So, why am I not excited in the least?

Well, I thought about it. I finally figured out the reason - and it was not what you might have expected. For example, my indifferent feelings on "Twilight"/"New Moon" are NOT because:

• The Vampires are not *right*, i.e they don't match up to what I consider Vampire lore.
• The Werewolves are not *right* (see above)
• My dislike of Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner or Kristen Stewart (ok..I do kinda dig her)
• My feeling that Stephenie Meyer couldn't hold J.K. Rowlings jockstrap (if she had one to hold)

Even though I have reservations about the above items, none of them fully account for my aversion to "New Moon". The real reason is a bit more complicated.

The appeal of "Buffy", "Angel", "Blade", and heck, even "Underworld" was that you were immersed in a world where the supernatural existed and was thriving. The romance aspects were there, the character relationships were there, but the story rode on the fact that this world was different than the one we live in. These shows are dramas, with the supernaturality (to coin a word) baked into every fabric and relationship within the series. The Vampire, the Werewolf, the consistency of lore, the relationships of the characters viewed through the lens of the lore - these are the shards that come together to make interesting stories.

"Twilight" and "New Moon" (and, to a similar extent, "The Vampire Diaries") do not work that way. They are romance novels - in a setting. The unfortunate part, for me, is that they setting and environment are not actually all that important. It seems that the vampires could be aliens, shapeshifters or cute little poodles - it wouldn't matter, as long as the public happened to have a fascination with that particular entity and the actor was good-looking. If you look through the lens...well, what you see is what you get. A very simple romance.

"New Moon" debuts in theaters on Friday, November 20th. If I am way off-base and "New Moon" is somehow good, let me know!

According to various sources, FOX will air the full season order of 13 episodes, with the 13th episode serving as the series finale. FOX says that this will allow the show to end "in a significant way".

Whedon can't be surprised by the cancellation. The ratings for the show were awful (only about 3 million viewers each week - *including* DVR numbers). In addition, FOX had already stated that the show would not be airing during the November sweeps period, so the writing was on the wall.

To his credit, Whedon is maintaining his sense of humor. When asked about his future plans, he quipped:

"I'm off to pursue internet ventures/binge drinking. Possibly that relaxation thing I've read so much about. By the time the last episode airs, you'll know what my next project is."

For my part, I enjoyed the show. There were some uncharacteristic lulls (for Whedon), but the whole character and plotline for "Alpha" was extremely well done. Eliza Dushku was fantastic and the rest of the cast was solid. I was especially impressed with Enver Gjokaj ("Victor") - he's got a huge future...and I would wager he will find his way into another Whedon project.

"Dollhouse" will start it's final run on 12/4. As for Whedon's next project - he's directing an episode of "Glee" for FOX. He's also working on a sequel to the superlative "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog". And, you know he's got another concept ready - we just have to hope someone other than FOX buys it!

This incarnation is not a complete re-imaging (a la "Battlestar Galactica"). Instead, the original story looks to have been modernized to the current era. The plot basically chronicles the events surrounding the arrival of the 'Visitors' (or V's), who reveal themselves simultaneously to major cities around the world.

Here's why I think the show will be good. The writer and show runner is Scott Peters, who helmed "The 4400", which was a very underrated show. The cast also looks to be excellent, with Morena Baccarin ("Firefly"), Elizabeth Mitchell ("Lost") and Joel Gretsch (also from "The 4400") all playing major roles.

From what I read, the storyline is also still fresh. Some say that the plot of "V" is not really about aliens at all, but about fascism in America (see the io9 article for more). The extra layer of complexity attracts me. In addition, the trailer really did grab my attention and, I thought, set up a realistic feel of what would happen if aliens really did appear above my city.

Unfortunately, there is a big problem - ABC is only planning on running 4 episodes (the first 'pod') before putting the show on hiatus. Sure, there are plans to have the series return in March, but the rating and reviews will have to be superlative for that to happen.

