[Little_Stewie]

Thanks for posting this.....!

[ice_ice_baby]

That's a nice article

Thanks for posting it

[strawberrypie]

You're welcome . I'm glad there are people still willing to write good things about canceled shows.

[Starfield_Scribe]

They're with us Which rocks

[strawberrypie]

Interview with Bryan Fuller:

Bryan Fuller talks 'Pushing Daisies' Thursday, June 4 2009, 16:32 BST By Neil Wilkes, Editor Pushing Daisies had one of the most unfortunate rides of a TV show in recent memory. After a promising start - high ratings on both sides of the pond, critical acclaim by the bucketload - the show was yanked off the air just nine episodes into its first season when the writers' strike took hold. When the series finally returned a year later, the viewers had tuned out - and the inevitable axing soon followed. In our exclusive chat with creator Bryan Fuller, he reveals where he think things went wrong and talks about the future of Daisies away from the small screen. Coming back after the strike for season two, did you feel the need to reintroduce the show or start afresh? "I think there's always a certain amount of that that needs to be done. You can't completely throw an audience into a world like Pushing Daisies without some details of how it got there. So I think the first episode back had a bit of a primer in terms of the world but it felt like the right amount - I didn't think it was too much or too little. I tried to strike a balance without overburdening the episode with exposition!" How did the strike affect your storytelling plans for the show? "In one sense it helped us because there were stories that we wanted to do at the end of season where the network was like 'that feels like a season two story'. Actually the writers' strike allowed us to tell those stories sooner because we were like 'well, it's season two now!' These were things like bringing Chuck's dad back, etc.. At the end of the first season, Paul Reubens and his character Oscar Vibenius smelling something different about Chuck - that was supposed to be a four or five episode arc that we had to cram into one episode! We didn't really do a great job of cramming." Do you think ABC did enough to relaunch you when you returned for a second season? "I don't think ABC really did anything to keep us alive in terms of viewership - they didn't reair any of the episodes from the first season, they didn't do a leadup into it, so there was absolutely no viewer awareness. Then by the time we returned, people had forgotten about us. For the many viewers who weren't in a major metropolitan area, there were no billboard campaigns so they didn't know we were back on the air." After the strike there was enough room in the schedule for most shows to come back for up to six or seven episodes. ABC opted not to bring you back but relaunch you in the Fall. Was that the right decision, in hindsight? "In terms of what they knew at the time, I think everybody underestimated the audience erosion from the writers' strike. They didn't have a crystal ball to say 'this is what we should have done'. I think honestly they thought they were doing the best thing for the show by keeping it off the air. If you remember all those shows that came back in the Spring, when they did they tanked. They just got their asses kicked! We would have come back right smack against the American Idol finals, so we would have been creamed. I'm not sure there was a best case scenario for us in that situation!" As season two went on, the audience tuned out. Why do you think that was? "With this show being as specialised as it is, it's a very unique world. I think the show creatively in the second season was as good as - if not better than - the first season, so it was just that if people did sample it again, they weren't completely aware of who we were and what we were doing. On one occasion we went out at 9pm in the States, and our numbers spiked by 3 million viewers. Of course after that we asked to move from 8pm to 9pm, but we were a Warner Bros. show for ABC and the 9pm hour is reserved for ABC Studios real estate. Unless you're produced by ABC Studios you don't get those coveted timeslots. The network will always prioritise its sister studio. So there were a lot of challenges for the show!" After the cancellation there was talk of moving to another network - how far did that get? "I think we were so heavily branded as an ABC show, no other network was interested. It wouldn't really fit on NBC, it's just not their cup of tea. The show was so specifically cultured as an ABC show that it got to the point where it didn't really belong on another network. If we had started off as an NBC show, it would have had the ingredients that NBC likes their shows to have - for instance, we would have skewed slightly more male and had a little more violence and gore. I love those things, so I wouldn't complain about them!" It does feel like it could have been an HBO show, though... "Oh it would have been lovely to go to HBO but once again, the mentality of the network is sloppy seconds, unless their sister studio owns the show - for instance with Scrubs and ABC." The final episode plays out in the States in a couple weeks. Do you think fans will be happy with the conclusion? "I think it is satisfying. It is certainly an ending that was created in post. It was originally a cliffhanger and the ending was a cut to black moment, where you were supposed to be able to tune in next week and figure out what happened next. Obviously we didn't have a next week! So basically we created an ending in post using existing footage, the narrator and digital effects to give closure to the story. Aunt Lily and Aunt Vivian become the hidden Dorothys of the series. We can't really wrap up Ned and Chuck in five minutes, so their story goes on. We have a comic book coming out in the Fall which will continue their story. I really wanted to end their story in the future with a kiss and a big cut to black. I just didn't have the storytelling real estate to do that [in the finale]." As for the comic book, what are the plans for that? Is it a way to wrap up the loose ends from the series or is it an indefinite future for Pushing Daisies? "It's a 12-issue order. It will do both! One of the disappointments for me was that I wasn't able to wrap up the story of Chuck's father and Ned's father - and those pesky pocket watches and what they had to do with the mythology. Once again that was supposed to be episode 14! So it became apparent that if we were going to do the comic book, we should launch it with a story that would be a two-hour movie told over three comic book issues and then use that as a platform to continue telling the story. It's going to be much more ambitious than we were able to pull off with a television budget. The people who watch the TV show will be totally satisfied and the ones who are new to the world of Pushing Daisies will be welcomed in a very clean way that doesn't require them to have all the baggage from the TV show."

