Thursday, August 12, 2010

Judges? No - American Idol Must Focus on Contestants

For the last two weeks or so, entertainment websites have been buzzing about the judges table on American Idol. We knew all along Simon would be gone. Then suddenly, Ellen gracefully bows out after her lackluster season. And nobody knows what's up with Kara DioGuardi - she's in TV limbo somewhere. So all of the attention is going toward the replacements.

Celebrity names have come and gone through various sources. Harry Connick Jr., Shania Twain, and Jessica Simpson are all out of the picture. Elton John, a potentially awesome choice, reportedly wanted too much money. Steven Tyler is spewing his own rumors though nothing has been confirmed. The one possibility that almost seemed certain was Jennifer Lopez, but her diva demands seem to be getting in the way of anything final.

This is all well and good. Keeps Idol in the news. And Nigel Lythgoe is smart enough to know whoever the judges are, they must have great chemistry. It's the crucial element to any good series, whether scripted or "reality." But Idol is in dire need of some fixin'. Okay, dire may be a stretch. After all, it still roped in millions of viewers during primetime on a network; a rarity, indeed. But I'm going to be honest with you. I did not watch this last season of American Idol. And that's kind of a big deal.

I've been an avid fan since the end of season 2. I watched it all - auditions, Hollywood week, semi-final rounds, the big 10... all the way up to the grand finale. I remember when Carrie Underwood won over Bo Bice, when Fantasia dropped to the floor (by the way, I feel very sorry for Fantasia, I really do), David Cook's genius takes on the Beatles and Mariah Carey, and, well, everything Adam Lambert did. I could not, however, tell you any of the contestants names this year, not even the guy who won (it was a guy, right?). I did watch some of the auditions and most of Hollywood week, but completely lost interest after that. And sure, apart of me missed Paula but it was more than that. It was the contestants. I couldn't care less about them.

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is but I'm willing to take a guess. This will be Idol's tenth season. The kids who are auditioning now were only 5 or 6 when the show started. They literally grew up with it and within the whole "reality/competition" television trend. Anyone who is serious about getting on the show can do their homework. They know how to play the game - what gets camera time, what gets Ryan Seacrest's attention, what pitchy means. It's now all an act. Which, to be fair, is what a lot of reality TV really is: an act. BUT - let's remember Carrie Underwood or Kelly Clarkson or even Allison Iraheta. They were genuine. They struggled. They made honest mistakes and tried to fix them - all while staying true to themselves (for the most part).


While it may be darn near impossible to find contestants who don't know the game, it might be wise for Idol to put its efforts into finding interesting, real contestants. That way, no matter who the judges are, the audience will care enough to form their own opinions and fight about them in the "comments" section of recaps. Isn't that what competition shows are all about?

(Photo Credit: FOX)

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Toy Story 3: Not Just a Child's Play Thing

Since 1995, I've seen every Pixar film in theaters with only one exception: A Bug's Life. I waited for the VHS on that one. So excluding one, that's ten films. Starting with Monsters Inc., I've seen every film more than once in theaters. That's because I was finally at age where I didn't need a parent to drive me to the movie theater. Let's see...

Monsters Inc. - 3 times
Finding Nemo - 3 times
The Incredibles - 2 times
Cars - 3 times
Ratatouille - 2 times
Wall-E - at least 5 times
Up - 2 times
Toy Story 3 - once

Okay, now keep in mind there are a lot of different factors as to why I saw some more than others. Clearly, Wall-E was just my favorite. I wish that film was in theaters permanently. But I've only seen Toy Story 3 once. And it's not for a lack of loving the movie. I loved it. Genius. Not for a lack of money or time, either. It's because ... it hurts.

Most Pixar movies have major emotional moments. Whenever Andrew Stanton writes and/or directs, you know death isn't far behind. And why not? It's part of what makes these movies more than kids fare. Up hits me very hard - I sob through the entire opening and then again at the end of the second act. I still saw that one twice.

But I cannot seem to bring myself to watch Toy Story 3 again, no matter how good it is. The mere thought of watching those toys, the ones my friends and I spent recess mimicking in the 5th grade, hold hands as they accept their fate... it breaks my heart.

