Televisionary Heads to AOL's Instant Dharma

It's time for some Instant Dharma.

Last night, I had the extreme pleasure of being invited on AOL's weekly Lost-centric show Instant Dharma, where I joined host Maggie Furlong and IGN's Dharma Initiative-jumpsuited Matt Fowler to discuss this week's episode of Lost ("Recon"), where we talked about--SPOILER!--Sawyer's many cons, Charles Widmore's return to the island, Smocke's mommy issues, and much more.

You can catch my appearance on this week's episode of Instant Dharma below.



Lost airs Tuesdays at 9 pm ET/PT on ABC.

Televisionary Versus the "Chuck" Podcast

Last week, I had the pleasure of dropping by to lend my voice and thoughts about the current season of Chuck (and the next four upcoming episodes) to Chuck Vs. the Podcast.

As part of the ongoing podcast's 42nd episode, I chatted with host Gray Jones about my thoughts on "Chuck Versus the Mask," the love quadrangle, what's coming up for our intrepid spies, and much, much more. (The episode itself was the second half of a great installment that also featured The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan.)

You can watch/listen to the podcast below or over at Blip.tv. Or you can download the podcast from iTunes as well. Depending on what your bag is, I suppose.



Chuck returns tonight with a brand-new episode, the series' first in three weeks, at 8 pm ET/PT on NBC. You can read my advance review of the next four episodes here.

The Daily Beast: "Hollywood Takes on Autism"

Over at The Daily Beast, you can find my latest piece, entitled "Hollywood Takes on Autism."

The article explores the portrayals of people with autism spectrum disorders in pop culture, from films like Dear John and Adam to television series like Grey's Anatomy, Parenthood, Community, and The Big Bang Theory.

I also talk to some of theses projects' creators--including Community creator Dan Harmon and Parenthood showrunner Jason Katims--about why they are--or aren't--labeling their characters as autistic.

Head to the comments section to be sure and let me know what your take is on this trend and whether it matters or not that these characters are labeled or whether it's the discussion of neurodiversity that their presence creates that's far more important.

Los Angeles Times: "The Amazing Race 16: Five Reasons to Tune In"

Staying in on Valentine's Day? Or just looking to set up your recordings for the weekend now?

Over at the Los Angeles Times/Show Tracker, I offer you five reasons why you should tune into the newest cycle of CBS' The Amazing Race, in a piece that's not-so-cleverly entitled "Five Reasons to Tune In."

And head to comments section to offer your thoughts on the contestants (including the map-challenged former Miss Teen South Carolina) and what you're hoping to see this season on The Amazing Race.

The Amazing Race 16 launches on Sunday evening at 8 pm ET/PT on CBS.

Televisionary Turns Four Years Old!

Happy birthday!

Televisionary is four years old. I want to thank all of you loyal readers (and fellow couch potatoes) out there who have made this site the success that it is today.

When I first started Televisionary back in February of 2006, it was to have a place separate from my television job where I could share my views on television programming, discuss recent episodes and news, and showcase some off-the-beaten-path series alongside the more mainstream series that we all know and love.

It started off way back when as a little slice of the web where I could express my thoughts to a few dozen readers who dropped by each day, but Televisionary has blossomed, over the last four years, into something much bigger than I ever dared dream.

I left the television industry (thanks to an ill-timed pink slip) and have been focusing on writing full-time the last year or so. If it had not been for Televisionary, I certainly wouldn't have landed contributing writer gigs with The Daily Beast and the Los Angeles Times/Show Tracker and I've continued to write for all three on a variety of television-related topics.

I hope that I've been able to offer you my honest thoughts about television programming and share my passion and love for this medium while entertaining, informing, and maybe even coercing you into watching some series you might not have watched otherwise.

So please join me in raising a glass of champagne (and your remote) and toasting four great years of Televisionary and, hopefully, many more to come.

Television(ary) on the Radio

Missed my radio appearance earlier today on NPR's Colin McEnroe Show?

No worries as you can stream or download today's episode here or download today's show from the iTunes store here.

Listen as I discuss television with host Colin McEnroe and USA Today's Whitney Matheson and segments with Royal Holloway University of London Lecturer of Media Arts Adam Ganz, Fordham University's Brian McFadden, and Fionn Murtagh, Professor of Computer Science at the University of London.

Among my topics: what to watch this winter, including Syfy's Caprica, ABC's Lost, FX's Archer, Justified, and Damages, and HBO's Big Love.

Give it a listen!

Food Porn: My Night at "Top Chef" Michael Voltaggio's Restaurant

After a day of interviews and covering press sessions at the Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour, I had the honor of dining at Top Chef winner Michael Voltaggio's restaurant, The Dining Room at The Langham, in Pasadena.

