Out of Focus

MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR ME: THE WEEKEND IN PREVIEW

When I originally started this blog all those many moons ago (geez -- it's only like 16 moons; it feels so much longer, and I'm sure even longer still for you), I really intended to regularly do two things: first, have some semblance of regular reviews of the movies I see -- long, short, whatever; and second, do a weekly preview of all the new releases -- big and small -- as much for you my loyal reader as for myself to make sure I at least have taken the time to know when stuff is coming out. Well, I've performed horribly at both goals, and for that reason, I am quitting blogging.

HEY! Stop cheering. I'm kidding. You can't get rid of me that easily.

I'm still working on the reviews, but how's this for a really short one:

Must Love Dogs must hate me, because I do love dogs, but that movie irritated the hell out of me.

How's that? A little more than a headline; a lot less than I'm used to. OK, I'll get into more detail later, maybe even in an IMreview with my screening companion from the other night. However, I have so many other things I feel are more interesting to discuss, we'll see if I actually get around to it. Broken promises: it's what we're all used to, no?

But Must Love Dogs is just one of a whole slew of notable new releases this weekend, and wouldn't you know it? I still haven't seen anything from last weekend, when I actually did manage to carve out a weekend preview post.

None of the releases this weekend are so huge that they will really challenge the box office rankings. Chances are good that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Wedding Crashers can hold on to their top spots, but if certain people who I said I wasn't going to talk about again until I seen a certain movie was upset last week, he'll be crying far more hysterically come Monday after being bumped out of the top five. Each of this weekend's wide releases however do have sleeper potential, especially Must Love Dogs which really should have been a cute romantic comedy with two incredibly engaging leads, both of whom are crushes to the vast majority of movie-going America. But enough about this dog.

The movie I'm most excited for as it receives a limited release this weekend is The Aristocrats, a documentary from comedians Paul Provenza and Penn Jillette which features over 100 of their comic colleagues telling the same (sort of) famous filthy joke over-and-over again. The film was a big hit earlier this year at Sundance. More recently it's been the center of a minor controversy: due to it's graphic language, distributor THiNKFilm has decided to release the movie with no rating, and gigantic theater chain AMC has declared they won't exhibit it. Of course, it's hard enough to get a small picture into parts of the country that don't have initials like NY or LA; take away the major multiplexes, and you're potentially done for. Regardless, I've heard from some that the gimmick gets tiresome, but I'm still fascinated to take a look at this films main purpose: to expose just a little bit about the inner workings of the comedic profession. If you want a preview, take a peak at the contribution to the film from Eric Cartman and his South Park friends. It's genius. (It's also sort of NSFW; at least the sound and language is.)

OH DEAR, DELINQUENT AGAIN: I GUESS EW AND I HAVE THAT IN COMMON

Here I go thinking I'm all back into the swing of things, multiple posts on a day even, and then suddenly I miss one. I know, it's certainly no capital crime, but I do have several items I do keep intending to put up here. However, the big thing that has happened this week is that after continual major frustration with the lack of finding a job and the lack of finding anything on my desk, I'm trying to systematically go through every piece of paper and every pile (and if you know me or, especially, have ever seen my apartment, you know there are a lot of piles) and do something with it. This, shockingly enough, takes a lot of time, and instead of allowing myself to productively procrastinate, or, as I usually do, simply procrastinate, I'm trying to take hold of the adverb in that two-word phrase.

I did, however, get an email today that simply cried out to me, "Take a moment and post something." In my little TV Guide diatribe on Tuesday, I mentioned how awfully behind the magazine always seemed to be. Well, now I want to yell at whomever Entertainment Weekly has put in charge of actually compiling their realtively new weekly "Must List," now accompanied, for people who at any time registered on their web site, by a weekly email providing a little preview for the list. My email telling me, "The things we lover for your weekend ..." (featuring items from the upcoming Aug. 5 issue "Must List") was comprised of the following (I've excised the descriptions):

1. Book: "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," by J.K. Rowling
   
2. Movie: Billy Bob Thornton in Bad News Bears
   
3. DVD: The Mary Tyler Moore Show

Is this how the magazine that wants to be your sole arbiter of all things entertainment tells you what's cool and hip and interesting to check-out? A book that doesn't really need any more publicity, but more importantly came out two weeks ago? A movie that was a major release last weekend? And as shown by its #5 ranking on the box office chart, it could have used EW's letting people know they "must" see it before now. At least Season 2 of The Mary Tyler Moore Show actually didn't come out until this past Tuesday so that's current.

