BBC Sherlock: "Study in Pink," "The Blind Baker," "The Great Game"

Book: Sherlock Holmes stories/novels by Arthur Conan Doyle, specifically A Study in Scarlet

Gap between first publication and film release: 123 years--1887 to 2010 (1st Sherlock Holmes movie appeared in 1900)

Closeness to original characters: 97% (Kate)

Closeness to original story: 60% (Kate)

Mike says this is a great show! Modern reinventions are always a bit of a risk. People have the classic idea stuck in their head, and often don't like seeing the thing they love get twisted to somebody else's vision. American television, especially lately, has a long string of failed reinventions and adaptations. In my long and varied career of TV watching, I can think of at least four other Sherlock Holmes pilots I've seen over the years that went kaput. House is probably the closest to a Sherlock Holmes series that has really ever taken off, but that was merely in spirit. And then there were the Next Generation episodes--I don't care what people say, Brett Spiner would make a GREAT Holmes.

While American TV can't seem to pull off the reinvention, the BBC seems to have it down to an art. From the wonderful revitalized Dr. Who to Hyde, a re-imagining of the classic, the BBC really seems to be on a roll. Sherlock has been on my watch list for awhile, but upon finally watching it, I was thrilled to see that it continues BBC's trend.

The success of Sherlock, I think, lies in the successful translation of the characters. Not only are Sherlock and Watson there and very recognizable, but there are in fact very believable as modern people. The modern twists to their characters are slight, yet bring with them a measure of believability that makes the entire series work.

The chemistry (and I do hesitate to use that word, but it's really what it is) between the two actors is also wonderful. That Holmes needs Watson is fully apparent, and I do enjoy that Watson very actively serves a purpose in this show. He is competent, resourceful, and courageous, Something you don't see in most adaptations.

I've said it for awhile, and I hold to it: American TV really needs to start following the BBC way of doing things--when you make a series a collection of mini-series, you get a refined product that is much more cohesive and polished.

Anyway, perhaps the only minor flaw I find in the show is the direction they have taken Moriarty. While I get it--if Sherlock is a functional sociopath, then Moriarty is less so--I was still slightly disappointed that he seemed so... tame. But, admittedly, I'm not sure what I would have done different. I was, however, extremely pleased that Moriarty was not Watson. That would have been one reinvention to far.

Anyway, a great show, a wonderful adaptation in which the characters really survive the transfer and make the series work as a result.

P.S. I also LOVE that Watson has a blog! As many adaptations take Watson's perspective, the one thing that was always missing was who wrote the novels. A blog completes the loop!

Kate says I adore this series! Which is kind of odd.

For one thing, the series relies (at least partially) on a conspiracy (and I dislike conspiracy plots). For another, the scripts play homage to the original stories/novels but in no way try to retell them (unlike the masterly 1980s BBC series with Jeremy Brett). Lastly, they are movies, not one-hour dramas (my preferred watching). So, on paper, I shouldn't be a fan of Sherlock!

But I have currently seen the first movie "A Study in Pink" four or five times, and I'll probably see it another four or five times until Season 2 comes out!

During my first watch-through, I was disappointed by the lack of close adherence to the original short stories. I was hoping to see classic Holmes' stories translated into contemporary life. The writers of Sherlock are serious Sherlockians who KNOW their Holmes (their commentary for the movies is quite engaging), and their scripts make constant references to the stories and novels, but they don't try to follow any particular plot line ("A Study in Pink" comes the closest).

Despite the lack of adherence to Doyle's plots, the writers not only capture the feel of Doyle's texts, they are absolutely true to the characters!

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes is right on. He combines House with Jeremy Brett's Holmes. (He is less confrontational for the sake of confrontation than House and slightly more extroverted than Brett's interpretation.) He has the height and the sweeping coat.

Cumberbatch also brings a layer to Holmes that appears in the books but is rarely highlighted. Despite his self-characterization as a "high-functioning sociopath," Cumberbatch's Sherlock is not indifferent to how others view him. He desires approval/respect/support. He is embarrassed when Watson considers 221B Baker Street a mess (due to Sherlock's scattered stuff). He is highly embarrassed when he has to admit to Watson that he once took drugs. He asks Watson to help him because he needs someone on his side at crime scenes. He is charmed (and surprised) when Watson is frankly impressed by his genius.

Martin Freeman as Watson is the show's strength. I hate shows and stories/novels that portray Watson as a doofus. The whole point of Watson is not that he is stupid but that Holmes is so brilliant, Watson looks clueless in comparison. Watson is us.

Martin Freeman's Watson is not only a reasonably intelligent guy whose reasonable intelligence highlights Holmes' genius, he is interesting in his own right. I love the revelation (so counter to accepted wisdom) that what Watson craves isn't peace but a new war. ("And I said dangerous, and here you are.")

This craving for danger gives him remarkable sangfroid in the face of Sherlock's unpredictability. My favorite example of this sangfroid, however, happens in the non-dangerous restaurant. Sherlock is trying, somewhat defensively, to explain that he doesn't have or want an intimate relationship; Watson interrupts him, saying, "It's all fine." Sherlock looks startled and responds with stammered thanks.

