So far, out of the new TV shows (and some returning ones) on basic cable, there are only two that have really stood out above the rest for me. Modern Family and Community. I watched Hank and The Middle and found Hank to be bland and insufferable, while The Middle started off strong for me and sort of faded into obscurity. There were plenty of interesting moments in the show, but it started to feel a little bland after just a few episodes for me. And Cougar Town made me laugh maybe once and then feel off my radar. However, Modern Family and Community continue to be the shows I watch the most. And while Modern Family is doing moderately succuessful in its time slot, Community is struggling. I blame it on the NBC Comedy block curse, where any show other than The Office seems doomed to sub-par ratings. However, both shows have large casts with eclectic personalities and both seem to be judged quite harshly on the ratings system of this website.

I'm not one to judge a show based on the ratings an episode gets on Tv.com, but it's hard for me to decipher what it means when a new episode of Modern Family gets a 6.2 rating while other weaker shows continue to garner much higher ratings. It also got me thinking whether or not these numbers are a true testament to how good an episode really is or if its just the user's personal preference? For me, I have trouble rating anything lower than a 7.5. Shows, to me, have at least some redeeming qualities as long as there's somewhat of a plot to follow and some form of character development. The show Hank was one I've recently rated lower, but for the most part, I'm cursed with lenience.

That's not to say that there are some shows I despise and think that they deserve a 1 based on my hatred towards it. But there's barely any shows that actually deserve a 1; that actually has such low quality that it deserves to be treated as bottom of the barrel. Even the worst shows have hardcore fans who would be quick to point out the merits of them. Just because a show sucks rating-wise doesn't mean it sucks period, and vice versa.

That being said, Modern Family is getting some great critical ratings and some decent ratings with viewers as well. I've been hearing great things about it from friends and family, and as for me, I think it's very well done, finding unique ways to avoid doing plotlines that have been done over and over again. It does have its occasional lulls and sometimes veers into cliche-ville, but for the most part, it does a great job.. yet the rating system on Tv.com hardly recognizes this. It's a bit odd, but it's confirmed for me that the rating system is completely based upon personal opinion. Everybody has their own internal rating system hardwired into them, and it allows people to vote based on what they feel fits. As a result, some people may look at what other people voted and be completely confused and frustrated, while others will agree. As I said before, it's all opinion.

The same goes for Community. Community has a funny cast, some rapid-fire dialogue and the occasional moment where the show is smarter than it lets on. However, being jammed in with Parks and Recreation, The Office and 30 Rock means its path has already been determined: ratings never to rise above 6 million, critics enjoying it for the most part, while two or three seasons later, it's cancelled. I think the show deserves more viewers and ratings than it gets, but remember: that's just me. Other people's idea of what belongs and what doesn't may drastically differ.

Normally, I wouldn't say anything about this, but looking at the most recent ratings of new episodes for the two shows, I'm a little disappointed. Tv.com clearly doesn't represent whether or not a show will succeed or fail, but it's disconcerting to see how little people think of the show according to its rating system.. But that's just me.. what do you guys think?

Now that the Emmys are over and I had a chance to think about who deserved what, I've come to a final consensus.. and despite what some people may think, there's a lot of shows and people that should've won the awards instead of the ones that actually did.

First off, I want to say that I agree completely with the 30 Rock winning Best Comedy. There was a number of different choices this year, and I am still one of the believers that The Office is a great comedy with genuine funny moments, regardless of the flac the show has been getting (I mean, come on.. There are some TV shows, whether on the CW, CBS or Fox, that have AWFUL shows that are still on the air, way worse than what The Office is putting out.. it boggles my mind how some people can harbor some much hate for the show). However, 30 Rock is just consistant. One episode after the other, even the ones that are a little weaker. I personally like Flight of the Conchords and The Office more then 30 Rock, but 30 Rock was just quality TV this year.

Best Drama: Mad Men won, and I kind of can see where this came from, but Breaking Bad should've won this. This show takes each episode and uses it towards building up to the end game. Even as Season 2 came to an end, there's obviously a LOT more story to be told in Walter White's life as a meth dealer. Mad Men has some tense and great moments, but it really is a bland show at times. Breaking Bad seems to be more of a character drama (it really is Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul's show), but this season kept the quality consistant and it should've been recognized for doing so.

Best Actor in a Comedy Series: Alec Baldwin again? Seriously? Even Steve Carrel's episode, "Broke" was better than the one they chose for Alec. There's no denying that both actors are superb, but the Emmy should've gone to either Jim Parsons for The Big Bang Theory or Steve Carrel. It wasn't The Office's strongest year, but "Broke" really did a good job of showing the comedic and dramatic sides of Michael Scott. Let's hope that Alec can pass the torch on to a more deserving actor this year.

Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series: I must be one of the few people who thinks Two and a Half Men is an overrated show that is nowhere near one of the best sitcoms of all time. Charlie Sheen was funny for awhile, and Jon Cryer is pretty funny as well, but the show just doesn't feel as funny anymore. This award should've gone to either Neil Patrick Harris or Rainn Wilson. I'm not saying that over the course of the season these two actors were better, but the episodes they submitted were better.

Best Writing in a Comedy Series/Best Writing in a Drama Series: Seriously?! Is 30 Rock and Mad Men so good that they have to take up 4 of the 5 slots in their respective catagories? They're good, but not so good that other quality shows like Breaking Bad, Damages, The Shield or House shouldn't be recognized. Hopefully there's some more diversity next year.

Biggest Snub: The Shield. Why oh why was The Shield not recognized for its final year. Actually, on second thought, why wasn't it recognized for the last SIX years? The show has been the best Drama on television since it first aired in 2001/2002, and it's never won anything other than a Best Actor award for Michael Chiklis and a handful of nominations here and there. The way the writers masterfully tied all the loose ends in the show, while leaving some open to interpretation was incredible, and it's a shame the Academy didn't recognize this.

Seeing as I don't have Showtime and probably won't get it for a little while, I decided to check out the leaked season premiere of Dexter Season 4.. and I have to say, I'm surprised at how consistant the quality of this show has been, even after four years. The premiere was incredible, bringing a little bit of everything from previous seasons to the table. It also gives us yet another side of Dexter: the father figure. Seeing him deal with his new son, Harrison, while having to deal with work, court and urges to murder criminals is interesting. I think the spoof on the theme song early in the episode sums up his feelings about fatherhood.

Glad to see Anton is still around.. He's not a huge character, but it's good to see them continuing the storyline from last season. I'm also intrigued at what will happen once Deb finds out that Dexter may be related to The Ice Truck Killer. This gives Deb something to do other than swear and whine.

John Lithgow's first appearence in Dexter was a chilling one. Not only does he pull off being a serial killer well, but he certainly has the acting chops to pull off an Emmy nomination next year (Yes, based off his two scenes, I can see it happening.. if Jimmy Smits, who did excellent this year, can get a nomination, so can Lithgow.) Lithgow's re-emergence as the Trinity Killer leads to Lundy (Keith Carradine) returning to track him down. Lundy's appearence will also make for some great tension between him and Dexter, as well as him and Deb (as the final scene with him seems to indicate).

The episode was great, probably the best premiere the show has had, and as for the ending.. well, you'll have to see it yourself. Explaining it isn't enough. Let's just say it'll be interesting to see how Dexter will evade getting caught this time.

I know the website is one dedicated mainly to television, but after taking a glance at some of the upcoming movies of 2009, I'm confident that there will be a wide variety of films, just like last year, that will end up being excellent. There's probably at least fifteen to twenty movies that I'm really looking forward to, but I cut it down to five. This list is in no way whatsoever in order of how badly I want to see it. They're just out of the first ones I think of.

1. The Limits of Control (Directed by Jim Jarmusch, out May 1st): Well, technically, this movie is already out, but in limited release.. I mean very limited release. I doubt it'll go beyond 100 theaters. I suppose it's this year's Synecdoche, New York, where an indie movie is released in an extremely small amount of venues. I have to say, as bad as the hype has been thus far, I'm intrigued by Jarmusch's new movie. Apparently, it's about a professional thief who wanders through town, meeting with random people who have discussions with him, but ones that he doesn't engage in. People talk to him, he listens, remains silent, and continues on his way. The fact Jarmusch has written and directed this may be making me biased, and the fact that Broken Flowers, his previous movie, was excellent makes me believe that this one should be good. Plus, any movie where Bill Murray decides to act his usual deadpan self is one that I'll be attending.

2. The Lovely Bones (Directed by Peter Jackson, out December 11th): The fact that the guy who directed some of the biggest action-adventure movies of all time is directing this incredible novel about a girl who looks down from Heaven on her family after her death is mindboggling, but I just have to remind myself that Peter Jackson really is a good director. He has good command of the camera, and therefore, has me intrigued. If Jackson as director is not surprising enough, the fact he was able to wrangle together Mark Wahlburg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci to play some of the lead roles is also surprising. If Peter Jackson plays his cards right and does the movie the right way, I could see a clear-cut easy Best Picture nomination for this (possibly even a win).