I don't mean to indicate that the only items that should appear on the "Must List" need to be brand new, but come on: "Harry Potter" now? Give me a break. I think it's great if EW is able to use this list to actually highlight quality films/TV/music/books that may have slipped under the radar whether they're new or not. They do successfully do that at times, and I'm not saying the major releases like "Harry Potter" or Bad News Bears shouldn't be included, but let's try to make them timely, OK, because too often (like now) it's just lame.

WHY THE UTTER LACK OF RESPECT?

The blogosphere is ablaze today with the release of Forbes' favorite blogs. Gothamist got mentioned as a "Forbes Favorite," as did the great Galleycat for when you need your literary/publishing fix. Other personal favs receiving "Best of the Web" Top-100 notice include Maud Newton and Stereogum, but while browsing the "Forbes Directory of blogs where they actually review all their favorites, I noticed something very disturbing.

All the blogs are separated into categories: Art Blogs, Automobile Blogs, Blog tools, Career Blogs, Economic Blogs, Health and Fitness Blogs, Literary Blogs, Marketing Blogs, Media Blogs, Medical Blogs, Meta Blogs, Political Blogs, Shopping Blogs, Small Business Blogs, Sports Blogs, Technology Blogs, Video Blogs, Video Games. Hmmm ... what's missing. It's on the tip of my tongue, or at least my fingers. Just out of reach. What is it? What! Is! It?!?

Ah yes ... where the hell are Film Blogs? Or even Entertainment Blogs? Why is our little corner of the web constantly forgotten in any media mentions of blogging? I mean seriously. (For that matter, there should also be "Pop Culture Blogs" which is probably where Stereogum really belongs and which should obvs be led by Whatevs.org.)

Believe me, I'm not shilling for any personal notoriety here. This blog certainly doesn't deserve a "Best of the Web" notice in any category compared to so many of my compatriots, especially in the film blog world. There are people out there (many listed in that column on the right, yelling at the screen right along with me, although possibly with less blatant venom) who deserve the same notortiety and are as clever and expert in this field as any of the writers in theirs. Is it because the film industry is considered a bit of joke? Or is it because there is the impression that there is a divide between mainstream "Hollywood" pop-culture-influenced film and academic consideration? Can't we all exist in the same world?

Come on cinephiles -- I think an uprising is in order. It's time for GreenCine Daily and Cinetrix to get the widespread publicity they deserve. And hell, I keep finding new film blogs every day; there's not even time to read a fraction of them.

So why the hate, yo?

I HOPE THEY ALSO PLAN ON REVAMPING THEIR ENTIRE EDITORIAL STAFF

Big news rocks the entertainment magazine world today!!

OK, maybe not. But "TV Guide relaunching as Larger Magazine" actually is a pretty major development in the history of a pretty venerable institution. What's Frank Costanza going to do when he has to add a larger physical magazine to his collection?

But seriously (or something) ... TV Guide has decided to go from being a little digest focusing on listings to a big entertainment magazine focusing on sucking. Does anyone read TV Guide? Actually, yes. I do. Or I used to. I had a subscription to TV Guide for years. Technically I still do, although I am very proud of my ability to resist all those renewal notices as I wait for it to simply expire.

If you follow TV, TV Guide used to actually be interesting even as it was simple. But the writing has progressively declined, and the stories get dumber and dumber. I guess I also have to admit that I hold a semi-personal grudge against them. A friend of mine was once contracted to write a story for them. Nothing long or too in-depth -- just a few hundred words. My friend asked me to proof the story for her because she wasn't sure if it was good, interesting, etc. Since my friend is a very good writer, the piece was all those things, and I saw the very last version before it was submitted to the magazine. I also then saw the printed version in the magazine. There was my friend's byline, but what followed was not my friend's story. The editors had actually rewritten large sections (as much as there can be "large sections" in a piece this small) and primarily left the quotes. The subject was essentially the same, but what the story actually said went from being interesting and even thought-provoking to meaningless and plain-ol'-crap. Fluff is too generous a word. Oh yeah, they never checked with my friend about changing it so drastically. They just published.

I guess I shouldn't have been completely surprised. I mean, this is a magazine that publishes Michael Ausiello as if he's an "insider" who knows what he's talking about. Now I don't know the man personally, but he's got to be one of the worst "experts" on anything I've ever read, and a bad writer to boot. I suppose his columns are supposed to be sarcastic and funny, yet they never are. He often gets information flat out wrong, and many of his big scoops are things that have been out in some form of media or another for at least a week.

