Archive for the 'random thoughts' Category

Stunt-Casting Injuries

When I started this blog, I had two specific goals in mind. The first was to create a powerful army of television-addled zombies who would attack NBC honcho Ben Silverman on command. The second was to be the only entertainment blog in the history of the world to never include the names of any drunken, crotch-flashing, fame-addicted starlets of questionable intelligence. I am firm in my belief that they’ll only go away when we stop paying attention to them. While I still have some work to do on that first goal, I’ve been doing pretty well on the second one.

Lately, though, my favorite shows have not been making it easy for me. Continue reading ‘Stunt-Casting Injuries’

Comments

Tags: ,

The Post-Strike TV Slump

Something rather unexpected has happened recently. I’m not enjoying TV as much. I’m sure it’s just a phase; you can’t keep a good couch potato down for long. However, as the post-strike episodes begin to trickle onto the airwaves, I find myself with the same response over and over again: yawn.

After waiting months for The Office to return, it does so with an episode set almost entirely in Michael’s condo, and while the episode contained all the awkward, borderline painful humor we’ve come to expect, it didn’t include the supporting characters that make the show so perfect. It’s been months — couldn’t they let us know how Stanley is doing? It didn’t help that the episode focused too much on Jan, since my one issue with the show is the way they’ve assassinated her character.

What about How I Met Your Mother? It came back with a much-heralded guest appearance by a certain pop starlet with mental heath issues, but hasn’t felt newsworthy otherwise. Part of the show’s charm comes from the lunatic convergence of multiple plots, and recent episodes have only had one predictable story to tell. Barney deserves better, damn it.

Granted, it can’t be easy to get back into the writing groove after months of walking the picket lines, but something feels off on so many shows, and I’m not sure whether it’s because the writers are out of practice writing or I’m out of practice viewing. After all, there are plenty of shows that weren’t affected by the strike that still haven’t been very good.

Men in Trees had all of its episodes filmed long before the strike, and it’s still boring me senseless. Sure, the show is a light-hearted character drama, but shouldn’t it contain some basic signs of a plot? I’m not asking for much, just enough so I can remember what happened the next day. At the moment, the only thing I’m sure of is that some new hockey player is in town and someone else still has amnesia. If it wasn’t for the fact that it feeds my longtime fantasy of living in a mountain cabin in Alaska, I’m not sure I’d be tuning in at all.

Then there’s Ashes to Ashes, a show I was downright giddy to see premiere and then quickly forgot about. Even the divine presence of Gene Hunt couldn’t hold my attention from the self-conscious and soulless depiction of the 80s. I found myself actually forgetting to watch it when it aired and eventually even stopped catching up on the BBC iPlayer. So far as I know, Alex Drake is forever trapped in 1983. She may never get to hear the Purple Rain soundtrack, in that case, a far crueler fate than being forced to relive the fashion.

Honestly, if it wasn’t for Battlestar Galactica, a show that is so damn good I want to tongue-kiss everyone who makes it, I’d worry that I was bored with television. That can’t be, can it? It’s got to be just a phase, one that will certainly end this month with the return of Gossip Girl, Ugly Betty and Supernatural, right? I’ll get my fabulous characters and stories back, and won’t have to resort to any desperate measures like, you know, getting off the sofa.

What about you? Are you enjoying the return of scripted television, or are you finding it hard to get back into the swing of things?

Comments

Tags: , , , ,

When TV Hurts So Good

I’m a geek. I assume this is common knowledge, but it doesn’t hurt to restate the obvious. I was reminded of my geek-like status this weekend, as I curled up on my sofa with an entire Whedonverse of comic books: the last two Buffys, all the Angels, and the first Serenity.

Now, it’s been fairly well-established that I am Joss Whedon’s bitch (although even I won’t defend Season 6 of Buffy). I think he possesses a unique creative sensibility, and, since the death of Angel, I have sorely missed having a Whedon show to look forward to each week.

Reading the Angel comics reminded me of one thing Joss did better than anyone: he hurt the audience. No, really. He frequently killed off likable characters, or corrupted them in some way, or forced Riley on us for an entire season. He never seemed to be bound by what the audience wanted, and the shows were stronger for it.

