Killing Two Pop Refs with One Title

Take a look at tonight's TV schedule. You can watch the ''Still Beauty and the Geek'' episode of ''Still Standing'' on CBS.

I love ep titles like this. A pop culture reference about something that originally paid homage to a classic. Two degrees of separation. Two cultural refs for the price of one.

TV writers love classic stories, and Beauty and the Beast is no exception. More than 60 TV ep titles allude to B&tB. Here's a sample of some of the more clever ones:

Beauty and the Beasty Boy (''Suddenly Susan,'' 11/14/1996)

Beauty and the Beef (''Benson,'' 2/3/1984)

Beauty and the Bleats (''Sheep in the Big City,'' 3/10/2002)

Beauty and the Brass (''Private Benjamin,'' 2/15/1982)

Beauty and the Breast (''L.A. Law,'' 5/7/1992)

Beauty and the Least (''The New Phil Silvers Show,'' 1/11/1964)

Beauty and the Obese (''Stripperella,'' 6/26/2003 & 10/2/2003)

Beauty and the Pest (''Newhart,'' 1/15/1990)

Beauty and the Screech (''Saved by the Bell,'' 10/21/1989)

Booty and the Beast (''Donkey Kong Country,'' 9/13/1998)

Cutie and the Beast (''Animaniacs,'' 9/7/1996)

Judy and the Beast (''Dream On,'' 7/20/1994)

Burn-Off Is the Thief of Time

If you've been watching TV Shorty Watch in the near-right column or paying attention to TV news, you already know that NBC cancelled ''Inconceivable.'' But according to some news reports,

It's not clear how many installments of "Inconceivable's" initial 13-episode commitment were shot or if they will be burned off at a later date.

Ahh, the classic carrot. The burn-off. Tell the viewers that the show is gone now and that production has stopped, but keep the door open to show the remaining eps some time later. You never know what summer schedule holes might appear.

Are networks really telling the truth? Do they bring back shows after putting them on the shelf very early? Or is it just false hope?

Let's find out. I looked for primetime network TV series that networks pulled from the airwaves early (after the 1st, 2nd or 3rd airing) and then showed new eps sometime later during primetime. Here's the list of TV series in the last 20 years that had a break like this that lasted at least 100 days.

287 days: ''McKenna'' (ABC, 1994)
263 days: ''Love & Money'' (CBS, 1999)
261 days: ''Mercy Point'' (UPN, 1998)
261 days: ''Mission Hill'' (WB, 1999)
194 days: ''Million Dollar Mysteries'' (Fox, 2000)
186 days: ''Melba'' (CBS, 1986)
175 days: ''Coast to Coast'' (CBS, 1997)
141 days: ''The Family'' (ABC, 2003)
127 days: ''The Great Defender'' (Fox, 1995)
125 days: ''Blaine'' (NBC, 1983)
124 days: ''EZ Streets'' (CBS, 1996)
115 days: ''Push'' (ABC, 1998)
111 days: ''A League of Their Own'' (CBS, 1993)
109 days: ''Under One Roof'' (UPN, 2002)
108 days: ''All Souls'' (UPN, 2001)

Just a few notes:

Series like ''Strange World'' (ABC, 1999) that had a break of 1081 days before showing the next new ep on a different network (SciFi) are not included.

I removed series, such as ''Aliens in the Family'' (ABC, 1996), from the list. The series started in ABC primetime and moved to ABC Saturday mornings 127 days later. Series must reappear in primetime network TV on the same network.

Not all series are cancelled when they take an extended break. Sometimes networks show a sneak peek episode, like ''Down and Out in Beverly Hills'' (Fox, 1987) and ''American Dad'' (Fox, 2005), and wait weeks before airing another new ep. After showing special preview eps, Fox waited 90 and 84 days, respectively, to show ep #2 for these two series.

One and Done

Can I have a drum roll please?

