Tim Russert was the face of Sunday morning television. Russert, who passed away Friday from a sudden heart attack, was an ever-present staple in the weekly routines of millions of Americans who made “Meet the Press” a part of their Sunday mornings. When 10:00 am rolled around every Sunday, and that familiar theme music began to play, audiences knew that they were in for an education on public affairs by way of one of the great television newsmen. Historically, Russert will go on to join David Brinkley and Charles Kuralt as one of the defining presences of Sunday morning talk. Brinkley, who anchored ABC’s “This Week” for fifteen years, and Kuralt, who hosted “CBS News Sunday Morning”, were men who brought their own unique styles and methods to the distinctively American past time of the Sunday morning talk show. Likewise did Mr. Russert.

Since 1991, Russert had been delivering tough, direct questions to his guests, be they Democrats or Republicans. In a day and age where so much is made of political bias within the media, Russert was a pillar of integrity who showed no favoritism towards one particular person or party over another. Russert has been remembered on numerous networks since his death for his journalistic reliability, his passion for politics, and for the extreme love and admiration he showed for his family and his friends. NBC no doubt is trying to tackle the insurmountable task of finding a replacement for “Meet the Press”. Russert’s friend and colleague Tom Brokaw would be a likely and appropriate candidate for the time being. His moderating duties on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” tribute to Russert was an act in dignity, respect, and admiration not only for Russert, but for “Meet the Press” as a television institution. But the fact is no one will ever capture the on-screen stature Tim Russert displayed.

His unexpected death has brought to viewers across the country one of the sad realizations that sometimes occurs with those we get so accustomed to seeing on television as part of our daily and weekly schedules: that we do not realize how great these actors, actresses, journalists, or news anchors are until they are no longer around to be there for us at that same time every week. Russert was one of these. One of the greats.

On April 10, SAG President Alan Rosenberg sent a memo to Guild members regarding the "priorities" of the talks that began today, Tuesday April 15. In it, he stated that the Wages & Working conditions meetings held throughout the country during the early months of this year had narrowed the Guild's focus for negotiations. The National Wages & Working Committee then met in March and endorsed the proposal package, which was then sent on and approved by the National Board of Directors. 

He then spoke of the growing problem of the "demise of middle class actors." According to Rosenberg, "Favored nations salaries for guest stars and featured actors are now the norm and most actors can't get the quotes (individual salary) that they could a year ago." He went on to say that it's a "take it or leave it" world today, and because of the current situation, many actors may be forced to leave it. 

Thus, his goal for the Guild's negotiations with the AMPTP is to negotiate fair payments for all of those pesky new media outlets that threw the wrench in the WGA-AMPTP negotiations last fall. If successful, this will guarantee more opportunities for middle class actors in the various media platforms. 

Click here for a more detailed breakdown of the Guild's negotiation priorities regarding new media. 

If you remember my earlier posts on this topic, you will recall that AFTRA and SAG split last month after AFTRA accused SAG of trying to convince the cast of "The Bold and the Beautiful" to leave the federation. In response, Rosenberg called the split a "calculated" and "cynical" excuse by the federation to bring and end to the partnership they had long wanted to sever.

On April 13, two days before the talks were to begin, SAG's Board of Directors resolved to extend an olive branch to AFTRA, saying, "...that AFTRA be given the opportunity to join Screen Actors Guild in Phase I joint negotiations, provided that notice of acceptance is received within 72 hours." According to Nikki Finke, this was approved by 81.37% of the Board and was communicated to AFTRA.

However, AFTRA responded with a letter to SAG that stated that the Guild would not rethink the decision that resulted in the severing of the longtime relationship between the two guilds. In the letter, AFTRA national executive director Kim Roberts Hedgpeth, claimed that it did not appear that any of the issues that led to the severance had been resolved, and that the response window of 72 hours was a "pragmatically impossible deadline." 