My love of Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang helped me define myself. Toy Story 2 came out in 1999. I was a freshman in high school. My two best friends and I planned to see the movie opening night. While at our friend's house, we were playing on her computer. Suddenly a boy we liked IMed her. He asked what we were doing that night. The three of us looked at each other. Do we lie? Say "hanging out at the mall duh. u?"  Or maybe there was a more teen-appropriate movie we could say we're seeing. No. Collectively we agreed to tell him the truth, and let his judgements fall where they may. Anyone who's been a 14-year-old knows how difficult it is to risk sounding uncool. We had every opportunity to change our story. But we didn't. The boy made fun of us, of course. But the moral of the story? We stayed true to who we were. It wasn't easy. But it was the beginning of a long lesson in staying true to yourself.

So how could I watch Andy struggle with his decision? I wanted to yell at the screen "Take them to college! Who cares?" Andy's final decision was brave and selfless. Admirable traits. Great ending. Doesn't matter. It's a coming of age story that hits too close to home. I live through it. Why must I watch Woody and Buzz go through it, too?

I am hoping to see Toy Story 3 one more time before it goes out of theaters. But it's taken me six weeks. And I'm still not fully recovered. I just hope that little girl loves those toys as much as I do.

(Image Credit: Pixar)

Friday, July 30, 2010

I Love Shark Week


Sunday, August 1st, 2010, it will begin. Discovery Channel's annual ode to the fish with many teeth: Shark Week. For one week, the network will load it's schedule with new and old programming devoted entirely to sharks - documentaries, educational shows, real-life accounts. I believe Craig Ferguson will even make an appearance somehow.

I don't remember when I started watching Shark Week. Feels like forever. But I'm looking forward to it again this year. Not necessarily because I love sharks. I like them. Jaws is one of my all-time favorite movies. They're fascinating, simply prehistoric. And Air Jaws is just plain awesome.

No, my love of Shark Week can be traced back to my mother. My mom is by no means a violent person. She's not crude or loud. She's really all class with a dash of goofiness. Her soul belongs to the sea. Yet despite all the violence and sea mammals bitten in half, on Sunday morning my mom will be sitting in her chair, in her pajamas with a cup of coffee, watching the Discovery Channel. Her eyes will be wide and her voice will have the same timbre of Christmas morning.

"It's Shark Week," she'll say.

And together we will watch lemon sharks, bull sharks, and tiger sharks. We will see great whites leap into the air in slow motion on our HD TV. It will be amazing. But it will only be as great as my mom's excitement. This is her week. So thank you, Discovery Channel, for giving us this annual tradition.

Happy Shark Week.

(Photo Credit: Discovery Channel)

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

"The Office" Must Go On (So Says NBC)


Today, NBC confirmed Steve Carell's exit from "The Office" at the end of next season. The actor himself said so awhile ago, but the network has been in denial. NBC also confirmed that the show will continue on without Carell's Michael Scott. Sigh.

It wasn't too long ago where I was borderline obsessed with "The Office." When you live 15 minutes away from Scranton, it tends to feel personal. Thursdays were my favorite day of the week again. That second and third season, I practically drooled over every episode. In 2007, my boyfriend and I sat on the bedroom floor and rolled coins so we could afford VIP tickets to "The Office" Convention in Scranton. It was thrilling. I was super defensive of any critics of the show. I stuck with them through Jim's move, the Connecticut branch closing and moving in with Scranton, Pam's stint in art school... the whole thing.

But now... I'm almost ashamed. I still have not seen the last few episodes of this season. After Jim and Pam's wedding, which was a great episode, I almost no longer cared. Everyone in the show is great, but I was fully invested in their relationship. After they were officially married, it's like everything I watched for had been realized. That wasn't a conscious decision. But I can't think of any other reason.

Maybe the show should end. This will be it's seventh season. That's a great life span for a sitcom. There's nothing worse than watching a once great show putter to a weak end. (Friends, Seinfeld... NBC, hello?)

But it's too late. The show is going on without Michael Scott. No disrespect to the ensemble cast. They're awesome. But it will be a very different show without Michael.

There was a very important balance of heart and stupidity, ego and emotion. This was a lesson they had to relearn on "Parks and Recreation" with Leslie Knope. She only started to work when she reacted with heart. Otherwise, the stupidity and ego feel too harsh or too dull. It works in England with Ricky Gervias. It doesn't work in America were sitcoms run for years and years.

Who can replace Carell? Dwight Schrute? Holly Flax? Somebody new? Whoever it is, they must be different and interesting enough to highlight the ensemble. I wish the best for Dunder Mifflin.

(Photo Credit: NBC)

Monday, July 26, 2010

Who Will Die on True Blood?


