Committing to a New TV Show

It’s just a little over a month until the new season of prime-time television begins once again. The time is coming for you to decide how much of your Sunday-Thursday evenings you are going to commit to in front of the affectionately named “Idiot Box.” For some of us, it will be a joy to see the return of some old friends (Veronica Mars, The Office, House, M.D., Lost). With the coming of a new season of TV naturally comes an onslaught of new shows – strangers who beg for what little time we have to give to them.

Over 30 new shows will be premiering over the next few months, all of vastly different concepts and backgrounds. There is a problem with these new shows though. Most of them will suck. Real bad. Most of them won’t last six episodes. Figuring out which shows are worth investing your time is an even more difficult endeavor. Unlike a movie, or a book, or a video game, you can’t just read a few reviews, look at some star ratings, and decide if it’s for you. A television show is an organic beast, with the ability to change, grow, adapt, and, conversely, die. The author of a novel is static, as is the director/writer of a film. In TV, writers come and go, actors come and go, and surprisingly frequently the creator of a show will abandon a series midstream (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Calling a show “good” or “bad” is hardly that simple, and it’s even more difficult to judge a show by its pilot.

As an exercise in criticism, let’s look at a show that’s already had a good run: 24. Would I tell you that 24 is a good show? Yes I would, it’s one of my favorite shows on television. Yet a simple “thumbs up” doesn’t really describe the way the show has evolved over time. I watched the first season of the show on DVD, and I was hooked from the minute I finished the pilot. That first 44 minutes introduced me to the characters, the concept, the basic plot, and kept me entertained. I was instantly on board for the ride. The next 23 episodes were great, for the most part. There is a plotline or two that seems unnecessary and poorly thought out, making for a few boring moments among what turns out to be one of the best seasons of television ever recorded. If I were to recommend, or review, this season, how would I do it? Do I recommend it wholeheartedly, since the overall excellent quality of the show make up for the minor wrong turns? Should I point out a few of the weaker episodes for those who don’t want to waste their time with it? Is that fair to the story, and more importantly, to the creators who clearly envisioned the season as a singular entity? After all, you wouldn’t hand a book you liked to someone with a few of the more boring passages marked with a sticky note. Sometimes the weak moments can make the best moments in a narrative stand out more, making them feel all the more special.

Then again, though I care about things like “authors intent” and “how the medium is TV used,” most people just want to sit down and enjoy a damn entertaining show. That’s what TV is there for! That’s what all entertainment media is there for, that’s how TV, especially a series like 24, is best enjoyed. This presents another problem – the audience of the review. For a show like 24, there are people who don’t give a damn if they miss an episode, they’re perfectly content with the information given on the nice two minute recap before every episode. People like me (and we probably have issues), cringe at the thought of not being able to take in a television series/season as a whole. We both enjoy the show, but we enjoy them in different ways. We look for different things in a review. In looking at previews for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (a show premiering this September), some people perk up when they see that Matthew Perry (of Friends fame, duh) is one of the leads. Others might become interested when they hear the show was created by Aaron Sorkin (creator of West Wing and the underappreciated Sports Night). Still others might perk up just at the concept of the show, a funny behind-the-scenes look at a fictional doppelganger Saturday Night Live. No doubt a good amount of people might be interested for more than one of these reasons, but the point is, with a medium as accessible as TV, advertisers and reviewers have a difficult time figuring out what is important to point out to potential viewers. Even more difficult is the fact that a show with a great pilot doesn’t necessarily mean the entire series will be great. In fact, shows with mediocre first episodes can go on to become outstanding series (Seinfeld and Buffy: The Vampire Slayer immediately come to mind). Then again, shows with crappy pilots have a tendency to remain crappy – it’s easier to go downhill than uphill seems to be the sad truth.

So what is a TV viewer to do? My strategy for the past few years has been to let a show run for a full year or two, see what reviewers think at that point, and then, should I remain interested, I’ll catch up on DVD and watch the new season live. Both Carrie and I watched Veronica Mars, Lost, and House, M.D. this way (well I had to catch up on House, Carrie was savvy enough to be on board with that show from season 1), and it’s a smart way to stay current with TV without wasting your time sampling everything that’s out there. With some shows, I’ll take a gamble. I was on board with the American version of The Office from the beginning, and that turned out to be an amazing show. On the other hand, I watched The Inside from the beginning as well, a show you’ve probably never heard of (with good reason).