Lots of shows kill off good characters, but they’re usually given lengthy arcs leading up to that sacrifice, providing a sense that the death has been dramatically earned. Not so with Whedon — any fan of his shows can remember several times when characters were there one minute, gone the next. Whedon once claimed that he gave the audience what they needed, not what they wanted. Arrogant as hell, sure, but it worked for him. It was one of the reasons I tuned in each week, why I would refuse to answer the phone or the door for that hour. (Also, see above re: geek.) I never knew what would happen, and every episode had the potential to surprise.

Most shows don’t hurt the audience. They don’t want to take the risk. I remember watching an early episode of Lost, when Ethan hangs Charlie in the jungle. He seemed to be very dead, and I was quite excited by this — and, at that point, I didn’t even have anything against Charlie. Neither was it my dormant gothic tendencies asserting themselves; I was excited to think that this was a show that would dare to kill off its main characters. It would mean that anything was possible. Of course, once they cut him down, he sputtered his way back to life, and no number of dead Shannons or Ana Lucias could make me forget that cop-out. The show didn’t dare to hurt me.

Veronica Mars had its moments, but, of course, it’s canceled. Prison Break throws twist after twist at its viewers, but it’s only hurting me by keeping T-Bag alive for another season. Even my beloved Dexter can be a fairly predictable serial killer. Show after show aims for dramatic impact without really daring to cross that line and upset its viewers.

It’s television’s weakness. In order to keep their audience, shows need to please the viewers and are therefore wary of taking risks. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how many cliff-hangers or crazy twists or new characters a show brings in; if they’re not willing to shock the viewer, the emotional impact will always be limited. You want to gut us? Give us what we don’t want. We’ll thank you for it later.

What shows hurt you so good? And are there any current shows that would benefit from being a bit more Whedon-esque?

10 Comments

Tags: , , , ,

Why I Watch

Have you discovered Why We Write yet? Few sites do such a good job of putting a human face to the writers behind the strike and you should definitely check it out.

RTVW answered with an explanation of why they watch, which is something I’ve been thinking about a bit recently. See, television ratings haven’t actually dropped since the strike. There are fewer and fewer original programs left to air, but people keep tuning in to whatever crap reality TV is on that night. We lose The Office, and American Gladiator becomes a huge hit. That ain’t right, people.

It can’t be that we watch just because we have nothing else to do, can it? Or out of habit? Or because, if we don’t watch television each night, we might have to talk to each other? I have been a staunch defender of television, and part of my argument is that people choose to watch because they enjoy characters and good stories, not because they are sad and pathetic drones who would rather be passively entertained than think for themselves. And I still believe that’s true, despite the fact that people chose to watch Crowned. Maybe I’m a blind optimist, but I’m okay with that.

Why do I watch? Because when television is good, it can create a whole new world. This can be the mythology-laden world of Buffy or Battlestar Galactica or the painful realism of The Wire. No one ever has to apologize for reading books, but the most common argument in favor of reading is that it opens new worlds. Well, I’m pretty sure I never would have made it to Dillon, Texas without Friday Night Lights, so I’m not apologizing for watching TV, either. I can already hear the nay-sayers, insisting that books demand imagination while television spoon-feeds its viewers. Clearly, these people have never tried to interpret one of Michael C. Hall’s expressions or visualized the Firefly universe beyond what was shown on screen. Perhaps they have difficulty viewing the television from their soapboxes.

I watch TV for the stories. I’ve already gone on at length about this subject in this blog’s very first post, so I won’t repeat myself. I’ll only add that I’m eager to wrap this post up so I can watch the third episode of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I want to know what happens. I’m curious and intrigued and already building scenarios in my head, because that’s what a good story does. It carries you away and involves you. When captivated by a story, you draw parallels to your own life, consider things from a new perspective, find new things to care about. There is nothing passive about it.

(Edited to add that I just watched the episode, and it really wasn’t very good. Stupid Fox, trying to ruin my perfectly valid point.)