It's been circling for awhile now - Joe Manganiello, werewolf Alcide and series director Scott Winant have both confirmed there will be deaths this season on HBO's True Blood. Well, duh. This is a vampire soap on a pay cable network. There better be deaths. But we don't really know who.

Sure, we know who probably won't. Manganiello, for example, who recently signed on as a regular for True Blood's fourth season. According to the telling article on E!, it's not so much the amount of deaths, but the chosen characters that are shocking. So it's somebody important. Then who? Most of our favorites are simply required to stick around - Sookie, Bill, Eric, Sam, Jason... These guys are pretty safe. But thanks to the influx of new characters this season, we have a wide variety to choose from. Here are my thoughts on who it could be and why or why not.

1. The King
Why: Eric is hellbent on revenge for King Russell's wolves killing his family. Understandable.
Why Not: If Russell is murdered, there must be a steep penalty for the offender. And I'm not sure if Russell is really a "shocking" death.

2. Talbot
Why: He's in a stalled relationship that's lasted 700 years. He's tired of coming in second to the King's work. And supposedly, the King will be devestated by something...
Why Not: Talbot's had some of the series best lines this year. But again, not really the huge loss we've been teased with.

3. Lorena
Why: Because it's time. Lorena has wrecked havoc over Bill's life for long enough. Also, Lorena does meet an untimely end in Charlaine Harris's books (but we all know that doesn't always mean something for the series, thank you Lafayette). Since it appears Lorena will send Sookie to the ICU, it's just a matter of time. But how? Eric, perhaps?
Why Not: Lorena does provide a great enemy to pretty much everybody. Not sure another character could pull that off.

4. Tommy
Why: Might be easy if he's dog fighting or if Joe Lee loses it. It might give Sam's character major grief and guilt to deal with. And losing either Joe Lee or Melinda Mickens wouldn't be a huge loss. Tommy would be, sort of.
Why Not: Tommy's character while working at Merlotte's has been refreshing. He's great with Jessica and Lafayette. Not sure if he'd stick around til next season, but he's providing some fresh blood at the bar.

5. Franklin
Why: He's crazy. Tara will do just about anything to escape him. He's not dead yet, despite the mace-bashing. Unless he actually turns Tara, she's going to get away. Then what will he do? Besides, Franklin's become more popular once it was revealed just how insane he is. Losing him would hurt a little.
Why Not: He's too much fun. A great wild card in a world of somewhat predictable supes.

6. Pam
Why: This would upset me greatly. But it's very possible. Pam's life is in the hands of an angry Magister and Eric's been forced to take his time working with Russell. And this is a character worthy of the "shocking" death we've been promised. A heartbroken Eric may turn to Sookie for some comfort.
Why Not: Because Pam is awesome. There's a severe lack of female vamps and Pam's provided baby vampire Jessica with a role model of sorts. Did I mention Pam is awesome?

7. Tara
Why: Franklin's determined. It might be interesting if Tara is actually turned. It's a great tease - somebody dies and it's big. They could kill Tara without losing her.
Why Not: If Tara is successfully vamped, there will be one less human character on the show. Not sure we can afford the loss.

There are a number of other characters who probably will disappear one way or another (Coot, Deb, the Queen), but none of those would be a major issue. I guess we'll find out soon enough. We're already halfway through the season. Place your bets, folks.

(Photo Credit: HBO, Inc.)

Thursday, July 8, 2010

2010 Emmy Nominations - Thoughts


The 2010 Emmy Nominations came out today and for once, there are some fresh faces in the categories. My quick thoughts:

Most excited about Chris Colfer and Mike O'Malley. Playing Kurt and Kurt's dad on Glee, they are my favorite characters. I mean, I do not like Wicked, but I'll listen to Kurt's version of Defying Gravity any day of the week. And I just have a soft spot for O'Malley. Not to belittle his performance. He plays the tough-guy, single dad of a gay kid really, really well. But Mike and I go way back, back to the days of d-d-d-do ya have it? Have you watched GUTS recently? It used to be on Nickelodeon's digital cable channel GAS, which is no longer in existance. But O'Malley's extreme energy is certainly worth some kind of award. Agro Crag, baby.

Also excited about True Blood sneaking into the Outstanding Drama Series category. The second season had some brilliant episodes. On a side note, it also got a Best Make-Up w/ Prosthetics nomination for the episode "Scratches."

And I am most certaintly thrilled about the multiple nominations for The Tonight Show with.... Conan O'Brien. That's right, folks. The jilted host makes a strong Emmy nominee while his replacement didn't even get a mention. Whether Conan will win or not is a tough call. He's in the same category as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, both of whom have had really creative seasons. But who knows? Maybe the voters want to stick it to the networks and vote for the guy they kicked out.

