Part 2 of the Round Table on Mormon humor (in which I participated along with several others) has been posted at By Common Consent.

The direct link is here.

(Brief reviews of new fall shows, usually based on only the first episode, which may or may not be a fair way to judge a show. Deal with it.)

“Surface,” Mondays (NBC). So far, this is the weakest of the many new sci-fi/thriller series. An oceanographer finds a huge sea monster; other characters encounter it too; the government finds a submarine with a huge bite mark in it; blah blah blah. I found the pilot downright boring: too many characters and none of them memorable; too little action and what there is isn’t very engaging.

“Everybody Hates Chris,” Thursdays (UPN). Another laugh-track-free comedy delight! This one’s based on the life of Chris Rock as a 13-year-old, with Rock narrating, a la “The Wonder Years.” (That’s two news shows this year with that device.) And it’s funny! The young Chris, growing up in Brooklyn in the early ’80s, is bused to a mostly white junior high school where bullies pick on him; at home he’s the oldest of three latchkey kids, his dad working two jobs and mom working one. Mom has some of the best lines, threatening how she’ll beat the kids if they screw up: “I will knock you into last night” is one; my favorite is: “I will slap your name out of the phone book, and call Ma Bell and tell her I did it!” But kidding aside, the family loves each other, and the humor, while sharp and incisive, is also sweet. I recommend it.

“Love, Inc.,” Thursdays (UPN). If you watch “Everybody Hates Chris” and then accidentally leave the TV on UPN afterward, you’ll have to see this show, which I only managed to watch 15 minutes of before I had to turn it off. It’s about a dating service, and in the pilot episode, the big story is that the ex-boyfriend of one of the dating advisers comes in to hire their services! So she has to help her ex find a new girlfriend! Ha! There’s also a Latina character in the office who is focused only on finding a single American man to marry her so she can get a green card. And when I say she’s “focused,” I mean that LITERALLY every single one of her lines has to do with that. There’s also a stoner guy in the office who says spacey things. Busy Phillips is the star, and she tries too hard to be funny/wacky. This show reeks.

A Mormon blog called By Common Consent has conducted a round table discussion (via e-mail) between me and several other LDS humorists. The first volley of e-mails has been compiled and published at the site, at this address.

I thought it might be of interest to some people here.

A curious thing happened on Friday, Sept. 9. I was scanning the paper for movies playing at local theaters that I had not already seen, and I spotted one: “Echoes of Innocence.” I assumed it was an arthouse film, but then saw it was playing on four or five screens all over the city. It was an actual new release, alongside “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” and “The Man.” Yet there had been no advance screenings. I hadn’t seen any commercials or advertisements. It was just HERE, out of nowhere.

I looked into it on our friend the Internet. It was opening on 175 screens nationwide — not a wide release, but a good-sized small release — and it was made by Christians in Texas. It’s the story of an outcast high school girl who has vowed to save herself for marriage, and who occasionally has visions from God.

Now, I do try to see everything, and I was intrigued by a movie being thrown onto 175 screens without any advance warning, and my friend Smacky was in town, and we love watching bad movies together, so what they heck, we went. And we were not disappointed, insofar as it was not just bad, but the fun kind of bad, the kind where you laugh at it and make jokes. (There were only three other people in the theater, and we sat away from them so our whispering would not disturb them.) You can read my review here.

But the interesting thing about the film is its marketing, i.e., there wasn’t any. As I said, there were no ads or screenings before it opened. Even when it did, there were no ads in the newspaper. Every other piece of crap in theaters gets at least a tiny display ad, but no one bought one for “Echoes of Innocence.” And it opened on 175 screens! Just making 175 prints of a movie will run you a few hundred thousand dollars. So there was SOME money behind it. But apparently not enough for any marketing.

I looked online. Not a single review of the film was to be had anywhere on opening day, which means it hadn’t been pre-screened anywhere else in the country, either. (Pre-screenings are the cheapest form of advertising: The critics see it, which means they run reviews on opening day, and regular people see it and tell their friends.) Even the next day, only a few papers had bothered to send critics to see it once it had opened. Even the New York Times, which reviews EVERYTHING, didn’t review it.