Here's the list that everybody's been waiting for: One & Done. Which series did the networks pick up, intend to air at least four eps in primetime, and then shelve after the first ep?

Here's the ultimate shorty list:

''Co-ed Fever'' (CBS, 1979)

''Dot Comedy'' (ABC, 2000)

''Lawless'' (Fox, 1997)

''Public Morals'' (CBS, 1996)

''South of Sunset'' (CBS, 1993)

''Turn On'' (ABC, 1969)

''Who's Whose'' (CBS, 1951)

''The Will'' (CBS, 2005)

''You're in the Picture'' (CBS, 1961)

The list does not include:

busted pilots.

series that networks picked up and produced, but never aired (see comments for more series).

skeins, like ''The Guys Next Door'' (1990, NBC), that showed a sneak peek ep in primetime before settling into other (Saturday morning) timeslots.

shows, like ''Good Morning, Miss Bliss'' (1988, Disney), that aired a pilot on network primetime (NBC, 7/11/1987) and then were picked up for a non-network run (Disney, 1988-1989).

Just one more note:

''Juarez'' (ABC, 1988): ABC halted production before any eps aired but after two eps were completed. ABC then burned off one of these two completed eps on May 28, 1988. Since ABC obviously had no intention of airing more than three eps, I don't include ''Juarez'' on the list.

The Network That Lives by the Series Shall Die by the Series

Yes, Major League Baseball's (MLB's) World Series can spark a ratings boost, but, in the past, networks blamed the Series for putting many new shows on permanent hiatus.

Fact or fiction?

It's tough showing the World Series (and playoffs) while building audiences for new shows at the same time. Just look at ''Kitchen Confidential'' this year. Fox puts the show on a planned break so they can show MLB playoffs, and many people start rumors that the show is in immediate danger of being cancelled. Just amazing.

Put yourself in charge of Fox. What do you do? Do you start series before the official TV season, get viewers hooked early and then give them a break to forget why they're hooked? Or do you delay the start of the TV season until after the World Series and hope that viewers haven't already picked new shows on other networks to fill their precious leisure time?

You're really between a rock and a hard place. Yes, there are shows, like ''Prison Break,'' that draw an audience early and will likely maintain that audience when the show returns. But there's also a reason why Fox is airing two eps of ''Prison Break'' this Monday. They'll try anything to maintain viewer interest.

OK, how tough is it really?

From 1991-2004, the network showing the World Series is almost 50% more likely than other networks to not order additional episodes for new Fall series. If you look at all series that premiered in August, September or October from 1991-2004, you will find that:

• 79 series premiered on nets showing the World Series and 48 of these series (61%) didn't air a 14th episode.
• 371 series debuted on nets not showing the World Series and 159 of these series (43%) didn't make it past the 13th episode.

That's only part of the truth though. The World Series has little effect on whether a show is picked up for a second season:

• 79 series premiered on nets showing the World Series and 19 of these series (24%) saw a second season.
• 371 series debuted on nets not showing the World Series and 183 of these series (31%) aired an additional season.

So what's the real story?

The net that shows the Series finds ways to promote its fav shows and renews these series for a second season at approximately the same rate as the other nets. But if the World Series net doesn't think a show has legs (see ''Head Cases''), it's going to yank that series from the airwaves faster than other nets. Why the quick trigger finger? MLB playoffs take up airtime and there just isn't enough time available for these short-lived shows.

Now you know why ''Sex, Love & Secrets'' is still on the air. If UPN was showing the World Series instead of Fox, ''SL&S'' would already be in the TV graveyard. But UPN has to air something--why not recover some sunk costs and burn off the remaining ''SL&S'' eps.

LCDs and OLEDs and E-Ink, Oh My!

I was reading an article about how campers want to take their media, including TV, with them into nature. And that article prodded me to think a little bit more about portable video products. The ideal video product for campers:

• is lightweight,
• is small when packed away but still has a large screen when used,
• has long play time.