My usual darling, The Office, had an off-year. However, it still snagged a nomination for show and for Steve Carell. Steve has yet to win and I don't think this is his year. He'll have to wait for next year, which if it will be his last, will let the voters give him the "last chance, why the hell not" win. The episode "Niagra" got a writing nod, which I think is fitting. I really enoyed that episode. Thought it was true to the characters, funny, and heartfelt. Awww.

Great to see all the Modern Family nominees. Hope they get some wins.

Did anybody see the Nonfiction series nominations? This is where you'll find The Deadliest Catch and Life. Also, America: The Story of Us. I'm sorry. I did not like that series. I watched it up until the last episode. It focused on strange facts and skimmed over imporant events... not a fan of the Michael Bay-ish visuals and commentary by random celebrities. I hope the Deadliest Catch wins every award it's nominated for.

I'm not commenting on Reality or Competition Series. Not worth it.

Emmy snubs? Hard for me to say. At the very least, Alexander Skarsgard deserved a nomination. Nelsan Ellis would have been nice, too. Maybe some more Community attention - Joel McHale, perhaps, and even Chevy Chase.

Emmy noms gone wrong? Look, I love Tony Shalhoub. Loved him in Wings, in Men in Black, and in Monk. But he wins every damn time. It's almost not fair at this point. Supporting Actress in a Comedy - Kristen Wiig... WHY??? I don't get why people think this woman is funny. She's not. She plays every character the same. Ana Gasteyer could show her thing or two.

That's about it. For the first time since I don't know when, I'm very excited to watch the Emmys (on Auguest 29th, NBC - oh, even sweeter if Conan wins). The great nominees will keep me entertainted since Jimmy Fallon probably won't.

PS - Betty White must win. The writing for that epsidoe of SNL should not, but Queen Betty must win. Do you hear me, people? Must win.

(Image Credit: NBC)

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Michael Jackson Rewind: A Gen Y Poing of View

As the one year anniversary of Michael Jackson's death approaches, God knows the Internet and 24-hour cable news stations will fill the void with reminders (which admittedly will be a welcome break from covering the evil empire of BP). They'll play his videos, footage from his incomplete concert, images of the doctor who most likely killed him.

And we will all remember - after all, this is one of those "remember when" moments. Celebrities leave us all the time, but so few hit so hard that we actually stop what we're doing in order to absorb the information.

My story? I was walking in downtown Wilkes-Barre, PA with my boyfriend. We were in the middle of an on-campus residency for our Master's program, and we were hungry. We just crossed the busy street on our way to Subway when a friend and fellow classmate stopped us in our tracks.

"Did you guys hear? Michael Jackson died."

A moment.

"Wait, what?"

I knew who Michael Jackson was. And I knew what "died" meant. But it was one of those times where putting those two words together did not make an understandable sentence. Our friend pointed to the Subway we were headed toward. We ran in and joined the crowd, staring up at the television. It was true. Michael Jackson had died.

I ran back to our dorm which did not have a TV, and desperately tried to connect to the shaky Internet. I couldn't get onto facebook or Twitter (later, of course, it was revealed that when the news broke, when Jackson died, he took most of the Internet with him). I found some streaming video on a news website. My brother, much like myself, not so much an M.J. fan as a celebrity news fan, sent me a text I missed earlier in the day: "Michael Jackson!?"

So I remember.

But my understanding of who Michael Jackson was that day versus the man I know today are two very, very different people.

I was born in 1985 therefore belonging to Generation Y. We are really two totally different generations in one. My half, the earlier half, is individualistic, content with social diversity and sharing power. The later half, still growing, is self-focused, self-empowered, and easily affected by their own social status. Believe it or not, this is all relevant because it impacts how I understood the legend of Michael Jackson.

Before I entered preschool, Jackson already had his hit albums, epic videos, and monster business. His hair was set on fire, and he was responsible for creating a huge star-studded single. Moonwalking was a verb accepted into the lexicon - and I knew what it meant, learning it with other verbs like "sing" and "jump."

But at that age, I couldn't visually describe the guy. It wasn't until the nineties that I could put a face to that name... and what a face it was --

White, chalk white complexion. Jet black, straight hair. Red lips. Lined eyes. This was the Michael Jackson I knew from tabloid images I saw while waiting in the grocery check-out lines with my mom. That guy was Michael Jackson.