I've been dying to eat there since Top Chef ended... and what an evening it was. I was joined in this culinary adventure by several fellow television journalists/foodies including: my editor at The Daily Beast, Kate Aurthur; Denise Martin of The Los Angeles Times; Zap2It's Hanh Nguyen; and St. Louis Post Dispatch TV columnist Gail Pennington.

Arriving at the Dining Room, we were greeted with several warm welcomes by the restaurant's manager and the hotel's PR executive. We sipped on some lovely glasses of non-vintage champagne while we perused the menu and ultimately decided to go with a five-course chef's tasting menu, with the dishes to be expertly selected by Michael Voltaggio, with whom we visited in the kitchen following the conclusion of dinner. (Affable and warm, Voltaggio came off nothing like the arrogant upstart he appeared on Top Chef last year.)

A restaurant thrives or dies on the details and here every little detail was expertly thought out. The precision of our five-person waitstaff--who set down and removed all of our plates in unison every time--and the attentiveness of the sommelier and manager were complemented by some nice touches during the service. Not one but two bread courses, each with separate butter pairings. (Yes, each bread came with two separate butters, adding up to four total butters offered to us during the course of the evening.) A warm bacon bread crackled with saline porky goodness while a black truffle roll offered a luscious hit of umami flavor.

The modern style of the cooking was at contrast with the Old World clubbiness of the restaurant itself as damask curtains and shadow boxes containing antique ships competed with molecular gastronomy. It's worth noting that the restaurant is due to undergo a remodeling (which was wisely delayed after ex-Bazaar at the SLS Hotel chef Voltaggio won Top Chef) but there was something fun and off-kilter about the stylistic disconnect if I'm being honest.

What did we feast on? Read on to discover each of our expertly prepared courses and check out photographs of each course. (Apologies for the darkness of the photos. Took these snapshots with my iPhone in the dimly lit restaurant.)

Amuse bouche:

Sesame "bagel" with smoked salmon and horseradish powders.


A fantastic way to kick off the meal and a novel reinvention of the humble bagel with lox and cream cheese. The "bagel" itself was a remarkable colloidal substance formed in a tiny ring mold. Given its sesame flavor, I can assume that it's made from a tahini-like substance which is then whipped up and given body by the addition of a thickening agent. Breaking it with the tiny accompanying spoon (which, like the small bell-shaped glass, had its own resting plate on the slate dish) and mixing it with the powders created the sensation of biting into a bagel with lox and cream cheese. The horseradish powder didn't give you the hit of heat of regular horseradish but somehow approximated the cool, creaminess of cream cheese. Delicious.

First Course:

Langoustines with egg and lobster mousse ravioli with bouillabaisse.


My mouth was already watering when the waiters set down this dish in front of me and then I could barely contain myself when the waitstaff delicately poured a piping hot bouillabaisse into the bowl. The sweet lightness of the langoustine was nicely contrasted with the richness of the egg and lobster mousse, contained under a tiny rectangular ribbon of pasta. Wisely anticipating the need to get every last drop, the waiters arrived with spoons, which we gratefully used to carry every last drop of the heady bouillabaise to our lips. The dish is a skillful one, demonstrating boldness of flavor, precision of presentation, and a subtle hand.

Second Course:

Skate wing with scrambled cauliflower and caper and brown butter powders.


I've never had skate wing before (I know!) so I wasn't sure what to expect with this dish, which made a believer out of me. Despite already being wowed with the powders from the amuse dish, I was worried that these two powders might be overkill but they worked perfectly here and didn't seem gimmicky. I also appreciated that, being dry "sauces," they didn't moisten the skate, which was perfectly flaky inside and crisp on top. (See, a logical use of molecular gastronomy at work.) The saline hit of the caper powder was offset beautifully by the richness of the brown butter powder (the latter of which I could have quite happily eaten an entire bowl). The scrambled cauliflower was a nice touch as well, transforming itself into something between cauliflower and mashed potato, at once vegetable and starch.

Third Course:

Pastrami pigeon, Swiss cheese puff, rye jus, mustard greens, and Brussels sprouts reduction gel.


Had we done the individual tasting menu, this was one dish that I had my eye on so I was overjoyed to see it come out of the kitchen for us. While it sounds like an odd combination, it was essentially a deconstructed Reuben sandwich and absolutely knocked my socks off. The pigeon breast was perfectly cooked and had the exact flavor of seasoned pastrami. Taking a bite of it with each of the other elements on the plate created the exact flavor of a well-crafted Reuben. In awe of the Swiss cheese puff (essentially, Voltaggio somehow added air to a piece of Swiss cheese, puffed it up, and then crisped it creating a light and airy chip), I was absolutely blown away by the "sauerkraut" component: the Brussels sprouts reduction gel. Salty and vegetative, it had the brisk flavor of sea air and the sourness of sauerkraut; Voltaggio had cooked down sprouts and reduced it to the point of a broth and then added gelatine to create an aspic cube. The rye jus on the plate added just the right hint of earthiness to the dish. A truly accomplished and confident plate.