You can think about a lightweight screen that you roll up and transport in a poster tube. Just unfurl the display and you're ready to watch video. This not-so-new concept would be the ultimate product for many uses though. Not just camping.

What type of display is best-suited for such a product? A Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) Display or electronic ink (e-ink) display? I'm betting on OLED displays.

(+/-)read why

If you're reading this entry on a thin monitor, then you're reading text on a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). Your mobile phone probably has an LCD too. LCDs are great, but they:

• require significant power: You can't use your battery-powered laptop all day to surf the Web. And the biggest power hog on your cell phone is your display, as I discussed here. LCDs require constant backlight, which takes a lot of power.
• are difficult to read in direct sunlight: When you use your mobile phone outside on a sunny day, you often have to turn so that your body blocks the sun from shining on the display.
• are inflexible: You have no chance of rolling your LCD monitor up (or folding it) and carrying it in a poster tube. You should be able to slide out individual modular LCDs to create a larger screen.

LCD technology has matured significantly since James Fergason's company first marketed improved LCDs in 1971 (source). I don't see LCDs overcoming the first obstacle since the backlight is an inherent feature of the technology.

Have you used your MP3 player today? If so, there's a 40% chance that you used an Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) display instead of an LCD. OLED displays are relatively young--they were first marketed in 2000 in a Pioneer car radio (source), but they have quickly gained market share. OLEDs are super, but they:

• require power to be seen: Something emits light; so that something needs power. Power must be applied as long as you want to see that color, but the power requirements for OLEDs are much smaller than LCDs.
• are moisture sensitive: This disadvantage wouldn't matter if we weren't talking about flexible screens. It's easy to make a rigid moisture barrier, but a flexible water barrier isn't quite as easy. It's doable, but not easy.
• degrade at different rates: The fact that OLEDs degrade at all isn't necessarily a good thing, but the lifetime of an OLED is still longer than the lifetime of most consumer products these days. Degradation shouldn't be a big deal. But if the OLED colors degrade at different rates, then the screen colors will shift a little bit over time.

You can read more about OLEDs here.

Did you see the new flexible clock that Citizen is producing? It uses E-ink technology. E-ink is starting down the same pathway as James Fergason--just 30 years later. Start with watches and clocks and quickly migrate into other types of displays. The Citizen clock presents black numbers, but E-ink has already demonstrated a color display in mid-2002.

If E-ink is 30 years later than LCDs, why bother? The single most important feature of E-ink displays is the fact that you don't need to continuously apply power to show an image. Once an image is shown on an E-ink display, that image remains visible. Power is only needed to change the image. Think about a Magna-Doodle. You use a magnetic stencil to pull black particles toward the screen so that they're visible. Once you can see them, you don't need to use the stencil anymore. E-ink works the same way.

Despite this huge power advantage over competitors and the fact that E-ink has demonstrated flex displays, there is still one major obstacle. E-ink displays have a slow refresh rate. Particles have to move through a fluid to become visible (or invisible). That takes time and power. If you don't use a lot of power, it takes more time. Without having more intimate knowledge of E-ink technology, I'm guessing that this will always be an issue inherent in the technology. (Kind of like the backlight issue for LCDs.)

The good news is that developers will finally have the chance to play with E-ink technology using kits, available here. Kits start to ship in November. After developers play with the technology, we'll have a better idea about the benefits and limitations.

I think that viewers will sacrifice a little color change over time in exchange for fast refresh rates so that the picture isn't jumpy. And this guess favors OLED displays over E-ink displays.

I also think that E-ink displays will have an immediate market niche for which it is far superior to any other display technology. Flexible displays with images that don't need to change more than a once a minute. Electronic store signs. Billboards. Digital picture frames. Once you show an image, you don't need power to keep the image visible. And that's huge! Imagine that picture frame on the wall over your mantle. You can program the frame to show a different image everyday. Since you aren't changing the image, it doesn't require a lot of power. Throw a little solar cell nearby and you don't even need batteries anymore.

