Who killed Rosie Larsen?

I don’t know, but if the answer isn’t revealed pretty soon AMC’s summer hit ‘The Killing’ might see a mass exodus of fans they can’t recover from.

What am I talking about?

Here are the facts:

* While show runners didn’t specifically say they would answer the central mystery of the show last season, the advertising that accompanied it certainly suggested that the final episode of season one would tell us who killed the teenager. Instead, it ended on a cliffhanger and thousands of fans cried foul on the Internet.

* Show star Mireille Enos further infuriated fans when she basically told them to get over their dissatisfaction. I love Enos, but that is not the way you endear yourself to the rabid hordes on the Internet. It’s a different world, and Hollywood stars have to live in it.

* In response to the controversy, show writers and producers announced that the killer would be revealed early in season two. This placated some fans – while others continued their nonstop complaining.

* Recently, Joel Stillerman, AMC’s executive vice-president of original programming altered the timeline. Fans WILL find out who killed Rosie Larsen in season two. They just won’t find out until the final episode of season two – another full 13 episodes away.

Fans are crying foul again. Quite frankly, I don’t blame them.

Here’s the thing, I’m not a proponent of instant gratification (unless I’m shoe shopping). I don’t think you have to answer every single little question at the exact moment that impatient fans want it. I understand that’s not how you sustain a quality television show.

You know what else I understand? That toying with your fan base is a sure fire way to get them to turn on you. Just ask the people who ran ‘Heroes’ – oh wait, that show was cancelled because fans started abandoning it in droves.

In an interview with TV Guide, Stillerman said he believed that it was only a small (and vocal) group of fans that were upset with the finale.

I can tell you right now, that isn’t the case. Most people I know who watched the show were upset by the ending --  and the message boards exploded with angry viewers. That’s not a “small minority.”

I’d be lying if I said I was going to give up on ‘The Killing.’

First of all, the first season was quality television. The acting was topnotch, the characters were richly drawn and the central mystery was intriguing. When you couple that with the fact that there’s not a lot on this time of year, I really can’t see myself giving up on the show.

 

That being said, if they can’t sustain the show like they did in the first season, and if the murder mystery falls flat, I will have no qualms about dropping the show.

The show runners have a lot to prove this season. Let’s hope they’re up to the task, because if they’re not, I don’t think they’re going to get a third season.

'The Killing' premieres with a 2-hour episode starting at 8 p.m. tonight. 

What do you think? Are you going to tune back into ‘The Killing’ or are you giving up?

The sheer amount of effort going into saving ‘General Hospital’ right now is amazing.

Between new writers, music, characters and promos – it’s almost like ‘General Hospital’ is an entirely new show.

That’s a good thing for one faction of fans who believe GH has devolved into a mob infested cesspool. That’s not so good news for the five fans who actually like the mob storylines on GH (alright, there’s more than five fans, there’s probably 10).

That’s not to say everything is peachy on GH. In fact, there seems there are battle lines being drawn between One Life to Live fans and GH fans – with fans of both shows trying to stem the blood loss in the middle.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard certain fans whining about OLTL actors and characters taking over GH.

The problem is, that’s not really true.

Sure, it’s jarring to see OLTL characters make the crossover. The truth is, though, they’re not draining airtime from GH favorites. Quite frankly, Sonny, Carly and Jason have been doing that for years – and they’re still doing it.

Even with the additions of John “Mullet” McBain and Starr “I break into song at will” Manning – they’re not eating up the bulk of the airtime. That honor still goes to the mobster who ate Port Charles – Sonny “Everything revolves around me and my current concubine” Corinthos.

I think fans need to remember that this is still a transition time. And, quite frankly, with the absence of Nikolas, Lucky and Jax in recent months – there is plenty of room on the GH canvas for the OLTL actors (as long as they stop bringing them over). I’m not going to be able to get behind many more Llanview transports – I think we’re fine with McBain, Starr and Todd (yes I know another OLTL actress is reportedly joining the fold). Let's leave it at this right now, though.

So, let’s take a look at GH’s transition report, the good, the bad and the absurd.

The Good:

* Anna and Luke: Anthony Geary hasn’t looked like he’s had this much fun in years. He and Finola Hughes spark when they’re in a room together. While I ultimately want Luke and Laura and Anna and Robert to end up together – I’m enjoying the possibilities that happen when Anna and Luke coexist. Plus, who doesn’t love a jealous Tracy?

