I wonder how many times this will change before tomorrow afternoon.

TamaraC | May 18, 00:27 CET

Well it's good to see that at least Dollhouse keeps the 9 pm slot (if this is indeed the schedule.)

ShanshuBugaboo | May 18, 00:35 CET

The Dollhouse thing is, I believe, correct.

gossi | May 18, 00:46 CET

gossi, I see you got some scoop on Chuck.

brinderwalt | May 18, 00:47 CET

Seeing that just puts a smile on my face. Even if Dollhouse still has a crappy timeslot.

Hopefully the new, seemingly reasonable, FOX has realistic ideas of a viewer turnout on friday nights.

Progressive_Stupidity | May 18, 00:48 CET

Poor Human Target. I'm really looking forward to that show. Stupid Friday night death slot ;)

Jobo | May 18, 00:52 CET

Where is the scoop on Chuck? I need to know please.

madmolly | May 18, 00:59 CET

It's renewed. Very similar deal to Dollhouse.

gossi | May 18, 01:00 CET

EW has it now too.

brinderwalt | May 18, 01:02 CET

I'm thrilled to hear about 'Chuck' (after all I did go to the trouble to get that awful foot long sandwich)! With Dollhouse, Castle, AND Chuck all returning, I am a happy camper. I'm disappointed about T:SCC but I"m sure that Summer will land on her feet (she always does).

embers | May 18, 01:04 CET

Wow . . . we get more Dollhouse and more Chuck?

When did the gods of TV turn all fuzzy and benevolent?

erendis | May 18, 01:06 CET

SO we're gonna get a Chuck-Dollhouse Friday night. Wonder how the budget thign will affect the shows. I don't mind losing some characters in Chuck, but I'm still invested with most of the characters in Dollhouse.

Haven't watched Omega yet though.

Numfar PTB | May 18, 01:17 CET

I'm assuming that once the economy collapsed they decided it would be more affordable to go with shows with strong fanbases for residuals rather than trying to launch things wholly new? (If only Pushing Daisies had survived another nine episodes into this May!)

That said, it's neat-- and sadly surprising-- to see quality TV stick around despite poor ratings.

orangewaxlion | May 18, 01:23 CET

I wonder if NBC considers using this schedule to decide what time to schedule Chuck so the two wont conflict. Is anybody else reminded of the movie The TV set and the network board room scenes? Just me then?

Adam Baldwin vs Eliza Dushku, who would win? Or is that Casey vs Echo & the multiple personalities at her disposal, or is that a rhetorical question?

electricspacegirl | May 18, 01:28 CET

So I guess the big question is whether we have Human Target leading into Dollhouse, or the other way around. Hopefully being paired with a new show means Dollhouse will get some promotion too.

BigVessXpress | May 18, 01:31 CET

I was hoping for a non-friday timeslot. At least we got the 9pm slot and maybe Human Target will be a better lead in than TSCC and PB were.

Rikardo | May 18, 01:47 CET

Human Target is off the schedule now. I wonder if they're considering switching it with something else?

jkalderash | May 18, 01:51 CET

Nergh, I had heard it'll get paired with Human Target. Maybe not straight away.

gossi | May 18, 01:57 CET

THR is saying that Human Target is going to be late in the fall or mid-season instead. Wonder what they pair with Dollhouse since it seems like all the shows are covered.

BigVessXpress | May 18, 01:58 CET

For the record, notice no Terminator on any list.

Update: EW's Ausiello is officially declaring Terminator's fate. No surprise there.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2009-05-18 02:05 ]

brinderwalt | May 18, 01:59 CET

Yeah, Terminator is canned and spammed.

gossi | May 18, 02:01 CET

"Coming to Fox this Fall! Cameron Phillips beats up everybody!"

That's a spin off I'd watch.

[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-18 02:04 ]

zz9 | May 18, 02:03 CET

Since SYTYCD is a summer show and not a fall show, this can't be correct. Too many unanswered questions with this line up.

deathisyourart | May 18, 02:07 CET

More Dollhouse? Really? Yaay! I just got together with some folks who are Joss fans (but not enough to, er, hang out on fan websites), and both of them said they hadn't liked Dollhouse at first, had stuck around because it was Joss, and were now really hoping for renewal.
Can't wait to see what he's got in store for us!

[Aha! I see I missed the long celebratory thread b/c I was out of town. But since I was in Yosemite, I won't complain.]

