Because this is America, people! "What," you may ask, "will happen?" Friends, I am talking about something no less spectacular than the ultimate reveal. No, it isn't the government's admission that we have alien bodies at Area 51, or the secret videos of a CIA operative shooting Kennedy from the grassy knoll. Something much more shocking will happen soon. Very soon, an image of the Prophet Muhhamad will be shown on American television.
In case you haven't been paying attention for the last half decade, journalists, satirists, writers, and other media illuminati have been held hostage by Islamic fundamentalists who believe that displaying the image of Muhhamad is blasphemy, punishable by vilification and death in some cases. The controversy really heated up with the publication of a series of political cartoons in the Dutch paper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. The cartoons led to riots and protests in dozens of countries, possibly contributing to the deaths of up to 100 people. Since then, the purveyors of print, television, and online media have been proactively censoring any attempts to show an image of Muhhamad.
Hold on to your socks, however, because the paragons of social commentary Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park, have launched new slings and arrows in this issue. Just when you think a controversy is dead, and that truth and reason are the casualties, leave it to South Park to breathe a little life back into those two venerable seniors.
A few weeks ago, South Park aired an episode (leading to a sequel episode the following week), in which every famous person that has ever been insulted by the denizens of South Park band together under the leadership of Tom Cruise to hold the town hostage. The ransom? They want to steal the "mojo" of Muhhamad that enables him to avoid ridicule, and they want the South Park boys to bring Muhhamad to their Legion of Doom headquarters. Long term fans of South Park will remember that the South Park boys have a special relationship with Muhhamad (and the other major religious leaders of the world, including Jesus and Joseph Smith) dating back to the early seasons of the show. Knowing that Comedy Central would no doubt censor any images of Muhhamad, Trey and Matt go to SouthParkian extremes to ridicule this hypocrisy, in ultimately hilarious ways. The plot has Muhhamad stuck in a U-Haul, clothed in a football mascot bear suit, and eventually blacked out completely by a large "censored" bar. Of course, I don't think I need to explain why this is hypocrisy. Comedy Central didn't have any problem showing Jesus decapitating Roman Catholic priests with his boomerang-halo, and they didn't have a problem showing Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon faith) while playing a song in the background that trulled "dumb dumb dumb-dumb-dumb!", or for that matter showing another character defecating on the bible. But they can't show a cartoon version of Muhhamad? In any pose? I also won't point out that South Park has already shown Muhhamad in earlier seasons, and no one batted an eyelash. Have a few riots in Spain and the Netherlands, however, and suddenly the fearless American media is utterly paralyzed.
It sounds bad, but I'm convinced that our creative media are fighting back in traditionally American style: first we roll over like bitches, then we turn around and shoot you with very big guns. In this case, South Park was our first drone strike. And now we're bringing in the Navy. Who is the Navy here? The Good Wife, of course!
This week, The Good Wife came perilously close to showing another cartoon version of Muhhamad, barely obscured by a shoulder. I actually held my breath. While it sounds like more of the same obfuscation, you have to think about it in perspective. You might expect a show like South Park or Saturday Night Live to be ground zero in this ideological battleground, but The Good Wife?! This is a show on the most conservative (in terms of management) of the Big 4 networks. It's audience is also relatively staid and unpolitical. The fact that the writers of The Good Wife are sticking their toes into this lake of fire and brimstone should tell you something. Our entertainers and satirists aren't a bunch of crybabies after all. They're just cautious. But caution was just a delay tactic. I'm convinced we will be seeing an image of Muhhamad on TV, or in a magazine perhaps, within the next year.
If you never imagined a connection between South Park and The Good Wife, perhaps its time to give it some thought. What exactly do they have in common? The obvious, of course ... they're both Made In America. Who knows? Maybe this will lead to a resurgence of genre shows that are actually produced in the States instead of Vancouver! One can only hope ....
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Why I Miss 1984
I'm not talking about the Orwellian future/past. And I'm not talking about the Van Halen album (although that was awesome, and tangentially related now that I think about it). I miss 1984 because it was the pinnacle, and also the beginning of the end (sort of the definition of pinnacle), of MTV as a music channel.
I am old enough to remember that there was a time when music videos were relegated to clips of the Jacksons on the Ed Sullivan show, and a few groundbreaking novella videos on Friday Night Videos (an NBC show that actually ran for almost 20 years). Anyone remember the song "Self Control" by Laura Branigan that became a hit only because it was on Friday Night Videos? No? Meh ...
MTV had actually been on the air since 1981, but it took several years for all of the local cable providers to jump on board the future train (not to be confused with the Soul Train). When they did, tweens and teens all over the world rejoiced at the unparalleled musical expression that was MTV. And that's what I miss ... the music. Remember when MTV had music videos all day long? The Cars, Dire Straits, Michael Jackson, ZZ Top. If you are visualizing the videos that went along with these artists - you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, MTV started its decline with shows like Remote Control, Singled Out and the show that started the reality TV show plague, The Real World. Now, videos are relegated to 30 minute time slots when no one is watching, except maybe Total Request Live before Carson Daly became a victim of anorexic ridiculousness.
I haven't watched MTV in probably a decade, but I recently caught 5 minutes of a show called Date My Mom when I needed to kill 5 minutes. I have one comment that sums up my reaction: WTF. No question mark, you will note. I'm not wondering, "what the ....?" I'm expressing a complete state of shock about how low we have sunk. In Date My Mom, young men go out with older women, not to start a romance, but to figure out whether the boys want to go out with the daughters of the older women. Basically, it's a show about two people meeting for a business deal, where the mother is selling her daughter's (long absent, no doubt) virginity. I only watched it for 5 minutes, but I had no trouble figuring out what was going on, and it was disturbing. Disturbing for someone who watched Faces of Death as a child and fell asleep. What does that tell you? I've also heard about, and read about, another show called My Super Sweet 16, and what I have heard and read makes me think we should stop worrying about competing with the Chinese and start learning Mandarin.
Am I just one of those young people who turned old? Will I start yelling at kids to turn down their infernal "rock and roll music" soon? I can't be that disconnected, can I? Ah, 1984 ... I miss you.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
I am old enough to remember that there was a time when music videos were relegated to clips of the Jacksons on the Ed Sullivan show, and a few groundbreaking novella videos on Friday Night Videos (an NBC show that actually ran for almost 20 years). Anyone remember the song "Self Control" by Laura Branigan that became a hit only because it was on Friday Night Videos? No? Meh ...
MTV had actually been on the air since 1981, but it took several years for all of the local cable providers to jump on board the future train (not to be confused with the Soul Train). When they did, tweens and teens all over the world rejoiced at the unparalleled musical expression that was MTV. And that's what I miss ... the music. Remember when MTV had music videos all day long? The Cars, Dire Straits, Michael Jackson, ZZ Top. If you are visualizing the videos that went along with these artists - you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, MTV started its decline with shows like Remote Control, Singled Out and the show that started the reality TV show plague, The Real World. Now, videos are relegated to 30 minute time slots when no one is watching, except maybe Total Request Live before Carson Daly became a victim of anorexic ridiculousness.
I haven't watched MTV in probably a decade, but I recently caught 5 minutes of a show called Date My Mom when I needed to kill 5 minutes. I have one comment that sums up my reaction: WTF. No question mark, you will note. I'm not wondering, "what the ....?" I'm expressing a complete state of shock about how low we have sunk. In Date My Mom, young men go out with older women, not to start a romance, but to figure out whether the boys want to go out with the daughters of the older women. Basically, it's a show about two people meeting for a business deal, where the mother is selling her daughter's (long absent, no doubt) virginity. I only watched it for 5 minutes, but I had no trouble figuring out what was going on, and it was disturbing. Disturbing for someone who watched Faces of Death as a child and fell asleep. What does that tell you? I've also heard about, and read about, another show called My Super Sweet 16, and what I have heard and read makes me think we should stop worrying about competing with the Chinese and start learning Mandarin.