* Patrick: Jason Thompson, quite frankly, is the best actor on GH right now. His grief over wife Robin’s “death” is palpable. I personally can’t wait for him to see Jason – but I digress. Thompson’s nuanced performance has fans crying right along with him – even though we found out this week that Robin didn’t really die in the explosion. If spoilers are true (which they aren’t more than 50 percent of the time), Patrick will start to believe Robin isn’t dead and he’ll be reunited with his love and ride off in the sunset with her this summer. I’ll miss Thompson’s performance, but the thought of Robin and Patrick not ending up together is something I don’t want to consider.

* Sam and John McBain: Separately, I’ve never been a fan of either character. I liked both Livvie and Caleb on ‘Port Charles,’ don’t get me wrong, but Sam and John are both pathetic characters in the grand scheme of things. Something shifted this week, though. The minute Michael Easton and Kelly Monaco got on screen together, sparks flew again. These two ooze chemistry – and Sam hasn’t been this interesting since . . . well, she’s never been this interesting. Separating Sam from the boring (and Borg-like) Jason is a great idea. And the faster you get McBain away from the rancid Natalie (even if she is off screen)  the better. An Easton and Monaco redux is just what the doctor ordered.

* Liz and Ewen: Of the handful of new characters introduced during Garin Wolf’s reign of tediousness, Ewen is the only one that has potential. Liz is a character that has been shredded into someone who is unrecognizable. That happened to a lot of the women in the last 10 years, though, mostly because the writers didn’t know how to (or didn’t want to) write strong women. Liz is rebounding nicely, and I like the little sparkle between her and Ewen. I’ll always root for Liz and Lucky to reunite – but until he returns, I can get behind Ewen (especially if he’s shirtless).

* Johnny and Carly: I get a little tired of Carly constantly reverting to being a mob moll, but this pairing has potential – mostly because it will just make Sonny and Jason freak. Johnny is one of those characters that’s been shoved from woman to woman, never really given a chance to cultivate a real pairing. The closest was Lulu – and while I did like that pairing – I realize now she’s much better off with Dante. I clearly don’t want Carly and Johnny together for the long haul – but the aneurysm this pairing will surely give Sonny is something I can look forward to.

The Bad:

Maxie, Spinelli, Matt: I have nothing personally against Jen Lilley. I’m sure she’s a nice person. She’s just not Maxie to me. Robin’s funeral would have been so much better with Kirsten Storms in the role – mostly because that actress had the history with Robin. Maxie’s current freak out is not only ridiculous, but it’s uncharacteristic. Maxie always puts herself first. No matter what guilt she was feeling, she wouldn’t purposely go to jail. When you add her two buffoonish suitors, I just can’t get into the storyline at all. I think Bradford Anderson is talented, but Spinelli is one of those characters that makes me want to deafen myself with Q-tips. As for Matt, I think they dropped the ball so long with his character development they were never able to pick it back up. Maybe it’s time to cut our losses?

Lulu, Dante, Padilla, Ronnie, the strippers: This is a really stupid storyline. I can’t muster up any sympathy for these strippers – mostly because it’s all been happening off screen. I also can’t muster the energy to care about Padilla, because she lacks charisma (and character development). Lulu and Dante are newlyweds, can’t the writers find something interesting for them to do besides look for a stripper stalker that no one cares about?

Robert, Ethan, Holly: This was a return that was fumbled – badly. Tristan Rogers came back for a grand total of six episodes – only one of which he spent grieving his daughter. The others were spent chasing a son he just found out he had. The only problem is, Ethan isn’t really his son. Luke made it up so Robert wouldn’t kill himself. The whole storyline has lame written all over it (thankfully it ushered in the end of the putrid lady in white storyline, though). The writers should have actually undid Ethan’s parentage for real. Quite frankly, longtime fans don’t buy he’s Luke’s son anyway. It makes a lot more sense for Ethan to be Robert’s son than Luke’s. Hopefully, we’ll find out Holly was lying (again).

Jason’s brain surgery: Jason is the only person (read: character) I know who can have brain surgery without any bandages (or having to wear a hospital gown), no scars and be up and getting ready to kill a cop in three days flat. Unbelievable. Not only is Jason’s constant brain surgery (and lack of any sort of recovery) ridiculous, but the fact that he mourned longtime love Robin (who died for his medicine) for exactly five minutes before starting to worry about McBain taunting Sonny is just a slap in the face to longtime fans. It’s time to bring back Jason Quartermaine, because Jason Morgan is a complete and total loser and, quite frankly, fans are just sick to death of him.