Of course, I shouldn't be too surprised that his "scoops" run so late. TV Guide must have a ridiculously early closing for a weekly magazine because their content is often out of date. They published a review of ABC's pulled series Welcome to the Neighborhood I believe more than a week after it was announced the show would never air. They often print items in their "Cheers & Jeers" section that happened three weeks to a month before, certainly far enough in the past that today's audience might not give a shit. In fact, many of their stories seem like they're just guessing.

The story indicates that the magazine plans to reduce the listings to simply major national coverage with one version for the east coast and one for the west rather than all the local editions now in publication. It also says the magazine will make the revamped magazine "will contain just 25 percent listings and 75 percent stories." Why bother with the listing at all then? The fact is, this is the second or third (at least) revamp of TV Guide in the last few years. The last one already redesigned and slimmed down the listings section, turning everything into a grid and eliminating much of the daily coverage. It became much more of a pain-in-the-ass to read. Of course, the one thing they've never done is become totally comprehensive with all the cable channels floating around out there. Some of them would eventually be included in the prime-time grids, but nothing more.

I'd say it's a shame that what was once a (do I dare call it) iconic magazine hasn't been able to keep up and is now on its way to becoming a poor, more niche imitation of all the other lifestyle and entertainment mags out there. When I was little, I used to love going to my grandparents' for dinner every Friday night and seeing the new TV Guide sitting on the little table next to my grandfather's chair. I don't think I even read the thing back then, but for some reason I always got a kick out of flipping through the listings. I remember at one point thinking that it must have been a cool job to write all the show descriptions. (I don't think so anymore, but uhm ... I'm still unemployed, so TV Guide, if you're hiring? Oh wait ... you probably won't have much of those anymore!)

I guess I let my subscription run out just in time.

GET OVER YOUR EFFIN SELF

This is not going to become a Michael Bay hate site (any more than it already is one), but just yesterday I revelled in the poor opening of Bay's latest film The Island, and, to quote myself, called him an "arrogant prick." For anyone who inexplicably felt bad for Bay because some barely-read schmuck (read: Me!) in a little corner of the worldinterwidewebnet said some mean things about him, it only took a day for him to reinforce my point with his quotes to the media. As usual, Defamer offers the best summary. And here's the full LA Times article.

Here's the thing: I don't care if he ultimately pretends to take the blame saying, "It's always the director's fault." He's not actually doing that; he's just speaking to the perception out there especially within the business. He's just saying, "Woe is me." He's already spent the entire time talking about how it's everyone else's fault or how nobody else will be blamed. "'Everyone from [Steven] Spielberg to [Robert] Zemeckis to [Stanley] Kubrick — they've all had big flops,' he said. 'I was five for five. You know it's going to happen.'" They've also all made great movies, and you Mr. Bay, haven't done anything close yet.

Please don't blame the marketers. Personally, I felt this movie was shoved-up my ass. They started rolling out trailers in movie theaters months ago, and you almost couldn't go to something recently without seeing one. More importantly, if you're such a smarter marketer (which you may be), do us all a favor and go back to directing commercials. I'm sure Audi would love to have you.

And don't worry -- until I see the film (probably not until later this week) I have now instituted a self-imposed moratorium on Michael Bay rants. But on a quick side-note and to reinforce the larger point I was making yesterday, the LA Times piece also makes note that aside from The Island, "This summer's box-office doldrums has claimed numerous victims: Rebound, Lords of Dogtown, and the bigger budget films Cinderella Man and Kingdom of Heaven." Now I haven't seen Rebound, but of those four films, that's the one I had the least hopes for anyway, and the reviews and word-of-mouth on it have been terrible. Cinderella Man was fine, but it was definitely too long and at times a bit too sappy. The other two were simply really bad movies. Lords of Dogtown had promise, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, Catherine Hardwicke simply doesn't know how to tell a story, and after a decent beginning, the film falls apart. And Kingdom of Heaven? It was a big bore? How you make a huge film with big mideival action sequences a big bore is beyond me, and Ridley Scott is a fantatstic filmmaker, but this time out, he made a snoozer. So basically the common link to the vast majority, if not all, of this summer's big "flops" is that they sucked. SHOCKER!

