I believe the Fox Network loved “Arrested Development” at one time. But when that love was not shared by millions upon millions of viewers, Fox’s love turned to resentment and bitterness.

Here are the most recent developments:

- Lowering the order from 22 episodes to only 13, the subtext being: “After these 13 episodes, you’re canceled.”

- After airing nine episodes, suddenly taking the show off the schedule altogether.

- Refusing to OFFICIALLY cancel the show, thus preventing any other interested parties (like Showtime or ABC, reportedly) from picking it up. Fox isn’t obligated to make it official until May, and they have no reason to do it any sooner, other than basic human decency.

And now here’s the very latest word:

Fox WILL air the final four episodes, and they’ll do it in one two-hour block — 8-10 p.m., Friday, Feb. 10.

You’ll notice I said Friday. Curiously, this is the night of the week “Arrested Development” should have aired this season anyway. Overall viewership is much lower on Fridays, and thus so are networks’ expectations. On Friday, a paltry 3 million viewers for “Arrested Development” would have been just fine. On Mondays, though, Fox expected a lot more and were disappointed when they didn’t get it.

Anyway, here’s the real kicker. Guess what is ALSO airing on Friday, Feb. 10? That’s right, NBC’s coverage of the Opening Ceremonies of the 2006 Winter Olympics!

So Fox is doing the right thing by airing those last four episodes — but they’re dumping them against what will be one of the highest-rated programs of the entire year. (In 2002, the only thing that got more viewers than the Opening Ceremonies was the Super Bowl.) That way, when nobody watches “Arrested Development,” Fox can say, “See?! We were right! Nobody watches this show!”

Luckily, fans of “Arrested Development” tend to have DVRs (or at least VCRs, for heaven’s sake), so they can record it even if they’re watching something else. But honestly, Fox. Why you gotta be such jerks about it?

I got one of my strangest angry letters yet the other day, from a man named Tom (accident55@hotmail.com) who took issue with my blog entry about the Nielsen ratings and TiVo users. Evidently, he feels very strongly about the matter. His passion for the subject, combined with failing to take his medication, resulted in the following foaming, frothy e-mail:

Lots and lots of inaccuracies in your latest “diary” entry. (As that is what a blog is. A 12 year old girl’s diary.) [And yet somehow I manage to be neither 12 years old nor a girl.]

Where did you pull the number 9000 from? Out of your [swear word]? There are 5000 national Nielsen boxes distributed, and another 23000+ locally. So, you were only off by about 66%. Nice.

[Well, it is nice to receive constructive criticism, but in fact there is some confusion about the number. It was 5,000 for several years, but one of the things the newest Nielsen CEO, Susan Whiting, did was increase it. You will find the number 9,000 reported in a variety of sources. Google Nielsen ratings 9000 and see. Unfortunately, the Nielsen company's own Web site still lists the number as 5,000 in one of its apparently out-of-date FAQ pages.]

The rest of your rant sounds like the typical cry baby whose shows are not doing well, so they blame it on the faulty Nielsen rating. “Nielsen claims they are pretty darned accurate”? So, you’ve never taken a statistics class before? Or you don’t beleive in the science of mathematics and statistics?

[Sure, I trust the mathematics behind the idea that a sample of only 9,000 can represent all 300,000,000 Americans -- but that ONLY works if those 9,000 people are a proper cross-section. If all 9,000 were white, for example, with no minorities, then it wouldn't be accurate, and it would have nothing to do with the math.

The sample would need to reflect different viewing habits, too. Not everyone sits down to watch a show at 8 p.m. every night with their spouse and 2.3 children. People tape shows, TiVo them, watch them in places other than home, etc. So the 9,000 would need to include some representation of those other types of people to remain accurate, too. And again, it has nothing to do with the math.]

The rest of just pure specualtion. You say that cetain shows will do better than otehrs when DVRs are reportewd. You are very ignornat on this entier subject. [Few things in this world delight me more than someone calling me ignorant and misspelling the word. So thanks for that.] Because while Nielsen didn’t use DVR figures, TIVO DID report their viewer’s habits. And guess what? There was NO significant difference between TVIO users and Nielsen families.