The Absurd:

Kate/Connie: Enough is enough with the DID (multiple personality disorder). It’s not entertaining. It was a good storyline the first time OLTL did it with Viki. Then it started to get old pretty fast. Not to mention, the only thing that seems to differentiate Kate and Connie is one of the poorest excuses of an accent I have ever heard. I’ve tried to forget that we’re supposed to believe Kate and Sonny went to high school together (when Maurice Benard looks like Kelly Sullivan’s father). I’ve tried to overlook the fact that Kate took Sonny back after the way he treated her. I can’t overlook this, though. It’s ridiculous. This storyline is awful and this actress can’t seem to carry it off. Bury the story, drop Kate, and move on.

Franco: Let it go. James Franco is a great actor, but Franco the character was a great big mess from the beginning. I don't think anyone cares about Jason's parentage -- unless they're going to say he's not a Quartermaine. If the writers decimate that family one more time, I know a lot of fans who are going to revolt. Personally, I believe that we're going to find out that Jason and Franco were twins, Franco had plastic surgery, and that's why he was obsessed with Jason. That also doesn't rule him out as the father of Sam's baby (although I seriously doubt he even raped her, but that's a whole other absurd storyline).  GH would be wise to pretend this storyline never happened and move on -- I think that's what a lot of the fans want.

What do you think? What’s working on GH right now and what’s not?

Book purists are the bane of my existence.

No joke.

Okay, book purists and people who pair tube tops and clogs together (they’re not okay separate either people).

I’ve heard a lot of talk from different fan factions lately (usually on different message boards). They’re not happy with certain book and graphic novel adaptations.

Which adaptations am I talking about? The big three are ‘The Hunger Games,’ ‘Game of Thrones’ and ‘The Walking Dead.’

This isn’t the first time this has happened. I heard a lot of complaints about the ‘Harry Potter’ movies and the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy as well. All that died down after awhile, though. The current complaints are rather loud – and sustained.

Personally, I’ve never understood individuals who want straight adaptations. Where’s the fun in that? If you know what’s going to happen, why watch? Isn’t that just a little boring?

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want the central theme of a book changed. I don’t want the adaptation to lose the written work’s message. I don’t see a problem streamlining it, though.

Take the ‘Lord of the Rings,’ for example. I fell in love with those books when I was 12 years old. That’s 25 years ago. Each year since then I’ve reread the series. That’s how much I love it.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s work was considered largely unfilmable for years – mainly because it was so dense and there was so much history associated with the work. Then Peter Jackson came around with a unique approach.

Not only did Jackson film all three movies at the same time (thus utilizing the same cast) but he also adapted them as what essentially amounts to a love letter to Tolkien. I don’t think that anyone who has seen those movies can say that Jackson didn’t love the source material.

Despite the fact that all three movies are some of the highest grossing films of all time, though, there are still rabid book fans out there that complain about the finished project. Between the absence of Tom Bombadil (did anyone truly miss him?) to the arrival of the elves at Helm’s Deep, book fans have found something to complain about.

I’m not sure that some fans don’t complain just to complain, though. I mean, if the movie followed the book exactly there would be no magic in discovering something new?

When you juxtapose that with ‘The Hunger Games,’ I think the complaints are even more ludicrous. The biggest complaint I’ve heard is that fans are mad about the way Katniss gets the mockingjay pin. Since the girl who gives the pin to her in the books isn’t really a central character in the future, I don’t get all the complaining.

By cutting the scene with the pin, the writers also cut about a half hour of exposition from the movie. ‘The Hunger Games’ isn’t a film that hinges on a pin. It’s a film that hinges on hope – and that message is clearly kept intact.

The other complaint about ‘The Hunger Games’ is that some of the relationships don’t get fleshed out as much as people would like. I get that, I do, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices.  The simple fact of the matter is that these movies have to make money. Book enthusiasts are going to go to the film no matter what. You have to capture random viewers, though, and random viewers aren’t going to sit through a 4-hour movie they know nothing about.

In the case of ‘The Hunger Games,’ I think the good in the film far outweighs the bad.

That brings us to ‘The Walking Dead.’ I’m not a graphic novel reader, so I honestly haven’t read the source material in this case. My central argument remains the same, though. Why have it follow the comics exactly? There would be no reason to watch the show if that was the case.

