Even geeks go out on Friday nights. And now, Nielsen is recognizing that.
I’ve been waiting eagerly for months for the premiere of Joss Whedon’s new show, “Dollhouse.” But my excitement was tempered when Fox banished it to 8:00 p.m. Central on Friday nights — universally known as the “Friday night death slot” where no show on Fox, save “The X-Files,” has ever thrived, almost all being cancelled within a single season. (And even “The X-Files” was moved to Sunday for the final six years of its run.) So I’ve been very conflicted the last few weeks; I love the show as much as I expected to, but as I’ve previously mentioned, Fox has a long history of disappointing me.
But there is a ray of hope. As reported today, both “Dollhouse” and its lead-in, “Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles,” have benefited greatly from the Nielsen Live+7 ratings. This system, begun in January 2006, has allowed the Nielsen system to finally catch up with DVR technology. Rather than simply reporting how many viewers watch television shows as they air live, the Live+7 ratings also report data on how many people watch a show on their digital video recorders within a week of the episode’s original air date.
The Live+7 ratings may make a huge difference in ensuring that “Dollhouse” has a future. Ratings for the pilot episode were originally considered mediocre-to-disappointing, with middling ratings despite airing against reruns. However, the Live+7 ratings showed that the viewership was actually a full 30% higher when DVR viewings were included. In fact, among shows watched on DVR, “Dollhouse” ranked 28th out of all network shows for the week. Add to that the fact that the “Dollhouse” pilot ranked #1 on iTunes and #10 in online pirating for the week, and it’s clear that the old ratings systems alone are no longer getting the job done.
This is great news for those of us who have been underrepresented in Nielsen ratings for years — those of us who lead lives that are too busy to allow us to watch television programs as they air. It’s been a long time coming, but television ratings have finally caught up to the fact that the average American household no longer spends most nights settling in early in front of the television together after a family dinner cooked at home.
And it’s great news for fans of quality television, because the Live+7 ratings may just be the best hope for extending the lives of shows that would otherwise be cancelled before their time.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Playing With My Food: Crawfish Pie
I have a confession to make. I cheat in the kitchen.
My friends would argue with this. They’d tell you how I inherited a slightly-less-severe case of my mother’s Martha Stewart Complex. They would explain how I always insist upon making things from scratch that normal people just buy — coleslaw, potato salad, salsa. That I can’t just use the instant stuff to make banana pudding — I have to make homemade custard. They can tell stories of my constant criticism of things I’ve made, how I should have added more salt to this or cooked that longer. They know that I often make homemade cake (or tiramisu) for birthdays. They would tell you how I am nine different kinds of crazy due to my refusal to use canned frosting. (Buttercream is easy! I swear! And it tastes better! But I digress....)
And they’d be right about all that. But sadly, also, I cheat. And I don’t just mean buying cheese that comes already shredded or using cake mixes. Okay, so I’m not saying I’m a Sandra Lee Semi-Homemade wannabe. I mean, seriously — if that lady put half the time and effort into her food that she puts into her overdone “tablescapes”.... but I do take the easy way out sometimes. And up until recently, one thing I totally faked was crawfish pie.
Not only did I use pre-made pie crusts from the dairy case (I can totally make pie crust, I just don’t normally have the time), I even used a filling mix. Mam Papaul’s. All I did was make the sauce mix according to the box, stir in the crawfish, toss it in a pie crust that came from a factory, and throw it in the oven. Honestly, I felt a little dirty. At the very least, I didn’t feel remotely like I had really cooked anything. I might as well have thrown a frozen pot pie in the oven (Yes, I do that, too. Although I’ve also done it from scratch.)
But last week, I decided that was all over. No, not because I felt so bad about cheating. It was because I realized Schnuck’s had stopped carrying the mix. So I took the next logical step, and went to the internet looking for a recipe. I checked all the usual suspects — All Recipes, RecipeZaar, Cooks.com, even FoodNetwork.com — but couldn’t find a recipe I liked. They all had something that didn’t sound right; canned tomatoes here, cream of mushroom soup there.