I also happen to love Watson's jacket! This may seem odd, but that jacket is a great representation of Watson's personality: sturdy, non-glamorous with a slight 19th century military look and the barest hint of classiness in the shiny velvet strips.

Freeman's Watson has a somewhat different presence than original Watson (original Watson is much more "everyman"). However, all the information/characterizations given to Freeman's Watson can be found in the books/stories (he even fought in the same country--Afghanistan--if not the same war).

The biggest difference between the books/stories and Sherlock is Lestrade who is far more laid-back and far less weaselly in the 2010 television series than in the books/stories. I prefer 2010 Lestrade whose dry humor and indifference to ego make him a nice counter to Holmes. I get a big kick out of the pilot's opening scenes where Lestrade--bored and fed-up--answers the reporter's question, "How do people keep themselves safe?" with the dry response, "Don't commit suicide."

And, of course, there is the marvelous Mark Gatiss (also one of the show's creators and writers) as Mycroft. First watch-through, I didn't guess he was Mycroft (for obvious reasons), but I don't think Mark Gatiss is a cheat. For one thing, he has that great voice, not to mention the stellar 1920s Lord Peter Wimsey vibe, and, of course, there are all those jokes about diets.

Oh, and I love the show's music.

I can't wait until Season 2! Unfortunately--*sigh*--it may be awhile.

Columbo: "A Stitch in Crime"

Kate says I LOVE Columbo. It is the ultimate relaxing television. It also substantiates my position that television without progression (just plot) can be great. Columbo is nothing if not formula, and it's so fun!

"A Stitch in Crime" is not one of my favorites, but it is a fairly good representative of the formula: bad guy feels trapped and commits murders; Columbo involves bad guy in the investigation; Columbo discovers a slip-up on the bad guy's part. Although the identity of the bad guy isn't kept from us, the slip-up usually is until the very end.

The bad guy in this case is a doctor played by Leonard Nimoy. (This episode is a kind of precursor to Murder Diagnosis which moved the entire detection process into the hospital.) Nimoy plays a cold, sneering bad guy. Watching his bad guy establishes what a fundamentally warm character Spock actually is!

And of course, Columbo is there, doing his thing. The dry dialog exchange between Nimoy and Falk is quite good and very funny. At one point, Columbo says, "Hey, is there any coffee on this floor?" and the doctor snaps, "No." It isn't the line that's funny, so much as the tone and pace of the dialog.

Falk as Columbo is, of course, pitch perfect. His car and hard-boiled egg show up in this episode as well as his trench coat and HAIR (I love his messy hair). The dog doesn't show up, unfortunately.

His squeamishness regarding blood also shows up. Columbo has several "real" idiosyncrasies; many times, it is hard to tell if Columbo is really the way he presents himself or whether he is simply trying to lull or otherwise mislead the bad guy/gal. The distaste for blood (and guns), however, shows up even when he doesn't need to mislead anyone. So it's a "real" trait, and Falk is very good at doing the squeamish act.

If you think Columbo is your style, you don't need to watch the episodes/movies in order. However, you may find the first episode interesting. I didn't suggest it for this review because Falk plays Columbo as much more restrained than he later becomes. However, it is extremely interesting and does a good job establishing the concept of Columbo. He's kind of crystallized in pop culture as the grandfather in Princess Bride (which is wonderful), but even Falk was extremely young once.

Mike says a mystery, without the mystery, is really just a game of cat and mouse. And while it is interesting, there's not a lot of suspense in knowing how everything is going to turn out.

I've never really watched Columbo, but I did enjoy the episode. Falk does a great job of making Columbo both deep and immediately easy to understand. His little quirks are funny, and I love the idea of making the bad guy twitch. Nimoy is also great in this role.

All in all, I don't really have a lot to say about Columbo: I love the character, and I think he deserves his iconic status. The episode also taught me what an Inverted Mystery is (when the evil doer is revealed in the beginning instead of the end), which I had seen before, but I had no idea it had a label.

CSI or other crime shows will sometimes change things up by inverting them, making a certain episode a cat and mouse instead of full fledged whodunnit. I think the idea works well when it's used to create diversity, but I don't know how I would feel watching the same thing again and again.... I'm sure it's relaxing, but I've often felt that the only difference between the living and the dead was the depth of their relaxation.

The Mentalist: Pilot

Mike says who knew Psych had a sequel? I like how the Mentalist takes the simple idea of Psych and turns it into a very cool and believable premise, yet dark around the edges.

The character of Jane immediately comes across as sad, quiet, and very introspective--he's careful to observe and see everything. I liked his introduction very much: you see him for nearly three minutes, just doing what he does, before he even speaks. He's observant, he's thorough, and as you can tell from the hilarious sandwich and tea, he doesn't mind breaking the rules of his profession or of personal space. The outcome of the "intro case" also very clearly communicates who he is: he is guided by his own moral compass, even if things don't always turn out the way he expected.

The pilot does a very good job of establishing the main character and his motivations. I admit I'm curious about the rest of the team; while you get a very good idea about their characters, why they do what they do is a mystery.