This morning, SAG (sans AFTRA) began negotiations with AMPTP. AFTRA will have two observers in the negotiating room, which is standard for unions bargaining with the same employers. For example, SAG sat in on the rocky negotiations between WGA and AMPTP and will also be present at the negotiations between AFTRA and AMPTP later this month. 

Like the Writers Guild, SAG brings to the table a large package of proposals regarding new media and that pesky DVD formula. The trouble here is that AFTRA, after abandoning SAG for Phase I late last month, scheduled their own talks with AMPTP to begin in just two weeks. This means that SAG has two weeks to try and make a deal before the smaller and more flexible AFTRA swoops in. 

What do you think will happen? Will the actors strike to avoid a bad deal, or will they take the best they can get in the next two weeks and get out of AFTRA's way? Looking at the three parties involved and the calendar of talk dates, it seems to me that SAG is S.O.L. The producers know that SAG is under pressure from the federation and will most likely use this to their advantage, but will also be trying to give up the minimum amount necessary to stave off another strike. Meanwhile, AFTRA, much smaller than SAG, will most likely be much more accommodating at the negotiating table and will probably end up with a better deal faster. 

SAG board member Esai Morales has been quoted as saying, "Unions are the only way to keep our dignity.... But we will not be forced into a position where we have to take less and less. We will not be the bad guy on this," he added, "Let it be on them to give us what we deserve."

Now that the writers' strike is over, it's only a matter of time before all of our favorite shows are back on the air with fresh material. Some, like "24" and "Heroes" are waiting until the start of a new season in order to maintain production values, while others like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Bones" are rushing to get new episodes out before the summer. And then there's "Scrubs."

According to the L.A. Times, "Scrubs" has been cancelled by NBC even though this was supposed to be the series' last season. However, ABC may pick up the sitcom to allow it a series finale on network television. There are only six episodes left for "Scrubs," but the writers were unable to finish before the strike began. Nonetheless, Ben Silverman, NBC Co-Chairman announced that the end of "Scrubs" on NBC would come sooner than initially thought. 

The last episode that will air on NBC will be a fairy-tale themed show based on "The Princess Bride." After that, it's unknown where the series will end up. The Times is reporting that ABC execs have recently been talking about adopting the comedy and renewing it for another full season. 

As much as I love "Scrubs," it has grown tired. Each season rehashes the same problems, and what used to be gentle absurdist comedy is now entirely off-the-wall and borderline obnoxious. Maybe the strike will breathe new life into the show, whether there are six more episodes or eighteen.

Just after an announcement of unity and support for contract proposals to be made to the major media congloms, film actors and television actors will split and negotiate separately with producers. The board of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists voted Saturday, deciding to cut the ties between the two guilds. This announcement comes only three months before the expiration of the SAG contract. 

Yahoo News is reporting that though the two guilds have worked together for almost 30 years, the meeting Saturday, meant to set a start date for negotiations, dissolved into arguing and accusation. 

The split is a result of, as Nikki Finke puts it, "a blown-way-out-of-proportion incident" between AFTRA, SAG, and the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful." Bloomberg reports that SAG was trying to convince actors on the soap to "decertify" AFTRA and make SAG the representative for the actors on the soap. Visit Finke's site for all of the communication from SAG, AFTRA, and the AMPTP concerning the recent split.

In the interest of avoiding a repeat of the 100-day writer's strike, A-list actors like Tom Hanks, George Clooney, and Robert De Niro are pushing for negotiations to start as early as this coming week. According to SAG President Alan Rosenberg, "AFTRA's refusal now to bargain together with us and their last-second abandonment of the joint process is calculated, cynical and may serve the interests of their institution, but not its members."

The Screen Actors Guild possesses 120,000 members representing actors in movies, TV, and other media. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists holds claim to 70,000 members, including actors, singers, announcers, and journalists. There are many dual members, so it will certainly be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

The AMPTP has announced, meanwhile, that they are "pleased to learn that AFTRA is also ready to being talks immediately." No such mention for SAG.

