Here’s the thing about “Project Runway”: yes, we watch for the drama brought by the designers, but we also watch it to witness the talents of the undiscovered.

There’s no better mix of those two elements than the final episode of every season, when there’s nothing left to do but show and prove. I wasn’t at all surprised that the final three came down to Carol Hannah, Althea and “Meana Irina,” who, despite her attitude problem, can design her butt off.

Full disclosure: I started slacking on my “Runway” devotion about halfway through this season. I became one of those fans who blamed everything on the show’s move to Lifetime: this season’s lack of bite and wit “never would’ve happened on Bravo,” I said.

But last night, I realized how shortsighted I’d been. The final episode had everything: tears from a sick but still sewing Carol Hannah; anticipation; the trinity of Nina, Heidi and Kors, plus frenzied pacing as the designers and three resurrected from eliminations – Christopher, Logan and Gordana –whipped up a 13th look for their 12-piece collections at the 11th hour.

And if that wasn’t good enough, we even got a Tim Gunn breakdown! A Tim.Gunn.Breakdown. When the always suave, never flustered one is walking around flailing his arms and yelling threats that “he’s about to lose it,” you know it must’ve been one tense tent.

If you missed last week’s episode: Carol Hannah drew her inspiration from the “ethereal” architecture at Duke U., Althea from retro sci-fi movies and Irina wanted to do her take on the urban woman warrior with an all-black collection – which Nina explicitly told her not to do. Yeah, she did it anyway. And it kinda rocked.

See, Irina’s like the girl from high school whose meanness was really a line of defense – much like the hooded outerwear and knits, black leather and hats that she thought a New York woman needed to battle it out in the Big Apple. It was dark, but cohesive; ready-to-wear, but with sparks of original detail.

Carol Hannah’s was equally impressive in terms of construction and tailoring – just look at the inverted pyramid tutu topped off with body-hugging silk, or her exquisite Grecian gown – but it completely lacked cohesion. I haven’t agreed with the judges on much this season, but I co-signed out loud when they noted Irina was the only who presented an actual collection.

Because, sadly, Althea the suit-maker just didn’t bring it, from her runway day outfit – halter top, leggings, and ankle Uggs? Really? – to her mishmash of “sci-fi” looks. Never mind that none of it actually appeared futuristic or innovative (see: Jay McCarroll, season one, if you need a refresher on what innovation looks like). The judges kept commenting that she was "plugged into the street," and I have no clue what that means other than I don't particularly want to wear it. Yes, she can do separates, but unfortunately, that separated her collection from winning the title.

What did you think of the season finale? Was this season everything that you expected - or wanted - it to be? And more importantly, is there a tiny piece of you that thinks Carol Hannah was robbed?

It seems ironic to me that it was this time of the year more than 30 years ago that I had my first “encounter” with Oprah Winfrey.

I was a little girl whose legs dangled off the pew when Winfrey appeared as a featured speaker on Sunday at my grandmother’s church in West Baltimore, Maryland. I immediately recognized her as an anchor on the local news station, WJZ, and I couldn’t believe that such a star would be standing in the pulpit of Whitestone Baptist Church.

Ordinarily church meant suffering through a sermon I didn’t understand and staring in awe at the women who – in their exuberance at being in the presence of the Holy Spirit – seemed to shout, sweat and dance the walls down.

But this Sunday I was mesmerized by Oprah.

Like any good storyteller, she started out slow, sharing tales of growing up first in Mississippi, then in Milwaukee and Tennessee. Like me, she loved to read and I felt like she was walking up and down my street when she recounted the many church plays and programs in which she had been called to perform.

I literally slid to the edge of the pew as Oprah told the tragic story of a slave woman who upon being revived from a vicious beating from her master thought she was seeing stars, only to realize it was salt on the ground which had been thrown on her lacerated back. The congregation moaned their pain and understanding of the hardships of life.

Then, just as smoothly as she had plunged us into the depths of despair, she raised us up again with the words of an ex-slave, Sojourner Truth, who at a Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, in 1851 asked “Ain’t I a woman?”

"If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back and get it right-side up again. And now that they are asking to do it, the men better let them,” Oprah said, reciting Truth’s words. It was the mid 1970s, and with the civil rights and women’s rights movements so fresh in everyone’s minds, the words seemed to ring with poignancy.

