Prometheus - Some Quick Thoughts

I haven't posted here in a while so I thought I'd share a few thoughts about my most anticipated film of the year (yes, even more so than The Avengers or The Dark Knight).

Prometheus is a tale of two movies, beginning as a 2001-esque sci-fi film full of wonder that morphs into a somewhat by-the-numbers horror flick in the second half.  The visual effects and cinematography are spectacular, and the 3D is among the best I've seen, but ultimately it feels like it's missing something.  There's not much character development (in fact, Fassbender's brilliantly played android is the most fully-realized character in the film), though this would not have been a problem if the film had continued along its philosophical path (such films have worked with minimal character development), but when it raises the stakes and becomes a horror film, the lack of character interaction or chemistry becomes a detriment.

Still, it's better than a lot of the derivative drivel that passes for film entertainment these days, and at least it tries for something greater, even if it falls a bit short.  Despite its flaws, its a treat to see Scott working in sci-fi again (for the first time since Blade Runner), and I enjoyed watching all of the little bits that tied into Alien.  I still recommend it for its aforementioned qualities as well as some expertly crafted, thrilling sequences, but with the caveat that you may want to lower your expectations if you were expecting a genre-defining masterpiece.  Lets say, 3.5 out of 5 stars, though it is possible that rating could go up after a second viewing, as the film does leave behind much to consider and discuss.  And people are discussing it everywhere, so if that was Scott's ultimate goal, you could consider the film a success.

Visualizing Mid-World: An Intro to the Dark Tower Comics

I’ve never been much of a comic book reader. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of comic books I owned in the first 3+ decades of my life (unless you count Mad Magazine). While many of my childhood peers were reading comic books, I was more likely to have my head buried in a novel. I’ve never had anything against comics; I just never got into them, which was kind of odd considering how big a fan I was (and still am) of TV shows and films based on comics. They basically circled the periphery of my existence without ever making landfall.

But that changed when Stephen King licensed Marvel to tell a new series of stories from his Dark Tower universe in comic book format. As a huge fan of all things that serve the Beam (Dark Tower reference, look it up), I had to check these out. I waited until each series of issues was available as a collection in snazzy hardcover format and snatched them up. The series, released in five volumes, is very well done, with impressive imagery that brings the world of the novels to life. My only complaint about the comics is that I wish they were longer, but I think that’s to be expected as a comic newbie who is used to reading lengthy novels.

In the following paragraphs you will find mini-reviews of the five volumes. I stayed mostly spoiler-free, but the reviews assume that the reader has already read the novels and knows the back story that’s being told here. If you haven’t read the books but plan on doing so, I would recommend holding off on the comics until you have gotten through at least the fourth book of the Dark Tower series.

The first volume in the series, The Gunslinger Born, is taken from my favorite novel in the Dark Tower series, Wizard and Glass.  It was great to revisit that story and see the world of Roland’s youth brought to life via the striking images on the pages. However, as stated above, I would not recommend this to those who have not yet read the Dark Tower books, for while this volume does a nice job of capturing the tone of King’s books, it basically reads like a greatest hits version of Wizard and Glass (which is understandable given that book’s length). The result is that much of the depth and emotional impact gets lost, particularly with the tragic ending that in this version felt rushed. That being said, it’s definitely recommended for fans of Wizard and Glass wishing to re-experience that story in a different medium, as well as for Dark Tower completionists.

The next volume, The Long Road Home, is the first of the ‘new’ stories (i.e., material that was only hinted at in King’s books). It picks up immediately after the events of The Gunslinger Born, depicting the journey home to the city of Gilead as Roland’s friends attempt to free his consciousness from the magical sphere known as Maerlyn’s Grapefruit. This is followed by Treachery, which deals with the intrigue and duplicity infecting Gilead upon Roland’s return, while also fleshing out the tragic story of his mother that was briefly touched on in the novels. Both volumes are worthy additions to the Dark Tower saga.

