Past Deadline

The Emmy telecast -- you read it here first

By Barry Garron

Look, I'm not the kind of guy who says "I told you so." No, that's not true. Who am I kidding? I am exactly the kind of guy who says "I told you so" because, in my case, those opportunities are so rare that they must be commemorated in some way.

So, yes, I told you. To be precise, I wrote in this very blog on July 30, shortly after ABC announced that the Emmy co-hosts would be Ryan Seacrest, Tom Bergeron, Heidi Klum, Jeff Probst and Howie Mandel. And here is exactly what I said nearly eight weeks before the telecast:

"With the exception of Mandel, an accomplished stand-up comedian, you'd have to go to the coroner's office to find a bigger group of stiffs."

I said other things, as well, but you get my drift. Naming reality hosts to be Emmy Award co-hosts was an idea on a par with giving O.J. Simpson his own syndicated daytime court show.

This, however, raises an interesting question: How can five people who are so prominent on some of the best-rated TV shows be so awful here? If they are the cream of the reality genre, why did they become the dregs of the Emmy telecast?

Here are two possibilities, neither mutually exclusive: First, the skill set for reality host has little in common with the skill set for Emmy host. A reality host must have a bland personality, a forced cheerfulness that seems vaguely sincere and an understanding that he or she is not the beautiful antique vase but the glue that holds the pieces together. Wit is not part of the equation.

An Emmy host, on the other hand, should set the tone and energy level for the show, be quick with an ad lib, possess impeccable comic timing and, essentially, lend the show a piece of their own unique persona.

Second, the Emmy telecast is real, at least in the sense that it is live. What you are watching is what is happening and not something that has been manipulated or massaged after the fact. For many reality hosts, such as Probst and Klum, the only reality with which they are familiar is the kind that's been edited, processed, heightened and reformulated.

For no obvious reason, both ABC and the TV Academy failed to understand these simple truths, even after the awful hosting performance of Seacrest in 2007. This time, though, I think it will sink in.

'Deadliest Catch' leaks a fishy post-production tale

It is hardly shocking news to learn that a reality television show might be playing fast-and-loose with the facts. We should probably be far more surprised, in fact, when something depicted as realistic is actually proven to be. Yet the revealing investigative story exposing alleged editing trickery on the hugely popular Discvovery Channel series "Deadliest Catch" -- uncovered by crack Hollywood Reporter TV scribe James Hibberd in today's edition -- nonetheless proves to be disturbing on many levels considering the heretofore credible source. We might expect deception on most unscripted network efforts, which tend to consist of hundreds of hours of raw footage stitched into a storyline in the editing room. But a respected documentary series of apparent nonfiction like "Deadliest" is presumed to be above the sort of fabrication that's suggested here.

You'd think we might know better by now, that there would be a tacit audience understanding that smoke and mirrors and the mere perception of the legitimate trumps the genuine article nearly every time. Our gullibility evidently knows no bounds. Or maybe it's just that it feels so hopeful to temporarily place our well-founded cynicism on hold every now and then, simply because it's so reassuring to believe. Then we get burned through some fluke-like leaked document, and we're pummeled back into our skeptical shell.

In a "Deadliest Catch" production outline document obtained exclusively by the Reporter, Hibberd reports that Tuesday's fourth season premiere of the Alaskan crab fishing series that's been nominated for seven Primetime Emmy Awards engaged in creative editing that attached supportive footage onto one particularly harrowing storm scene to enhance its dramatic impact. The "life-and-death peril," Hibberd reports, is culled "from different days of filming" a month or so apart. While Discovery executives denied any use of re-enactment footage in any edition of the series -- the production company dismissing the outline in question as an early draft -- it's reported that the sequence as written in the outline "does match what appeared in Tuesday's episode."

OK, so what does this mean and why should it matter? Here's what, and why: It means that "Deadliest Catch" at least occasionally plays closer to "Spurious Hatch." It's really difficult to say if that's too harsh a judgment, since we don't know if this type of dramatic license represents a one-time aberration or a more chronic propensity to mislead. But if we believe there is fire where there's smoke, it may mean this simply is the first time "Catch" got caught in its own fish net. And if that's the case, it's less a documentary than a partially fictionalized work of staging, driven by re-enactment and crafted storyline.