Am I just one of those young people who turned old? Will I start yelling at kids to turn down their infernal "rock and roll music" soon? I can't be that disconnected, can I? Ah, 1984 ... I miss you.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
How "Stargate Universe" is Getting It Right
I know, I know ... genre show this, genre show that, I'm becoming a one-trick pony. But good scifi is just so ... well ... good. Of course, bad scifi is really, really bad. There's not much in between, which is why I'm starting to worry about V. More on that later.
One genre show that's getting it right so far is Stargate Universe. The premise of the show is a tried-and-true format for genre dramas that seems to ring the bell of all the nerd kings out there in couch potato land. A group of researchers and soldiers (the group can vary) get thrown out into the vastness of the unknown (space, alien planet, alternate dimension, etc) with no support from home. The show progresses as the group tries to get home and explores the unknown along the way. I call it the "Lost Souls" concept. Previous successes in this vein have been Lost in Space, Sliders, and Star Trek Voyager. Not to mention the best genre show ever, Farscape.
We haven't had one of these since Farscape was so brutally and callously canceled, but Stargate Universe is filling the bill nicely. This time around, the Lost Souls get "stargated" (a new word for the lexicon) into an interstellar spaceship during an evacuation emergency, and it turns out the alien spaceship is on the other side of the galaxy from Earth and there's no return ticket. Nor do they have any control over the ship, or for that matter any supplies. It all sounds very unoriginal, but here's why Stargate Universe is good stuff:
1. The writing. Do I have to say this for every good show? Writing is key, people! And the writers here are doing well. Each episode takes a seemingly simple problem like, oh I don't know, finding water, and turns it into high drama. That's not easy to do. For a genre show, Stargate Universe is relying less on aliens and space battles, and more on basic human interactions and the stories that naturally arise. The spaceship is just a backdrop for the very well-delivered plots.
2. The diverging interests of the two main protagonists. Don't get glazed eyes ... I just couldn't think of a better way to say it. The Lost Souls in this show have split into two factions: the military and the science geeks. Each faction has their own erstwhile leader, and each leader has different motivations and goals. Part of you wants to hate the science guy, but the freedom loving American in you wants the military dictatorship to be overthrown. It's a Catch 22, and it keeps the show on the edge every week without getting stale.
3. Not relying too heavily on the Stargate mythos. Since the show is driven by ordinary human interactions, they don't have to lean on tired, worn-out formula plots that all too often plague a genre show. That's the beauty of the Lost Souls program. It separates the show and its characters from the familiar and established characters of the mythos, and it frees the writers from the burden of continuity that has plagued "sequel" series like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Stargate Atlantis. Just ask Ben Browder and Claudia Black, who stepped into the last season of Stargate SG1 (the original Stargate series that was itself a continuation of the movie) just as the audience was checking out. You can't just add new characters to a show and expect to revitalize it; you need a new concept, and the Lost Souls concept is remarkably liberating and fresh.
So far, these forces have combined for a highly entertaining Friday night show. Even if you're not into the scifi stuff (you will be if you keep reading this blog), you might actually like Stargate Universe. Give it a try and let me know what you think ...
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
One genre show that's getting it right so far is Stargate Universe. The premise of the show is a tried-and-true format for genre dramas that seems to ring the bell of all the nerd kings out there in couch potato land. A group of researchers and soldiers (the group can vary) get thrown out into the vastness of the unknown (space, alien planet, alternate dimension, etc) with no support from home. The show progresses as the group tries to get home and explores the unknown along the way. I call it the "Lost Souls" concept. Previous successes in this vein have been Lost in Space, Sliders, and Star Trek Voyager. Not to mention the best genre show ever, Farscape.
We haven't had one of these since Farscape was so brutally and callously canceled, but Stargate Universe is filling the bill nicely. This time around, the Lost Souls get "stargated" (a new word for the lexicon) into an interstellar spaceship during an evacuation emergency, and it turns out the alien spaceship is on the other side of the galaxy from Earth and there's no return ticket. Nor do they have any control over the ship, or for that matter any supplies. It all sounds very unoriginal, but here's why Stargate Universe is good stuff:
1. The writing. Do I have to say this for every good show? Writing is key, people! And the writers here are doing well. Each episode takes a seemingly simple problem like, oh I don't know, finding water, and turns it into high drama. That's not easy to do. For a genre show, Stargate Universe is relying less on aliens and space battles, and more on basic human interactions and the stories that naturally arise. The spaceship is just a backdrop for the very well-delivered plots.
2. The diverging interests of the two main protagonists. Don't get glazed eyes ... I just couldn't think of a better way to say it. The Lost Souls in this show have split into two factions: the military and the science geeks. Each faction has their own erstwhile leader, and each leader has different motivations and goals. Part of you wants to hate the science guy, but the freedom loving American in you wants the military dictatorship to be overthrown. It's a Catch 22, and it keeps the show on the edge every week without getting stale.
3. Not relying too heavily on the Stargate mythos. Since the show is driven by ordinary human interactions, they don't have to lean on tired, worn-out formula plots that all too often plague a genre show. That's the beauty of the Lost Souls program. It separates the show and its characters from the familiar and established characters of the mythos, and it frees the writers from the burden of continuity that has plagued "sequel" series like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Stargate Atlantis. Just ask Ben Browder and Claudia Black, who stepped into the last season of Stargate SG1 (the original Stargate series that was itself a continuation of the movie) just as the audience was checking out. You can't just add new characters to a show and expect to revitalize it; you need a new concept, and the Lost Souls concept is remarkably liberating and fresh.
So far, these forces have combined for a highly entertaining Friday night show. Even if you're not into the scifi stuff (you will be if you keep reading this blog), you might actually like Stargate Universe. Give it a try and let me know what you think ...
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
What's Missing from Most TV Shows
I was watching Lost this week (actually, it was last week's episode - it took me a while to get to it), and after the first three minute segment, the ominous title sequence drifted towards me like it always does. If you're a Lost-o-phile, you know what I'm talking about. That one word drifts out of the blackness; it's creepy and ... well ... brief. This week, however, instead of creeping me out the opening sequence pushed a button in my head and I started thinking about all of the other shows that I really like this season: The Good Wife, The Mentalist, Stargate: Universe, Breaking Bad. They all have something in common, or rather they all lack something in common: a theme song.
Admittedly, all of these shows have some kind of acoustic introduction. A "riff", if you will, and they do set the mood. Those 1 or 2 bars of synthesized "wah-wah" can do a pretty good job of setting the tone for the show, but now that I've recognized a pattern I feel a little cheated. I don't watch Law & Order, but it's hard to live in the States and not instantly recognize its two-tone intro. Since I hate that show with the red-hot heat of a thousand suns, I'm going to blame this theme-song-attrition on the longest-running bad show of all time. Is this a money-saving technique? Are producers really going to make a difference in a show's running budget by not paying a composer for 45 seconds of mood music? I don't think so. In fact, there are a few great shows that do have theme songs, though they are becoming fewer and fewer.
Smallville (hooray Smallville!) has an uber-appropriate theme song: Remy Zero's Somebody Save Me, and it is hard to imagine how they could have done better. When I watch old seasons on DVD, I don't skip the title menu like other shows because I love that song and it gets me jazzed-up (yes, I said that) to watch the show. South Park is another show that has a theme show well-matched to the series: Primus's South Park Theme. It's goofy and precocious, like all Primus songs, and it's perfect for the show. Not surprisingly, a lot of reality shows like The Biggest Loser and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition have theme songs, usually the pop song, inspirational type. Apart from that there are no real standouts in the theme song category. Why not?
