As the season premieres of the three Law & Order (L&O) series are now just a month away – and there’s been word that NBC may review its decision to cancel L&O: Trial By Jury (TBJ) and bring it back – I’m going to take this time to elaborate on why I think TBJ was worth keeping.
Yes, it seemed to be getting to the point where there were too many spinoffs (although, I myself can’t get enough of Dick Wolf’s quality shows, which also included LA Dragnet until that was canceled a couple of years ago).
Does anyone remember the Simpsons’ take on the issue? (Law & Order: Elevator Inspectors Unit: “This elevator seems to be missing a “3rd Floor” Button.” “I think I’m going to be sick.”) Very funny, but I digress.
I must admit that TBJ didn’t have the same bite that the other L&O series had. And in some episodes, you could hardly see what differentiated it from the original series.
However, it did have something that you never see on any of the other series. Namely, interaction between the defendant and his attorney alone as they prepare their case.
Yes in the first three series, you might see scenes involving just the suspect, or you might see the defendant interacting with his/her attorney, but it would also have McCoy or Cabot or Carver, or some ADA present.
You would never see the defendant and council strategizing how to beat the charge whether innocent or guilty. This was unique and it had the potential to be very interesting. Some episodes were. Some were not so much. Yet, either way, it was definitely worth giving it more of a go. I mean, not every single episode of the other series were excellent – though most were more likely than not, which is what makes the whole L&O franchise so good.
But I think what really killed TBJ was the way the opening words diverged from the original series. Check it out.
The original series’ narration went:
“In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.”
Special Victims Unit (SVU) had a slight twist:
“In the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.”
So both start with “In the criminal justice system…” and end with “These are their stories.”
Criminal Intent (CI) dropped the opening, but it kept the trademark ending:
“In New York City's war on crime, the worst criminal offenders are pursued by the detectives of the Major Case Squad. These are their stories.”
But Trial By Jury went in a completely different direction:
“In the criminal justice system, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, either by confession, plea bargain, or trial by jury. This is one of those trials.”
Apart from the fact that this is the only one that doesn’t end with the trademark line, there are a couple of other distinct differences.
In this narration, it is being specific about the singular event you are about to watch (“This is…” instead of “These are…”) which is more restrictive. And it’s also incorrect, because the episodes of TBJ don’t just show the trial but the events leading up to the trial and the preparation for it.
Secondly, the other openings refer to the people (the detectives, lawyers, etc) involved and their stories, whereas TBJ does not. This makes it impersonal and not promote a connection with the characters as you follow along in their missions.
Did this actually play a role in its lack of popularity or success, if even only on a subconscious level? Maybe, maybe not. But we may never know
If it were up to me, the TBJ opening would have been the following:
“In the criminal justice system, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. In the absence of a confession or plea bargain, the attorneys for the defense and the prosecution prepare their cases for a trial by jury. These are their stories.”
And while I’m at it, I would suggest that CI change its opening to:
“In the criminal justice system, the worst offenders are those considered to have acted with the greatest criminal intent. In New York City, such offenders are pursued by the detectives of the Major Case Squad. These are their stories.”
This would maintain the consistency among the series in two ways: 1) By keeping the same opening, and 2) by having the words of the L&O subtitle “Criminal Intent” in it, just as “Special Victims Unit” was.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Sunday, August 21, 2005
One thing I forgot to add regarding my last post (August 16) about rotating the courses that have hosted the PGA Championship. There was a reason I chose the courses that I did for the five year rotation. I looked at some of the courses that had hosted the PGA Championship recently and then I looked at the history of the championship. I came up with five courses that had the following:
1. Hosted the PGA Championship once since 1991
2. Hosted the PGA Championship twice since 1981
3. Hosted the U.S. Open less than 4 times in history
4. NOT hosted the U.S. Open since 1991
I felt that these criteria suggested that the course is – or is becoming – more of a PGA-preferred course than a USGA-preferred course. The five courses with those characteristics were:
Hazeltine National Golf Club, Minnesota
Whistling Straits Golf Club, Wisconsin
Atlanta Athletic Club, Georgia
Valhalla Golf Club, Kentucky
Medinah Country Club, Illinois
You’ll notice that Valhalla is the odd one out from my five-year rotation proposal. I would have included it, but Kiawah has already been confirmed for that year.