For next season, I will probably continue my strategy. There are two shows coming about that have my attention so far, and I am definitely going to give those a try. This has, as usual, turned out to be a far longer post than I originally planned, so come back in a few days for the Fall 2006 shows that get the official J “this has a reasonable chance of being enjoyable” Seal of Approval.

The Amazing Screw-On Head

So that's probably not the most enticing title in the world but I promise you, stay with me on this one and you will not have wasted your time.

The Amazing Screw-On Head is a new TV show premering next week on the Sci-Fi Channel. It's a half-hour dark comedy based on the Mike Mignola (of Hellboy fame) comic book of the same name. He didn't have anything to do with the production of the show, but that's probably all for the best, as the show runner is one Mister Bryan Fuller. Fuller is famous for the critically acclaimed but short-lived series Dead Like Me, as well as the charming, imaginative, and all around tremendous series Wonderfalls (currently available mega cheap on DVD). The Head himself is voiced by Paul "I will not drink any fucking Merlot" Giamatti, with supporting characters voiced by David Hyde Pierce, Molly Shannon, and Patton Oswald.

Oh, you actually want to know what the show is about? Fine. The main premise is that there are actually two histories of the United States - the one we've been fed, and the real version of history, which this series is here to fill in. Screw-On Head is in fact, a head with a screw for a neck who can jump into a variety of robot bodies. He serves as a secret agent of sorts for Presidents throughout history, battling all sorts of bizzare monsters and forces that are better kept safe from the public. The pilot shows the head serving Abraham Lincoln, battling against his zombie ex-butler and his vampire ex-girlfriend. Tell me you aren't going to tune in.

What really makes this show worth blogging about is the way that Sci-Fi has gone about promoting the series. The full pilot episode is available for viewing, right now, online, for free. It'll stay that way until two weeks after the show actually premeres on television. This is such a brilliant way to get people to watch your show, particularly a show like this which I would imagine is quite difficult to advertise. Watching the premere certainly has me hooked, and to be honest I don't think there's any chance I would have made a point to sit in front of my TV at a specific time to watch it blind. It takes a lot to get me, and I think most people, to invest their time in a new TV show. Like most things, I probably would have not watched it, wait for it to get cancelled, hear good things about it, then pick it up on DVD. Now, Sci-Fi has picked up at least one viewer. I hope to see more networks impliment this strategy for all of the new pilots premering this fall.

TANGENTALLY RELATED: Speaking of major networks, last week was the lowest rated week for the four major networks in recorded Neilson history. Sure it's summer, and ratings are always low in August and July, but still, the networks can't be happy about that. There's no standout new reality show that usually seems to come along once a summer (think of Survivor and American Idol in years' past), and there are a lot more things to occupy people's time. With more content online, as well as TV on DVD, there's no need to suffer through another Will and Grace rerun. This is good news for you and me, and bad news for networks, who, as I have said before, I hope continue to rethink their broadcast strategy.

Fixing a Sad iPod

Making the usual rounds at digg this afternoon I came across an article entitled, "How to Fix an iPod with the Sad iPod Icon." Now this immediately grabbed my attention as I have struggled with sad face many a time, leading to countless hours on the internet trying to figure out anyway to combat the problem. Apple's website is less than useless; their advice basically amounts to this: "Restart your iPod. Can't restart it? Whoops! Sorry. Maybe you should get a new one." That's my biggest problem with Apple as a company actually. They're very good at making things very simple and intuitive to use, but any time you want to do something above and beyond basic functions (make a playlist on the iPod, right click on OSX), they make you jump through hoops to make that happen. ANGER.

I'm getting off topic, though. Now, what I've done in the past to fix my iPod, is to simply leave it plugged into my computer until it magically fixes itself. Not the most tech-savvy fix but I have had a 100% success rate using this method. It has taken anywhere from about 2 hours to over three days plugged in to fix itself, but it always manages to heal, much like Wolverine, to perfect health on its own.