One argument could be that a theme song takes away from a drama's gravitas. Hmmm .... I can understand that, but anyone who takes this seriously has never seen Hill Street Blues or The Sopranos. Fantastic theme songs for both, and if anything they add to the show's dramatic appeal. Another argument can be that a bad theme song can ruin a show almost as quickly as Ted McGinley. Now we're getting somewhere. You genre show fans will remember how the laughable theme song to Star Trek: Enterprise made you change the channel for 60 seconds. Yet, though a bad show is only made worse by a bad theme song, a good show will easily overcome a lame theme, so I don't buy this argument either.
My suspicion is that the slow death of the theme song has more to do with technology than purse strings or Law & Order. I think one of my favorite gadgets, Tivo, is strangling the theme song. Think about it: what do you do once the title sequence for your favorite show comes up? Yep ... you fast-forward. Even the really good theme songs don't make you sit there and patiently await the first segment. In fact, you've probably become an expert at hopping over the title sequence, the first commercials, and network previews, stopping at exactly the right moment so that the show begins precisely when you hit "play". Folks, we are putting a lot of composers out of work. What producer is going to pay some brilliant musician $50,000 for a piece of music that no one will ever hear? I certainly wouldn't.
Thus, the days of Henry Mancini, Jack Elliott, and Mike Post are gone. I fear they will never return. I knew Tivo was a game changer, but this week I'm a little sad about it.
On a happy note, we do have a refuge for great theme songs at the moment. Apparently, HBO and Showtime are still invested in the art of the theme song. Deadwood, Dexter, Entourage, The Tudors, and my contemporary favorite Dead Like Me, all have excellent and well-matched theme songs. Another win for cable over network television.
Finally, a few recommendations. If you want to hear some really great theme songs, go to Youtube and check out some of my favorites: Hill Street Blues, Dead Like Me, Night Court, Smallville, The Muppet Show, and the best theme song of all time ... Johnny Quest.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Admittedly, all of these shows have some kind of acoustic introduction. A "riff", if you will, and they do set the mood. Those 1 or 2 bars of synthesized "wah-wah" can do a pretty good job of setting the tone for the show, but now that I've recognized a pattern I feel a little cheated. I don't watch Law & Order, but it's hard to live in the States and not instantly recognize its two-tone intro. Since I hate that show with the red-hot heat of a thousand suns, I'm going to blame this theme-song-attrition on the longest-running bad show of all time. Is this a money-saving technique? Are producers really going to make a difference in a show's running budget by not paying a composer for 45 seconds of mood music? I don't think so. In fact, there are a few great shows that do have theme songs, though they are becoming fewer and fewer.
Smallville (hooray Smallville!) has an uber-appropriate theme song: Remy Zero's Somebody Save Me, and it is hard to imagine how they could have done better. When I watch old seasons on DVD, I don't skip the title menu like other shows because I love that song and it gets me jazzed-up (yes, I said that) to watch the show. South Park is another show that has a theme show well-matched to the series: Primus's South Park Theme. It's goofy and precocious, like all Primus songs, and it's perfect for the show. Not surprisingly, a lot of reality shows like The Biggest Loser and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition have theme songs, usually the pop song, inspirational type. Apart from that there are no real standouts in the theme song category. Why not?
One argument could be that a theme song takes away from a drama's gravitas. Hmmm .... I can understand that, but anyone who takes this seriously has never seen Hill Street Blues or The Sopranos. Fantastic theme songs for both, and if anything they add to the show's dramatic appeal. Another argument can be that a bad theme song can ruin a show almost as quickly as Ted McGinley. Now we're getting somewhere. You genre show fans will remember how the laughable theme song to Star Trek: Enterprise made you change the channel for 60 seconds. Yet, though a bad show is only made worse by a bad theme song, a good show will easily overcome a lame theme, so I don't buy this argument either.
My suspicion is that the slow death of the theme song has more to do with technology than purse strings or Law & Order. I think one of my favorite gadgets, Tivo, is strangling the theme song. Think about it: what do you do once the title sequence for your favorite show comes up? Yep ... you fast-forward. Even the really good theme songs don't make you sit there and patiently await the first segment. In fact, you've probably become an expert at hopping over the title sequence, the first commercials, and network previews, stopping at exactly the right moment so that the show begins precisely when you hit "play". Folks, we are putting a lot of composers out of work. What producer is going to pay some brilliant musician $50,000 for a piece of music that no one will ever hear? I certainly wouldn't.
Thus, the days of Henry Mancini, Jack Elliott, and Mike Post are gone. I fear they will never return. I knew Tivo was a game changer, but this week I'm a little sad about it.
On a happy note, we do have a refuge for great theme songs at the moment. Apparently, HBO and Showtime are still invested in the art of the theme song. Deadwood, Dexter, Entourage, The Tudors, and my contemporary favorite Dead Like Me, all have excellent and well-matched theme songs. Another win for cable over network television.
Finally, a few recommendations. If you want to hear some really great theme songs, go to Youtube and check out some of my favorites: Hill Street Blues, Dead Like Me, Night Court, Smallville, The Muppet Show, and the best theme song of all time ... Johnny Quest.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Why "The Good Wife" is So Good
It isn't because she bakes like your gramma and "keeps her dang mouth shut", that's for sure. The Good Wife is a great show for two basic reasons: Julianna Margulies and talented writers.
First, let me give my usual disclaimers. I am still a little conflicted about having 2 CBS prime time dramas in my top 10 for this season. Like many of you (I'm sure), I grew up believing CBS was the network that really, really old people watched. Cool, hip, young people (like me and my other 8 year old friends) watched NBC. Cheers and St. Elsewhere, Magnum P.I. and Knight Rider. Seriously, it was NBC's Golden Age ... long before must-see TV. And I still have a bad taste in my mouth about All in the Family. I don't care how many people tell you what a great show it was; it was a sitcom about an anti-semitic, misogynistic jackass. A sitcom!! I may have been only 5, but even I recognized there was something wrong about that. Bad call, CBS.
But ... respect where respect is due. CBS has managed to turn the ship around. Now, they are second only to Fox in capturing young audiences. Largely, that's due to their CSI franchise (which I loathe, by the way ... die, Jerry Bruckheimer!!), but their success owes much to their savvy choices for mid-week prime time dramas. I've already mentioned The Mentalist - now in its second season - in a previous post, and I'm sure I'll get to it again. For now let's just say it is one of my favorites. The other show that needs your respect is The Good Wife, the newest homerun from CBS's evening lineup, and when I saw the first promos (no doubt during The Mentalist) I was skeptical to say the least.
The first promos did not do the show justice. In my opinion, they hinted at a show that was based, rather obviously, on the tragic life of Dena McGreevy whose cheating husband - NJ Governor Jim McGreevy - announced to the world that he had been sleeping with one of his young male cabinet members. The announcement was made at a macabre press conference, with wife Dena standing at his side looking like a wounded child. The promos for The Good Wife were an eye-rolling knockoff of that scene. Thus, I was initially completely uninterested in this show. If there's anything that will turn me off a drama, it's a complete lack of originality. The Good Wife, it seemed to me, promised nothing more than lame, movie-of-the-week writing that would likely fizzle out after 8 or 9 episodes. Friends ... I was wrong.