Source

[ice_ice_baby]

Very interesting

[strawberrypie]

Yeah, it's an interesting article. It was nice to finally hear what we all already knew about ABC, because before it was all "we have the support from the network, blah blah blah...", which they had to say, obviously, so I don't blame them.
I still wish they'd tried to sell it to another network .

[Starfield_Scribe]

Mm mm... being left at the mercy of the networks' antics is my destiny, evidently

[strawberrypie]

Aww I hear you.

Here's an article about who this person thinks should get an Emmy nod. Although we already know that Anna and Lee didn't submit.

Who should get Emmy nominations this year By ROBERT BIANCO • USA TODAY • June 5, 2009 With greater Emmy power comes greater responsibility. And when it comes to the nominations, all the power is back in the hands of the Television Academy’s voting members. Last year, they submitted a list of 10 finalists to a set of blue-ribbon judging panels, who then chose the final five nominees. But that experimental system has been scrapped, and once again, the nominations will be chosen entirely by Academy vote. And if that doesn’t strike you as frightening, you’ve forgotten how often those voters have confused popularity with quality. On the plus side, thanks to another rule change, they now get to fill six slots in the major series categories instead of five, which should make it easier for a few new nominees to slip in. On the down side, if you know the Emmys, you know the voters have a fondness for quixotic choices: ignoring worthy new or small shows in favor of big hits that are long past their creative peaks, or succumbing to the allure of the flashiest ad campaign or the most expensive DVD boxed set. What can be done to bring us a better slate of nominees come July 16? Well, if you’re a voter, you could just pick up your pencil (or computer) and mark those nominating ballots that went out today as instructed below. Because sometimes when you have power, the best course really is just to hand it over. Best comedy Comedy is a less competitive category, so let’s start with the one essential: The Big Bang Theory. In its second season, "Bang" has grown into TV’s best sitcom by adhering to old sitcom virtues: a great cast playing characters you like and believe, who can be hilarious without being heartless and consistent without being formulaic. From there, the list should also include the witty if tortuously inconsistent "30 Rock," the perfectly cast "Old Christine", and the very-near perfect "Pushing Daisies" - a show that flopped in the ratings but soared as art. After that, things get dicey. I’d reward "Little Britain" for its madcap audacity and "Desperate Housewives" for its fast-forward spunk, but that leaves no room for one of the voters’ perennial favorites, "The Office." Whether it deserves a nod depends on whether you think the Michael Scott Paper Company plot was an ingenious diversion of an example of the show’s willingness to throw logic, common sense and character out the window for a not-very-hearty laugh. Look at the list and you can pretty much guess where I fall, but voters will almost certainly fall the other way. Lead actor, comedy Jim Parsons, "The Big Bang Theory" Alec Baldwin, "30 Rock" Lee Pace, "Pushing Daisies " Kyle Bornheimer, "Worst Week" Johnny Galecki, "The Big Bang Theory" James Roday, "Psych" Every year, there’s at least one actor whose omission from the nomination list would make the nominations meaningless. This year, it’s Parsons. How can you help but appreciate the skill and talent it takes to turn a character who could have been a one-note nerd into a fully formed comic creation, a person who is likable, annoying and touching all at once? The only way to miss it is if you’ve never seen it - and if you’ve never seen an episode of one of TV’s most popular sitcoms on TV’s most-watched network, you have no business voting for the Emmys. While Parsons is laugh-out-loud funny, that shouldn’t obscure the work being done by Galecki, who holds the show together. On the other hand, nothing hides Baldwin: When he’s on screen "you can’t look away, and you don’t want to." As for Pace and Bornheimer, they just have to hope people remember their shows and how good they were in them. Which leaves the sixth slot as a wild card: It would be nice to see Roday get some attention for "Psych", but an equally good case can be made for Zachary Levi of "Chuck" or David Duchovny of "Californication." Of course realistically, one of these slots is likely to go to Steve Carell, which is fine - and to "Monk"’s Tony Shalhoub, which is less fine. He’s a terrific actor, but the role and the show have become ridiculously broad, and the performance really has been honored enough. Lead actress, comedy Toni Collette, "United States of Tara" Anna Friel, "Pushing Daisies" Julia Louis-Dreyfus, "Old Christine" Tina Fey, "30 Rock" Mary Louise Parker, "Weeds" Kaley Cuoco, "Big Bang Theory" Slowly but surely, this category is getting more crowded. Granted, it’s still not exactly robust, but it is getting better, thanks to additions like the remarkable Collette (who could be a contender in the drama field as well, if she chose). The show feels like a stunt; Collette’s multi-layered performance never does. Elsewhere, Fey had a star-rocketing year, so even if her "Rock" work was erratic, there’s no way she misses this list. Louis-Dreyfus and Parker continue to shine on two of the few sitcoms actually built around a woman, while Cuoco has grabbed her share of the light on a sitcom built around men, making her character their comic equal. As for Friel, her optimism in the face of death could very well stand as the symbol of her show. Want another choice among the missing? Consider "Samantha Who?"’s Christina Applegate, "Desperate Housewives"’ Eva Longoria or "Ugly Betty"’s America Ferrera. Supporting actress, comedy Wanda Sykes, "The New Adventures of Old Christine" Kristin Chenoweth, "Pushing Daisies " Swoosie Kurtz, "Pushing Daisies" Emily Rutherfurd, "The New Adventures of Old Christine" Portia de Rossi, "Better Off Ted" Nancy Lenehan, "Worst Week" Sykes, Kurtz and Rutherfurd are reliably fabulous, and Chenoweth practically redefines "darling." But let’s hope voters also notice two excellent under-the-radar turns: de Rossi, flinty and funny in the spring success "Ted", and the warmer but no less funny Lenehan in the fall flop "Week." Supporting actor, comedy Neil Patrick Harris, "How I Met Your Mother" Jack McBrayer, "30 Rock" Chi McBride, "Pushing Daisies" Simon Helberg, "The Big Bang Theory" Hamish Linklater, "The New Adventures of Old Christine" Clark Gregg, "The New Adventures of Old Christine" If you’re looking for a general overall message to voters in the comedy categories, here it is: Look away from some of your rote-vote favorites, and look closer at "Big Bang" and "Old Christine."