And I realized it was time. I had to cowboy up and figure this out for myself. I decided my modified faux-étouffée recipe (I don’t take time to start with roux. Yes, I’m ashamed. Please don’t judge me.) was a good start, and went from there. I think it turned out pretty well, and I’m pretty sure EAToo didn’t have any complaints, because it disappeared pretty fast. You’ll notice that I don’t start with the trinity — I don’t like green peppers or celery. Feel free to swap out if you wish.
Oh, and I went ahead and used the pre-made pie crust anyway. And I didn’t feel the least bit ashamed of skipping the hand-made pastry. Much. Go ahead and do it the old-fashioned way if you get the urge — I’m sure I’ll eventually get all obsessive-compulsive and do it myself, anyway.
Crawfish Pie
EA’s Crawfish Pie
8 oz. (1 stick) butter
1 red bell pepper
1 small onion
2-3 cloves garlic
12 oz. crawfish meat with fat
1 tsp. salt
1 tsp. pepper
1 tsp. hot sauce
3 tbsp. flour
½ c. heavy cream
3 eggs
2 pre-prepared pie crusts
Preheat oven to 350°. Finely dice bell pepper and onion. Melt butter in a large skillet over medium heat. Saute pepper and onion in butter for 5 minutes, stirring frequently. Add garlic and continue to cook, stirring, for 5 more minutes. Vegetables should be soft, but not caramelized.
Stir in crawfish meat, salt, pepper, and hot sauce, and cook for another minute or so, until the temperature in the pan comes back up. Sprinkle flour over top, distributing evenly, and mix well, continuing to cook and stir for another minute. Add cream, mixing well. Remove from heat and allow to cool for 5-10 minutes.
Place one pie crust in the bottom of an ungreased pie pan. Prick bottom and sides with fork. In a separate bowl, lightly beat eggs. Stir eggs into the cooled crawfish mixture, combining well. Pour crawfish mixture into pie shell. Top with second pie crust; seal edges well and cut slits or prick top with fork to allow steam to come out.
Cover edges of pie crust with crumpled strips of foil (unless you have these, which I want desperately) to prevent burning, and bake for approximately 45-50 minutes, until crust is golden brown. Allow pie to cool for a few minutes before cutting. Makes 4-6 servings.
Ingredient notes:
My friends would argue with this. They’d tell you how I inherited a slightly-less-severe case of my mother’s Martha Stewart Complex. They would explain how I always insist upon making things from scratch that normal people just buy — coleslaw, potato salad, salsa. That I can’t just use the instant stuff to make banana pudding — I have to make homemade custard. They can tell stories of my constant criticism of things I’ve made, how I should have added more salt to this or cooked that longer. They know that I often make homemade cake (or tiramisu) for birthdays. They would tell you how I am nine different kinds of crazy due to my refusal to use canned frosting. (Buttercream is easy! I swear! And it tastes better! But I digress....)
And they’d be right about all that. But sadly, also, I cheat. And I don’t just mean buying cheese that comes already shredded or using cake mixes. Okay, so I’m not saying I’m a Sandra Lee Semi-Homemade wannabe. I mean, seriously — if that lady put half the time and effort into her food that she puts into her overdone “tablescapes”.... but I do take the easy way out sometimes. And up until recently, one thing I totally faked was crawfish pie.
Not only did I use pre-made pie crusts from the dairy case (I can totally make pie crust, I just don’t normally have the time), I even used a filling mix. Mam Papaul’s. All I did was make the sauce mix according to the box, stir in the crawfish, toss it in a pie crust that came from a factory, and throw it in the oven. Honestly, I felt a little dirty. At the very least, I didn’t feel remotely like I had really cooked anything. I might as well have thrown a frozen pot pie in the oven (Yes, I do that, too. Although I’ve also done it from scratch.)
But last week, I decided that was all over. No, not because I felt so bad about cheating. It was because I realized Schnuck’s had stopped carrying the mix. So I took the next logical step, and went to the internet looking for a recipe. I checked all the usual suspects — All Recipes, RecipeZaar, Cooks.com, even FoodNetwork.com — but couldn’t find a recipe I liked. They all had something that didn’t sound right; canned tomatoes here, cream of mushroom soup there.