It has been one month since members of the WGA left the picket line and returned to work. But, with an approaching economic recession and a total upheaval of the process of greenlighting and purchasing spec scripts, the victorious are the few.

Though only a handful of shows have returned to the air since the writers went on strike in November and all production was shut down, TV ratings have yet to rebound. Variety posted this article last month, illustrating the plans of the major networks. 

Because this season was essentially cut in half, studios are limiting the pilot season to only a few newbies and are denying raises for staff that worked on less than a full season. Whereas production staff and writers would receive a pay bump at the start of a new season, studios are now claiming that episodes that air in the fall will count as part of this season. Thus, no bigger paychecks.

This is just one of the many ways studios are pinching their pennies. So much money was lost during the three-month strike that congloms are trimming development deals, streamlining staff, and being extremely choosey about pilots. Wired posted that the final cost of the WGA strike was $2.5 billion. This sum includes lost wages, losses to businesses that rely on the entertainment industry (caterers, limo drivers, and the like), and halted productions. The cancellation of the Golden Globes alone bore a $60 million price tag. 

The pilot season has always been an inefficient race; dozens of new shows competing for only a handful of spots. Now, studios are using the strike as an excuse to rework this process to a year-round pilot season that would see shows released as they were ready.

Variety reports that many in Hollywood are under extreme stress and fear that the day that the recession that is sweeping the United States lands in Hollywood is growing closer every day. 

The writers can't be blamed for the current atmosphere in the entertainment capital. Though some believe that the downsizing currently taking place is the studios trying to punish the writers for striking, the studios' actions are merely sound economic practices. True, the studios may have a bit more leverage now that the strike is over, but there doesn't seem to be any malice towards the writers. 

Variety quotes "Bones" creator Hart Hanson as saying, "Nobody's getting a big fat raise, at least not easily or automatically. I feel I have to justify expenditures even more than usual. I have to say, though, I don't get the sense of the companies 'taking revenge.' The strike hurt their bottom line, and they are trying, as corporations, to mitigate the financial hit they endured. There's not the feeeling of personal vengeance behind it."

In the past, studios would collect writers to accumulate a staff that would [hopefully] eventually come out with the next great sitcom. Now, those development pacts just don't make sense. Streaming video is the future, there will be fewer overall deals made, and the pilot season is on its way out. Why keep a room full of writers on payroll based on a hope?

Actors are also feeling the effects of the strike. Not only did they suffer massive pay cuts and lose lots of income during those three months, they will now spend the summer in production instead of on vacation. Even though this doesn't seem like a big deal (poor rich actors don't get a summer break), it will become a problem for those that, during the hiatus, agreed to work on feature films. There may be a reshuffling of film casts in the future. One studio exec claims that "I've had more requests from actors looking to be let out to do feature films that I can ever remember." My guess is one of those is "Grey's Anatomy" star Katharine Heigl, who has found her niche as the next rom-com favorite.

As for the feature film industry, numerous projects are in waiting to be greenlit. However, that avalanche of so-called great films that were supposed to hit screens after the strike are currently being held in case of a summer SAG strike. 

Entertainment Weekly has posted a calendar detailing return dates for 45 television shows. Will you be tuning in?

When the Writers Guild of America went on strike in November, production on all television shows came to a screeching halt. Because of the nature of  production schedules, viewers were able to cope with the impending future of darkened screens by saying goodbye slowly as networks rolled out all of the remaining content they had stockpiled. It wasn't really until the holiday season that viewers began to feel the impact of the strike. As difficult as it has been to find other things to do than plant oneself in front of the television for hours at a time, such as *gasp* talk to other humans or read a book, the strike may have been just the kick in the pants television needed.

Though established shows were merely put on hiatus, the future for the season's new shows was unclear. Without a locked-in audience, studios were reluctant to renew new shows like ABC's Pushing Daisies, NBC's Chuck and Life, and other newbies. The good news is that, since the end of the strike, these along with Dirty Sexy Money and Private Practice have been renewed for the fall. 