After hosting the PGA championship in 1996 and 2000, Valhalla has not been considered for any PGA championship between then and 2013. Which may mean it’s fallen out of favor with the PGA of America, while Kiawah certainly hasn’t. So, swap the Ocean Course at Kiawah for Valhalla and you’ll get this rotation, starting in 2009:
Hazeltine National Golf Club, Minnesota
Whistling Straits Golf Club, Wisconsin
Atlanta Athletic Club, Georgia
Kiawah Golf Club, South Carolina
Medinah Country Club, Illinois
--
Oh, and one more thing… if you check my June 26 post, you'll see that I in fact correctly predicted that Phil Mickelson would win the PGA Championship more than a month in advance. He was my preseason pick, which makes me 2 for 4 in my picks for the majors this year, including Tiger for the Masters.
It's actually the second year in a row that I've gone 2 for 4 in my preseason picks for winners of the majors. (Last year, I correctly picked Mickelson to win the Masters and Todd Hamilton to win the British Open... seriously!)
Actually, considering that my pick for the British Open this year, Padraig Harrington, didn't even play in it because his father died the week before, I actually did even better this year: I went 2 for 3 in picks in which the player was actually in the field. (I think it's unfair to penalize me when something tragic like that happens.) If Harrington had played, maybe he would have beaten Tiger! You never know.
Tune in next April for my 2006 major picks!!!
1. Hosted the PGA Championship once since 1991
2. Hosted the PGA Championship twice since 1981
3. Hosted the U.S. Open less than 4 times in history
4. NOT hosted the U.S. Open since 1991
I felt that these criteria suggested that the course is – or is becoming – more of a PGA-preferred course than a USGA-preferred course. The five courses with those characteristics were:
Hazeltine National Golf Club, Minnesota
Whistling Straits Golf Club, Wisconsin
Atlanta Athletic Club, Georgia
Valhalla Golf Club, Kentucky
Medinah Country Club, Illinois
You’ll notice that Valhalla is the odd one out from my five-year rotation proposal. I would have included it, but Kiawah has already been confirmed for that year.
After hosting the PGA championship in 1996 and 2000, Valhalla has not been considered for any PGA championship between then and 2013. Which may mean it’s fallen out of favor with the PGA of America, while Kiawah certainly hasn’t. So, swap the Ocean Course at Kiawah for Valhalla and you’ll get this rotation, starting in 2009:
Hazeltine National Golf Club, Minnesota
Whistling Straits Golf Club, Wisconsin
Atlanta Athletic Club, Georgia
Kiawah Golf Club, South Carolina
Medinah Country Club, Illinois
--
Oh, and one more thing… if you check my June 26 post, you'll see that I in fact correctly predicted that Phil Mickelson would win the PGA Championship more than a month in advance. He was my preseason pick, which makes me 2 for 4 in my picks for the majors this year, including Tiger for the Masters.
It's actually the second year in a row that I've gone 2 for 4 in my preseason picks for winners of the majors. (Last year, I correctly picked Mickelson to win the Masters and Todd Hamilton to win the British Open... seriously!)
Actually, considering that my pick for the British Open this year, Padraig Harrington, didn't even play in it because his father died the week before, I actually did even better this year: I went 2 for 3 in picks in which the player was actually in the field. (I think it's unfair to penalize me when something tragic like that happens.) If Harrington had played, maybe he would have beaten Tiger! You never know.
Tune in next April for my 2006 major picks!!!
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Now that Phil Mickelson has won his second major, the PGA championship he dramatically picked up yesterday, people can stop calling the best player only ever to have won ONE major!