I missed the first 4 episodes because I didn't even bother to put it in my Tivo list, but I caught half an episode during a rare night of channel surfing and I was instantly hooked. And here's why:
Juliana Margulies. I was never really a fan of Ms. Margulies when she was on ER. I found her character subordinate and dull, and I wasn't sorry to see her leave late in the show's run. I now realize that it was the character I didn't like, because I am thoroughly impressed by her performance on The Good Wife. The show does have some of the knockoff political wife story, a la Dena McGreevy, but that's really a very small part of the show. Truly, this is a show about a woman who finds that, after an adult life dedicated to supporting her husband and his career, she wants more out of life. The underpinning is a legal drama (which I usually can't stand, being a real-life lawyer and all), and Julianna Margulies is spot-on as a new associate competing for professional points at a faltering law firm. Since I never really paid much attention to her career, I can't tell you if she has always been a great actor who has gone unrecognized, or if she has just gotten that much better over time. Regardless, if she doesn't win an Emmy, there is no justice in this world. Hyperbole? Nope. Also, I don't remember her being drop-dead gorgeous on ER. And that was 15 year ago. Well played, Ms. Margulies.
Not inconsequentially, the writing for this show is also top-notch. It certainly isn't the most creative writing in the business, but that's okay. It's a legal drama, so you can't get too creative without changing the premise of the show. Our legal system has rules and constraints, and though TV producers love to pretend it's exciting stuff, it mostly isn't. Getting too creative, therefore, would require inventing a new legal system. And that's not as easy as it sounds ... ask the EU (wassup, Brussels?!). The writers do, however, manage to show new angles. The most recent episode of the show, "Doubt", is hands-down the most cleverly written one-hour legal drama I've ever seen. And I used to watch LA Law, folks; I've seen it all. The show happens in two different perspectives. One is the jury, deliberating a murder case after all evidence has been entered. The second is the perspective of the defense (Julianna Margulies' side) during the evidence portion of the trial, fighting a losing battle for an innocent client. During the show, the two perspectives don't seem to match, and you keep wondering how the hell it will all be reconciled. You wonder all the way to the end, and the end is simultaneously inevitable and a heart-wrenching surprise. It was awesome.
The episode was written by the series creators, Michelle and Robert King, and I have to tell you ... I'm tempted to send them an e-mail just to tell them how impressed I was. And I don't impress easily. Especially not by legal dramas, which I mostly find trite and unrealistic.
The bottom line? Start watching The Good Wife. There are some persistent long-term story arcs, but they're secondary to the show's main plots and you should be able to pick them up within a few episodes. There's no doubt the show will be back for a second season, and you definitely want to be primed and ready when it comes. Netflix, anyone?
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
First, let me give my usual disclaimers. I am still a little conflicted about having 2 CBS prime time dramas in my top 10 for this season. Like many of you (I'm sure), I grew up believing CBS was the network that really, really old people watched. Cool, hip, young people (like me and my other 8 year old friends) watched NBC. Cheers and St. Elsewhere, Magnum P.I. and Knight Rider. Seriously, it was NBC's Golden Age ... long before must-see TV. And I still have a bad taste in my mouth about All in the Family. I don't care how many people tell you what a great show it was; it was a sitcom about an anti-semitic, misogynistic jackass. A sitcom!! I may have been only 5, but even I recognized there was something wrong about that. Bad call, CBS.
But ... respect where respect is due. CBS has managed to turn the ship around. Now, they are second only to Fox in capturing young audiences. Largely, that's due to their CSI franchise (which I loathe, by the way ... die, Jerry Bruckheimer!!), but their success owes much to their savvy choices for mid-week prime time dramas. I've already mentioned The Mentalist - now in its second season - in a previous post, and I'm sure I'll get to it again. For now let's just say it is one of my favorites. The other show that needs your respect is The Good Wife, the newest homerun from CBS's evening lineup, and when I saw the first promos (no doubt during The Mentalist) I was skeptical to say the least.
The first promos did not do the show justice. In my opinion, they hinted at a show that was based, rather obviously, on the tragic life of Dena McGreevy whose cheating husband - NJ Governor Jim McGreevy - announced to the world that he had been sleeping with one of his young male cabinet members. The announcement was made at a macabre press conference, with wife Dena standing at his side looking like a wounded child. The promos for The Good Wife were an eye-rolling knockoff of that scene. Thus, I was initially completely uninterested in this show. If there's anything that will turn me off a drama, it's a complete lack of originality. The Good Wife, it seemed to me, promised nothing more than lame, movie-of-the-week writing that would likely fizzle out after 8 or 9 episodes. Friends ... I was wrong.
I missed the first 4 episodes because I didn't even bother to put it in my Tivo list, but I caught half an episode during a rare night of channel surfing and I was instantly hooked. And here's why:
Juliana Margulies. I was never really a fan of Ms. Margulies when she was on ER. I found her character subordinate and dull, and I wasn't sorry to see her leave late in the show's run. I now realize that it was the character I didn't like, because I am thoroughly impressed by her performance on The Good Wife. The show does have some of the knockoff political wife story, a la Dena McGreevy, but that's really a very small part of the show. Truly, this is a show about a woman who finds that, after an adult life dedicated to supporting her husband and his career, she wants more out of life. The underpinning is a legal drama (which I usually can't stand, being a real-life lawyer and all), and Julianna Margulies is spot-on as a new associate competing for professional points at a faltering law firm. Since I never really paid much attention to her career, I can't tell you if she has always been a great actor who has gone unrecognized, or if she has just gotten that much better over time. Regardless, if she doesn't win an Emmy, there is no justice in this world. Hyperbole? Nope. Also, I don't remember her being drop-dead gorgeous on ER. And that was 15 year ago. Well played, Ms. Margulies.
Not inconsequentially, the writing for this show is also top-notch. It certainly isn't the most creative writing in the business, but that's okay. It's a legal drama, so you can't get too creative without changing the premise of the show. Our legal system has rules and constraints, and though TV producers love to pretend it's exciting stuff, it mostly isn't. Getting too creative, therefore, would require inventing a new legal system. And that's not as easy as it sounds ... ask the EU (wassup, Brussels?!). The writers do, however, manage to show new angles. The most recent episode of the show, "Doubt", is hands-down the most cleverly written one-hour legal drama I've ever seen. And I used to watch LA Law, folks; I've seen it all. The show happens in two different perspectives. One is the jury, deliberating a murder case after all evidence has been entered. The second is the perspective of the defense (Julianna Margulies' side) during the evidence portion of the trial, fighting a losing battle for an innocent client. During the show, the two perspectives don't seem to match, and you keep wondering how the hell it will all be reconciled. You wonder all the way to the end, and the end is simultaneously inevitable and a heart-wrenching surprise. It was awesome.
The episode was written by the series creators, Michelle and Robert King, and I have to tell you ... I'm tempted to send them an e-mail just to tell them how impressed I was. And I don't impress easily. Especially not by legal dramas, which I mostly find trite and unrealistic.
The bottom line? Start watching The Good Wife. There are some persistent long-term story arcs, but they're secondary to the show's main plots and you should be able to pick them up within a few episodes. There's no doubt the show will be back for a second season, and you definitely want to be primed and ready when it comes. Netflix, anyone?
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
How "The Daily Show" Keeps Me Sane
I'm not sure when news in America became entertainment, but I think we should figure out the exact date, memorialize it, and have a national day of mourning. I know I usually bemoan the short-attention-span of American television viewers and I condescend about our apparent lack of interest in anything meaningful or challenging, but when it comes to 24-hour news cycles I support the mass exodus of bored viewers. I don't like the confusing mix of "news" and "opinion" stories on CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS. I don't like the flash-in-the-pan battle over demagoguery between MSNBC on the left and FOXNEWS on the right. And foremost, I don't like the bits and pieces of news events that we are bottle-fed in an attempt to accommodate our inability to pay attention. That's why I get my real news from the BBC on XM Satellite Radio.
For my regular dose of American wit, however, I look to The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is one of those rare individuals who has found his perfect niche in entertainment. He was clearly born to host The Daily Show. Don't be confused! The Daily Show is not a news-entertainment program (see how I weaseled out of hypocrisy there?). Jon Stewart doesn't report on the news. Instead, he finds inconsistencies and obfuscations in news and culture and points them out to the rest of us who don't have a production staff to spot them all. And he does it with style. I realize that I am slightly biased here, since Stewart and I share the same sense of humor and sarcasm, but his long-running show gives me hope that I'm not alone here.