I've already set the TiVo for the premiere. However, if the full episode does not live up to the promise of the concept (and the trailer), I suspect that this will be a very short-lived run.

This is an interesting turn, since "Chuck" was tentatively slated to return in March - which would push the season well into the summer. NBC, or any of the other major networks, does normally run shows from spring into summer. Evidently people go outside (or something).

However, Collider has several possible theories on why this might be a good thing for the show.

I think they are on to something. NBC has the rights to the next Winter Olympics, which will start in February. The post suggests that this will be the perfect opportunity to promote "Chuck" (which NBC did during the Super Bowl also) and give it a strong boost when it debuts in March. In addition, while all of the other network shows complete their runs, "Chuck" will face a weaker programming lineup when it gets to its finale.

So, if "Chuck" can compete with the lure of the outdoors and warm weather, this could be a very good thing for the show. One thing is for sure - I am glad to have more "Chuck"!

Networks - keep these alternative methods of presentation flowing!

Since I have been fairly ruthless in my cuts, I thought I would see if anyone had a show that I really need to be watching. So, here's my current list:

Watching

• Supernatural
• Dollhouse
• Flash Forward
• Castle (not sci-fi...but anything with Fillion is cool)

Yep! That's it! I am only 'appointment' watching these shows. I still consider "Supernatural" the cream of the crop on television today. "Castle" is actually pretty amusing, although in no way Sci-Fi.

Will be Watching

• Chuck
• Lost
• Doctor Who
• V
• Eureka
• Warehouse 13

You knew that I had a backlog of shows to watch, right? I do think the networks are swinging away from Sci-Fi right now, so there just are not as many shows out there. I am really looking forward to "V", even with the change to make it more mini-series-like. It looks really solid. The same goes for the next season of "Doctor Who".

Following (i.e. catching bits and pieces, but not really on my must see list)

• Heroes
• Fringe
• The Vampire Diaries
• Sanctuary

Sigh...poor "Heroes". Devolving into lesbian kisses for ratings - with no previous plot to support the move. It's typical of "Heroes" writing. They have an idea and they run with it, with no thought to continuity.

I may have jumped the gun in dropping "Fringe" from my regular viewing schedule. It looks like it has improved from the initial episodes that I watched.

"The Vampire Diaries" shows a little bit of promise, but overall, it is simply filler. My wife likes it, so it stays on the TiVo.

Not Watching

• Smallville
• Stargate Universe
• Eastwick (really bad)
• Ghost Whisperer
• Medium

I dropped "Smallville" years ago. For me, it's just not a Superman story. I have to note that "Eastwick" is not long for the air - its really pretty horrible.

So, that is my entire list. Is there anything that I am totally missing out on here?

Overall, I thought "Flash Forward" was pretty solid, and it has carved out a spot on the TiVo. But that's not what I am posting about.

It all started with several sites posting about a billboard within the first "Flash Forward" episode. The billboard says "Perfect Safety Record - Oceanic Airlines" (and there is some other text on the billboard that I cannot make out from the screen-cap). Of course, that is a reference to "Lost" - a FilmFodder favorite!

"Lost" attracts conspiracy theories. And, this billboard got me thinking - what other connections are there between the two shows?

It was much easier than I thought. Here's my list:

• The billboard - too easy.
• The funeral home from the "Through the Looking Glass" episode of "Lost" was Hoffs Drawlar, which is an anagram for "Flash Forward"
• A strange, out-of-place, animal was seen wandering after the event. In "Flash Forward", it was a kangaroo; in "Lost", it was the polar bear.
• Demetri's wedding dance song was "Islands in the Stream"
• When the unidentified agent calls Scotland Yard to corroborate his vision, they both state that they saw a bird hit the window. That is eerily reminiscent of the experience of a young Walt.
• (Stay with me on this one....) The global event caused everyone to see a vision of April 29th, 2010 at 10 PM PST (or 1 AM EST) and it lasted 137 seconds. The infamous numbers in "Lost" (4,8,15,16,23,42) add up to 108. 137 - 108 is...you guessed it - 29!

