I've been going through the season premiere of "American Idol," collecting ideas to elaborate on later. One is how Ryan Seacrest is finally bearable, as if all his other TV deals make him secure enough to be a lot snarkier than I remember him being — refreshingly so. But first …

We now know that Randy is not a "Trading Places" fan. Remember the guy who auditioned twice? And who, the second time, went into that odd little "Constance Fry" ditty that Randy did not recognize? Get out your DVD of "Trading Places," the Dan Aykroyd-Eddie Murphy comedy. Go to the scene in the health club where a newly disgraced Louis is snubbed by his snooty friends. The song the guys sing at the bar is the one the auditioner did on "Idol." I think it's called "Oralee Cookies."

Love that movie.

Bobby Jon finally went down on "Survivor" tonight, though not quite the way I expected — although, as usual, I wondered what the editing was hiding.

I was thinking earlier today that we should have hit the point of resentment by now, when the other competitors looked at Bobby Jon and Stephenie and really objected to their being in the game. Hadn't they already had their chance on "Survivor," after all? I have also been wondering when Gary was going to officially become known as The Quarterback and be ousted because he, too, had had a chance at greater rewards than your usual "Survivor" competitor has managed.

So maybe there was a watershed moment when Bobby Jon, trying to warn players against Stephenie, reminded them that he and Steph had competed before. Maybe that built, too, on what had happened in the reward challenge.

That was one of those fights for food. Winner gets the best meal, second place the second-best meal and so on. Judd won and Jamie — stung by the accusations against him in the last telecast — gave up fourth place for ninth in order to get back in everyone's good graces. Judd was given a chance to share some of his meal with two other people, and picked Bobby Jon and Stephenie. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with the other — and may have fueled some unhappiness.

Judd also won a clue toward the hidden immunity idol, sharing the clue with Stephenie but lying to everyone else. Jamie, meanwhile, won the immunity challenge — saving himself from a likely vote-out since even his reward sacrifice didn't keep him from annoying people.

That put Gary in jeopardy, until he deduced Judd's lie and was able to save himself at tribal council. But a big alliance within the tribe had obviously made a backup plan — and the target of that plan was Bobby Jon.

So now I wonder if we'll see Stephenie or Gary next, or if the alliances will shift. (I always get amused when groups see themselves as solid; have they not watched the collapse of seemingly impregnable alliances on previous series?) And yes, I was more interested this time than I have been in awhile. Either the show has reached the point where the scheming is complex enough to be entertaining, or it's just the inertia of watching every week.

I mean, I also was drawn into this week's "Amazing Race," which didn't seem significantly better on paper — there was an awful lot of driving — but still held my attention when I watched the two-hour installment. (I watched one hour before "Lost" on Wednesday, the other before "Survivor" tonight. I am so behind in my viewing.) But there I have a motive, though not a particularly positive one. I want to see the Weavers lose.

I like the Linzes and the Godlewskis and don't mind the Bransens. The Weavers are like a raw nerve, talking up their "Christian life" while playing dirty tricks, speaking ill of other teams then resenting things said about them, whining that no one likes them when they have given the other teams ample reason to feel that way. They embody self-righteousness, so sure of their own goodness that they are unable to recognize their own wrong-doing. I'll concede this: They're a pretty successful team, and they could well win this thing. But when they do well, I get the same sick feeling I got from Rob & Amber, that someone else — almost anyone else — is more deserving.

My colleague Alan Sepinwall and I were arguing about the current state of reality shows — he is a little more forgiving at the moment than I am — and of course, that led to the thought any dissatisfied TV viewer has.

You know: "I can do better than this!"

For instance, "Landscape!" a combination of a couple of recent threads on "Survivor" and "The Apprentice."

Hosted by Susie Coelho ("Surprise Gardener"), the show would seek the next great landscaper. Of course, Gary Hogeboom would compete — only this time he would tell everyone that he IS a former NFL player, so who would expect landscaping experience.

The challenges would involve exotic locations and rampant self-promotion. You would hear Coelho say, "For this event, we are going to one of the finest hotels I have ever seen, the Ritz-Carlton Huntington in Pasadena! I adore its fine floral displays and meticulously maintained grounds. Today, our two teams — 'There Must Be a Pony' and 'Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom' — will each try to come up with a better design for the horseshoe garden. But the design must be game-related!"

Pony struggles when it realizes that its planned croquet-mallet scheme is too complicated to compete on deadline. Hundred Flowers goes simpler — trying to turn the horsehoe into a circle, which it claims is a Hula Hoop — but has a falling-out over the proper color sequence for the mums. Pony ekes out a win, sending Hundred Flowers to the Greenhouse for an elimination ceremony. There someone will hear Coelho say, "You're mulch!"