[The word "NO" probably should not have been capitalized so emphatically, since in fact there are some differences. Each week, TiVo lists the top 25 most TiVoed shows, based on a random sampling of 20,000 TiVo users' "Season Pass" lists. (That's the thing where you tell TiVo to record a particular show every week, automatically.) The top shows look about like the Nielsen top shows -- except there's "Family Guy," for example, as the No. 8 most-TiVoed show last week, while Nielsen ranks it at No. 56. And "My Name Is Earl" is only 35 on Nielsen's list, but 10 on TiVo's. Or "The West Wing" at 63 in the Nielsens, 11 on TiVo. Or "Will & Grace," also much higher on TiVo than Nielsen. But yes, other than that, there is NO significant difference.]

And that is logical to someone that has a brain. (Maybe some day medical science will help your qualify.) [Will help my qualify what?] If a show has such loyal viewers, they will be absolutely SURE to watch it as soon as possible, rather han lat TIVO record it. Whereas a casual fan will not care if he/she sees an episode of a show a few days later. A casual fan is MORE likely to let TIVO handle their viewing habits.

[See, and that's highly illogical to me. Saying that people who use TiVo must not care about TV is like saying people with day-planners must not care about their appointments. Just because you write it down, or have a machine set to get it for you, doesn't mean you don't care. Quite the opposite! Someone who didn't care wouldn't bother to use a day-planner to keep track of his appointments; he'd just trust his memory. Similarly, someone who cares about his TV shows would be glad to have a reliable device to record them for him, so he doesn't have to worry about forgetting, or being away from home, or whatever.

Watching an episode a few days later has nothing to do with being casual or devoted, either. Sure, people without TiVo watch shows the very minute they air. Why? Because they don't have any choice. They don't have TiVo! Many people with TiVo do watch them the same night, but later, after the kids have gone to bed, or whatever. It doesn't mean they don't care about the shows. If anything, it means they want to fully enjoy them without interruptions or distractions.]

Besides, your last comment shows how clueless you are. You ask Aren’t the loyal fans (what you consider the TIVO fans) the ones that the networks want?

The sanswer is obviously NO. [Um, I think you mean, "The sanswer is sobviously no."] Do you really not understnad the whole concept behind the ratings system? It is used for ADVERTISING. Nothing else. People who TIVO don’t watch commercials. So networks really don’t care about them, nor should they. [I wrote a subsequent blog entry on that aspect, though no doubt you were busy uninstalling your Spellcheck program and failed to notice it.]

Why do you think the Nielsen ratings are the ONLY ratings used? They have no monopoly or anything. Other companies are free to compete with them if they came up with a better system. But they don’t. Becuase other companies know it is pointless. The Nielsen ratings ARE accurate. The best proof of this is that advertisers STILL use them. [Or maybe the only reason advertisers still use them is that they don't have any choice, because no one has come up with a better system.] People far smarter than you (which is easy) do studies. And htey know that when they advertise on a show with a high rating, they see a larger increase in sales than when they advertise on a show with a low rating. Ifthey didn’t find this to be the case, then advertisers would stop paying the Nielsen company MILLIONS of dollars to use their survey results.

[Here's where he goes off the rails altogether....]

It is clear you are just a crybaby who actually rthink that Letterman is even 1/10000th as funny as he used to be. You must have the mentality that you laugh at watching something float in water. (The kind of crap Letterman used to mock on his old show.) Or maybe you are brainwashed by the fact that his audience cheers and applauds at every little thing Letterman says and does. (Something in which Letterman used to respond with “you people are STARVED for entertainment”) You think that Family Guy is popular, despite it getting low ratings STILL, even with ridiculous amountf os hype for its return. (Ifyou are a fan, sorry to say that it is in danger of being cancelled AGAIN, and this time for good. Which is a good thing since pop culture references are NOT the samr ting as comedy.)

As TIVO is counted, Desperate Housewives ratings will not go down. Arrested Development’s ratings will NOT got up. War at Home’s ratings will not go down. Not significantly anyway. Everything will stay pretty much the same.

Seriously, I know this is nothing more than a sissy little diary written by someone with the mentality of 12 year old girl, but shouldn’t you at least get SOME facts before ranting?