Although I don't always agree with his take on events, Jon Stewart is obviously reasoned and reasonable. I respect that reasonableness much more than I do ideological agreement. And above-all, the guy is a master of skewering the 24-hour news network talking heads (whom I generally have no respect for). If you haven't already seen it, you need to immediately watch The Daily Show's Glenn Beck parody from March 18. It was unadulterated genius (see it here). Another recent gimmick that has had me rolling is the use of a Muppet stand-in for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Seriously - this stuff is funny. And I'm a conservative!! Well ... Libertarian, at least. Lest I go too far into pinko-commie land, however, I'll point out another example of the equal-opportunity shaming from The Daily Show. He absolutely loves making fun of the MSNBC show Morning Joe. Occasionally, Stewart will throw in a few clips of that clownish news program with no commentary necessary, just for a laugh.
As the news networks struggle to maintain ratings, mixing partisan commentators and conspiracy nuts with legitimate news bits, The Daily Show is helping me keep a loose hold on reality by giving me 30 minutes of sanity every day (4 days a week, anyway). If you are one of those viewers who is shocked and appalled by the lowbrow news we get on CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS - start watching The Daily Show. You will feel better immediately.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
For my regular dose of American wit, however, I look to The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is one of those rare individuals who has found his perfect niche in entertainment. He was clearly born to host The Daily Show. Don't be confused! The Daily Show is not a news-entertainment program (see how I weaseled out of hypocrisy there?). Jon Stewart doesn't report on the news. Instead, he finds inconsistencies and obfuscations in news and culture and points them out to the rest of us who don't have a production staff to spot them all. And he does it with style. I realize that I am slightly biased here, since Stewart and I share the same sense of humor and sarcasm, but his long-running show gives me hope that I'm not alone here.
Although I don't always agree with his take on events, Jon Stewart is obviously reasoned and reasonable. I respect that reasonableness much more than I do ideological agreement. And above-all, the guy is a master of skewering the 24-hour news network talking heads (whom I generally have no respect for). If you haven't already seen it, you need to immediately watch The Daily Show's Glenn Beck parody from March 18. It was unadulterated genius (see it here). Another recent gimmick that has had me rolling is the use of a Muppet stand-in for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Seriously - this stuff is funny. And I'm a conservative!! Well ... Libertarian, at least. Lest I go too far into pinko-commie land, however, I'll point out another example of the equal-opportunity shaming from The Daily Show. He absolutely loves making fun of the MSNBC show Morning Joe. Occasionally, Stewart will throw in a few clips of that clownish news program with no commentary necessary, just for a laugh.
As the news networks struggle to maintain ratings, mixing partisan commentators and conspiracy nuts with legitimate news bits, The Daily Show is helping me keep a loose hold on reality by giving me 30 minutes of sanity every day (4 days a week, anyway). If you are one of those viewers who is shocked and appalled by the lowbrow news we get on CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS - start watching The Daily Show. You will feel better immediately.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Why I Wish ABC was AMC, and Other Snaps to Basic Cable
Did you know you can get HD programming over your $20 antenna? It's true. Your local networks broadcast all of their network programming over the air in HD (if it is available in HD, that is). Therefore, you don't really need Time Warner, or Comcast, or any of the other evil monopolistic cable providers (technically the monopoly part is not true, but it gives an alarmist ring to the sentence, don't you think?). Also, the HD you get over your antenna is often better than what you get over cable or satellite, depending on your antenna. That means that you could be getting all of your favorite network shows, in HD, for a one-time $20 fee instead of the $65/month you're paying for cable. If the only shows you watch are on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW, and PBS - ditch the cable. You don't need it. Suck it, Time Warner!!
For my own sake, I have the most basic cable available: no HD, no DVR (I have my own Tivo), no premium channels, and no on-demand programming. Instead, I use the antenna to get HD programming. I figure it saves me about $600/year. For those of you who know me personally, you'll probably realize this has more to do with my propensity for waging useless, one-man crusades against companies that have terrible customer service than it does with the $600. Regardless ...
As usual, there are many wrinkles in my strategy. And the biggest wrinkle is that I've been steadily moving away from network programming in favor of the new crop of dramas on basic cable channels. AMC, for instance, has two fantastic programs that are must-watch: Mad Men and Breaking Bad. I'll reserve full-length reviews of these shows for later posts. Suffice to say for now that if you haven't been watching them, you need to start. Once again, here's my plug for Netflix ... go get a Netflix membership, and add the first two seasons of Breaking Bad and the first 3 seasons of Mad Men. You won't regret it.
FX also has some amazing shows. Nip Tuck is probably one of the best-produced avant-garde dramas of the last decade, and it was extremely popular for a basic cable program. It ran for 7 seasons before ending how all good programs should end: it ran its course. Other shows like Rescue Me, which I loved but had to give up due to limited TV time (hey, even I occasionally get outside), The Shield, which I have not watched but plan to, and some short-lived programs like Dirt and The Riches. Courtney Cox did her best work on Dirt, and I was sorry to see it canceled.
Even USA has gotten into the mix with some pretty entertaining shows like Burn Notice and Saving Grace. Now if I could just convince them to stop running WWE and Law & Order reruns, who knows how far they could go! And I would be dishonest if I didn't point out the shows I watch on SyFy as well (I'm thick-skinned, but all this criticism of my love for genre shows is making me twitchy), like Stargate: Universe and Eureka. If you are not into genre programming, you might actually enjoy Eureka. It's more of a comedrama than a genre program. SyFy has also scored big with its X-Files-like show, Warehouse 13. The show pulled in more viewers consistently than any other SyFy series during it's first mini-season. And after a long break it is scheduled to return soon, likely to good numbers.
You see the dilemma ... I love all of this basic cable programming, but I can't get it in HD (ok ... won't get it in HD) because I loathe Time Warner and all it stands for!! Whew! Deep breath. Time Warner may be evil, but they're not stupid. They know I'll eventually crack (because I know they plot ways to convert me, specifically ... ahem) and get digital cable, supplant my beloved Tivo and get the rented DVR (almost as bad as the old rented telephones that AT&T used to force on the public), and finally pay big bucks for HD basic cable. Bastards.
So why have basic cable networks like USA and AMC been so successful with their dramas? Well, you know I have a theory! As always, however, my theories are based on reasonable suppositions from the available facts. First, the shows produced on basic cable are much, much less expensive than network programming. A show like Breaking Bad, for instance, costs about 1/3 the total of a show like Lost. Most of this difference comes from the lower price that cable networks are willing to pay for an episode of shows like Breaking Bad after they have been made by the producer (in this case, Sony). That makes sense, considering basic cable has much lower viewership. The only reason AMC can pay for these episodes at all is because they don't rely strictly on an advertiser model (like ABC). Cable networks also receive subscription revenue from cable and satellite subscribers.
Second, the producers who develop shows for cable networks do a damned good job of working on the cheap. They shop for locations that have good tax breaks (unlike the big 3, which primarily use Hollywood locations), they hire high-quality unknowns for their actors at a discount, and avoid many of the union problems that Hollywood-produced television encounters.
Also, cable networks don't worry about syndication. Traditionally, a network program has to reach a magic number of episodes before it can be sold into syndication, usually about 4-5 seasons. Cable networks, however, don't use that antiquated model. They sell their shows directly to international and alternate providers episode-by-episode, generating immediate revenue, even for shows with struggling ratings. You would think the big 3 would have figured this out, but alas ... not so much.