Next week: A visit to Aaron Spelling's estate, where the teams have to mow the names of all his series into the lawn. And here's the twist: It has to be in flowing script!

If that doesn't work for you, how about this: "Virgin!"

I know, Fox probably already thought of that title. But let's go ahead.

Adam from "The Apprentice" would host this competition in which seven men and seven women must figure out who among them is, well, you know. In the opening telecast, each is asked about his or her experience, and answers with the new catchphrase, "I'm really not comfortable talking about it."

Various competitions are used to get information: The drunken party, the "What would you do on 'Temptation Island' quiz," anything but actually getting a contestant in bed. Of course, in these close quarters, with all this talk about intimate behavior, some contestants may fall into each other's arms. (Memo to Fox: Cast former "Real World" stars in the first series.) Imagine the shock, then, when one contestant declares that another is a virgin only to discover he's not — as of the night before!

Other things could happen, too. But I'm really not comfortable talking about them.

It has been increasingly easy to believe that Stephenie really does have one of those little clouds over her head, especially given the way the reward challenge went in tonight's episode. It was a wipeout so thorough, it was like her cumulative experience from "Survivor" rolled into a single challenge. She didn't even get a chance to show her grit and rally her tribe — the sharp stone was in someone else's hand.

But when immunity came around, and her motley crew managed to win (and to demonstrate the sort of teamwork so necessary for success at this point in the game), it was at once a pleasure and disappointment. A pleasure because Stephenie was at least momentarily uncursed — not unlike the Red Sox in 2004. A disappointment because she is once again just another player, not someone whose terrible fortune provided a dramatic thread that "Survivor" badly needs right now.

Again, she's like the Red Sox. Their tragic currents made them a thing apart, with each loss an addition to their Sisyphean burden. When they were eliminated this year, it wasn't such a big deal because they had a championship in recent memory. I said awhile back that Stephenie felt more like a typical player this year, and only a string of unimaginable losses could change that; a win like tonight's just keeps her in the ordinary pool.

Anyway, she managed to avoid another tribal council. So it fell to that other fractured, blended tribe to pick a victim — and Blake was bid adieu. Editing made it unsurprising, with repeated sequences of his foolish babble, and the vote wasn't as close as the pre-council discussion hinted. Of course, that's the way this disappointing season (which included another tepid challenge tonight) has gone. Even when it seems that things might get interesting, they don't prove to be.

The New York Times has a story about declining audiences for reality shows. You can find it here. Lots of theories to be found there, but I think there's a simple explanation. The key shows being discussed just aren't that good right now.

I've both heard and made some complaints about "Survivor" and "Amazing Race," which you can find in some previous posts. Stephanie Warsmith, a co-worker and faithful "Apprentice" viewer, has been disappointed in that show, to the point of barely watching the current round.

That suggests that viewers are unhappy with a specific show or an individual concept, not an entire genre.

Because of changes in cast, locations and competitions, reality shows can vary greatly in quality from one series to the next. "Survivor" certainly has. So a show that's in a bad round could get audience back for the next series if it improves enough to get the loyal fans talking to the fair-weather ones. And I'd like to think that "Amazing Race's" "family edition" will be seen as an aberration, with the show back to its better ways once it returns to a competition among two-person teams.

Well, they did switch tribe members tonight, and Brooke was voted off by her reconfigured group, and Stephenie really is beginning to look cursed — as she admits — since even a change of tribe couldn't keep her out of tribal council.

To which I say, enh.

Compared to "Survivor: Palau," "Survivor: Guatemala" just isn't doing it. I've already complained about it some, but I've kept watching and still am not feeling the magic. This one feels flat. The personalities don't compel, for good or bad — no Tom, no Rupert, no Boston Rob. And as much as I liked Stephenie last time around, she seems like just another player now. The biggest continuing drama on the show is how long Gary will keep denying his NFL past. And that's not all that exciting, either.

I'm reminded of the way the "Amazing Race" fans at my office have been talking about the current "family edition." They're watching — and so I am — but they feel disappointed — and so do I. Here, the personalities are all right, some likable, some not. I can muster at least a mild rooting interest in some. But seeing people getting lost near Washington, D.C., doesn't feel the same as people getting lost on a dirt road in a foreign land. I mean, they're building suspense around whether people should stop for gas!