HAPPY HAPPY, JOY JOY: ONE MOVIE EARLIER THAN EXPECTED

A little over a week ago, I wrote about the news that Michael Bay was going to be directing a live-action Transformers film and that hopefully it would flop since he's such a crap filmmaker. Bay isn't just a wasted talent as a director (he undeniably has a wonderful visual sense and directs exciting individual action sequences, which is why he was so good as a music video director), but he's an arrogant prick as well. Or at least, he comes off that way in interviews. I remember several years ago (maybe around Armageddon or Pearl Harbor) reading a quote from him which (paraphrased) said that he knows you can blow a million holes through anyone of his films' stories but he just doesn't care. And now, as Defamer quoted from an LA Times story on July 15, "'You know,' he says somewhat reflectively, 'I’ve never had a flop.'"

So hip, hip, hooray for comeuppance in the name of The Island which couldn't manage better than a fourth place finish, losing to a film that may, in fact, be worse than it (I can't be sure -- I haven't seen Bay's disaster yet), and that has already been playing for three weeks! But a $12.1 Million opening? I think that's his worst opening weekend ever! I mean the original Bad Boys -- his first movie, a decade ago, when he obviously had no blockbuster track record -- opened with a $15 Million weekend.

Personally, I'm as shocked as the DreamWorks exec in that article. I was just telling someone this weekend that I was surprised everyone thought Charlie and the Chocolate Factory would hold on to the top spot so easily because Bay's movies attract audiences. Stupid audiences, sure, but audiences none-the-less. A friend asked me why, and the answer is simple: it's not so much that audiences are stupid, but they will always accept lowest-common denominator thrills if something better isn't offered. The problem so often, particularly with Bay's films, isn't so much that the movie couldn't have been good -- Batman Begins and both Spider-Man are all recent proof that great modern movies can come from the action genre. Bay's problem has always been that he doesn't know how to make a movie: he simply links together big action sequences all containing the same energy level as the one before. That's why his movies make such great trailers and such lousy films.

I have a hard time completely criticizing The Island because I have yet to see it, but everything I've read simply portrays it as just like every other Bay film: a bunch of huge action sequences, some which get tiring, that overshadow the presence of the story instead of servicing the plot's advancement. Still, it is difficult to say that this is the beginning of a shift in audience consciousness; that moviegoers simply aren't going to take the crap anymore if they don't have to. I mean, it was a crowded weekend at the multiplex, and the fact that anybody is still going to Fantastic Four, a definite Razzie contender, is a potential sign of the apocalypse.

This year's box office slump has been a story made bigger, at least in film biz circles, simply because of the attention paid to it. The fact is, each weekend had a big opener just like every other summer, but then the crap films would suffer huge drop-offs and distance between box office winner and previous holdovers would keep increasing. Of course, the biggest reason the total box office numbers have gone down is not because people are watching more DVDs (even though they are), but is due to the fact that there's not an "indie film" grossing $400 million this year like a certain megastars polemic did last year. In fact, I've seen reported that if you take The Passion of the Christ out of the equation, the comparison of this year to last finds 2005 roughly even.

But with so much discussion this summer regarding the box office slump -- a story that was absolutely made bigger in entertainment circles simply because of the attention paid to it -- it is worthwhile to pay particular attention to the opening weekend disappointment of a film from someone considered such a guaranteed moneymaker. Sure, neither Ewan McGregor nor Scarlett Johannsen are big summer movie names, but you know what, neither were Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett nor Kate Beckinsale on Pearl Harbor.

The problem (if there is one) really is a matter of quality, not quantity. That doesn't mean crap films won't still make a ton of money, but maybe not as much and maybe not as many of them. It's not a lack of imagination evidenced by sequels or adaptations of old TV shows that's the problem; it's lack of good imagination. Bewitched is a good example of a series adaptation that actually showed promise. It was cast perfectly and the idea of how to reimagine it was actually quite clever. The problem with Bewitched is virtually all in its execution. Nora Ephron is not a good director. She's a great writer, often very funny, but she proves time-and-time again that she doesn't know how to transfer her scripts to screen. There's a reason that When Harry Met Sally ... is so much better than Sleepless in Seattle or You've Got Mail, and that reason is Rob Reiner.

If Hollywood studios would put more effort into the script development process and cared a little less about determining a prime release date before the script has even been written, we would get better movies and they would get larger grosses. It really is (almost) that simple.