I liked that there was an intro story and a main case--loved even more that the main case introduced the idea of a villain for the series without prematurely focusing on him or capturing him--this is a wound that's going to be allowed to fester for a bit, and in drama, that can lead to very good (for the viewer, that is) things.

I recently watched Sanctuary (a great show in its own right), and was bugged that they established an observant character with the same gimmick as Psych: highlighting the clues. Mentalist handles this better; they've figured out a way of focusing on what Jane is seeing without saying "Here's the answer!" and also without ripping off another concept. It's a simple concept, and it's theirs.

I am slightly bothered by the current trend in television of portraying religious peopled as fanatics or as naive. Some of the most brilliant and informed people I know are deeply religious. The idea that a "truly enlightened" person like Jane would not believe in God is kind of insulting. But, it's TV. There's bound to be SOME stupidity.

All in all, I really enjoyed it (despite watching it while dressing for work!), and I think I'll continue to give it a watch. Tea, anyone?

Kate says before I continue I must confess that I consider Simon Baker an unbelievably sexy man. Would the show be as fun to watch without him in it?

Frankly, probably not.

Having laid my cards on the table, I do think the pilot, although it has a weak mystery, does an excellent job introducing the viewer to the main character. Jane is a complex character with a fascinating, if unsettling, back story.

And I like the scoobies. The choice of Robin Tunney continues to impress me, she's such an unlikely second lead, but she's quite good. If you just-can't-quite-place-her, she was House's first patient—well, his first patient on House.

And I find Agent Cho incessantly amusing. I love deadpan humor when it is done right, and Tim Kang does it right. I also find him a believable friend to Jane, possibly his only friend-friend (not counting Lisbon who doubles as Jane's watcher and security blanket). He seems one of the few people who can take Jane as he is, partly because he doesn't let himself get too invested in Jane's motives.

The only snag to the show—and I'm not sure if this is a snag or just a reflection of my personal preferences—is that Simon Baker is too good at playing damaged people.

This was the same problem with The Guardian.

Granted, a lot of heroes and heroines are damaged this day: House, Monk, Dexter. But there's this underlying hope or dream that they will, at least, be occasionally happy. Simon Baker, in an extremely understated way (it's even more understated in Season 2 than in Season 1), leaves you thinking, "There's no way this guy will EVER be happy."

Every smile is an effort; every crazy antic is a game; every step is a step closer to Red John and the ultimate fade-out. It's practically Norse in its fatality, and, on one hand, I admire it.

On the other hand, it doesn't make for terribly relaxing television.

It's one thing to not believe that a relationship would work in real life (say, between Scully and Mulder); it's another to know that a relationship isn't even possible. Despite the occasional sweetness between Jane and Lisbon, there's no there there. Jane is way too damaged; Simon Baker does play him that way.

And he is very, very, very good at it. In Season 2, when Jane gets the Red John file back due to the slaughter of several police officers, Baker plays Jane's reaction as guilt and anger mixed with relief and satisfaction. The reaction is very subtle, but it's there. Baker was equally good at this sort of thing on The Guardian. You really believed that the protagonist was one snort away from being a user again.

Call me Touched-By-An-Angel but this can be difficult to watch. It also turns the story into a revolving door narrative: he's in/he's out/he's in/he's out/he's in/he's out.

Where does a narrative go from there?

It will be a pity if it doesn't go somewhere. All the material is there, ready to be used.

Lie to Me: Pilot

Kate says I had to watch at least two episodes because, in all honesty, I just couldn't warm to Tim Roth in the first one.

I realize that he isn't supposed to be warmed to--but I've never gotten into books or films or television shows where the whole point is how unlikable the main character is. Yeah, I like House or, at least, I find him amusing. But Tim Roth as Dr. Lightman just chilled me.

I think the problem is the level of cynicism. I'm trying very hard NOT to refer to Patrick Jane (since we will be reviewing that show next week), so I'll refer to House again. The difference between Lightman's cynicism and House's is that House's cynicism seems more like an adopted way of grappling with problems, a psychological tool to help House explain the universe. Lightman's cynicism seems more like a deliberate choice--a way of viewing the world that makes out that other people are all these bad insect-like liars. While House's Superman complex is seriously challenged (Foreman goes right on disagreeing with him no matter how often he is right), Lightman's Superman complex doesn't ever seem to be challenged by the script or by the other characters, not even, all that much, by the new employee.

It doesn't help that while House just complains (about people), Lightman is claiming SCIENCE (about people).

Not that the SCIENCE is completely false! I completely agree with the whole universal emotions idea; my favorite example is a study where a Japanese man and an American man were shown a disgusting image. BOTH had the instantaneous reaction of disgust, but the Japanese man hid it (cultural norm) while the American man let his disgust show (cultural norm). And I do find this sort of thing totally fascinating!

So I get the idea behind the show, but while watching the pilot of Lie to Me, I kept thinking, "So, what's going to happen when future actors and actresses start contradicting prior claims about facial expressions? If a lifted eyebrow means one thing in this episode, are all actors and actresses from here on in going to have to make sure they don't lift an eyebrow unless they mean to express that emotion? How often ARE they going to play the 'But you have to look at it in context' card?"

