Prairie Fire

I stand corrected that it's unfair to expect NBC to please everyone with their choice of events and that they get somewhat of a pass if they're offering up "better" coverage on Peacock Premium. But I still think their primetime coverage doesn't need to be quite so Lifetime-ish (and that the existence of premium coverage gives them less of a pass for this than it does for their number of events covered in primetime). All that time spent on Mikaela Shiffrin's dramatic failure makes it clear to me they haven't changed. That said, there's one option I think deserves some praise: the IOC-backed "Olympic Channel", available on YouTubeTV and possibly elsewhere. Their "Olympic Channel News" show, which seems to run on constant rotatation, jumps from one 5-10 minute piece to another. Each segment features a very no-nonsense, non-America-centric summary of an event, complete with interviews of the athletes after it's over. No studio talking heads, interviews with their families or pets back home, or any of that "Today Show"-type crap. If you just want your fill of Winter Olympics action but aren't tracking any specific events or athletes closely (I realize that's a small audience), it's perfect.

Who doesn't like Walter the cat? Best ad of the year. NBC's "coverage" to me is more like a Lifetime movie about a handful of American athletes competing in the Olympics, rather than actual coverage of the Olympics itself. All the time spent on their backstories and families, all the personal drama, focus on just a few characters, treating their competitors like minor plot complications....the analogy fits surprisingly well. Unfortunately, for every American viewer who doesn't like this, there are probably 2-3 who don't like the more no-nonsense Canadian-style coverage (all athletes featured, more sports, less mushy stuff) and actually wants this hot mess instead.

Not sure if it's appropriate to introduce a thread about TV coverage of these Olympics overall? But if so, curious what everyone thinks of NBC's coverage and its continued tilt towards the heavily-produced, emotionally-loaded and American-superstar-focused, as well as the alternative provided by other networks.

To me, this is still my favorite thing about them doing this with the original cast, but also why I'm completely gobsmacked they're even considering doing it for later seasons. Just like almost every other show in the reality genre that TRW supposedly launched, the original season was in a different category than the others. Nobody knew what they were getting into, and that's why it was the most "real" in terms of interactions and conversations and relationships, all of which made it possible for them to reunite 30 years later and actually have something meaningful to talk about. The next few seasons changed just because everyone knew the drill and were a little more aware of what gets them on camera (read: sex and drunken antics). They could probably still do this with seasons 2-4 and maybe 5-11, but for any season later than that, it would be pretty embarrassing and cringy.

I like that they're doing this - it's heartwarming to see them all still get on so well, and this cast actually had some meaningful stuff to relive, unlike after season 14 or so when every season was just an extended drunken hot-tub orgy. Only thing I would have changed would have been to include more 1992 music, just for nostalgia's sake, and also (as you mentioned) not have them actually spend a week in the loft. It's nice to hear them talk about having lived together, but making these middle-aged adults actually do it again is kinda silly. Does anyone know why Paramount+ would have seasons 1-4 and 15-26 but not the ones in between? Seems arbitrary...

It would definitely be unexpected if this show suddenly morphs from a sitcom to some kind of dark Netflix-esque drama, and would certainly give Thomas Middleditch and Annaleigh Ashford surprise Emmy-reel material. But if I had to guess, the next ep will take place entirely at the airport, with Gina and the gang coming up with some wacky plan that stops him at the last minute from boarding the plane.

Either they're going for some kind of redemption arc, or they're trying to connect with a target audience of incredibly narcissistic young Americans.

Thumbs up, this is way better than I expected. Though most of the credit goes to Blair (AKA Anjelica Fellini). The other characters - and the writing - are funny enough, but Blair is hilarious and steals every scene.

https://www.goldderby.com/article/2020/so-you-think-you-can-dance-season-17-coronavirus/ A quick update (which as far as I can tell came out today and isn't old news) about what Nigel & co are likely to do this season - which I'm guessing is 99% likely to be having viewers vote for their favorite routines from past seasons, not attempting to have a competition with the virtual auditions they accepted this season.

I just figured it was neither, and more about the state of the world instead of various cast members' status (in other words, to be taken at face value). Even though some of it was really joke-y, lots of people are wondering when they'll get to do pre-pandemic stuff again, probably even more so in NYC and probably way more than are thinking about "who comes back to SNL?". Here's to the cast for doing a good job with that and really with a lot of stuff during these three at-home eps.

For some reason I thought the last song would be "November Rain" by Guns'n'Roses. (Glad I was wrong.)

