We are excited to announce that Tilzy.TV is being acquired by Tubefilter, Inc., the definitive source for online entertainment industry news, program reviews, events and market intelligence services.

Josh Cohen and I will be joining the Tubefilter executive team to continue our commitment to growing and supporting the online entertainment community as we have since founding Tilzy.TV in early 2007.
Effective today, all breaking industry news and program reviews can now be seen on Tubefilter News, where you’ll also find all of our past coverage.

Tilzy.TV began as a guide to television on the web. Our alpha site functioned much like the menu interface of a cable service - our goal was to provide information and collect data that would drive entertainment discovery in an open environment.

Though our form has changed over time, our goals today are much the same as when we launched. The industry and artistry that we’ve watched develop look much as Josh and I anticipated when we began our conversations about the medium in 2006. Though it has taken longer than we ever expected, the efforts of those devoted to online video have brought upon a seismic shift that benefits both creators and consumers. We’re proud to have grown up with this community.

For us, the arrival of Tubefilter marked an important moment; their competition pushed our creativity and initiative. More importantly, our partnership on the Streamy Awards demonstrated the power of our synergies.

What’s Next

The combination of Tilzy.TV and Tubefilter — under the Tubefilter brand — will allow the five founders to best serve the community of creators devoted to the advancement of open entertainment. We’ll continue to roll out events and services for viewers, creators, distributors and advertisers. We’re devoted to continuing the momentum we built with news and reviews, the Onfronts, meetups and the Streamy Awards, and we’re excited about some of the new products and events we have in store.

Many thanks to all of you who have supported Tilzy.TV. We look forward to seeing you at our new home.

New York has a lot of scenes. There’s the “Williamsburg hipster” scene, the “Lower East Side hipster” scene and the underrepresented “West Village apartment-sitter’s who’ve fallen in love with much older bankers“ scene (also mostly hipsters).

Created by Pistols Kill Ponies for Index Magazine, Delusional Downtown Divas is a web comedy devoted to parodying one of New York’s lesser known societal signposts, the “20-something rec. drug divas with art degrees” scene. It’s very niche-y, kind of how The Factory was except with no figurehead. (Or, are Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen figureheads?)

I, myself a New Yorker and amateur cultural anthropologist, have come close to this subset of metropolitan peoples, but never quite been able to access its inner circle. Still, I have no doubt it exists, because in New York everything exists. We even have Mexican food. These young, ambitious fashionistas obsessed with the art world, their Portable Carl Jung, and hat in hand, are the fodder for Delusional Downtown Divas comedy.

In spoofing this particular bunch of New York scenesters the comedy could read dangerously broad. Like Robin Williams doing an impression of a gay black man on Who’s Line Is It Anyway? So it helps that the show’s co-creators and stars Joana D’Avillez, Isabel Hailey and director Lena Dunham ostensibly are what they mock. The creative trio was raised in New York’s downtown arts scene. They have experienced this neuroses up close, if not lived it. Their familiarity with that world informs the hyped-up versions of themselves that they play.

Episodes are shot highly naturalistic. There is a narrative, but the point of each episode is as much the journey as its destination. And there is improv. Think if Robert Altman directed an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm while he was in film school.

The show’s three main characters are Agness, Oona and Swann - three art brats who cajole each other over weed and wine, and then insinuate themselves into situations they are clueless to master. Rejected by bouncers at the door of the Beatrice Inn, Agness tries giving them the slip by masking herself in a hat that Anna Wintour could ladle soup from. Oona, so infatuated by the sight of a local art celebrity pedaling down the street, emphatically declares into her cell phone to someone named Jazzy that she has “GOT to GET a BIKE.”

In Episode 10 “I Don’t Have A Chair & This Is My Corner” Swann, a self-defined personal performance artist, visits a Miami art gallery and ends up in a passive-aggressive confrontation with a digital sculptor about who has the right to not be noticed performing in a particular corner of an otherwise busy gallery space. It ends amicably when Swann’s opponent extends this brilliant offer: “Well, maybe we could not show each other our work?”

If there are complaints with DDD they haven’t much to do with performance. The show isn’t exactly shot in High Def, and the sound quality, at times, is lacking, but it’s nothing tragic and the story more than makes up for it with surprises like an Episode 5 cameo from the inherently likeable Isaac Mizrahi.