I watch TV for the characters. Yes, I know they’re fictional…except, not really. Each character came from a writer’s pen, drawn from their own knowledge and desires and fears, and then brought to life by an actor, who infuses the role with their experiences, and then watched by a viewer, who interprets it through their experiences. You get the idea. Watching complex characters interact over multiple episodes is a crash course in psychology. Television can’t be a place to hide from the real world; it’s all right there on the screen.

Maybe people are still watching because the hamtastic posturing of American Gladiator can temporarily fill that need for characters, for stories, for other worlds. But it’s just a placebo, and I can’t see the effect lasting for too long. Eventually, we’ll need the real deal. And I hope that’s not just the blind optimism talking.

What about you? Why do you watch?

Comments

‘Lost’ In The Plot: Why TV Blockbusters Can’t Help But Disappoint You.

The body of a local beauty queen washes up on the beach…a group of airline crash survivors find themselves on a remote island inhabited by invisible monsters…a policeman finds himself transported thirty years into the past. These are great openings, and great openings demand a strong finish. How did he get back to 1973? How the hell are they going to get off this island? Who killed Laura Palmer? The problem is that when the networks find themselves with a hit on their hands, they don’t want it to ever end.

Twin Peaks was the start of something very special for the US networks, and for television in general. A prime-time, big-budget drama serial co-authored by the decidedly un-prime-time David Lynch, the show was one of ABC’s biggest hits and ran two seasons before being wound up and cancelled. It spawned enthusiasm for a raft of similarly right-brained projects, including Cop Rock, a short-lived musical version of Hill Street Blues, and more recently that big-screen ethic has given us Heroes, Lost and Alias. In 1990 the message was clear…TV could do weird every bit as well as the movies. Well…almost.

What network TV can’t do as well as the movies is deliver a blockbuster. Film executives want stories that open big, build and build, twist and turn and dump the audience out the other end thrilled, charmed and exhilarated. TV executives want all that too, but without having to end it. This creates a problem that writers of smash-hit dramas are yet to overcome. Writers refer to stories as having arcs, like an object travelling through the air. If you ask the world archery champion to hit a target, the chances are they’ll get it. They’ll factor in the wind speed, the distance, the weight of the arrow and let fly. But what happens if you move the target back after the arrow’s been fired?

That’s essentially the problem TV writers face when they find themselves delivering a hit. They’ve got the whole journey planned out, beginning, middle and end…but now the network wants them to keep it in the air for another 26 weeks. So they have to start padding.

The simplest solution is to convert your show into a soap. Soap’s not a dirty word in this context…indeed some of TV’s longest running and most popular shows are essentially soaps: Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy and ER. The big driving plot idea isn’t such a big deal here. There are only a few settings, a big ensemble cast and it’s all about the loves, lives, wants and needs of the characters. People come, people go, but the drama of life goes on forever…and so, potentially at least, could your show. That’s why the ‘Others’ turned up in Lost and why new Heroes are certain to keep revealing themselves. It works, up to a point…and that point is where your audience realises you’re not going to deliver on The Big Idea. Will we all still be watching Prison Break in season five, when Michael Scofield turns out to have a business plan for opening a cosy, out of the way coffee house, full of curmudgeonly but lovable characters tattooed on his thigh? Not too likely.

Exceptions do occur, of course. The BBC’s Life On Mars, an instant ratings and critical hit, was never meant to run for more than two seasons, and short UK seasons too. From the first moment Sam Tyler appeared 33 years in the past, the questions of how and why were played to the fore. To try and delay answering them would have been like lying to a much loved friend, and when the answers came…ah well, let’s not spoil it for you.

The moral of this story is a simple one. TV executives, deliver on your promises. If you start big, you have to end bigger. We’re the audience! Entertain us! Satisfy us! Surprise us!

We love it when you do that.

Comments

Tags: , , , , , , ,

It’s Christmas Time on the Telly

This is the first time in three years that I’ve returned home for Christmas. The previous two years I spent with a family in Cornwall, celebrating Christmas the UK way.

Now, you would expect the food to be a bit different, and it was. The British menu is far more likely to include cabbage and Christmas pudding (a dense fruitcake that has nothing in common with the US definition of pudding) and you will probably find Christmas crackers on every table, which are opened to reveal paper crowns or some sort of random gizmo. Last year, I got a tape measure, which makes me question what I was meant to be doing on Christmas Day. Was I expected to measure for a new outfit? Do some impulsive DIY? Still, the trees, decorations and presents all remain the same in either country.