She encouraged us all to never let hardship sway us from our paths. I left the church that day amazed by what I had heard - and by Winfrey who, even then, seemed larger than life. My 8-year-old mind desired to further the connection I felt with the woman who was now my new hero.

I got it into my head that with her being so far away from her home in Tennessee, surely she would want to join my family for Thanksgiving dinner. So I waited until my grandmother drifted off to sleep one afternoon, and I looked up the phone number for WJZ-TV in the phone book.

Trying to sound as grown up as possible, I asked the station’s operator to connect me with Oprah Winfrey, planning to offer the invitation to the secretary such a celebrity must surely have working for her.

I was shocked when Oprah answered the phone.

My prepared words failed me and I instead stuttered out how much I had enjoyed her speech at Whitestone. “Awww, thank you honey,” Oprah replied, before I promptly hung up on her in my nervousness.

Years later, as a reporter at the Baltimore Sun, I shared that story with a colleague who was interviewing Oprah about her film “Beloved.” I explained how much the now hugely influential talk show host had inspired me as both a woman of color and a journalist.

When my friend later told me she had shared the story with Oprah during the interview and that Ms. Winfrey had expressed her delight at my words, I felt like I was once again that little girl, basking in the glow of my idol.

A mysterious Observer on the Fox series 'Fringe.'

Last night's episode of "Fringe" - the culmination of a full week of hype - certainly delivered on answers, but added a heaping helping of new questions.

So far, "Fringe" has done a better job of explaining itself in its second season than "Lost," co-creator J.J. Abrams' previous series. We've figured out this much: there are alternate realities, and Walter (John Noble)'s son Peter (Joshua Jackson) is actually from an alternate reality, he just doesn't know it, and therefore Walter is hesitant to tell him all he knows. One thing we still don't know is exactly how the bizarre Observers - yes, we find out for the first time on the show that there's more than one - fit into all of this.

Since Walter is playing dumb on the Observers, which he actually knows a lot about, we get one of those scenes essential to any J.J. Abrams show where a scientist-type has to explain what's going on. Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) and Peter pay a visit to Massive Dynamic, where we learn the theory that the Observers aren't traveling through time, nor are they immortal, but they "observe" time, especially major historical events.

One Observer in particular breaks their code of not acting, except when correcting a mistake they made, by kidnapping a young woman prior to taking an airplane which is destined to crash. Because of this, we also find out more about their strange sci-fi instruments, and that they carry strange guns, which look normal, but throw people back and stun them.

As it becomes more clear that Walter knows a lot more than he's telling, Noble really gets to shine here, being equally brilliant playing the absent-minded, slightly-mad scientist (I live for the scenes with his assistant, Astrid), and the man with all the answers who can advise an Observer on how to proceed.

When an assassin's bullet takes down the rogue Observer, the immortality theory bites the dust with him, and he reveals that he has found the capacity to have emotions, to cry and even to fall in love. He felt that the woman he saved from the plane crash was important, having observed her all of his life. Was he just an inter-dimensional stalker or is there more to it than that?

Aside from the fact that Observers are being seen more and more, foretelling some momentous event, Olivia, who recently took a trip to another reality, is someone they see having a particularly dark future.

I was happy to see an episode focusing on the overall story-arc of this show again, as the weird-crime-of-the-week episodes aren't nearly a strong.

Were you fascinated by the Observers as well? Do you agree that this show could stand to have fewer stand-alone episodes? What are your "Fringe" theories (what is the meaning behind the strange symbols before commercial breaks, anyway)? Share your thoughts on video, or the comments below.

It's been rumored for weeks, but now it's actually happening: Oprah Winfrey is ready to announce tomorrow that she's ending her immensely popular and influential TV talk show.  She'll drop the news on Friday morning's live show from Chicago.

Fans shouldn't panic just yet: WLS, where her show began as "A.M. Chicago" in 1984, says the final "Oprah Winfrey Show" will air in September of 2011, giving her nearly two more years to spur water cooler talk, influence trends, and push authors to the top of the best-seller list.

What then?  The media queen has been trying to get the cable channel OWN, the Oprah Winfrey Network, off the ground with Discovery Communications for awhile now, and it seems a good bet she'll move her attention and resources there.  After all, why "settle" for a show – even one of the most talked-about and enduring in TV history – when you can have a network?

When it was announced that Elizabeth Banks would guest star on ABC's new hit comedy "Modern Family," one assumed she would ham it up as she has in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Scrubs." Ham it up she did, as Mitchell and Cameron's wild, hard-partying friend.

