A Critical Retrospective On The Harry Potter Franchise

"The boy who lived" has become as iconic of a phrase as “may the force be with you,” or “I’ll be back,” over the past decade. What started off as a waitress jotting down notes on napkins during her break has become a worldwide phenomenon that has spawned books, movies, and even its own theme park. Make no mistake about it; the franchise is this generation’s Star Wars trilogy. While I know that some would consider such a statement to be sacrilege, I stand by it.

What makes Harry Potter a phenomenon that is on par with Star Wars is not the affect that it has had on just pop culture, but on world culture in general. The books have been translated into over 65 languages and have once again made reading a pastime for a generation of children and adults alike. The movies have grossed six billion dollars (soon to be seven). Muggle is in the dictionary. Potter merchandise sales are through the roof. There is, believe it or not, a national collegiate Quidditch league (which is as ridiculous as it sounds). Not to mention it has spawned a small theme park that you may have heard of which in a little over a year has attracted millions of visitors from around the world. Yep, Harry Potter is the legit successor the Star Wars trilogy as far as cultural impact goes.

Why am I saying all of this? Because the film franchise will wrap up this weekend with the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. This comes almost exactly four years following the conclusion of the book franchise. In many ways it is the end of an era and while the books and films will no doubt live on for future generations to enjoy (many, myself included, would argue that the Harry Potter series is the most influential set of novels since Lord of the Rings), the upcoming film release represents the last entry to the series until Rowling decides to write a new in-universe book (which she apparently has no plans to do). This film marks the end of Harry Potter in many ways.

To me, the final book marked the end of Harry Potter as unlike many fans, I never really enjoyed the movies. In fact, I am writing this article for a very specific reason….to rain on people’s parade! As fans celebrate the release of the final Harry Potter movie, I stand before you (so to speak) suggesting that there is nothing to celebrate. In my opinion, Warner Bros, through the Harry Potter film franchise took the biggest cultural phenomenon of thirty years, sucked out its soul like a feasting Dementor and spit out typical Hollywood garbage. I am writing this article to discuss what could have been and instead what was.

I’d argue that this franchise was always doomed for failure (not from a financial standpoint) and that is because the key problem with the Harry Potter franchise presented itself before the first film had even begun to shoot. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone began production nearly ten years before the final book was released. To paraphrase Ian Macolm, Warners stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as they could and before they even knew what they had, they patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox! In other words, rather than waiting for the book franchise to conclude to begin making a film franchise, they were so desperate to get a tent pole that they started popping out the movies with no regard for creating a coherent story told over seven films. That led to a very disjointed and uneven franchise, which I will discuss in a bit.

Other than that, the film franchise started out smoothly enough. The first two films by Chris Columbus went smoothly enough and truly did capture the heart and soul of the books. Following Cuaron’s work on the third film which was considerably darker, fans seemed to turn on the first two movies. I disagree with their assessment of them being the weakest of the franchise. While they may not be as dark or the plots and characters as complex, the first two books are arguably the weakest source material. It was not until Prison of Azkaban that Rowling found her voice as a writer and took the franchise from good to great. What Columbus did do however, that makes the first and second films the best of the franchise is immerse the viewers in the world. While later directors seemed to shy away from more fantastical elements of the novels, Columbus embraced them and created an on-screen fantasy wonderland.

This was gone by the third film. While main praise Cuaron for his dark tone, I oppose it. It felt almost as if the art house darling was embarrassed to be making a Harry Potter film. This can best be seen in the film’s climax where the explanation of the marauders, animagi, and even Pettigrew’s staged death are overlooked and rushed through at break-neck speed. Mind you, I understand that cuts must be made when adapting source material, but to leave out crucial plot points that are incredibly important in the future films of the franchise (while spending five minutes on a talking shrunken head or kids making animal noises) is entirely shortsighted. And that goes back to the flaw in Warners’ plan. They sat back and allowed Cuaron to make his film without any consideration as to how it plays into the seven part story being told.

