Drew Carey is a stand up comedian. Bob Barker was a stand up guy. His jokes were lame, but it didn't matter. There was a certain aura that surrounded Barker, which made the show so popular. He had the voice, the hair, and the admiration of all the ladies.
Carey is funny, but he is no way lovable. Furthermore, compared to Barker's majestic voice, Carey's is nasal and annoying.
Could Carey take on Happy Gilmore? No way.
It will be interesting to see if "The Price is Right" can survive. I tend to believe that Barker was bigger than the show.
In the beginning of the summer, for one of my first posts on this blog, I categorically bashed the planned YouTube Democratic Debate. I really enjoy watching political debates, and I thought the YouTube videos would get in the way. It thought it was too informal. Some how, I figured, it was too Democratic.
Tonight's YouTube debate was not a great debate. I got that part right. But it was great entertainment, and I'm glad they had it.
This format should not become the norm, but it is an excellent complement to the typical, more formal debates.
The YouTube debate did not uncover much about the candidates polices that we hadn't already heard. But it gave us a unusually large glimpse into the President's personalities. This is very important.
Above all else, you want to vote for a Presidential candidate that you can trust. This trust can only be established when you get to know the candidates and see who they really are. If you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you can do this in a diner or corn field. If you live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Minnesota, you have to find other ways.
The YouTube debate made the candidates as unscripted as they're ever going to get on TV. Yes, the majority of responses were the typical stock answers, but there was verve and personality mixed in much more often than usual. Biden joked about the "baby" turned gun. Dodd joked about his hair. Hillary joked about her sex.
Edwards was put on the spot as to how he didn't separate religion from politics, and his response failed miserably. Gravel was challenged about his quote that American soldiers in Vietnam died in vain, and his answer hopelessly meandered to something about to ice cream (with sprinkles?).
Just as importantly, the YouTube debate was great for attracting young voters, like me. I watched the debate in a room filled with college students, and we were laughing half the time. Sometimes because of the candidates asinine answers, but more often because of their humor, or the humor of the YouTube videos. It's not often that you're going hear candidates joke about each other's wives.
As with past debates, I still cannot understand why candidates continue to completely ignore questions to instead get in their scripted B.S. The voters realize what they're doing and certainly don't like it. When at the table with Vladamir Putin, and asked a tough question on Nuclear Disarmament, do we want President Dodd to start blabbing about immigration reform? Or President Edwards to go off about wicked big business?
Part of being a great leader is responding promptly and appropriately to any situation that may arise, no matter how unpredictable it may be. By skirting around questions or completely ignoring them, the candidates do not convey a sense of leadership. Why don't they understand this and just answer the darn question? I'd rather hear a somewhat unsatisfactory answer to a question than a completely scripted response that fails to address the question at all.
Some other thoughts:
Obama Won.
Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson Lost.
Gravel, please leave.
Biden. I really like you. But just take a deep breath and calm down.
Why were so many of the questions from the East Coast? It seemed like at least 75% of the clips were from the Eastern U.S.
The opening bit, showing the YouTube videos that didn't make the cut was completely unnecessary. If they didn't make the cut, why show them? Let's hear from the candidates, not rejected YouTubers.
This feels just like ranking Super Bowl Commercials, but I'm going to have to say my favorite YouTube clip was this one:
I don't think I need to say much more about Who's Now. Every one's been on top of it, including Sports Illustrated, WFAN, and Deadspin.
Just now in Newsweek, I read a column by Devin Gordon that consisted of a bashing of ESPN as a whole, with Who's Now as the centerpiece. There was one line in the piece that grabbed my attention more than anything I've read or heard since T.I. met SportsCenter met Jessica Biel.
"It has led to the occasional gaffe, like ESPN's decision to cancel its well-regarded drama 'Playmakers' after the NFL complained about the show," Gordon writes.
Did he say Playmakers? Wow. I completely forgot about that show. Can I get it on DVD from the Amherst Library?
There is so much to say. I don't remember the show too well, but I'll do my best to highlight the characters and plot lines that made this one of the most audacious, ridiculous, and great shows to ever appear on the tube.
First, there was Demetrius Harris, aka DH. Played by Omar Gooding, aka the host of "Wild and Crazy Kids." DH was the up-and-coming star running back who hung with the wrong crowd and made all the wrong decisions. In the defining moment of the entire season, a doctor used a catheter to insert clean piss into DH, so that he wouldn't fail an impending drug test (he had gotten high days before). Watching the pee insertion was probably one of the most bizarre, disturbing, and uncomfortable moments ever on cable TV.