Finally, and most importantly, the cable networks are willing to take much bigger risks with their programming. Edgy, sometimes even offensive programming comes out of this strategy, but the result is often much more entertaining television. The big 3 (and Fox) started to stick to a tried-and-true methodology that never changes. Most of the network series have episodes that are not really different from other episodes, or other shows for that matter, in the suspect belief that if America watches "XYZ", we should keep producing identical versions of "XYZ". Thus, network television is slowly dying. ABC has made some half-assed efforts to break new ground with their shows, but what they are really doing is just putting a new spin on successful past concepts like V and Flash Forward. That may stop the bleeding, but the beast is still dying from the wound, folks.
The numbers bear this out. Basic cable programming has steadily been gaining viewers for their late-night dramas, while network programming continues to lose viewers (some more rapidly than others, right NBC? Yeah, Leno was an awesome idea).
The decline of network programming can't last forever, though. I still believe some smart new managers at one of the networks will figure this out (probably someone young and vigorous who watches a lot of TV? Hint?), and start investing heavily in pay-per-view streaming content that is broadcast primarily in that format. The on-air broadcast should just be an afterthought at that point. Why wouldn't you take advantage of a worldwide audience, willing to pay directly for well-produced, edgy programming? It makes sense to me.
So to answer your question ... yes ... I actually do talk about shows that people watch. Sucko.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
For my own sake, I have the most basic cable available: no HD, no DVR (I have my own Tivo), no premium channels, and no on-demand programming. Instead, I use the antenna to get HD programming. I figure it saves me about $600/year. For those of you who know me personally, you'll probably realize this has more to do with my propensity for waging useless, one-man crusades against companies that have terrible customer service than it does with the $600. Regardless ...
As usual, there are many wrinkles in my strategy. And the biggest wrinkle is that I've been steadily moving away from network programming in favor of the new crop of dramas on basic cable channels. AMC, for instance, has two fantastic programs that are must-watch: Mad Men and Breaking Bad. I'll reserve full-length reviews of these shows for later posts. Suffice to say for now that if you haven't been watching them, you need to start. Once again, here's my plug for Netflix ... go get a Netflix membership, and add the first two seasons of Breaking Bad and the first 3 seasons of Mad Men. You won't regret it.
FX also has some amazing shows. Nip Tuck is probably one of the best-produced avant-garde dramas of the last decade, and it was extremely popular for a basic cable program. It ran for 7 seasons before ending how all good programs should end: it ran its course. Other shows like Rescue Me, which I loved but had to give up due to limited TV time (hey, even I occasionally get outside), The Shield, which I have not watched but plan to, and some short-lived programs like Dirt and The Riches. Courtney Cox did her best work on Dirt, and I was sorry to see it canceled.
Even USA has gotten into the mix with some pretty entertaining shows like Burn Notice and Saving Grace. Now if I could just convince them to stop running WWE and Law & Order reruns, who knows how far they could go! And I would be dishonest if I didn't point out the shows I watch on SyFy as well (I'm thick-skinned, but all this criticism of my love for genre shows is making me twitchy), like Stargate: Universe and Eureka. If you are not into genre programming, you might actually enjoy Eureka. It's more of a comedrama than a genre program. SyFy has also scored big with its X-Files-like show, Warehouse 13. The show pulled in more viewers consistently than any other SyFy series during it's first mini-season. And after a long break it is scheduled to return soon, likely to good numbers.
You see the dilemma ... I love all of this basic cable programming, but I can't get it in HD (ok ... won't get it in HD) because I loathe Time Warner and all it stands for!! Whew! Deep breath. Time Warner may be evil, but they're not stupid. They know I'll eventually crack (because I know they plot ways to convert me, specifically ... ahem) and get digital cable, supplant my beloved Tivo and get the rented DVR (almost as bad as the old rented telephones that AT&T used to force on the public), and finally pay big bucks for HD basic cable. Bastards.
So why have basic cable networks like USA and AMC been so successful with their dramas? Well, you know I have a theory! As always, however, my theories are based on reasonable suppositions from the available facts. First, the shows produced on basic cable are much, much less expensive than network programming. A show like Breaking Bad, for instance, costs about 1/3 the total of a show like Lost. Most of this difference comes from the lower price that cable networks are willing to pay for an episode of shows like Breaking Bad after they have been made by the producer (in this case, Sony). That makes sense, considering basic cable has much lower viewership. The only reason AMC can pay for these episodes at all is because they don't rely strictly on an advertiser model (like ABC). Cable networks also receive subscription revenue from cable and satellite subscribers.
Second, the producers who develop shows for cable networks do a damned good job of working on the cheap. They shop for locations that have good tax breaks (unlike the big 3, which primarily use Hollywood locations), they hire high-quality unknowns for their actors at a discount, and avoid many of the union problems that Hollywood-produced television encounters.
Also, cable networks don't worry about syndication. Traditionally, a network program has to reach a magic number of episodes before it can be sold into syndication, usually about 4-5 seasons. Cable networks, however, don't use that antiquated model. They sell their shows directly to international and alternate providers episode-by-episode, generating immediate revenue, even for shows with struggling ratings. You would think the big 3 would have figured this out, but alas ... not so much.
Finally, and most importantly, the cable networks are willing to take much bigger risks with their programming. Edgy, sometimes even offensive programming comes out of this strategy, but the result is often much more entertaining television. The big 3 (and Fox) started to stick to a tried-and-true methodology that never changes. Most of the network series have episodes that are not really different from other episodes, or other shows for that matter, in the suspect belief that if America watches "XYZ", we should keep producing identical versions of "XYZ". Thus, network television is slowly dying. ABC has made some half-assed efforts to break new ground with their shows, but what they are really doing is just putting a new spin on successful past concepts like V and Flash Forward. That may stop the bleeding, but the beast is still dying from the wound, folks.
The numbers bear this out. Basic cable programming has steadily been gaining viewers for their late-night dramas, while network programming continues to lose viewers (some more rapidly than others, right NBC? Yeah, Leno was an awesome idea).
The decline of network programming can't last forever, though. I still believe some smart new managers at one of the networks will figure this out (probably someone young and vigorous who watches a lot of TV? Hint?), and start investing heavily in pay-per-view streaming content that is broadcast primarily in that format. The on-air broadcast should just be an afterthought at that point. Why wouldn't you take advantage of a worldwide audience, willing to pay directly for well-produced, edgy programming? It makes sense to me.
So to answer your question ... yes ... I actually do talk about shows that people watch. Sucko.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Why I Think These Shows Should Still Be on the Air, or: Why "Gilmore Girls" is the Reason I'm Not Married
One of my dear readers requested that I make a customized list of programming, sort of a TV Guide for the Loaded Diaper, representative of 1 week of programming. While I am trying to stay away from making lists, I don't think I have the luxury of alienating 1 of the 10 people reading this thing, so here's my compromise. These are the top 5 shows from the past few years that should not have been canceled, and why.
1. Firefly. A lot of Joss Whedon's stuff has a juvenile flavor to it. I don't say that in a denigrating way, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel were designed to appeal to young audiences with archetypal heroes. Firefly, on the other hand, had more depth. It was a genre show about the crew of a smuggling vessel, trying to make it in a post-civil-war star system under tyrannical rule. The core of the program was about the captain (played by Nathan Fillion of Castle) and his constant struggle to stay true to his moral ideals, and the mysterious passenger River (played by developing talent Summer Glau) - a genetically modified but atavistic super girl. Fox canceled the show after only 9 episodes based on struggling ratings. The truth is that Fox killed the show in what seems like an almost premeditated manner. First, they aired the 9 episodes out of order. And since Firefly, like most genre shows, depended heavily on long-term story arcs, the viewers were rightly confused from the very beginning. Second, Fox kept moving the show around to different time slots - and they only aired 9 episodes!! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you keep hiding a show during its first few episodes, no one is going to watch it. This is TV, not an Easter egg hunt. Regardless, it was a great show, and had enough support for Joss Whedon to make a full-length feature (the passable Serenity) to wrap up the story arc. Fox, just because you lead the market in the 18-49 audience, doesn't mean you can piss us off like this continuously ... we're watching you (hmm ... that may be a bad metaphor).
2. Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles. While we're on Fox and its treatment of genre programming, let's talk about TSCC. This show lasted for 3 mini-seasons (or 1 mini-season and 1 full season, depending on how you look at it), with a total of 31 episodes. It started out great - with a present-day re-tool of the Terminator mythos - using a teenage John Connor and Summer Glau (see? once you're in one genre show, you can't escape!) as a nubile young, female Terminator. The story arc was interesting, the actors were doing a great job, and the writing even started to get much better during the second season. The ratings, however, got crushed towards the end of season 2 (or beginning of mini-season 3). Not surprising, considering Fox's retarded treatment of this show, Firefly style. Not only did they change the air time to the infamous genre-show graveyard of Friday night, before the ailing Dollhouse, Fox also worked with Warner Bros. (the producers of the show) to trim the show's budget in an attempt to make it more profitable. Here's the problem: the show was a sci-fi visual spectacle. When you cut the budget in half, and you can no longer show the robots in a robot show, people tend to lose interest. Duh.
3. Deadwood. I won't even go into how great this show was. If I were making another list of my top 5 favorite shows of all time, this show would probably be in the top 3. If you have never watched it, go out and purchase the DVDs today. You will not be sorry. Ian McShane, Timothy Olyphant, Robin Weigert, and Powers Boothe in some of the most powerful roles you will likely ever see on TV. Like most cable shows, HBO aired this as 3 mini-seasons, with an ongoing story arc continuing through each season about the future of a frontier mining settlement in the 1870s. The show just kept getting better each season, and the cliffhanger at the end of season 3 led us all to believe there would be a season 4. Unfortunately, HBO and the show's creator David Milch could not agree on "terms" for a 4th season and the show was canceled. I'm sure this was about money, but frankly I place most of the blame on David Milch (who is brilliant, by the way). In my opinion, he was restless and wanted to invest time in his other projects including the cable series John From Cincinnati about a not-so-human surfer. Remember that one? Yeah, me neither. It was short-lived. Thanks, David!
4. Gilmore Girls. Okay, first of all - shut up. Just because I'm man enough to admit I loved this show, doesn't mean I'm above slapping somebody who taunts me about it. This show about a single mom and her bookworm daughter was intelligent, snarky, and rife with pop culture references that would make any americanophile swoon. Not to mention the optimistic portrayal of small-town America in a time where most small towns are portrayed as little more than redneck breeding grounds or places where pageant moms rule. And as long as we're being honest, Lauren Graham was really the reason I watched this show. Her creation of the quintessential modern woman - independent, complex, funny, neurotic, romantic - set the bar a little high for real-life single women. "Are you telling me there are single women out there who can run a business and quote lines from Pipi Longstocking? Sign me up!" The show was canceled (predictably) one season after its creator Amy Sherman Palladino left because of, I presume, creative and financial concerns. Still, we got 6 great seasons and 1 meh season out of it. I needed one more, though.
5. Farscape. You knew it was coming. And if you didn't know it was coming, you have never listened to me rant about how the greatest genre show of all time was stepped on, abused, spit on, and spit out by the SyFy network in favor of factory-line monster-movie crap like Chupacabra: Dark Seas and Mega Piranha. Do I really even need to talk about Farscape here? Shouldn't it be enough to point out what SyFy does invest it's money in? Oh, Fine ... Farscape was an Australian-made, Lost in Space type show that followed the crew of a living spaceship full of interstellar convicts, including a lost human astronaut. It was funny, quirky, action-packed, and there were muppets! Hello? Muppets? You should take remedial TV classes if you don't understand how awesome Muppets are. The show lasted 4 seasons and was canceled despite being critically-acclaimed and having decent ratings for a SyFy show. I think the producers of the show probably got a little big for their britches and started investing too much money in flashy space sequences and corny opening effects. The show was becoming too expensive for a SyFy series, but that could have been worked out. It was actually better in its initial seasons when it cost much less.
You should start seeing a pattern here ... genre shows have a tough row to hoe. They're expensive, they have long-term story arcs that take time to get rolling, and conversely they have a hard time picking up new viewers precisely because of the long-term story arcs. Viewers are less likely to start watching a show in the second season when the main plotlines are in mid-stream. Networks like Fox and SyFy could make it easier on us, however, if they had a long-term view of shows; genre shows are much more likely to build franchise assets (think Star Trek or Stargate) that will spawn merchandising, spinoffs, and features. Also, genre shows need coddling. They need powerhouse lead-ins with their time slots (hey Fox! try scheduling a genre show after American Idol and see how long it takes to gather an audience, whydontcha!) and they need big up-front investments in sets, effects, and writing. Unfortunately, today's networks run on a short-term business model and rely on independent production companies (who usually own the distribution rights of the show) to create the programming. In other words, while I think we might get some cool 2-season genre shows every once in a while, don't expect many powerhouse genre properties to emerge any time soon.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
1. Firefly. A lot of Joss Whedon's stuff has a juvenile flavor to it. I don't say that in a denigrating way, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel were designed to appeal to young audiences with archetypal heroes. Firefly, on the other hand, had more depth. It was a genre show about the crew of a smuggling vessel, trying to make it in a post-civil-war star system under tyrannical rule. The core of the program was about the captain (played by Nathan Fillion of Castle) and his constant struggle to stay true to his moral ideals, and the mysterious passenger River (played by developing talent Summer Glau) - a genetically modified but atavistic super girl. Fox canceled the show after only 9 episodes based on struggling ratings. The truth is that Fox killed the show in what seems like an almost premeditated manner. First, they aired the 9 episodes out of order. And since Firefly, like most genre shows, depended heavily on long-term story arcs, the viewers were rightly confused from the very beginning. Second, Fox kept moving the show around to different time slots - and they only aired 9 episodes!! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you keep hiding a show during its first few episodes, no one is going to watch it. This is TV, not an Easter egg hunt. Regardless, it was a great show, and had enough support for Joss Whedon to make a full-length feature (the passable Serenity) to wrap up the story arc. Fox, just because you lead the market in the 18-49 audience, doesn't mean you can piss us off like this continuously ... we're watching you (hmm ... that may be a bad metaphor).
2. Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles. While we're on Fox and its treatment of genre programming, let's talk about TSCC. This show lasted for 3 mini-seasons (or 1 mini-season and 1 full season, depending on how you look at it), with a total of 31 episodes. It started out great - with a present-day re-tool of the Terminator mythos - using a teenage John Connor and Summer Glau (see? once you're in one genre show, you can't escape!) as a nubile young, female Terminator. The story arc was interesting, the actors were doing a great job, and the writing even started to get much better during the second season. The ratings, however, got crushed towards the end of season 2 (or beginning of mini-season 3). Not surprising, considering Fox's retarded treatment of this show, Firefly style. Not only did they change the air time to the infamous genre-show graveyard of Friday night, before the ailing Dollhouse, Fox also worked with Warner Bros. (the producers of the show) to trim the show's budget in an attempt to make it more profitable. Here's the problem: the show was a sci-fi visual spectacle. When you cut the budget in half, and you can no longer show the robots in a robot show, people tend to lose interest. Duh.