As I got older and more engrossed into the era's pop culture, I learned about Jackson from sitcom jokes and stand-up comics. He had a falsetto voice. He spent a lot of money on weird things. He was in some kind of legal trouble involving children.

Understanding Jackson as I did, I didn't think of him as a bad or evil man. He was a weird guy with equally weird behavior who people loved to talk about. I"m sure there was a time when I asked my poor parents why Michael is white now when his siblings were black, when he was referred to as black. I don't remember an answer.

Ultimately, it was weird. My knowledge and understanding of Michael Jackson was not defined by his talent. It's as though everything he achieved, every quirk and dance move was already ingrained into pop culture. I absorbed it without experiencing it. When a comedian or cartoon character wore a sequined glove, it wasn't a reference; it was a trend.

By the time Jackson dangled his third child off a balcony in Germany in front of a street-full of cameras, I had a solid grasp of who this guy was: crazy, confused, entertaining. And throughout the rest of his life, he would occasionally supply the news/entertainment world with antics - his trial, for example. Or when he announced his comeback tour in London. I vaguely remember seeing those headlines and and not thinking too much of them. Little did I know that 2 years later I'd be paying 8 bucks to sit in a movie theater just for the chance to watch his rehearsal footage.

On June 25, 2009, Michael Jackson died. Reports flew that he was ill, the concert rehearsals were draining him, he completely lost his singing voice, blah, blah, blah. But when the news outlets released the footage, even from that split second clip, it was obvious none of those rumors were true. Jackson was fine. Thin, but fine.

And while the media usually eats up a celebrity death, not since Princess Diana did the news world come to a screeching halt. There were clip shows, re-airings of tribute shows, video marathons, old interviews... suddenly Michael Jackson fandom was at an all-time high. And I was right there with them, watching it all.

Surrounded by everything Michael Jackson, I could only piece together what I was shown. I wanted to dig deeper. I bought a book hoping to discover more about the man I knew very little about. The book was a bad choice: Poorly written and researched. Move back 2 spaces.

I studied interviews and determined the Martin Bashir interview from 2002 was the most telling. Bashir is a respectable journalist so this was a good source. Bashir spoke with Jackson on three different occasions. And each time it was as though he were interviewing a completely different person. The first interview was the most sincere. It was Michael as he truly was: a man clearly in a state of arrested development. He had no concept of the real world, sounding like a 5-year-old in a Toys R Us - "I want one of those and one of those and three of those..."

Except there was no parent to tell him no. He really could do whatever he wanted.

The second and third interviews were just as illuminating - further telling the tale of this troubled man. The second interview was during Jackson's Berlin stunt. In a moment of sheer adrenaline, held his son, Blanket, over the railing of a balcony. Immediately afterward, it was clear Jackson was hopped up - on what, I don't know. But he was talking very quickly, stuttering, sweating. In other words, here was a guy who was not in control of his impulses, again, much like a child.

Interview #3, Michael #3. His previous stint clearly left him feeling vulnerable and self-conscious. He came off as paranoid and neurotic - almost scared. He wouldn't answer questions. He was constantly worried about the lighting in an apparent need to desperately control the situation. Given, I am not a psych major, but it seemed pretty clear that this man was seriously troubled.

But through all of that, the most overwhelming thing I studied was his music. His songs, his videos, his appearances and concerts. I couldn't get them out of my head. His videos were a blast: huge productions. Michael Jackson wasn't just talented - he was talent - walking, talking, dancing, singing talent.

Okay, so what's the point to this whole story?

After Jackson's death, his whole life was re-examined and the question arose if he'd be remembered more for his early music career or his later wild life involving his changing looks, his criminal charges, etc.

Most said his talent would outshine his later years despite the severity of the crimes of which he was accused. But "most" were those who grew up with Jackson. They remember how big his hits were, how amazing the moonwalking moment was, how sharp a business man he was. And because of that, many stuck with him through his rough years. So they lived it.

I only lived the second half. I had to do some work to learn about the first, to see if my first impression was correct. But learning about Michael Jackson convinced me. His talent wins. It's that simple.

Everything in pop music today stems from him. My generation may take that for granted.

Jackson led a questionable life. I don't know if he committed crimes. I can't say for sure why he did what he did to his face. But when compared to the influence he had on pop culture and music, it doesn't matter. Michael Jackson the entertainer will outlive Wacko Jacko. And while both sides of his life will echo in pop culture history, his career will overshadow everything else.