The scene between him and the girls plays classically comedic, as if they had just been given a “place” and a “situation” beforehand. But unlike most actors doing improv these three former art students, and one current fashion designer, are actually funny.

Check it out at IndexMagazine.com.

Situational comedy is, by nature, a formulaic storytelling medium. It derives its humor from the mechanism of an “everyman” protagonist pushing against the outlandish circumstances that surround him or her. Peas in a Pod does a thorough job of following this formula to the letter, which is unfortunate. It’s not because the formula is broken, but rather because the show lacks the necessary substance to make it work.

Peas‘ biggest flaw lies not in execution but rather in concept. A situational comedy rarely if ever outgrows the quality of its situation, which is why Peas in a Pod’s premise of “three siblings move into a two bedroom, one bathroom apartment” does far more to hinder the show’s development than the directing, acting, or production ever could.

The protagonist of Peas is a familiar character: the weary older brother who exasperatedly tries to keep his inconsiderate family from imploding. We’ve seen this strain of absurdist domestic comedy before, perhaps most notably on Arrested Development, and by now it should be clear that such a setup requires not only a relatable straight man, but also a collection of well-developed funny men.

Peas‘ hero Frank (played by Seth Coltan) isn’t particularly charismatic or sympathetic as the bumbling manager of the household, so much so that his everyday struggles leave the viewer more ambivalent than anything else; it’s difficult to know whether the audience is supposed to be feeling for Frank or laughing at his expense.

Frank’s most frequent foils are his two freeloading younger siblings, Tom (Scott Weatherby), an unemployed slacker with less character development than an Empire Strikes Back Stormtrooper, and Julie (Courtney Henggeler), an animal rights activist whose ill-conceived plot to recruit celebrity philanthropists is actually one of the few bright spots in the show’s narrative.

Tom and Julie spend much of the screen time finding exceedingly pedestrian ways to aggravate Tom’s authority, from Julie taking over his bedroom to Tom skipping his first day of work to Julie hogging the bathroom to Tom peeing in the shower (which is so hot in Brazil right now, btw.). The show certainly succeeds in reminding the viewer of everyday life - unfortunately, Peas doesn’t provide much of a humorous spin on its subjects, resulting in an underwhelming revisiting of the things that already irritate us on a daily basis.

The characters and plot points are - and this is something I never thought I’d ever complain about - simply too realistic to be entertaining, too mundane to warrant themselves as the focus of a web series. It’s a shame, because, as far as web series go, the acting, directing, and production are all adequate at worst. Still, even though Peas in a Pod does all the little things right, it lacks a “big idea” to propel its narrative when the writing itself falters.

Check it out at PeasInAPodTV.com.

When a mirror is prominently featured in moving picture entertainment, you can bet one of two things is going to happen.

If you’re watching something sentimental and the protagonist looks at his or her reflection, you’re in for a serious moment of self-realization. If you’re screening something from the horror or fantasy genres, then when the protagonist looks into a mirror, you can put big money he or she is going to see something that doesn’t belong. And it’s going to be freaky.

We find this reality-defying quality of mirrors at the center of Lumina, a new web series from overseas created by Jennifer Thym and distributed by KoldCast.TV.

In the very first scene, our heroine (the titular Lumina, played by JuJu Chan) encounters a strange man on the other side of her living room mirror. When Lumina reacts with mild confusion instead of panic, we know we’re safely out of horror territory and into the land of fantasy. Lumina and the mirror-man quickly ease into a gentle, flirtatious courtship, the kind that happens so easily in film and TV when two beautiful people find each other. When the stranger turns out to be a Prince of another realm, it’s official - the series isn’t just a fantasy, but a fairytale.

Lumina makes some strong positive impressions right out of the gate. It’s gorgeous! It jumps right past broadcast quality and goes straight to visuals fit for a feature film. This is achieved in part by shooting with the RedOne digital camera, a relatively new movie-making tool that’s making waves with both indie filmmakers and big shots. The look of the series is the work of a pair of cinematographers from Austria, and they certainly make some magic with their high-grade gear.

The series takes place in metropolitan Hong Kong, and the city is captured in vivid images of bright lights and busy streets. The cast is loaded with unusually attractive faces; Lumina herself is played by a genuine model/beauty queen, and many members of the cast are smokin’. It’s a good looking show, is what I’m saying.