This short sightedness and lack of consistency continues to be seen in the Goblet of Fire, where Mike Newell ignores the return of Dobby (who is one of the most impotant characters of the franchise), explains nothing in regards to priori incantatem (which as it turned out was the driving force behind series villain Voldemort’s actions throughout the final book), leaves out crucial subplots, and pays no mind to characterization at  all. Take all knowing, kindly, Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore, for example. Throughout the film he is portrayed as a confused old man who will routinely take his frustrations out on his students through physical violence. This is a complete contradiction to the portrayal of Dumbledore throughout the franchise.

In perhaps his most egregious error, Newell cut the interrogation and hospital wings chapters from the end of the book. This is a crucial error as in these chapters several plot points are explained which have ramifications throughout the rest of the franchise. One could argue that it includes the definitive scene of the entire franchise (which I will not elaborate on for those reading this that have neither read the books nor seen DH Part 2 yet). But these chapters and scenes are not only necessary for the sake of the greater franchise but the film itself!

Can any casual viewer really claim that they knew what the hell was going on at the end or what the fuck the deal with Barty Crouch Jr. was? At this point the films do not even make sense within the context of themselves much less a larger franchise to the casual viewer.It all comes back to the lack of foresight and consistency that Warners showed when producing these movies. They jumped from screen writer to screen writer and director to director with no regard for creating a coherent and consistent franchise.

But wait! In the fifth film, director David Yates was hired and he stayed on for the rest of the franchise! Is that a glimmer of hope that I see? It would be if not for the fact that Yates is perhaps the one man in Hollywood who has even less of an understanding of the characters and story than Mike Newell. With the fifth movie, Yates follows Cuaron and Newell’s pattern of making his film while ignoring the franchise. In doing so he ignores the character Kreacher, brushes off the death of Sirius Black as if nothing had happened, and explains the prophecy…the driving force behind the entire film, nay, franchise in two sentences.
Furthermore his characterization is terrible. Yates is never able to successfully convey to the audience the sense of Harry’s fear over Voldemort’s return (even after he is attacked in his home town, which is supposedly safe).

Professor Dolores Umbridge, who Stephen King described as the greatest fictional villain since Hannibal Lecter is reduced from being an evil monster to a kind of strict teacher who doesn’t let kids play music or make out in the hallways of a school (HOW DARE SHE). Dumbledore is reduced from a powerful political figure who is able to continue his fight against Voldemort while thwarting the Ministry of Magic’s attempts to undermine him at every turn, into a defeated old man who takes his frustration out on the children in his care. My point is that Yates showed with this film that he just doesn’t get it.

So how does Warners respond to a film being made that completely contradicts the tone and story of its source material? They sign the director to finish out the franchise! And Yates, true to form, responds to the responsibility of finishing the franchise by ignoring the most important aspects of the novel (exploration of Voldemort’s past and Harry and Dumbledore’s relationship) and instead makes what he describes in his own words as a “Teenage romantic comedy.” Yates just doesn’t get it.

By the time that Dumbledore dies, the viewer doesn’t even care. Harry has had one or two private lessons with him and for the past three films he has kind of been a jerk-ass. I (alongside millions of other Potter fans) was reduced to tears by Dumbledore’s death in the book. In the movie, I didn’t much care. And why should I? Harry didn’t seem to. None of the characters did. The one person that Voldemort feared died, the wizarding world had essentially lost the war to the tyrannical Lord Voldemort….and no one gave a fuck. Why should the viewer? Yates continued to show that HE JUST DOESN’T GET IT!