However, when it was announced that Edward Norton, star of such dark movies as "Fight Club" and "American History X," would play a musician, the last thing I expected was the guitarist from '80s one-hit-wonder band Spandau Ballet.

"Modern Family's" ensemble has quickly become one of the sharpest on TV, and I think Ed O'Neill's "Jay" and Ty Burrell's "Phil," in particular, are Emmy-worthy. Bringing in two guest stars actually wasn't all that necessary, but seeing Norton and Banks interact with the cast was a real treat.

In this episode, Mitchell and Cameron learned that their new baby and old friend weren't going to mix - as Banks not too subtly implied that she wouldn't mind getting rid of it altogether since it got in the way of her wild lifestyle.

Meanwhile, it turned out that Phil isn't a complete disaster as a person, because he certainly knows how to shower his wife, Claire, with gifts on her anniversary. She, on the other hand, was totally clueless and invited Norton's character to give them a private show, assuming that "True," the first song they ever heard, was something special to him.

Instead, it turned out that he barely had any clue of the band beyond that. It seemed that Norton wanted a chance to really let loose here, which he certainly did, but the interplay between Burrell and Julie Bowen, already perfect, was what made it stand out.

The funniest part of the episode, however, was Jay and teenage granddaughter Haley's game of cat and mouse, as she tried to sneak out of his house for a party. Unfortunately for her, he was two steps ahead of her, having gone through this before with her mother.

This episode was another great example of how this show captures the family dynamic in new and unique ways and it didn't need two big-name guest stars to pull it off.

Did you watch last night? What did you think of Banks and Norton? Share your thoughts on video, or in the comments below.

'SYTYCD's' top 14 group routine

The solos on Wednesday night's "So You Think You Can Dance" results show were much improved after judge Nigel Lythgoe admonished them last week. As pred... wait, can I just pull an Adam Shankman and interrupt myself to say how much Wade and Amanda Robson's group routine rocked? I smell another Emmy!

Anyway, as predicted, Karen and Kevin's weak "Sweet Charity"-inspired number landed them in danger. Despite an entertaining birdcage routine, Channing and Justin joined them.

Surprisingly, and thankfully, Russell and Noelle got enough votes for their fox trot to stay safe. Despite showing a good deal more maturity this week, Nathan's female fanbase didn't vote in enough numbers to save him and his partner Mollee from the bottom three. After last week, I would have preferred to see them go, but then I saw their solos. Like it or not, they really brought it, particularly Mollee with an incredible cartwheel onto her knee.

I'm not much of a Victor fan but I also have to admit that he had a pretty impressive solo this week, too. Kevin was by far my favorite of the three guys in danger, but unfortunately, his solo was more of the same (and still reminiscent of Twitch). Like I suspected, Kevin was sent home, leaving the hip-hop contingent this season to two.

It's just too bad that Channing had only started to show her personality, but her solo didn't wow me, or the judges, apparently. With Mollee in the clear, they kept Karen, who has been one of their favorites, despite an off week (I'm guessing judge Mary Murphy really fought for her). This time, I was happy to be wrong in my prediction.

So we have an unusual situation where Victor and Karen will be paired up next week, only to be broken up - assuming they make it to the top ten.

Now it's your turn: Did the judges make the right call this week? Do you agree with my (begrudging) opinion that Mollee and Nathan earned a place in the top 12 with their solos? Sound off on video, or in the comments below.

Ashleigh Di Lello and Jakob Karr

Just a few weeks ago, who would have thought that Legacy, Ashleigh and Kathryn would be where they are today? Tuesday night's episode of "So You Think You Can Dance" showed astonishing growth from dancers who might very well have been dismissed coming out of the Las Vegas callbacks.

I was a much bigger fan of Legacy than Ashleigh, mind you, but these two are really beginning to shine - though in Ashleigh's case, it certainly doesn't hurt that she has one of the most talented dancers this show has seen, Jakob, as a partner. He's probably been the most consistent dancer this season. Ashleigh has matched his performance for the second straight week with a typically strong Tabitha and Napoleon hip-hop routine. (Last season, it was foreclosures; this season, text messaging ... always of the moment, those two.)

I worried about Legacy's troubles with transitions in his solos but he's really shown he has what it takes for this show, and Kathryn, only known in Vegas as the girl-who-cried-a-lot, showed the judges that she could bring maturity, not to mention intensity, to her performances, as the two of them took on a paso doble every bit as good as last year's "Matrix"-inspired routine with Brandon and Jeanine.