Of course, looks aren’t everything, and when it comes to acting, Lumina’s cast falls short across the board. There’s a real inconsistency in terms of styles on display. Some actors overplay their roles with cartoonish facial expressions, and others make so little impression it’s hard to tell it’s hard to decipher a semblance of a personality. Some of these problems might come from the predominantly Chinese cast, several of whom don’t seem completely comfortable speaking English. You frequently get the impression that inflections and emotions are getting lost in translation. I would have liked to see the series performed in Chinese and subtitled in English, but I understand that when you ask a Western audience to read while being entertained, you’re risking a hefty portion of your audience.

The official website’s synopsis indicates a detailed mythology for the series, involving multiple mirror realms and a secret society of people who travel between worlds known as “mirroratti”. It will be nice to see these ideas explored in the series, as the relationship between the people in our world and those only accessible through the mirror is an intriguing concept.

In a scene from the first episode, Lumina is being driven in a car, and she spots her Prince reflected in the passenger side window. She leans her head against the window, and he leans his head towards hers. The effect is both of mirror image, and of two people leaning against each other. Moments like these suggest that writer/director Jennifer Thyme is aware of the potential for visual poetry and symbolism in Lumina’s premise. If the rest of the nine-episode series goes farther down the path of the fantastic, Lumina’s visual strength should be able to make up for it’s shortcomings.

Oh, and one last mark in the win column; each episode of Lumina ends with a different song over the credits (a la The Sopranos), and all of them (so far) have been excellent. If you get nothing else out of this series, you will get some sweet tunes for your iPod.

Check it out at LuminaSeries.com.

I have had the pleasure of asking Lowell Peterson, Executive Director of WGA East, all about the guild, its present position, its future form and what it means to be a signatory in the digital age. He smartly notes that “no one really knows” how new media will change the entertainment industry but, despite the uncertainty, the organization under his auspices has begun to actively engage the community of digital creators; first, by inviting new media signatories and, also, by hosting events that advance the conversation about writing, production and monetization in the digital world.

As the first new media signatory, Thom Woodley of Dinasour Diorama, sees the WGAE’s newfound interest  as “further validation of the web video industry.”  He appreciates their recognition that “it’s a different medium” where the definition of writers has changed and says that his decision to become a signatory has had a lot to do with the flexibility of the contract.

Woodley and other new media creators will join our Josh Cohen for a conversation on the digital world at The Paley Center in New York on September 30th…

From Words to Code: A Workshop for Surviving as a Writer in the Digital World

Wednesday, September 30, 2009
6:30 pm ET
The Paley Center for Media

And now some thoughtful musings from Lowell Peterson, Executive Director of WGA East…

We’ve seen WGA East take a decided interest in new media in the past few months. What’s prompted this seemingly sudden presence in digital entertainment?

We have been interested in new media for a while.  The strike against the majors was about programs originally made for new media as much as residuals for traditional programs redistributed on the web.  Our members are eager to write for the internet and other digital platforms and a lot of them are already doing so.

What might be new is our deeper understanding of the community of people outside the studio world who are creating programs for the ‘net and other platforms.  We review economic research on business models and we read what the mainstream entertainment press writes, but the only way to really understand what’s going on is to meet with people who create content, day in and day out.  Again, that includes a number of current members, but it also includes a whole community of folks who work outside the studio system.

No one really knows what “new media” will look like in five years, much less ten or fifteen, but we know that unless the WGAE gets involved now we will not be part of the scene in the future.

Why should new media creators consider becoming WGA signatories?  What are some of the benefits?

Concretely, there are pension and health benefits (assuming a certain amount of compensation).  But I think the answer is more fundamental:  We are a community of people who love to create stories, to make people laugh, to present information.  We represent screenwriters, comedy writers, television drama writers, news writers, public TV writers, radio writers, and, yes, new media writers.  In fact, we don’t represent only writers; our members include graphic artists, producers, editors, and more.

Joining the WGAE means joining that community.

We offer many opportunities to talk and work with people at various levels of various parts of the industry – from big-name showrunners to the people who lacerate politicos on late night TV to people early in their careers.

We are also an advocacy organization that represents its members.  The reality is that, without the Guild, writers would have a much tougher time earning a living, getting benefits, and protecting their creative interests.  We are not alchemists who can spin gold from sweat equity.  No one can expect to buy a penthouse in Tribeca by working on a project with a total budget of a couple of thousand dollars and no real prospect of a revenue stream.  But the economics of digital media will certainly change.  And there will be new career paths; many people who start by writing webisodes will also write feature films and higher-budget series.