Then there was Leon Taylor, the aging veteran running back, played by Russell Hornsby. As far as I can remember, the guy was a complete di** who cheated on his wife, cheated in football, and solely cared about advancing his career. Oh, I just found some more about Leon that I had forgotten--he beat his wife.
There was Eric Olczyz, played by Jason Matthew Smith. He was big, good, and like everyone else on the show, completely messed up. He impregnated some random girl on a one night stand. He had to see a shrink because of post-traumatic stress. Yet, for some reason, he was always my favorite character.
Then there was the gay player, who had to hide his secret. There was the head coach, who had cancer. There was the equipment guy, who wanted to start a career in college coaching. And there was the theme song, which was freaking awesome. Here's a clip of the intro, to remind you of the show that was.
I had to go through espn.go.com/eoe/playmakers to refresh my memory on a lot of this. Here is a passage I read while searching the site which embodies the greatness and awkwardness of the show. It is in the summary for Episode 8:
"While lifting weights, Guerwitcz learns that Trent King went off steroids because it was affecting his performance in the bedroom. Guerwitcz uses the steroid excuse when his machinery doesn't work with August. Later, on a tip from Trent King, Guerwitcz gets help in the bedroom with some of Trent's manly medication."
I really don't understand why the NFL would want ESPN to cancel it. Shame on them.
WSJ.Com is free for today only, so I thought I'd be appropriate to write a post about a Wall Street Journal article.
A few weeks ago, I posted about Kellogg's decision to stop advertising Froot Loops, and other unhealthy items, to kids 12 and under. For a number of reasons, I thought it was ridiculous-- A) Fruit Loops are great and not all that unhealthy B) Shouldn't it be up to parents to serve healthy food? C) How do you regulate who sees a commercial? D) How big a difference do commercials actually make?
The article cited a study conducted by researchers in Liverpool. Before watching cartoons, kids aged 5-11 were either shown commercials for toys or food. After watching the cartoons, they were offered an array of snacks.
Guess who ate more?
The kids who saw the food commercials ate significantly more snacks.
"From an evolutionary standpoint, if you see it you better eat it because you don't know when it's not going to be there anymore," said Dr. David A. Levitsky, a Psychology Professor at Cornell. "What the food companies have learned very well is how to take advantage of that process and get us to eat more by showing us food."
Sorry, I have to go now. I have some Pepsi, Taco Bell, and Subway to scarf down.
(Note: The above image is supposed to be of a Budweiser Frog. I wonder if after watching that commercial, someone subsequently ate a frog.)
I wasn't planning on watching the All-Star game. I thought I'd have a night off from baseball and write some posts about non-sports related topics.
However, when I came in from playing Frisbee, the shower was being used, and I turned on the tube to kill some time.
I am happy I did. The MLB All-Star game is great.
The only reason I'd ever watch the NBA All-Star game is to hear Charles Barkley, the only reason I'd watch the pro-bowl is if I had a gun to my head. However, the MLB All-Star game is of a completely different breed.
I can watch the game with pride, seeing David Wright snag a diving ground ball in the top first, and Jose Reyes score in the bottom first. Not to mention Reyes having the chuptzpa to steal second with Barry Bonds at the plate. (I just put on my Mets hat).
I can watch the game with awe, seeing Ken Griffey Junior, Barry Bonds, and Carlos Beltran in the same outfield (not the last one so much). Looking in the AL dug-out and seeing A-Rod, Ichiro, and Manny.
I can watch the game with disgust, seeing Prince Field jog to cover first and then drop the incoming throw from Chase Utley.
I can watch it with a laugh, seeing Eric Byrnes dog swim off to Alcatraz.
The NBA All-Star game is just a bunch of guys fooling around and throwing alley-oops. However, baseball doesn't take nearly the effort of basketball, so players take the game so much more serious.
Seeing Kobe and Lebron on the same court isn't nearly as cool as seeing A-Rod and Griffey. The historical significance of MLB's greats means so much more to me than that of NBA's stars.
Jose just got another hit!
Now if only the Mets broadcasters were doing the game...
I haven't heard from Dan much as of late, since I never listen to ESPN radio. However, when I was in elementary and middle school, watching Sportscenter every morning before school, Dan Patrick was a big reason why. Back then, ESPN was able to pull off a special balance between substance and silliness. Because of anchors like Patrick, I never dared watch sports highlights on the much drier MSG or Fox Sports Net.
In the past few years, the balance has dramatically shifted towards silliness. That, or I'm simply older and cannot take it anymore. Either way, Patrick was the man in the days when ESPN dominated my life.
