TV Zone

RSS

News, scoops, reviews and more from TV land.

search this blog
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  • Gandolfini roughs up...someone

     

     

      Check out this clip that HuffPo has prominently displayed, if you haven't already.

      My questions/observations: 

      - I thought "The Sopranos" went off the air a while back, but what's Tony doing in this clip?

     - who's the lady who says, "get away from my son..."

     - Is Tony - ahhh, James - slapping around some punk kid?

     - I think the next time I see Gando in the West Village, I will forbid myself from the obvious temptation of pulling out my cell phone to take a quick picture, recognizing that it may be the last picture I ever take...

     

       

    James Gandolfini Assaults photographer from Guest of a Guest on Vimeo.

     

  • Brian Williams, '30 Rock'

    Yeah, Brian Williams' incredibly anticipated acting debut (kidding, I think) was on "Rock" last night, and honestly, he's wasn't half-bad, even if his on-screen time was limited to two takes, totaling about 35 seconds.

    Here's the first one, and I think, better of the two. (Wasn't his "Leno" debut side-lined because of a trip to Afghanistan? Oh, the complications of a big anchor gig.)

    You know, when this anchor thing does ends, there could be a future here (and before you get too concerned about anchors on TV shows, don't forget that Cronkite did his famous walk-on back in 1972 - or maybe '73 - on the "MTM Show," at the height of Watergate.)

     

     
  • Conan 'sorry' for fake Levi tweets

      No he's not.

      Even slightly sorry, that is.

      (How could he be?)

     If you missed this fun feud, which began yesterday, Co did his now-classic Shatner/Palin Beat Tweet bit on some presumed Levi Johnston tweets the other night. 

     Turns out those tweets were fakes - an imposter posted them, but they seemed so Levi-like that even Co thought they were real.

      So...he "apologized" last night. 

      First clip: From last night.

      Second clip: From Wednesday.

      Both pretty amusing.

     

     
     
     
  • 'Oprah' going to cable?

     Whoa. And I do mean whoa. Could this be?

     It's the subject - in fact, the declaration - of a Nikki Finke post a little while ago, but Oprah's People have now issued a statement.

      "She has not made a decision yet.  As she has previously stated, she'll be making an announcement before the end of the year ."

     Finke's story on deadlinehollywood.com is reasonably definitive - that Oprah Winfrey will tell her veiwers shortly that she has made a decision and it was forced upon her by  the Powers at Discovery - one of her partners in OWN - who want her to get the show on the  the new channel pronto. Finke says it'll shift over in 2011 - or well ahead of the schedule most stations expected. 

      If Harpo is denying, this doesn't sound like a particularly zealous denial. 

     

    Tags: oprah, own, harpo

  • "Law & Order:" A grievous mistake

    This vehicle was crushed in

     

     


       As you may know, "Law & Order" has an episode airing tomorrow night entitled "Doped." It's about a woman who drove the wrong-way up the Henry Hudson Parkway with a van full of children. She hits an on-coming car. All killed in both cars, except a boy in the van's front seat.
     
      The cops quickly found a bottle of grain alcohol in the front seat. Toxicology tests determined a high blood-alcohol content from a drink she had consumed - a banana smoothie spiked with the booze.
     
      Families are horrified and outraged. The city is stunned.

      Seven are dead...including all those children. Cops determined that there were stops involved before the accident (at an ice cream store) but they just can't figure out where she got the liquor. They also learn one of the girls in the car tried to call one of the parents - her aunt was driving erratically... And so on.

      This episode with this achingly familiar storyline has already generated controversy. The New York Post, which came upon the filming of the wrong-way scene, broke the story a couple weeks ago, contacted the Bastardi family in Yonkers and a representative for the Schuler family of West Babylon. They were outraged...How could this show use this tragedy...?

     I've seen the episode, and I'm terribly sorry to report - the families were right. Outrage is warranted. "Law & Order," one of the great shows of television, has made a grievous error. I'm sorry only because I hold  "L&O" in high esteem - this is and almost always has been a show with a brain and a heart and even a conscience. How could it go so outrageously wrong here?