Talk about hellish continuity problems.

The second episode didn't bother me quite so much. Lie to Me really is just a detective show with some good twists. Tim Roth gains a little Jane insouciance, and I quite like Kelli Williams as the sidekick. And I get a kick out of the Radical Honesty guy even though I personally think Radical Honesty is as much a self-interested fake-out as any other type of lying.

Sorry, wow, okay, there's a little bit of cynicism!

I guess I feel kind of bad that I didn't have a more positive reaction. I honestly didn't expect to have such a negative reaction, and I can only assume it's the writing or the main character, not the idea. After all, I watch Criminal Minds despite thinking that profiling is kind of bogus. (On the other hand, I have a huge amount of respect for experience, which is why I admire real life John Douglas and fictional Patrick Jane. Perhaps, I would like Tim Roth's character more if he just said, "I can read people!" rather than saying, "It's SCIENCE!!" Okay, that approach would bring up Patrick Jane, and I promised I wouldn't, so now I will end.)

I'm not completely opposed to giving the show a few more chances. (Keep in mind that the first Buffy clip I ever saw was a clip from the Season 4 Halloween episode, and I was totally confused and disenchanted; and then, I saw the Season 4 Thanksgiving episode and fell in love while laughing.)

Mike says for the longest time, I thought Lie to Me was a Showtime series. I'm not sure why. It was one of those Netflix recommendations, and I thought, "Hmmm, why not?"

Focusing on Dr. Lightman and his team, the show solves mysteries by decoding people's expressions and speech to determine how and when they are lying. The show does its best to make the truth the solution to every problem, but it doesn't always work out.

It ended up being completely up my wife's alley, and I found it rather tolerable. I like the idea of the universal emotions, but the "micro expressions" as shown by the actors are usually so exaggerated that one has to wonder how hidden they actually were. Later in the show, different expressions are done so intentionally and slowly (so the characters can explain it), it's sometimes a little hard to handle without rolling your eyes.

Overall, I liked the show, though it has some problems. I found I do like Lightman's character- cynicism doesn't bother me as long as it's earned. It seems to me that Lightman has an understanding of truth and lies that makes the world a hard place for him to live in. Later in the show, certain characteristics, such as allowing the people he cares about to lie to him, shows Lightman as someone trying to accept the people around him for who they are as opposed to who he wants them to be. I can relate to that struggle.

If there's a popular new ingredient thrown into everything these days, Humor seems to be it. Studios are understanding more and more that audiences enjoy a laugh with their drama, and Lie to Me tries to provide it. While some of it falls flat, for the most part the dialog is kind of witty.

Lie to Me is an interesting take on the mystery/procedural cop drama. While it doesn't always succeed, and I think the premise is a bit of a stretch, it's still an entertaining show- and it's always fun to learn how to lie better.

Chuck: "Pilot"

Mike says Geek Power! Chuck led the charge in the current "Geek friendly" trend on TV, cashing in on the combination of action/comedy made famous by Joss and throwing in plenty of pop culture references. I love the show to death, though oddly, I've only seen the first season.

Chuck--a "Nerd Herd" manager (think Geek Squad)--by a strange twist of fate, gets the entirety of the CIA and NSA's secrets downloaded into his head. Protected by an agent from each, hilarity ensues.

The show is great. It's fast paced, funny, and loaded with pop culture. Despite all this greatness, I find myself shallowly obsessed with Sarah (CIA agent and love interest) and her teeth. Can a woman that attractive make buck teeth sexy? You decide.

Anyway, the "Pilot" is a wonderful condensed bullet of information that downloads everything you need to know about the show directly into your brain, and quickly. While the show does later delve into conspiracies and mysteries, the pilot, like so may others, focuses on a problem. Several in fact. Despite this, the pilot is enjoyable and well written... mostly.

My only real problem is the date that Sarah lures Chuck onto... for some reason, their chemistry doesn't really click for me. Sarah seems like she's acting--the dialog is awkward and odd. In fact, Chuck and Sarah really don't seem to work until Adam Baldwin is thrown in. At that point, the show cooks, and it continues to cook throughout the season.

The acting is wonderful--they did a great job with casting. I also think that Chuck is a show that learns from the past: "Geeks like Whedon, so let's write like him!" The dialog is crisp, witty, and quick. I love it.

The season is tight, with plenty of stand alone and "mythology" episodes. All in all, a great, lovable show--and a great compromise for a geek and his lady; Happily, Chuck is one of the few shows I can watch with the wife without one of us slightly wincing at what we're watching.

Kate says this show is completely adorable. And Adam Baldwin is in it!

First off, we truly are living in the age of the nerd/geek. In the 80's, nerds were in style, but they were all portrayed as, well, Morgans (who is necessary to the show, even if a stereotype). Nerds/geeks could be redeemed but only by finding their cool sides.

What is so great about nerds/geeks today, like in Big Bang Theory and Chuck, is that they are allowed to remain themselves: savvy about computers, totally obsessed with video-games . . . (Thank you, Bill Gates.)

And slightly sarcastic. Zachary Levi as Chuck plays a great straight man who is also impossibly sweet. And impossibly tall. (He is the same height as Adam Baldwin. It's the land of the giants!)