Fourth Course:

48-hour sous-vide of Wagyu short rib with butter and masala, Nantes carrots, white ketchup gels, and smoked tots.


This was heaven on a plate, manna for the foodie. Voltaggio rendered the Wagyu so smooth and silky from a 48-hour sous vide process and infused it with masala and butter, turning out tender ribbons of short rib onto the plate. I've been craving expertly cooked carrots and these were little crisp batons of beta carotene goodness. The white ketchup gels were fantastic: little liquid spheres containing... a yellow tomato ketchup? An approximation of ketchup? I'm not sure, but these little savory gumdrops peppered the plate with earthiness. And the smoked tots? Heavenly little cheesy potatoes that put all memories of childhood tater tots out of my mind forever.

Pre-dessert:

Yuzu and raspberry.


The perfect palate-cleanser, really, and one that recalled Dippin' Dots to everyone at the table: individual pearls of yuzu and raspberry sorbets that melted as soon as it came into contact with any sort of heat, whether that be your mouth or even the metal spoon. Cool, creamy, and sweet-tart, it was exactly what was required after such an extensive and rich meal.

Dessert #1:

"Fool's Gold": hazelnut praline, salty caramel, chocolate ganache, hazelnut spread, milk sorbet.


A heady and complex dessert that had me ready to lick the plate. It also showcased the playful, whimsical side of Michael Voltaggio with the inclusion of gold flakes festooning the rich chocolate lusciousness of the slightly V-shaped ganache. The praline itself, underneath the ganache was delectable and I used my fork to scrape up every last little morsel on the plate. Sweet, salty, creamy, it was divine and blended together some of my favorite flavors into one dish. I would have been more than content with this as my final course, but...

Dessert #2:

Sticky toffee pudding, lime foam, banana pudding, and jasmine "rice cream."


I'm a huge sticky toffee pudding fan and this was absolutely delicious. Despite the oddness of the ingredients, I thought these components worked quite beautifully together on the plate. The date cake element was rich but oddly light at the same time and lacked the stodgy heaviness that have ruined many a sticky toffee pudding in the past for me. The banana pudding, piped onto the plate in curls, was rich and comforting and the sweetness cut subtly by the inclusion of the lime foam. In a play on the traditional custard or ice cream accompanying sticky toffee pudding, the faux ice cream (derived from jasmine rice) was cool, creamy, and soothing. A fantastic dessert.

Petits fours:

Passionfruit pate de fruit in edible rice paper wrapper, fennel pollen macaron with lemon curd, and chocolate on stick with a surprise.

While some at the table didn't care for the overt sweetness of the passionfruit pate de fruit, I actually quite enjoyed it (but it might have been because of my undying love for passionfruit in general). The least successful of the petits fours was the middle item, the teeny-tiny fennel pollen marcaron with lemon curd; it wasn't bad but it was such a tiny bite that it was hard to get a sense of the flavor profiles as anything else was obliterated by the tartness of the lemon curd. Last, the "surprise" of the chocolate stick was the inclusion of pop rocks. I've had chocolate-covered pop rocks in the past but this was a nice bite at the end of the meal: sweet and effervescent at the same time with an auditory component as well.

All in all, a truly sensational meal that had Michael Voltaggio showcasing his considerable talents, the staff effortlessly anticipating each and every whim ahead of time, and a convivial, clubby atmosphere. I'll definitely be coming back in the future.

Televisionary is TCA-Bound

Yep, it's that time of year again as television critics and reporters descend on Los Angeles en masse for the annual Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour, being held once again in Pasadena.

I'll be attending again as I have for the last few press tours. Look for me to be filing stories directly from Pasadena beginning tomorrow, as well as live-tweeting several sessions and doing some one-on-one interviews for upcoming features.

Wondering what the executives have to say about the network's upcoming midseason programming? Want to hear what Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have to say about Season Six of Lost? Want some tidbits from the cast and crew of NBC's Parks and Recreation? You've come to the right place. Be sure to follow me on Twitter and keep refreshing the main page here at Televisionary for the latest information, gossip, and intel from the TCA Press Tour.

Stay tuned.

Twitter Discussion: TV Teens

Over on Twitter this morning, one of the main topics of TV-focused conversation is the dearth of well-crafted and three-dimensional teenage characters on television.

The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan raised an interesting question about why teen characters are often so unlikable, to which I replied that television writers are often too quick to paint them as brash and unpredictable rather than develop them as full-blown characters with strengths and weaknesses.