[ edited by jcs on 2009-05-18 02:36 ]

jcs | May 18, 02:07 CET

Damn, I thought there was a chance there would be more Terminator, just because the license was such a coup.

will.bueche | May 18, 02:25 CET

Terminator's demise doesn't surprise me in the least. I think it was given an excellent chance to succeed over its two-season run and unfortunately failed to do so entirely due to its own creative shortcomings (which I think were inherent of the show's format).
Personally I loved it, but I will freely point out that it had some major flaws (the biggest being a lack of dramatic pacing) of which there was no indication that the writers could have addressed even if the show had continued. If you factor in that the finale served as a surprisingly satisfying show ender... Hasta la vista baby. (or should it be "hasta luego" now?).

In any case, now for the million dollar question: What's Summer Glau's new secret project? (I think it is safe to assume that it isn't related to Dollhouse, at least not directly.)

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2009-05-18 03:02 ]

brinderwalt | May 18, 03:01 CET

deathisyourart, the rumor is they're doing a new season of SYTYCD in the fall, to try to get the ratings magic of Idol.

jkalderash | May 18, 03:06 CET

Well, maybe with Terminator canceled perhaps we'll be seeing a new Doll that looks strangely like River.

archon | May 18, 03:14 CET

I doubt it. She said in an interview, before Dollhouse was renewed, that she had a new project ready for her signature if Terminator didn't pan out. I think she indicated as well that it was for film, not tv. Personally I think she's too good for tv anyway - but we shall see.

brinderwalt | May 18, 03:22 CET

brinderwalt, she could still do a guest spot. Actor's do often have multiple projects.

ShanshuBugaboo | May 18, 03:33 CET

What does "too good for TV" mean, 'zackly?

QuoterGal | May 18, 03:33 CET

I think she has far more potential as a serious method actor than any decent tv show can realistically portray due to its format (tv is more suited to ensemble performances because it is long-running and serial in nature).

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2009-05-18 03:49 ]

brinderwalt | May 18, 03:41 CET

I'm familiar with method acting, etc. - and I think a coach, classes and early theater training might be good ways to start learning the craft - but I think acting is acting, no matter where you do it - and half of it is learning your lines, showing up on time, and learning how to listen to other actors while staying in character. (The other half is natural aptitude, effort, persistence, a strong ego, and the breaks. And Factor X.)

There used to be a general idea that TV acting was somehow inferior to film or theater, but this was, I think, a pretty myth-based divide that has been dissolving over time. And now, with some of the best roles being television ones - especially for women, as opposed to film roles - and with actors such as Glenn Close, Tim Roth, Holly Hunter, Gary Sinise, Alec Baldwin taking great TV roles, I think the line is getting more and more blurred all the time.

A TV series - one that doesn't get cancelled, mind - can afford an actor a different kind of opportunity to develop a character over time.

I don't think one kind of acting is better or more serious than another - they require different strengths and skills - for instance, some tricks an actor may have learned onstage may avail them nothing when the camera's up in their face in film and TV. And sustaining a role night after night in the theater can be difficult at first to an actor who's been able to hit it and quit it in TV or film.

But I think the old days of treating TV acting and actors as somehow not as real or professional or serious are fast fading - and I think that's a good thing. The method can inform one's understanding of any role in any of these mediums - and assuredly many TV actors use it to create their characters.

QuoterGal | May 18, 04:26 CET

I'm lost. How are movies better for method acting? (And, brinderwalt, how come you edited from character acting to method acting?)

Let Down | May 18, 04:51 CET

Mary McDonnell was awesome in Donnie Darko, but what she got to do in Battlestar Galactica... No question to me which role challenged her more.

At the same time, there is something about Summer that seems to fit the big screen to me. I can't pin it down, but it feels like she could be a real old fashioned "movie star". Maybe it is that she moves in such an interesting way, and movies are so dominated by action now.

sojourner | May 18, 05:13 CET

Soooo, what are we getting to lead-in while Human Target is delayed till late fall or midseason?

What are our options at this point?

BryGuy | May 18, 05:33 CET

I actually prefer good television to movies. I like the longer character arcs.

ShanshuBugaboo | May 18, 05:33 CET

Me too, ShanshuBugaboo. TV is by far my medium of choice. That said, I get what brinderwalt is saying. If only because of how constantly they have to work, actors on TV don't really get the prep time for their roles that film and theater do. That said, I think plenty of our BDHs (not just in Firefly, but in all Joss's works--and elsewhere) rival great film performances.

Jobo | May 18, 05:46 CET

Well that's just swell. The same exact rating problems will occur again, and I can assume Fox has only so much time and money to put into a show that doesn't get good ratings (despite its brilliance).

[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-05-18 05:49 ]

SteppeMerc | May 18, 05:48 CET

What's the actual time for FOX's upfronts to start?

The One True b!X | May 18, 06:31 CET

I think I read 4pm EST somewhere.

jkalderash | May 18, 06:51 CET

If they end up using Epitaph One clips for promotion, will those likely end up online? Anybody know?