Sarah Walker, his "handler," is excellently played by Yvonne Strahovski. She manages the sweet but killer spy persona very well; there's a 7-of-9 quality to her acting.

And I like the sister as well as Captain Awesome.

But I don't think the show would work without Baldwin. Without Baldwin, it would just be Scarecrow & Mrs. King, which I love, by the way, but which isn't all that gripping. In order to make the action sequences work in an action/mystery show, there needs be a third element at work (such as Pamela Landy with Bourne v. Kirill in Bourne Supremacy). Adam Baldwin is absolutely perfect as that third element: the ambiguous tougher than tough spy guy. His relationship with Sarah adds a extra layer to what would otherwise just be Chuck "thawing" the tough but sweet spy lady.

Not to forget, Baldwin is great with deadpan: "Damn tranq dart," he says in Episode 2 after falling over but still managing to get up because he IS the tougher than tough spy guy.

The combination/play-offs between Casey (Baldwin), Chuck, and Sarah create extremely funny moments. I'm still laughing about the souffle (which is in Episode 2).

The only flaw to the show, which seems radically obvious and therefore radically confusing (how did the writers miss this?), is how will Chuck come up with NEW intel? In the world of intelligence, stuff you get out of the World Book Encyclopedia is only moderately useful. The really useful stuff is the latest intelligence.

But I will pretend that Bryce arranged for this eventuality and just enjoy the show!

Castle: "Flowers for Your Grave"

Kate says this is a FUN show!

First, and most importantly, I like everyone: Stana Katic, Nathan Fillion, Beckett's people (some of the nicest, most natural-acting scoobies ever), Castle's down-to-earth daughter, his Broadway-inclined mother (I've been a fan of Susan Sullivan since Dharma & Greg: "Wait, I'm getting a hit on my gray-dar!").

To return to the main actors/characters, Stana Katic is the kind of attractive woman who is so interesting in her attractiveness, she doesn't immediately cause (female) viewers to roll their eyes at the studio's choice (sex appeal! sex appeal!), and yet she is radically more attractive than most women on television. (I like the fact that actresses like this are showing up more and more on television.)

As for Nathan Fillion, he is truly excellent. He conveys Castle's self-amusement and laissez-faire attitude effortlessly. Yet, like Paul Gross as Fraser in Due South, he manages to also convey that Castle is projecting an image. It's a true image (the image isn't that divorced from Castle's actual personality), but it still manages to partially mask what a big, gentle, exuberant teddy bear Castle actually is.

Actually, I think Nathan Fillion may just be acting himself.

There are two inspired aspects of the show:

(1) The father-daughter-grandmother relationship. Not only does Castle's relationship with his family provide funny as well as tender moments, it also works as a mirror to Beckett's life. To an extent, Castle has what she lost. Whenever she thinks Castle is just TOO irresponsible, his family relationships remind her that he is actually fairly well-grounded.

(2) The back story for Beckett and Castle, specifically Castle's new book series and Beckett's secret life as Castle's biggest fan. Sure, Castle's fatherless, twice-divorced past offers up some story lines as does Beckett's murdered mother, but the overall arc of writer and muse is truly inspired and gives rise to multiple plot-lines and issues.

Okay, is there anything I don't like? Well, yes. The writers have a tendency to end Castle seasons with the old chestnut: "Which man will the lady choose!?"

I HATE this particular type of conflict. One reason I love Bones so much is that no matter who Bones and Booth date, the Bones-Booth relationship is absolutely solid and uncontestable. In fact, when I get a little tired of the forced tension on Castle or the forced non-relationship on The Mentalist, I watch Bones to make myself feel better. Bones and Booth are just . . . so . . . mature.

But since the Castle writers don't spend THAT much time on the silly "girl must choose between two men" ploy, I can go back to being amused by the rapid-fire dialog and clever plot twists. I just finished Season 2, and I'm ready for Season 3!

Mike says does this season of Firefly seem a little different to anyone else? Was there a time travel episode I missed? Oooohh... missing episode? Time to hit Wikipedia! Ah ha! Here it is...
ABC... crime... wait! Awwwww... OK. FINE. I guess that was denial. Firefly is dead. My grief cycle may be out of sync, but if Serenity was bargaining, then Castle is acceptance. Mal and the Serenity crew may be gone, but Rick Castle is here to stay.

I've had the DVD in the Netflix envelope for almost a month now, just waiting for me to watch it, and probably, love it. But I couldn't bring myself to do it. I don't know why! After finally watching it, I have to admit, I LOVE Castle. It's smart, witty, funny, and suspenseful. I get, like, and enjoy the romantic tension, BUT.... I'm sorta over it. Few shows can really carry the extended romantic tension of a will they/won't they, and when the show puts a majority of their eggs in that basket, well, the audience rarely ends up happy. Either the characters get together too early and the show ends (canceled, usually), or they drag it out so long the fans give up and several TVs get pierced by thrown remote controls.