The conclusion author Tom Coffee came to, after also spending much time on internet forums, was that the cure for a sad iPod was some sort of severe physical contact, a la dropping the iPod on the floor or slamming it against the desk. This is completely outrageous and yet for some reason perfectly sensible to me. Hitting TVs back in the olden days used to fix reception, why not try the same thing on an electronic device? What is actually happening is that the sad icon usually comes about as the result of a cord coming out of place, and a swift metaphorical kick in the pants smacks that sucker back into a working position. Certainly much more efficient than plugging it in and praying. I'm for sure trying this the next time my iPod craps out on me (which I promise you, it will). I've got a warantee on this sucker so it's no skin off my back if it breaks. Should I have to resort to such measures of barbarism, I'll write about how it turned out.

Vidcasting

Will people ever care about vidcasting? Podcasting grew rapidly but seems to have hit a plateau in recent months. That's audio though, a format that has been declining in popularity and importance since the heyday of the DJs in the 1970s. But for podcasters, that's okay. Almost zero do it for money, and most of them don't mind. It's the freedom of being accountable to no one and saying whatever you want that makes podcasting so enjoyable. You cater to no audience (which is a good thing, since few podcasts develop substantial listenership), but what you provide is an honest, human voice; that, for someone who listens to quite a few podcasts, is the most appealing thing about the entire format. The low-cost entry level allows podcasters to cater to niche audiences and survive purely based upon the passion of the people creating the content.

But what of vidcasting (podcasting with a video component, also known as video blogging)? This format has a higher cost of entry, as you not only need to purchase a camera but need to have someone behind it with at least a halfway sense of how to use it. But for people watching, it is also a bigger commitment. With a podcast, I can be exercising, driving, doing chores, etc. while enjoying what the podcasters have to say. With a vidcast, I need to be in front of my computer, or at the very least sitting somewhere in front of a video iPod (another high cost of entry). For some vidcasts, this is not a problem. Two of the best out there, Ask a Ninja and Tiki Bar TV, are short, humorous podcasts that are easy to enjoy in 5 minute bursts in front of my computer. For something much longer than that, however, I simply don't see myself spending that much passive time in front of a computer. If I am at my computer, I want to be reading news, talking to people, playing a game, (or blogging), or something that I can't do anywhere else. If I'm going to sit down, relax, and watch a long form of entertainment, I want to be sitting in a comfy chair in front of my television. And when it comes to TV, there is no chance that Digital Life or diggNation is going to compete with the high production values and sophistication of everything from Lost to The Colbert Report. And that's not to say that those programs are bad or even at fault, it's just that I have difficulty grasping how they will reach a large audience. Because if you go to the trouble of producing a high-quality vidcast, you have to hope you're doing it for a larger audience than yourself. I've both podcasted and blogged and know that both are very easy, and can be fun for simply a self-servicing kind of way. I suppose in theory a vidcast could do the same purpose but again, why go through the expense and effort.

I think that vidcasting has the possibility of becoming successful, particularly when it comes to short form entertainment. I know several popular vidcasts are available free over Tivo, though I'm not sure how many people tune in. Regardless, that sort of mainstream exposure is good, particularly on a service like Tivo, where people are becoming increasingly savvy to the idea of programming-on-demand. Frankly, I think that's the biggest hurdle to both podcasting and vidcasting - getting people used to a new way of watching content that doesn't involve just pushing a button on their remote control.

Television vs. Film

It seems to me that more and more over the past few years, I find myself watching a far greater amount of television than film. And I don't think I'm alone. In general, the quality of mainstream TV seems to be getting better and better, while mainstream movies grow more and more formulaic, boring, and safe. Historically, Film is the far more prestigious medium to work in, producing in the 20th century far more "artistic" or other adjectives deeming the products more relevant than TV. The trend seems to be at a close.

HBO has probably had the biggest effect. With sophisticated and extremely well put together serialized dramas (The Sopranos, Carnivale, Deadwood, Six Feet Under), accompanied by equally smart comedies that are truly unique (Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Entourage). The presence of these shows on the network increased subscriptions to HBO (and thereby increased revenue), brought serious critical acclaim and attention, and were some of the first to arrive on DVD. HBO series continue to sell phenomenally well despite their high price point and lower episode-per-season count than network series.

