First Hulu Rots Your Brain … Then It Drains Your Wallet

According to this story on EW.com, Hulu may start charging viewers to watch its content.  Ah, internet bait and switch – why do you taunt us so?  First you get us hooked with your free programming and pretty interface, then, when we come to rely on you most, when we're hooked like a baby on lollipops, you pull the trigger. 

"That first lollipop was good, eh, kid? If you want another, it's gonna cost you…"

Oh, Hulu, you crack dealing pimp master of reruns …

The reaction on EW.com is predictable.  Some angry, some hurt, many vowing to never again grace Hulu with their presence.  And I do understand the feeling of betrayal, but I also see the other side.  Admittedly, it seems a bit of a dark side at first.

Of all those threatening to vacate Hulu's hallowed halls, some, perhaps many of them, will eat crow and plunk down the money.  Now, I'm assuming that Hulu is going to maintain a modest subscription fee, perhaps five to ten dollars a month.  Should this premise prove faulty and Hulu attempts a more ambitious pricing, then all that follows will be moot.

Why am I so confident that Hulu will succeed with its diabolical plan?  My reasons are three-fold:

1) People are slowly getting used to paying for content on the Internet.  Thank you, iTunes.  Even with the plethora of free music out there, people flock to iTunes like it's a Sam Goody in a Jersey mall circa 1989.  People like being able to satisfy all their music (in this case, television) needs in one place.  Ah, but people were already trained to pay for music – we don't pay for network television…

2) A lot of the comments on the EW story discuss using torrent sites or other video hosting sites to find their favorite episodes for free.  They say it's pointless to pay for something that is ostensibly free.  Some will do this.  Most, I'm willing to bet, have grown accustomed to Hulu's one-stop re-run emporium.  And it's so pretty too, isn't it?  That nice clean interface – all of our favorite shows so easy to find.  That's going to be tough to give up.  If there's one thing pop culture has taught me, it's that people have no problem paying for pretty and pointless things.  See:  Jessica Simpson.

3) Hulu did its homework.  They are not doing this blindly.  I have no doubt they did countless market research studies to test the viability of this plan.  I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but I bet they found that people's viewing habits are slowly changing.  More and more, people are turning to places like Hulu to catch their favorite shows.  If Hulu is catching this wave at the right time, then it might just lead them to great rewards. Between shows I DVR and shows I watch On Demand, there are very few shows I watch during their scheduled time.  Case in point, I am obsessed with Flashforward, but right now I'm more interested in watching the Yankees take a beating from the Angels, so I'll DVR Flashforward and watch it at my leisure.  Do shows need to be scheduled any more, or are weekly release dates going to become the new norm?  Felicia Day's The Guild is a wildly successful Internet phenomenon whose audience anticipates each episode's release date the way my family flocked to The Love Boat on Saturday night.  Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, though only three episodes, crashed servers with each episode's release, a virtual re-enactment of those hordes of Dickens groupies who would storm the docks when a new chapter of Great Expectations would arrive.  Is a release date any less potent for advertisers than a regularly scheduled time slot?

BOTTOM LINE:  The Times They Are a-Changing … the free content gravy train that is the Internet has come of age.  It's tired of mowing Mom and Dad's lawn for free and it wants its allowance upped.  If people's viewing habits are indeed changing, then that means fewer eyes during those prime time viewing hours.  It doesn't take much to see where this is going.  Fewer eyes to fewer dollars to fewer shows, and that means more Leno.  And nobody wants that…Is a small monthly fee too much to pay for keeping your favorite show in production?

I want to be optimistic about this.  I want to believe that in the long run, this might be a good thing.  With Netflix streaming more and more of its content and with Hulu's partnerships growing every day, is it so hard to imagine a household that no longer needs cable?  New televisions that integrate internet streaming like this one from Toshiba certainly make this a more viable reality.  Sound off … can you envision a day not so far off when so much of your "television" viewing happens on-line that you ditch cable completely?

The Heroes Dead Pool is On!