And I realized it was time. I had to cowboy up and figure this out for myself. I decided my modified faux-étouffée recipe (I don’t take time to start with roux. Yes, I’m ashamed. Please don’t judge me.) was a good start, and went from there. I think it turned out pretty well, and I’m pretty sure EAToo didn’t have any complaints, because it disappeared pretty fast. You’ll notice that I don’t start with the trinity — I don’t like green peppers or celery. Feel free to swap out if you wish.
Oh, and I went ahead and used the pre-made pie crust anyway. And I didn’t feel the least bit ashamed of skipping the hand-made pastry. Much. Go ahead and do it the old-fashioned way if you get the urge — I’m sure I’ll eventually get all obsessive-compulsive and do it myself, anyway.
EA’s Crawfish Pie
8 oz. (1 stick) butter
1 red bell pepper
1 small onion
2-3 cloves garlic
12 oz. crawfish meat with fat
1 tsp. salt
1 tsp. pepper
1 tsp. hot sauce
3 tbsp. flour
½ c. heavy cream
3 eggs
2 pre-prepared pie crusts
Preheat oven to 350°. Finely dice bell pepper and onion. Melt butter in a large skillet over medium heat. Saute pepper and onion in butter for 5 minutes, stirring frequently. Add garlic and continue to cook, stirring, for 5 more minutes. Vegetables should be soft, but not caramelized.
Stir in crawfish meat, salt, pepper, and hot sauce, and cook for another minute or so, until the temperature in the pan comes back up. Sprinkle flour over top, distributing evenly, and mix well, continuing to cook and stir for another minute. Add cream, mixing well. Remove from heat and allow to cool for 5-10 minutes.
Place one pie crust in the bottom of an ungreased pie pan. Prick bottom and sides with fork. In a separate bowl, lightly beat eggs. Stir eggs into the cooled crawfish mixture, combining well. Pour crawfish mixture into pie shell. Top with second pie crust; seal edges well and cut slits or prick top with fork to allow steam to come out.
Cover edges of pie crust with crumpled strips of foil (unless you have these, which I want desperately) to prevent burning, and bake for approximately 45-50 minutes, until crust is golden brown. Allow pie to cool for a few minutes before cutting. Makes 4-6 servings.
Ingredient notes:
- I like red bell pepper in this, partially because I like them and partially because it looks pretty. If you prefer green pepper, or orange, or yellow, feel free to substitute. If you want to get all traditional and use the trinity, go ahead. I just don’t see the point in celery.
- The frozen crawfish I have found lately comes in 12 oz. packages. Up until very recently, it came in 16 oz. packages. If you can find the 16 oz., or find it fresh, great. But just know that a few months ago they were charging you the same price for 33% more meat.
- As far as hot sauce goes, use whatever you have handy. I suppose Tabasco would be the norm, but I tend to use Sriracha, because that’s what I keep around. Feel free to substitute your favorite, and use more if you like that sort of thing.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Upcoming Movie Remakes Beg the Question — Why?
I’ve heard it put different ways. According to the Barenaked Ladies, “It’s all been done before.” Just recently, “Battlestar Galactica” reminded us that “This has all happened before and it will all happen again.” And of course, Christopher Booker (or William Foster-Harris or Stephen King or any number of other authors) told us how there are only seven (or six or 36 or 69, or insert-your-own-figure) basic literary plots.
But I ask you — does this excuse Hollywood’s abandoning all pretense of originality and falling back on the crutch of constantly “remaking” movies and television shows? Particularly those that the moviegoing public is noticeably not clamoring for?
That is not to say that remakes always fall short. But for every Chicago or The Dark Knight or The Blues Brothers, we’re “treated” to innumerable cheap copies of movies or television shows like Bewitched or A Night at the Roxbury or Blues Brothers 2000. And when surfing the ‘net this weekend, I was horrified at some of the “rebootings” that are scheduled to be inflicted upon us in the near future:
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not against remakes on principle. In fact, I think they work really well. On television. For example, with “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” Joss Whedon had a unique “do-over” opportunity, getting a second chance to show just how complex and layered his dramatic vision was compared to the campy movie that the studio once “fixed” for him. “Smallville” consistently manages to both work within and rise above the Superman mythos, giving viewers access to Clark Kent’s origin story that would not be possible in a theatrical release. SciFi’s “Battlestar Galactica” took the basic structure of what amounted to a ‘70s throwaway kids’ show and truly did “re-imagine” it, giving rise to a well-written, well-acted drama that is both wonderful television and startlingly relevant social commentary.