Again, I'm not at all suggesting this is the case based on the evidence so far presented, simply that it's possible. And if this is indeed a recurring production conceit, it's journalistically appalling, of course. It would contemptuously presume the audience needs the thrill-meter synthetically amped-up and can't be entrusted to buy into real life as it stands.

We may find a partial clue as to the show's true authenticity in last year's Emmy nominations. "Deadliest Catch" earned one for Outstanding Picture Editing. Not that this necessarily means squat. But it might.

(Photo courtesy The Discovery Channel)

Reality is deceptive on 'My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad'

By Barry Garron

A few weeks ago, I got an e-mail from an NBC publicist. She was offering me (and about 150 other TV critics to whom it was sent) the opportunity to talk to the producer and host of "My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad" before the series went on the air last month.

In the last few years, all broadcast networks and even some cable networks have gone conference call crazy. If you participated in all of them, you wouldn't have time to watch the shows, which could be part of the promotional strategy.

So, in the end, most of the critics who accept these calls are from papers in Punchdrunk, Mont., or Jujube, Ariz., or they are from WatchLotsTV.com or WeSalivateOverTV.com.

I skipped the call but there was something about the invitation that was intriguing. The publicist said the show "will challenge everyday dads and their 8-12 year old son or daughter (sic) against other teams."

"Everyday dads" are challenged but, oddly, not "everyday kids." The reason, as I found out, is not merely semantics. According to NBC, about 20% of the kids on "My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad" are either child actors or regular participants in pageants. They were recruited through their agencies, which makes them about as "everyday" as a Rose Bowl parade.

'American Idol': Fool You Twice, No Big Deal

By Barry Garron

If "American idol" was a cat, it would at the very least be down to seven lives.

The first life departed in 2005, when judge Paula Abdul had reportedly provided advice, clothing, a cell phone and intimacy to one of the finalists, Corey Clark. After an investigation, Fox never denied it. Rather, the network wisely issued a statement that it couldn't find sufficient evidence. All those receipts and pages of phone calls between Abdul and Clark apparently were inadmissible.

In olden days, the Federal Communications Commission might have dispatched an investigator to look at the connection between judge and contestant on America's most popular TV show. But that was the old FCC, the one that used to be concerned about rigged game shows and such. Today's FCC has more important things to do, such as figure out which indecency should be fined and in what time zones.

Now comes the revelation, reported by ABC, USA Today and others, that three of this season's 24 finalists are not exactly newbies when it comes to the music industry.

The most obvious music veteran is Carly Smithson who cut an album for MCA. The label shelled out $2 million to promote it but it died anyway and she was dumped. Then there's the case of Kristy Lee Cook, who had been signed by Britney Spears' production company. Meanwhile, Michael Jones' band, The Rising, had a deal with Madonna's Maverick label and also failed to produce a hit.

In all of this, it's hard to tell whether the biggest blunder of "American Idol" producers was opening the competition to "ringer" singers who clearly are not amateurs or covering it all up by conveniently failing to mention this rather crucial part of their back story. Personally, I vote for the cover-up but it's a close call.

The premise of the show is that it is a vehicle for some fresh and undiscovered talent to emerge as a bona fide hit performer. If all those talent searches in all of those cities don't produce 24 people who never before set foot in a recording studio, or did so only to make their own demo, the producers simply aren't trying hard enough.

The response to all of this from "American Idol" is that the inclusion of people who had record deals is permissible as long as there is no current deal in place. Yet, if they truly believe that fans of the show wouldn't mind seeing people who are not amateurs, then why not be honest about it? Tell viewers that Carly Smithson is trying for a fresh start or that Kristy Lee Cook had come close before and hopes to do better.

Apparently, "American Idol" believes that coming clean about its finalists would detract from the image it wants to project. So it perpetuates the myth that all of the finalists are neophytes.

Early indications are that viewers have once more forgiven the show for playing fast and loose with the truth.