The initial conversation stemmed from a dislike on the part of many of V's Tyler Evans (Logan Huffman), who seems in the series purely to advance a subplot and not because his character's participation in the overall story (yet anyway) has made an indelible mark. It's especially noticeable given the strength of the series' female characters, particularly those played by Elizabeth Mitchell and Morena Baccarin.

But the real question is: why are teens given short shrift when it comes to characterization?

There are some very notable exceptions, of course. Series like Freaks & Geeks, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Wire, and Gilmore Girls (among many others) have painted their teen characters with deep brushstrokes, rendering them as full realized as adult characters. And Mad Men's pre-teen Sally Draper has as much of an inner life as the deeply flawed adults on Matt Weiner's period drama.

So, why are some series' teens just so impossible to like? Is it as TV Guide Magazine's Damian Holbrook suggests, "They're written by adults who either hate teens or don't remember being one"?

We tend to like characters who have flaws so why don't TV teens get as much love and depth as we'd like them to? Which writers excel at creating and writing for teenage characters? And which ones shouldn't be allowed to write for anyone under 21? Discuss.

The Daily Beast: "Mad Men, Laid Bare"

Curious to hear what the creator of Mad Men has to say about Sunday night's season finale? You're in the right place.

I was extremely lucky to have the opportunity to conduct an exclusive interview with Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner about the third season finale of the AMC period drama and take a look at the third season as a whole.

You can read my extremely illuminating interview with Matt Weiner, entitled "Mad Men, Laid Bare," over at The Daily Beast, where he discusses the end of the Drapers’ marriage and Sterling Cooper, new beginnings for Don and Betty, the Kennedy assassination, and real-life figure Conrad Hilton, among other topics.

(There was a lot of fascinating information that unfortunately didn't make it into the final Q&A due to length, so apologies if some topics of interest didn't get touched upon.)

Let me know what you think and head over to the comments section to discuss.

Spoil-Sport: Why Talking About an Episode That's Already Aired Isn't a "Spoiler"

I'm personally against spoilers.

I can't stand them and I think they detract from the audience's appreciation of the care and effort that series' writers take to deploy the plots that they have carefully developed. I don't read the end of mystery novels for the same reason. I don't want to know whodunit before the killer has even struck. The journey is what interests me most more than the ultimate destination. I want to see how characters develop, how they change and grow, how the plot twists and turns.

In other words: I want to be surprised.

That said, a comment I received on a story (elsewhere, not on Televisionary) rankled me this morning. The reader took umbrage at the fact that I didn't include a "spoiler warning" at the start of an interview for an episode that had already aired.

Here's where my views depart from the devout spoiler-phobe. I firmly believe that, once an episode has aired across the country, all bets are off. It's a free-for-all, as far as I am concerned. Writers, critics, bloggers, whoever, should be free to discuss the episode's intricacies and plot developments with abandon. There's no need to label a post, an interview, or anything as a "spoiler" because it's not spoiling anything.

The details about the latest episode's plots, reality series eliminations, character deaths, etc. are out there in the public consciousness. Consider them public domain, if you will. And the onus to avoid them isn't on the part of the writer but on the reader.

If by some bizarre occurrence (say, I was trapped on a Martian base being chased by a water-based homicidal creature), I was to miss an episode of Doctor Who or Lost, I would firmly expect to have plot points revealed in every single piece written about Doctor Who or Lost the following day.

The burden, therefore, is on me to avoid all sites, forums, blogs, and print publications that might make mention of plot developments of which I am unaware. Likewise, BBC One will air Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars a month before BBC America does here in the States. If I want to avoid knowing just what happens, I'm going to avoid visiting any British publications and websites for several days after the special airs. I wouldn't expect those journalists to label their stories with a "spoiler" warning and I don't believe that they should.

The person in question who said that I should have labeled my story with a spoiler warning was seven episodes behind on the series in question. Now, that's not my fault. That's a choice that the reader in question made on their own. Perhaps they're catching up, perhaps they fell behind. But the day after a season finale airs, you can bet that the elements of that episode that are going to get discussed will be placed prominently and in full view of everyone.

I'd hate to think that I'd derailed anyone's enjoyment of a television series but I also think we need to revisit our definition of "spoilers" and understand that in an age of DVRs and internet viewing, it's up to the viewers and readers to be canny and aware and not reporters or critics to police themselves from inadvertently upsetting the few who might not be up to date.

What do you think? What's your take on spoilers and episode-specific reporting/criticism/interviews? Do you think journalists need to tread more lightly? Or it is up to viewers to choose their steps more carefully? Discuss.

What Are You Still Watching This Fall? (And What Have You Given Up On?)

With the fall season now officially a few weeks old, I thought it was time to check the pulse of the television landscape a bit.