Companies also benefit from signing WGA contracts (although we recognize that many digital projects are self-financed, or the production companies are owned by the writers, who also produce).  Providing pension and health benefits helps companies attract and retain better writers.  People who don’t have to work three other jobs to make ends me can devote more energy and time to their creative work.  I don’t mean to suggest that only Guild members have talent, but there is definitely a correlation.

The guild movement developed, I understand, as a countervailing negotiating force to a limited number of networks and studios that effectively controlled distribution.  How will the role of guilds change in an open distribution paradigm?

We represent writers and others employed by hundreds of entities.  The major studios and networks certainly set the pace for the highest budget productions, but we have been working with independents (including low-budget ones), local television and radio stations, cable channels, public television producers, and many others for many years.  Even the Hollywood system has changed significantly since the Guild was formed many years ago.

But I do think the open distribution paradigm requires us to be more creative in how we advance the interests of writers and other content creators.  In some ways we face the same challenges as everyone else: how can the urge to create and communicate be balanced with the need to earn a living?  In that respect we are pretty closely aligned with many digital producers, whether they are creator-owned or not.  We all have to figure out a workable balance.

No one knows yet whether the major studios will be completely outmaneuvered by new players, whether there will be tiers of content production (ranging from high-budget programs made by multinational conglomerates to the prototypical cats on skateboards), or whether an entirely new structure of production and distribution will emerge.  What is essential at this point is that content creators have a seat at the table.  Because we represent people at all levels of the industry, we can bring an organized, informed voice to the discussions.

What you see as the attitudes towards digital media among your more established members who are accustomed to a very different system?

Almost all of our members are very excited about digital media and some of our most prominent and established members are already writing webisodes and mobisodes.  Of course, they are dedicated to the art and craft and are more attracted to well-written programs, but most of them love the democratic, hip nature of the work and the content.  Like everyone else, they are anxious about the economics – either that no one will be able to make ends meet or that the majors will eat everyone’s lunch.

We will offer events for both our A-listers and the younger folks working mostly in digital media.  It will be remarkable how much these folks have in common.

Do you think digital media changes the nature of screen writing in any way?

Definitely.  Style and structure are different.  Typically the screens are smaller and the episodes are shorter.  Digital media are more interactive; programs often show on screen that show other content, and people like to use links to learn more or see similar programs or just do something different.

Interested potential signatories WGAE should contact Ursula Lawrence at ulawrence[AT]wgaeast.org

When your online series is called Titsburg!, you don’t very much need the subtitle “a (dirty) web show.” The audience already knows it’s in for something risque. Creators Tavon Bolourchi and Chioke Nassor, along with pal Kristen Holbrook, could’ve gone with a tagline a touch more descriptive. Their program certainly is dirty and definitely NSFW, but Titsburg! is far more ‘naughty’ than ‘nasty.’

Take “Boys Nite,” the sharpest and most hilarious of Titsburg’s seven episodes (not including the trailer or the “Behind the Scenes!”) that plays out like a version of Pee-wee’s Playhouse where Paul Reubens’ indecent exposure is actually part of the show. With their female roommates having flown the coop, Chester (Nassor) gets busy with their teddy bears, and then cajoles Tavon (Bolourchi) into a session of oral sex, but it’s all in good fun. Like an adult version of Playhouse There’s no nudity, no animals were harmed

The quickie episodes are in the half to one minute range, with the exception of the more plot heavy Sassy Gay! (a whopping 2:15), in which Tavon and Chester turn over-the-top dress and makeup, along with snarky flamboyance, into a trick to bypass the line at the nightclub.

Tavon’s role model was the tux-wearing, gay ‘Mafioso’ who had slapped and dissed his way directly through the head of the line the night prior. That both Tavon and Chester wanted to play the ‘man,’ and neither was willing to play the ‘lady’ in their pseudo-transvestite night on the town winds up being their downfall (that both Bolourchi and Nassor were in beard-mode during this episode is an added comic touch).

Otherwise, the episodes include light and amusing riffs on whether or not a woman can be too excited; the best way for Kasey (Holbrook) to keep bodily fluids out of her eyes (here, the pirate eye patch makes a divine cameo); and the “worst things to hear after sex,” aka “Bad Sex,” which are played out in bed with a ragtime-y, vaudevillian soundtrack, all of which sounds much funnier on paper.

