CSI CYBER a Virus on the Airwaves

Article originally published as CSI CYBER Review on Seat42F.

I have long been against crime procedurals. Any decent one is entertaining for a few weeks, but soon, by their nature, the shows devolve into repetitive drivel. When the characters are restrained form exhibiting any real growth and the story must wrap up neatly in an hour every week, the storytelling is extremely limited, making for very flat television. That’s why I watch very few of them.

With the premiere of CSI’s latest spin-off, though, CSI: CYBER, I figured I’d keep an open mind. After all, CSI is the mother of the modern crime show, and the cast is stacked with such greats as Oscar-winner Patricia Arquette (Boyhood, Medium), who already did a decent procedural, hilarious, talented James Van Der Beek (Dawson’s Creek, Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23), and the greatly underrated Peter MacNicol (Numb3rs, Sophie’s Choice). Surely, if there were ever a show in this genre to appreciate, even if only watched briefly, it would be this one.

Sadly, I was sorely mistaken. CSI: Cyber is by far one of the worst television pilots I’ve watched in a long, long time, and that’s saying something.

For one thing, there is not even the pretense of character development. Despite this being episode one, we are introduced to the crime first and the characters second. The action goes right into a kidnapped baby, and all of the running time is devoted to stopping the infant kidnapping ring. A brief nugget is very heavy-handedly forced into the final scene in which we’re told something about the team leader, Avery Ryan’s (Arquette), past, but it’s far too little, too late, and handled poorly.

Secondly, CSI Cyber doesn’t stop to introduce us to anyone. They are all on the job, and while we get a couple of very small hints about their personalities as the hour unfolds, no time is spent setting up their relationships or how they fit on the team, nor is there anything to indicate these players are at all unique. Everyone is brought in in a very straight forward manner, and who they are now is probably still who they’ll be in one hundred episodes, should the show survive.

Third, the dialogue is horrendous. Absolutely terrible. Time and time again, characters utter the most trite, stereotypical, cliché lines. Many of these seem to be delivered merely because it’s time to say them in the story. Someone who has never watched an episode of any incarnation of CSI could predict what the characters are going to say next. There’s an utter lack of imagination present in the script.

Fourth, the effects are cheesy. When Ryan gives CPR to a baby, it’s incredibly obvious that there’s a doll in her hands. When she sits outside the Lincoln Memorial, it feels very staged. Several times throughout the hour, graphics pop up to show us technology, but it’s all superfluous. None of these give any insight into how a piece of equipment works, and the tech is talked about in such general terms that one wonders if these ‘experts’ know anything more than a customer service representative at Best Buy, or worse, your parents.

Fifth, the supporting cast is not strong. Our stars are joined by Charley Koontz (Community), Shad Moss (formerly known as the rapper Bow Wow), and Hayley Kiyoko (The Fosters). None have distinguished themselves before this, and arguably Koontz is the only one who does a serviceable job in this.

I did watch the entire pilot of CSI Cyber, and I am loathe to find a single reason to recommend this show to anyone. Even if you’re into this type of program, this is just about the worst example imaginable of how to make a series in the genre. Even the good actors don’t get to do anything anywhere near worthy of them. CBS is not known for their groundbreaking dramas, but CSI: Cyber represents a new low, forever tarnishing a respected brand and giving a bad name to the type or series it represents.

If you want a good laugh in the spirit of those who watch bad SyFy movies, as this show is barely a notch above them, and by taking itself seriously, may prove to be even worse, then check out CSI: Cyber, airing Wednesdays at 10 p.m. ET on CBS.

Formulaic Television: The Networks’ Disturbing Trend

Article first published as Formulaic Television: The Networks’ Disturbing Trend on Blogcritics.

I regularly use the terms “serial” and “procedural” when referring to the structure of scripted television shows. If you’re someone who even occasionally reads my work, you’ll know I consider one of these a dirty word. Unfortunately, looking at the current broadcast television landscape, there seems to be a disturbing trend, which spells doom for the Big Four network TV for a very long time.

First, some brief definitions. A procedural drama fits each week into it a relatively rigid structure, using a signature formula to solve a case or a mystery of some kind. It’s also known as a case-of-the-week program, and is widely used in cop and lawyer shows. (In science fiction series, it’s sometimes called “monster-of-the-week). A serial sets up a longer-running story, with a continuing narrative. If you skip an episode, you may be lost about where the plot is going. This is popular among soaps (including those pretending to be heavier dramas) and genre shows, as well as the type of high-quality fare that usually wins awards. I think you can guess which of the two I like.