The following Friday, Sept. 16, the film was gone as quickly and mysteriously as it had come. It was pulled from 174 of its 175 theaters, remaining only at a theater in Grand Prairie, Texas. Its opening-weekend box office numbers were not reported anywhere online that I could find, which means the distributor, New World Pictures, failed to report them. (If the showing we attended was any indication, I would put the film’s total opening-weekend gross at around $40,000, or a per-screen average of around $230. That’s really bad, by the way.)

My question for New World Pictures is this: What did you expect? When you dump a film into 175 theaters with no promotion to back it up, I hope you’re not surprised when no one goes to see it. What you should have done is what every other small-budget independent film does: Open on 10 screens, thus saving the cost of making all those other prints, and use that money for advertising, advance screenings and other marketing. Not that “Echoes of Innocence” really deserves a wide audience, but come on. You never even gave it a chance.

(Brief reviews of new fall shows, usually based on only the first episode, which may or may not be a fair way to judge a show. Deal with it.)

“How I Met Your Mother,” Mondays (CBS). This one feels very sitcom-y to me, very set-up/punchline, very laugh-tracky. (I hate when you can tell the laughter is fake. The sound of real people really laughing? Beautiful. But real laughter being “sweetened” with extra pre-recorded mirth? Fingernails on a chalkboard.) But it’s not a bad show. The premise is that in the future, a man is telling his kids how he met their mother. The show is set in the present, with the man’s future self narrating (sort of how “The Wonder Years” worked, remember?). The man himself is likable enough, and his best friend and the best friend’s new fiancee are fine. But the really good character is in the No. 4 position, the Kramer slot, and he’s played by Neil Patrick Harris (aka Doogie Howser). He’s a fun-loving ladies-man type who always dresses in a suit and who often demands that others do the same. (”Meet me at the bar in 15 minutes!” he’ll exclaim on the phone. “And suit up!”) Most of my chuckles in the pilot episode were inspired by Doogie. Other than that, it’s only so-so, but worth checking out.

“Kitchen Confidential,” Mondays (Fox). Anything’s a letdown if it comes right after “Arrested Development,” but this comedy gives it the ol’ college try. It’s about a chef (played by the guy who played Will on “Alias”) who has just been hired at a swanky restaurant, and his crew of cooks and assistants, and all the wacky goings-on behind the scenes of a fine dining establishment. Some good underplayed laughs in the premiere (no studio audience; less “hey, look, we just made a joke!” shenanigans), and while I wasn’t completely thrilled with it, I’ll be returning the next couple weeks because I think it has some good potential, now that the exposition is out of the way.

“My Name Is Earl,” Tuesdays (NBC). We have a winner! Here’s the funniest new comedy of the season. It stars Jason Lee as a white-trash lowlife who begins to examine his life and, hoping to set things straight karma-wise, goes about undoing all the bad things he’s ever done in his life. He has a good ol’ boy brother to help him, and a dirtbag ex-wife to hinder him. It’s all set in a nameless podunk town where people live in trailers and spend every night in bars, and it’s a sharply funny show. (”Some people might think getting so drunk you accidentally marry a woman that’s six months pregnant is a good reason to stop drinking,” Earl says. “Personally, I think it’s a good reason to KEEP drinking.” Or this line: “There’s no use running! I know where your mama parks your house!”) It’s also surprisingly sweet and good-natured, being, after all, about a man trying to do some good in the world. This one’s been added to the TiVo.