In The Fall Of Gilead, the s**t really starts to hit the fan. It’s hard to say too much without giving away spoilers, but anyone familiar with the Dark Tower series already knows that it does not end well for the protagonists. However, knowing what’s coming doesn’t lessen the heartbreaking impact of the events that unfold. Some people complained that the art was not as good in this volume, but I am not enough of a comic book afficionado to speak to the artwork, so I’ll leave that for others to judge. My primary interest is the story, and this may have been my favorite of the five volumes.

The final volume, The Battle of Jericho Hill, is the story that Dark Tower fanatics have been waiting for: the tragic end of Roland’s ka-tet at the hands of the Good Man’s army on Jericho Hill, and it certainly delivers on the tragedy. It does seem to happen rather quickly, though, leading you to wish for a longer format to tell this story, but it does an admirable job within these constraints.

Following the release of this series, Marvel embarked upon a new series that tells the story of the Dark Tower from book one, beginning with The Gunslinger: The Journey Begins. I haven’t yet decided whether to get these since they won’t be adding anything new to the canon, but I probably will because the hardcover compilations make great collectibles and it’s always a treat to see talented artists bring the books to life. Besides, with Ron Howard’s ambitiously conceived Film/TV project falling through, it’s looking less likely that we will see the Dark Tower series brought to the screen anytime soon, so these comics are the best we’re going to get.  And what better way to pass the time between now and the April release of The Wind Through the Keyhole?

Van Hategar

So Van Halen has released a new album with David Lee Roth–and fans everywhere rejoice. The ring has been cast into the fiery depths of Mt. Doom, the Death Star has been destroyed, and the evil Hagar beast has been vanquished. All is now right with the world.

Van Halen fans (the true ones, not those pesky fans of the Hagar years) are thrilled that the real band is back together (conveniently overlooking the exclusion of Michael Anthony, whose contributions to the Van Halen sound, particularly with harmonies, was underrated). I have heard the new album and I just have to say: meh. Sure, it does sound like vintage Van Halen, but more than anything it has a “been there, done that” feeling to it. It doesn’t really add anything new to the Van Halen legacy.

And therein lies the problem with the revisionist historians who revile Sammy Hagar as the man who ruined Van Halen. “He made them go soft,” the detractors say. The fact is that the band was already headed in a less guitar-driven direction anyway–Eddie Van Halen’s growing love affair with keyboards began long before Hagar joined the band–for proof just listen to 1984 again. There is nothing wrong with this. A band needs to evolve. If it keeps releasing the same material over and over again it eventually becomes an imitation of itself and fans lose interest. At the time of Roth’s departure, the band had pretty much gone as far as they could with him. It was obvious that Eddie wanted to expand his music into areas that Roth was either unwilling to go or that were beyond his capabilities as a performer. Van Halen didn’t change because Roth left. On the contrary, Roth’s departure freed them to embrace the new avenues they had already begun to explore.

Case in point: Love Walks In. Yeah, yeah, I know that this song is reviled among Roth fans as indicative of everything that was wrong with the Hagar years (though I happen to think it’s a great rock ballad). I’m pretty sure I recall reading that this song was written by Eddie. So if you want to blame someone for it, blame him. Did Hagar’s presence possibly lead Eddie to write the song? Perhaps. He would never have written the song for Roth to sing because Roth does not possess the range to sing it. You can hate Hagar’s voice all you want, but you cannot deny that he brought with him a greater vocal range that enabled the band to write songs with greater nuance and variety than they had in the past, and his ability to play lead guitar allowed Eddie to add more keyboard texture to his songs with the knowledge that they could be performed live.

I don’t think this made them soft, just different, but they were still Van Halen.  Why Can’t This Be Love sounds like a song that could have felt at home on 1984 next to Jump. It’s not as if they became a ballad band ala Chicago in its later years. Songs like Best of Both Worlds, Black and Blue, Poundcake, and Humans Being still rocked.