OK, "American Idol," it looks like you got away with another one. Just remember, you can only deceive viewers seven more times before they decide enough is enough.

Lunch Hour Viewing: Behind "Reality" TV

By Randee Dawn

So everyone already knows that "reality" TV isn't really real, of course.

But only in England -- where there isn't a writer's strike, not that reality shows have writers, no no no  -- are they actually making fun of exactly how unreal it is. You have to love a country where a TV critic can get his own program, and skewer his medium at the same time. Please to enjoy Charlie Brooker, who gets under the skin of reality TV (and makes up some "reality" of his own, with "ScreenWipe."

Reality TV Editing
Elimination Reality Shows

and the:

"UnLoser" Reality TV Show Part 1
"UnLoser" Reality TV Show Part 2

Now, if only we could get this kind of programming once the strike is over....

Making More Elviras for Fun and Profit

I'm not sure if the world needs another Elvira but the Mistress of the Dark is all for it. In fact, it was her idea. Not only that, but it was also Elvira's idea to put the selection process on TV.

It will be titled "The Search for the Next Elvira" when it airs on the Fox Reality channel in October. The title is misleading. "I'm not retiring and it's not to replace me," she told me, during the TCA summer press tour, while I resisted every impulse and maintained eye contact. "It should be 'The Search for an Additional Elvira' but that doesn't have a good ring."

For years, Elvira gets inundated with calls to make appearances, particularly in September and October. Because there's only one of her, she has to decline most offers. Losing appearance fees is bad enough but the Lady in Black also loses the chance to hawk her growing line of merchandise.

These days, it's not just Elvira costumes, comics, wigs and DVD sets, all of which are available at her web site, Elvira.com. There's also perfume, beer, bank checks, T-shirts and video games. Hallmark is coming out with a new line of Elvira greeting cards and Mattel is putting out an Elvira doll. And most of that won't get sold without someone pushing it.

Also, Elvira doesn't come cheap. A second Elvira could handle appearances for those who can't afford the original. (Some places think they can dress anyone up as Elvira. Not so. The character is licensed and trademarked and the Misstress of the Dark has her lawyers on speed dial.)

In the TV show, viewers will make the final selection. If the show does well, you can expect to see another one next season. Even if it flops, Elvira said she plans to have more junior Elviras. New generations, unfamiliar with her TV hosting of bad horror films, see Elvira more as a character than an individual, anyway.

What will it take to be the new Elvira? "They have to have a sense of humor. They have to be able to handle themselves with men and they have to have a love of the horror genre."

Anything else, I asked, taking her all in. "They need to look as much like me as possible," she added.

Posted by Barry Garron

Victoria Beckham Becomes a Summertime Snooze. Your Job: To Try and Possibly Care Less

Hot off the presses (or something): Victoria Beckham (aka Posh Spice) will be tailed by cameras and microphones in a new six-part NBC reality series coming this summer that promises to "give viewers an exclusive inside look at Beckham's glamorous life as she makes the move across the pond from London to Los Angeles." It comes from Simon Fuller ("American Idol") and his 19 Entertainment.

Oh yeah, that ought to be a total smash. Why does this strike me as, like, the worst idea since the McRib Sandwich -- and the most unfortunate British export to hit NBC since "Coupling"? It's like, "Oh my God, there she is on Rodeo Drive again! What a glamourpuss she is!" Oy.

One report have Beckham, following her soccer superstar hubby David to Los Angeles, cutting a deal for nearly $20 million, which, if true, is downright astonishing. Then again, Fuller -- who logged time managing the Spice Girls back in the day -- already landed the husband a $250 million deal. Conclusion: everybody has lost their mind.

Here's the press release, just issued (and again, do your very best to quell that enthusiasm):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

VICTORIA BECKHAM SIGNS POSH DEAL WITH NBC FOR A NEW SUMMER REALITY SERIES -- FROM THE PRODUCERS OF "AMERICAN IDOL" -- SPOTLIGHTING HER GLAMOROUS NEW LIFE IN LOS ANGELES

    BURBANK – February 28, 2007 -- Victoria Beckham (aka "Posh Spice") has signed a deal with NBC for a new reality series from Simon Fuller's 19 Entertainment ("American Idol"), which will give viewers an exclusive inside look at Beckham's glamorous life as she makes the move across the pond from London to Los Angeles.  The six, half-hour episodes are slated to premiere this summer.  The announcement was made today by Kevin Reilly, President, NBC Entertainment Publicity.