What Was the Question?

If you look at tomorrow night's CBS lineup, you might notice a Shakespearean touch to ''Survivor.'' Tomorrow's ep is called To Betray or Not To Betray. And that's not the first ''Survivor'' homage to The Bard's most famous quote. To Quit or Not to Quit aired two years ago.

As you can imagine, TV writers worship Bill and they especially adore Hamlet. Nearly 100 ep titles riff off the first line of his soliloquy. ''Bewitched'' has four eps that pay homage to Hamlet's words:

• To Go or Not to Go, That Is the Question
  
• To Trick or Treat or Not to Trick or Treat
  
• To Twitch or Not to Twitch
  
• TV or Not TV

TV or Not TV seemed clever when I first saw it and TV scribes must agree. More than 20 series have an ep with this exact title!

What are some of the more clever ep titles that honor Hamlet? Here's a small sampling.

4B or Not 4B (''NYPD Blue,'' 9/28/1993)

Doobie or Not Doobie (''What's Happening!!,'' 1/28/1978, 2/4/1978)

P.C. or Not P.C. (''Bob,'' 10/30/1992)

T.A. or Not T.A. (''Smart Guy,'' 11/1/1998)

To Bee or Not to Bee (''The Mask: The Animated Series,'' 9/27/1996)

To Bleat or Not to Bleat (''Sheep in the Big City,'' 11/24/2000)

To Bowl or Not to Bowl (''The Odd Couple,'' 9/19/1974)

To Bris or Not to Bris (''Rude Awakening,'' 7/17/1999)

To DNA or Not to DNA (''For the People,'' 8/11/2002)

To Hock or Not to Hock (''How to Marry a Millionaire,'' 10/28/1957)

To Plea or Not to Plea (''Rachel Gunn, R.N.,'' 7/12/1992)

To Re-enlist or Not to Re-enlist (''Gomer Pyle, USMC,'' 2/15/1967)

To Ski or Not to Ski (''Oh Madeline,'' 11/22/1983)

Toby or Not Toby (''Dream On,'' 10/6/1991)

Toupee or Not Toupee (''Shaky Ground,'' 5/9/1993)

Every Colon Has a Silver Line

This coming Sunday you can watch a new TV movie, ''The Hunt for the BTK Killer,'' on CBS. If this movie had premiered ten years ago, it probably would've been called ''Wichita's BTK Terror: The Dennis Rader Story.''

In the mid '90s it seemed like every TV movie title was colon-ized. Today? Not so much. From the beginning of 1992 through the end of 1995 more than 40 TV movies followed the basic form, ''_____: The [insert person's name] Story.'' In the past four years? One. A 2002 CBS two-part movie, ''Master Spy: The Robert Hanssen Story.''

I actually miss colon-ized TV movie titles. They probe the American pop psyche, creating an odd confluence of sensational news items and celeb biodramas.

Fill in the blank for titles of celeb biodramas of the '90s (left column) with the celeb's name (right column):

Movie Title		Celeb
1.	On Thin Ice: The ____ Story	a.	Annette Funicello
2.	Reason for Living: The ____ Story	b.	Jill Ireland
3.	Love and Betrayal: The ____ Story	c.	Bruce Lee
4.	A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes: The ____ Story	d.	Dennis Rodman
5.	Never Say Never: The ____ Story	e.	Mia Farrow
6.	A Brother's Promise: The ____ Story	f.	Tai Babilonia
7.	Dragon: The ____ Story	g.	Dan Jansen
8.	Never Give Up: The ____ Story	h.	Alan Freed
9.	Bad As I Wanna Be: The ____ Story	i.	Jimmy V
10.	Mr. Rock 'N' Roll: The ____ Story	j.	Deidre Hall

(+/-)answers

1-f, 2-b, 3-e, 4-a, 5-j, 6-g, 7-c, 8-i, 9-d, 10-h

Three and Free

Last Monday I listed TV series that were Two and Through. Today? Three and Free.