But watching the PGA Championship, the last of the four majors, after watching the first three got me to thinking. It doesn’t really have the same identity as the others. It’s always been considered the lesser of the four. Why? The Masters is the only one played on the same course every year. The U.S. Open and the British Open are the two “open” championships played in America and the UK, respectively, and the former is the national championship, the latter is at the home of golf.
The PGA, like the Masters, is by invitation/qualification, and like the U.S. Open, is played on many different courses. So it doesn’t have any uniqueness to itself.
But it can. Why not change it so it’s truly not “open” even with respect to the golf courses that can host it. I’m not suggesting that it be contested in the same place each year (that’s reserved for the Masters). But what about putting in something like a five-course rotation, and calling those the “PGA Championship Courses.”
They’ve already set up something conducive to this already. Whistling Straits has been confirmed to host both the 2010 and 2015, and the other courses confirmed are Hazeltine in 2009, Atlanta in 2011, joining Whistling Straits in a three-year period of courses that previously hosted the PGA ten years earlier or less. Kiawah has been confirmed for 2012, and if they were to add Medinah in 2013, which hosted in 1999 and will again next year, and Hazeltine again in 2014, you’d have a solid rotation of five courses who have clearly become PGA championship favorites.
The rotation, starting in 2009, would look like this:
2009 - Hazeltine * (7)
2010 - Whistling Straits * (6)
2011 - Atlanta * (10)
2012 - Kiawah *
2013 - Medinah (7)
2014 - Hazeltine (5)
2015 - Whistling Straits * (5)
2016 - Atlanta (5)
2017 - Kiawah (5)
2018 - Medinah
* indicates the course has already been confirmed to host, and the number in brackets indicates how many years previously the course hosted the PGA championship
If those five courses would agree to it, they would become "PGA Championship Courses", while becoming ineligible to host the US Open. This would be a good trade-off, certainly for Whistling Straits which has never hosted the US Open anyway, and for Atlanta which hasn't since 1976. Medinah and Hazeltine each hosted the US Open once in the early 90's and only other time, in the 70's. Come 2009, they will have each hosted the PGA Championship twice, seven-years apart respectively. That's a much better deal. On the other hand, the courses that would no longer have a chance to host the PGA would probably prefer to host the US Open anyway.
Doing this would give the PGA Championship an identity of its own, as opposed to being the "other" major championship that any US golf course can host. It would be the only major that follows a strict rotation of courses, each whose major championship history will be rooted in the PGA not the US Open. No more Baltusrol, Southern Hills or Oakland Hills, which are more known for the US Opens contested there anyway.
The PGA Championship would be the "Mid-America" Major, and the courses governed by the PGA of America, not the USGA. I think this would add unique prestige to both the championship and the courses.
But watching the PGA Championship, the last of the four majors, after watching the first three got me to thinking. It doesn’t really have the same identity as the others. It’s always been considered the lesser of the four. Why? The Masters is the only one played on the same course every year. The U.S. Open and the British Open are the two “open” championships played in America and the UK, respectively, and the former is the national championship, the latter is at the home of golf.
The PGA, like the Masters, is by invitation/qualification, and like the U.S. Open, is played on many different courses. So it doesn’t have any uniqueness to itself.
But it can. Why not change it so it’s truly not “open” even with respect to the golf courses that can host it. I’m not suggesting that it be contested in the same place each year (that’s reserved for the Masters). But what about putting in something like a five-course rotation, and calling those the “PGA Championship Courses.”
They’ve already set up something conducive to this already. Whistling Straits has been confirmed to host both the 2010 and 2015, and the other courses confirmed are Hazeltine in 2009, Atlanta in 2011, joining Whistling Straits in a three-year period of courses that previously hosted the PGA ten years earlier or less. Kiawah has been confirmed for 2012, and if they were to add Medinah in 2013, which hosted in 1999 and will again next year, and Hazeltine again in 2014, you’d have a solid rotation of five courses who have clearly become PGA championship favorites.