I do appreciate procedurals occasionally, and they can be good–especially if they give the viewers something new. Castle and Bones are both well done, and the acting and writing teams have managed to conceal the procedural skeleton so well, a casual viewer might not even recognize they’ve being re-fed the same stuff over and over. But too often, procedurals are subject to uninspired, lazy storytelling, and they can be boringly repetitive.  And the format’s severe limitations hold it back, serving an entertainment meal too bland and of little value: the fast food of the television world.

Right now, procedurals rule the primetime schedules of the Big Four – CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. Occasionally, the networks have experimented, and some of the more successful experiments include the soapy like Grey’s Anatomy and genre hit Lost, but by and large, the the networks continue to mass produce the procedural. And they’ve suffered for it in the TV ratings game, as the Big Four have seen their numbers erode more each season.

Viewers continue to flee these broadcast networks in greater and greater numbers. Although some ratings erosion is natural (It is accepted that, as a rule, each subsequent year will have fewer viewers), the current benchmark is to avoid losing too many viewers each year to the next new thing. Forget about holding steady, let alone gaining. There are exceptions, of course, but few.

Ratings erosion is largely blamed on the number of choices currently out there, and that’s fair. With basic cable networks, including FX, USA, TNT, SyFy, MTV, AMC now producing original content along with premium networks HBO, Showtime, and Starz, and the new streaming-only kids on the block like Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix, the field is getting crowded. That’s not even mentioning the growing number of web series and YouTube shorts. There are, these days, a heck of a lot more choices for your television viewing enjoyment. 

House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men are among the series that people have gotten excited about, dominating social media, garnering critical acclaim and  awards show accolades. These series may never get the sort of conventional ratings the Big Four want (and need for advertisers), but they don’t have to please the advertisers–only the subscribers. It’s an advantage that an NCIS will never have.

The Big Four have been doubling down on their failed, losing model, and why not? Repetitive Procedurals get the most eyeballs, and NCIS, CSI, Law & Order: SVU, and Bones have been big winners for the broadcast networks in getting those important advertising dollars. However, the market for the the format may be shrinking, with younger viewers using new technology to seek out more relevant (and interesting) fare, and older viewers discovering that high-quality stuff is out there beyond the rabbit ears of broadcast.

The Walking Dead is a great example of this shift in viewing tastes. It is on basic cable, but pushes the boundaries of standard television fare. It’s gory and scary, but it also contains pathos and human emotion, with terrific character development and performances, and most importantly, the show makes you think. The Walking Dead is far from a procedural drama, yet, it gets more viewers than practically anything the Big Four are showing, and its audience grows every year. I’ve mentioned Game of Thrones, a soapy war of kings, that also achieves very high viewership (when you count the pirated copies that seem to be forever circulating). People are no longer content with just drivel.

Now, the best argument that can be made is that television networks care about money more than anything. Currently, the broadcast model gets the most out of commercials and ad sales, so they make more of the stuff that earns that immediate, direct income. However, this is not going to work over time. While there is still much struggle to monetize the way things are moving, there are subscription fees and other options, imperfect solutions, but not ineffective ones. Quality content can be charged for.

Over the next few years, this shift will continue, and the broadcast networks will fall further behind. Maybe they won’t even be relevant 20 years down the line. As the good stuff becomes more easily obtainable online and streaming to TVs, people won’t even consider checking out CBS, knowing they can find better elsewhere. When convenience reaches that tipping point, the Big Four will be left behind as a footnote of 20th Century entertainment.

Can the networks compete with all the cable and streaming fare? Sure. By taking the risk to produce the next Mad Men or The Walking Dead. Not all of network entertainment needs to be edgy and compelling, none of the cable nets air original programming every night in every slot. Let sports and reality and NCIS-style procedurals continue to pay the daily bills, but stop forcing Sleepy Hollow and Grimm to contort themselves to match some marketing VP’s model of “sure thing.”

At least, that’s my opinion. Feel free to add yours to the comments below.

Back to TV’s Roots

Article first published as Back to TV's Roots on Blogcritics.