But wait! He’s directing Deathly Hallows! He had to at least introduce some of those forgotten characters or plot points that are really important in Deathly Hallows but that he and Newell ignored, right? Nope. So when we get to Deathly Hallows the viewer still doesn’t know why the hell Voldemort’s wand doesn’t work against Harry, what the prophecy that causes Voldemort to hunt Harry means, or even what the fuck a Horcrux (which the characters are on a journey to destroy in Deathly Hallows) is. But weren’t the Horcruxes kind of the main plot point of Half-Blood Prince? Not according to David Yates! I guess when you’re so busy trying to make a ‘teenage romantic comedy,’ these little details are lost in translation.

These problems finally come to fruition in Deathly Hallows. The plot begins with Bill’s wedding….wait….who is Bill? And why is he marrying the French girl who barely spoke in the fourth movie? They’re going off on a journey to destroy Horcruxes…what are Horcruxes? Harry is sending Kreacher off on a mission….wait…who is Kreacher again? Dobby died!....That little elf who was in the second movie and hadn’t been seen since? Where the fuck did he come from? Why is Harry crying? Why does it matter? Answer: It doesn’t. The filmmakers and studio were so short sighted in rushing these films through production with no regard to the future of the franchise that we are ultimately left with a disjointed franchise that lacks any sense of continuity.

I know a lot of this feels like fanboy bitching, but it really isn’t. When it comes down to it, these important characters, plot points and even small details (like Harry and Dudley making amends) being left out represent the heart and soul of Harry Potter. They are what made Harry Potter so different from lesser fantasy novels released each year. J.K. Rowling built a world whose fate the reader was invested in, she built characters that the reader bonded with. She built such an intricate and detailed plot in which seemingly minor events had major repercussions. I cried when Dumbledore died, a fully grown man was moved to tears by the death of a literary character. I felt genuine hatred towards Dolores Umbridge. I cheered when Fred and George fled Hogwarts in defiance to her. I’ve never had any of these emotions when watching the movies. These “little things,” that I am bitching about were the soul of Harry Potter. They are what made his world truly magical.

The film makers did not capture this. They made a hollow shell of this world. That is the true tragedy of these movies. What could have been the greatest film franchise of all time is passable. What should have been a magical world is a hollow, empty shell that excluded the very things that made the books special. What a wasted opportunity.

I know that this is not a popular opinion among the fandom. They love the films as do critics. Though I think that history will validate what I have said. Right now, Potter is hot. We have had our noses rubbed in its greatness for fifteen years. Everyone loves it. It can do no wrong. I think once some space is given, people will start to see the flaws throughout each film more clearly. If you asked a Star Wars fan what the best prequel was the day after Phantom Menace’s release, they would’ve replied readily with Episode I. Time gives perspective and I do not think that these films will be looked fondly upon retrospectively.

As for me, while everyone else gears up to see these films, I am left wishing for what could have been. Being the cynic that I am, I just cannot help but see that the greatest literary tale since Lord of the Rings was a disjointed dud in film form. Like many Potter-Heads I will be first in line on opening night to see DH2. I will probably leave disappointed as I have from every Harry Potter movie since Chamber of Secrets.

My thoughts will be drifting to what could have been if only there were a director who truly understood and loved the source material and set out to make great Harry Potter films, like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings. It wasn’t Cuaron, it wasn’t Newell, and it certainly wasn’t Yates. Thanks to Warners’ greed and need to rush these films through production, we do not know what could have been if Harry Potter received its very own Peter Jackson. None-the-less, Warners’ greed may be a blessing in disguise as it will likely lead to these films being remade in about ten years (hell, if Spider-Man is being rebooted, why not Potter?). They’ve already fucked it up once. Maybe to set the remake apart they will get a director who actually cares and can make these films what they should’ve been all along….magical.

Damn It! 24 Cancelled!

A bit behind on this one, but I've been licking my wounds over it, so forgive my tardiness.