These series took risks where TV usually does not, by introducing a more specified sense of genre on TV. Conservatism used to (and still, for the most part, is) be the word when it came to what types of shows were on television, leading to the now (almost) tired crime drama, hospital genre, and sci-fi show. The Sopranos took the gangster genre, widely considered to be played out on film, and reinvented it by making the show completely about the characters and the setting. English teachers in my high school were completely enraptured by the series because of the complexity and ambiguity of the characters, a richness that is found in only the best fiction, let alone television. The shows characters are so interesting that often times plotlines are abandoned to service the further exploration of the characters behavior and psyche; it's certainly a weakness of the show, particularly in later seasons, but I tolerate it simply because the show is unquestionably experimental and risk taking, and enjoy the ride the writers of the series are taking us on just as much as I enjoy actually watching it.

Sex and the City basically invented a new drama. I suppose the series' roots lie in the Romantic Comedy genre of both film and television, but that's an unfair comment given that "Romantic Comedy" often translates as "boring," "chick-flick," "cookie-cutter," "popcorn" movie or some other negative stereotypes. Sex and the City, like The Sopranos, is about characters who may be over the top, but their personalities are so strongly defined and worth exploring that the show becomes extremely compelling to watch. The four main characters strive to find out who they are, through interactions with each other and the men whom they are interested in. The show excels in both its sexiness and wit, and is perhaps best defined by its willingness to not deliver the happy ending. It again is this sense of self-discovery that makes the show so compelling. And that's really what the show is about - it's not about whom the characters end up dating, it's who they want the people they are dating to see. We don't necessarily root for the characters to find love in all of their relationships, we root to see them learn and grow and evolve, perhaps teaching us something about the human condition.

With the success of series like these, network and basic cable television only took a few years to catch on. ABC brought us Lost, an extremely serialized show that requires viewers to actively watch, something that TV previously did not think its viewers were capable of. Comedies such as FOX's Arrested Development and NBC's The Office deliver not only unique premises and beautifully written comedy, but finally remove the laugh track that makes it difficult for me to watch even some of my favorite comedies of the past. TV, I don't need you to tell me when to laugh. I can figure out on my own if a joke is funny, thanks. The Sci-Fi Channel brings us Battlestar Galactica, saving a great premise from a terrible mini-series of old, resulting in one of the best written and acted series I have ever seen, with easily the most ambitious plots on television. Don't let the fact that it's a sci-fi show scare you away - trust me, you'll like it. House, M. D. took the overplayed genre of medical drama by dressing it up in Sherlock Holmes' stovetop pipe, resulting in one of the more clever and unique series on TV. I could go on like this for ages.

But what of film? I honestly cannot think of nearly as many mainstream films I have enjoyed as much as these series. I see very few movies in the theatres,, and the ones I find myself enjoying the most are usually not the big blockbusters. In fact, most of the movies I find myself going to see in the theatres I see because I feel a sort of obligation to see the movie. I saw both X-Men 3 and The DaVinci Code in theatres, and while they weren't "bad," there was a very sort of blasé feeling I had coming out of both of those movies. They were fine. I have no desire to see them again. Watching these TV shows you can really feel the care and love that went into them. There is the ability to watch a show grow and change that producers of TV are finally starting to learn. It's the equivalent "blockbuster" TV shows that are doing well - House, 24, The West Wing, Lost - they're all on the major networks in premium time slots.

What's wrong with film? We hear every year that ticket sales have decreased from the year before, but ticket prices keep going up and it feels like the same damn movies are out every year. There isn't much that's compelling, at least not recently. Yet TV continues to, little by little, get more and more bold and fresh, stealing audiences away from the big screen. I can't quite figure out why it's happening, though I've got a few theories. Maybe I'll make those my next entry, but this has gotten long so I think I'll finish there. Thanks to anyone who made it to the end of this.

First Post!

I'm gonna try to keep up with a blog, we'll see how this goes. No idea what I'm going to use it for - probably not so much a journal type of deal than a place for random thoughts on all of the random stuff I am interested in. Maybe even an experimental short story or two. Who knows. Anyways, stay tuned, and please leave comments if you feel inspired to do so.