The rotation, starting in 2009, would look like this:
2009 - Hazeltine * (7)
2010 - Whistling Straits * (6)
2011 - Atlanta * (10)
2012 - Kiawah *
2013 - Medinah (7)
2014 - Hazeltine (5)
2015 - Whistling Straits * (5)
2016 - Atlanta (5)
2017 - Kiawah (5)
2018 - Medinah
* indicates the course has already been confirmed to host, and the number in brackets indicates how many years previously the course hosted the PGA championship
If those five courses would agree to it, they would become "PGA Championship Courses", while becoming ineligible to host the US Open. This would be a good trade-off, certainly for Whistling Straits which has never hosted the US Open anyway, and for Atlanta which hasn't since 1976. Medinah and Hazeltine each hosted the US Open once in the early 90's and only other time, in the 70's. Come 2009, they will have each hosted the PGA Championship twice, seven-years apart respectively. That's a much better deal. On the other hand, the courses that would no longer have a chance to host the PGA would probably prefer to host the US Open anyway.
Doing this would give the PGA Championship an identity of its own, as opposed to being the "other" major championship that any US golf course can host. It would be the only major that follows a strict rotation of courses, each whose major championship history will be rooted in the PGA not the US Open. No more Baltusrol, Southern Hills or Oakland Hills, which are more known for the US Opens contested there anyway.
The PGA Championship would be the "Mid-America" Major, and the courses governed by the PGA of America, not the USGA. I think this would add unique prestige to both the championship and the courses.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Wow. Kenny Rogers has been reinstated after serving only 13 games of a suspension for his unprovoked assault on a cameraman. Meanwhile, people are complaining that Todd Bertuzzi, who was also reinstated this week, got off too lightly!!!
Of all the bumbling things that Bud Selig has done, giving Rogers a 20-game suspension was actually a good one (if anything it was too few games). But I think it was just about right. And then some arbitrator comes along and says Selig went too far!?!
I’m actually of the camp that what Rogers did was far worse than what Bertuzzi did when he knocked out Steve Moore on the ice. Two big reasons:
1) What Bertuzzi did was during the course of actual play. Yes, he went over the line. But in the atmosphere of the league where violence is essentially promoted, people clutch, grab, check and punch, it’s hard to tell a guy if he goes slightly over the line, he’s going to be severely punished. What Rogers did was completely unprovoked; it was not even in the middle of game. It was during practice and Rogers had no reason to be in an aggressive state.
2) Bertuzzi laid a hit on another player, who should have been expecting it. Was it right? No. Was Moore asking for it? Not to the point that he deserved it. But if Moore had gotten up fine, and there was no subsequent pile-up, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. It would have been just another case of “ice justice” which though not explicitly endorsed by the NHL, is certainly promoted implicitly. On the other hand, Rogers attacked a cameraman! This was not another player with whom he was in the midst of competitive battle. It was a third party just doing his own job, who had no expectation of contact whatsoever. That makes it just like him attacking someone on the street, and that can reasonably be considered assault.
To me, the “damage” done to the victim isn’t as telling as is the act itself. Bertuzzi’s act was only slightly worse than what goes on in the rink on a daily basis. Rogers act was despicable, and 13 games is hardly enough.
There was an episode of the Practice that dealt with the Bertuzzi incident a couple of years ago. It had some great points. Maybe later I’ll note them.
Of all the bumbling things that Bud Selig has done, giving Rogers a 20-game suspension was actually a good one (if anything it was too few games). But I think it was just about right. And then some arbitrator comes along and says Selig went too far!?!
I’m actually of the camp that what Rogers did was far worse than what Bertuzzi did when he knocked out Steve Moore on the ice. Two big reasons:
1) What Bertuzzi did was during the course of actual play. Yes, he went over the line. But in the atmosphere of the league where violence is essentially promoted, people clutch, grab, check and punch, it’s hard to tell a guy if he goes slightly over the line, he’s going to be severely punished. What Rogers did was completely unprovoked; it was not even in the middle of game. It was during practice and Rogers had no reason to be in an aggressive state.