Our good friends over at TV By The Numbers broke the news earlier this week that the eigth longest day of Jack Bauer's life will be his last. On TV anyhow. They report:

"In a joint decision made by 24’s star and executive producer Kiefer Sutherland, executive producer and showrunner Howard Gordon, Twentieth Century Fox Television, Imagine Entertainment and Fox Broadcasting Company, it was determined that the acclaimed series will end its remarkable eight-season run. Jack Bauer’s last day on FOX will conclude when the final two hours of “Day Eight” air Monday, May 24 (8:00-10:00 PM ET/PT). As the countdown to the series’ climactic conclusion races on, the final 11 hours will air uninterrupted Mondays (9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX."

Keifer Sutherland, the man that Jack Bauer plays (that's right) also weighed in this week:

 “This has been the role of a lifetime, and I will never be able to fully express my appreciation to everyone who made it possible. While the end of the series is bittersweet, we always wanted 24 to finish on a high note, so the decision to make the eighth season our last was one we all agreed upon. This feels like the culmination of all our efforts from the writers to the actors to our fantastic crew and everyone at Fox. Looking ahead to the future, Howard Gordon and I are excited about the opportunity to create the feature film version of 24. But when all is said and done, it is the loyal worldwide fan base that made it possible for me to have the experience of playing the role of Jack Bauer, and for that I am eternally grateful.”

On a personal level, I am devestated to see 24 go off the air. This show has been one of my favorites for the past nine years. In my eyes, it is easily the show that defined the decade and made serials such as Lost, Prison Break, and Heroes possible. This show changed television, make no mistake about it. However, with persisitent rumors over the past three years that Jack Bauer will take his rightful place on the big screen when the series ends, I am holding out hope that we have not seen the last of Jack.

Editorial: In Defense of Krasinski

Note: This is an opinion piece and does not reflect the opinions of TMT, its staff, its editors, or anyone but the author, Matthew Fry.

As recently reported on this site and several others, a list of seven scheduled auditions for the coveted role of Captain America has recently become available to the public. The most shocking name on this list, is star of NBC’s The Office, John Krasinski. Like many, when I first heard this news, I was skeptical. I thought, “how the hell can Jim Halpert play Steve Rogers?” However, the more I thought it through, the more it made sense to me. In fact, I don’t think I’ve been this excited about hearing a candidate for a role since news broke that Downey was being considered for Iron Man. Therefore, when the inevitable fan boy bitching that accompanies any casting rumor began, I felt obliged to defend Mr. Krasinski from this ravenous lot.

The first and most common complaint that is accompanying this news is that Mr. Krasinski does not look the part. Firstly, I have always been of the school of thought that acting ability trumps looks. Its why years ago I supported Jude Law when rumors were abound that he was to be cast as the Man of Steel in Wolfgang Peterson’s long defunct World’s Finest adaptation. Its why I supported Leo DiCaprio when rumors were floating around that he would play the first Avenger. Acting ability will always, in my eyes, trump how good the candidates fill out their tights and spandex.

Second, I’d like to contend that Krasinski does have the look to play the role. While he may not be a perfect clone of Cap, Krasinski does possess several of the aesthetic qualities people associate with the role. He has a chiseled, well defined chin and jaw line. He has a wide frame that can easily be toned to match Cap’s body type with a month in the gym. But his face is what really sells me. Krasinski has the perfect face of an all American boy. I like that he has a more average face as opposed to one that looks more in place in a boy band than on a battle field. He may not hold the look of an Olympian god, as the more rabid fans demand, to say that he has no physical qualities which encompass the role is flat out wrong. This can best be proven by Kent, a poster over at the Superhero Hype forums who put this picture together. If an SHH poster can do it so well, imagine what a little bit of Hollywood makeup and hair dye would do.

Most fan boys have been throwing out names of glorified male models who have held roles on crappy CW shows or NBC melodramas and now call themselves actors (Scott Porter, Michael Cassidy, I’m looking in your direction). However, while they may look the part I strongly question whether they have the talent to carry such a role, to make the audience connect to the character and truly bring him to life. 