But lest you think this is a pro-Hagar, anti-Roth piece, I want to assure you that it’s not. I happen to like both incarnations of the band. In my opinion both front men made great contributions to their particular eras. In fact, I find the whole Roth versus Hagar argument rather passe. It’s just like the Star Wars versus Star Trek debate. Why isn’t it possible to like both? I recognize that there are people who truly hated the Hagar years, and I respect their opinions, but I think the number of haters has grown over the years as it has become more fashionable to bash that era. I believe the majority of these new haters are not being honest with themselves. How else to explain Van Halen’s enormous popularity during the Hagar years? Those were not just new fans. There were plenty of Roth holdovers who thought 5150 and OU812 were very good albums when they came out.

So if you are among those who always hated the Hagar years, I’m okay with that, and I’m not here to change your mind. But if you enjoyed the Hagar years when you were younger, it’s okay to admit it, you don’t need to hide anymore. As Obi Wan Kenobi might say, “Trust your feelings.” Those years weren’t so bad.

You, Zombie

In honor of Short Story Month and Zombie Awareness Month, I decided to try my hand at some second person, present tense prose. I whipped it up quickly so it's raw and unpolished, but then again, it is a zombie story, so perhaps raw is appropriate . . .



You, Zombie

By Michael Rappa



The hunger. Oh god, the hunger. What is this compulsion to eat raw flesh? The taste—the foul, foul taste. You want to vomit but your body craves the blood, the sinew, the ligaments. You grow stronger with each bite of spongy muscle. You wish you could just starve yourself into oblivion but it seems the will to exist persists beyond death.

So you move on in search of your next meal—your next victim. You can't stop. When a human enters your line of site or wanders into the radius of your supernatural sense of smell, primal instinct takes over. You're a shark on feet . . . well, one foot and a stub (the zombie that turned you into this abomination ate most of your right foot for dinner). Last week you consumed your first child. You live every day with her screams in your head. The undead never sleep so the screams never stop.

You beg people for help but they don't seem to understand what you're saying. You try to let them kill you but your body fights back when they attack. You have no control. You're a slave to the affliction. You're terribly lonely. You can't even communicate with your fellow zombies. They're not kin; they're competition.

You just want to go home, to see a familiar face, to forget this hellish existence—even if only for a moment. So you hobble down a corpse-littered street to the crimson-colored cape cod of your youth. Surely your parents won't turn you away. You knock (bang) on the door and call (groan) their names (something unintelligible). Your father opens the door and points a shotgun at you.

"Go away!" he hollers as a tear rolls down his cheek.

You plead with him, but he only pumps the weapon in response.

"I said go! You're not my child! You're a monster! My child is dead!"

"Please, don't shoot!" you hear your mother cry from inside the house. She runs out to stand between you and your father. "Please don't shoot our baby!"

The gun shakes in your father's hand and he breaks out into a sob as he drops it to the ground. He slumps down beside it. Your mother turns and opens her arms. You rush to embrace her. She will make everything better; she always has.

You want to ask her why she's suddenly screaming but she always told you never to talk with your mouth full. Your father tries to pry your teeth away from her throat but you cling to her flesh like a ravenous animal. He reaches for the gun and points it at your head, but by this time the neighborhood zombies have been alerted to the commotion and he is overrun. The undead mob scratches and claws and you soon find yourself on the outside of the feeding frenzy that quickly turns your parents into mounds of meat.

So you begin to walk away. For a moment you pause and look back, overwhelmed by sadness and guilt—but only for a moment. Then you move on in search of your next meal. You can't stop.

The Man in Black fled across the desert, and Ron Howard directed...