I'm extremely curious to know what new and returning series everyone is watching. Have you fallen for ABC's Modern Family? In love with NBC's Community? Dying to see ABC's V? Surprised by how much you're enjoying CBS' The Good Wife? Laughing your head off over NBC's reinvigorated Parks and Recreation? Singing your heart out to FOX's Glee? I want to know.

Conversely, which new or returning television series have you given up on? Have you moved out of Melrose Place? Been traumatized by NBC's Trauma? Frustrated by FlashForward? Already forgotten about The Forgotten?

I'd be interested to know either way which series are at the top of your must-view list and which ones have been deleted from your season pass. And, most importantly, why.

Talk back here.

Los Angeles Times: From The Others to the Visitors: Elizabeth Mitchell talks about battling the otherworldly on her new ABC series 'V'

Those of you looking for some more information about ABC's upcoming reimagining of the 1980s sci-fi mini-series V, should head over to the Los Angeles Times to read my lengthy interview with the series' lead Elizabeth Mitchell, entitled "From The Others to the Visitors: Elizabeth Mitchell talks about battling the otherworldly on her new ABC series 'V'."

In this exclusive interview, I talk to the lovely and articulate Elizabeth Mitchell about her time as Juliet on ABC's Lost, her character FBI Agent Erica Evans on V, Erica's relationship with Joel Gretsch's Father Jack, what's coming up on the sci-fi series, and much more.

If that weren't enough, V-related goodness for you, here's a link to my original advance review of the pilot episode from May, and you'll find a video of the first nine minutes of the V series premiere below.



V premieres Tuesday, November 3rd at 8 pm ET/PT on ABC.

Televisionary Named One of "50 TV Insiders to Follow Right Now" by The Wrap

Time for some shameless self-promotion.

The Wrap's Josef Adalian has compiled a list of "50 TV Insiders to Follow Right Now" and yours truly has made it onto the list, along such luminaries as The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan, Time's James Poniewozik, Sarah Silverman, Shawn Ryan, Hart Hanson, Brian Stelter, and many, many others. (Okay, well, 43 others.)

Here's how The Wrap described me:

@televisionary
A one-time TV development executive and avowed Anglophile, the man behind the Televisionary blog is never shy with a sharp opinion on the latest TV news or last night's episode of Mad Men. He's also the best-fed TV type on Twitter, regularly sharing details of his latest amazing meal.

You can read the full list here and follow me on Twitter here.

USA Weekend: "Which new TV shows are worth watching?"

You can check out my interview by USA Weekend's Thomas J. Walter about the fall season here.

I was interviewed along with The Futon Critic's Brian Ford Sullivan and Ain't It Cool News' Herc about which series were we most looking forward to this fall. Not surprisingly, two of the series I touted were ABC's Modern Family and V.

Of Modern Family (which launches on Wednesday night), I said, "Hands down, this is my favorite new series so far," and that the series "has a winning combination of quirkiness, witty banter and heart. It explores how the post-nuclear family ticks and how universal bonds of love and frustration keep it all together."

And V I described as "Gripping and electrifying in equal measure... With engaging leads such as Elizabeth Mitchell and Joel Gretsch, it's difficult not to get swept up by the action and the analogies for our changed world."

The piece can be read in full here.

Los Angeles Times: "Larry David talks about putting 'Seinfeld' back together for 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'"

Some more self-promotion this morning as the Los Angeles Times/Show Tracker has today run my first piece for their website, an interview with Curb Your Enthusiasm creator/star Larry David.

I caught up with David earlier this week to discuss Season Seven of Curb (which launches Sunday evening), that Seinfeld reunion, Larry's relationships with Cheryl and Loretta, sacred cows, and much more.

You can read the piece in full here at the Los Angeles Times/Show Tracker site.

Curb Your Enthusiasm's seventh season launches Sunday evening at 9 pm ET/PT on HBO.

Tune-In Reminder: Thursday Night Premiere Bonanza

Just a quick reminder that there's a ton of new television launching tonight, between series premieres, season premieres, and a secret advance peek at a new FX comedy series kicking off next year.

So what should you be sure to set your DVR for tonight? Here goes?

Season Five of Bones kicks off tonight at 8 pm ET/PT with a premiere ("Harbingers in a Fountain"), in which Brennan returns from a dig in Guatemala; Angela's psychic, Avalon Harmonia (Cyndi Lauper) reveals while reading Angela's tarot cards that there are multiple bodies buried under a Washington, DC fountain; Sweets certifies Booth mentally fit to return to duty after his brain surgery, but Booth is still experiencing some side effects from his coma. (You can read my advance review of the season premiere here.)

At 8:30 pm, it's the start of Season Two of comedy Parks and Recreation on NBC. (You can read my advance review of the first two episodes of the season here.)