Titsburg!’s two writer/director/stars are surprisingly talented and they’ve got chemistry to boot (and the same goes as well when Holbrook joins in). At a half-minute a piece, the episodes both make for a good reel and are a perfect jolt of comedy for that brief work break (though I dare you to watch just one). The sophomoric tendencies are so muted by charm and a certain subtle wink-winkiness that there’s no need to forgive anyone for even a moment.

Check it out at TitsburgComedy.com.

In a recent post here on Tilzy.TV, I wasted too many letters whining about young actors‘ obsessive compulsion to share the tedium of their lives as though it were legitimately entertaining. Not long before that I complained about infatuation with superheroes. Last night, as I watched the new series Junior League of Superheroes (or JLoSH), similar demons surfaced.

I was hoping to avoid a rehash, but the fates have little interest in appeasing my desires. Nor, apparently, do the folks behind JLoSH.

The title basically gives the general premise away, so no guesswork involved there. However, within the first few episodes there is little to suggest in what kind of action the Junior League is going be involved. I don’t find the setup isn’t particularly promising. People have been doing the superhero thing for, what, over a half-century now? At this point, if you’re going to do your own twist on the theme it damn well better be the most creative f’ing show ever devised. Even Harvey Birdman, which is based on a pretty fantastic premise, gets a little stale over the course of an episode.

The mantra “Write what you know” tends to serve as a foundation for upstart writers. But often it becomes a crutch, leading towards twisted variants of memoir and veering into navel-gazing territory. That’s not quite the case here - as the script avoids philosophizing, a plus - though a parallel road is traveled.

The plot of JLoSH (written by Brian Leahy and directed by Justin Fair) plays itself out as if a bunch of “nerds” recreated for the camera scenes that had been lifted from their collective past and interspersed with wishful details absent from those real life events.

Turn a video game into a training session for superhero qualification? Check. Hosting a vaguely sexualized Star Wars-themed costume party? Check. (Full disclosure, I do celebrate “May the 4th Be With You” annually.) The fantasy of a nobody suddenly being called to save the day? It’s there as well, though a few years ago the Sarah Silverman Show riffed on this exact topic in a nearly unbeatable fashion (plus it featured Brian Posehn, so it automatically wins) when the D&D dorks had to rescue Laura from the anti-abortion nuts. Again, the challenge parameters have been set at a pretty high bar.

Now I should explain my use of the word “nerd.” Nerd life is “nerd life” because it delves into and explores a genres minutia that really isn’t very interesting to the vast majority of people. Now those of us who partake in nerdy pastimes love subtle allusions to said pastimes when they’re knowingly dropped, but too lengthy an exposition is frowned upon. It’s appealing when nerdy flies just under the populist radar, not when it’s blatantly exposed and flaunted.

As much as I love Star Wars references, sometimes people get carried away and veer into cringeworthy territory.

That’s my general complaint, in a nutshell, of this entire show. I like that challenges have been taken up, but precision is sorely lacking. A lot of the material is attacked in a ham-fisted manner when the situation calls for more subtle humor. I think the best joke so far in the series comes at about 5:20 of episode 2, when the dude pokes his head in the door. It’s a completely unnecessary aside, yet it makes me laugh each time I watch it. More moments like that and you’ve hooked me. Instead, I see too much forced, insincere nerdom for my tastes.

Despite my negative take on these early episodes, there are flashes which lead me to believe that things could improve. A good deal of my poor outlook stems from having seen so many poor riffs on similar topics in too many shows. My vision is clouded and requires real strikes of brilliance for me to notice. This is partially my own doing, but it should also impel young writers (or, really, any writers) to hone their material sufficiently so that jaded critics like me don’t remain lost in our self-imposed fogs.

If there’s one thing to be said about Craig & the Werewolf, it’s that it doesn’t beat around the bush with its premise. Three seconds into the first episode, we see Craig’s roommate gnawing on a bloody, severed hand. Five seconds later, Craig enters the apartment, freaks out, and demands to know what’s going on. Six seconds after that, we get the quasi-apologetic answer: “Sorry, I totally forgot to tell you! I’m a werewolf.”