Rejoice, Constant Readers.  At long last, Stephen King’s epic saga, The Dark Tower, is making the leap to the big screen, directed by Opie Cunningham himself, Ron Howard.  For those who don’t know, The Dark Tower is King’s magnum opus, the nexus of his entire body of work, with references to the Dark Tower sprinkled throughout the majority of his novels.  The task of adapting this behemoth to the screen (seven books clocking in at over a million words, not to mention several ancillary stories that may become part of the films) is going to make The Lord of the Rings look like a one-act play.

Many fans have heaped scorn upon the choice of Howard to direct (I guess they were hoping for Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, or someone of that ilk).  I, for one, will withhold judgment until I see the final product.  Howard has made many solid films over the years, and for what it’s worth, he seems to have a deep passion for the project (he worked on it for a year before even presenting the idea to Stephen King)—and there is no way that King would let his baby go unless he was confident that Howard was going to do his books justice.  This is not Maximum Overdrive or Christine—The Dark Tower is the center of King’s entire literary universe, and he would not hand over the rights lightly.

The doubters claim that Howard’s body of work leaves no indication that he is capable of taking on a project like this, but was Peter Jackson in a much different position before he began work on Lord of the Rings?  And we all know how that turned out.  I’m intrigued by the way Howard has chosen to approach the material: a movie trilogy sandwiched around two television series that bridge the three films.  Such a concept is unprecedented in cinematic history; it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.  It certainly gives the filmmakers latitude to flesh out more of the story than a strict film series would have provided.  I wonder, though, how much of the source material will need to be censored in the television series.  It would seem to be better suited for a premium channel, but then how many fans would follow it?  On the other hand, there have been a few network television miniseries over the years that have done a credible job with King’s work, so perhaps this can work as well.

The most important element of the production is going be the selection of the actor to play series protagonist Roland Deschain, a gunslinger in much the same vein as Clint Eastwood’s character from Sergio Leone’s classic series of spaghetti westerns, with a little bit of Arthurian regalness mixed in.  Howard has offered this critical part to Javier Bardem (I have to admit that I have trouble seeing him in this role, but he is an outstanding actor, so I will place my faith in Howard’s judgment).  At this point Bardem has yet to accept and there’s no guarantee that he will, for he would be required to commit a huge chunk of the next decade of his life to a single character on both the big and small screen—how many A-list actors would be willing to do that?  It could be that we end up with a relative unknown in the role, which might actually be preferable.

Regardless of the choices Howard makes as the project moves forward (and their inevitable dissection by the fan base), I look forward with great excitement to those first moments on the big screen when the Man in Black flees across the desert with the Gunslinger in hot pursuit.  And to borrow a phrase from the High Speech of Roland’s hometown of Gilead, I say thankee-sai.

For the Birds

Well, it was bound to happen when the NFL decided to split the league into eight divisions; it was only a matter of time.  And here we are, with the embarrassment of a 7-9 team hosting a playoff game while two 10-6 teams are sitting at home.  Almost everyone outside of Seattle agrees that this is a travesty, and, unlike some arguments I have heard, this is not an aberration—it will happen again.  When you have nearly as many divisions as playoff spots, you are practically begging for it to happen again.

Even if you want to make the argument that Seattle deserves to be in the playoffs because they won their division (not much of an accomplishment considering that my cousin's midget football team could win seven games in that division), you can't possibly believe that the Seahawks deserve to host a playoff game, that the 11-5 Saints should have to travel to Seattle to play this game.  And consider this: if things had fallen a little differently in the last week of the season, it would have been the Falcons with a 12-4 record heading to 7-9 Seattle.  Does anyone seriously think this is good for the NFL?

So what should they do about it?  They'll never go back to six divisions, so that's not an option.  Ideally, only the top three division winners in each conference should be guaranteed playoff spots, but the owners would never go for that, either.  At the very least, the owners should agree that winning your division should not guarantee you a home playoff game.  The playoffs should be seeded according to record.  Not only is this the fair thing to do, but it would also make the final games of the regular season more interesting.  Think about how many teams rest players during the last two weeks because their seeding is locked up.  For example, the Eagles would not have been able to rest their starters in last week's Dallas game under this proposed format because they would have fallen behind Green Bay in the seedings and lost their chance to host a playoff game.  Also, the Bears would have had more to play for in the final week because a loss would have meant falling behind the Saints and losing their first-round bye.  In fact, every playoff team in the league except for the Patriots would have had something to play for in the final week.