Fringe returns to FOX at 9 pm tonight with a second season premiere ("A New Day in the Old Town") in which Peter unknowingly races against time to gain information about Olivia's visit to the parallel world and Walter reenters the lab to cook up a bit of fringe science, and some custard for Peter's birthday. (You can read my advance review of the season opener here.

Wait, there's more...

The Office kicks off its new season at 9 pm with "Rumors," in which Michael spreads some rumors around the office, including one rumor that just happens to be true.

At 9:30 pm, NBC launches its newest comedy, Community, about a lawyer (Joel McHale) whose degree has been revoked forms a study group at a community college where he has enrolled in order to obtain a legitimate bachelor's degree. (You can read my advance review of the pilot episode here.)

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia returns to FX at 10 pm with the start of its fifth season ("The Gang Exploits the Mortgage Crisis") as Frank, Mac and Dennis try their hand at real estate; Dee arranges to be a surrogate mother for a rich couple; Charlie squares off with a lawyer. (You can read my review of the first four episodes here.)

Cap off the evening with a sneak peek of FX's animated comedy series Archer, about an international man of mystery and his eccentric co-workers, which launches early next year.

The Daily Beast: "The Magic of Mad Men"

Another quick bit of indulgent self-promotion this morning.

Please be sure to check out my latest piece for The Daily Beast, entitled "The Magic of Mad Men," featuring a one-on-one interview with Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner.

It's the latest installment of an Emmy story package at The Daily Beast and features a Q&A with Matthew Weiner. The period drama is up for thirteen nominations this year, including Outstanding Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actor (Jon Hamm), Outstanding Lead Actress (Elisabeth Moss), Outstanding Supporting Actor (John Slattery), and Outstanding Writing, among others.

You can read the piece in full here. Be sure to read the whole intro for Mad Men and then click on the gallery to read the Q&A.

Blood Bath: Televisionary Talks to "True Blood" Writer/Executive Producer Alan Ball

Still have some burning questions about last night's True Blood season finale? Or anxious to gather some clues about just what creator/executive producer Alan Ball has in store for the residents of Bon Temps when True Blood returns next summer? You've come to the right place.

I caught up with True Blood czar Alan Ball this morning to talk about last night's season finale, deconstruct the second season, and find out about what's coming up on Season Three of HBO's addictive vampire drama.

In this exclusive one-on-one interview, Ball hints at what's on the horizon for Sookie and Bill, new creatures, Sam Merlotte's quest, Jessica, a possible romance for Lafayette, the Vampire King of Mississippi, Sophie-Anne, and much, much more. Ball also told me that the writing staff had broken the fourth script for Season Three of True Blood already and that shooting is tentatively slated to begin December 3rd on the highly anticipated third season.

So what did Ball reveal about what's coming up on True Blood and what did he have to say about this season? Let's dive in, but beware: there are MAJOR SPOILERS below. (Note: Please do not reproduce this interview in full elsewhere. Quotes and excerpts are fine but please do not post the full text of this interview on message boards, websites, or elsewhere.)

Televisionary: What was the decision behind having the Maryann storyline finish out the season instead of the Dallas plot?

Alan Ball: We used the books as a template and that is sort of the way the second book is structured. Maryann is not as refined in the second book; she’s a maenad, she’s just a crazy woman running around in the woods. And we also felt like the first part of the season we had a lot of different storylines taking place in different places and then we wanted to bring them all together, bring all of our regulars together for one—something--where everyone was fighting the same fight for the last episode.

Televisionary: Was it difficult juggling the separate storylines in the first half of the season? We do have the cast split up more or less for most of the season.

Ball: You know, it wasn’t difficult. It was definitely different from the first season. But I sort of feel like, you want to do that, you want to shake the show up and do different things. You don’t want to just do the same things over and over and over again. I follow my instincts. To me, they were three really fun, interesting storylines. And then the fact that Jason sort of veered in with Bill and Sookie and then everyone came home and it all sort of came together, I actually thought it was really fun.

Televisionary: In speaking of Jason’s storyline, Anna Camp and Michael McMillian, who play the Newlins, became hugely popular with the audience. Is there a chance that the Newlins will be back?

Ball: They are so good. Of course, there’s a chance. They’re not dead. And I think they are both probably really pissed off.

Televisionary: Did you realize how much impact Godric’s death would have, despite Allan Hyde only appearing in a handful of episodes?

Ball: You know, I did because in the books, it’s really, really powerful and we tried hard to make it as powerful as it is in the books and that was a really tough role to cast because it was difficult to find an actor who looked so young but who could convey centuries of feeling and to be tired of life and tired of being alive and ready to move on. And I always thought that that was a great story and a great character. So I was not surprised; I was very moved myself. When I first saw the cut of that episode, I got a little teary, a little misted up.