Jobo | May 18, 06:54 CET

What indication do we have that Fox will judge the second season's ratings differently than the first? If the show was profitable up to the point of being renewed, than it probably will be profitable again next season with the smaller budget. The ratings can't drop to -1.3 and apparently Fox doesn't care about them because the show is so cheap that it can work with what they got this season. So, why should anything change? I have the feeling that Dollhouse has found a niche in Fox's schedule and as long as the budget stays where it is now, Fox will have no need to move it. Putting in another night means pressure to perform. If that season has taught us anything, it's that on Friday performance was nearly irrelevant. So, I'm happy with Friday. Now that we know that it wasn't a death slot.

wiesengrund | May 18, 08:29 CET

What indication do we have that Fox will judge the second season's ratings differently than the first? If the show was profitable up to the point of being renewed, than it probably will be profitable again next season with the smaller budget.

wiesengrund, that depends on whether they renewed it because they were satisfied with its ratings or because they hoped that it could improve its ratings in season 2. We have no way of knowing. Besides, there is at least the possibility that Dollhouse could slip even lower in season 2. That said, I do agree with the gist of your point - FOX isn't treating Friday night as a place to go and die and clearly it's not expecting high ratings. I've already got my fingers crossed for season 3 (they're going to be very cramped by the time that renewal decision is made)

Let Down | May 18, 08:55 CET

Apologies to all in advance if this comes out hard to follow. It was long in coming, and very late at night... I'm sure I'll be amending it in the morning. :)

QuoterGal,
My intention in using the loaded term method acting was not meant to imply that method acting should be considered in any way superior to any other form of acting (about which you are right: it isn't). I was merely using it to signify my opinion that Summer Glau is a really good actor. Additionally, the reason why I changed it, Let Down, from reading "character actor" to "method actor" was because I know that the term character actor can be interpreted in several different ways depending on who you are talking to. For the record, the interpretation I was aiming for was one that is commonly used among professionally trained stage actors, which reads as follows: "A character actor is an actor who is able to integrate themselves into their character to the extent that the two become one in the viewer's mind". Note that this definition carries no implications of a superior acting style; it just defines what is perceived as a really good performance. So. What can I say? Poor choice of words in an attempt to be brief. :)



As to the issue of whether or not movies are superior to television, this is my response to the following comment of QuoterGal's:



I don't think this divide was myth-based at all. In my opinion it originated from the drastic differences inherent of the technologies used to produce film and television when television first came onto the scene in the 1940s and 1950s. Television had numerous technical limitations that made it very hard to achieve the same level of artistic control afforded by film at that same time, and was consequently branded as being an inherently inferior medium. However, as the technologies used to produce tv and film have grown closer together and have finally merged, there has ceased to be a reason for considering tv any less of an effective artistic tool than film.

Unfortunately, since old habits die hard you will find that tv still gets looked down upon by many in the film industry as being an artistically inferior medium despite the fact that there has been no technical basis for this attitude for at least a decade. Further, although this attitude has started to show signs in recent years of finally starting to fade, until it does so completely it's in a performer's own best interest to "play along with the rules" so to speak, unless they have some perk (like being really famous) which allows them to get away with breaking the 'rules'.

With all that in mind, here is my ultimate point: At this moment in time, unless you are already a big name star like Alec Baldwin or Holly Hunter, your best chance at career-wide success lies in playing leading film roles (assuming, of course that you are getting such offers as a result of you being a "young" up-and-coming actor with lots of street cred but relatively little name recognition, like Summer Glau post Terminator), and further, that you are better off avoiding television in the short run.

Update: corrected the spelling of the word 'amending' at the beginning. Ironic isn't it?

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2009-05-18 09:01 ]

brinderwalt | May 18, 08:57 CET

For the record, the interpretation I was aiming for was one that is commonly used among professionally trained stage actors, which reads as follows: "A character actor is an actor who is able to integrate themselves into their character to the extent that the two become one in the viewer's mind". Note that this definition carries no implications of a superior acting style; it just defines what is perceived as a really good performance. So. What can I say? Poor choice of words in an attempt to be brief. :)

I think most of us know what method acting is. What I still don't get is why you think movie actors do method acting and TV actors don't

Let Down | May 18, 09:07 CET

After all that, Brinderwalt - it was the "too good for TV" aspect of your remarks that I disagreed with - the method acting seemed like a side issue.

And if "old habits die hard" - surely saying "too good for TV" perpetuates that? 'Specially if, as you say, the differences are rooted in technological inequalities dating back to the 50's and - at the very least - surely no longer relevant in 2009?