Russell took on the fox trot for the second time, and this time got to perform with his actual partner, Noelle. The judges liked his performance better this week, though I'm still at a loss to see what they didn't like about the first one. Their chemistry continues to improve, but fox trots don't usually make people pick up the phone.

Breaking out of her cage, quite literally, was Channing, in a Tyce Diorio routine where she portrayed a bird with Victor. Nigel Lythgoe's critique that she appeared to be enjoying herself for the first time was all too true. The judges seemed to like Victor's technique a lot, but not much else. However, this was their best routine, so that could be enough to save them.

Fresh off the worst salsa dance ever, Mollee and Nathan went to Laurieann Gibson's pop jazz boot camp, and came out with a lot more determination and synchronization in their dancing, but there's still a long way to go for them. Still, I have a pretty good feeling that they won't even be in the bottom three couples.

Also having a rough time of it last week were Ellenore and Ryan, but they must have figured they were as good as safe when they pulled "SYTYCD" alum Travis Wall's name out of the hat. I still prefer last year's Jeanine and Jason routine but this one was nearly as good. It was certainly in Ellenore's wheelhouse, and Ryan matched her brilliantly. As expected, Mary Murphy teared up, telling Ryan that he inspired fellow ballroom dancers everywhere.

Unfortunately, it looks like Karen and Kevin's number may be up by default, as they faltered with a Broadway routine that didn't allow Karen to smolder onstage. If so, they'll certainly be missed ... all too often on this show, when it comes to ballroom and hip-hop dancers, three is a crowd.

The competition has really started now, but do you agree on who will end up packing it in this week? And are Legacy, Ashleigh and Kathryn surprising you as well? Share your opinion on video, or in the comments below.

Mark Burnett

I'm not a fan of children on reality shows. Programs like "Wife Swap" and "Supernanny" make me cringe at the way young children are portrayed, while TLC's soon-to-depart "Jon and Kate Plus 8" makes childhood look like a full-time job with the addition of a production crew and paparazzi following you everywhere.

The latest show that appears to be following this path is Fox's just-announced game show "Our Little Genius," which is expected to premiere sometime next year.

According to Fox, the show will feature gifted children between the ages of 6-12 answering increasingly difficult questions on a specific topic. The show's "gimmick" is that the child's parents can choose to walk away with whatever Junior won at any time.

That's not a gimmick. Several game shows have had special "kids weeks," and many of those games required the parents to participate in situations where the child risked his/her winnings. I'm not sure if this is for legal or rational reasons, but it's certainly not an original concept.

The problem here is that Fox is making this the hallmark of the show. Watching parents make decisions on life-changing money based on whether Junior can recite a certain Shakespeare soliloquy doesn't sound like interesting television to me.

Mark Burnett, shown above, whose production company is behind the show, has been quoted as saying "Our Little Genius" is a show that celebrates what makes these kids special.  Honoring children for academic excellence should be encouraged, but doing it in such a manner reeks of child exploitation.

Burnett is responsible for another child-theme game show, "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" While I have issues with "5th Grader," at least the show is presented in a TV-friendly way. Adult contestants and the child helpers are friendly and root each other on, host Jeff Foxworthy is generally cordial to everyone on stage, and the questions are at a difficulty level that allows people to play along at home.  It's a show for the entire family - something hard to find on TV these days.

Maybe it's me, but the idea of 9-year-olds reciting pi to the 70th digit with $200,000 on the line makes for boring television. Add to that the alleged "gimmick" of watching parents decide whether Junior is good enough and smart enough to go all the way to the top, and you have yourself a game show that could take the genre back a few steps.

I'll probably watch at least one episode of "Our Little Genius" – I have an open mind - but I doubt I'll be watching again.

What do you think of this show?  Is it a harmless game show or child exploitation?

testing captions

It was a tremendously busy work day, even for a Monday, but seeing the news that Ken Ober had died stopped me in my tracks.  I'm just one of millions who remember him as the host of MTV's "Remote Control," but I may be the only person who appeared on two of his game shows.