I’m always amazed at the amount of anger people are able to work up on the most trivial subjects. I mean, my blog about the flawed rating system was impassioned, I suppose, but I don’t think any of it was ANGRY. Yet here’s this e-mail from someone who is MAD!! He apparently hates TiVo, he apparently loves the Nielsen company, and he apparently types with three fingers and doesn’t use Spellcheck.

For the record, here are some statistics:

Number of times he accuses me of having my facts wrong: 6
Number of facts I actually got wrong: 0
Number of times he insults me on a personal level: 6
Number of times I insulted him on a personal level in my original blog: 0
Number of words misspelled in his e-mail: 20
Number of words misspelled in my original blog entry: 0

I am delighted by the comedy of errors surrounding “Brokeback Mountain” and the Jordan Commons theater in Sandy, Utah.

As locals know, Jordan Commons is owned by Larry Miller, a car-dealership tycoon who also owns the Utah Jazz. A devoted Mormon, he has also financed production of some LDS-themed films such as “The Work and the Glory” and “States of Grace.”

Well, “Brokeback Mountain” was scheduled to open at Jordan Commons this past Friday. It was already playing to record-setting crowds at the Broadway Centre in downtown Salt Lake City (Sandy is a suburb 20 minutes south), and was set to open in two other area theaters on Friday, too.

On Thursday, Miller was being interviewed by KCPW-FM reporter Jonathan Brown, who brought up the imminent showing of “Brokeback Mountain.” I haven’t heard the interview, which aired on the NPR affiliate Friday, but I gather from Miller’s quoted response that Brown was expressing surprise that Jordan Commons, which has occasionally shied away from controversial movies, was showing it.

Miller said, “It’s something that I have to let the market speak to some degree…. I don’t think I’m qualified to be the community censor.”

But here’s the thing: Turns out Miller didn’t actually know what “Brokeback Mountain” was about until Brown told him.

Two hours after the interview was conducted, Jordan Commons told the local papers to pull “Brokeback Mountain” from its Friday ads, because they weren’t going to show it after all.

Now, if Jordan Commons doesn’t want to show “Brokeback Mountain,” that’s fine. Theaters are entitled to show or not show whatever films they want, and they’re not beholden to anyone to explain or justify their actions. We went through this two years ago, when nobody in Salt Lake wanted to show the gay missionary drama “Latter Days.” (The Broadway Centre eventually did show it.) Whatever your reasons — political, social, moral, financial — if you own the theater, you can drop a film.

Of course, you should probably do the dropping sometime BEFORE it’s too late, not after. In Miller’s case, it was too late to change the ads in Friday’s paper, and patrons showed up at Jordan Commons on Friday expecting to see the movie.

But here’s the funny part: Larry Miller, who owns not just Jordan Commons but the Gateway Megaplex downtown, DIDN’T KNOW what “Brokeback Mountain” was about?! What kind of bubble do you live in to not have heard AT LEAST the basic two-word summary that everyone uses to describe the film? (It’s the “gay cowboy” movie.) Even your everyday citizens have surely heard about the film, but this guy — who OWNS MOVIE THEATERS — hasn’t? I think that’s hilarious.

Naturally, Utah’s Eagle Forum was quick to applaud the decision. The Eagle Forum is run locally by Gayle Ruzicka, an ultra-conservative activist who wields enormous influence over Utah politicians despite holding no elected office. She speaks quickly and harshly against anything that cannot be squeezed into her very narrow, very black-and-white, very religious worldview. (Being religious is not a problem, of course. But expecting everyone around you to follow the same rules is.) She’s so conservative — and so outspoken about it — that even some of the conservative Mormons around her say, “Dang, she’s really conservative.”

One of the better examples of her hyperbole and fear-mongering was during the 2002 Winter Olympics, when she spoke out against the Salt Lake Organizing Committee’s having condoms available to athletes, free for the asking, at the Olympic Village health center. “Where are the athletes … getting their sex partners?” she asked. “Are they bringing their own with them … or are they going out on the streets of Salt Lake City looking for our sons and daughters? Are we giving them permission to do this with the distribution of condoms?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!” [extra hysterical punctuation added; see this column for more background])

Anyway, here’s what Gayle said about the decision not to show “Brokeback Mountain” at Jordan Commons:

“I think it sets an example for all the people in Utah and, like I said before, he’s my new hero…. It’s such a terrible show, and it is such a horrible message. I just think (pulling it) tells the young people especially that maybe there is something wrong with this show.”

