Talkin' TV

"Grey's" wannabe?

  Is anyone watching "Private Practice," the new ABC drama that spun Kate Walsh off "Grey's Anatomy"?

Big mistake for the ex Mrs. McDreamy.

  I've seen all the episodes of the new ABC drama so far, and despite its talented and downright beautiful cast - Walsh, Amy Brenneman, Tim Daily, Audra McDonald and Taye Diggs -- it seems to me the show is missing a key element.

It's certainly not missing sex appeal and sexy characters. Nor clever dialogue and interesting (if bizarre) stories.

But compared to the crew on "Grey's Anatomy," the characters on "Private Practice" leave me cold. I sure don't care about them the same way I care about Meredith, Izzie, George, Christina and Dr. McDreamy.

Maybe it's because they're older and more world-weary. Maybe it's because "Grey's Anatomy" is still a much better show week after week than its spin-off could ever hope to be (which is curious because both are the creations of Shonda Rhimes).

But when you get right down to it, "Grey's Anatomy" has soul. "Private Practice" does not. And, I think, never will.

-- Susan LoTempio

New shows, new lows

   Sorry to say, but the new fall shows have been hugely disappointing. Some are even dreadful. And  there's not a fresh or creative idea among them.

  The worse I've seen so far:

   On ABC: "Dirty Sexy Money" and "Big Shots" - both are vulgar, crass and stupid. "Private Practice" is not one-tenth as good as "Grey's Anatomy." (What a complete waste of talent for "Private Practice's" cast.)

    On NBC: "Chuck" - how many different ways can I say stupid?
   
    On CBS: Well, except for "Shark," I don't watch much on CBS.

    On Fox: I can't believe that Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton were so desperate for work that they would appear on a sitcom as bad as "Back to You." The show is about as lame as TV gets.

  The only hope for the season? That older shows like "House," "Grey's Anatomy," "Boston Legal" and "Friday Night Lights" can stay fresh and interesting, and dare I say it, even be a little unpredictable.

If not, then reality shows will totally take over, and it will be time to turn off the tube forever.

-- Susan LoTempio

Too much 'Today'?

Hour No. 4 was added to the "Today" show this morning, which leads us to ask: How much "Today" is too much?

With Ann Curry, Natalie Morales and Hoda Kotb anchoring the fourth hour, it's depressing to wonder how the show can get any fluffier.

You have to get up at the crack of dawn to get any substantive news on the "Today" show, unless your definition of news is fun, food, fashion and celebrities. (This morning it was a fast-running dog in the third hour.)

Who will watch hour four? Stay-at-home moms and senior citizens, who will now be served a huge dose of Ann Curry with their second, third and fourth cups of morning coffee.

Too much Ann? (She's on "Dateline" more often these days, too.) Too much "Today"?

You be the judge.

Couric under the microscope

  The unauthorized biography, "Katie: The Real Story" comes out today and it's a brutal, one-sided look at the woman who now sits in Walter Cronkite's chair on the "CBS Evening News."

Author Edward Klein takes Couric to task for everything from the length of her skirts to the men she dates.  Much of the book reads like the gossip that spreads around any workplace, and since gossip is rarely flattering, it paints Couric's behind-the-camera behavior as being the polar opposite from her on-air perky and friendly persona.

One thing is true: As Katie Couric nears a year as the only woman anchor of the top 3 network newscasts, she's struggling to find an audience.

What's your take on all this - were you a Katie fan when she was on the "Today" show, and are you a fan  now? Does she deserve all the scrutiny and criticism she's received in the past year? Or is she particularly vulnerable because she's a woman in a male-dominated business?

- Susan LoTempio