Heroes, oh Heroes… What are we supposed to do with you?  You debuted with such promise: regular people imbued with superpowers; a complex, morally relevant narrative; a shadowy all-powerful villain whose very name became a synonym for terror; a memorable tag line that allowed us to embrace both cheerleaders and saving the world.  And those ratings … oh, those glorious ratings…

Now… a writer's strike, a meandering, less character driven Season Two, and a course correction come too late later and it would seem that this (most likely final) season of Heroes is jumping sharks like Fonzie on a case of a Red Bull.  First it was the rumors of Claire's entirely gratuitous bi-sexual dalliance, complete with teaser images of Little Miss Indestructible leaning in for that first sweet taste of Sapphic spit.  Now, hinted at by EW's Michaell Ausiello (@EWAusielloFiles) and rumored by Scifiwire.com, comes word that a major male character from the original cast soon will be as flatlined as Heroes' 18-49 demo.  Can Cousin Oliver really be very far behind?

But I'm an optimist.  I enjoyed the "Redemption" arc, and Robert "T-Bag" Knepper's Dark Carnival has me intrigued, so I still want to play along and run down the suspects in what will most likely be Heroes' last desperate grab for viewers before NBC renews Heroes, waits until they've filmed half their season, then cancels them two weeks before their next season premiere.  (Man, I am bitter about Southland…)

The Rundown…

Peter Petrelli – Love him or hate him, the show has pretty much been built around him since Day One.  He is the moral compass for every other character's actions and he's a major player in the Dark Carnival.  Not to mention, he still has to rescue that Irish chick he abandoned in that dystopic future eight and a half seasons ago.  (We haven't forgotten, Kring!)  It's not an impossibility, but I'm not betting the farm on this one.  Definite long shot:  500-1. 

Sylar – Peter's anti-thesis in every way, Sylar's run the gamut from murderous sociopath to tortured anti-hero and right back to hardcore villain.  I can see why people would bet on him:  Quinto's star is rising in Hollywood and Knepper's Samuel, who is equal parts T-Bag and Magneto, seems a suitable replacement for lead villain.  Sylar, however, is still a huge draw, and, dramatically speaking, his story is really just starting.  His death would be a stunt that would have little impact on the story and would likely just alienate more viewers.  Long Shot:  100-1.

Mohinder Suresh – "Brilliant scientist with a penchant for being easily manipulated by evil" turned "Generically powered buggy thing with bad skin" turned "Maybe not so brilliant scientist with a penchant for being easily manipulated by thuggish enemies" has been mysteriously absent this season.  Would they bring him back just to kill him off?  It seems like a waste of a long time character, but it's plausible.  Or could it be that the mystery character's death will be used to bring Suresh out of hiding?  A Long Shot with Legs:  50-1.

Hiro Nakamura – It seems like the easy choice, doesn't it?  Hiro already believes his powers are killing him and he's using what time he has left to right as many wrongs as possible.  If Peter's the moral compass, then Hiro is the heart and soul of the show.  His death would have strong dramatic impact.  What man could hold back tears in the final moments of our doughy Hiro?  None, say I.  And yet, he's still the most entertaining part of the show.  And he's just too obvious a choice.  And…And..

Ando?  – What if noble and loyal Ando discovers a new use for his powers – one that will allow Hiro to live, but only at the cost of his own life?  The writers seem to be serving us up Hiro, so a last minute ditch to Ando makes sense.  Plus Ando finally found love – and that just never ends well. 