I suppose the whole "discover America" bit is good for kids in the audience (and with this installment featuring families, more families with children may be watching). Some may even be turning to parents and saying, "Gee, can we go see that battlefield?"

To which the wise parent will reply, "Yes, as long as we don't have to carry someone on a stretcher."

Digression: Given how easily the family with young children handled the stretcher, why would the all-grown-up families have trouble?

Digression the second: I see that praying will be an issue on next week's "Survivor." And have made note of some heavy praying on this "Amazing Race." I've no problem with prayer. But I often find it interesting what people pray for. Praying for strength and wisdom is fine. Praying to find the next marker on "Amazing Race" strikes me as too, uh, specific.

Resumption: I will still be watching "Survivor" and "Amazing Race" again next week. I'll also be hoping they get better.

"Who won the first 'Amazing Race'?" my wife asked the other day.

It was not a casual question. We had gotten a DVD of the first season of the reality series for review (it arrives in stores on Sept. 27), and she was watching it.

I resisted telling her. She was enjoying the season, which she had not seen before, and knowing the outcome might spoil the experience. But she insisted she wanted to know, so I looked it up and told her.

She watched all the rest of "Amazing Race" DVD.' And quite happily.

I mention this in part because it's sometimes said that shows that reach a clear resolution at the end of a season — such as reality competitions — don't fare well in rerun. I'm more incline to believe that it depends on how good the show is. If you know how a case turns out on, say, "Law & Order," you can still watch the reruns (and re-reruns and re-re-reruns) to see how the pieces fit together, or to see who's getting to ham it up as a defense attorney, or just because you like the show. So why not do the same with "Amazing Race" or "Survivor" or another show — where the characters and the plot twists give you plenty to enjoy even when you know where it's all leading.

I also mention it because of all the complaints I hear and read about reality shows. The latest appear in a poll by the Associated Press and TV Guide, the details of which you can find here. The headline for stories from the poll tended to focus on the dissatisfaction with reality TV, with some 80 percent of respondents saying there's too much of it.

That really isn't a surprising figure, but it is misleading.

Why no surprise? First of all, because even the most successful shows don't have 80 percent of the audience watching week in and week out. According to Nielsen data, a top-rated series last season was seen every week in less than 20 percent of all TV households, and by fewer than 10 percent of all available viewers.

Second, "reality TV" as a genre gets bashed in the way comedy or drama does not. (TV news, on the other hand, does get trashed as a genre much the way reality TV does.) When you say "reality TV," people are most likely to think of the worst of the form — the "Fear Factors" of the world — instead of the best, and so folks will immediately respond negatively.

I've found the reactions change, though, when you remind folks of good reality shows, or of things that could be classified as reality but aren't always thought of that way, such as "Antiques Roadshow."

And I suspect the people responding to the poll were reacting to summer programming (when there was a lot of reality filling air time) or to the fall-season glut of a couple of years ago. The fact is, we are past the point of thinking that any reality show is going to succeed. The failures of some high-profile projects made that clear. The success of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" reminded programmers that people will still flock to scripted programs, and I suspect we're one hit away from a resurgence in sitcoms.

But I'd rather watch a good reality show than a bad drama or comedy.

Shortly before they announced the results on "Dancing With the Stars," the telecast here included one of those insurance commercials with John O'Hurley as a humorously pompous fool. That's his image, I thought, yet another variation on the "Seinfeld" guy. And it's hard to imagine people taking him all that seriously.

When it came down to it, the mysterious scoring system on "Dancing" determined that the champion was not, in fact, Hurley but the plucky, pretty Kelly Monaco.

From my watching of the show, Monaco was definitely a better dancer than O'Hurley, not only graceful but bringing a real passion to her dancing. And no, I'm not referring to her near-flash of the TV audience earlier in the competition.

Oh, I'd put O'Hurley ahead of most of the other competitors (who, in that "last shot of the losers" dance medley on tonight's show, reminded viewers why they weren't among the final two contenders). But Monaco could be taken seriously, while O'Hurley had to dance around the idea that he was a funny guy.

   For those of you who have not been to my original Beacon TV blog, which began in April, this is a continuation in a new location. I'm Rich Heldenfels, TV critic for the Akron Beacon Journal since 1994, and for other publications for many years before that. This blog is about all things TV, as well as about what goes into writing about television for a living, what that life is like when I'm not watching television and some of the things that have happened behind the scenes. Beginning next week, it will include notes from the annual TV critics' summer press tour. But I am sure I'll have things to post about before then, so take a look. And, if you want to respond to something I say, you can either post a comment here or e-mail me.