The NFL has been searching for ways to make that final week more interesting and this seems like a perfect solution.  Not only would fewer teams be resting players at the end of the season, but the playoff seeding would be much more equitable.  Yeah, you would still have crappy 7-9 Seattle in the playoffs, but at least they wouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game against a much better team.  They would be the 6th seed, where they belong.

But I didn't come here to talk about that :-)

Time for this week's picks.  Might as well start with the team in question...

New Orleans at Seattle
Seattle might actually have a chance to win this game . . . if a wormhole swallows up the Saints' plane on the way to Seattle.  I'm feeling generous, so I'll give the home team a special teams TD to go with a couple of field goals.  Saints: 31, Seahawks 13.

Baltimore at Kansas City
Kansas City has had an admirable season, but they're not ready for a game like this against a team of this caliber.  Ravens 23, Chiefs 14.

New York at Indianapolis
This is my slight upset pick of the week.  Manning just doesn't have the weapons this year and I think the Jets will win the battle up front.  Jets 24, Colts 21.

Green Bay at Philadelphia
This should be the game of the week between two teams with explosive offenses.  Green Bay seems to be the popular pick around the country, but I'm going to be a homer here and pick the Birds to eke one out.  Eagles 28, Packers 24.

Oh No, Not Another Year-End Countdown...

It's the time of year when entertainment writers around the country begin publishing their "best of" lists for the year, so I've decided to throw my hat into the ring with a list of my favorite new shows of 2010.  Notice that I say "favorite" rather than "best of."  I cannot do a proper "best of" list without having seen every single new show that debuted in 2010, so if one of your favorite new shows is not on this list, chances are that I haven't seen it.

There are a few interesting things to note about this list, not the least of which is that three of my top five shows (Caprica, Rubicon, Terriers) have already been canceled, while a fourth (The Event) probably won't make it to a second season, a trend that does not bode well for quality programming on television.  Another thing that stands out about this list is that only two of the shows are on network television (and only one on a "big-three" network), a testament to the fact that most of the best TV can now be found on cable channels like AMC, FX, and USA.

A few other interesting tidbits: only half of these shows debuted in the fall, none of them are sitcoms (unless you count Ugly Americans), and none of them are reality shows (you will never find a reality show in any "best of" list of mine, but that's a story for another article).
So, without further ado, here are my ten favorite new shows of the year.  In parentheses are the time of year they debuted and the channel where you can find them.

10.  Ugly Americans (Spring, Comedy Central)
This half-hour cartoon fits right in with Comedy Central's late night lineup.  The premise of the show is an alternate New York where monsters are integrated into society.  The main character, Mark, works for the Department of Integration as a support group counselor for monsters, has a zombie roommate who often winds up losing parts of his body, and a half-demon girlfriend with a tendency to flip out, hell-style.  Though the gags can be hit or miss, the hits are often hysterical, and the Manbird episode was one of the funniest things I've seen this year.

9.  Covert Affairs (Summer, USA)
The first of two spy dramas on the list, this started out as one of those guilty pleasure shows that got better with each episode.  I almost didn't watch it because early reviews tagged it as a pale imitation of Alias (one of my favorite shows).  This show is definitely not on an Alias level, but it is more grounded in reality (i.e. no Rambaldi mythology), so it has been able to carve its own niche.  The always watchable Piper Perabo is surrounded by a strong supporting cast, making this a good hour of escapist entertainment.