3. Deadwood. I won't even go into how great this show was. If I were making another list of my top 5 favorite shows of all time, this show would probably be in the top 3. If you have never watched it, go out and purchase the DVDs today. You will not be sorry. Ian McShane, Timothy Olyphant, Robin Weigert, and Powers Boothe in some of the most powerful roles you will likely ever see on TV. Like most cable shows, HBO aired this as 3 mini-seasons, with an ongoing story arc continuing through each season about the future of a frontier mining settlement in the 1870s. The show just kept getting better each season, and the cliffhanger at the end of season 3 led us all to believe there would be a season 4. Unfortunately, HBO and the show's creator David Milch could not agree on "terms" for a 4th season and the show was canceled. I'm sure this was about money, but frankly I place most of the blame on David Milch (who is brilliant, by the way). In my opinion, he was restless and wanted to invest time in his other projects including the cable series John From Cincinnati about a not-so-human surfer. Remember that one? Yeah, me neither. It was short-lived. Thanks, David!
4. Gilmore Girls. Okay, first of all - shut up. Just because I'm man enough to admit I loved this show, doesn't mean I'm above slapping somebody who taunts me about it. This show about a single mom and her bookworm daughter was intelligent, snarky, and rife with pop culture references that would make any americanophile swoon. Not to mention the optimistic portrayal of small-town America in a time where most small towns are portrayed as little more than redneck breeding grounds or places where pageant moms rule. And as long as we're being honest, Lauren Graham was really the reason I watched this show. Her creation of the quintessential modern woman - independent, complex, funny, neurotic, romantic - set the bar a little high for real-life single women. "Are you telling me there are single women out there who can run a business and quote lines from Pipi Longstocking? Sign me up!" The show was canceled (predictably) one season after its creator Amy Sherman Palladino left because of, I presume, creative and financial concerns. Still, we got 6 great seasons and 1 meh season out of it. I needed one more, though.
5. Farscape. You knew it was coming. And if you didn't know it was coming, you have never listened to me rant about how the greatest genre show of all time was stepped on, abused, spit on, and spit out by the SyFy network in favor of factory-line monster-movie crap like Chupacabra: Dark Seas and Mega Piranha. Do I really even need to talk about Farscape here? Shouldn't it be enough to point out what SyFy does invest it's money in? Oh, Fine ... Farscape was an Australian-made, Lost in Space type show that followed the crew of a living spaceship full of interstellar convicts, including a lost human astronaut. It was funny, quirky, action-packed, and there were muppets! Hello? Muppets? You should take remedial TV classes if you don't understand how awesome Muppets are. The show lasted 4 seasons and was canceled despite being critically-acclaimed and having decent ratings for a SyFy show. I think the producers of the show probably got a little big for their britches and started investing too much money in flashy space sequences and corny opening effects. The show was becoming too expensive for a SyFy series, but that could have been worked out. It was actually better in its initial seasons when it cost much less.
You should start seeing a pattern here ... genre shows have a tough row to hoe. They're expensive, they have long-term story arcs that take time to get rolling, and conversely they have a hard time picking up new viewers precisely because of the long-term story arcs. Viewers are less likely to start watching a show in the second season when the main plotlines are in mid-stream. Networks like Fox and SyFy could make it easier on us, however, if they had a long-term view of shows; genre shows are much more likely to build franchise assets (think Star Trek or Stargate) that will spawn merchandising, spinoffs, and features. Also, genre shows need coddling. They need powerhouse lead-ins with their time slots (hey Fox! try scheduling a genre show after American Idol and see how long it takes to gather an audience, whydontcha!) and they need big up-front investments in sets, effects, and writing. Unfortunately, today's networks run on a short-term business model and rely on independent production companies (who usually own the distribution rights of the show) to create the programming. In other words, while I think we might get some cool 2-season genre shows every once in a while, don't expect many powerhouse genre properties to emerge any time soon.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Friday, April 2, 2010
How I Justify Watching "The Biggest Loser"
Actually, I'm not sure I can. If my ten years as a lawyer have taught me anything, however, they have taught me how to equivocate, so I'll give it my best shot.
Generally speaking, I don't like reality TV. I find shows like The Apprentice, Sober House, and The Real World to be contrived, exploitative, and boring. I also find it disheartening that the most popular shows on television are designed to appeal to our basest nature. Reality TV is not uplifting; it doesn't challenge us or encourage us to know and accomplish more. Instead, when we watch Reality TV we delight in the misery and awful behavior of our fellows. Using SAT words often riles me up, so forgive my alarmist conclusion here: Reality TV is a few short steps away from truly hating ourselves and our neighbors. In a time of social disconnection, is that what we want?
Now I'll start the hypocrisy (I do that a lot). Some programming that might technically be classified as Reality TV still finds its way into my Tivo. Most notably, The Biggest Loser. My lame justification for this inconsistency is that The Biggest Loser, and several other programs like it, are not strictly Reality TV. I think it is more accurate to call this show, Dancing With the Stars, The Amazing Race, and of course the progenitor American Idol, a "Reality Game Show". These shows, at their core, are contests. Each week the participants go through challenges, get scored, and try to defeat the other participants (contestants) to try and win an ultimate prize. Clearly, these shows are less Real World and more The Price is Right.
That's my lawyer's argument. I'm still troubled, though, because these Reality Game Shows (I really, really hope that ends up in the popular lexicon) carry the "contest" portion of the show on the backs of the contestants' personal lives and the accompanying baggage that should probably remain private. Thus, while I enjoy watching the contestants on The Biggest Loser put up big numbers on the scale each week and watching their miraculous transformations (can you believe how great Sam looks after just a few months?!), I find myself even more entertained by the strife and personal drama that is a much bigger part of the show. The Biggest Loser is the only Reality Game Show that I watch, and considering the conundrum I've laid out here - I think it will be my last.
I am hopeful, however, that we may be winnowing the true Reality TV programs out of our culture at long last. Bit by bit, I believe programming will become less about the personal tragedies of real people and more about creative, complex story-telling. Maybe Reality Game Shows are the first step in this dilution of Reality TV. Please?
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Generally speaking, I don't like reality TV. I find shows like The Apprentice, Sober House, and The Real World to be contrived, exploitative, and boring. I also find it disheartening that the most popular shows on television are designed to appeal to our basest nature. Reality TV is not uplifting; it doesn't challenge us or encourage us to know and accomplish more. Instead, when we watch Reality TV we delight in the misery and awful behavior of our fellows. Using SAT words often riles me up, so forgive my alarmist conclusion here: Reality TV is a few short steps away from truly hating ourselves and our neighbors. In a time of social disconnection, is that what we want?
Now I'll start the hypocrisy (I do that a lot). Some programming that might technically be classified as Reality TV still finds its way into my Tivo. Most notably, The Biggest Loser. My lame justification for this inconsistency is that The Biggest Loser, and several other programs like it, are not strictly Reality TV. I think it is more accurate to call this show, Dancing With the Stars, The Amazing Race, and of course the progenitor American Idol, a "Reality Game Show". These shows, at their core, are contests. Each week the participants go through challenges, get scored, and try to defeat the other participants (contestants) to try and win an ultimate prize. Clearly, these shows are less Real World and more The Price is Right.
That's my lawyer's argument. I'm still troubled, though, because these Reality Game Shows (I really, really hope that ends up in the popular lexicon) carry the "contest" portion of the show on the backs of the contestants' personal lives and the accompanying baggage that should probably remain private. Thus, while I enjoy watching the contestants on The Biggest Loser put up big numbers on the scale each week and watching their miraculous transformations (can you believe how great Sam looks after just a few months?!), I find myself even more entertained by the strife and personal drama that is a much bigger part of the show. The Biggest Loser is the only Reality Game Show that I watch, and considering the conundrum I've laid out here - I think it will be my last.
I am hopeful, however, that we may be winnowing the true Reality TV programs out of our culture at long last. Bit by bit, I believe programming will become less about the personal tragedies of real people and more about creative, complex story-telling. Maybe Reality Game Shows are the first step in this dilution of Reality TV. Please?
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)