"The series will give viewers a glimpse into what makes Victoria so popular and admired as one of the most glamorous women in the world," said Reilly.  "She makes news wherever she goes and our audience can now become insiders in this fascinating personal view of what being 'Posh' truly represents."   

Said Beckham, "I am so excited to be making this show for NBC with Simon Fuller.  He has so much success around the world with his TV shows and the respect and trust of everybody he works with.  This show is really something different, it's pushing the boundaries and I think it's going to surprise a lot of people."

Added Fuller, "For the past few years, I've been inundated with requests to make a show based on Victoria's real life.  After much thought, we have finally decided to do it.  NBC will be our partners.  Both Kevin Reilly and Craig Plestis have been extremely supportive in allowing us to do something a little different.  This show will cross all genres and hopefully will pleasantly surprise a few people!"

Beckham burst onto the scene as a member of the hit 90's all-girl super group The Spice Girls.  Known around the world as "Posh Spice," the elegant and confident member of the ensemble, Beckham sold millions of albums worldwide with the group before it disbanded in 2001. She went on to become an accomplished solo artist with such hits as "Not Such an Innocent Girl" and "This Groove/Let Your Head Go On."  In  1999, she married soccer superstar David Beckham and quickly they became one of the world's most celebrated couples.  In 2004, Beckham turned her attention to fashion, designing VB Rocks a line of high-end jeans for Rock and Republic. Most recently, Beckham launched her own jeans label called DVB Style as well as her own line of sunglasses and perfume.

The currently untitled series will be produced by 19 Entertainment, a fully owned subsidiary of CKX, Inc. (NASDAQ: CKXE).  Simon Fuller ("American Idol") and Kim Fuller ("Tracey Takes On") are the executive producers.  Simon Fuller and Victoria Beckham are represented by Creative Artists Agency.             

She'll Always Have Paris

Sometimes, the copy just writes itself.

There's been a rash -- okay, two a trend does not make, but work with me here, people -- of celebrities and their storage lockers. For someone like Whitney Houston, that which has been consigned to the dusty bins of a storage facility for years can, in fact turn out to be a boon. Don't we all wish we could scrounge up some serious cash by auctioning off our unmentionables and forgottens and left behinds? Okay, maybe not so much the unmentionables. But don't tell that to Houston, who did all right earlier this month selling off such items. And talk about about the sisterhood of the traveling pants -- the National Enquirer got its grubby little hands on some of the  clothing and is going make it available as a prize in a contest!

But now we have Paris Hilton. As you've likely heard, she -- or her moving company -- failed to pay a storage locker fee of around $200, and so her personal belongings, including diaries and photos, were sold off. To two folks. For around $3,000. Who then sold them again. For $10 million.

Jeez, I'm in the wrong business.

The new owner, Bardia Persa, cataloged and scanned every bit, and put them up at ParisExposed.com. To view, you're gonna have to fork over $40. That's a lot of subscriptions before you get to $10 million, so I have to wonder.

But now, if Paris has anything to do with it, nobody will get to see anything. And herein lies the humor.

In a lawsuit filed today, Hilton and her lawyers are trying to get the site shut down. From the Reuters article:

"This action seeks to enjoin perhaps one of the most single egregious and reprehensible invasions of privacy ever committed against an individual," Hilton's attorneys wrote in the lawsuit, which claims copyright infringement, invasion of privacy and violation of her right to publicity.... I was appalled to learn that people are exploiting my and my sisters' private personal belongings for commercial gain," Hilton, star of the reality TV series "The Simple Life," said in a declaration attached to the lawsuit.

This may be the first case thrown out of court based on the fact that, through the plaintiff's own choices and actions, she can be said to have absolutely no right to privacy. The only reason anyone has any interest in Paris is to see what oopsie she's going to make next in the name of exploiting her privacy.