The downside for the studios is that the momentum of these new shows was lost with the strike and they will now have to spend much more in building the audience back up. Likewise, the strike put crew members out of work. With the shows not starting back until September, crew members have had to find other jobs and now won't return to the postponed productions. 

What to do, what to do? Variety informs us that studio heads are now thinking of relaunching the shows as new entities during the pilot season. Last fall saw horrible ratings, so execs might be willing to go for a do-over. 

The benefit for us, the viewers, is that the strike gave the writers and execs a chance to rethink the direction and story arc for all shows. I don't know about you guys, but the Meredith-Derek back-and-forthyness was quickly growing stale, the fight between House's potential staff got just plain annoying, and, Heroes, good God, Heroes. And that's really all I was watching at the time of the strike. TV was just that bad.

The Variety article talks mostly about the ABC show Pushing Daisies, which was suffering from longer post-production schedules than previously anticipated and overblown budgets. Heroes and 24 are also taking advantage of the chance to take some time off in order to rework complicated plots (and because it's nearly impossible to produce enough episodes to bring these shows back in time).

All I can say is, with all this time off, these shows better hit the ground running. 

The span of time between February and May is one in which winter retreats into remission, allowing spring to emerge bringing with it warm weather, pollen, and the Atlanta Braves. This annual event also presents a difficult challenge for me, for it concerns how to satisfy my need to experience worth-while cinema in the time of year in which new releases at the theater tend to provide little hope. As of now, the Oscars are over and the rush to watch the nominated films has come to an end.

The start of the summer movie season is still months away (and more importantly Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still lies on the horizon, patiently waiting to hopefully provide me with the same thrills I experienced watching the series as a ten year old ). And with the exception of George Clooney’s Leatherheads, which was due out last December but was pushed back to April, no film coming out into theaters in the coming weeks appears to be capable of holding my interest. The Other Boleyn Girl looks like it could be a beautiful-looking picture (with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson, of course, this is an obvious statement), but appears to be something that would be enjoyable sitting on my couch watching on DVD. 10,000 B.C. does not interest me, as I have no desire to fulfill some sort of urge to watch cavemen battle it out in a fictitious world which looks like a Ray Harryhausen film juiced up on CGI. I could cite other examples. Semi-Pro, I am certain, is funny, but I just cannot spend eight or nine bucks on Blades of Glory on a basketball court.

My sentiments, though, are the same at this time every year, for this is the time when Hollywood dumps its mediocrity on the movie-going populace. If Fall and Winter are for the award films and Summer is for the blockbusters, then Spring must be for the third string on the bench. That’s not to say that only bad movies come out now. I can think of previous years when this time has produced lasting, impressive works, like the Charlie Kaufman wonder Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the controversial The Passion of the Christ, and the powerful United 93. But for every gem, there have been twice as many clunkers. I can remember blowing my money and time on Dreamcatcher, Mission to Mars, and 300 (no! I didn’t like it). Those are times I cannot get back in my life and have caused me to become much more guarded at this point every year.

Accordingly, given the previous history, I have sought other ways to quench the need to experience solid storytelling during this time while I wait for the summer movie season. Currently, the best way for me to satisfy this desire lies not in the world of cinema, but in the vast empire of television. At this time of cinematic apathy, a whole world of exciting stories, masterful direction, and impressive acting has been discovered in the process of watching television shows on DVD. TV on DVD has become for me one of the most pleasurable experiences of visual storytelling. In the past weeks, I have witnessed some of the best acting and storylines I have seen in quite some time. And I would advise anyone who craves great stories to indulge themselves in these few shows.

The Western-era Deadwood has opened up a filthy world of disputed gold claims, foul-mouthed individuals (whose actions teeter between being heroically noble and unquestionably deceitful), and colorful, almost Shakespearian dialogue which falls on the viewer’s ears like a profane, melodic symphony. The three seasons of this extraordinary program have been an utter joy to experience. I have loved watching the diverse forces in Deadwood, from the charismatic but vile saloon owner Al Swearengen to the short-tempered Sheriff Bullock, eloquently disagree and fight with one another, only to emerge in an alliance against the gold-hungry George Hearst.