However, I think it had a lot more to do with which is the most recent medium - theatre looked down on that "upstart" film, and then film looked down on that "upstart" TV - and with everyone always jockeying to climb or maintain their place in the entertainment hierarchy, especially amongst the execs, studio heads and power broker, as well as the performers, that's what is really dying hard - the elitism necessary for this hierarchy.

I'm at a loss to see how "playing along with the rules" applies to this discussion, as contrary to a widespread belief, I think there really are no rules for a successful acting career, but I gather you're suggesting that Summer Glau's smartest career path would be to - after "Angel" - where she got her start, "Firefly" and "Terminator:SCC" - she now avoid TV roles? I don't think so, though obviously that's up to Summer and her advisors.

My guess is - especially in the current acting job climate, and the state of union negotiation rendering everything all interesting and precarious - Summer will just go where the work is - as she should, of course.

As always, I hope that work is with the Jossir as much as possible.

QuoterGal | May 18, 09:30 CET

Could you possibly quote what I said that gave you the impression that I think that way? Because I don't think that at all, and have first-hand experience to prove otherwise.

brinderwalt | May 18, 09:31 CET

I was also responding to an earlier comment from Let Down in my post.


Hey! I'm a living illustration of my own point. What can I say?


That is always true to an extent, but I think you are ignoring the point that each of the mediums of entertainment you just mention are equally good venues for conveying artistic statements, but each in its own way. Some types of stories just make more sense as movies for example, while others make more sense as tv shows or comic books. Television isn't a replacement
for movies, but neither are movies intrinsically 'better' than tv. It depends on what you use them for.


Try telling that you "think there really are no rules for a successful acting career" to a professional actor, or the same for anyone who works as a performing artist (hint: you are talking to one.) Navigating the political waters of an acting career is almost as complicated as attempting to navigate the politics of a career in the fashion industry - another area I know far too much about. I get around a lot. :)


Which is where we all go in the end. Much of my point is based on the hypothetical that she has a choice.


A sentiment I entirely agree with because when you put a great actor and a great writer/director together, you get exponential amounts of greatness.

brinderwalt | May 18, 10:06 CET

I know successful actors and they have all gotten there different ways, some through theatre, some through TV, some from being discovered walking down the street. I agree with Quoter Gal, there are no rules. What works for one will not work for another.
Of course it does depend on how one defines successful. Making enough money to live on while doing what one loves, is my definition.
Summer is talented enough that she should be able to go anywhere but I suspect that she will go where the money is. Let's hope they are projects worthy of her talents.

Lioness | May 18, 11:23 CET

What's the actual time for FOX's upfronts to start?

Apparently, at 11:30am Eastern we will get a programming announcement.

(Still wondering about Joss' pitches-yes-plural and the "surprises" Fox has announced.)

wiesengrund | May 18, 13:46 CET

I think if you're talking about fame, or stardom, yes, it's still in the movies. A big hit movie carries more weight in the perception of stardom than a hit TV show.

However, a good role is a good role, and can be found in film, TV or stage. I guess it depends on what is more important to the actor - fame (and money) or the craft.

Heehee. See how pretentious I sound? ;)

redeem147 | May 18, 14:54 CET

In addition to the improved tech of TeeVee, some other quick hits:

...much commenting in last several years that the amount of really high quality writing for TeeVee has been increasing massively over the last decade-plus...

...Some actors may be particularly drawn to the "ongoing development of a character" that has become a trademark of many TV shows in a way that it once was not (and this is not at all to suggest that being drawn to this opportunity marks you as better or worse than actors less interested in this)...

...Lifestyle aspects have always and will always have SOME effect on preferred medium for actors at every stage of their career: While films can be a bigger single paycheck, even a small recurring role on TV can be a nice source of stability if you land it. And we've all seen stories of actors who went from movies to TV for the greater stability in terms of their family life (that is, if you aren't a British actor getting suckered by that damn Whedon guy to fly half way round the world for the opportunity!)...

...Thank goodness stage snobbery towards film and film snobbery towards teevee are declining so we can be snobby about the things that really matter: keeping those damn inferior web series artists away from our fancy clubhouse! (ducks and runs for cover)...

doubtful guest | May 18, 15:34 CET

Exactly! ;)

brinderwalt | May 18, 16:23 CET

Here's the schedule.

Sunfire | May 18, 16:25 CET

Weird that the lead ins are comedies. Maybe Dollhouse's direction change will be to turn it into a sitcom?

Let Down | May 18, 16:41 CET

Again, brinderwalt , what I took issue with in your original post was your phrase "too good for TV." Nothing in your subsequent remarks really addresses this - and while I wouldn't - and didn't - argue that stage, film and TV aren't different from each other in significant ways, especially for all of the creative talents involved, your statement that you thought Summer was "too good for TV" states something more than just difference.

That's it... in a nutshell.

QuoterGal | May 18, 19:59 CET