On a somewhat related subject, whatever happened to "Did you know?" That used to be an ESPN staple and it has quietlydisappeared. I suppose ESPN fired all its stat-geeks and replaced them with joke writers.
In case you haven't heard, Bob Barker is done at The Price is Right. After 35 years at the helm, he has decided to say goodbye to CBS, plinko, and the pretty ladies.
While I did not watch the show much, it was great for snow days when the only other shows on were soap-operas and reruns of Sportscenter.
I thought the show would die with Barker's retirement, but apparently it's going to live on. CBS is looking for a new host. Here are some suggestions:
JoaquinPheonix:Has there ever been a more hated actor? Every time I see this guy on the big screen, I cringe. It's impossible to dissociate him from the brutal character he played in Gladiator. It would add an interesting subplot to a rather formulaic, repetitive show--is it possible for an actor to be forever trapped within an on-screen persona? Xzibit: I would watch a pimped out Price is Right. Not only pimped-rides, but pimped lamps, golf clubs, microwaves...
Rosie O'Donnell: Just kidding. She'd be horrible.
Harold Reynolds: He is allegedly a great hugger, and 50 percent of the Bob Barker's job was simply hugging contestants.
Marc Summers: He was the lead personality on the greatest game-show ever (Double Dare), and with The Price is Right, he won't have to worry about getting dirty.
Steven A. Smith: To get him off of ESPN.
Selena Roberts: To get her out of The New York Times.
Barry Bonds: To get him to retire before breaking Hank Aaron's record.
YiJianlian: So the poor guy can make some money without having to go to Milwaukee. Woody and Buzz Lightyear: I'm sure Pixar could pull it off.
Others: George Foreman, Gilbert Arenas, Vin Scully, Eva Longoria, Samuel L. Jackson, Mike Gravel, Harry Altman, Jerome Bettis, Cameron Diaz, Mr. Met
While you were busy watching the Sopranos, Sex in the City, and PTI, the Discovery Channel has quietly become a heck of a Television channel.
Long gone are the days of dull documentaries about the Serengeti, Otters, or insects. With Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, and Man v. Wild, the Discovery Channel has developed some great brands. I haven't seen any of Planet Earth yet, but have heard from many that it is amazing.
Man v. Wild credits extra attention. The show is incredible. In the show, one man, Bear Grylls, takes on the World. He gets placed into rain forests, deserts, and frozen tundras and simply tries to survive.
There are certain questions that pervade every episode: how is the camera man sticking with Bear? Where is Bear trying to go? How is Bear such a survival machine? These questions are part of what makes the show so fantastic.
Bear treats the show as an educational tool, as if we, the viewers, may soon be stranded in a desert and need to pee on our heads to cool off. Or eat a decaying Zebra for food.
I'm not sure how much longer the series is going to continue. There are only so many places Bear can go. I suggest you turn to the Discovery Channel ASAP.
Here is a quick clip that epitomizes the show's greatness:
As I mentioned a little more than a week ago, I never watched the Sopranos--don't get HBO.
However, with all the talk on the web, in the papers, and on TV about the ending (non-ending?), I really want to see the last show. What was it like in the diner? How long did "Don't Stop Believing" go for? Was the black screen up for nine or ten seconds?
Though the ending may have upset fans of the show who had been watching it for years, it surely peaked interest in the show for those who never watched it before (see: DVD sales).
Today, on two different websites, I came across apparent endings to the show. Here is one, courtesy of Deadspin.com:
Here is another ending, courtesy of Hillary Clinton. (You'll have to go to the site to view it, I cannot embed it). Though I have not put support behind any Presidential Candidate, and this is not meant to endorse Clinton as a candidate, I have to say that Sen. Clinton was on the ball with this spot. It doesn't get across any message at all, yet still, it is so creative and unlike anything I've ever seen a candidate churn out. It's not negative in any way but simply witty.
However, for some reason, at the very end of Clinton's video, the screen goes black. Maybe my Internet went down. I'll have to check that out; I'm kind of pissed off.
It's a conversation starter, an outlet for bored people across the World who don't want to blog, a democratic movie production studio.
Yet, has its reach extended too far, too fast?
An article on The New York Times website this afternoon described how YouTube will be integrated into the July 23 democratic presidential debate in South Carolina. "New Presidential Debate Site? Clearly YouTube," said that the debate, which will be broadcasted on CNN with Anderson Cooper at the helm, will allow viewers to ask questions via YouTube.