Televisionary: In a season filled with heartrending and memorable moments, it definitely stands out as a powerful and profound sequence.

Ball: That whole episode is really wonderful. The episodes leading up to that one have been so filled with adventure and suspense and craziness and then I love that whole episode because there’s not only the scene with Godric and everything that’s going on with him but the Jessica stuff is really starting to heat up. And I love that scene with Jason and Sookie in the hotel, where they talk about Gran and he sort of drops his guard and you see how vulnerable he really is.

Televisionary: In that same episode, Godric’s death also enables us to see a different side of Eric. Was that a way for you and the writers to give Eric an added layer of vulnerability?

Ball: Yes, absolutely. One of the great, fun aspects of the books—and it’s become for the show as well—is the romantic tension between Bill, Sookie, and Eric. And we started off the season and we wanted to make Eric a bad-ass and I think we were very successful with that, by having him shred that guy in front of Lafayette’s face. (Laughs) And then in order to have him be a real, viable option for Sookie, you have to have some humanity there. She may be attracted to him physically, especially now that she’s had his blood, but she’s never going to go with somebody who she feels is evil or at the very least amoral. That was definitely what we were thinking of with Eric.

Televisionary: While Sookie and Bill are our romantic leads, Hoyt and Jessica offer us a very different take on vampire-human love. Did you anticipate such an incredible reaction to their storyline and specifically toward Jim Parrack and Deborah Ann Woll?

Ball: When I saw the scene [in "Scratches"] in the third episode where she walks into the bar and I saw that scene cut together, I did anticipate it. I went, wow! We really have something special here. They’ve just become a major couple on the show. I don’t think it’s going to be easy for them. Nothing is ever going to be easy for anybody on this show.

Televisionary: Season One saw Bill protecting Sookie on an almost weekly basis but in Season Two we see Sookie take a major step into adulthood and stand up for herself. How will their relationship continue to develop in Season Three, especially given with Eric’s influence over Sookie and Bill’s kidnapping?

Ball: I know exactly what’s going to happen in Season Three, because we’ve already started breaking the episodes and figuring the arc of the season. So I can’t really say without giving too much away what I think. But I’ll say this: the love between them is authentic and real, but that doesn’t mean that they will necessarily stay together. But it doesn’t mean that they won’t either, though.

Televisionary: Looking ahead to Season Three, are there are any themes or plots that you intend to employ next season? One of the more intriguing threads picked up in last night’s episode is both Sam and Sookie looking to find their roots.

Ball: Yeah, I think that whereas if we had any sort of major overarching theme for Season Two it was about the power of belief, both positive and negative. I think probably Season Three is going to be more about identity and characters really sort of coming to grips with who or what they are.

Televisionary: It seems almost like a red herring that Eric was behind Bill’s kidnapping last night. Should we be looking at any other potential suspects behind his disappearance?

Ball: I think you should always be considering all possibilities. (Laughs) That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to make the choice that is the one that’s being positioned to look like a red herring. But with this show, you never know what’s going to happen. I try to work with the writers in creating a show that when you buy the DVDs and you watch the season over again, knowing what’s going to happen, you’ll see moments where you’ll say, oh, of course. We tried to structure Season One with Rene’s identity as the killer that way, to never shine a light on it but Michael Raymond-James, who played Rene, knew from the very beginning that he was the killer. So he played it in a very subtle way so that if you watch those DVDs, now you’re like, oh, I see it. But we never want to give that away on the first go-around. I’d have to say it’s a similar situation with [Bill’s kidnapping].

Televisionary: When I interviewed Deborah Ann Woll a few months ago, she described Jason Stackhouse as “delightfully dim.” Does Jason’s killing of Eggs in the season finale reinforce that description?

Ball: (Laughs) Well, it certainly wasn’t a smart thing to do but he did it from a good place because he thought that Eggs was going to kill Andy. That’s certainly something that’s going to come back and haunt him.

Televisionary: Did you always intend Eggs to die at the end of the season? It obviously has huge repercussions for Tara.

Ball: Absolutely. We always knew that… Of course, I’m sad to loose Mehcad [Brooks], I’m sad to lose Michelle Forbes, I was very sad to lose Lois Smith but it’s a show about vampires and there’s a lot of violence. You can’t just have everybody you like just always get away because then it becomes a very different kind of a show and it loses its authenticity. Or as much authenticity as a show about vampires can have. (Laughs)

Televisionary: The body count will always be high.

Ball: Yes, there will always be a big body count on this show.

Televisionary: It’s intimated in the season finale that there’s a hidden force that’s supposedly watching over Sookie? Will we learn more about this and is this connected to that dangling plot thread about what happened to the Rattrays in the pilot?