‘The Walking Dead’ is a unique case in that it is a serialized show. A movie is one shot and then it’s over. A television show, though, has to sustain the audience for season after season.

‘The Walking Dead’ broke from its comic book roots quickly. I think it was a message to fans that they wouldn’t be following the script they’d already set forth. Fans still didn’t seem to understand that, though.

First they complained about spending so much time on the farm. Then they complained about looking for a missing Sophia. Then they complained that Sophia was dead. Then they complained that Rick killed Shane. Then they complained about Michonne’s casting – even though we haven’t even seen the woman act yet.

It all gets so tiresome.

I understand investing in something that you love and not wanting to see it ruined. We’ve all had something we loved ruined on the big (and small) screen. It happens on a daily basis.

In the case of ‘The Walking Dead,’ though, why not embrace the show for what it is? Because what it represents is quality entertainment. People need to stop nitpicking.

That brings us, finally, to HBO’s ‘Game of Thrones’ – which returns for its second season on Sunday.

This is another case of me not reading the source material (it is on my list – just haven’t gotten to it yet). Maybe it’s different when you approach the show without any preconceived notions. Maybe that makes the viewing experience better. Of course, it could make it worse, too.

I went into ‘Game of Thrones’ not knowing what to expect. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised. The same goes for ‘The Walking Dead.’

On the flip side, I went into ‘Lord of the Rings’ expecting a lot and was also thrilled with the outcome. It didn’t match the book but it did engage my imagination.

I’m not saying you have to give up your love of a book or graphic novel. I’m just saying that maybe, for your own sanity, that you try to let go of the preconceived notions that have you boxed into a little corner where things have to be a certain way and if they’re not then they’re crap.

The Internet has essentially bred an entire generation of whiners. It’s easy for people to hide behind monikers and nicknames and make fun of anything and everything (I do it to ‘Twilight’ all the time). I think that takes a lot of enjoyment out of entertainment, though.

For me, personally, I’ve decided to accept book adaptations for what they are. They’re really just a different way of reading a book. We might not all see the same thing in the same book, but your own personal adaptation is just as important as the author’s.

What do you think? Do you think book adaptations should have to follow the source material?

Click here for the best book adaptations.

Click here for the worst book adaptations.

5. Harry Potter (2001-2011): I’m including all of the Harry Potter movies instead of singling one out, mostly because the sheer scope of the job was so daunting. If I was going to single one out, it would be ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ – but every movie managed to accomplish what it set out to do. The real accomplishment of the Harry Potter movies is the cast. Almost every single actor made it from the first movie to the last – which helped with continuity. There were a few casting changes, but most couldn’t be helped. I know a lot of fans wish that more of the scenes from the books had made it in (I personally wanted to see the de-gnoming of the garden in ‘The Chamber of Secrets’) but given the amount of story and how much time they had to deal with, I think all of the movie directors and screenplay writers did a marvelous job. After all, Harry Potter is a magic world and all of the movies manage to capture a great deal of magic.

4. Jurassic Park (1993): Michael Crichton’s novel was a hit long before it hit the big screen. When it finally did, though, movie goers were transfixed with Steven Spielberg’s sweeping adaptation. It really didn’t matter who they cast as what character – or even which characters were included, excluded or changed. This movie was all about the dinosaurs – and the dinosaurs were a marvel to behold. People may not realize today (given how great special effects are) what a big deal those movie dinosaurs were at the time. Well, they were, and I don’t know anyone who didn’t stand up and cheer when that big old T-Rex swallowed the lawyer when he was on the toilet. Neither sequel lived up to the magic that was the original – but really, all we need is the original.

3. The Godfather (1972): If I’m being honest, the second movie in this series is actually my favorite. That doesn’t stop the original from being a masterpiece as well, though. Mario Puzo’s original story is an interesting look at gangsters, their life and the women who populate their world that makes you emotionally invest in the bad guys. The Francis Ford Coppola movie does the same thing (the third movie in the franchise is a travesty -- just saying). The film boasts impeccable casting, a moving score and some of the best cinematography ever caught on film. The interesting thing about ‘The Godfather,’ is that even though it is 40 years old it still remains relevant today.