Lately, television networks have flocked to remakes and reboots as much as the cinema has. Sometimes, it works well; other times, it’s a disaster. What could or should be remade, and how do those projects that deserve to see the light of day proceed?

Crime procedurals are typically easy to redo. There are a million CSIs and NCISs on the air, so it’s clear the genre is still popular, as puzzling as that is to many critics, myself included, who quickly grow bored with formula.

Hawaii Five-0 is entertaining because it’s set in a beautiful locale and has humorous dialogue mixed with big action. Ironside is a flimsy concept whose only real departure from the norm is that the main character is in a wheelchair, not exactly a novel twist. One of these is popular and has run for years, the other is likely to get canceled in the very near future.

NBC wants to bring back Murder, She Wrote, this time starring Octavia Spencer in the role made famous by Angela Lansbury. One one hand, Spencer is a fantastic actress (though so is Blair Underwood on Ironside) and deserves her own TV series. On the other, Lansbury is iconic in the role, still stuck in our minds many years after her cancellation. As good as Spencer is, overcoming the shadow of the great lady that came before her seems a daunting task, and thus I am not optimistic about the show lasting.

Angsty dramas are a mixed bag. Melrose Place showed us how not to do it, and 90210 lasted a few years not because it tapped in to the nostalgia of the previous generation who watched the original, but because it found a new (somewhat limited) audience and didn’t rely too heavily on history. Yet, Dallas has been my favorite in this category, continuing a familiar story, mixing beloved characters with new blood in a way that gives the series new life. The only question is if it can survive without star Larry Hagman, which remains a lingering mystery.

Sci-fi also can work, but rather than continuing, like Dallas does for its drama, the series must reinvent itself. Star Trek: The Next Generation and the other spin-offs built upon the original Star Trek, but also added a lot of new elements, coming into their own. V was interesting, and had it had stronger writing, it could have lasted longer than two years. Battlestar Galactica was fantastic, re-imagining the old version completely, and surpassing its origins.

The real reason I sat down to write this column today, though, is because of the news that the History Channel is redoing Roots. In my opinion, this is a horrible idea.

Roots was an extremely popular miniseries, which won a ton of awards. History, which has only recently entered the scripted fare market, has gotten good attention with its efforts so far. From the standpoint of its brand, I could see why they would pick this property as a contender to continue to build its slate.

However, have you watched the original Roots lately? It still holds up extremely well. And being as widely viewed as it was, and continues to be in high schools across America, it is still relevant in the public conscious. Most of the people tuning in to watch the new version will remember the old, and comparisons will be inevitable. Considering the very high quality standard the original set, this seems like playing with fire.

It’s a big risk, and one I would not recommend making, as much as I think it’s great when television takes risks. It’s like if someone decided to remake the Back to the Future films, or even the Harry Potter movies, in the next few years. It just isn’t a smart idea. The payoff, should it be accomplished successfully, could be pretty good, though it’s unlikely to reach the heights of the earlier broadcast, which aired at a time of much fewer channels and competition. It seems doomed to always be pegged as the lesser edition. And that’s the best case scenario. If it sucks, it could set History back considerably.

So I have a question for you, gentle readers. Actually two. What could History do to make Roots a win in your book, and what shows would you like to see remade?

My answer for the first is to cast LeVar Burton as the older version of Kunta Kinte, which would only be a smart move for Burton is the new project is awesome, but him signing on would automatically give it gravitas and attention. For the second, besides another Star Trek series, I’d like to see a grittier, more realistic, dramatic version of Gilligan’s Island. How about you? Weigh in in the comments below.

The Trouble With Football

Article first published as The Trouble With Football on Blogcritics.

 It's been a frustration of television fans for a long time that sometimes sports, mainly football, runs over into the favorite programming, pushing the broadcast time later. In the days before DVRs, one tuned in when the show was airing, anyway, and aside from possibly having to stay up a bit later, it wasn't that big a deal. But now that many record their shows, and don't check in on them when they are on, this has become a problem.

One side of the issue is that DVR technology has just not caught up with the real world. It's great to be able to record things, but often the schedule updates maybe once a day. Because the DVR does not track what is airing in real-time, it cannot make adjustments when the NFL teams take a bit longer than is scheduled.