• First of all, “Desperate Housewives” is not a comedy. It should not have been nominated for any awards that have the word “comedy” in them. It has comedic elements, sure, and is often more light than heavy. But it is a soap opera, and soap operas are dramas. The fact that it’s an hour and not 30 minutes should have been Emmy’s first clue. (Quick: How many other hour-long series have been nominated as “comedies”? Answer: I don’t know. But I bet it’s none.)
• That said, I can’t really argue with the show’s win for Best Directing in a Comedy Series, given its other nominees. And among the nominees for Best Actress in a Comedy Series, Felicity Huffman is definitely the best. I’m just glad “Desperate Housewives” didn’t win Best Comedy Series, because that would have been a travesty….
• Almost as great a travesty as “Everybody Loves Raymond,” which DID win. This and all its other awards tonight were solely because it had been the show’s last season. It was a good enough show and everything, but any category where it’s up against “Arrested Development” (or even “Scrubs”), it deserves to lose.
• Patricia Arquette was the Marisa Tomei of the evening, winning an award even though, among the five nominees, she was the fifth most deserving. (Glenn Close, Frances Conroy, Mariska Hargitay and Jennifer Garner were the other nominees, in order of deservingness.)
• It’s a shame “Deadwood” got nothin’. That’s a fantastic show. (Actually, it won five technical awards, but none for acting, writing or directing.)
• Interesting also that “The Life and Death of Peter Sellers” won nine Emmys — more than any other show — including awards for writing, directing and acting, yet failed to win Best Made-for-TV Movie.
• Were we speaking of travesties earlier? How about Jay Leno being nominated for Best Individual Performance in a Variety or Music Program, and David Letterman being snubbed? I’m not saying Dave needs to be nominated every year. But he certainly needs to be if Leno is.
• Speaking of Dave, he NEVER goes to these things, even when he is nominated. For him to be there — and to present something! — well, now we know what it takes. Johnny Carson has to die. But did you see the ovation he got just for walking onstage? Everyone loves him. How wonderful for Jon Stewart to mention later that the way Dave idolizes Carson, that’s how everyone in Stewart’s generation feels about Dave. It’s true, too. And no one will ever, ever say that about Leno. SUCK IT, LENO.
• Everyone rips on “Will & Grace” for having too many celebrity guest stars. So the show felt pretty smug when it got all those Best Guest Star nominations, as if that validated its choice. But then who won? Bobby Cannavale, who 1) wasn’t a big name, and 2) actually appeared on several episodes, not just as a one-time stunt-casting thing. So the lesson for “Will & Grace” is: Stunt casting is still stupid and everyone hates it, I don’t care how many nominations it gets you.
• And one more thing, “Will & Grace”: You are well past your prime, but once again, you felt pretty smug when you got 15 nominations, the most of any series. And then how many did you win? Two! One for a guest star, and one for cinematography! SUCK IT, “WILL & GRACE.”
• When you include the technical awards, the Cartoon Network won seven Emmys. Fox got six. The WB and UPN got zero (out of zero nominations, I believe). But I just wanted to point out: Cartoon Network won more Emmys than Fox, WB and UPN combined.
• Donald Trump and “Will & Grace’s” Karen Walker singing the theme from “Green Acres” is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.

(Brief reviews of new fall shows, usually based on only the first episode, which may or may not be a fair way to judge a show. Deal with it.)

“Supernatural,” Tuesdays (WB). Aren’t there about 11 new shows this year that could be called “Supernatural”? How did WB snag the title before anyone else did? It’s like naming a show “Funny” or “Interesting.” Anyway, it’s about two brothers searching for their father, who went missing while searching for the supernatural thing (whatever it may have been) that killed the boys’ mother 22 years ago. The lads have accompanied Dad on “hunting” expeditions over the years, having to fight and destroy many demons, ghosts and creatures that were unrelated to Mom’s death but that needed destroying anyway. And now it’s just them, looking for Dad, solving one mystery at a time along the way. Sound very “X-Files”-ish? Didn’t Mulder have an overarching mission, too, one that colored his day-to-day supernatural investigations? Yeah. Good point. This is no “X-Files,” but the first episode (about a ghost woman who kills unfaithful men) was pretty creepy and entertaining. And I’m interested to see where the deeper mysteries — where Dad is now, what happened to Mom — lead.

“Threshold,” Fridays (CBS). CBS wants to attract younger viewers to replace their old ones (who keep dying), so they launch this show about an alien invasion … and put it on Friday nights, when younger viewers are NOT at home watching TV. You know who’s home on Friday nights? Old people. A foxy “contingency expert” (played by Carla Gugino) leads the team of scientists called in by the government when an alien spacecraft shows up and does some weird stuff. The ideas introduced in the two-hour premiere could keep them busy for years: sound waves that affect people’s behavior, a plan to alter humans’ DNA to turn them into the extra-terrestrials, survivors of the initial attack who now have superhuman strength, the possibility that the foxy expert and her team may be infected, too — yeesh. The mythology they’re creating is pretty complicated, but it’s fun if you like that sort of thing. It’s a smart show, to say the least.

