I'm Not Really Watching TV That Much Anymore
I used to follow March Madness all the time, not like Obama did, releasing his picks, but I had been a UH graduate student during the glory days of Phi Slama Jama, including 3 trips to the Final Four.and two losses in the championship game. But oddly enough Houston never sustained its dominance in recruiting or coaching since Lewis retired in the mid-80's and has made the NCAA championship tournament only once in recent years, winning its division tournament in 2010, only to be sent home with a first-round defeat in the NCAA tournament. Houston is not the only team that lost its prominent spot; I can recall the days of UCLA completely dominating the sport during my youth under the coaching of John Wooden. I can see they made a decent showing in this year's tournament before finally exiting and probably losing one of its top players to the upcoming NBA draft.
But I've never understood what happened to prime time TV after the 1960's (not meaning to slight shows like All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, M*A*S*H, Dallas or Cheers). But you used to have prime cartoons like The Flintstones and The Jetsons (granted, The Simpsons have had a long run, and Fox has had its share of prime cartoon hits, unlike the major 3 networks), There were classic science fiction or anthology series like Star Trek and The Twilight Zone. But you can even go back to Saturday morning shows like Johnny Quest, Underdog, Mighty Mouse or Yogi Bear. I always hoped that when Disney acquired ABC, we might see a resurgence, say built around new, updated Mickey Mouse cartoons. (I think I read on Wikipedia that some new Mickey Mouse shorts have been created for the Disney Channel, which I almost never watch.)
With services like Amazon Video and Hulu, I've been able to go through the history of shows like Parks & Recreation, Grimm and Sleepy Hollow, the latter two still ongoing but nearing the end of their runs. Other shows like Supergirl aren't available through common streaming outlets, although you can find, say, the 5 most recent episodes available via the show's web portal.
As a writer, I have my own ideas about series development, which I don't intend to disclose in my free blog. (But then, even when I submit unsolicited ideas, e.g., as a onetime McDonald's shareholder, I once submitted a multi-page, single-spaced letter of "free" suggestions, I got it turned back "unread" by some company attorney, no doubt worried if McDonald's adopted similar ideas, I might sue for a piece of the action. No, I just wanted some additional choices as an often road warrior looking for healthier fare, like a whole grain bun option, tuna salad wraps, and bottled water. I never understood after they acquired the Boston Chicken franchise (which I believe they spun off some time back), why they weren't offering convenient pickup rotisserie chicken family deals during evening rush. I also thought they could float a Taste of the World concept, where they introduce Americans to best-selling foods they've developed for other country markets. I've just never figured out why they have problems with a dinner menu concept; if I go out to dinner, I'm not really in the mood for sandwich and fries. I always thought they could do something with a comfort food concept. To give a simple example, when I had a San Francisco TV channel client around late 2000, my client contact and I often went to this convenience store which would roast turkeys I think every Monday, and they would sell fresh turkey sandwiches; they would sometimes have lines stretching out the door. Imagine if you smell roasted turkey in the air; are you not going to be tempted? For a bachelor like me, it's a no-brainer. There's an economy of scale here: you don't buy a whole turkey to roast for yourself. (Well, I have, but not that often.) Yes, I know you can buy sliced turkey luncheon meat, 2-lb frozen turkey loaf, etc., but seriously can you compare those to a sandwich of freshly roasted carved turkey chunks?
Just an amusing side note. When I was taking marketing (or maybe it was the capstone business strategies course) in the MBA program, we were reviewing the infamous Schlitz (Beer) "I'd Rather Fight Than Switch" debacle marketing campaign. I remember speculating how I might brand my own beer. This was years before I joined the faculty at UWM. It's no accident that the baseball team is called the "Brewers"; it was
once touted as the beer capital of the world: Pabst, Miller, Schlitz, etc. So I decided to brand my hypothetical brew as "Milwaukee's Best". Now, granted, it wasn't that unique of a concept; I'm sure that each brand considered its brew as the best, and you have various brewery competitions--in fact, Pabst labeled its signature brew "Blue Ribbon". Still, I remember years later I was walking past a beer aisle and noticed, with some shock, there actually was a "Milwaukee's Best" brand on the market.