     I'll get into this more in a paper review tomorrow, but the simple, hard, cold - horribly cold - fact is that July 26, when or if you stop to think about it, seems like yesterday. Most of us may have heard the news on the radio, or a newspaper website like this one, or saw the report on TV. We stopped in disbelief, and - now I'm speaking for myself - a pall of black depression came over us. How could something like this happen? All those children? So many innocent lives lost? In an instant? How could something like this happen? We sought answers hoping something would explain it, and offer rationale where there was none.

      And then the story got worse - the woman, Diane Schuler, was drunk and high, toxicology reports determined. 

      July 26.

     Yesterday.

     And tomorrow, a "Law & Order" episode. 

      This isn't simply an issue of "too soon." This tragedy should never, never have been used for the purposes of a TV program plot.  

      The rest of the plot? It turns out the lady behind the wheel was a corporate whistleblower, angry over fictitious claims of a cancer drug that her company was pushing, and ready to take her story to the FDA.

      That's an interesting and reasonably plausible and well-written story, but did it need THIS particular tragedy to launch it?

      Why not a man in a single-car accident? Why not any number of other "accidents" - no children involved - that could have been spun for the same purpose, the murder of a whistle-blower?

      The obvious answer is that "L&O" could have used any other story, but chose this one because of its noteriety. It can rationalize, perhaps, that it chose this one to give the larger tale of a whistleblower greater impact and immediacy. But that's phony. It chose this one for ratings.

      Some stories can and should be ripped from the headlines.

      But not this one. 

     Ever.
       

     
     
  • Letterman: Joe Halderman hearing next week

    David Letterman, on the 'Late

     

     

     And now this, friends: Joe Halderman's day in court draws near.

      A  motions hearing is set for next Tuesday at 11 , at 100 Centre Street.

     How big a deal is this? Gerald Shargel,  Halderman's lawyer, tells me it's not - and that's my understanding as well. If - for example - he were to seek to examine the minutes of the grand jury (which indicted) and then challenge those, I am told he would have had to do that a couple weeks ago (Halderman was indicted Oct. 2.)

      Where does it go from here? Says Shargel, he's "preparing for a case for trial."

      Even so, there could be surprises next week.  

      Tomorrow's wrap today...

      The next chapter in the wrenching David Letterman saga opens next Tuesday morning, when Joe Halderman - the man accused of extorting the talk show host - is scheduling to appear before a judge for a motions hearing at 100 Centre Street.
      Gerald Shargel, Halderman's lawyer said yesterday, "in the filing of motions you go physically before the judge and hand in your papers, and they set another day to come back. Nothing terribly exciting, but having said that, it's 96 percent certain I will file the motions on Tuesday but not a hundred percent. There will still be a court appearance."
      Letterman is not expected to appear - plaintiffs rarely if ever are at a motions hearing - although Halderman is.
      In a motion, a lawyer makes a request to the presiding judge to make a ruling on a specific matter, though according to a source, such hearing often result in the setting of various dates. "Most judges are not going to set a trial date [at this hearing but] interim dates so you move the case along," this person said.
      The presiding judge in the Letterman case is Charles H. Solomon,
    appointed by Rudolph Giuliani to the Criminal Court in 1986.
      There's been considerable TV industry speculation that Letterman would ask the District Attorney's office to push for a plea bargain to avert the spectacle off a trial - and considerable speculation that Shargel would welcome such a request.
        When asked yesterday whether he would hope to negotiate a plea in lieu of a trial, he said "there's nothing in the pipeline other than preparing a case for trial."  He declined to elaborate on what sort of motions he would file Tuesday.

     

     

     
     

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Vote

Who will win Season 9 of "Dancing With the Stars"?

  • Aaron Carter
  • Donny Osmond
  • Joanna Krupa
  • Kelly Osbourne
  • Mya