And that, in my opinion leads us to Krasinski’s true edge over the other six names in contention. His talent as an actor. It is far too easy to write Krasinski off as a sitcom actor. But before we do that, lets look at the sitcom on which Krasinski stars.

The Office is not According to Jim or Two and a Half Men. The Office is a show that actually builds and develops its characters from week to week in order to make them emotionally engaging to its audience. It is what set it apart from the more mediocre sitcoms. After all, every truly great sitcom has emotionally connected to its audience on some level. Shows like Seinfeld and Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia fulfill the more sinister needs every person has, the repressed desire to embrace our darker side and be a total ass hole. All in the Family emphasized loving someone despite their flaws, be it a mean, racist old man or a dirty hippie. Sam’s constant pursuit of his ill-fated romance with Diane makes us all reflect upon on our lost loves and relate to Sam.

The Office is no exception. It builds an emotional connection to its audience. And at the heart of that, is not the zanier, funnier characters such as Steve Carell or Ranin Wilson. It is none other than Krasinski. He is the emotional core of The Office. Had Krasinski not been able to connect to the audience and truly make them feel his unrequited love for Pam and empathize with him, the show would’ve failed. His role was the most crucial one of the show. And he knocked it out of the park. He built a character who audiences could relate to and root for. This is shown by the ratings of the episode where Jim finally married Pam (nearly 10 million viewers), he succeeded in making the audience invested in the fate of this character by giving Jim something most sitcom characters lack, depth. That alone shows his true charisma and talent as an actor. Now, if Krasinski can make such an engaging and connecting character on a sitcom, I see no reason he would have any trouble with Captain America.

But if you still have doubts, look at the rest of his resume. Krasinski drew critical praise for his role in Leatherheads. In this film he played a straight laced, charismatic, war hero. Sound familiar? Granted, the movie is a comedy that lacks much depth, but it certainly shows that Krasinski is capable of playing such a role. Furthermore, it shows something far more important, something the likes of Porter and Cassidy have yet to prove. Krasinski can maintain his own presence while on screen with A-list talent. In Leatherheads, Krasinski co-starred with George Clooney and held his own. It is crucial that the actor who play Cap be able to stand out while surrounded by talent such as Robert Downey Jr., Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, and Ed Norton. If Krasinski is able to stand out while going toe to toe with Clooney, one of the best actors in Hollywood today, I have no doubt that he can deliver in The Avengers. I have seen nothing from Porter or Cassidy or any of the other names mentioned that implies that they can do the same.

However, both The Office and Leatherheads are examples of comedies, I acknowledge that. If only there were a movie in which Krasinski showed real depth and talent. Maybe something directed by an Academy Award winning director such as…I dunno, Sam Mendes? Perhaps something with a serious script that really let Krasinski thrive as an actor. Wait a tick! There is! Away We Go, is a small, character driven, drama of 2009 which allowed Krasinski to really stretch his legs as an actor and prove that he can show real depth in a more down to earth, serious film. If you have any questions about Krasinski’s abilities as an actor you need look no further than this film.

So, Krasinski, solid actor and despite fan boy objections a man who has the look for the role? So what exactly is the problem people have with this possible choice? I think in the end, fan boys being the fickle bunch they are, simply feel threatened by a non-traditional choice being on the short list for the role. However, consider if you will, that Michael Keaton looked nothing like Bruce Wayne and was widely known for his comedic work prior to Burton casting him as Batman. Hugh Jackman was singing and dancing Aussie on Broadway, furthest thing from a tough, short, Canadian, when cast as Wolverine. Jackie Earle Haley was a washed up child star from the Bad News Bears doing bit parts and indies before landing Rorschach. And of course, the idol of fan boys, Heath Ledger was best known as a teen heart throb and gay cowboy when he was announced as Joker. Sometimes, the best people for roles, are the out of left field choices who really have something to prove. I truly believe the same will be said about Krasinski if he lands the role, and I hope he does, so he can show us all just what he can do.

(photo by MTV)

Is Zac Efron Our New Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man?