Of course, it's much more probable that the show runners for "Flash Forward" were simply giving a shout out to another popular ABC show. My list is admittedly reaching a bit (OK - a lot!). But, it's a lot more fun to speculate that the turning of the key (by Desmond in "Lost") caused a global blackout in the world outside of the island, isn't it?

"Flash Forward" centers around a mysterious global event that causes everyone in the world to black out for two minutes and seventeen seconds. In that time, each person sees a part of their own future.

According to the official site, the story will follow an Mark Benford (Joseph Fiennes), an FBI agent, who is trying to figure out the cause of the event. During his team's investigative effort, they start to build a picture of the future from all of the 'flash forwards' from people all over the world. They call this the 'Mosaic Collective'.

The story is based on a Robert J. Sawyer novel of the same name, which, interestingly enough, was also referenced in "Lost". Ther connections associated with the show are solid, with David Goyer ("Batman Begins", "The Dark Knight", "Blade: The Series" ) as the executive producer and Brannon Braga ("Star Trek: Enterprise"_

I have to admit, I am fairly intrigued by the concept of the show. However, I worry about the staying power - after we know the 'flash forwards' of the main characters, how will the writers keep our interest? I keep thinking this idea might be better explored as a mini-series or a movie. Still, it looks 'Flash Forward" will be worth watching.

"Flash Forward" debuts on Thursday, September 24th at 8:00 PM EST on ABC.

For me, the cast of the first two movies was not bad. Chris Evans was pretty close to perfect as Johnny Storm and Michael Chiklis was a convincing Ben Grimm. I didn't have a huge problem with Ioan Gruffudd as Reed Richards, although I thought he should have been played with more confidence - heck, he's the most intelligent man in the world!

I didn't think Sue Storm and Doctor Doom were well cast - in fact, neither of them worked for me. I *loved* Jessica Alba in "Dark Angel" and in "Sin City"...but she was simply miscast and mis-scripted as Sue Storm. I don't even want to talk about Doom. Julian McMahon was wrong for the part, and then the writers missed the essence of the character completely with the whole 'living metal' thing they did. Just awful.

MTV and Screen Rant both have posted articles on who they think should be a part of the new cast.

MTV goes with this lineup:

• George Clooney as Reed Richards
• Elizabeth Mitchell as Sue Storm
• Ryan Kwanten as Johnny Storm
• Chris Bauer as Ben Grimm
• Stellan Skarsg�rd as Victor Von Doom

Screen Rant counters with:

• Matthew Morrison as Reed Richards
• Jessalyn Gilsig as Sue Storm
• Ryan Kwanten as Johnny Storm
• Chris Bauer as Ben Grimm
• Stellan Skarsg�rd as Victor Von Doom

These casting ideas are solid, but somehow don't seem quite right to me. Clooney is a fantastic actor and could certainly pull off the confidence of the most intelligent man in the world...but somehow seems wrong. I was not a fan of Jessalyn Gilsig in, well, basically anything that she has done - she has an edge of crazy to her work, which is the opposite of Sue Storm's consistency.

Finally, both lists are enamored with the guys from "True Blood" (Kwanten is "Jason Stackhouse", and Bauer is "Detective Andy Bellefleur"). They also don't seem exactly right to me. However, I have only seen them on "True Blood", so they may be able to grow into the roles.

If I were doing the casting, I'd want the cast to look right, interact well, and to not have 'made it' yet, so that they could cameo in other Marvel comic movies (hey - I am selfish that way). So, without further ado, here are my picks:

Misha Collins as Reed Richards

I have to give credit to a commenter on Screen Rant's post for this suggestion. As the angel Castiel on "Supernatural", he's been a complete find. He's great, and I think he can convey everything about Reed that we need.