3. Inglorious Basterds (Directed by Quentin Tarantino, out August 21st): I won't lie, Quentin Tarantino is my favorite director. He's original, distinct and hilarious.. yet dark at the same time. Each one of his movies has his fingerprints all over it and you can always tell when Tarantino has written a script or directed a movie. When I first heard he was making a World War 2 movie about hunting Nazis, I was very interested, but a little hesitant. Tarantino has been known to genre jump frequently, but a Tarantino-esque World War 2 movie? It was hard to picture at first. But I had to remember how I initially felt about Kill Bill. I thought it was a dumb idea upon seeing the trailer for the first time, but ended up being pulled into the world he created through Volumes 1 and 2. So I'm going to go into the movie the same way I went into Kill Bill: a little skeptical, but fully prepared to have my mind blown.

4. The Road (starring Viggo Mortensen, out October 16th): What an incredible book this was! And the fact the author of the book, Cormac McCarthy, also wrote No Country For Old Men, which ended up being a superb movie adaptation. I'm hoping that Viggo Mortensen, along with the few other great actors lined up for the movie (Charlese Theron, Guy Pierce and Rober Duvall) can make this movie just like No Country For Old Men: a great adaptation of an even greater novel.

5. Ashecliffe (directed by Martin Scorsese, out October 2nd): After The Departed in 2006, The Aviator in 2004 and Gangs of New York in 2002, I think it's safe to say Martin Scorsese is on a streak of sorts. Ashecliffe is based on a Dennis Lehene novel, and Lehene is responsible for the movies Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, both excellent films and novels. This gives me much hope already for

As I write this, I'm not entirely sure who I'm defending Supernatural against.. Part of the reason for writing this is because I know people who pigeonhole this show in between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, and partly because the show's ratings are far from stellar. Its quality cannot be blamed though (it's on the dead zone of television: The CW). Maybe I'm just writing this because I find the show to be above and beyond a lot of the other television on today and, since it doesn't get enough recognition, I decided to vent a little on it. Either way, I'm doing my best to defend the show against whatever supernatural forces are causing the ratings to hover below 4 million.

I just found Supernatural about a month ago. My friend had been telling me about it for years and I never gave it the time of day. "Too many shows as it is," was the excuse I gave him, but I soon realized that was a poor excuse, since every other week, I found myself watching a new show. I think it was just because when you hear somebody praise a show to the point where they act as if it's the only one that exists, part of you knows that their won't be the same level of magic when you actually do get around to seeing it. So I held off for as long as I could, and eventually, I got bored of watching re-reruns of Scrubs and House on TV and decided to give it a shot.

I went into the show with somewhat low expectations and was actually surprised. The show proved to be exceptional, and instead of focusing on a dozen different characters, like Buffy did, Supernatural keeps the dynamic simple: two brothers hunting supernatural beings, and also looking for their father. The show doesn't stretch the plot out for shock value, or screw over the audience. Every episode is nearly the same, with the only difference being the actual supernatural being their hunting, yet it doesn't grow stale. Instead of having numerous mini plots within the season (like 24), they're comfortable with just dragging the same one out for a season and a half. The show, to me, is an anomaly.

First of all, to the people who compare the show to Buffy or Angel or Charmed or any other show similar to those shows, the comparisons shouldn't go any further than "sci-fi show." They both dabble in science fiction/fantasy plots, but go about structuring the shows in very different ways. Buffy had the tendency to focus on relationships and personal issues. In fact, it focused a lot on Buffy being in school, whether it was high school or college. Supernatural had one episode where Sam was in college, and that was the first episode. After that, the focus was on the brothers and their travels across the United States for supernatural beings. Angel, in my opinion, was better than Buffy, and is probably closer to Supernatural than anything, but it still doesn't compare.

As I mentioned before, Supernatural has two main characters and a plethora of supporting characters that rarely last more than an episode or two. The focus is on Sam and Dean Winchester, while everybody else sort of exists to add to the dynamic of their relationship. In a way, the hunts they go on themselves add to the brother's relationship. I see it as more of a character study and less of a plot driven show. Which is a great thing, because you don't see a lot of that in TV/movies nowadays.

At this point, I suppose I should stop writing, mainly because I haven't even gotten through a full two seasons. This is all just based on the first season and a half of the show. However, I've heard through the grapevine that the best episodes are yet to come, so I may or may not be posting a blog in the near future about how I'm horribly wrong or about how my initial predictions were right.

I can see why people might not like Supernatural. To some people, it may be boring. To others, it might seem like an anti-climatic show, where the scares and characters don't seem genuine. However, having seen enough TV shows and movies, I can say that Sam and Dean's characters have been stuctured very realistically and have nowhere to go but up from here.