That's the latest rumor flying around anyhow. Brendon Connelly over at Slashfilm is reporting on a UK tabloid, OK, that has apparently broken the news that the next Wall Crawler is none other than High School Musical heart throb, Zac Efron. 

For the moment this should be taken with even less than a grain of salt. The OK article is reporting that Vanessa Hudgens may come along to play Mary Jane and that Efron's paycheck will be one eighth of the film's entire budget. Odds are this is the first of many ridiculous rumors that are bound to be circulating over what is now the most coveted role in Hollywood.

Still, you know the old saying, "every lie contains some truth,"?  Could OK have gotten this one right and if so how do you feel about it? Sound off in the feedback section and let us know what you think.

Start Spreadin' the News: Gremlins 3D?

Odds are if you get my stupid joke in the title you are going to be as excited for this one as I am. The folks over at MarketSaw who recently broke the story that Ghostbusters 3 will be released in 3D are now reporting that a "top source," tells them either a Gremlins remake or sequel is in the works and will be filmed in stereoscopic 3D. Don't get too excited just yet though. They caution their readers that it is "in the early stages with lots of hurldes to pass." You can read the full article HERE.

So long as we get puppet as opposed to CGI Gremlins, I can't wait. If there's one thing this crazy post-9/11 world needs it is the cuteness of Gizmo. Leave your comments and let us know what you think about Gremlins 3D and we will keep you updated on any developments.

Editorial: I'm With Coco

Note: This is an opinion piece and does not reflect the opinions of TMT, its staff, its editors, or anyone but the author, Matthew Fry.

I want to start by saying this article is a story of success and triumph, not failure. Keep that in mind as you read it.

I’ve been watching Conan O’Brien for longer than I can remember. I grew up with Conan. Conan got me through college. Conan pretty much made my sense of humor into what it is today. In light of his final episode of The Tonight Show I wanted to ring in with my thoughts on the situation.

First, just to get it out of the way, fuck you Jay Leno. But more on that later.

 Now, let us review the history of "scandal," from an entirely biased perspective. In 1991 rumblings began of Johnny Carson’s plans to leave The Tonight Show. These rumors were believed to have been started by Helen Kushnick, Jay Leno's manager as a way to force Carson out. After Carson announced his retirement, Kushnick used her influence at NBC to bypass Johnny’s choice for his successor, heir apparent David Letterman in favor of occasional Tonight Show guest host, Jay Leno. Big Chin would host The Tonight Show for 17 years. Throughout this tenure, despite rising to ratings king in late night television, Big Chin would face consistent criticism for doing so by dumbing down his material to appeal to the elderly and the idiots. Also, he stole bits from Letterman and Howard Stern.

 During this time two very important things would happen. First, in 1993 an obscure SNL writer, Conan O’Brien, would become David Letterman’s successor on Late Night. This young host would go on to develop cult success, especially among younger viewers. He was also met with high critical praise, even winning an Emmy Award

Second, the producer of The Today Show, Jeff Zucker, was named president of NBC entertainment. Despite some early success (primarily in crappy reality shows), Zucker quickly drove NBC from first place to fourth. He has since been described by an anonymous television executive to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd as “a case study in the most destructive media executive ever to exist.”

Now about five years ago, Zucker went to Leno and said, “Listen, Conan’s the future, how do you feel about retiring in five years and giving Conan The Tonight Show?” Big Chin agreed. I repeat: Big Chin Jay Leno agreed to retire and hand the reigns over to Conan.

Enter 2008. With less than a year left, Big Chin starts to get cold feet about retiring. Instead of doing the graceful, dignified thing, riding off into the sunset, king of late night as Johnny did before him, he starts to shopping around other networks for offers and use that as leverage against NBC. Zucker who is now knee deep in shit due to his failing prime time, now sees a threat to NBC’s late night dominance. Realizing there is no way Conan can compete against two late night legends; he offers Leno a five day a week prime time variety show. If only Zucker knew that within a year, this would be regarded as the dumbest move in the history of television.