Yvonne Strahovski as Sue Storm

Yvonne is best known for playing "Sarah Walker" in one of my favorite shows, "Chuck". She's my pick for Sue as she completely looks the part, and, from what I have seen in "Chuck", can play the protective older sister as well as the neglected love interest. And, she rivals Alba in looks, which doesn't hurt one bit!

Justin Hartley as Johnny Storm For the record, they should bring Chris Evans back. But, since that doesn't sound possible, a flyer on Hartley might not be a bad idea. He has the look. Even with my dislike of "Smallville", he was fairly interesting as "Oliver Queen" during his stint. So, it's risky, but I think he just might be a diamond in the rough.

Domenick Lombardozzi as Ben Grimm

Credit has to go to Screen Rant for this suggestion, as he was one of their runner-ups to Chris Bauer for the role. I think he blows Bauer out of the competition. He looks the part, sounds the part and is a true New Yorker. He's probably the most likely actual casting of my list!

Tahmoh Penikett as Victor Von Doom

Admittedly, this is a bit of a stab in the dark. But, Tahmoh is physically imposing and can play a tortured soul. I think he might work as the man behind the mask. And, he couldn't be worse than Julian McMahon, right?

"Supernatural" really needs no additional fanfare. The fifth season will pick up with Lucifer free and the Winchester brothers...well, I'm not sure what they can do to stop rogue angels AND Lucifer. All I know is that it should be fun!

To get you in the mood, here is a fan-made trailer for Season 5 (in actuality, it is a sweet recap of Season 4) via YouTube:

But "Supernatural" is not the only show starting on Thursday. "The Vampire Diaries" also makes it's debut, starting at 8:00 PM EST.

I have to admit, my first impressions about "The Vampire Diaries" were pretty unfavorable. From the initial advertising, it seemed unoriginal and, most likely, a "Gossip Girl" adaptation of "Twilight" (which, now that I think of it, was fairly "Gossip Girl" already!).

The summary from Wikipedia also did not improve my image of the show:

"The Vampire Diaries is an upcoming TV drama filmed in Atlanta, GA, based on the book series of the same name by L.J. Smith. The plot revolves around Elena Gilbert, a young heroine who is the object of passion for two vampire brothers�one good, one evil�who are at war for her soul and for the souls of her friends, family and all the residents of the small town of Mystic Falls, Virginia."

But, after doing some research, I think it might not be all that bad. First of all, it is based on an actual novel, which predates "Twilight" by over a decade. The novel is still popular, with fansites based in Italy, Brazil and Romania - you'd think Romanians would be pretty particular about their vampire fiction, eh?

The television adaptation is helmed by Kevin Williamson, who brought us "Scream" and "Dawson's Creek". His experience should meld well with the source material, even though his more recent work has been a little lacking. Early reviews have been cautiously positive, so check it out and let me know what you think.

I have been running under the assumption that the upcoming fifth season for the show would be the finale. I mean, how can you top Angels versus Devils and Lucifer, with the brothers squarely in the middle? There is not too much more you can do in the realm of escalating powers there! Show creator Eric Kripke confirms my thoughts, saying:

�I did set out [to] tell a five-season storyline...But now that we�re in our fifth year, I have every intention of ending the story with a bang and not drawing it out or watering it down.�

This is a sound plan. Show that have a pre-planned arc (i.e. "Battlestar Galactica", "Babylon 5") always seem to work better for me. However, Ausiello also captured Kripke hedging, leaving open the possibility that the series could continue. Kripke stated:

�I�m looking at this season as the last chapter in this particular story. That doesn�t mean there can�t be a new story. Buffy did it. The X-Files did it. You close a chapter on a big mythology storyline and then you begin a new one...We�ll answer a bunch of questions this season and then pose some new ones next season.�

I think it goes without saying that I would like to see more "Supernatural" - as long as Kripke is still in charge and managing the plot lines. There are other mythologies that can be explored and mined for a story arc. However, I do hope that they can keep the brothers together. They shouldn't make an "X-Files-esque" mistake of replacing a lead actor and still continuing. More characters can be added, but if the relationship between Sam and Dean is missing, there is no show.

