luke and Lorelai finally got together, the writers decided they needed obstacles, so they threw in Luke's long-lost daughter April, a lispy precocious young teen who drove a wedge between the couple. As that season progressed, Luke became more and more distant as he kept Lorelai and April apart for no reason whatsoever leading Lorelai to eventually explode and run into her ex's arms. While I hated Luke during the season or two he became even more crotchety than normal, I think the hatred by a lot of fans was unfair. His change in personality was out-of-character and completely contrived. It was the kind of personality change where it takes you out of the show to the point where you can hear the writers pondering "hmmm....should we bother giving them an organic conflict that leads to a satisfying resolution and deepens their relationship? Nah, let's just make Luke act like an ass so we can have fun with Christopher again! We already know Luke and Lorelai will end up together at the end of the series, so let's not bother worrying about things like consistent characterization."

8. Mohinder Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy) from
"Heroes"
People really started to hate Mohinder. I might be a little biased in my opinion since I had a major crush on him and I stopped watching the show for a while when he finally got more storyline, but I still think he was unfairly reviled. To lots of people, he came off as preachy and ineffective. But he was one of the only people on the show with no powers, the cast of the show was huge and he wasn't given enough screen-time to flesh out his character, and the brief arc where he was pals with Sylar (when he didn't know it was Sylar) certainly didn't do him any favors. Now, I missed the storyline of him getting his own powers somehow, so maybe it was awful and he deserved the hatred for that, but a lot of the hate was spewed before that season and I just felt really bad for him.

7. Grace Adler (Debra Messing) from
"Will & Grace"
Grace is the type of character you either like and enjoy or find grating and dislike. She's the standard neurotic, flustered female you get on a sitcom. This definitely falls under the category of "if you loathe the main character, why are you watching this show?" "Will & Grace" is a sitcom - you're pretty much ensured this kind of character. I feel like the kind of people who go around talking about how much they hate a character like Grace are the kind of people who feel like they have some sort of obligation to humanity to convince everyone that the show sucks as much as they think it does, even though every person is completely free to watch or not watch depending on how they feel on the subject.

6. Jack McFarland (Sean Hayes) from
"Will & Grace"

Once again, you know what you're getting into with a sitcom - wacky characters. I'm in the camp of people who love Jack. But I can understand where some people are coming from in hating him. He's played as a stereotype and a lot of the humor on "Will & Grace" comes from stereotyping. But once again, it's a sitcom. Almost every sitcom has some sort of stereotypical character. I don't see people up in arms over "Glee" reinforcing stereotypes of drama queens and gay characters, yet I know "Will & Grace" received plenty of criticism for this. The way I see it, it was a groundbreaking sitcom still held back by a time period of considerable homophobia. And while the characters were often stereotypes, they were also endearing, funny, heartwarming, and compassionate friends. Jack may have been a stereotype, but he was not a negative character by any means.

5. Violet Turner (Amy Brenneman) from
"Private Practice"

Violet shares a lot in common with Meredith Grey in that they're both characters with dark pasts who are not immediately likeable to the unforgiving viewer. I was surprised how many people hoped Violet would be the one to get killed off in the season finale since I don't think she's that insufferable. She went through a major traumatic experience! Some mourning time and recovery is warranted here. Her romantic entanglements I can take or leave, but I actually enjoyed her storyline when it involved her trauma and the custody battle over Lucas. I was especially glad that, instead of getting nasty and staying there, the Oceanside group got nasty for a while, then felt bad and rose above it. Violet dealt with her situation in a mature manner - she understood she had to get better before she could be entrusted with Lucas, yet she demanded her rights as a mother. I think most people on the outside of the show find everyone in the cast insufferable, but the people who can stand the show and enjoy it on a certain soapy level have no reason to hate Violet in particular, in my humble opinion.

4. Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo) from
"Grey's Anatomy"

This is just a character that lots of people don't like. But since she's the star of the show, complaints about Meredith often lead me to wonder once again, "then why are you watching the show?" Many people hate the voiceover device. I like it when used well but I don't mind it so much to the point of hatred even if it's vague and adds nothing to the show. Physically, Ellen Pompeo isn't a stunner and I do have a hard time imagining guys fighting over her. She's like primetime TV's version of Bella Swan (although that may be a bit too harsh. Okay, extremely harsh). And personality-wise, she isn't the most fun either. But I find her to be a realistic character in the way her dark and twisty-ness comes out. She complains about legitimate things most of the time - like her issues with her mother's affair, her father's abandonment, and all sorts of other family trauma. She's not the most immediately likeable character, but I think there's something human about her in that, once you get to know her, her eccentricities make sense and her dark attitude becomes justified. Also, I give "Grey's Anatomy" and Meredith major points for allowing the character to change and evolve over the years. Meredith isn't still doing the same dark and twisty routine she did in early seasons. She's married, she's matured, and dealt with many of her childhood traumas. She's got a good relationship with Lexie and her marriage to Derek is surprisingly - dare I say it? - healthy.