The real difference, however? Christmas TV.

I’ve had a lot to adjust to since moving here: measured shots in bars, incomprehensible banking laws, the alternative definition of “toss.” None of those made me furrow my brow quite so much as a glance at the UK Christmas TV grid.

In the US, Christmas television is a wasteland of old films, nostalgia cartoons and the occasional sporting event. Families are, it seems, expected to talk to each other on this most joyous of holidays. If they do choose to gather around the television, it will be to watch something they’ve seen so many times before that it doesn’t actually require any of their attention. It’s a Wonderful Life is a genuinely good film, but no one has actually watched it from start to finish in about twelve years. It’s background noise at Christmas, an accompaniment to the kids putting together their new train sets or the clatter of pans in the kitchen. In my extremely sexist traditional family, the sporting event was a way to keep the men quiet while the women cooked. No one was actually meant to watch the programs.

In the UK, however, they bring out their big guns. The Doctor Who Christmas special, new BBC originals, the Queen’s speech — they expect you to be watching. Newspapers print complicated listings to help you best prepare for the holiday marathon in front of the television, and families often plan their Christmas meal around a special episode of EastEnders, in which someone will almost certainly die or commit adultery in a truly festive way. It’s still considered family time, as the wealth of kid-friendly programming suggests, with one key distinction: on a UK Christmas, the telly seems to be part of the family.

The watching of massive amounts of television on Christmas day still feels a bit odd to me, but there’s one thing the UK got just right: Boxing Day. While the 26th is a letdown day for Americans, a day of cleaning and packing up and preparation for work the next day, the British made it into an extension of Christmas itself. From what I can gather, it’s an extra day off work for the sole purpose of lounging in front of the fire, eating leftovers and watching really good television. I’m fairly sure we can all recognize the pure genius of that plan. I may never develop a taste for Christmas pudding, but from now on, I plan to celebrate Boxing Day wherever I live — starting now. Pass the remote, please.

What about you? Are you a Christmas television watcher? What shows claimed your attention this year?

Comments

Tags: ,

Jumping the Shark and Other Tricks: Heroes, House and Friday Night Lights

Being a fan of an American TV drama means always waiting for a favorite show to jump the shark. It seems unavoidable. Unlike shows from other countries, which have a limited number of seasons and episodes, US shows tend to stay on the air until they stop making money — and the only way that happens is when people stop watching. Eventually, no matter how great the original premise, the strain of keeping 22 episodes of a show on the air for multiple seasons can take its toll on the creative process. And, when the show eventually changes, the original fans feel betrayed (talk to any hardcore Buffy or Alias fan for a demonstration of this). Of course, if the network pulls the plug while the show is still in its prime, the fans never forgive the network for its lack of faith, as any Deadwood watcher can attest. It’s a no-win situation.

Shark-watch 2007 started early this season. Heroes‘ shaky start had lots of people predicting disaster. House fans wanted to know if the cast shakeup would cause irreparable damage to the characters’ chemistry. And Friday Nights Lights, which has inspired a tiny but rabid following, had to cope with fans closely watching every scene for the slightest hint that the show was pandering to some undetermined network agenda.

The Fonz jumps it.Here’s the thing: none of these shows are even close to the proverbial shark. The term comes from an episode of Happy Days, in which the Fonz goes water-skiing in Hawaii and literally jumps over a shark. It was ridiculous, out-of-character, and completely against the spirit of the show. It wasn’t just that the show made some bad decisions; it suddenly felt like a different show altogether. The three shows above haven’t committed any such crimes. They’ve simply written some plot lines that loyal viewers don’t like. And, to those whining about this, I can only say: tough. No, really. Disagreeing with a storyline is not the same thing as the storyline sucking.