Some of you may be too young to remember – or believe – this,  but back in 1987, MTV actually played music videos.  Lots of them.  But it was starting to branch out into other kinds of programs, and one of the first was "Remote Control."  The premise was that Ken was such a TV geek that he'd set up his own game show in his mother's basement.  Three college kids were strapped into recliners, handed prop remote controls, and asked goofy questions from such categories as "Dead or Canadian?" and "Sing Along With Colin" [Quinn].  At the end of the game, the top scorer was strapped to a Craftmatic Adjustable Bed and had to identify the artist in as many music videos as possible in 30 seconds.  (I'm not sure what all of the being strapped to furniture was about, but hey, the show ran for five years, so they must have been doing something right.)

That first season, MTV came to my New England college for tryouts, and I was one of the students selected.  I had no idea what the show was about, as our dorms weren't yet wired for cable, but who wouldn't have jumped at the chance?  On show taping day, I hopped a shuttle flight to New York, headed for the studio, and soon found myself in "the basement."

I made it to the Craftmatic, though not having seen any music videos in a few months hurt me in the final round.  And I had fun, mostly because of Ken, who seemed to be the perfect low-budget game show host: he was friendly, told bad jokes, and kept the game moving.  He appeared to be having a blast, and that attitude carried over to the rest of the show staff and the players.

Jump ahead 14 years: I was out in Los Angeles, and heard about a new game show, "Smush," in which players combined clues to come up with answers.  For instance, "Chinese martial art + Japanese folding bed" would be "kung futon."  The wordplay seemed right up my alley, so I tried out, made the show... and discovered the host was Ken Ober.  When I told him on the set that I'd been on "Remote Control," he was delighted – and relieved that I didn't expect him to remember me from one taping of a show he'd done for five seasons more than a decade ago.

I had better luck on "Smush," winning the grand prize: $8,000.  (Hey, the show aired after midnight on USA network; it wasn't exactly "Millionaire," or even "$25,000 Pyramid.")  It was a lot of fun, and once again, Ober was a great host.  He marveled at the trickier wordplay, made all of the players feel good regardless of the score, and cracked more bad jokes, making the audience laugh with his reaction if the joke itself didn't draw guffaws.

Taping a game show takes very little time: not much more than the half-hour of the program's running time.  But those two half-hours, out of the hundreds of thousands of hours of my life, are extremely fond memories – memories that will now be somewhat bittersweet.  Thanks for the fun, Ken.

testing captions

Earlier this decade, the four major TV networks pretty much gave up on Saturday nights.  Outside of the Fox crime block and "48 Hours Mystery" on CBS, the only new network programming you see on Saturday nights is live coverage of sporting events.

Now it appears the networks are about to do the same to Friday nights as well.  CBS announced that it is cutting the episode count of Friday night staple "Numb3rs" from 22 to 16 this season - a likely sign that the show will be done after six seasons.  Fox has canceled cult fave "Dollhouse," which aired on Friday nights.  NBC opted not to air the second season of "Southland," which was scheduled to air on Fridays.  And ABC may or may not move "Ugly Betty" to another night after several poor showings on Fridays.

Pretty soon, the Friday night network TV landscape will be made up of cheaply-produced news magazine shows, low-budget "reality" fare, "re-purposing" (fancy term for reruns) of current network fare and first-run scripted shows on their last legs.  Sounds a lot like Saturday night, right?

Looking at the numbers, it's easy to understand why the networks appear to be pulling away from Friday nights. 

Last week, the top Friday night show on the major networks was the 20-year-old "Law and Order" with 8.4 million viewers.  That's almost four million below last week's 20th overall ranked show, "CSI: NY" on CBS.  And in the 18-49 target demo that advertisers crave, no network could reach a 2.0 average.  Compare that to this past Tuesday, where three of the four major networks reached at least a 3.0 average in the demos.

Can Friday night network TV be saved?  Anything is possible, but it is up to the networks to put competitive programming in these slots.  Give the viewers something they want to watch, and they will come in droves.  Disney Channel, for instance, has had a great deal of success premiering its big movie events on Friday nights - the 2007 premiere of "High School Musical 2" was watched by 17.2 million viewers.  Perhaps the networks should look at their cable counterparts for some guidance.

There was a time in the U.S. where Friday night was required network TV viewing.  CBS in the 1980s featured "Dallas" and "The Dukes of Hazzard," while NBC ruled the night with "Miami Vice" for a time.  ABC could always be counted on with successful family fare like "Full House" and "Mr. Belvedere," while "The X-Files" made Fox the network to watch on Friday nights not too long ago.

Do you think Friday night network television can be saved?  And if so, what will the networks need to do?