As with many other web series out there (Real Life with Married People, for instance), Absolute Disaster’s Craig & the Werewolf relies upon brevity of content to create a tight, fluff-free product. However, again as with many other web series out there, this show is also frequently a victim of its own attempts at streamlining.

Here’s what makes Craig & the Werewolf fun to watch: it takes the classic “frustrating roommate” scenario and puts a bizarre, fantastical twist to it. This formula frequently results in burst-out-laughing gems (Craig’s rationale for not moving out is that he’s not willing to lose the deposit on his year-long lease), and the witty writing is bolstered by the punchy timing and interplay of the two leads (Brett Register and Craig Frank - creator and star of another online comedy series, The Crew).

The episodes are funny, concise, and entertaining, and in themselves don’t lack anything that one should expect from a short-form comedy on the internet.

Instead, the series’ difficulties arise when one peruses the show as a whole - there are simply too many new story arcs being introduced over too few episodes, and it feels as though the show keeps zipping from plot point to plot point without stopping to settle into any one scenario.

The first two episodes are extremely promising. In the first, Craig learns that his roommate is a werewolf and goes through the various stages of freaked-out denial. In the second, Craig awakes in the middle of the night to find his roommate watching him sleep, which is A) already creepy because it violates the “bro code,” and B) really creepy considering that his roommate eats people.

It seems like this sort of dynamic could successfully go on for a while, right? People would happily watch another ten or twenty episodes focusing on Craig and his adjustment to his horrifying-yet-hilarious living conditions. After all, the show is called Craig & the Werewolf.

Then comes the game-changer: Craig drinks from the open milk carton in the fridge and “catches” whatever turns one into a werewolf. It’s a smart, clever direction for the plot to take, but one that comes much too soon and feels off-putting for an audience that’s still getting used to the original personality of the show. And it doesn’t stop there.

After another episode featuring Craig trying to tactfully separate his girlfriend from his newfound desire to consume human flesh, the audience gets hit with another bombshell: Craig’s girlfriend is a vampire. These twists and turns should turn the audience’s world upside down, but instead one simply feels too dis-invested in the characters and too confused by plot to be much affected.

Still, the show features enough quick wit and chemistry to make it a solid, enjoyable find. What’s more, Craig & the Werewolf can very easily make the jump from “enjoyable” to “home run” once it gives itself some breathing room with which to savor its own cleverness. Until then, followers of the show may continue to feel much as Craig does: taken aback, overwhelmed, and worried that things are changing entirely too quickly for their liking.

The first decade of the 21st century has been pretty sweet for comic book fans that like to see their superheros moving instead of static. From the modest ambitions of the first X-Men to the (almost) indisputable masterpieces that are The The Dark Knight and Iron Man, comic book movies have been established as more than mere cash cows for studio execs.

Due in part to a Hollywood that’s too economically strained to take risks on original concepts, comic books and graphic novels are entering a golden age of film, distinguished by larger than life scenarios, impossible powers, and extraordinary individuals who take it upon themselves to protect (or destroy) us regular folks.

The web series Gavin Lance plays off this heyday of comic book cinema, but takes a more literal approach. The show’s plot revolves around a vigilante (Gavin Lance, natch) trying to clean up his city, only to get roped into a complex assassination plot involving kidnapping and time travel.

The story isn’t based on an actual comic, but the series is described as “comic book styled.” After seeing a minute or two of the first episode, you quickly get the idea. The action on screen is broken up into multiple panels of video, so looking at a screen is lot like watching a comic you’d normally just look at.

Movies like Hulk and Spider-Man have played with the screen-as-page concept, but the makers of Gavin Lance really commit to it, utilizing multiple panels of action in just about every scene. It’s a cool idea with a lot of promise, but does it work?

From a visual standpoint, definitely. The panel format gives the filmmakers a lot of new territory to explore, and to their credit they come up with a few new tricks every episode. Panels extend and shrink, and move across the screen, revealing new pieces of information as they go. They might display different camera angles of the same scene, or stay on a close-up of a character even when the dramatic focus of the scene is somewhere else.

Ultimately these techniques reminded me less of reading a comic and more of watching a play. In theater, you can choose anyone on stage to pay attention to. The multiple panels give you the same option.

Visually, there’s so much going on in the world of Gavin Lance it partially makes up for the shortcomings in other areas of the production. Partially, but not completely. With six 10-minute episodes produced so far, the series still seems to be finding it’s technical footing. There are frequently problems with fluctuating audio levels, and even a few occasions where the focus goes noticeably soft.

