The Daily Campus, Page 6
FOCUS ON:
TV Show Of The Week
TV Top 10 Broadcast
Monday, March 10, 2014
Focus
Interested in writing TV Show reviews? Come write for Focus! Meetings at 8 p.m. on Mondays.
Shark Tank
‘Cosmos’ a star-studded show By Maurilio Amorim
Attempt to escape the clichés
1. The Oscars (ABC) - 13.1 2. The Oscars Red Carpet Live 3 (ABC) - 6.9 3. The Big Bang Theory (CBS) - 5.0 4. The Voice (NBC) - 4.7 5. The Oscars Red Carpet Live 2 (ABC) - 4.5 6. The Voice- Tuesday (NBC) 3.7 7. How I Met Your Mother (CBS) - 3.6 8. Scandal (ABC) - 3.4 9. The Oscars Red Carpet Live 1 (ABC) - 3.1 10. Blacklist (NBC) - 3.1
don’t want to see the show go and I would very much miss it, but is there really more to see or do with this show apart from just making me laugh? If the answer is yes, I will gladly sit through more seasons. If not, perhaps it is time to end before the show is not funny anymore. In the meantime, there is still a lot of fun to have in Pawnee, but I can’t shake the feeling that maybe we should all take a hint from Leslie’s current dilemma in the show and begin to wonder when the right time to move on from Pawnee is.
The problem with the entertainment industry today is that no matter how good of an idea you may have, chances are something similar has already been done. This of course does not immediately ruin any project, but it creates a problem. Writers, directors, stars, producers and studios do not want to be written off as something people have already seen. Often this means marketing the material in a certain manner or making changes. We usually never see the final product look anything other than familiar territory. Yet, every now and then a show will come along that takes the same material we have seen before and makes it its own and by doing so makes us forget that we may have seen something similar. There are a lot of television shows about detectives and law enforcement solving and investigating crimes or murders. A lot of these try to be their own, but end up falling back on clichés. My newest favorite show is HBO’s “True Detective.” The show’s awkward title did not intrigue me. Its pilot episode introduced the story of the two main detectives in multiple timelines over the course of twenty years investigating a satanic ritualistic murder when it occurred, then later wondering if the killer is still out there. While the story seemed interesting, nothing about it, aside from its well written characters, really jumped off the screen as groundbreaking. It was rather slowly paced in the beginning as well. What kept me hooked was the involvement of big stars like Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson. We’ve all seen mismatched detectives work together before, but rather than try and force the material to be different, the writers just ran with the familiar territory and made it their own. By playing with this relationship and crafting it into their vision despite us all having seen similar things done before, the writers have actually managed to make it their own thing. The dynamic between the two detectives may have appeared at first to be clichéd, but it has been so well-done that I am willing to guarantee in the future it will become what similar clichéd works will be compared to. The same can be said about the story. It may not have appeared to be going anywhere groundbreaking or original at first and it could be argued that without the show’s overall mythology and mystery, it hasn’t. However, the writers have managed to create an investigation inside their world that is so intriguing and well done that it stands on its own two feet and makes audiences forget that they have ever seen a similar work. At first it seemed to be just another investigation of a religious serial murder. There was actually a similar crime scene in the pilot of “Hannibal.” However, it has now set the standard for how similar shows will be judged. It is hard to break clichés and formulaic material because audiences may immediately dismiss it. However, if these things can be embraced and made into their own unique vision as they have on “True Detective,” then material can ultimately become its own thing. Just because there aren’t many original ideas out there, doesn’t mean that something cannot be original or good.
Maurilio.Amorim@UConn.edu
Maurilio.Amorim@UConn.edu
Photo courtesy of entertainment-focus.com
Ratings from TVbytheNumbers.com
FOX’s new version of the 80s show “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” gives audiences a tour of our universe.