But maybe that's the point: Paris wants to reserve the right to exploit herself at her leisure.

-- Randee Dawn

A Slimefest That Promises To Generate Killer Ratings

It's so very reassuring to know that Fox hasn't completely lost touch with its "When Animals Attack"/"Temptation Island"/"Who Wants To Marry a Multi-Millionaire?" tabloid sleaze reality roots. In fact, one might say that the two-part "event" coming to Fox at the end of this month is pretty close to the most unconscionable thing ever conceived on that or any other network. Leave it to the dynamic duo of publisher Judith Regan and Fox reality guru Mike Darnell -- abandoning his recent feel-good penchant for a rousing return to the cesspool -- to center an interview fiasco on O.J. Simpson's sudden non-confession confession in the interest of generating great big huge buckeroos during sweepstime.

Blood money? Ya think?

Here's the press release, then I'll comment further:

JUDITH REGAN’S EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH O.J. SIMPSON

“O.J. SIMPSON: IF I DID IT, HERE’S HOW IT HAPPENED”

TO AIR AS A TWO-PART SPECIAL ON FOX

Special to Air Over Two Nights:

Monday, November 27, and Wednesday, November 29

Over 10 years after he was tried for two murders in the “Trial of the Century” that captured the attention of the world, O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes. Noted publisher Judith Regan will talk with Simpson in a wide-ranging, no-holds-barred interview that will be the basis of a two-part special, O.J. SIMPSON: IF I DID IT, HERE’S HOW IT HAPPENED (working title), airing Monday, Nov. 27 (9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) and Wednesday, Nov. 29 (9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX.

The Simpson criminal and civil trials captivated people around the world for a decade, and now no topics are off-limits – Simpson has agreed to an unrestricted interview with Regan. In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade.

"This is an interview that no one thought would ever happen. It’s the definitive last chapter in the Trial of the Century," said Mike Darnell, Executive Vice President of Alternative Programming.

Although acquitted of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, Simpson was later sued in civil court, found responsible for both murders and ordered to pay $33.5 million in restitution to the families of the victims. A decade later, Simpson has written a book that hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed. “If I Did It” will go on sale Thursday, Nov. 30, under the REGAN imprint.

I mean, the "working title" alone is fairly astonishing for its brazen, callous, utterly clueless disregard for the sensitivities of the survivors and the law of the land. Were I Fox and Regan, the first thing I'd have done would be to at least remove the word "If" from both the cover of the book and the title of the interview (oh right, it's hypothetical). It seems pretty unnecessary now even to couch it, however. So why not just call it, "I Did It, and I Think We All Know How and Why." Or maybe this: "O.J. and Fox: Dancing In the Graveyard." Or, keeping the dance theme, "Dancing With the Scars."

Ah, if only O.J.'s lead attorney Johnnie Cochran had lived to see this, smug defender of his client's racially-charged acquittal that he was.

I don't totally get this, though. What does "If I Did It" even mean? He's going to retrace the steps of the "killer" as if it had been he, imagining what it would have been like and felt like to savagely murder the mother of his children and her friend in cold blood? Try to consider that part alone: Simpson's now-grown kids, seeing this book hit the bestseller lists and a primetime special dragged before the country for them to endure/relive -- with their father gleefully and shamelessly continuing to whore out their mother's memory and whatever's left of his reputation. How completely horrible for them.

It's like you feel the need to take a long, hot shower even blogging about this. Time to crawl back out of the sewer and clean up.

Holy Pontiff! Fleiss Plays Nice To Lure Bachelor Benedict

Say this for "The Bachelor" creator-exec producer Mike Fleiss: when he goes fishing, he isn't content to land cod and salmon -- it's a marlin or nothing. Fleiss -- the cousin of onetime Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss -- has actually floated a special request to the Vatican seeking a guest appearance on his show from Pope Benedict XVI. This is where we'd usually insert a punchline, expect this ain't no joke. At least not in the conventional sense.