Likewise, the underappreciated Carnivale has shaken me to the core. After watching season one of this creepily weird show, I cannot wait to see what is going to happen in season two between Ben Hawkins and Brother Justin as they appear to march ever-closer to an impending Apocalypse. For something lighter, I have turned to the American incarnation of The Office. Steve Carrell can do no wrong in my eyes, as his Michael Scott is essentially an eleven year old boy who desperately wants everyone to be his friend, only to painfully fail at this task at nearly every turn. Thankfully, he does, and the results have provided me with chuckles on many repeat occasions. And who does not love to watch the adorable Jim and Pam move from awkward silences and tension to romantic involvement or watch Dwight as he simultaneously tries to suck up to Michael and seek to dominate his co-workers at Dunder Mifflin Scranton.

But I must thank this lackluster time of the year, and a good friend who had the insight to enlighten me to this series, because it has introduced me to the amazingly impressive HBO drama The Wire. This impressive show has dug its claws into me and drawn me into the seedy world of Baltimore’s drug trade. I am only on season one, but without question The Wire has presented me with some of the finest writing and acting I have had the recent privilege to watch, be it on the small screen or big screen. There is a gritty realism to David Simon’s cop serial that is ceaselessly engaging and often unbelievably shocking. The cops on the show are essentially honorable, though they do things which are not ethical. The criminals and drug dealers on the show do horrible things, but Simon does not allow them to merely be the “bad guys;" he provides them depth through instances of internal moral questioning, for example. Simon also provides a striking commentary on the state of race, class, and local and state governments in modern American cities. The Wire presents a situation that often occurs with me when I discover something in which I am enthralled and that is that I am so elated I have finally found something amazing, but am mad at myself because it has taken me this long to discover it. I hate that it has taken me so much time to find The Wire.

The point of this whole rambling venture into my world of television is to hopefully engage people in the idea of watching some worthwhile television during this lull in the cinematic world. Granted, one could go out and rent movies they have not yet seen or even could possibly embark on a trip to the movie theater to go see something forgettable, like Vantage Point. But I would argue this: stay home and pick up a television series and follow it through to the end and see what you think. Start Lost, a season of 24, or undertake the mighty Sopranos. One could argue that, of course, television can provide a more satisfying experience in terms of characters and storylines because they allow more time in which to develop each. And to that, I say, all the more reason to start watching.

This is not to say I have given up on movies all together right now. Quite the contrary, I’ll still watch films, but as far as new releases at the cinema go, I’ll be waiting for Dr. Jones and his quest for the crystal skull.

There was a time when Fox faced an impending viewer-ship crisis with the critically acclaimed, Arrested Development. The show was a hit with critics, but who was actually watching it? The answer came back from the loyal and meager fan-base in true AD fashion: “There are dozens of us! Literally, dozens!” Their plea was not enough to save the show, unfortunately.

There is good news for the faithful ‘dozens’, however, as talks of an Arrested Development movie become more and more frequent. In recent interviews with various press officials, AD cast members Jason Bateman (Michael), Michael Cera (George Michael), Jeffrey Tambor (George), and Alia Shawkat (Maeby) have all hinted at the possibility of a forthcoming movie. 

Beyond simple speculation, Bateman confessed that he had actively been trying to convince AD creator/writer Mitchell Hurwitz to jump-start the project during the writer’s strike. Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann and friend to Hurwitz offered further confirmation, stating that Hurwitz is “interested” in an AD movie and is awaiting a verdict from the powers that be. There is no reason to believe that any draft of a script exists, but AD fans definitely have reason to keep their stock in the Bluth Company.

On February 24th, the 80th Academy Awards, or the Oscars that almost weren't, went down as the least-watched ceremony since they've been on the air. Not all of the records broken Sunday night were bad, though.