But, Castle seems like it has a solid chance. The first episode really does a great job of setting up the premise and establishing the characters. I also really liked that nothing was put forward that will have to be "forgotten" for the show to move forward. So often, a pilot or first episode will try to give a little closure to the story, just in case, and then some facts have to be "retconned" in order for the show to work. Castle won't have to worry about this.

Castle also seems to walk that nice line between plot and character driven series--each episode revolves around plot, but the show features ongoing character arcs (I hope!), which is nice if executed correctly. I'm curious to find out if a recurring villain will ever be introduced (though I doubt it), and just how much the writers are willing to develop the characters. I think if Castle doesn't grow, or if each episode becomes a rehash of the same idea over and over, I'll probably stop watching. But as for this first episode, the different elements of the show really sing.

Castle's family is fun, and the parental child is always a fun character, especially when paired with a childish parent. The acting was all spot on, and the dialog is great. The person who really shines in Fillion, who is really deserving of a successful TV show. Nathan Fillion is one of those truly fun, talented actors that, despite being great people, have a really hard time breaking out of cult following level entertainment. Nathan has been in a couple other shows since Firefly (that were immediately canceled) and a couple movies. While he was GREAT, he had a hard time getting recognized. When Castle first premiered, I didn't give it a chance because frankly, I didn't expect it to last. But it did! And I'm excited to keep watching.

Monk: Pilot

Mike says Monk is fun blend of classic and new--it finds a way to pay homage to the mystery shows of the past, while providing a modern, interesting, and believable take on the detective and just WHY he's so good at what he does.

That Monk was always meant to a series of stand-alone mysteries is evident from the first moment of the pilot; we never see the old friend that called Monk, or hear the conversation that convinced him to venture out of his apartment. Instead, the show starts us right in the middle of the action, with nothing to do but watch to see what's going to happen.

This can be a very clever and effective way to start a story (Star Wars: A New Hope will always be the trend setter for this). Immediately the viewer is hooked and hungry for what's about to happen. The focus is on the story, the action, and regrettably, not the character--maybe the character's actions, but who he is and why isn't really important: it's more of a side note, a gimmick, something to help the story progress and stay fun.

Tony Shalhoub is great, perfect even, as Monk. He's sweet, he's funny, and a blast to watch. He brings real soul the character, and really makes the show work in many ways. The trouble though, is that as a character, Monk really isn't used; he's much more of a device: The crazy detective the progresses the story. Sure we can like him, and he does win our affections, but overall his needs are much less important than the needs of the story.

The action/mystery shows of the 70's and 80 had little resembling an ongoing story or continuity. Sure, certain established facts might stay true, but what happened in a previous episode hardly ever impacted the next. Injuries would be healed, buildings repaired, new friends forgotten. Monk definitely channels this era while still playing to the modern viewer; a hinted bigger mystery (that take EIGHT YEARS to solve) is offered to tie it all together.

I liked Monk a lot, and I've seen several episodes through the years and I have always been fond of the show. Enough so that when I watched the finale a year or so ago, I wasn't lost at all. I understood everything. The trouble was, I don't know if a finale of a show should be that way.

When I die, if a random stranger were to come to my funeral, I would hope he'd have no idea what anyone was talking about or referring to. I like to think that I, as a person, and my life, was complicated enough to require more than brief snippets to understand me.

A series, and its main characters, should be much the same way. Monk was on the air for EIGHT years... and how much did he change? Did the viewers go on an emotional journey? With Monk, I think it's more likely that those who spent that hour a week with him enjoyed that hour, but then moved on with their everyday lives. Should TV be light and free of emotional baggage? Or should it be an experience that you carry and ponder for a period of time?

In the end, it comes down to preference. If you want an hour's entertainment, Monk is it. It's funny, it's heartfelt, and amazingly well made. But, it doesn't really stick with me. Sure, I enjoyed it. But a Monk episode is crafted so well, that there's nothing left when the episode is over, no lose ends, no unresolved feelings or lessons, which leaves me thinking "So.... what am I watching next?"

Kate says I forgot what a great physical actor Tony Shalhoub is!

I haven't kept up with Monk (I watched through Season 4 or 5). Although I'm a big fan of tidy little mysteries, mystery shows that run out of mysteries pose something of a problem, especially when the fall-back position is the strangeness of the main character. So in eight years, this guy doesn't improve at all? Granted, people rarely change completely, but they will change somewhat!

Still, I think Monk deserves its success. The pilot is a good example of how well-designed the show is: mystery and plot development are seamlessly combined to produced a well-paid-off mystery that introduces us to a specific detective's character.

Monk is less acerbic than in later episodes. He is extremely fun to watch especially when he solves the mystery. Like David Suchet (Poirot), his bright brown eyes will actually twinkle (it isn't just a figure of speech!). You can see the pleasure that he takes in his ability to solve the problem.

I like acerbic Monk too: "I'm going to follow the money. Ooh, I always wanted to say that!"

Regarding his assistants, I like Traylor Howard (Natalie), but I do think Bitty Shram (Sharona) was the right assistant to start the show with. The early Monk episodes needed that tough, no-nonsense persona to voice what the audience is thinking. Once the audience starts to love Monk, that persona could be replaced by the more dead-pan Natalie.

