Which hero works for you?

For the following blog, I'll need to you take a leap for me. Imagine a desolate, shattered world. A world where happiness is a distant hope. A world where you have to watch television live and with all the commercials (or at least deal with a VCR if you can't get home from work on time). A world where you only have the resources to watch one television show at a time. A world like 1997. A world without TiVo.

(Quick disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any heart conditions caused or aggravated by this post.)

I know for many, that's not a hard concept. There are few people who care about television as much as I do, but if you care that little, you probably didn't spend all that time clicking through app.com to get to my blog. So I think it's a fair assumption you know what type of feeling I'm trying to convey.

Now, take this imaginary world a step further and imagine you have to choose between the season finales of 24 and Heroes tonight. I'd contend that's not a hard decision, but lets look over it briefly before I give my opinion. I figure this is more fun than simply updating you on what has to happen or what should happen on tonight's finales.

(Disclaimer the second, while 24 is six seasons old, it's new to me, having clashed with other favorite shows of mine in the past. But I'm hooked now, I swear. I'm not swayed by that at all.)

Heroes is arguably the most important and most popular new show on television. A friend pointed out to me last night that he thought it was the only show on NBC that's really worth watching. I can't really agree with that when Office, Earl, Scrubs and 30 Rock are around, but I can see his point. It's a very strong show that embraces the genre that bore it and rides the recent popularity of comic-based movies.

It has a Lost-like following and the same penchant for mystery, but it's more likely to offer up the big reveal much quicker than its serial predecessor. It's delivered on many levels -- from production quality to acting to storytelling.

(Disclaimer III: There are spoilers below, so if you're not caught up on either show, you may want to stop.)

As it drives into the finale, Hiro's chasing Ando, who has decided to go after Sylar himself; Sylar has half-capitated Ted (who I was starting to like since he shaved the Geico caveman beard) and taken his nuclear powers; Peter and Claire lose Ted while the three are trying to leave town, only to find out what Sylar has done and (probably) decide to stop him; Bennett and Parkman go after the "tracking system" that turns out to be the little girl Mohinder has been trying to cure; D.L.'s dead, but so is Linderman (having killed each other), and Micah easily fixed the election in favor of Nathan. They're all in New York... just like in Peter's dream. Nathan knows about the bomb and is doing nothing to stop it... and Sylar's poised to win and seems to have no qualms about what that might mean.

The story has ramped up quite nicely after an annoyingly long hiatus and the show has an energy different than any other on TV.

Then there's 24. Jack's father has been masterminding the whole thing and plans on leaving evil America for China, where they understand him. He wants to take his grandson with him, so he gets the vice president to have CTU get the kid out from under Jack's nose using the chip (which the veep wants the chip secured so the Russians don't try something fishy) as collateral. Pretty much every other plot has fallen by the wayside going into the last two hours of the season. Subplots on Jack and his sister in law's relationship, Morris and Chloe, Nadia (now sans Milo), and the veep's now likely brain-dead chief of staff all remain, but are significantly unimportant.

There's a great chance for a big finish here, with everything focused as it is. You'll find yourself wondering who dies (I'm betting on Ricky Schroeder, who's changed sides more than a soccer team), since we all know it won't be Jack. From what I'm told, this hasn't been a particularly strong season overall. It's still been enough to hook me on the show, which reminds me of the good parts of early Alias.

So, I suppose it's obvious I'd pick Heroes if I was by chance thrust back into a pre-TiVo world. I'd still have my mom tape 24 for me. And, maybe a few years ago 24 would have had the upper hand overall. But, for me, Heroes has a ton of cred right now, and I'm almost more curious about whether and how they all come together to stop the bomb than how exactly Jack gets everything back to normal. There's so much that could go wrong with Heroes. So many characters that could flip and turn heel on the group (Peter is the easy money, with a Nathan flip as well), so many ways it could go.

And you know with all the hype, it has to end big. I mean, it has a two-volume second season to reel you in for. And a ratings dip to make up for.

I now open up the forum. Discuss.