8.  Nikita (Fall, WB)
The other spy show on my list could have gone wrong in so many ways trying to build another series around the classic La Femme Nikita, but rather than retreading or rebooting the film, the creators chose to set the series after the events of the film with a little twist: Nikita's lover was murdered by Division and she has made it her life's work to bring them down.  To help her, she has placed a mole inside Division as a recruit, enabling her to stay a step ahead of the organization in a weekly game of cat and mouse.  This series is a little weightier than Covert Affairs (a significant death has already occurred), and a strong cast led by Maggie Q make this a solid hour of television.

7.  The Event (Fall, NBC)
The Event is one of those mythology shows that require you to pay attention on a weekly basis, ala Lost or Fringe.  While not in the same league as those two stellar shows, it nevertheless succeeds in pulling you into the story and making you wonder about the nature of the "guests."  Are they aliens?  Time travelers?  Something else?  Who are the people behind the attempt to kill the president and why?  Unfortunately, NBC has done the show no favors by placing it on a long winter hiatus—this is normally a death sentence for a serialized drama (i.e. Jericho, Flash Forward) because many viewers never return.  I have a feeling that the run of episodes scheduled to air in late February will be the show's last.

6.  Justified (Spring, FX)
This series was made for Timothy Olyphant.  If you were one of the many to lament the loss of his Seth Bullock character when Deadwood was canceled, this is the show for you.  Olyphant's Raylan Givens is arguably the most bad-ass character on television.  The series is essentially a modern day western set in Kentucky.  Raylan is a U.S. Marshal reassigned from Miami to the district covering his hometown due to what his bosses believe is a tendency to be quick on the trigger.  Back in his hometown, Raylan must deal not only with criminals, but also with his estranged ex-con father, his ex-wife, and a witness with whom he begins an affair.  The best relationship, however, is between Raylan and Boyd Crowder (played by the excellent Walton Goggins), a childhood friend who grew up to be a criminal.  Their confrontation in the series premiere has consequences that last throughout the first season.  The second season begins in January; you should check it out.

5.  Caprica (Winter, Syfy)
This Battlestar Galactica (BSG) spinoff was a victim of Syfy's seemingly decreasing tolerance for serialized science fiction (see Stargate Universe, the latest casualty of this unfortunate trend) in favor of lighter fare like Eureka and Warehouse 13.  Don't get me wrong, both of the latter are very enjoyable shows, but I prefer some weight to my sci-fi, and Caprica delivered the goods.  Admittedly, the series started off slow and likely alienated many BSG fans expecting something more action-oriented, but, much like a Joss Whedon or JJ Abrams series, it got better as it progressed and rewarded viewers who stuck around.  Caprica explored weighty subjects like religious fanaticism, terrorism, racism, coping with tragic loss, and the dehumanization of a technologically advanced society, not to mention depicting the origin of cylons and laying the seeds for the eventual downfall of humanity.  One of the coolest scenes happened late in the series when a prototype cylon was used by a mobster to annihilate his enemies before uttering the familiar phrase, "By your command," in the well-known cylon voice from the original series.  The show would likely have gotten even better from there as it moved closer to the rise of the cylons, but alas, we'll never know.  Fortunately, Syfy will be burning off the remaining five unaired episodes in a marathon on January 4th.  I, for one, will be watching.  Even knowing that the series is not coming back, it will be worth it.

4.  Rubicon (Summer, AMC)
Rubicon was one of the more cerebral shows that I've seen on television, with a dense, labyrinthine plot—a thinking man's drama about an analyst for a government think tank who uncovers a vast conspiracy during his investigation into a mentor's death.  Unfortunately, in this age of instant gratification television, Rubicon may have been too smart for its own good.  It was the type of series that, had you missed an episode, it would have been very difficult to figure out what was going on.  It was also largely devoid of action, which turned off many viewers (the lack of promotion by AMC in comparison to its other shows didn't help, either).  Rubicon may have been mostly dialogue-oriented, but that just served to make the few scenes of action more fierce and jarring than they otherwise would have been.  This show made many critics' year-end top-ten lists, and rightly so.