Anyone catch Netflix's newest show? Reminds me a bit of "The League", which I'm sure is no coincidence since they share the same producer.

I'm sure their plan was to put the tower on a truck and set it up on stage, which would have gone amazingly well! Poland's Bond theme got my attention, especially when that girl went for it all at the end. It also would have set up a Bond theme face-off between that one and Hooverphonic's "Release Me", the Belgian entry, which I also really liked. Interesting that the favorite in the final odds table was none of the above songs, but instead Victoria's "Tears Getting Sober" from Bulgaria. I would have been curious to see if that sweet little poem of a song actually could have won.

Yes! I like how both the video and the live performance each bring different things to the table. That dance is a flash mob waiting to happen. I think I saw the band's explanation of each move somewhere online. I'm glad we at least got all 41 songs chosen before everything shut down, though it's a bit weird having only vids for some, live performances for others, and both for some. The vids for "Chains on You" (Armenia) and "Cleopatra" are fabulous - seriously, they both slay - but the live version of "Chains" loses some steam. Not sure if "Cleopatra" would have done likewise. I forgot to mention there are three songs this year that really hit me in the feels: Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Italy (the last one especially, because of....well, you know).

OK, so if there's no contest this year, all we have is the videos of the 41 songs. Putting aside Eurovision politics and baggage, which are your favorites? I must be hitting the pipe, because my pick would be Blas Canto's "Universo", AKA Spain's entry. But it's been widely panned online and was #33 in the betting odds! That said, I also think Ireland, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Israel, Austria, Czech Republic, Iceland, Poland, Armenia, and Germany all improved this year. (So did Bulgaria and Ukraine, but that's easy to do when they sat out 2019.)

Agreed! It's ridiculous how these auditions have turned into these ridiculously orchestrated, overproduced set pieces. They should go back to the format from the first few seasons when they had lots of auditions stuffed into every audition ep, but the producers probably figured they need to attract a fanbase for their chosen ones right away. I liked "Arthur Gunn" (the Nepalese guy) the most. And the judges did him a favor asking him to look at them. That was actually an improvement!

I had the same thought about Freeform. Not sure what made me place it in that bucket - maybe it was the over-the-top wacky colorful office, or the family stuff, or both. That said, I really liked it too.

That definitely makes sense, although I could swear the first group featured an older guy who just sat there while everyone else was dancing. Which to me made them look more like an actual studio audience, but I could easily see the hired dancers throwing that in there to fool people.

Possibly dumb question but I have to ask... The first Coldplay song featuring what looked like the studio audience awkwardly dancing with Chris Martin and then holding up cards...I think it was actually the studio audience and that they were briefly "coached" in order to pull it off. My friend thinks all these people were extras or actors or Chris Martin's BFFs or some such because the regular public could not be trusted to pull that kind of thing off on live TV. Who's right? (Also: Kate McKinnon's Elizabeth Warren is quickly becoming my favorite "presidential candidate" impression by any SNL cast member in the last decade or so.)

Is it really possible for someone's jaw to be damaged so badly that it has to be wired shut permanently? I call BS.

I really think the people behind the show are at war with Fox and the pressure they're probably getting from the network to emphasize stuff that brings in casual viewers (read: LOTS of sob stories and background, at the expense of actual dancing). They're straight-up imitating America's Got Talent at this point, starting with putting the auditions in front of a cheering crowd, and moving away from the formula they had in the initial seasons which was so much better but doesn't pull in casual fans who want someone to root for and don't actually care that much about the dance part beyond "is it entertaining?" On a similar note, Luther Brown's hip-hop routines do nothing for me. They just seem so childish and silly. Bring back Shane Sparks!

Bailey and Mariah are really good, but did she fall off the bike at the end?

I saw that and was like, "Whaaa....?" And no, I don't want sushi.

The new format continues to be worse than the original. I liked it much better when the auditions happened without an audience - and their first partner dance was also their first time with a cheering audience and audience voting. It made that "first Top 20" show something to look forward to, when you saw your favorites on the big stage in front of a crowd for the first time after making it through Hollywood week. Now, they've reversed it and with no good reason. There's an audience for auditions but not for the first partner dances? I was trying to pretend last night's show was kind of like the "first Top 20" show from the old days, but with all the changes - no live audience, no audience voting, the rushed intro clips, no Cat Deeley, and making this part seem like it's still part of Academy week - it's definitely not the same.

Maybe they want to imitate AGT even more than I said earlier. Don't auditions take up almost half the season on that show?