In some post last year I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Summer 2005 was shaping up to look like potentially the best summer for movies in recent memory with a huge, promising release every weekend all summer long. Looking back with more than half the summer movie season gone, I'd now have to call it possibly one of the most disappointing summer movie seasons in recent memory simply because of that great promise unfulfilled, with the notable exception of Batman Begins. That's not to say everything has been bad, but very little has been as good as it could have been.

Just like every Michael Bay movie. Once Hollywood catches-on to releasing films that live up to their own even unhyped promise, there won't need to be any more talk of box office slumps.

311: HELP OR HOOPLA

Since last August, my friend Lily and I have been doing these Gothamist Interviews. We've stuck to a pretty regular format that includes a selection of questions tailored directly to the subject and another selection that we keep the same for everyone we talk to. One of those questions-for-all is "311: Help of hoopla?" concerning New York City's local information and complaint line. Basically, if you have a non-emergency issue (i.e., don't call 911!) or a complaint about noisy neighbors or you lost your cell phone in a cab or you're wondering who to talk to about when a public pool is open, you call 311. The 311 line has been a wildly successful program for the city. It has also been something that until last night I had never utilized.

You know, we're always told it's the little things that really matter. That if everyone takes that moment to help in a small situation that most of the time you would just pass right by, well, then eventually all the little things build to make this world a better place. But dammit if stupid bureaucracy or maybe even incompetence still doesn't manage to get in the way.

So last night, I did in fact go to Prospect Park to see The Phantom of the Opera. After, my friend and I went for a bite at a pretty good Mexican place in Park Slope. Somehow, it turned into a pretty gorgeous night with a cool breeze and an awesome slightly clowd-covered moon perfect for howling. Suddenly it was almost 1 AM, and me being the relative Brooklyn illiterate that I am, my friend decided to walk me to the 2 train. We kept going further and further from where she lived, however, and I'm not sure whether we just weren't paying attention to where we were going or what, but suddenly we were across from the Atlantic Center on Atlantic Avenue. I was about to hop on the 2, and she was going to take the subway back a couple stops to her place, but then she said that she kind of wanted to walk home cause we were stuffed and it was so nice house. Me being me (and also having no idea how far it might actually be) I offered to walk her.

So we're walking down 4th Avenue at about 1 or 1:15, and there aren't too many people or that much traffic when suddenly out of nowhere there's this really loud pop – not quite an explosion, but very loud nonetheless. At the corner of 4th and Baltic, a car had driven over a ConEd manhole cover at the corner of which seemed to then pop up, knock off the car's hubcap and blow-out the tire. The car slowed down at the curb right next to us, but I never saw the driver because I was staring at this manhole cover and the hubcap and saying something like, "What the fuck?" And just like that, without getting out to see what happened, the car just drove off.

We stood there for a moment staring at the manhole. I said, "Should I call someone? That could totally cause an accident." She said, "Yeah, call 311." So we went into the street and kicked the manhole cover back into place, and I called 311.

Now I can't say for sure what action was taken place – whether or not anyone came out, how quickly they did, etc. I suppose I could have with the end of my call resulting in a complaint number (that I didn't write down) which I could have checked, but I didn't mean to get involved in any big process. I just wanted to report something and thereby know that I had done a very small thing to maybe help make sure a bigger accident didn't happen in the future. But damn if that one little phone call didn't turn into a huge fucking pain in the ass.

I was on the phone for 10 minutes, mostly just listening to the operators type. (Yes, operators! After telling the story to the first person, I was then transferred to an Environment Protection specialist because apparently they handle manhole cover incidents.) They asked for my name and my phone number (you know, just in case they needed to follow-up the complaint). It didn't matter that I was blocks away nor do I live in the neighborhood let alone Brooklyn, and they weren't asking me any questions really. Besides, other than describing the incident and the location, I didn't really have much to offer. I barely knew where I was.

It was quite aggravating, and apparently my reward was NYC and the MTA bitch-slapping me into my place again as it took roughly an hour-and-a-half for me to get home to the Upper West Side thanks to a 25 minute wait for a transfer to the A train at W 4th Street, during which time some of the humidity seemed to have dissipated thanks to a brief thunderstorm, but you never would have known it on that subway platform. Only after I emerged on 81st and CPW seeing cars and the sidewalk covered in water did I figure this out.

So anyway, if Lily and I ever conduct one of these little interviews on each other, I guess I finally have a 311 story. Help or hoopla? I guess I can't totally judge since I don't know if the loose manhole cover has actually been fixed, but the experience of the call itself was pretty damn annoying, so for now, I'll have to just call it "helpla" or maybe "hoopelp," and leave it at that.