Ball: Absolutely. Certainly, part of Sookie’s quest in Season Three, apart from trying to find Bill and find out who took him, is to figure out who and what she is. And by the end of the season, she certainly will be beginning to figure that out.

Televisionary: One of the most shocking revelations this season was the reveal that Jessica will forever be a virgin, which was incredibly upsetting. Where did this idea emanate from?

Ball: That came from a writer on staff, Raelle Tucker. It was one of those moments where it gets pitched and I sort of go, well, of course. What other show could you do that on? Well, I guess now there are several other shows you could do that on, but at that point… I had never worked on a show where that actually made perfect sense to do something like that. For me, that’s the best part of science fiction or fantasy or genre or whatever you want to call it in that you can put people in situations that most of us will not have to face in life and it’s just really, really interesting.

Televisionary: Jessica’s been through a hell of a lot this season but then she hunts and kills in the season finale. Is this normal teenage rebellion or are we seeing her go to a much darker place next season?

Ball: I don’t think you can say anything is normal teenage rebellion. Basically, all of the events of Season Two take place over eight days. So she’s still a fairly freshly-made vampire. Bill hasn’t been much of a maker and she just had a really emotional experience with Hoyt walking out on her. It’s part of her instincts as a vampire and her need to feed and her not liking Tru Blood because it’s a poor substitute and also she’s just got rage. And she’s got good reason to have rage. She got turned into a vampire against her will and then she thought she’d found a way to make that work and then all of the sudden, it’s been taken away from her. She’s only 17 or 18, so… I wouldn’t call it normal teenage acting out. (Laughs)

Televisionary: One of the more unexpected partnerships that developed this season was Jason Stackhouse and Andy Bellefleur, who offered a bit of comic relief but also a genuine, strange friendship that might be shattered by Jason’s actions in the season finale.

Ball: We’re definitely going to put some tension on them but they will continue to actually be a sort of – I don’t want to call them a team but their lives are definitely going to intersect in Season Three.

Televisionary: How many scripts have you broken for Season Three?

Ball: We’ve broken four scripts so far.

Televisionary: Are you ever surprised by anything in terms of breaking the stories that you didn’t anticipate?

Ball: This is different from Six Feet Under in that we’re working from source material and one of the reason is that Charlaine’s books are so successful is that they work. We’re starting Season Three with the third book and the books are basically Sookie’s stories because she narrates them and then we try to figure out how to bring the other characters in and keep everyone involved. In Season Two, we specifically decided to send everybody off on their own little thing and then have them reunite at the end but I don’t want to repeat that so I’m really trying to keep Season Three certainly a little more organic with the connection between the regulars.

But, no, we’re working with the source material. Like I said, a lot of Charlaine’s books just work so if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. On Six Feet Under, there were always massive shifts in seasons. But again that was more of a blank slate because we weren’t basing them on any existing material.

Televisionary: Is Evan Rachel Wood a series regular next season?

Ball: No, she’s not a series regular but she definitely will appear. I know some fans thought that she wasn’t scary enough but all I can say to that is that I didn’t want to blow our wad at the top. She’s pretty scary and we’ll definitely see that. She’s crazy! I mean, that character is insane so I don’t think we’ve really seen an insane vampire yet.

Televisionary: So, we’ve seen telepaths, vampires, maenads, and shifters all turn up in Bon Temps. Any new creatures we can expect to see in Season Three?

Ball: Werewolves…

Televisionary: Are there any clues for what viewers can expect for next season?

Ball: I can tell you that we will meet the Vampire King of Mississippi and he will have an agenda with the Vampire Queen of Louisiana. We will meet werewolves, some other weres that aren’t wolves but they are not shifters either. (Laughs.) We are going to meet Sam’s blood relatives, we’re going to meet probably the nastiest vampire we’ve met yet and Lafayette might get some action, might have a little love story of his own.

True Blood's third season begins Summer 2010 on HBO.

The Daily Beast: "Damages' Stylish Mind Game"

Quick bit of indulgent self-promotion this morning.

Please be sure to check out my first piece for The Daily Beast, entitled "Damages' Stylish Mind Game."

It's the first installment of an Emmy story package at The Daily Beast and features a Q&A with Todd A. Kessler, Glenn Kessler, and Daniel Zelman, the creators/executive producers of FX's legal thriller Damages, which is up for seven nominations this year, including Outstanding Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series (Glenn Close), Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series (William Hurt), Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series (Rose Byrne), Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series (Ted Danson), Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series (Todd A. Kessler), and Outstanding Casting for a Drama Series (Julie Tucker and Ross Meyerson).

You can read the piece in full here. Be sure to read the whole intro for Damages and then click on the gallery to read the Q&A.