Stanley Kamel as Dr. Kroger was inspired, and I still miss him. He was one of those bit parts that really made the show work. (Sadly, he left the show because he died. He was only 65. By the way, one of his brothers IS a doctor!) I want to add that I really admire actors like this--I admire how they "make it" in Hollywood, not by being big or flashy but by working hard and being competent. I feel the same way about DeForest Kelley and David McCallum. Both of these latter men did make it big, but they did it by working steadily and by accepting any job (within reason) that came along from bit parts to voices on animated shows. I really, really admire this.

Jason Gray-Stanford is very good (and in later seasons provides some truly hilarious comedy as the bumbling side-kick), and I happen to consider Ted Levine one of the sexiest men on the planet.

The relationship between Ted Levine's character, Stottlemeyer, and Monk is one of the few motifs that isn't carried over from the pilot. The relationship in the pilot is much more tense and much less friendly than it is portrayed later on. Stottlemeyer is used well, but the writers backed away from any really overt tension. On the one hand, I'm grateful: angry people doesn't sit well with me. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder where they intended to take it. (The issues are used later, just never to the extent implied in the pilot.)

Last of all, I must add that I like pilot Trudy way better than all the other Trudys used in the show. Pilot Trudy was exactly the way Monk describes her while all the other Trudys seem like Martha Stewart hostess types. Pilot Trudy, however, is a gamin: a gentle ethereal creature which is how she is supposed to be. Trudy is the dreamy romantic poet who saw Monk for exactly what he could be.

Veronica Mars: Extended Pilot

Kate says I admit I approached this show with some trepidation. I am not a fan of excessive angst nor am I a fan of shows that make (or think they will make) me keep watching. I also wasn't sure if Veronica was going to be sweet tough heroine (like Buffy) or a whiny, defensiveness-disguised-as-toughness heroine (a la Maddie Hayes from Moonlighting; really, I can't stand the character).

The show had one major plus: Enrico Colantoni whom I've loved ever since Galaxy Quest. He does a very good job in the pilot.

And, I am happy to say, Kristen Bell makes a good heroine. She has a wry voice; her character, Veronica, is clever, heartsick but resilient. She is believably tough without being obnoxious. Granted, it does seem like every crazy bad thing in the world that could happen to her has happened, but those things do account for her change in approach/lifestyle.

The dialog is quite good. I was a little bothered by the lack of humor. There were funny moments and some clever lines, but I've been spoiled by Whedon and the Bones' writers: I expect ongoing quips and quick repartee whenever I watch any television these days. This is, possibly, an unfair standard.

The pilot left more unanswered questions than answered questions. I admit to having a problem with this. I realize a pilot must present some kind of arc: Monk's dead wife, Jane's dead wife, Bones' missing mother, Daniel's missing wife. But there should also be a complete story. The complete story for Veronica tackles Fennel's clash with the motorcycle gang; this is nicely paid off, but it is the only thing paid off.

The one thing I really liked was the number of off-kilter/just outside the law characters: Navarro, the sheriff, McCormack (the defense attorney), Logan, and Celeste Kane. I had precisely zero interest in V's ex-boyfriend. Anyone that weaselly isn't worth rooting for.

As the inaugural show in this list, it is a pertinent one: the detective/cop story has always been shadowed by the private investigator story (and vice versa). Occasionally, shows like Columbo seem to be both. However, in general, the two mystery types have quite different feels. Veronica Mars is more Bogart than Law & Order. And, with Buffy a glint in everyone's eye, it was only a matter of time before television produced a female Bogart. Since Veronica has been canceled, it'll be interesting to see if this is a possible trend or a one-time deal.

Mike says I love Veronica Mars. No, you misunderstand--the character, Veronica, is possibly one of the great loves of my life. Luckily my wife likes her too, so that, combined with the whole fictional existence of the character, allows for an amicable, marital-strife-free crush.

The pilot of Veronica Mars is very good, but I do admit that there is a tad less humor in the pilot than in the rest of the season. Veronica has so many dark and terrible things pressing on her heart, that it's hard to balance out the humor. But, the story is constructed to guide you through her universe and introduce the viewer to the underworld of the city Veronica lives in. You have questionable characters of every kind, and even more are introduced down the line. In this aspect, a very noirish version of Star Trek's "setting the scene," the pilot really succeeds. I view the pilot almost as the thesis statement for the show. It sets up the purpose of the show and Veronica's motivations.

A true tragedy of the pilot is that many of the trademarks of the show are missing. Veronica's humor and depth are a continual high point. Other staples include ghostly visitations a la Twin Peaks, Veronica's surprisingly drama light (but not free) love life, and her undercover work/disguises/voices. The other thing that sometimes bothers me is that the first episode isn't so much a mystery as a PROBLEM. Problems are good, but mysteries are really what I watch the show for.

While I know Kate isn't a huge fan of the serial, I'm an addict. I would go so far as to say that a show without some sort of interior continuity, in my opinion, is just not worth watching. One shot episodes are nice for sampling a show, but for me, it's hard to care for a character if there's no discernible growth or change in the environment (Buffy blew up her high school for goodness sake!).