Some points:

POINT NO. 1: It’s not a “show,” Gayle, it’s a movie. Shows are on TV or in live theatrical or concert venues. If it’s been filmed and is now being projected on a screen, it’s a movie.

POINT NO. 2: How do you know it’s such a terrible movie, Gayle? Have you seen it? I would bet money that you have not. I suspect you’re relying on your legions of flying monkeys to report back to you on its content — “It has men in love with each other!” — and that’s as far as you went. You can dislike a film’s message, as gleaned from outside sources, but don’t call a movie “terrible” unless you’ve actually seen it.

POINT NO. 3: If you HAVE seen it, shame on you. It’s rated R.

POINT NO. 4: Gayle, you hypocritical gargoyle, do you know what movies DID open at Jordan Commons on Friday? “Grandma’s Boy” and “Hostel.” If we’re talking just about content, and not dealing with matters of artistic or entertainment merit, both films are far more graphic and potentially damaging to the community than “Brokeback Mountain.” Unlike “Brokeback Mountain,” which has one brief, fully clothed sex scene between two men and a few brief scenes of heterosexual married sex later on, “Grandma’s Boy” and “Hostel” feature wall-to-wall profanity, sexual vulgarity, nudity, very graphic illicit sexual activity, and rampant drug use. On top of that, “Hostel” also has gruesome, horrific violence and gore.

And that’s just the onscreen content! If we get into the ideas or “themes” of the films, it’s much more disturbing. We have premarital sex being encouraged, promiscuous young people being lionized, drug use being championed, and sadistic torturers of human beings being granted a free pass.

But don’t worry, Gayle! “Grandma’s Boy” and “Hostel” may be depraved, degrading and salacious — but at least don’t have any implications of adult men being in love with each other! So they’re totally fine, and Larry Miller can still be your new hero even though he’s showing them. I wonder, though. If pulling “Brokeback Mountain” tells young people that there’s something wrong with the movie, does NOT pulling “Hostel” or “Grandma’s Boy” tell young people that there’s NOT something wrong with them? If one move is a condemnation, then the other, logically, has to be an endorsement.

(By the way, last weekend the Broadway Centre’s box office for “Brokeback Mountain” was 12th-highest among the 300-plus theaters that were showing it. I’m sure the folks at the Broadway are happy to have Jordan Commons cancel it, because it means more audiences for them.)

Sources:
The Salt Lake Tribune
Deseret Morning News

Possible Names for Rock Bands, as Suggested by News Stories in 2005

Schiavo & the Feeding Tubes
Papal Deathwatch
The Filibusters
Interregnum & the Congress of Cardinals
TomKat
Box Office Slump
Oprah’s Couch
Senate Confirmation
Heckuva Job Brownie
Michael Jackson’s Pajamas
Katrina and the Waves

I thought I had spent my last New Year’s Eve in Provo, Utah, but somehow I was there again this year. And by “somehow” I mean “they paid me.”

Provo is one of many cities to hold a big celebration on New Year’s Eve called First Night. (Why “First Night” when it’s actually the last night of the year? Shouldn’t it be called “First Morning”?) The intersection of Center Street and University Avenue — the exact center of town — is closed off, and so are the streets one block in each direction. A fair-like atmosphere is created, with booths, food, games, and live entertainment. The businesses in that sector offer discounts to First Night revelers.

I was honored to be invited as one of five performers on the mainstage. Before and after me were your customary rock, pop and swing bands — and then there was me, playing the piano and singing funny songs.

The weather was cold and rainy, as you’d expect it to be on New Year’s Eve in Utah, but still there were many families out and about. I was given a very warm reception by the large-ish group of First Nighters who stood in front of the stage to watch me, and it was all around an enjoyable (not to mention lucrative) experience.

Only one thing marred the event for me. Every day that week, Provo’s newspaper, The Daily Herald — where I was a writer from 1996-2003 — ran a full-page ad listing the performers scheduled for First Night. Here is the ad:

You will notice, as I did, that my name is misspelled. In big letters. In a full-page ad. That ran every day for a week. In a newspaper I worked at for seven years.

Here’s to you, Daily Herald! Keep stupiding your way to the top!