On a typical Sunday evening--exactly 53 years ago from last night--something unexpected happened. A series premiered during the Fall TV season, and NBC yanked that skein from the airwaves after only 3 eps. ''Doc Corkle'' premiered on 10/5/1952 and quickly became the first Fall TV Shorty.

It's not easy finding these shows though. Many times networks show a series of three specials, such as ''The Great American Celebrity Spelling Bee'' (Fox, 2004). They're specials, not series, and aren't included.

Sometimes a network announces that it will air a series only three times, such as ''The Colin Quinn Show'' (NBC, 2002) and ''The $25 Million Hoax'' (NBC, 2004). This is not a recent practice either. NBC aired all three eps of ''The Law'' (NBC, 1975) and ''McNaughton's Daughter'' (NBC, 1976)--both series were based on TV movies and these limited series filled small holes in NBC's Spring schedules. I don't include these series since they completed their full network runs.

Miniseries, like ''Awakening Land'' (NBC 1978) and ''Chiefs'' (CBS, 1983), were shown in three parts. These miniseries are excluded as well since they also finished their network runs.

Without further adieu, here is the list of TV series that networks aired only three times even though they planned a longer run when the first ep aired:

''Angel Street'' (CBS, 1992)

''As If'' (UPN, 2002)

''Beyond Westworld'' (CBS, 1980)

''Brats of the Lost Nebula'' (WB, 1998)

''Built to Last'' (NBC, 1997)

''The Chamber'' (Fox, 2002)

''The Court'' (ABC, 2002)

''Daddy's Girl'' (CBS, 1994)

''Doc Corkle'' (NBC, 1952)

''E.A.R.T.H. Force'' (CBS, 1990)

''E.S.P.'' (ABC, 1958)

''First Years'' (NBC, 2001)

''Fish Police'' (CBS, 1992)

''Flatbush'' (CBS, 1979)

''Forbidden Secrets'' (Pax, 2001)

''Harsh Realm'' (Fox, 1999)

''Hold It Please'' (CBS, 1949)

''Jokebook'' (NBC, 1982)

''The Legend of Calamity Jane'' (WB, 1997)

''Let's Make a Deal'' (NBC, 2003)

''Life...and Stuff'' (CBS, 1997)

''The Martin Short Show'' (NBC, 1994)

''Meet the Marks'' (Fox, 2002)

''My Guide to Becoming a Rock Star'' (WB, 2002)

''NBC Sports Spot'' (NBC, 1958)

''On the Air'' (ABC, 1992)

''Once a Hero'' (ABC, 1987)

''100 Grand'' (ABC, 1963)

''Over the Top'' (ABC, 1997)

''Palace Guard'' (CBS, 1991)

''Playing It Straight'' (Fox, 2004)

''Power Play'' (UPN, 1999)

''Profiles from the Front Line'' (ABC, 2003)

''Push'' (ABC, 1998)

''Queens Supreme'' (CBS, 2003)

''Rendezvous'' (ABC, 1952)

''The Roller Girls'' (NBC, 1978)

''Say What?'' (CBS, 1992)

''Scorch'' (CBS, 1992)

''She Spies'' (NBC, 2002)

''Significant Others'' (Fox, 1998)

''The Stones'' (CBS, 2004)

''Strange World'' (ABC, 1999)

''Stressed Eric'' (NBC, 1998)

''Struck by Lightning'' (CBS, 1979)

''Studio 5-B'' (ABC, 1989)

''Sunday Best'' (NBC, 1991)

''Talk to Me'' (ABC, 2000)

''Tall Hopes'' (CBS, 1993)

''Trial and Error'' (CBS, 1988)

''The Trouble with Larry'' (CBS, 1993)

''Wasteland'' (ABC, 1999)

''What Happened'' (NBC, 1952)

''Your Big Moment'' (Dumont, 1953)

Some notes about a few of these series:

''Brats of the Lost Nebula'' is the only Saturday morning series of which I'm aware that couldn't make it off The TV Shorty List.