Throughout the show, Veronica's snarky comments, and downright brilliant detective work make the show really groove. The big mysteries of the show (three, to be exact), are paid off beautifully, and it's also really clever how the three are entwined with each other. The pilot, unfortunately, is burdened with presenting all three mysteries, thus eating up the time normally spent on the weekly mystery, which is reliably solved at the end of each episode. There are only a few "pure" mythology episodes, and when they hit, they're usually taut, well written, and fun to watch.

In the end though, if you like one-off mysteries, and are hesitant to invest in the characters or a long term story (all three mysteries are nicely wrapped up and solved by the last episode, cliffhanger free), Veronica Mars probably isn't for you. But if you are, like me, a fan of serial story telling, Veronica is a good pick. If you're in the middle, I'd say give it a chance. If you're on the fence after the first episode, please, give the second episode a chance (that means you, Kate!).

Third List: Mystery Shows!

We have developed the next list. We will be tackling mystery shows!

1. Veronica Mars, "Pilot," October 15th
2. Monk, "Mr. Monk and the Candidate, Parts I and II," October 22nd
3. Castle, "Flowers for Your Grave," October, 29th
4. Chuck, "Pilot," November 5th
5. Lie to Me, "Pilot," November 12th
6. Mentalist, "Pilot," November 19th
7. Columbo, "A Stitch in Crime" (Season 2), November 26th

Join us!

Bones Pilot

Note: Sorry folks! Between birthdays, staff meetings, gardening and consequently throwing out my back, I was unable to do this week's "Where to find online" post. I promise I'll do it for next week! In the meantime, the Bones pilot (after checking) can be found in the normal places: Amazon.com, Netflix Watch instantly, and iTunes. As always (it seems!), the pilot is not currently on Hulu. Enjoy this week's discussion!

Mike says that Bones proves that character development in the first episode is vital to a successful show. I felt that for the most part, all of the characters were very close to their current incarnations. Zack and Bones are both a little more socially skilled than usual but are within limits. In fact, I think character evolution on Bones is some of the best on television. All of the characters have grown and evolved but stayed fairly close to their beginnings.

As is common with pilots, the biggest change from pilot to show seems to be the set. While many of the common elements were there, the "Proto" lab was much brighter and happier compared to the current lab. The organization changes later, removing the director of the Jeffersonian. And, is it just me or does the holo-projector disappear after the first couple seasons?

Boreanaz as Booth is fantastic--though arrogant. But I think this is more an element of character growth rather than of later reworking. The chemistry between Booth and Bones is also fantastic-- almost too good. While I love the long drawn out love story as much as everyone else, it is frustrating to know that the producers are going to stretch the relationship as far as they can for as long as they can.

All in all, I think this is a great episode and start to the series. And the show does well from here. I'm also always a sucker for implied continuity, so having this be a follow-up case (rather than their first) is great.

Lanae says that the biggest difference between Bones and X-Files is the time taken to explore and develop the characters. Where Mulder and Scully jump into the investigation and tell us little about themselves, Booth and Bones are opened up to us pretty wide. We learn their methods, their beliefs, and their motivations.

I think the characters were pretty spot on, though Booth and Zack were a bit less awkward than normal. Overall, it's a good episode and a great start to the show. It is kind of a normal episode, but the exploration and introduction to the characters is really great.

Kate says Bones is one of my favorite shows. Like with Scully in X-Files, I thought the character of Bones (Dr. Brennan) was a little rough in the pilot. She seems so cheerful! Zach is also extremely cheerful. My guess: Hollywood really doesn't know how to portray scientists or extroverts (the fact that McGee from NCIS is characterized as an introvert is an example of what I'm talking about. Does Bellasario even know any introverts?). However, Bones' character is stabilized within a few episodes, and there isn't as much dissonance as with Scully. (My favorite line from the episode: "You stalk me, Oliver, and I will kick your ass.")

Booth is completely on-target. Surprisingly so. I don't know if this is Boreanaz, the script, or the director. I suspect it is a combination. I've said it before, I'll say it again, Boreanaz has excellent comedic timing (since I knew about Boreanaz back when he was, you know, a vampire, I have these "ain't that adorable" feelings about his career. Look at that: he made it to the big time! This is a much better feeling than watching has-beens on Dancing with the Stars. I realize they need money, but wouldn't it be more dignified to, I don't know, get a job at Walmart?).

Like X-Files as well, the pilot of Bones isn't very pilot-y. It's just an episode. The characters are introduced, more or less, as well as the rapid fire dialog (hey, if you can't have Powell and Loy, you might as well watch Bones and Booth). Has it become more customary for shows to simply start? I'm used to 2-part Star Trek pilots which SET THE STAGE. Are audiences more sophisticated now? It's an interesting concept that studios may have done away with "background" pilots in favor of "dump you in the middle of the action" pilots. Since I prefer the latter to the former when I read, I guess I should prefer it when I watch television.

Hmmm. Not sure.

That said, Bones is close enough to today in time for me to remember that the pilot kept me watching. I like forensic-based shows anyway, but unlike many shows (where I become a fan after watching later episodes), Bones got me from Day 1. Of course, now, I'm an season behind, but I'm still watching!