Fleiss told that bastion of Papal information, the New York Post, that he's floated a special plea to Vatican officials to have the Pope bless the ABC series with his holy presence since the show's current bachelor, 34-year-old Prince Lorenzo Borghese, has a Pope and a cardinal in his Italian family tree dating back to the 1600s. So Fleiss evidently envisions the Pontiff himself appearing to pray with Borghese for guidance before he hands out his final rose.

"Wouldn't it be cool?" Fleiss asked.

Yes, that's what it would be -- cool. Not as cool, however, as the Pope actually getting commissioned to be the bachelor himself. I can already see the logline for the finale: "What lucky girl will get the final blessing?"

The fact that the Vatican has yet to respond to the bizarre request -- hard to believe, considering all of the free time His Holiness must have while working to save a war-torn planet from full-on spiritual collapse -- unfortunately fails to discourage Fleiss, who told the Post if the Pope continues to ignore his request he's hatching a plan to "sneak the cameras into Vatican Square." It begs the question: when did Fleiss undergo his lobotomy?

Steve Irwin Lived Dangerously and Got Stung

What should we call the death today of Steve Irwin, the gregarious Crocodile Hunter of Animal Planet's "The Crocodile Hunter"? Is it tragic? Of course. Shocking? Not really. Surprising? Only a little bit. It's wrenching that the man died the way he did in a freak incident involving a stingray, leaving behind a wife and two young kids. The ray's poisonous barb on its tail caught Irwin flush in the chest and pierced his heart, which is one of the very few ways that a ray's sting is fatal. Death from a stingray is said to be exceedingly rare, responsible for a scant one or two fatalities annually worldwide.

It was horribly ironic that something as random as this would befall Irwin after staring death in the face from so many lethal predators so many times.

I was never a big fan of Irwin's, finding him a bit too buffoonish and goofy for comfort. He was a big crazy Aussie teddy bear of a guy who talked to the animals like a hyperkinetic Dr. Doolittle, nutty and silly and sassy and, ultimately, a bit too in love with danger for his own good. When you've got a family, some might see that up-close-and-in-their-face thrillseeking as sorta selfish and irresponsible, though since that's how the guy made his living and became an international star it's tougher to quibble with his style. If he'd dialed his methods back a notch, one can argue, he wouldn't have been Steve Irwin.

My friend Burt Kearns over at the great blog Tabloid Baby called Irwin's the first death of the reality TV era, having "died for our sins" as consumers of the kind of wildlife product he dished out. Irwin was a kiddie icon because of his jolly, cartoony, khaki-clad persona. To adults he was more of a spoofy curiosity whose approach crossed into self-parody. But grown-ups, if they watched Irwin's schtick at all, became fans because he did get so close to peril with such regularity. Because Irwin would joke about it, he never seemed truly close to disaster. But the truth obviously was that -- in the absence of healthy caution -- a line of patter proves a lousy defense.

This isn't to say that Irwin asked for it, and again, the way this went down was ironic in that there was nary a croc in sight. But we also recall the criticism he received a few years ago when he was photographed feeding a crocodile while cradling his newborn son in his other arm. The flak he attracted for that little stunt was justified in that accidents happen, he could have tripped or dropped the infant -- and then what? Whoops? If you're a little crazy and tempting fate, that's one thing, but using your uncomprehending kid as a stage prop with a reptile's snapping jaws close by represented astonishingly bad judgment.

All of this is bound to be forgiven and forgotten now given the way Irwin was killed. He'll be remembered as one of TV's great effervescent characters, as well he should. He was one of a kind to be sure, and he's already being lauded for having "died doing what he loved." I always do kind of a double-take when I read that line: died doing what he loved. I feel safe in saying that Irwin didn't love having a hole punched in his heart by one of the sea's roughest customers, and the fact is that when you invade on another animal's turf with cameras and microphones you're taking a gamble no matter how fully you protect yourself and exercise caution.

Steve Irwin didn't deserve to die. I feel badly it happened to a 44-year-old guy with a family and such a vibrant zest for his life and his work. But he also well knew the risks. Or maybe he somehow came to see himself as invulnerable, with the croc/infant incident serving as a tipoff. If there's a lesson to be learned -- one imparted to Irwin with tragic finality -- it's that nature is not a photo op. And sometimes, it bites back.