2) Bertuzzi laid a hit on another player, who should have been expecting it. Was it right? No. Was Moore asking for it? Not to the point that he deserved it. But if Moore had gotten up fine, and there was no subsequent pile-up, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. It would have been just another case of “ice justice” which though not explicitly endorsed by the NHL, is certainly promoted implicitly. On the other hand, Rogers attacked a cameraman! This was not another player with whom he was in the midst of competitive battle. It was a third party just doing his own job, who had no expectation of contact whatsoever. That makes it just like him attacking someone on the street, and that can reasonably be considered assault.
To me, the “damage” done to the victim isn’t as telling as is the act itself. Bertuzzi’s act was only slightly worse than what goes on in the rink on a daily basis. Rogers act was despicable, and 13 games is hardly enough.
There was an episode of the Practice that dealt with the Bertuzzi incident a couple of years ago. It had some great points. Maybe later I’ll note them.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Okay, this one may ruffle some feathers. But most likely Eagles feathers. I have to say that I’ve got some respect for Philadelphia’s Terrell Owens. I didn’t used to. I didn’t like a lot of his antics in San Francisco. And the only reason I was okay with him coming to the Eagles (my Philadephia Eagles) was because I knew the team desperately needed a number one wide receiver.
I know that it seems that he’s been up to his old tricks, especially with him saying for months now that he’s not happy with his current contract, and wants to renegotiate his deal after only one year. Yet, after all the talk from the media about whether or not he’ll show up or sit out a year, he said all along that he’ll report to camp and he’ll play. And he’s remained true to his word. Not the same can be said for most players who say they’re unhappy with their contract.
Sure, he still says that he’s not happy. And perhaps he really had no choice. Maybe he should stop sulking.
But put yourself in his shoes. Not as a professional football player making millions of dollars and wanting more. But as a professional employee of any company, making a salary that you believe is under what you deserve. Are you going to be unhappy? You bet you are! Are you going to be professional and show up for work? Probably, but that doesn’t mean you can’t still desire for a re-negotiation.
Well, Terrell Owens believes his salary is less than what he deserves. Whether you think professional athletes are overpaid is besides the point. Would you rather the money go in the owners’ pockets? This is a capitalist society. Every person has the right to seek as much money as they can for their services. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it. But if they do, it’s up to them what they do with it. They can give it to charity or church or their family or whatever noble or not-so-noble cause. But in those shoes, we’d all want to do the same, if we feel we deserve it.
Does Terrell Owens deserve it? Maybe. His first year as an Eagle was everything the team hoped for and perhaps more. Now there’s no way I think that they should re-negotiate with him after just ONE year. It’s too early to tell if that was just a good first year and the injury is behind him, or if this is what they can expect from him for the remainder of his contract.
However, if he has another season like that in his second year, or even better, I don’t see any reason why he can’t say to the Eagles’ office, ‘Look I just gave you two great years. Let’s renegotiate.’ And I don’t see any reason why the team shouldn’t at that point be open to it.
I know that it seems that he’s been up to his old tricks, especially with him saying for months now that he’s not happy with his current contract, and wants to renegotiate his deal after only one year. Yet, after all the talk from the media about whether or not he’ll show up or sit out a year, he said all along that he’ll report to camp and he’ll play. And he’s remained true to his word. Not the same can be said for most players who say they’re unhappy with their contract.
Sure, he still says that he’s not happy. And perhaps he really had no choice. Maybe he should stop sulking.
But put yourself in his shoes. Not as a professional football player making millions of dollars and wanting more. But as a professional employee of any company, making a salary that you believe is under what you deserve. Are you going to be unhappy? You bet you are! Are you going to be professional and show up for work? Probably, but that doesn’t mean you can’t still desire for a re-negotiation.
Well, Terrell Owens believes his salary is less than what he deserves. Whether you think professional athletes are overpaid is besides the point. Would you rather the money go in the owners’ pockets? This is a capitalist society. Every person has the right to seek as much money as they can for their services. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it. But if they do, it’s up to them what they do with it. They can give it to charity or church or their family or whatever noble or not-so-noble cause. But in those shoes, we’d all want to do the same, if we feel we deserve it.