2. The Shining (1980): What’s funny about this movie is that Stephen King absolutely hates this particular adaptation. He doesn’t like the changes from his original work. I happen to love the adaptation. Not only is Jack Nicholson a revelation, but the imagery and surrealism of the film actually helps it transcend to another level. One of the biggest changes from the book to the film is that the hedge animals don’t come alive. Instead, they have the maze – the awesome maze. After seeing the television miniseries, which did have the hedge animals come to life, all I can say is I’m glad that budget constraints didn’t allow Stanley Kubrick to even try making this a reality for his film. To this day, the scares and ambiance of ‘The Shining’ hold up – and that’s a hard thing for a horror movie to do. Come play with us, forever, and ever and ever.

1. Lord of the Rings (2001-2003): I count all of the movies as one big epic saga. You really can’t name one portion of the trilogy and ignore the others. I’ve been in love with ‘Lord of the Rings’ since I was 12-years-old and read the books for the first time. To say I was a fan would be an understatement. I still reread the books once a year – that’s how much I love them. The ‘Lord of the Rings’ books were long considered to be unfilmable. They were dense. There were too many side stories. Heck, author J.R.R. Tolkien created new languages and entire histories for his characters -- and there just wasn't room for all of that in a film. That’s why what Peter Jackson did was so amazing. Not only did he cast the movie impeccably, he also wisely chose which parts of the books to keep, which ones to throw away (Tom Bombadil) and which ones to change (the elves coming to Helm’s Deep). Jackson’s trilogy is more of a love story to Tolkien than anything else. Anyone else excited for ‘The Hobbit’ this December?

Honorable mentions go to ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,’ ‘Carrie,’ ‘Stand By Me,’ ‘The Notebook,’ ‘The Shawshank Redemption,’ and ‘Silence of the Lambs.’

What do you think? What are the best book to movie adaptations?

5. Gulliver’s Travels (2010):  It’s not that I hate Jack Black. I actually don’t. I find him winning and funny – especially in movies like ‘School of Rock’ and ‘Shallow Hal.’ This is not his best outing, however. I understand there are limitations to bringing a movie like ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ to the big screen. The special effects have to be overblown – and the audience for a movie like this (especially in this day and age) isn’t likely to have read the source material. Despite all the excuses I’m making for it, ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ still stinks. Black is stilted (and his schtick is starting to wear thin), and the supporting cast of Jason Segel, Emily Blunt and Amanda Peet is wasted. To this day, I have not seen an adaptation of ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ that works on the big (or small) screen. I’m still hopeful it will happen one day, though.

4. Flowers in the Attic (1987): This is a guilty pleasure book, but it’s a horrible movie. The storyline is really convoluted and the incest overtones often turn people off, but that’s not my real problem with this film. Kristy Swanson plays a young Cathy, a teenage girl locked in the attic with her three siblings so their grandfather doesn’t find out about them. One of the children is poisoned to death and the other is near death before the children escape. All the while, they thought their grandmother or grandfather was poisoning them. Turned out it was their mother. The story was ridiculous in the book, too, but for some reason it still had a likability factor. I don’t even know what to say about the film other than it sucks.

3.  The Other Boleyn Girl (2008): I wanted to like this movie – mostly because I loved the book and I was thrilled with the cast. The problem is, the ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ is a dense book with a lot of subplots and stories that never made it into the film. I get why, I do. If they had included all the subplots then the movie would have been seven hours long. As it stands, there are moments where Eric Bana shines and Natalie Portman really steals the movie – but they’re few and far between. A lot of historians take umbrage with the portrayal of some of the characters. That really doesn’t bother me, mostly because I look at it as a work of fiction that uses real characters more than anything else. That being said, this was one movie that just shouldn’t have been put to film. It might have been better served as an HBO or Showtime series, like ‘Game of Thrones’ or ‘The Tudors.’

2. The Time Traveler’s Wife (2009): This is another book that I enjoyed – even if I did find it a little sappy. In this case, Eric Bana (maybe he should stay away from movie adaptations) sinks as the central character Henry, a man who has a genetic trait that causes him to float through time. His love interest, Rachel McAdams (who is doing the best she can with some weak material) initially finds his illness romantic but then becomes tired of wondering where he is for weeks at a time. The book was high concept, and I get where they were trying to go with the film, but they just didn’t manage to capture the magic that the source material did. It’s not that McAdams and Bana weren’t game, they just had a screenplay that missed the key parts of the book.