3. Daniel Shaw (Brandon Routh) from
"Chuck"

This one might be pretty controversial for "Chuck" fans. I was by no means a fan of Shaw, but I think this is another case of The Powers That Be influencing the narrative negatively. I could understand just not liking him - Brandon Routh is like handsome cardboard. And I could understand not liking him for coming between Sarah and Chuck. And maybe it's my own opinion, but I never felt like Shaw was that big a threat. Romantically with Sarah, he never had the same charm and magnetism that Bryce Larkin did. I knew that he was thrown in to give Chuck and Sarah another obstacle, I knew that Sarah was afraid of getting involved with Chuck and afraid of what Chuck was becoming so she might find solace in fellow spy Shaw, and I knew that Chuck and Sarah would end up together anyway. So yes, I understand he wasn't a likeable character, but I think people went way overboard with how much they despised him. I think this backlash was more from the Shipper fans, who couldn't stand to see anyone come between Chuck and Sarah. (Oh, and to note: this was my attitude before he became the finale villain and killed Chuck and Ellie's father. Then we were supposed to loathe him. I'm talking about the period before, when we were supposed to accept him as a team member. Later, I loved-to-hate him since he gave us some epic Chuck vs. Shaw action).

2. Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman) from
"Doctor Who"

Poor Freema had a very tough position. She had to follow the beloved Rose Tyler played by Billie Piper. She was also saddled with a forced crush on the Doctor that was, of course, not going to end well. In retrospect, she gets an even worse rap since people adored Donna Noble as played by Brit comedian Catherine Tate. One of the biggest disadvantages Freema had was being an unknown. While unknown to us US viewers, both Billie Piper and Catherine Tate were already famous before being cast as companions and therefore already had solid fan bases. Freema didn't get this luxury and ended up with an uphill battle to win fan support. I personally think Donna is as overrated as it gets. People loved her habit of "knocking the Doctor off his high horse, calling him on his mistakes, and generally keeping him grounded." I hated her habit of being an annoying bitch most of the time. (She had her highlights though. I actually really loved her in "Partners in Crime" and "Turn Left.") Martha was smart, driven, and an asset to the Doctor. It was about time to have a companion who wasn't a doe-eyed worshipper of the Doctor, but Martha wasn't the fluttery preteen-like fangirl that many "Doctor Who" fans make her out to be. If nothing else, I think she should get major points for being gorgeous. Not to be entirely shallow, but she did have redeeming qualities on a purely physical level! (And now that I sound like a lesbian creeper....on to number one!)

1. Rita Bennett/Morgan (Julie Benz) from
"Dexter"

The inspiration for this list. It's a little late coming since most of the hatred was released in the wake of her death as people everywhere declared "good riddance." Me, I could never understand why people hated or even just didn't like her. I loved her with Dexter and loved seeing how he became a better person when he was with her. Most, if not all, of the complaints came from Rita's purported "nagging" of Dexter. Apparently people think a wife should be perfectly fine with her husband being gone at all hours of the night or gone on secret trips, even if he's had a history of leaving you for another woman amidst a heroin addiction. What a pain in the ass, a woman wanting to know where the man she loves is! What a nagging bitch, asking you to commit to your family! I wasn't thrilled when she got killed off and hope her character gets a proper send-off on-screen, since many "Dexter" fans celebrated her off-ing. Rest in peace, Rita.

Tis the Season - More Shows Renewed, Cancelled

It's that time again! That nervewracking time of the year as we creep closer and closer to upfronts where the networks have to announce their fall schedules and decide what stays and what goes. I'm happy to announce that I've had some luck with my bubble shows this year. I'm also happy to announce that I officially love Michael Ausiello (but that's nothing new!)

(Ausiello is keeping a great Bubble Show Scorecard here. I think his version is the best as it's the most up-to-date.)

In his column this week he filled us in on when each network has their upfront presentation:

• Monday 5/17 - NBC and FOX
• Tuesday 5/18 - ABC
• Wednesday 5/19 - CBS
• Thursday 5/20 - The CW

But, onto the good news/bad news segment! "V" was renewed, much to my delight. I think the show still has potential, unlike "Flashforward," which was just cancelled. "Flashforward" was an epic disappointment for me this year so I'm hoping "V" will make up for it by returning strong next season.

Also cancelled by ABC were "Romantically Challenged," (which I hardly remember hearing about), "Scrubs," and "Better Off Ted." I'm glad "Scrubs" is finally retiring; it really wasn't the same show, just the same title. And I'm unsure about "Better Off Ted." I heard from quite a few sources that it was good, but I never watched myself so all I can do is offer my condolences to any "Ted" fans.

"Human Target" and "Lie to Me" were both saved, despite every site talking about saving one or the other. Well, unofficially saved so far, but I'll trust Ausiello with this one and take the victory. "Human Target" seemed like a fun enough show and I checked out a few episodes, but I'm a "Lie to Me" girl all the way. Any show that teaches me how to detect lies is a winner in my book.

But the best news of all? "Chuck" was finally, officially renewed. And we didn't even need a giant Subway campaign this year, so yay for us.

This has been a crazy season: "Lost" is going away forever, "24" the television series is ending (personally, I am totally ready for some "24" movies), "Supernatural" got renewed despite its intention of ending this season (and ending the season with a very series finale-y episode), "Fringe" got renewed without too much last minute drama, "Southland" got the life it deserves on TNT, "Burn Notice" was renewed through, like, 2035, and who knows what the hell is going on with "Heroes." (I'd take another season. Even though I hate this concept, it's the perfect definition of a 'guilty pleasure' for me.) [Update: "Heroes" is dead. Finally. It's still sad remembering your glory days though.]

I'll probably post something else about the new fall pilots when we get closer to fall. There are so many right now that still have such fluid concepts and casts at this point that I don't bother to brush up on them until later. So for now, I'm going to celebrate the renewal of the shows I've been cheering for all year.