A side note to a side note: I had my first beer at OLL, a Coors Light. Big mistake. I really, really didn't like it, and to this day I would rather do without than have a Coors. I'm not a teetotaler but I seldom drink, maybe 1 drink in a social setting. When I have bought beer, it's usually been a Heineken or a Michelob. I remember living in Irving (a dry county in Texas) and having to visit my sister in Plano, with a package store on the way, to get a six-pack for the 1992 election, when I knew that Bush was going to lose to Clinton. Nah, I didn't get drunk--I didn't even finish off the 6-pack. Unfortunately, I remained sober the whole dismal evening. All the beer managed to do was increase my visits to the toilet. (It wasn't that I loved Bush, but Clinton was that much worse, and he lived down to my worst expectations.)
Wrestlemania: Is the Magic Gone?
I never expected to be writing a series of segments on sports entertainment, that euphemism for the world of heavily scripted pro wrestling. But the sports' signature PPV is a week off, and to be honest, the card is like a glass of stale warm beer; I have almost no interest in it.
I think the match-up of Bray Wyatt vs. Randy Orton is mildly interesting, but the way it was handled (Orton bowed out of his guaranteed spot against the Wyatt Family Leader to gain favor and access to Wyatt's hallowed ground and then destroys it as the plotted betrayal) was dubious, as Styles won the right to substitute into Orton's place. Instead of adding Orton to a triple threat main event where Styles could divide and conquer his opponents, they have a winner take all playoff, which is then used as an excuse for Styles to seek revenge for his sought-for championship rematch falling through against the CEO's son and Smackdown Commissioner Shane McMahon. (I have never been a fan of the McMahon family as wrestling performers. I will say that Shane does some dangerous spots I just think are batshit crazy.) There are some rumors that WWE was hoping to lure retired Shawn Michaels for a one-off match against Styles, but really does this make sense? McMahon is no longer a full-time talent; are they really going to put him over arguably their most accomplished wrestler in 2016?
Many of the finishes seem obvious: you have Goldberg vs. Lesnar for the recently created Universal title (they ended up doing away with the comparable World title some time back). Lesner has an ongoing contract; Goldberg doesn't. It's always possible Goldberg could be re-signed, but I don't see the company keeping the belt on a part-time talent. But the question is how they take the belt off the part-time champion without weakening the character? I could envision a scenario where an embittered dethroned Goldberg interferes in the next PPV, costing Lesnar his championship.
Then there is the "whose yard is it" match between an aging Undertaker and Roman Reigns. Reigns has a phenomenal work ethic but has never clicked with the fans; it seems the more times McMahon tries to put over the big man, the more the fans boo him. Usually you want to see the veteran pass the torch to an up and rising star; I never quite understood why they had Undertaker's winning streak snapped by Lesnar, a part-time talent, although they did a good job using it to build Lesnar into an unbeatable monster. But I've never bought the storyline putting the two babyfaces against each other, and if this is indeed Undertaker's final match, I would have expected WWE to do more of a build teasing his retirement. I would have taken the Undertaker's final match in a different direction, giving the rub perhaps to a returning heel Balor reprising his demon character.
At least the women's championships have come a long way from bra and panties matches. A fatal 4-way for the Raw Women's Championship between 3 current/former women's champs and probably the most physically dominant woman on the roster (Nia Jax) is intriguing.
Kevin Owens should go over Jericho for the US belt (among other things, Jericho's band has events booked this spring, which he probably couldn't do if he had to defend the belt). That could lead to a longer program feud. Neville and Aries could put on a show that yields the match of the event.
It's not clear how they'll book their newest super heel Samoa Joe; there are also Internet rumors that Balor could return as a surprise heel vs. Rollins in his revenge match against HHH.
I will watch it, of course, but there's nothing really that compelling about the card like Hogan v. Andre the Giant or Hogan v. Ultimate Warrior. It would have been nice to have seen retired Sting come out to face Undertaker.