Independent productions can get away with a few technical glitches if they have a great script, but this is another area where the series falls short, particularly when it comes to the leads. Gavin is portrayed as a pseudo-realistic vigilante as opposed to an out-and-out superhero; he doesn’t have any powers, but he does have some neat looking ninja weapons, though we rarely see him use them.

Gavin occasionally makes self-referential remarks about how “weird” or “obligatory” various moments in the show are, but his lack of energy makes the remarks feel less like snappy comic-book wisecracks and more like a halfhearted apology for dipping into cliche. Comic book crime fighters tend to deal in extremes, whether they make us laugh, cringe, or worry for their sanity. Gavin feels like a hero on mute.

The series does improve as it goes on, particularly when the time travel plot gets off the ground. Once characters start throwing around phrases like “carbon time signatures” and “parallel timelines” most viewers with geek cred are going to start paying attention. The show’s villain is also introduced several episodes in and is a welcome addition. As Charles Niward, actor Michael Reed creates a believably unhinged evil guy by hitching his voice after every few words, giving him a slightly mad scientist-y feel despite a mild appearance.

There’s a lot of supplemental material available on the official Gavin Lance website, including behind the scenes videos and commentary tracks for each episode. All of these extra features show how much care goes into the production of the series, and creator Colin Carlton (who also edits, writes, produces, directs, and stars as Gavin) clearly has a great deal of enthusiasm and commitment to the project. Hopefully by the time this first storyline wraps up, the quality will be there in equal force.

Check it out at GavinLance.com.

Is three minutes long enough to get you where you want to go within a sexy dramedy and leave you feeling both satisfied and wanting more? In this case, I’d answer with whatever the Australian word is for “yes.”

Forget the Rules is an award winning Australian-based cross-media comedy/drama that follows the lives of 3 twenty-something roommates living in Melbourne. Upon release in October of ‘05 it played simultaneously over the airwaves on Australia music television station Channel V, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, and uniquely on 3G mobile phones via Optus mobile.  According to their web site’s fun facts section, it was the first comedy/drama series to broadcast all episodes at the same time on so many venues.

The three main characters, Lisa (Louise Crawford), Pepe (Steven Cabral), and Pony (Daniel Kitchener) all have great chemistry. The more episodes you watch, the more you enjoy the trio and the situations they in which they find themselves involved. As is the case with Seinfeld, Friends, or any at-least-moderately-well-contrived sitcom, when you get to know the characters’ personalities and quirks you’ll more quickly relate to and laugh at their humor.

That means to get the most out of Forget the Rules it takes a certain level of commitment. Luckily, because the episodes’ short length is combined with great writing and thoughtful content (of a mostly sexual nature), this isn’t too hard to do.

The first three episodes revolve around Pony, who has just reconnected with a woman on FaceBook, who he remembers as being the best sex he’s ever had. Naturally, he can’t wait to hook up again. It turns out the woman, Alex, has gone through a sex change procedure and is now a man. TWIST! Pony, after meeting the new Alex in person, is rightly shocked and confused while Lisa and Pepe find the whole situation to be very entertaining.

Of course, given the closeness of the three roommates and degree of comfort they have in sharing personal things with one another, all of them quickly find themselves connecting with Alex on a personal level ending in an “Emotional 3Some.”

Season one connected with more than 900,000 viewers across Australia with very little marketing. It was also nominated for 2 MIPCOM (Cannes) Internet & Mobile TV Awards in 2006: best original content and best interactive format - both of which it won. Pretty impressive.

Forget the Rules‘ Wikipedia entry cites creator and executive producer Jim Shomos: “We didn’t think when we were starting this out that it was going to be the first (to be aired on TV, internet, and mobile phone) - we didn’t even think it was going to be on TV, we weren’t even sure about mobile, but that’s the ways it’s all come out.”

So why did it succeed? Shomos explains, “young audiences need ‘more story per minute’ and emphasized the importance of fast paced stories with rapid developments, particularly for short form content.” The team seems to have pulled this off perfectly.

Graphic descriptions of how a woman physically becomes a man and a demonstration of a Prince Albert connector with a banana and two apples certainly keeps me entertained and eager for more three-minute installments of what the Sydney Morning Herald describes as “snack drama.” Check it out at ForgetTheRules.com to see if it keeps you as satisfied.