Several points...

The Sopranos: So Tony has a gambling problem and his Jewish friend doesn't like holding a debt over the boss's head. And meanwhile AJ loses his woman and Carmella whines about her newly-sold house. Seems like a waste of an episode to me... at least a final-season episode. Let's take all the storylines no one cares about and only kinda wrap them up. And no, I'm not only whining because there was no blood. My real issue is that David Chase was giving people their due in the preceding episodes. Here, the only one who gets his is AJ, and that's only for being a doofus, it has nothing to do with his greater moral fiber. I'll rescind if this episode turns out to be just an interlude.

24: I'm a little disappointed at the complete turn the season took two weeks ago, switching storylines completely. Not that it's not staying interesting and energetic, it just seems to me there could have been much more done with a bunch of nukes flying around the country. Anyone else noticed that Doyle changes sides every three minutes. Stupid Nurse Flowers (that's a Scrubs reference, by the way).

Jericho: So, I've mentioned it two weeks in a row in my Wednesday suggestions. I don't know if anyone actually listens to me, but if you did, you probably were pleasantly surprised the last two weeks. It's probably climbed to the heights with the strongest serials going in that time (Lost and Heroes). Since its beginnings of "How will we survive without a government or infrastructure?!"this show has completely taken off and now the citizens of this podunk Kansas town are going to war. WAR! I'm not even kidding. Jake and Hawkins pass out weapons while Stanley leads a scout team to the New Bern army's camp in badass closing scene this week. The town goes from caring about running out of fuel to marching against the next town over (led by Major Dad, of course).

House: Does Omar Epps leave a top 10 show in its third season? I don't even want to research it and ruin the answer for myself, but the smart money would be on "no." I'd see him getting his own department at Princeton-Plansboro first... and clashing with House on a different level. Don't be too surprised if he does bow out, though. Or something else equally shocking on an all new House.

Veronica Mars: I haven't even watched it the deserialized new episode yet, but open letter to CW: Don't take my Veronica away. I'm begging. I'll watch the 7th Heaven finale and blog about it if you want.

Why you shouldn't like the FCC

Because they fold like a greeting card. (Automatically.)

There are crybaby watchdog groups out there complaining about the portrayal of torture on television. It's a more focused version of the attack on sex and violence in movies, TV and video games -- specialty crybabying, if you will. But soon after complaints arose in early February, more news reports started to filter out on the FCC's side of the story.

From AP, via CNN:

WASHINGTON -- Television networks are free to sprinkle their programs with shootings, slashings, torture and other gore because the government has no regulatory authority over violent programming.

But a draft report being circulated at the Federal Communications Commission says Congress can change that, without violating the First Amendment.

The long-overdue report suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity -- by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching, for example.

"In general, what the commission's report says is that there is strong evidence that shows violent media can have an impact on children's behavior and there are some things that can be done about it," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.

What they're talking about is lessening the amount of violence broadcast on public airwaves during safe harbor hours (which is the part of the seemingly unending and confusing pit of FCC regulations that regulates when you can do certain "indecent" things on the air). Not mentioned is the fact that most networks follow the current rules 24/7 anyway. You never see Basic Instinct on CBS at 2 a.m.

Just what we need is more of the government deciding what can be shown on television and what can be classified as decent. When they pass this, no show will ever get edgier than Saved By the Bell.

Why is it torture specifically this time? Crybabies claim that the torture scenes on shows like 24 (which to my knowledge is the only network show that currently employs the use of torture as an integral plot device) are influencing actual torturers in the U.S. military who happen to be fans of the show. This is leading to mistreatment of prisoners and a bad rep for the U.S. abroad.

That is, apparently, the fault of screenwriters and television fans and not that of the soldiers whose parents didn't teach them how to be humans -- at least teach them the difference between television/film/video games and reality.

But that brings me to the problem of parents monitoring the TV habits of their child, which is too much trouble, I guess. The v-chip and ratings system don't do enough of the work. Let's just let the government raise our kids the way it sees fit. Don't worry, I understand how hard it is to tell the difference between family content and adult content.