Come 2009, Conan premieres strong, but falls in the ratings. It’s understandable. It took Leno three years to establish his base and become first in late night TV and Conan is competing against a legend who is in the midst of scandal (translation: ratings gold). NBC had said many times prior to this that they do not expect Conan to beat Letterman right away. But then The Jay Leno Show lands in prime time in September. Leno serves as a horrible lead in, further hurting The Tonight Show’s ratings. Furthermore, the affiliates start to get pissed because Big Chin does not bring in the ratings at all. His variety show is regarded as one of the great bombs in television history. And Zucker, instead of correcting his mistake and buying out Jay Leno's contract, instead proposes NBC move The Jay Leno Show to 11:35, the time slot held by The Tonight Show for over 30 years, which will then be bumped back to 12:05, making it in essence The Next Day Show. There is a collective groan in Hollywood. Conan refuses the move, rightfully claiming it would do far more to hurt The Tonight Show than him stepping down, which he promises to do before the show is moved. The rest is, as they say, history. Practically every observer has spent weeks tearing NBC and Leno apart for their roles in this. Conan is bought out for 45 million dollars (a lot of which is reportedly going to his staff who uprooted their lives to move to LA). His final show aired last night. And everyone is left wondering, what the fuck went wrong?

  NBC has tried to pawn the blame off on Conan and his poor ratings through Zucker’s newly appointed attack dog Dick Ebersol, head of NBC Sports whose accomplishments include masterminding the failed XFL, losing the broadcast rights to most major sports, and losing 200 million dollars on the 2010 Winter Olympics (before the event has even occurred). But frankly, it is unfair to blame Conan. His poor ratings were at first a reflection of a new host being up against a comedy legend who was in the middle of a very public scandal. Later in the game, Conan had a very poor lead in. While Letterman was being led in by CSI, The Mentalist, and NCIS, some of the highest rated shows in television, Conan had Big Chin’s variety show which was hemorrhaging viewers. Finally, time was a factor. As mentioned earlier, it took Big Chin 3 years to beat Letterman. Conan had seven months. Considering these factors it is very unfair to blame Conan.

 It is easy to blame Zucker and NBC. However, their errors were more errors of stupidity and sheer desperation than anything else. Zucker took the most successful network in television history and crashed it into the ground. He then got out and pissed on the wreckage. Their sports programming has been obliterated, prime time ratings are non-existent, all that NBC had left was their late night programming which had been a milestone of the network for 50 years. To allow Conan to compete against Jay Leno AND David Letterman would’ve been suicide for The Tonight Show. When Big Chin started making threats, Zucker had no choice but to put Leno in prime time. That said, they are correctly summed up as the incompetent morons that Conan described them as (in song no less) Tuesday night.  Zucker had the chance to rectify his mistake. Following the bomb of The Jay Leno Show, neither Fox nor ABC would touch Leno. He would finally be forced into a dignified retirement had Zucker just forked over the cash to buy him out and paid for his mistake. He didn’t. Now NBC is stuck with an aging comedian for the host of The Tonight Show who has no heir, but more on that in a bit.  The point is instead of fixing their mistakes, these morons just made it worse by trying to have their cake and eat it too. So yes, some blame lies with NBC.