Continue reading ‘Jumping the Shark and Other Tricks: Heroes, House and Friday Night Lights’

Comments

Tags: , , , ,

Vicarious Cruelty and Other Happy Thoughts

Television is an invention that permits you to be entertained in your living room by people you wouldn’t have in your home. ~David Frost

DexterMr. Frost is right, you know. At the moment, I have an episode of Dexter waiting on my hard drive and watching that will likely be the high point of my evening (which isn’t quite as sad as it sounds because, as I have pointed out previously, Dexter is one of the best damn shows on television).

I know I’ve brought up the idea of audience theory before, but I’m feeling especially pedantic today and in a mood to go into a bit more detail (skip to the jump if you just want to read about Hugh Laurie). The uses & gratifications theory states that audiences consume media in order to be gratified in some way and breaks the reasons into four categories. The first is diversion and escapism, such as with fantasy blockbusters. The second is personal relationships, the idea that people begin to feel close to these characters and want to spend time with them. This is the only explanation for the continuing existence of Two and a Half Men, though I would dearly like to have a word with anyone who encourages Charlie Sheen to continue acting. Next you have personal identity, in which the audience takes their cues on how to behave from the media. Best case scenario, this means that your house is inspired by Top Design; worst case is that you spent the late 90s wearing the “Rachel” haircut. Lastly is surveillance, the acquiring of information through the media. Think news and documentaries or, for that matter, Sesame Street. Hey, Bert has some extremely valuable knowledge to impart. On the surface, that all sounds like a straight-forward and valid theory, but where the hell does a serial killer fit in? I’ve decided to add a fifth category to this popular media concept: vicarious cruelty.

Continue reading ‘Vicarious Cruelty and Other Happy Thoughts’

Comment

Tags: , , ,

Kooks, Nutjobs and General Incompetents

I have tried to make this entry funny. Really, I have. It turns out that there is a very fragile anger/snark balance, and right now I’m too annoyed to properly access the snark. You see, yesterday I gave the first two episodes of Samantha Who? a try. The show has received fairly warm reviews and it looks a safe bet to be picked up for an entire season. Granted, considering its competition this season, that’s not saying much. It turns out that, for the most part, the show is a moderately successful, light-hearted comedy. So why did it have me yelling and chucking things at the TV?

Continue reading ‘Kooks, Nutjobs and General Incompetents’

Comments

Tags: , ,

Same old, same old. Is ‘groundbreaking’ television a myth?

We’re about a month into this year’s crop of new shows and the victors are starting to emerge. Interestingly, the only clear winner so far is Pushing Daisies, a show that is being heralded for its originality in the midst of the startling mediocrity of the other programs. Fans and critics both agree: it’s clever! Beautiful! Interesting! Groundbreaking! I was with them right up until the last one. Groundbreaking? Is any word more overused in television or film? The word suggests a beginning, a clearing away of old rubble in order to build a new foundation upon which glorious structures can be built. Does this mean that we can expect to see a slew of original, visually-stunning fairy tales in coming years? Certainly, there will be a few half-hearted attempts at imitation, but I don’t see my schedule suddenly filling with shows steeped in magical realism. Pushing Daisies is innovative and has the potential to be influential, but that’s a world apart from groundbreaking.

Let’s go back a few years, to 1998. Will & Grace had just premiered to raves. It was a success, both in terms of critical response and ratings, and was widely hailed as a groundbreaking sitcom for featuring two gay characters. The mainstream show earned a huge audience, clearing the way for more gay leads in the future. Nine years later, there’s been…no, wait…I’m sure I’ll think of one…er, nope. That was it. (The aspiring drag queens of America’s Next Top Model don’Ugly Bettyt count.) Influential, yes, as seen in the slightly increased visibility of gay supporting characters, but I don’t see any towering rainbow structures being built on its groundbreaking premise.

Last year, Ugly Betty was heralded as the breakthrough, “groundbreaking” show due to its plain-Jane lead whose dowdy fashion sense, unibrow and braces made her nearly immune to objectification. We were supposed to root for the “ugly” woman. She was given a cute love interest. Clearly, representations of women on television had changed at last! From now on, we’d see more realistic portrayals of feminine beauty, right?

Ahem. Let’s take a look at the success rate in a sampling of this fall’s more prominent shows.

Continue reading ‘Same old, same old. Is ‘groundbreaking’ television a myth?’

Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Close
E-mail It