SO IF IT RAINS, MAYBE IT WILL JUST MAKE THE MOVIE MORE CREEPY

Another reason I may get to less of the new stuff this weekend ...

While the weather outside might turn frightful (I'm getting really sick of that "Isolated Thunderstorm" report, especially during those specific times that I plan to be outside!), tonight at the Prospect Park Bandshell is one of my favorite annual Celebrate Brooklyn programs, namely the screening of an old silent film with live accompaniment, and I'm particularly looking forward to this one: The Phantom of the Opera. No, not that piece of crap which I called one of the worst movies of 2004, although that film could probably benefit from getting rid of the entire soundtrack (singing and dialogue included) and adding a live band playing instrumental music. But no, tonight at the Bandshell, the great Alloy Orchestra comes to town to play along with the classic 1925 film starring silent horror film great Lon Chaney, which I have sadly never actually seen.

THE WEEKEND IN MOVIES IN PREVIEW: THERE'S REALLY TOO MUCH

There is way too much opening this weekend, and I have a ton of work to do that really should keep me inside at the laptop, but I feel like I have to try to get to one or more. I've actually had a week full of movie watching, but it's been coupled with too much time spent sending emails as part of my job search. I did finally get to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I intend to write in much more detail later (no really!), but my quick response is that I'm torn. I enjoyed a lot of the movie, but I'm incredibly disappointed in how Burton changed the end which actually completely transforms the entire spirit of the story. I think this film is a great case study for the problems involved in adaptation and especially how people often misuse the term "faithful." Everyone is making such a big deal about how Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is more faithful to Roald Dah's original book than the original 1971 film, but I take exception with that statement. Tim Burton's film is anything but faithful, at least to the main elements of the book, although it is quite literal and scene-for-scene matches up better. Since Filmbrain and I often don't come anywhere close to agreement, the fact that we mostly do in this case simply goes to reinforce that this disappointment (while still appreciating elements of the film) is the definitive opinion (natch!).

But Charlie's already old news (even if it does have a reasonable shot at holding on to its box office crown). As far as what's "new"?

NOT ALL REALITY IS CREATED EQUAL

It makes sense that after several years of reality-show mayhem not to mention repeated discussions about how reality television is on its way out that rather than a decline in the number of reality series we've seen two very different and distinct things happen. First, you get the bastardization of the old: all the shows still trying to essentially copy Survivor or The Real World, usually failing miserably but occasionally discovering that one little twist that allows it work. The second, and personally to me more interesting, result is the creation of essentially "new" (although in the grand scheme of things, not really) reality genres.

If you look at the "Other TV Shows" section" of TWoP, you'll see they've broken it down into "Competitive Reality Shows," "Candid Reality Shows" and "How-to Reality Shows," and that doesn't include sections for "Pop Culture Shows," "Game Shows," "Educational and Non-Fiction Shows," or "News and News Magazine Shows," some of which could definitely cross over and be considered "reality."

This summer, as reality TV continues to die just as it has every year since its "breakthroughs" with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and Survivor, there's more "reality" than ever across the broadcast and cable landscape. From the inexplicably cheesy hit Dancing With the Stars (lets take The Surreal Life with its C-List celebs and have them ballroom dance in an American Idol-style competition) to CBS's god-awful Rock Star: INXS (uhm, Dave Navarro -- why the hell did you want to give up all your rock start cred by being a total suck-up sell-out to a bunch of I'm-too-cool-for American Idol-so-let-me-front-a-sad-excuse-to-reap-millions-using-the-name-INXS posers?) to any number of other current programs, the choices are endless.

But I give credit to ABC, a network that despite its desire to consistently fire all its programming execs and no matter how hard new Disney CEO Bob Iger has tried to make it the seventh place net in a field of six, has to be given the prize for most successful development of new programming in recent memory. Not only did they bring us both Lost and Desperate Housewives this fall, but this summer they've brought the two best (and I'm talking actual quality here, not necessarily guilty pleasures) new reality programs. (And yes, I am also completely cognizant of the fact that ABC is also responsible for the worst travesty to hit TV last season, The Benefactor.

I'm speaking of both Brat Camp (which airs tonight with an encore of last week's second episode at 8 PM and a new episode at 9 PM) and Hooking Up (Thursdays at 9 PM), the latter of which is credited to ABC News.