For the first time since 1964, all four of the acting awards went to foreign actors. London-born Daniel Day-Lewis took home the award for Best Actor in There Will Be Blood, and French Marion Cotillard was awarded a little gold statuette for her leading role in Ma Vie En Rose. The supporting awards went to Spanish Javier Bardem for No Country For Old Men and British Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton.

Similarly, for the first time since 1961, the Academy Award for achievement in Directing went to not one but two directors. In 1961, Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins were awarded for their direction of West Side Story. This year saw the award go to siblings: Joel and Ethan Coen. For the Coen brothers, this award is not only a record-breaker, but a verification of their long career by Hollywood. The two have been constant outsiders, preferring to stay out of Hollywood and do things on their own terms. The Coens received their first taste of Oscar in 1996 for their screenplay for their breakout film Fargo. No Country For Old Men is not only their first film to be adapted from a novel, but the film also marks their biggest commercial success, having already brought in close to $100 million. No Country was nominated for eight Academy Awards and brought home four, making it the biggest sweep of the evening.

And now for the bad news. All these records broken and hardly anyone was watching. Ratings for Sunday's ceremony reveal that viewers numbered 14% less than the least-watched ceremony (2003 with 33 million viewers). Data also shows that very few women tuned in, whereas last year's ceremony, hosted by Ellen DeGeneres, was a ratings frenzy for the female demographic. Perhaps the low estrogen count was a result of most of the evening's top nominees being, as Jon Stewart put it, "psychopathic killer movies." Poor Jon Stewart, he has now hosted two out of the three lowest-rated Oscar ceremonies. Steve Martin hosted the third, 2003's ceremony, but he was competing with the start of the Iraq war. The biggest complaint against the post-strike ceremony was the prevalence of pre-recorded clips and montages. 

Better luck next year, Oscar. 

Considering the Academy only had 11 days to pull off the biggest ceremony of the year, this evening's celebration of film didn't look too shabby. Music cues were a little bit off, the floor behind the podium seemed to be pretty slippery, but Jon Stewart kept the audience laughing. The ceremony ended just before midnight Sunday.

The results are as follows:

Costume Design: Alexandra Byrne for Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Animated Feature: Brad Bird for Ratatouille

Makeup: Didier Lavergne, Jan Archibald for La Vie En Rose

Visual Effects: Michael L. Fink, Bill Westenhofer, Ben Morris, Trevor Wood for The Golden Compass

Art Direction: Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem for No Country For Old Men

Live Action Short Film: Philippe Pollet-Villard for Le Mozart Des Pickpockets

Animated Short Film: Suzie Templeton, Hugh Welchman for Peter & The Wolf

Supporting Actress: Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton

Screenplay (Adapted): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen for No Country For Old Men

Sound Editing: Karen M. Baker, Per Hallberg for The Bourne Ultimatum

Sound: Scott Millan, David Parker, Kirk Francis for The Bourne Ultimatum

Actress: Marion Cotillard for La Vie En Rose

Editing: Christopher Rouse for The Bourne Ultimatum

Foreign Language Film: Die Falscher (Austria)

Original Song: Glen Hansard, Markéta Irglová for "Falling Slowly" from Once

Cinematography: Robert Elswit for There Will Be Blood

Original Score: Dario Marianelli for Atonement

Short Documentary: Cynthia Wade, Vanessa Roth for Freeheld

Documentary: Alex Givney, Eva Orner for Taxi to the Dark Side

Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody for Juno

Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood

Director(s): Joel Coen and Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men

and, drumroll please....

Best Picture: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, Scott Rudin for No Country for Old Men

Surprises: Like I said in my predictions, I've never been particularly good at guessing which films the Academy will honor, and they certainly never fail to surprise me. Tonight, the biggest surprises were Tilda Swinton's winning of the supporting actress award, though she was clearly as shocked as the audience was, and Diablo Cody's taking the statuette for best original screenplay. I already stated my hopes for the supporting actress award (I was pulling for Amy Ryan), and as for original screenplay, I was hoping to see Lars and the Real Girl's scribe.