The article was long, so I only posted the categories with PD mentions. For the whole thing, go here.

This doesn't mean anything, of course, but I thought it was a nice mention. And another reminder that PD was appreciated a lot... just not by the people that counted in the ratings system.

[Katiegg108]

Thanks for the Bryan interview. Lots of interesting things there. Pretty sad to read, though

[strawberrypie]

Interesting and sad pretty much sums it up *sigh*.

Reminder: 2.12 "Water and Power" airs tonight at 10/9c on ABC.

[ice_ice_baby]

That's the other thing I'm recording today! I'm so not used to seeing this show other than on DVD and kept thinking all morning "I've already recorded Gladiators 2000, what else am I recording today?"


Oh, BTW, take a look at this section of the Desperate Housewives "Submissions For Nomination" for the Emmys

GUEST ACTRESS Desperate Housewives (Polly Bergen) Desperate Housewives (Joanna Cassidy) Desperate Housewives (Frances Conroy) Desperate Housewives (Kathryn Joosten) Desperate Housewives (Swoosie Kurtz) Desperate Housewives (Gail O'Grady) Desperate Housewives (Lily Tomlin)

Source


I hope she gets it Her character was (I think) the first lesbian on DH

[Starfield_Scribe]

Awesome! I haven't seen it...

[strawberrypie]

That episode just aired here last week or so, Swoosie was great

Our cast is making a lot of noise *is proud*

[ice_ice_baby]

She was

Jessie (Swoosie): You're probably worried about the lesbian inside you trying to get out. Susan: Actually I'm more worried about the lesbian outside me trying to get in.

I think that part alone should qualify her to at least get nominated if not win