Monday, February 15, 2010

NBC's Ad-lympic Weekend


And so it began - the 2010 Winter Olympics on NBC. For weeks now, the network has been whining about how much cash they're going to lose ($250 mil). I guess that's why they're airing hours and hours of ads occasionally interrupted with sporting events.

Part of the problem going in was there was no big-name star, specifically a female figure skater. Gone are the days of ice princesses Peggy Flemming and Kristi Yamaguchi, drama queens Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding. Divas and drama are the basic concepts that reality/competition shows thrive on. This year, there's nothing. And unlike a reality show, the producers can't really create anything, either.

So, no skating queen. And there are very few athletes who are household names. Taking all of this into consideration, NBC projected a loss. I suppose to compensate for cheaper ads, they sold more time. I'm only supposing this because all weekend the ad-time seemed to be more important that any of the games. During pairs figure skating, they'd cut to commercials before scores were announced. Moguls and luge, each about 25-seconds per run, were given two runs before a 60-second break. It is impossible to build any anticipation or excitement when every 30 seconds it's broken up with an ad for E*trade, Coke, or McDonalds.

NBC's Olympic problem stands for the whole network: They don't know how to build a good program block without getting in the way.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Super Bowl Ads 2010


Ah, yes, it's that special time of year where millions of people actually look forward to commercials. We all know how much money companies shell out for 15 or 30-second spots. Expectations are high. And now that the Neilsen numbers are out (and HUGE: 106 million people, beating out M*A*S*H as the most watched program EVER), these ads got major exposure. But were they any good?

Mmmm, not so much. About 85% of the ads were absolutely terrible: Set-ups with no punch, stupid instead of stupid-funny, or just plain dull (the Denny's chickens? Really?)

The best of the best? Betty White, no contest, although by the end of the game, we all forgot what the ad was for (Snickers). Great visuals, clear explanation, awesome tag.

Honorable mention goes to "The Late Show." Yes, it was cool seeing Dave, Oprah, and Jay all together. There could have been another joke or line in there to finalize the ad. It just ended awkwardly. But that star power all on one couch was impressive.

Worst? Hard to say. Dove for Men was pretty lame. Teleflora wasn't anything we haven't seen before. And personally, I'm not digging the new E*trade baby. Oh and those chickens...

The major themes this year were old people (Betty, future Brett Favre, the Boost Mobile "Shuffle" crew), and dumb men (Bud Light Book Club, multiple Doritos spots, "I Wear No Pants,").

Overall, kind of a disappointing year for ads. And there were over 45 minutes of them. Maybe next year will be better.

You can watch and rate all the Super Bowl 2010 ads here.


Monday, January 18, 2010

The Worst is Yet to Come for NBC's Late Night


As if the current situation isn't bad enough, NBC now knows where the industry stands: Team Coco all the way.

The PR nightmare drowning "The Tonight Show" worsened thanks to the Hollywood elite at last night's Golden Globe ceremonies. Ricky Gervais's comment during his monologue was expected. Arnold's jab was quaint. But it was during the red carpet walk where barbs flew from some very telling sources.

In reference to the rain that was pouring from the sky yesterday afternoon in L.A., Tina Fey said it was "God crying for NBC." Fey is known for speaking her mind about the network that employs her. In an Emmy acceptance speech, she thanked NBC for keeping "30 Rock" on the air, despite its cost compared to a talk show -- a not-so-subtle jab at NBC's reasoning for giving Leno an hour of prime time every night.

But the bigger concern for the future of "The Tonight Show" came from two stars whose celebrity status is above the "A-list."

When approached by NBC red carpet "correspondent" (I use that term loosely), Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks double-teamed the network. Julia started with claiming NBC was "in the toilet" right now. Hanks chimed in with "NBC said the rain would start at 10pm, and then they moved it to 11:30."

While these might have come off cute little quips by two well-liked stars, there may be more there then meets the eye (ear?).

Last night's ceremony is a giant, red flag for NBC. The industry came out for Conan. They took it personally because it could've happened to any one of them. And it's true that the industry's general opinion usually doesn't matter in television, that's not really the case for a variety show. "The Tonight Show" works from a careful balance between guests and viewers, with the host in charge of keeping the balance. The host must remain consistent but guests create those "must-see" and "YouTube" moments. If the vibe stays, Leno may find himself scrounging for guests.

NBC is in major trouble. Unitl they're ready to invest time, creativity, and yes, money into their schedule, their ratings won't be moving much.

Best of luck, Comcast.