The fifth season of "Supernatural" starts on Thursday, September 10th at 9:00 PM EST.

I started making this spreadsheet a few years ago to organize my TiVo recordings. I still find it useful, so I wanted to share it with everyone.

The 2009 Fall TV Schedule (via a google spreadsheet) can be found by following the link. You can export it to a PDF file by going to File-->Export-->.pdf.

Enjoy!

ABC has decided to launch "Defying Gravity" this Sunday. To be honest, this is probably a bad sign, since, if the network thought it was going to be a hit, they would have included it on their true fall schedule. However, it is scheduled for 13 episodes, so there is a chance it could stick - if it's good.

There are a wide variety of views out on the web. The official press release describes the show as:

The Antares crew, a team of eight astronauts, launches into space, embarking on a six-year journey to explore Venus and other planets in the solar system, find their lives and destinies intertwined and carefully directed, not only by Mission Control officials on Earth, but also by an unseen force which is much closer and far more powerful.

I can get behind the concept. I like the idea of a relatively small crew, in tight confines, with an general mission. If Ron Moore or Joss Whedon was in charge, I would be agog. The actual show leadership, James Parriott and Michael Edelstein, seem to have more experience in primetime dramas like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Desperate Housewives", so I am taking a more reserved approach. Thus, I went a-googling and tried to find some early reviews.

I found two that I considered worthy - a highly critical review from the Chicago Tribune, and a much more positive one from the Pioneer Local site.

The Trib review is pretty brutal. It is titled "Defying Gravity' defies good TV" and describes the show as an "...intergalactic story that is half space opera, half soap opera. Merge "2001" with "thirtysomething," and you get this ugly mutant offspring named "Defying Gravity."

I have to admit - that guy pretty much eviscerated "Defying Gravity". However, the reviewer (Vince Horiuchi) did admit that he didn't care for "Stargate" or "Battlestar Galactica", so there is a pretty good chance that my viewpoint will differ from his.

On the other side of the reviewing coin is the Pioneer Local piece. The reviewer (Jennifer Thomas) describes the show as "...better than I expected but not as good as they could be" and as a "...cross between "Grey's Anatomy" and "Top Gun."

To be fair, she also does note that the show will "...appeal more to fans of romantic dramas than strict sci-fi fans". Thomas also reveals that she was a fan of "Buffy" and "Alias", so I may be predestined to agree with her viewpoint.

So, after digesting the early reviews, press releases and preview videos, I think "Defying Gravity" might be a fairly decent addition to my TiVo Season Pass list. My wife will certainly like it, and there seems to be enough Sci-Fi to keep me interested. Could it be a perfect 'date night' show?

Defying Gravity debuts with a two-hour premiere on Sunday Night on ABC at 9:00 PM, then moves a regular 10:00 PM EST time slot next week.

Quite a few things happened while I was on break. Here is a short list of the items that caught my eye while I was on break:

• The 40th Anniverary of Apollo 11 was huge. The conspiracy crowd was having a field day - after all, there has to be some reason we have not been back. My take - the government decided to implement 'oversight' and 'paperwork', which makes it impossible to innovate. But, that's just me (curse you, Sarbanes and Oxley!). Or, alternatively, maybe the aliens told us not to come back. Heck, I'm just not sure.
• Eureka is back! My favorite summer show still makes me smile.
• Warehouse 13 debuted...and I still have to watch the first episode. The overall reviews were pretty positive, although my buddies say it was 'meh'.
• "Virtuality" came and went...it was good! This just in - FOX still doesn't know good Sci-Fi.
• "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" looks awesome. My kids are stoked.

Even though the firewall at my other job has made it a bit more difficult to post (curse you, Websense!), I have a ton of subjects that have caught my attention. After all, the new Fall season is quickly approaching - and we'll be there to sort out the good from the 'meh'.