Where Have All the Superheroes Gone? (Right Here!)

It was a finale party for everyday superheroes. Fat Momma and Feedback, the finalists from Sci Fi Channel's hit reality show "Who Wants To Be a Superhero?" reality competition series, gathered at Big Wangs sports bar in Hollywood Thursday night to see Feedback, aka Matthew Atherton of Rancho Cucamonga, CA, crowned the winner of the six-episode series fronted and produced by comic book legend Stan Lee.

The finale was taped at Universal CityWalk back in May, but the reality of being a bona fide superhero is still sinking in for Atherton, who quit his job as a software engineer in Colorado to take part in the show. "I still can't believe it," a beaming Atherton admitted after changing into his form-fitting Feedback jumpsuit behind the bar.

The party was the surest sign that the contestants on "Superhero" made more than a superficial connection. Not only did Feedback and Fat Momma host the bash themselves -- which meant that other patrons of Big Wangs kept turning their head when the costumed contestants walked through the door -- but a number of "Superhero" troupers confirmed that they have established lasting friendships.

Fan favorite Major Victory, aka Chris Watters of San Francisco -- who made it down to the final three before having to turn in his costume -- was among those who showed up at Big Wangs. He also traveled to the home of Fat Momma (aka Neil Wilson) in Lancaster, CA, earlier this week for a sendoff party for Wilson's eldest daughter who is shipping out to Baghdad with her Air Force unit. Watters left his Major Victory cape behind on Thursday but had some major-league wide lapels to make up for it.

"It's so amazing to see how many of these (contestants) became good friends," said "Superhero" executive producer Scott Satin, who shepherded the show for Nash Entertainment during the past three years during its false starts at WB Network and MTV before finding a suitable home at Sci Fi.

As for the winning superhero, Atherton will be the subject of his own Stan Lee-penned comic book, to be distributed later this year by Dark Horse Comics. And Atherton's character of Feedback, who can absorb the powers of characters in any video game he plays, will be featured in a Sci Fi original movie. Regarding the big question of whether "Superhero" will be continued in another round of competition, Satin said he's awaiting official word from the network.

It was probably a good sign that Rob Swartz, vice president of alternative programming at Sci Fi Channel, made it down to Big Wangs on Thursday with a cookie basket in tow for the fantastic final two.

(Posted by Cynthia Littleton)

Advertisers Run Screaming From 'Survivor: Skin City'

Mark Burnett: genius. Oh please, don't even try to argue the point. The mega-producer has an aging franchise on his hands in "Survivor." The CBS reality pioneer is still pulling in the numbers but the buzz has long since disappeared. So what does Marky do? He summons the reliable controversy-generator called racial segregation for his forthcoming 13th installment of the series -- "Survivor: Cook Islands" -- and then acts all defensive and indignant when the fur starts to fly. If Burnett couldn't see this furor coming, he may be the only one. It's more likely a case of playing dumb while standing on the sideline witnessing his baby's return to the forefront of America's consciousness.

You sense that Burnett was keeping this one in his back pocket for quite a few years just waiting for the right moment to play his little race card. It's the height of disingenuousness for him to claim this isn't any big deal and voice irritation at those who insist on turning it into the fall season's social issue du jour. In case you missed it, "Cook Islands" is dividing its four tribes of castaways along racial lines, with African-American, Asian-American, Latino and Caucasian teams competing for pride of ethnicity before intermingling later on.

That race remains the hottest of potatoes in America is undeniable no matter the purported enlightenment and diversity awareness of the time. It speaks volumes that this is still such a humongous big ol' deal. But that it is. As the New York Times reported on Thursday, General Motors has just opted to withdraw all of its advertising from "Survivor" this year, following Coca-Cola, Home Depot, UPS and Campbell Soup before it. Everybody, including GM, is denying any connection between the new format and the decision to pull their ads, which seems rather suspicious considering the ongoing mainstream popularity of the franchise.