Author of the article Katherine Q. Seelye writes:
Now imagine a kid in jeans and a T-shirt asking a question, less reverentially, more pointedly and using powerful visual images to underscore the point. Maybe he or she will ask about the war in Iraq — and show clips from a soldier’s funeral. Or a mushroom cloud. If global warming is the issue, the videographer might photoshop himself or herself onto a melting glacier. The question might come in the form of a rap song or through spliced images of a candidate’s contradictory statements.
When I first glanced at the article, I probably had the same reaction as many--I have a chance to ask a question at a presidential debate! Where can I get video equipment!
Yet, when I thought about it more, I realized that I'm not thrilled at all with the YouTube takeover. I think it is a bad idea. This is a presidential debate we're talking about, and it is being turned into American Idol. Ever since I was little, I've loved watching presidential debates. When I was young, it was to laugh at the goofy ears of Ross Perot. Now that I'm old enough to vote, the debates are a prime outlet for me to zero in on the candidates. Even though so much is rehearsed, over the course of a two hour debate, much can be drawn out of the candidates.
The best part about these debates is that all attention is put on the candidates. There are no intermediates to interpret what is being said--I can tune into CNN later for that if I want. While the debate is ongoing, I have to draw all conclusions on my own without any analysts help. I get to have a dialogue with the candidates, and no one can interfere with it. The information is coming straight from the candidates mouth into my TV room.
The YouTubing of the debate is inappropriately shifting the focus from the debaters to the viewers. I'll no longer be able to have an unbiased conversation with the candidates; I'll have to watch some graphic-filled video with a clear slant to it.
While watching debates, I often think debate moderators can do a better job of phrasing questions and giving all the candidates a fair say. However, I suspect that I will be yearning for the moderators of yesteryear when watching the YouTubed debate. I suppose the only positive to come out of this is that more people will watch. Many people who would have otherwise watched American Inventor orAmerica's Got Talent, will watch the debate. Essentially, the debate is being turned into the shows they love to watch--the viewer is getting an equal part to the performers. This YouTube debate will certainly be more exciting than those of the past.
However, when it comes to presidential debates, the barrier between viewer and performer should stay. Debates aren't supposed to be all that exciting. Let the YouTube videos remain on-line, where people have to search to find them, and don't force them upon viewers of a national debate.
The viewers have always had a chance to play a part in the election process--it comes on Election Day.
Much has been said about Vin Scully, the Dodger Broadcaster since 1950. Though I have heard so much praise directed towards him, before yesterday, I had never heard him broadcast a game at length. Yes, I have heard some of his famous calls, but never a routine, regular season game.
Thanks to MLB TV, I have listened to Vin Scully for the past two days, and the guy is legit.
The Dodgers are playing the Mets in a three-game series and MLB TV is only feeding me the LA broadcast. I suppose I am grateful for this, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to hear the living legend.
Vin Scully is a one-man broadcast team. He has no color commentator. He has no reporter roaming the stands.
The man has so much knowledge, not to mention a made-for-TV voice. Here are some highlights from the past two nights:
-Scully told a story of how Carlos Beltran once bought a monkey. When Carlos heard that Monkeys could live for over 40 years, however, he promptly returned it.
-He called a triple a "bellywhopper"
-He explained how the big wave of Cuban defections to play baseball in the states only came after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before then, conditions for baseball players in Cuba were so favorable they had no reason to leave. I didn't know this.
The best aspect of Scully is that at a time when there are so many talking heads on TV who don't back up there statements (see Morgan, Joe), Scully uses a wealth of statistics to analyze the teams and players. Whether analyzing the Mets woes at home, or a batters woes at the plate, Scully does a great job of balancing stats and commentary.
He knows so freaking much, both about history as well as the current league, and I learned a ton from the few innings I listened to him. If you ever can watch a Dodgers game on TV, I highly recommend it, regardless of who they're playing.
Now, if only the Mets would start playing some good ball.
Over at Deadspin.com, I just read one of the most uplifting sports stories of the year: former ESPN baseball analyst Harold Reynolds has been hired to work for MLB.com.
Little by little, what with the internet, Stuart Scott, and now this, I am having fewer and fewer reasons to watch ESPN. It is great.
Now, all that has to happen is for Major League Baseball to buy Little League. They can turn it into 1/2A ball. That way Harold can do what he was made for: broadcasting 12 year olds playing baseball.
As a blogger, it seems like I am obligated to make a post about the Sopranos today, so here it goes:
I have never watched the show, since I don't get HBO.
Unlike most, I am relieved that the show is over. This way Sports Radio will stick to talking about sports, and not some show I don't even get on my home TV
A few weeks ago, I wrote up a list of potential Bob Barker replacements. Drew Carey was not one of them.