The Daily Double:  Hiro:  25-1 / Ando:  15-1

Matt Parkman – Parkman's been a major player in just about every story line and now either Sylar or his own psyche is turning him into a basket case, causing him to use his powers in dangerous and self-serving ways.  You don't need an Etch-a-Sketch to trace this storyline to a tragic end (Parkman too has re-found love and, as stated above, that just doesn't end well…).  Of course, by taking Parkman down this road, they've also created great new dramatic opportunities for him, including the possibility of turning him into a complete villain like his father.  A Mind Reader's Special:  10-1

And Now the Big Two…

Nathan Petrelli and Noah "HRG" Bennet

IF Ausiello's blind item does refer to Heroes (and the Magic 8-Ball seems to indicate "Heck Yeah"), then both Jack Coleman and Adrian Pasdar fit the bill of a "popular and well respected leading man." Technically, Nathan Petrelli is already dead, and technically, Adrian Pasdar is playing Sylar, who only thinks he's Nathan.  We all know the ruse has to end at some point, so "Nathan's"death really won't be much a shock to anyone but Peter and Claire, and certainly not to the audience.  While it will be sad to see Adrian Pasdar go, did anyone really think he could have much of a shelf life after last season's finale?  If this is the "big death" rumor being leaked and teased, then I have to cry shenanigans, even though it seems logical.  HRG, on the other hand, is a man without a purpose.  Claire has been the focus of his life and Bi-Claire Bear doesn't really need him so much anymore.  His death (at the hands of Sylar?  Crazy Fast Guy with Knives?) in Claire's arms would give a great emotional lift to the show and the loss of Claire's mentor and father would truly put her out on her own, giving her story more dramatic weight.  So, in what is sure to be a controversial finish …

Nathan Petrelli (2-1) is disqualified for already being dead, making HRG (5-1) the official winner of the Virgil's All-Night Diner Heroes Dead Pool.

Thoughts? Comments?  Am I underplaying the long shots?  And why didn't I include Micah "Rebel" Sanders in this list?

Alice vs. Alice: Who Will Win the Wonderland Wars?

Between December and March of the upcoming year, fans will be treated to not one, but two new renditions of Lewis Caroll's Alice in Wonderland.  Strikingly different in tone and story, one has to wonder how fans will react to these interpretations. Coming up first in December is Syfy's Alice, a re-imagining of Carroll's tale with an older Alice, who may or may not be connected to the original Alice, and a more high-tech Wonderland.

Following that in March will be Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland which features (coincidentally?) an older Alice (this time the actual Alice), who returns to Wonderland with no memory of her previous visit there.

Maybe this is a case of studio politics, or maybe this is evidence of creative synergy, that great minds do think alike. If you watched the above trailers, then it's clear there are distinct differences in the look and feel of the two productions. Yet, there are similarities: both productions feature older Alices, neither of which seem aware of previous trips to Wonderland. The appeal is obvious: Syfy's audience skews older and Tim Burton's movies, though visually appealing to children, have a sensibility more attuned to adults. There also seems to be more of an epic aspect to both these movies, as if Alice returns to save Wonderland – Alice as Luke Skywalker, it would seem – which is also in keeping with an older Alice. And then there's this …

Released in 2006, Frank Beddor's The Looking Glass Wars tells the story of Alyss Heart, who, as a child, is forced to flee from her home of Wonderland into our world, where her story inspires Charles Dodgson. Alyss, now Alice, grows up in our world and returns to her world as a grown woman to save Wonderland, which is a fascinating mixture of magic and technology, from her evil aunt Redd.

I am hardly being accusatory here. Beddor's book is entertaining and imaginative and fans have been clamoring for a film version since its release, but both Tim Burton and Nick Willing carry their own creative pedigrees. The very name "Tim Burton" has come to mean "creative reinvention" in some languages, while Nick Willing scored with both critics and fans with Tin Man, his re-imagining of The Wizard of Oz which aired on Syfy (then Scifi) last year. Is this a case of one writer dipping into another's well? Or have three great writers, fascinated with a story that has fascinated many, stumbled upon the same idea of re-envisioning Alice as a post-modern heroine, and not just a lost girl on a strange trip? Either way, fans of the Alice mythology get three shots to shoot down the rabbit hole, with Beddor's third part of The Looking Glass Wars saga being released this fall, Willing's Alice premiering on Syfy in December, and Burton's Alice in Wonderland being released in March 2010. Sound off below: Which Alice are you most looking forward to?