io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 9:39 PM
Tue Dec 1
29 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/23/09
07/23/09
07/23/09
Good explanations Ms.Bell.
07/23/09
/Billy Mays.
I too would watch Veronica in anything she would appear.
07/23/09
07/23/09
On another topic, after reading "I Love You Beth Cooper," I totally thought that Bell should have gotten the role, not Hayden.
07/24/09
07/23/09
07/23/09
07/24/09
07/24/09
07/23/09
07/23/09
07/23/09
07/24/09
07/23/09
07/11/09
I will continue to believe the more likely reason that Chuck is struggling is because of NBC's ridiculous placement of it on Mondays at 8pm. I'm one of the (probably few) people without cable (gasp, I know), but Monday at 8pm placed it (if I recall correctly), opposite Big Bang and How I Met Your Mother, House, and Dancing with the Stars (which, *vomits in mouth a little* always seemed to win its timeslot).
Why NBC can't move Chuck to the wasteland that is Tuesday night (seriously, they have two hours of Biggest Loser on there now), is beyond me. Clearly Chuck can do well, clearly it is beloved, clearly NBC has a better track record of sticking with shows than other networks (I'm looking at you, FOX). So it's crazy that they are allowing it to die a slow death in a timeslot that just doesn't make sense for it.
As for more guest stars, as others noted, please no. Bakula and Chase were great (and NPH sounds like a good plan), but relying on a new "guest of the week" takes away from the characters we're invested in.
07/11/09
07/12/09
07/11/09
07/11/09
look at moonlighting and even cheers. ideally, the leads shouldn't get together until the very last episode, but then you make that last episode something epic. imo, anyway.
some comments on the bulk of the article: i don't mind the product placements much. i know some people get utterly huffy about them, but imo you either ground a series firmly in a fictional reality via using almost no brands (maybe not as extreme as 'repo man', though) or you just run with something grounded firmly in 'our' reality and if so, make some money while doing it. nothing terribly wrong with subtle PP ('24' comes to mind -- all their SUV have had ridiculously oversized ford badges for how long now?), but something a little less on the nose a la degree+eureka might be in order.
as for the casting choice -- i think kirsten bell is a bit overplayed, but wouldn't mind her either. but johnathan pryce? that's just plain serendipity. he would be fantastic.
07/11/09
I've never believed in the Moonlighting example of what happens when they finally hook up. I think the writing team was just getting stale and that was an easy thing to point to for the show's decline - lots of shows lose creative direction after two or three seasons. Just having them hook up certainly didn't make the stories become more boring and sexual tension alone couldn't carry the show on its own in any event.
Look at Jim & Pam on the Office for a hook-up that followed through on its promise without losing its fun.