“Twins,” Fridays (WB). One’s plain-looking and brilliant; the other’s beautiful and dumb. And they’re twins! And they’ve just been made CEOs of their father’s lingerie company. And they fight a lot, but they also love each other. Show was created by the team behind “Will & Grace,” but it sure isn’t very funny. Sara Gilbert (the deadpan daughter from “Roseanne”) plays the plain sister, and she made me laugh a few times (”I’m not much of a laugher, but I want you to know that’s really funny,” she told someone). But otherwise, there’s just not much TO the show. We’re a family, we fight, we run a business, we make crude, obvious jokes. Meh.

“Head Cases,” Wednesdays (Fox). One’s a corporate lawyer who just had a nervous breakdown after a lifetime of panic attacks; the other’s a two-bit shyster with a bad temper and no sense of decorum! And now they’re partners! Chris O’Donnell plays the corporate guy, and he’s better than you’d expect Chris O’Donnell to be. The other guy is Adam Goldberg, and he’s a bit too wacky/irritating for my tastes. The focus seems to be on the two men’s mental issues and how they affect their cases, rather than on the cases themselves — that is, it’s not just another show about lawyers and courtrooms. Sorta funny and sorta interesting, but I didn’t feel any compelling reason to watch it again. Plus, it’s on opposite “Lost,” so it’s going to get canceled soon anyway. (Post-script: Sure enough, after only two episodes, Fox canceled it. Seems “Head Cases” was doing so poorly in the ratings, it was actually coming in below whatever was on UPN. That’s bad.)

To the guy who is currently winning every day on “Jeopardy!”:

You are smug. I don’t like you.

Also, I do not like how you start in the middle or at the bottom of the categories. Please start at the top, like you’re supposed to.

You are no Ken Jennings. I know it is tempting for you to think that you are, because you have won 18 straight games. Please do not delude yourself. You win by narrow margins. It is seldom a runaway. Tonight you pronounced “tarot” with the T sound on the end, which is supposed to be silent. Ken Jennings would never do that.

In short, please lose soon, because I am tired of you.

Love,
Eric

(Brief reviews of new fall shows, usually based on only the first episode, which may or may not be a fair way to judge a show. Deal with it.)

“Prison Break,” Mondays (Fox). All right, I’m in for the long haul on this one. It’s a preposterous story — a man commits a crime just so he can go to prison, just so he can break himself and his already-incarcerated brother out — but it’s told with the attention to cliffhangers and plot twists that has made “24″ so addictive. He only has a month to get his brother out before he’s scheduled for execution! Gotta move fast! So outrageous, but so fun.

“Reunion,” Thursdays (Fox). Me, I don’t care much for prime-time soap operas. They get old fast. To keep them lively, there’s gotta be a supernatural or crime-solving twist. So I’m intrigued by “Reunion,” about a sextet of friends, one of whom is going to be murdered by another one. The gimmick is that each episode covers one year, starting in 1986, with the 20th (and final episode) being in the present. Who gets murdered? We don’t know yet. (I hear we find out in episode 5.) Who’s the killer? We probably won’t know until the finale. In the meantime, it’s soapy melodrama, one year at a time, with year-appropriate pop songs on the soundtrack. The pilot episode suggests a strong reliance on dialogue that is either expository (”He’s my best friend!”) or a verbal expression of the character’s inner monologue (”I’m feeling very confused right now!”). So the question is whether the mystery-solving element will be enough to get me through the more terrible aspects. I’ll be week-to-week on this one.

“The War at Home,” Sundays (Fox). This crapfest gets the prime spot between “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy”? A schande! This live-action sitcom is your basic “Married … with Children” variation, with a husband and wife who love/hate each other, and their three kids, whom they also love/hate. The show wants to be “edgy,” apparently thinking that will automatically make it funny, too, but it doesn’t work that way. Dad fears teenage son might be gay. Teenage daughter wants to date a black guy. Fodder for comedy, perhaps, but the show has no idea how to deal with these issues. It thinks all it has to do is bring them up and hilarity will automatically ensue. “I’m not letting her go out with him!” Dad says. “I’d rather drink my own urine!” And that’s as clever or insightful as it gets. May it never befoul my TiVo again.