What crybabies don't understand is that violence and sex (and torture) and whatever else they're looking to cut out of entertainment media are usually an integral part of the image these shows or films are trying to portray. Most of the time, you don't see this stuff added gratuitously unless it's an underfunded movie looking to make a splash on video. Whatever hole the FCC thinks it's found in the First Amendment isn't really there. There's no "unless" in the Bill of Rights.

For the record, I heard no whimpers or moans about the reasonably frequent use of torture as a plot device in Alias during that spy show's reasonably long run. I don't believe it ever had the numbers of a 24, but it employed torture scenes just as much, if not more.

Try telling 7th Heaven it's 18th season can't have any mention of religion. It's the same thing.

"Heroes" v. "24"

Overnight ratings bode well for geeks everywhere (from tv.com):

Jack Bauer is not superhuman, but he has superhuman competition.

Last night, Fox's 24, which returned last week for its sixth season, faced off against NBC's new hit Heroes, which returned with its first new episode in a month. When the dust settled, both shows were still standing, Heroes just a bit taller.

The face-off proved both shows can survive. Heroes scored a 6.5 rating/15 share in 18-49s, with 14.8 million average viewers, according to Nielsen, while 24 snagged a 5.4 in 18-49s, with 14.4 million viewers.

Full story here.

Surprised Heroes won? I'm not. Both episodes were solid, but Heroes had more hype to build on after being off for a month. FOX gorged us on 24 last week.

What worries me is CSI: Miami's continued trouncing of my beloved Studio 60. (6 share for CSI, 3.2 for Studio). Aaron Sorkin's awesome (David Caruso not so much) and no one realizes it.

Does '24' portray Muslims poorly?

Spoiler alert! You may want to skip this if you haven't seen the newest episodes of 24 yet.

AP, writing out of heavily-Muslim Clifton, N.J.:

CLIFTON, N.J. -- Two years ago, Muslim groups protested when the plot of the hit Fox drama 24 cast Islamic terrorists as the villains who launched a stolen nuclear missile in an attack on America.
Now, after a one-year respite during which Russian separatists played the bad guys on the critically acclaimed series, Muslims are back in the evil spotlight. Unlike last time, when agent Jack Bauer saved the day, the terrorists this time have already succeeded in detonating a nuclear bomb in a Los Angeles suburb.
Being portrayed again as the heartless wrongdoers has drawn renewed protests from Muslim groups, including one that had a meeting with Fox executives two years ago over the issue. "The overwhelming impression you get is fear and hatred for Muslims," said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.
She said Thursday she was distressed by this season's premiere. "After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn't sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality."
She said the group had a conference call Wednesday with Fox executives to protest the current plot line and request more positive portrayals of Muslims on the show, but was not promised anything. After a January 2005 meeting with CAIR, Fox aired a commercial in which the show's star, Kiefer Sutherland, urged viewers to keep in mind that the show's villains are not representative of all Muslims.
*snip*
Sohail Mohammed, a New Jersey immigration lawyer who represented scores of detainees caught up in the post Sept. 11, 2001 dragnet, watched the episode depicting the nuclear attack with an Associated Press reporter.
"I was shocked," he said. "Somewhere, some lunatic out there watching this will do something to an innocent American Muslim because he believes what he saw on TV."
Engy Abdelkader, a member of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee from Howell, N.J., launched a campaign Wednesday to encourage Muslims offended by the program to complain to Fox.
"I found the portrayal of American Muslims to be pretty horrendous," she said. "It was denigrating from beginning to end. This is one of the most popular programs on television today. It's pretty distressing."

Read the whole article here.

For the record, the article never points out the nice family who tries to help their beseiged Muslim neighbor (which, however, DOES happen to turn out badly). Either way, anyone who takes their opinions on another race/religion from TV is beyond crazy (or the product of bad parenting). It's fiction, and people know that.

Is it me, or is this the same as the ridiculous claims that Sopranos portrayed Italian-Americans poorly?