However, I’d say the true villain here is none other than Big Chin. This is a man with a reputation of walking over anyone to get what he wants. As mentioned, in 2008 he got cold feet about retiring but knew it was too late. So, Leno, who is now trying to play the victim, resolved to take The Tonight Show down with him. First, the man who prides himself on his easy negotiations and hand shake deals leveraged other offers over NBC’s head to force the disastrous prime time venture. Then once this story started making it big and The Jay Leno Show’s cancellation was imminent, he lobbied NBC both through the press and in person to reinstall him as head of The Tonight Show. For a man who claims to have no agent, he is certainly as Machiavellian as one. All this is from a man who claims to be Conan’s friend. Monday night he tried to give “his side of the story,” in which he portrayed himself as a victim of NBC’s bad decisions. He failed to mention, that he was cutting backroom deals with them throughout their decision making process. A bit hypocritical, wouldn’t you agree? Leno is not the aloof victim he is trying to portray himself as, quite the contrary. He, much like he was in 1991, is a conniving backstabber. It is as Letterman said on Tuesday, you do not announce your retirement, pass the torch on to your successor, and then say to the network brass, “But I’ll be in the lobby if you need me.” It is a classless, selfish act. Much like Jay Leno is a classless, selfish man.

 So what does the future hold? Leno came out of his stampede over Letterman unscratched. One can only hope that in the age of information and 24 hour news networks that this public affair has destroyed his credibility and hurt his ratings. Some how I doubt it. He will return to The Tonight Show on top and probably stay there for awhile. But he is certainly getting no younger. Eventually he will retire for good (probably in 3 to 7 years), and with Jimmy Fallon being young and inexperienced, there is no longer an heir to the greatest franchise in television history. I am reminded of the story of King Solomon. Conan loved The Tonight Show enough to leave it before seeing it moved to midnight. Leno on the other hand continued to stomp his feet and demand he be put back in, consequences be damned. Sadly, Jeff Zucker was not nearly as wise as Solomon and he gave in to Leno. Sadly, he has probably ensured that The Tonight Show dies with Jay Leno in doing so.

As for Conan, I think the future is bright. He now has the chance to create his own show and carve his own legacy at Fox, much like Letterman did at CBS. And make no mistake about it; it is only a matter of time before he signs with Fox. In his farewell speech last night, Conan begged his younger viewers not to be cynical. He said, “If you work hard, and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.” Well, Conan is one of the hardest workers in the industry and he is renowned for his kind spirit, so I have no doubt that Coco is onto bigger and better things, and that is the true story here.  The success story I mentioned earlier. Conan will rise out of this and he will fight another day. The sky is the limit right now, for Conan O’Brien. So, like Conan’s going away montage last night, I will not conclude this article, instead, it is simply to be continued.

Chuck Versus Ratings

Matthew Fry here with an update on this week's two night Chuck premiere. But first I'd like to comment on my out of this world title, Chuck Versus Ratings, I bet no one's ever used that before.

According to our friends over at TVbytheNumbers (whose articles on the two night event can be found here and here) Chuck came out of the gate strong pulling in approximately 7.4 million viewers on Sunday night and 7.3 million on Monday. While these numbers are not great by any stretch of the word, they are just about the best that NBC could hope for. After all, these are Chuck's best ratings since his much hyped 3-D episode following the Super Bowl.

So what does this mean for Chuck's future? So far it is too early to say. But if the ratings hold out (or even fall to Heroes-esque numbers) there is a decent chance Chuck will be renewed for a fourth season. While the numbers are weak by network standards, Leno-Gate will open up five free hours of prime time for NBC. Its a given that NBC will not devote all five of those hours to new programming so it is a safe bet to assume that shows that would normally be cancelled or on the edge such as Chuck, Mercy, and Heroes will return. At any rate TMT will keep you updated on all Chuck developments throughout the season as we wait to see if the little-spy-that-could will survive to see season 4.     

Spider-Man Reboot in 2012...Seriously

In a shocking development Sony announced on Monday that Sam Raimi is no longer attached to direct Spider-Man 4 and instead they will be rebooting the franchise in 2012. The reboot will feature a new cast and crew and will focus on Spider-Man in high school, according to this statement released by Sony Entertainment co-chairman Amy Pascal:

"A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three 'Spider-Man' films that set a new bar for the genre. When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. We're very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning."

TMT will be sure to keep you posted on any developments regarding Spider-Man 2012, but knowing studio logic, here comes the Shia-Man in 2012!