Not that I'm necessarily chiding the big corporations from jumping ship or defending Burnett's gambit. It's difficult to get excited by the idea that an unscripted series has flung open the segregationist floodgates in the interest of breathing new life into a concept that's grown increasingly ho-hum. Yet at the same time, it's also very in keeping with the reality that is these United States.

Whether we admit it or not, too many of us hang almost exclusively with birds of our similar feather. There's a clear predilection to stick largely, if not exclusively, with those whom are most like ourselves, whether we be talking religion, race, color or creed. That's obviously not the way it ought to be, but it's the way it is. Burnett is simply exploiting that dynamic for personal gain. And while it looks in the short run as if he and CBS may take it on the chin due to the sponsor defections, it's likely the huge spike in awareness and water-cooler chatter (not to mention ratings) will more than make up for it over the long haul.

So like I said, that Burnett fella is very much an evil genius. Love what he's doing or hate it, you've gotta admire the business savvy.

Let the Reality TV Feelgood Backlash Begin in Earnest

I've been feeling it for a while but have had trouble really putting it into words. Fortunately, New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley has done it for me. The reason that reality TV has lost its way is that it has lost its nerve. Two examples arrive this week in the babe-friendly hours "How to Get the Guy" (premiering tonight on ABC) and "The Tuesday Night Book Club" (launching tomorrow on CBS). Their lameness can be traced to the fact they insist on trying to impart some ill-conceived life lesson and/or slice of socially-redeeming enlightenment.

Hey, programming folk: we don't need education in our unscripted crapola. We just want a good trash wallow. Ca-peach?

Oh, but for a return to the good old bad days of "When Animals Attack" and "Caught On the Job" and "Temptation Island." If I'm watching reality TV, I want a huge portion of Nasty with a side of Cruelty. We can trace the demonizing of perfectly good degradation to not only the "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" phenomenon but also shows like "Wife Swap" and "Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy." People don't want to watch women go to a new family and start cleaning the house; they want to see them swap husbands and do it. Now there, my little mammals, would be an appropriately evil and entertaining concept.

So anyway, as Stanley details, these two new ladies night-style summertime reality series don't deliver the goods -- but not because they're sleazy. It's because they aren't unctuous and humiliating enough.

Just Keep Right On Working, Nothin' To See Here

The delightfully evil, wicked, mean 'n nasty Gawker.com got hold of a pretty ridiculous leaked memo sent to staffers at the once iconic but now superfluous magazine Rolling Stone (which still seems to be celebrating the 1970s and '80s as Current Events). MTV is, for reasons that baffle, shooting a reality show at the RS offices in New York beginning next Monday and running through around mid-August. Something about young people competing for an internship or whatever, because them $6 an hour jobs don't grow on trees, you know.

Anyway, it's pretty great how in the memo it's spelled out that MTV has advised magazine staff (aka atmosphere) to behave naturally, avoid eye contact and do their best to steer clear of any sort of interaction should a camera roll into the vicinity. The instructions sound almost identical to how one should act in the presence of a gun-toting maniac, which must be merely coincidental.

The memo is shown below (courtesy Gawker):

MEMORANDUM

To: All Staff
From: Gary Armstrong
Date: June 6, 2006
Re: Rolling Stone & MTV Show
_____________________________________________
The Rolling Stone Show on MTV is underway…

The filming will officially begin on June 12th with a scheduled completion date in middle August. All employees will be asked to sign a general release for the show, this does not necessarily mean you will be on television, (note: for every 100 hours filmed only one hour will be broadcast). You will receive the release and a memo from our General Counsel, Dana Rosen shortly, explaining in more detail.

As the cameras will soon become a part of our daily routine, please conduct yourselves with a high degree of professionalism as you are representing Wenner Media.

MTV has requested that should you find yourselves in the middle of a shooting area

o Act as naturally as possible

o Avoid making eye contact with the camera

o Do not purposely get involved with the shooting

Under the experienced direction of MTV’s crew, this project should prove to be both smooth and enjoyable for all.

Thanks in advanced for your cooperation.

If you have any question regarding the show please don’t hesitate to call me.

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Gary Armstrong
Chief Marketing Officer Wenner Media
Rolling Stone - Us Weekly - Men’s Journal