“Bones,” Tuesdays (Fox). David Boreanaz plays an FBI agent, Emily Deschanel plays a forensics expert called in to help identify bodies and stuff. The dynamic is that she’s no good at dealing with people outside the lab, while he’s a great crime-fighter, works well with others, understands human nature, and so forth. The pilot episode mentioned this difference about 1,000 times. (”My most fulfilling relationships are with people who are dead!” she says.) It’s pretty standard “C.S.I.” stuff — identify the body, then solve the crime — and I predicted who the killer was early in the episode. But the dialogue is snappy and the two leads have some good Mulder-Scully chemistry together. I probably won’t watch it every week, but I wouldn’t kick it out of bed for eating crackers.

Though no one saw the movie (it grossed only $676,000 its opening weekend), rest assured my dissing of “Undiscovered” did not go undiscovered. I received this e-mail from one Christa Lee, angry at what I’d said about Ashlee Simpson and her retarded, buck-toothed sister Jessica. I have replaced all of Christa Lee’s swear words with the word PANCAKE.

Are you flipping kidding me? How dare you put down Ashlee Simpson or Jessica Simpson. How the hell do you think that Jessica Simpson is buck-toothed? [I guess "buck-toothed" isn't really the term I want. She's got that big overbite, I mean. On the other hand, if "buck-toothed" is a colloquialism for "dumb and hickish," then it still fits.] and she only acts retarded because you stupid men put that impression out there that you think that its cute when a girl acts dumb or ditzy. And all you PANCAKE critics are so PANCAKE insecure. you guys are just so jealous because most of you guys are dead beet old ugly men who cant get a woman or a life so you guys need to put down the people with real talent like ashlee simpson. she is the best thing to ever hit hollywood. [I want you to read that sentence again: Ashlee Simpson is the BEST THING TO EVER HIT HOLLYWOOD. The best thing. EVER.] she is so awesome and she’s just herself. she’s not some wannabe trying to act like something that she’s not. [Except when she tries to act like she's an actress. Or a singer.] she relates with so many people in reality. and all of you guys make some big deal over that PANCAKE that happened on saturday night live. [Who are "you guys"? I didn't mention the "SNL" thing in my review...] well guess what, she had something wrong with her throat. she was forced to lip sync. it wasnt her fault. and why dont you guys go ahead and put down people like lindsay lohan or hillary duff? every concert they’ve ever done or anywhere they’ve ever sung… they were lip synching. they only have a singing carreer because they started off as actresses and theyre PANCAKE producers want more money so they give them that image and then give them some fake little voice and fix every little thing about them to make people idol them. maybe you should start critising them instead of the people like ashlee simpson who had a rough life to begin with and then is trying to make it as a singer and also has a wonderful voice . i love ashlee simpson and her sister so much [really?!] and you have no right to PANCAKE say that PANCAKE because they are 100% better people than you will ever hope to be PANCAKE.

My goodness, Christa Lee! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? I’ve met Tijuana hookers who didn’t swear as much as you!

I replied to Christa Lee to let her know that I do criticize people like Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff when the situation calls for it, and also to tell her about the First Amendment, which says I do, in fact, have the right to rip on Ashlee Simpson if I so choose. I told her I was baffled that someone could be so ANGRY at something a movie critic had written. Then I wished her luck with high school. She replied:

why do you think im in highschool? and another thing ,, i get so defensive because u didnt just put down her movie,, you put down her and why the hell would you want to put someone down like that? [The funny part is, no I didn't. All I said about her in the review was that I'm no fan of hers, that "Undiscovered" -- in which she is a secondary character anyway -- is no good, and that buying her CD would be a waste of money.] she is about as real as anyone out there because she really did have a hard time growing up && shes not just one of those singers who has people write her music for her ,, she writes it .. its 100% real. and 100% from her heart . thats something that can never be put down and i cant believe that you would want to. and jessica simpson is not buck toothed. and she has her reasons to act ditsy like she does. so… critisize that

I guess I should critisize that. I am a critis, after all.