3.  The Walking Dead (Fall, FX)
This has the potential to be the best show on television.  The main reason it didn't rank higher for me was the small sample (only six episodes in the first season).  However, The Walking Dead provided more quality television in those six episodes than most shows accomplish in a year.  I was originally just moderately intrigued when I first heard about the series, but when I discovered that Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile) was heavily involved (writing and directing the first episode), I became very excited to see it—and it more than lived up to the hype.  If you haven't watched it because you're not a big zombie fan, I urge you to give it a shot.  It's really more of a morality/survival drama that just happens to have zombies in it.  Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of gore in keeping with the zombie genre (the episode titled "Guts" is ... well, it's in the title), but overall the show is about the relationships and conflicts among a group of people who have survived an apocalypse, and the choices they must make to stay alive.  Television doesn't get much better than this.

2.  Terriers (Fall, FX)
Terriers was the most pleasant surprise (and most disappointing cancellation) of the entire year.  This unheralded show quickly became must-see TV (for me and the other two people in the country who watched it).  Normally when a series this great fails, I'm quick to blame reality television and the short attention span of the average American TV viewer, but in this case the show's failure can be attributed to poor marketing and an unfortunate title that didn't give viewers any idea of what the show was about (hint: it was not about dogs).  I almost didn't tune in myself because the ads made it appear to be just another throwaway buddy detective romp, but I decided to give it a shot because I like Donal Logue.  I'm glad I did because this show turned out to be so much more than its billing.  Far from the lightweight buddy comedy it was sold as, Terriers (with its gritty realism) was actually more akin to the great noir films of cinema. The entire season with its main story arc and numerous subplots played like a novel with well-drawn characters who you actually cared about.  A stellar cast and superb writing set this series above almost anything else on television.  Mystery, crime, romance, family drama, comic relief, heartbreak, shocking deaths—this show had it all, and it's a tragedy that it never found an audience.  I saw several columns written by critics throughout the season singing the show's praises and urging people to tune in—if only FX had been half as enthusiastic in its own promotion of the show, perhaps it would still be on the air. Like Rubicon, Terriers made many critics' top-ten lists for the year (noticing a pattern here?), and I even saw one critic rank it as the best new show of the year.  I was tempted to put it in the top spot myself, that's how much I loved this show.

1.  Boardwalk Empire (Fall, HBO)
With top-notch production values (including dazzling sets that faithfully recreate 1920's Atlantic City), great writing, and a stellar cast, Boardwalk Empire is like watching a mini motion picture on a weekly basis, but I would expect nothing less from the legendary Martin Scorcese (who directed the opening episode and remains heavily involved in the production of the series).  Steve Buscemi is great as Nucky Thompson, the crime boss who runs Atlantic City, while a zealous treasury agent, played with brilliant creepiness by Michael Shannon, attempts to bring him down.  What's great about the show is that it doesn't just focus on Atlantic City; we also get to visit Chicago, where a young Al Capone interns under Johnny Torrio, and New York, where Arnold Rothstein (performed with great malevolence by Michale Stuhlbarg), runs things while mentoring the likes of Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky, two young gangsters who will one day run the most powerful organized crime organization in the country.  While not quite on the level of The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire is nevertheless the best new show on television, and a welcome return of the gangster genre to the small screen.

Honorable Mention: Futurama (Summer, Cartoon Network)
I know what you're thinking: "This isn't a new show!"  Technically that's correct, but Futurama deserves special recognition since this was its first new season in seven years.  Not only did the writers not miss a beat, but I think the show is actually better than it was during its initial run.

Well, that's it for 2010.  Here's hoping that the best new shows in 2011 actually survive past a first season.  Until then, have fun ringing in the new year, which I'll be spending the same way I always do: sitting on the couch and watching the Twilight Zone marathon (though I may check in on the Buffy and Honeymooners marathons as well).

Happy New Year!