But these remakes worked for a reason. The nature of television provides more time for expanded storytelling. There is an opportunity to expand upon the characters and the world they inhabit, which is entirely different than a rote re-telling of a story we’ve already seen. (This is why I’m looking forward to the day the BBC creates an unabridged miniseries that does real justice to the Harry Potter books. I believe it’s inevitable.)
No, there’s nothing wrong with examining existing stories and checking to see if there’s any life left in them, any new directions to explore. But the studios underestimate their audiences — and their own continuing profitability — when they assume that moviegoers are simpletons who will cling to the familiar and spend increasingly limited entertainment dollars to see the same stories told over and over again.
But I ask you — does this excuse Hollywood’s abandoning all pretense of originality and falling back on the crutch of constantly “remaking” movies and television shows? Particularly those that the moviegoing public is noticeably not clamoring for?
That is not to say that remakes always fall short. But for every Chicago or The Dark Knight or The Blues Brothers, we’re “treated” to innumerable cheap copies of movies or television shows like Bewitched or A Night at the Roxbury or Blues Brothers 2000. And when surfing the ‘net this weekend, I was horrified at some of the “rebootings” that are scheduled to be inflicted upon us in the near future:
- Arthur — Warner Bros. has deemed it necessary to remake 1981’s Oscar-nominated film about a loveable, funny alcoholic. Setting aside the question of whether there is much nostalgia value in remaking a picture that a lot of moviegoers aren’t old enough to remember (or whether alcoholism can still be considered funny and charming), it turns out they’ve cast goofy Russell Brand of Forgetting Sarah Marshall as the title character. And let’s face it, when it comes to acting, Russell Brand is no Dudley Moore. I’m not even convinced he’s a Mandy Moore.
- CHiPs — Starring Wilmer Valderrama, making the interesting career leap from Fez to Ponch. Admittedly, I watched “CHiPs” when it first came on. On the other hand, I was six years old when it premiered. I’m sure the car chases will be great eye candy, but how do you develop a storyline based a television show that had no storyline?
- They Live — What? You don’t remember professional wrestler “Rowdy” Roddy Piper’s 1988 acting debut? I do. But only because it was so bad that it scarred me mentally and emotionally and became the yardstick by which I have measured bad movies for over 20 years. The first time around, I truly regretted not just leaving the theatre and asking for my money back. Or just plain leaving the theatre. A remake might just qualify as a crime against humanity.
- Top Gun — This one’s mainly still in the rumor stage, but ideas floated have included Tom Cruise helming the project and casting himself as a now-flight-instructor-Maverick to Katie Holmes’ cocky young pilot. Do I really need to explain why this is wrong? Didn’t think so.
- The Rocky Horror Picture Show — Oh, wait. Never mind. I’m actually willing to give that one a chance. Especially if I get to do the Time Warp and throw toast at the movie screen again.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not against remakes on principle. In fact, I think they work really well. On television. For example, with “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” Joss Whedon had a unique “do-over” opportunity, getting a second chance to show just how complex and layered his dramatic vision was compared to the campy movie that the studio once “fixed” for him. “Smallville” consistently manages to both work within and rise above the Superman mythos, giving viewers access to Clark Kent’s origin story that would not be possible in a theatrical release. SciFi’s “Battlestar Galactica” took the basic structure of what amounted to a ‘70s throwaway kids’ show and truly did “re-imagine” it, giving rise to a well-written, well-acted drama that is both wonderful television and startlingly relevant social commentary.
But these remakes worked for a reason. The nature of television provides more time for expanded storytelling. There is an opportunity to expand upon the characters and the world they inhabit, which is entirely different than a rote re-telling of a story we’ve already seen. (This is why I’m looking forward to the day the BBC creates an unabridged miniseries that does real justice to the Harry Potter books. I believe it’s inevitable.)
No, there’s nothing wrong with examining existing stories and checking to see if there’s any life left in them, any new directions to explore. But the studios underestimate their audiences — and their own continuing profitability — when they assume that moviegoers are simpletons who will cling to the familiar and spend increasingly limited entertainment dollars to see the same stories told over and over again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