Week ending March 2 immensity of the universe. Tyson’s telling of Giordano Bruno’s story was done through 2-D animation reminis“Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” pre- cent of classic Disney films and was dramiered last night, and it was brilliant. The matic without being exaggerated. And while show is a documentary series done as a his explanation of the Cosmic Calendar follow-up with much the same style as the might make you feel small, it also makes wildly popular original 1980 series present- you feel like you’re a part of something ed by astrophysicist Carl Sagan. This time amazing. around, Neil deGrasse Tyson, “We are made of star stuff,” also an astrophysicist and wellTyson said. Cosmos known science popularizer and As an English and economics communicator, is the presenter. major, I’m not big on studyIn terms of style the first epiing science. But after watching sode of the series, “Standing Up this episode, I truly lamented in the Milky Way,” was very that I had not chosen to study similar to the original series. astronomy. Tyson had a way of Tyson leads the audience on a tour of the exposing the grandeur of the universe withuniverse aboard a “ship of the imagination,” out being pretentious that made the viewer much like Sagan did. Through it, Tyson believe they were part of something magshared the birth of Renaissance Italian nificent. Moreover, the visual effects, far Giordano Bruno’s vision of the universe more impressive than their 80s counterparts, as an unlimited expanse of space and time complemented Tyson’s narration perfectly. and segued from there into an exploration The musical score was fantastic also in that of the Cosmic Calendar to demonstrate the it complemented Tyson’s narration without
By Jason Wong Associate Focus Editor
Top 10 Cable
A+
1. Walking Dead (AMC) - 12607 2. Duck Dynasty (A&E) - 5174 3. Talking Dead (AMC) - 5005 4. Pawn Stars (HIST) - 4938 5. WWE Entertainment (USA) 4778 6. WWE Entertainment (USA) 4313 7. WWE By AlexEntertainment Sfazzarra (USA) 4313 Campus Correspondent 8. Pawn Stars (HIST) - 4268 9. Gold Rush (DISC) - 4023 10. Rizzoli & Isles (TNT) - 3733 Numbers from TVbytheNumbers.com Week ending March 2 (Numbers of viewers x 1,000)
What I’m Watching Shark Tank Underrated: “Shark Tank” gives entrepreneurs the opportunity to pitch their business to a panel of “sharks” that can put up capital in exchange for an equity stake in the business. The imagination of American inventors and entrepreneurs is astounding, and never fails to entertain. Last week, a married couple that had invented “squeaky knee” pants for toddlers were on. They had squeaky toys in the pants to alert parents where their child is and to protect the kid’s knees. They didn’t get funding. Watching which sharks make offers to the contestants are just as interesting. Sometimes a bidding war ensues, while other times, no one is willing to participate. The sharks can be brutal, but they’re only being honest. -Kim Halpin
overshadowing it. I expect “Cosmos” to appeal to a wide audience, not just those who are already interested in science. My only real complaint about the first episode is that the opening was a little slow, but the rest of the episode really made up for it. My only other minor point of contention is that Tyson’s “ship of the imagination” looks like a Sith warship out of “Star Wars.” I have high hopes for this show. If every subsequent episode of “Cosmos” is as good as this first one was, I will be on the edge of my seat every Sunday night watching it. We’ve all heard the numbers that American students’ scientific literacy is falling behind that of other nations. Our own Committee on Science, Space, and Technology doesn’t even require that its members be scientists. I have hopes that the show will spark generations of people’s curiosity about science and improve their scientific literacy.
Jason.Wong@UConn.edu
Has the time come for ‘Parks?’ By Maurilio Amorim Staff Writer When NBC put “Parks and Recreation” on temporary hiatus, nobody was angrier than me. As a long-time fan of the show, I could not wait for it to come back. Throughout its run, “Parks and Recreation” has managed to remain one of the smartest and funniest comedies on television. While the show is still providing big laughs and plenty of entertainment from its now famous characters, it is all beginning to feel just a bit too familiar. I still find myself entertained, but I am questioning the future of Pawnee. I was afraid that the show would go downhill after Rob Lowe and Rashida Jones left. I don’t think the absence of their characters has affected the quality in any way, but the storyline is the real problem. It’s not that the current plot line is necessarily uninteresting or a turn off, but it used to be so much more. In past seasons, we saw a lot of interesting character arcs and stories unfold in Pawnee, but this season we don’t really have that much going on. In fact, it feels more like the writers are just throwing out ideas to keep the characters in daily shenanigans rather than pushing them anywhere like they used to. It may not drag like the current plot line of “How I Met Your Mother,” but it isn’t necessarily as gripping or exciting as it used to be. Perhaps there is more to come and the story will progress, but at the moment it is somewhat stale. Since Rob Lowe and Rashida Jones left there
Photo courtesy of newnownext.com
With the loss of two main characters this season, it might be time for the producers of “Parks and Recreation” to quit while they’re ahead.
haven’t been any noteworthy on its story or jokes to keep episodes, but the show is still fans watching, the show has funny. The characters we love always relied on its strong are still themselves characters and conand still manage tinue to do so. This to do enough to Parks and Recreation in itself is enough keep me more than to make up for the happy. What always dry story line and made “Parks and keep me happy. Recreation” stand Every show out as a comedy reaches a certain apart from its satirical and point where the question allegorical storylines was its must be raised whether there over the top characters. The is more to do and the show performances feel so real and should go on, or if the produceach character feels like a per- tion should quit while they’re son we not only could actu- ahead. It seems that this may ally meet in real life, but most unfortunately be the appropriof them are characters we ate time to raise this question want to meet. Rather than rely for ‘Parks and Recreation.’ I
B+