Does Terrell Owens deserve it? Maybe. His first year as an Eagle was everything the team hoped for and perhaps more. Now there’s no way I think that they should re-negotiate with him after just ONE year. It’s too early to tell if that was just a good first year and the injury is behind him, or if this is what they can expect from him for the remainder of his contract.
However, if he has another season like that in his second year, or even better, I don’t see any reason why he can’t say to the Eagles’ office, ‘Look I just gave you two great years. Let’s renegotiate.’ And I don’t see any reason why the team shouldn’t at that point be open to it.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Saw "The Island". I read a headline about this move that called it "this year's I, Robot". That's actually a pretty good analogy. Although a very different premise, it had a similar plotline and similar thematic elements. But "The Island" was much deeper on a human level (naturally).
It had some very interesting God-related quotes. Steve Buscemi's character explained to Ewan McGregor's "innocent" character who God is as so: "You know when you close your eyes and really wish for something. God's the guy that ignores you!" (I don't agree with this assessment - at least not all the time - but it was funny, and very pointed on how certain people relate to God these days.) And after a spectacular scene in which our heroes by all accounts should have been killed but somehow survive, an onlooker says to them: "Jesus must love you! I know Jesus loves you!"
But the entire nature of the story makes you think about the nature of one's "soul". Why? Well, if you haven't seen the movie, and you don't want it ruined, don't read on.
But for those who have seen it or know the "twist", Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson are actually clones of real people, and the real people in the movie somehow think that they deserve to live more than their clones, even though their clones are just as human. What makes them less deserving to live? The only thing I could think of would be if "clones" don't have a soul. It can't be anything else, or otherwise, why would it really matter? Which draws the conclusion that if not for our soul, nothing matters. Which brings us back to God.
The funny thing is, we root for the "clones" to overcome the "real people", but that's because we want them to live. Yet, in most cases, the clones living will lead to their counterparts dying. So, how is that better?
Well, it's better because nobody is being killed. A "real person" may live or may die if they don't get a "clone", but it's in God's hands. However, if they create a clone with the intention of killing it in order for them to live, they still might not live, yet they are guaranteeing that someone gets killed.
I'm not going to get into the whole "clone" debate, but I will say that if we do manage to clone humans, that does not make us bigger than God or even equal with God. We praise the God that was able to create life that in turn is able to create life. And that life has the "soul" that God has instilled in us, and that's what matters.
So, yeah, interesting movie...
It had some very interesting God-related quotes. Steve Buscemi's character explained to Ewan McGregor's "innocent" character who God is as so: "You know when you close your eyes and really wish for something. God's the guy that ignores you!" (I don't agree with this assessment - at least not all the time - but it was funny, and very pointed on how certain people relate to God these days.) And after a spectacular scene in which our heroes by all accounts should have been killed but somehow survive, an onlooker says to them: "Jesus must love you! I know Jesus loves you!"
But the entire nature of the story makes you think about the nature of one's "soul". Why? Well, if you haven't seen the movie, and you don't want it ruined, don't read on.
But for those who have seen it or know the "twist", Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson are actually clones of real people, and the real people in the movie somehow think that they deserve to live more than their clones, even though their clones are just as human. What makes them less deserving to live? The only thing I could think of would be if "clones" don't have a soul. It can't be anything else, or otherwise, why would it really matter? Which draws the conclusion that if not for our soul, nothing matters. Which brings us back to God.
The funny thing is, we root for the "clones" to overcome the "real people", but that's because we want them to live. Yet, in most cases, the clones living will lead to their counterparts dying. So, how is that better?
Well, it's better because nobody is being killed. A "real person" may live or may die if they don't get a "clone", but it's in God's hands. However, if they create a clone with the intention of killing it in order for them to live, they still might not live, yet they are guaranteeing that someone gets killed.
I'm not going to get into the whole "clone" debate, but I will say that if we do manage to clone humans, that does not make us bigger than God or even equal with God. We praise the God that was able to create life that in turn is able to create life. And that life has the "soul" that God has instilled in us, and that's what matters.
So, yeah, interesting movie...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)