Highlights: 

Jon Stewart counting the number of pregnant stars and announcing a recount at the end of the ceremony since Jack Nicholson was in attendance,

Jon Stewart announcing that it was indeed Cate Blanchett who played the pit bull in No Country,

Tilda Swinton calling George Clooney out on the nippled batsuit,

Helen Mirren saying "cahones" while describing the characteristics of the roles nominated in the best actor category,

Daniel Day-Lewis kneeling to be knighted with his Oscar,

The Coen brothers speechless while accepting an award for adapted screenplay (couldn't they have adapted someone else's thank you speech?)

Markéta Irglová from Once getting a second chance to say thanks, 

Jon Stewart introducing Tom Hanks by saying he had no right to be at the Oscars since he wasn't nominated for anything this year,

Javier Bardem becoming the first Spanish actor to win an Oscar, dedicating it to Spain, and thanking the Coen brothers for the worst haircut in movie history

and

The ceremony ending before midnight (even with all of the little clip shows that were to be used for Plan B)!

This past year was clearly one of cinema's strongest in recent past, making each category a true fight. Stay tuned for more updates and opinions about last night's ceremony!

Ok, folks, so the Oscars are this Sunday and in light of this always monumental occasion of pomp and celebrity, I thought it only appropriate to offer a few predictions concerning the possible winners. Will there be any big surprises this year or will the winners be as predictable and uneventful as the plot of a Michael Bay movie?

Here’s how I think it may all go down:

Best Supporting Actor: There’s only one thing that could possibly stop Javier Bardem from receiving his much deserved statue for his role as the terrifying Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men and that’s Hal Holbrook. Oscar voters often award trophies for performer’s entire careers (think James Coburn’s win for Affliction) and they could do the same for Holbrook. But the safe bet is Bardem.

Best Supporting Actress: This probably is the toughest category to predict. My personal pick would be Cate Blanchett’s performance as one of the many incarnations of Bob Dylan in I’m Not There. She may win but given that she just won three years ago for The Aviator, Oscar voters may be hesitant to award her again so soon. It could be Tilda Swinton for her role in Michael Clayton, but there just does not seem to be much buzz for her performance. That leaves Ruby Dee and Amy Ryan. Ruby Dee, who just won a SAG award for American Gangster, most certainly could swoop in and win the award. She, like Holbrook, is a veteran thespian and the award would be more a victory for her career than for her role in Ridley Scott’s crime tale. But, she is only on screen for a very short length of time and voters may not think such a non-prominent role deserves an Oscar. So, I think its going to be Amy Ryan. She has already won numerous awards for her work in Gone Baby Gone and I think Oscar voters will jump to award her performance. At the same time, I would not count out Dee or Blanchett. Anything could really happen here.

Best Actress: Ellen Page is everyone’s favorite knocked up sixteen year old this year and her performance in the audience favorite Juno could earn her the Oscar. The movie is immensely popular and the extraordinary Page carries the entire movie, nearly appearing in every scene. But, she is only twenty years old and voters may think she is too young to win the prize. Julie Christie’s work in Away From Her will then most likely earn the award. A veteran of the screen (like Holbrook and Dee), Christie’s work has already earned her numerous awards and critical praise. The only thing is the movie has not been seen by a vast majority of the public. This fact could give Page the edge, but I think in the end voters will award Christie.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis. Period.

Best Director: This, along with the Best Picture category, presents to voters the challenge of deciding between the equally incredible No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood. Paul Thomas Anderson’s work in Blood is extraordinary and certainly the best of his career. Oscar voters have liked his previous work with Magnolia and Boogie Nights, nominating him for writing both films. Voters also like the Coen Brothers. With No Country, they have presented their strongest work since Fargo and possibly of their entire career. Those who now think they were robbed in 1997 by The English Patient may also find it necessary to finally award the talented brothers. Plus, they recently won the coveted Director’s Guild award. Look for the two of them to walk home with the Oscar on Sunday night.