''Power Play'' and ''Stressed Eric'' originally aired in Canada and the UK, respectively. Both series later aired on US primetime TV, and US networks banished them after only three eps.

''She Spies'' was destined for Syndication from the beginning, but NBC tried something unique. NBC wanted to air four eps of ''She Spies'' during primetime so that more viewers would sample the show. The idea was a ratings failure, and NBC stopped the four-episode trial after only three eps.

Reality Bites the Age of Innocence

I was talking with a friend yesterday about TV and she started her usual rant about how reality TV isn't really real. How events on ''Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County'' seem contrived. How there are too many coincidences--like when Stephen just happened to call Kristin while she and Roz were talking about him during the last ep.

She's now convinced that people behind the scenes pull the strings to make the stories on reality shows more interesting. Ya' think?

I've tried convincing her for years that unscripted TV shows were carefully positioned. Arranged. Carefully edited. Probably even rehearsed. That this practice of shaping a story for unscripted series was prevalent on TV since the '50s. It's not new. Just look at the big quiz show scandals.

But she has no patience for history nor stories that take longer than 30 seconds. My quiz show stories fell on deaf ears. I needed a good anecdote. Something short and to the point. I had nothing.

Until now.

I was doing some research in the archives of Time Magazine and stumbled on this great tidbit from September 23, 1957:

The M.C. of TV's ''Bride and Groom'' had a 'big surprise' for the groom last week, and he coyly let the audience in on it: he had corralled the bridegroom's best friend for a 'completely unexpected appearance' and was hiding him behind a screen offstage.

M.C. (to bridegroom): We tried our best to have him here, but we had no luck at all.
BG.: I guess he couldn't get off from work.
M.C.: Do you think he is watching this program now?
BG.: Yeah, I guess so.
M.C.: If he is watching, where do you think he is right now?
BG.: Well, if it's anything like rehearsal this afternoon, he would be sitting behind that screen over there.

Finally, an antidote for my anecdote. This story clinched it. She finally believes.

Nothing AdVentured, Nothing Engaged

I wanted to waste 30 minutes on Wednesday night so I flipped the TV to GSN to play ''Lingo.'' What a disappointment. I couldn't use my remote to play along.

What?

Really. It's true. When I was in Kauai earlier this month I used my remote to play ''Lingo'' and ''Match Game'' one rainy morning before I ventured out for a beautiful beach afternoon.

Oceanic Time Warner is leading the revolution for TV viewer interaction in the United States. Hawaiians have played GSN games with their remotes since April 19, 2004, leaving us Mainlanders behind once again.

Just think about the possibilities when you become an active, real-time participant. You're engaged with what's on TV. You're not just a guilty bystander.

Forget about voting by phone. Internet voting will be a thing of the past. You'll be able to use your remote to vote at the end of ''American Idol'' during a commercial break and results will be announced 30 minutes later.

Advertisers will definitely exploit this ability to engage viewers. Now you know the new buzzword in TV advertising, according to a recent study by Yahoo!, OMD and Teenage Research Unlimited. Here's an excerpt:

The key to targeting these busy consumers in the midst of media proliferation is advertising that "engages" the viewer with interactive or highly personalized elements. This, of course, also calls for an adjusted metric for copy testing, which must now track different types of user response. "In the 50's and 60's, copy testing was mainly about recall--and then in the 70's and 80's, they were talking about persuasion, and in the 90's it was about liking--getting the consumer to like the advertisement," said Mike Hess, Director of Global Research and Communication Insights, OMD. "Now it's got to be about engagement."

Over the next year we should watch how internet ads try to engage us. Forward-loooking ad agencies will use the web to learn lessons on the cheap and then create engaging TV commercials for the networks.