1. The Scarlet Letter (1995): Whoever thought casting Demi Moore in this was a good idea should be shot. Maybe that’s a little harsh. They should at least be flogged. Moore isn’t a bad actress (not always, anyway) but she was not a match for this part. This is a beloved piece of literature and Moore simply stunk the thing up. If I had to guess, Moore didn’t believe she was getting the acting accolades she deserved at this point in her career (which was really around her apex) – so she tried some Oscar baiting by remaking a classic. The problem is, Moore didn’t remake a classic as much as she did dump all over one. For all the kids out there who watch movies instead of read books for book reports – avoid this one like the plague.

Honorable mentions go to ‘The Beach,’ ‘The Time Machine,’ ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ ‘Beowulf,’ and ‘The Lovely Bones.’

What do you think? What are the worst book to movie adaptations?

This time of year is extremely busy – especially when you’re dealing with network television.

Two weeks ago, CBS announced the early pickups of 15 different shows. Last week, ABC said they were making significant progress in their renewal list – including negotiating with original ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ stars Justin Chambers, Sandrah Oh, Ellen Pompeo and Patrick Dempsey.

This week, FOX announced that they had renewed the long running ‘Bones’ (which returns with new episodes on April 2) for an eighth season. This news was met with excitement for some fans – but a huge sigh by others. Not everyone thinks the show can survive by focusing on a baby in a procedural. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Here’s your updated list of where your favorite network show stands:

RENEWED
2 Broke Girls (CBS)
The Amazing Race  (CBS)
American Dad (Fox)
America's Next Top Model (CW)
The Big Bang Theory (CBS)
Blue Bloods (CBS)
Bones (Fox)
The Cleveland Show (Fox)
Criminal Minds (CBS)
CSI (CBS)
The Good Wife (CBS)
Grimm (NBC)
Hawaii Five-0 (CBS)
How I Met Your Mother (CBS)
Kitchen Nightmares (Fox)
The Mentalist (CBS)
Mike & Molly (CBS)
NCIS (CBS)
NCIS: Los Angeles (CBS)
Person of Interest (CBS)
Smash (NBC)
The Simpsons (Fox)
Survivor (CBS)
Undercover Boss (CBS)
The X Factor (Fox)

LOOKING GOOD

30 Rock (NBC)
90210 (CW)
Alcatraz (Fox)
American Idol (Fox)
The Bachelor (ABC)
The Bachelorette (ABC)
The Biggest Loser (NBC)
Bob's Burgers (Fox)
Castle (ABC)
Celebrity Apprentice (NBC)
Community (NBC)
Dancing With the Stars (ABC)
Family Guy (Fox)
Glee (Fox)
Gossip Girl (CW)
Grey's Anatomy (ABC)
Happy Endings (ABC)
Hart of Dixie (CW)
Last Man Standing (ABC)
Law & Order: SVU (NBC)
The Middle (ABC)
Modern Family (ABC)
Napoleon Dynamite (Fox)
New Girl (Fox)
The Office (NBC)
Once Upon a Time (ABC)
Parenthood (NBC)
Parks and Recreation (NBC)
Private Practice (ABC)
Raising Hope (Fox)
Revenge (ABC)
Rob (CBS)
The Secret Circle (CW)
Suburgatory (ABC)
Supernatural (CW)
Two and a Half Men (CBS)
Up All Night (NBC)
The Vampire Diaries (CW)
The Voice (NBC)

NOT LOOKING GOOD
Are You There, Chelsea? (NBC)
Body of Proof (ABC)
Cougar Town (ABC)
CSI: Miami (CBS)
CSI: NY (CBS)
The Finder (Fox)
The Firm (NBC)
Fringe (Fox)
A Gifted Man (CBS)
Harry's Law (NBC)
I Hate My Teenage Daughter (Fox)
Nikita (CW)
Ringer (CW)
The River (ABC)
Remodeled (CW)
Rules of Engagement (CBS)
Pan Am (ABC)
Unforgettable (CBS)
Whitney (NBC)

TOO  SOON TO TELL
Breaking In (Fox)
GCB (ABC)
Missing (ABC)
Touch (Fox)

CANCELED/ENDING
Allen Gregory (Fox)
Charlie's Angels (ABC)
Chuck (NBC)
Desperate Housewives (ABC)
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (ABC)
Free Agents (NBC)
H8R (CW)
House (Fox)
Man Up! (ABC)
One Tree Hill (CW)
The Playboy Club (NBC)
Prime Suspect (NBC)
Terra Nova (Fox)
Work It (ABC)