It’s time once again to open Eric’s Sack of Mail and answer some e-mails I’ve gotten that aren’t insane or stupid enough to qualify as Angry Letters, but that do merit some discussion.

First, a reader named Don has this to say about my review of “King Kong”:

I take exception (you have never read an email that started with those words) with your comment at the bottom of your review indicating that the film contained only “mild profanity”. Multiple uses of the name of deity is not mild in my book or I hope in yours. I was very disappointed that the film, which I otherwise would have enjoyed, contained profane language.

You are correct, the film does contain profane references to deity. Alas, such language is common enough that to most viewers, it qualifies as “mild profanity” — i.e., it’s not the F-word, or any of the other “big” swear words that you can’t say on TV. I do apologize if you felt misled by my description.

Of course, everyone has different thresholds. Some people have no problem with the F-bomb, but if you take the Lord’s name in vain, they cringe. Others are the other way around. Others don’t care either way. My calling something “mild profanity” has little to do with my own personal preferences, and more to do with how it’s generally regarded by society as a whole.

Then a reader named Linda takes issue with something I said in my review of “The Ringer,” the new Johnny Knoxville movie where he pretends to be mentally handicapped. (He prepared for this role by living as a retarded person for 30 years.)

Linda cites this portion of the review –

“And it’s an interesting thing about those friends. You know how in movies, blind people are always supernaturally good at getting around and knowing their surroundings? And deaf people can always read lips phenomenally well? The retarded characters in this movie are the same way. They’re savvy, quick-witted, sagacious and full of insightful wisdom. The only thing “mentally handicapped” about them is the funny way they talk and dress and shuffle around!”

– and then says this:

Your comments of this movie tell me that you truly don’t know anything about the topic that you are reviewing. [Actually, the topic I'm reviewing is the movie, and I do know a thing or two about it, since I, you know, watched it.] I have not yet seen the movie, so I have no idea how well or poorly it is put together. However your comment I quoted above shows me that you haven’t any clue about “retarted” people as you say. [I assure you, I never said "retarted."] Many developmentally delayed people are exactly as you described if people were to let them get close enough to know them even just a little. They just have to do this while over coming many things that “normal” people such as yourself would probably never be able to handle. -and usually lump into a weird category because they walk a bit differently, talk a bit differently. Do you have even an inkling why? No you could probably care less – right.

Being a person with intellectual disability, the new term being thrown around out there, or as people who have no time for anyone in this category usually says retarded people, doesn’t mean they are empty and witless. Come on before you become the expert on a topic at least know a tiny bit about the subject you are talking about and don’t just base is on the stereotype that the world holds.

Give me a break.

“Before you become the expert on a topic at least know a tiny bit about the subject you are talking about” is very good advice. Therefore, I urge Linda to get back to me once she has actually seen the movie.

Yes, of course there are many mentally handicapped people who are highly functional and who are barely different from anyone else. But they still aren’t like the characters in this movie. The only way we know these characters are retarded is from the way they dress, walk and talk — the stereotypes that Linda probably doesn’t like. They are not like real-life mentally handicapped people; they’re not like real-life people of any kind!

As for my use of the word “retarded” in the review, it was an aesthetic choice. I had to use something to describe the characters several times, and saying “mentally handicapped” each time would have been unwieldy. So I varied it between “mentally handicapped,” “mentally challenged” and “retarded.” I did not use “intellectually disabled” or “developmentally delayed” because 1) I had never heard those terms before, and 2) they are outrageously P.C.

Next is my review of “The Chronicles of Narnia,” which has prompted several e-mails. First, “The Slackerman” disagrees with my criticism of the scene where Santa Claus shows up and gives everybody weapons:

If you’re going to gripe about something, you should try to be correct.

Go read the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, again, and you’ll see that the children were visited by Santa Claus!!!

Oh, I know it’s in the book. But that’s more an explanation than an excuse. It’s weird in the book, and it’s even weirder when it happens, in full living color, in the movie.

Someone named Terry had a similar complaint:

The story would not have gone far without the gifts from Santa. Did you expect an x-box?

Read and understand the book.

I did both a) read and b) understand the book, and I get that the gifts prove to be useful later in the story. But again, that doesn’t make it not weird.