Best Picture: Immediately remove Michael Clayton and Atonement from consideration. Both were great films but will not win the prize. That leaves There Will Be Blood, Juno, and No Country For Old Men. Blood has already been hailed by many critics as a new American masterpiece and deservedly so. It is epic in scale, features beautiful cinematography, and a masterful performance by Day-Lewis. It is also a divisive film, with some finding the character study too long, at times dragging, and void of a definitive resolution. This may lead voters to shy away from it (and could simultaneously put it on the path to joining that group of masterful American films such as Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, and Taxi Driver which are now hailed as masterpieces but failed to win Best Picture). That leaves Juno and No Country. Juno is the crowd favorite and is the only film in the bunch to gross over $100 million at the box office - a fact no one should discount. If you look at the past two winners, which were Crash and The Departed, they were both the highest grossing nominated film of each year. If this trend continues, things could be looking bright for Juno. The film, though very popular with audiences, has also turned others off. Some have deemed it too clever for its own good and find the character of Juno’s parlance to be annoying. This could hurt it. Given this, put your money on No Country For Old Men. It has been the darling of the critics this year, features three incredible performances, masterful direction by Joel and Ethan Coen, and has already cleaned up at previous award shows. The film seems to have all the momentum needed to win Best Picture.

This may be how it goes, but who knows? The Academy could surprise all of us on Sunday and through in unexpected victories like Crash’s triumph over Brokeback Mountain. Tune in Sunday to find out!

Isn't it great when you set out to do something and discover that someone else has already done it for you? In my investigation of return dates and plans for all of those mediocre TV shows we've been longing for, I found that Entertainment Weekly published a feature that lists, by series, the return date and plans for each show. 

Check it out here.

So we can't have big fancy awards shows, we may not have a strong pilot season in the fall, and summer movies may be more painful than they usually are because of the big, bad WGA strike. These are somewhat long-term effects and are therefore still up in the air. This week, however, we are forced to examine the possible future for the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815.

The new season of Lost is scheduled to start Thursday, January 31. This series is clearly very meticulously crafted, making the WGA strike a major player in the series' future. The conclusion was announced for 2010, but this might be pushed back due to recent stalls. 

Lost is an interesting case study for new media issues. It has managed to maintain a faithful following on the air, but also shows the power of TV on the Internet. The series stays at the top of iTunes sales charts, DVD sales, and cell phone add-ons. 

The show has been moved to Thursday nights, a typically challenging time slot. Because of the strike, however, it will be the only scripted show in its slot. 

Shortly before the strike, ABC announced plans for three 16-episode seasons (no repeats) with a conclusion in 2010. This seems an odd technique for a popular TV show, but really it's quite smart. For shows like Lost, the audience invests so much time that it is only natural to want to know when the story will end. ABC maintains that the end date will stay the same, but the strike may change how everything until then unfolds.

ABC's current situation mirrors that of FOX's concerning their hit show, 24. Shows like these are paced at a certain rate, and shuffling episodes around can severely alter the pace. 24 has been "postponed indefinitely," since, as a good friend of mine has repeatedly mused, "it's not called 11, now is it?"

When the strike began in November, only 8 episodes of Lost were done. ABC plans to start showing these episodes this week, but prolonged negotiations may create a long break between the eighth and ninth episode. Plan B, if the strike reaches an end in the next week or so, is to try and squeeze all 16 episodes in by the end of May sweeps. ABC may also decide to condense the 16 episodes into a shorter 11- or 12-episode season, which could send the pace of the story out of control. 

No matter when the show returns to the air, the ad campaign is in full strength. Season 3 ended with a flash-forward that showed some of the castaways back in the real world after having made it off of the island. So, for all of you who, like me, fell out of the loop somewhere early in season 3, now's the time to rent those DVDs and catch up before season 4 kicks off!