What’s Santa doing in the story anyway? The whole thing is a Christian allegory, with Aslan representing Christ. Yet the characters celebrate Christmas, which means Jesus existed in their world, too. Yet they never MENTION Jesus or Christianity, nor do they notice how directly their experiences parallel the story of Jesus. When Aslan sacrifices himself for Edmund’s sins and then is resurrected, nobody says, “Hey! That’s just like what Jesus did! You know, Jesus, whose birthday we celebrated a couple days ago when Santa Claus showed up and gave us crossbows.”

But back to my point: Just because something was “in the book” doesn’t mean one is not valid in criticizing its presence in the movie. Many films omit troublesome or puzzling aspects of their source material, particularly when it would be difficult to successfully translate those elements to film. Whether Santa’s visit is inherently weird or whether the filmmakers just didn’t do a good enough job de-weirding it, I couldn’t say.

Finally, we have this very special e-mail from a reader named Kirsten. She writes:

Hi! I think you could of rated~ The Chronicles of Narnia-The Lion,The Witch and the Wardrobe higher. I dont know about your reviews but i think it could of been much higher. It is a beautiful story that represents christ. It is about 4 children that are sent off to the professor’s home because of the Blitz in WWll. There they find themselvees in a wonderful world led by a wardrobe. Narnia. The land is full of action. While Aslan, the great lion, creates spring. He takes winter away that is powered by the white witch. This story is full of action, love, and a great sacrifice. I don’t know about you, but i would rate it much higher.

I do know about me, and I would rate it much lower. But thank you for the recap nonetheless. I think Kirsten is probably a very young person, so I will remark only that she seems very sweet, and good for her for sharing her opinion with others.

That does it for Eric’s Sack of Mail. Keep those cards and letters coming! And don’t forget your friend Mr. Spellcheck!

My blog entry about the Nielsen ratings and DVR users prompted several readers to point out an angle I did not address: Not only will Nielsen be reporting on the viewing habits of DVR users, but it will also report whether those users are watching commercials or skipping them.

That, obviously, is what the networks are REALLY interested in finding out. If many viewers are, in fact, zapping ads, the advertisers will surely demand lower rates, and the networks will have little choice but to comply.

It’s not a slam-dunk, though. Some polls suggest that a lot of DVR users don’t skip commercials. As a devoted, highly trained TiVo user, I can’t imagine such a thing, but to each his own, I guess. The generally accepted statistic for ad-skippers is 90 percent, but the networks think that’s high. (They HOPE it’s high.) Nielsen will hopefully shed some light on it.

Surveys also indicate that even among the DVR users who skip ads, they often stop to watch if one catches their eye. To attract those people, advertisers will simply need to make commercials that are more eye-catching.

But what the networks and advertisers who are starting to panic are forgetting is that even among non-DVR users, most people don’t really “watch” commercials. When commercials come on, people channel-surf, go to the bathroom, get a snack, or chat with whoever is in the room with them. Yet advertisers still adhere to the fallacy that because 20 million people watched a show from 8:30-9:00, that means 20 million people saw their ad that ran at 8:43. Unfortunately, there’s not really a way to gauge how many people ACTUALLY watched the commercial and how many ignored it or were out of the room when it aired.

What everyone fears is that as more and more people use DVRs and skip commercials, advertisers will start finding new ways to get our attention, probably through product placement within the TV shows themselves. We envision a future where networks say, “Rather than paying $250,000 for a commercial that many viewers are going to skip, why don’t you pay $300,000 and we’ll make sure the desperate housewives mention your product by name? For another $100,000, we’ll include a shot of one of them actually using it.”

People who make TV shows cringe at the thought. They don’t generally like the networks interfering with the scripts at all, let alone to make crass suggestions like product placement.

Viewers don’t mind in principle, as long as it feels like an organic part of the story. After all, “Want a Coke?” is just as realistic and natural-sounding as “Want a drink?”

But as advertisers become increasingly aggressive in plugging their wares, and as TV networks find their ad revenue dropping because of DVRs, the combined desperation will probably lead to a lot of sloppy product-placement that will impact the quality of the shows, with characters saying things that sound like … well, commercials. (“Want a crisp, refreshing 7-Up?”) Then people will start using their DVRs to skip through the shows altogether, and then where are we?