I assume that the fix will ultimately come from DVRs being able to tell when this occurs. Until this happens, though, we are liable to miss the second half of The Good Wife, and I don't see that as an acceptable concession.

On a side note, if CBS would join the rest of the broadcast networks in the modern era and make their shows easily available to stream online, the problem would be less urgent. But since they focus on the older viewership, their main audience, they don't seem to be in any hurry to catch up with the times. And CBS has been the main offender for this problem lately.

One solution some DVR owners choose to pursue is to set their recording times a half hour or an hour longer. There are a couple of problems with that, though. Sunday night is arguably the biggest night of the week for TV, with cable channels such as HBO, AMC, and Showtime running their new installments mainly on this night, and ABC, CBS, FOX, and PBS competing, too. Most DVRs record two shows at once, and it takes away from other channels if you let one show record at double length. Also, unless you have one of the massive TiVos that can record hundreds of hours of HD programming, you might be concerned you don't have the space to hold more. (Disclosure: I do have a massive TiVo that can record four shows at once, and I still run into both of these things.)

But I think the sports run-over runs deeper than this. We, as a society, have decided that sports is the most important of all of the television programming, especially NFL football. It gets more viewers than anything else, makes more money from ads, and thus, gets the top priority. The network isn't about to cut off the end of the game for fear of angering the source of their income.

 Why is football so popular? Isn't it basically the same thing week after week? Guys run at each other and try to move a ball down the field. There won't be any exciting plot twists, and the memorable moments come few and far between. What is the draw?

We see this in scripted television, too, with CSI and NCIS topping the ratings, even though they virtually always stick to a single formula, with stand-alone installments. Is the point here that people want mindless escapism that they don't have to think about, and can tune in or not at their convenience, rather than scheduling their lives around it (for the most part)?

Why doesn't the cream rise to the top? Why don't the higher quality, more complex shows draw football ratings? This is a phenomena I will never understand, nor really have any desire to. It just disappoints and frustrates me that this is the reality we live in.

However, considering the two points this essay has made thus far, that DVRs aren't ready to adjust, and that football will always be given first dibs on the airwaves, isn't there something that can be done to solve the problem now?

The simple solution seems to be to schedule the football air times longer. Afterall, it's not unusual for the game to run longer than schedule. It's the norm, rather than the exception, for this to happen. Why not pad the time a little bit, and just let the post-game commentators ramble on a bit longer if the competition should end early? I really don't understand why this hasn't happened yet. It's so obvious!

That being said, if you do know why this can't be done, please weigh in on the comments below. Seriously.


This situation arises to my thoughts this week because of the Super Bowl. Yes, I'll TiVo it, like many, but I plan on fast forwarding through the game and just watch the commercials. However, more important than ads is the brand new episode of Elementary that airs after. I definitely do not want to miss any of that clever show! If you haven't seen it, check it out. It's very good.

Sure, this is the Super Bowl, and perhaps this is the one time of year that run-over can be excusable; after all, this is the Big One. But what is the excuse the rest of the year?

Want to read some of my fiction? It's on my website, JeromeWetzel.com! Also, for the latest updates and article links, as well as commentary on episodes I don't fully review, please follow me on Twitter!

Does TV, and CBS in particular, have too many crime dramas? Continue reading on Examiner.com Does TV, and CBS in particular, have too many crime dramas?

Cop shows. Crime dramas. Police procedurals. All of these are terms for a very familiar television trope. Many, many shows on the air feature a bunch of people in law enforcement investigating crimes, which are usually solved by the end of the hour. The people may vary, and different camera techniques and varying levels of humor may be used, but the simple fact remains that busting perps is a very common television series topic.

Most networks, especially the broadcast ones, available without a cable subscription, have their own version of this. FOX has "Bones." ABC has "Castle." NBC has "Grimm." But perhaps CBS is most guilty, filling the air waves with "CSI" and its spin-offs, as well as "Blue Bloods," "Hawaii Five-0," "Person of Interest," and now, as of last night, "NYC 22." The number of these programs beg the question: are there no original ideas left?

Television is often used as escapism. Some viewers, tired after a long day at work, wish for a form of mindless entertainment, where the good always triumphs over bad, and most issues are relatively black and white. But with so many options to fulfill this need, why do networks keep churning out program after program, adding more crime dramas to the schedule every year? Enough is enough. This quota has been met. Stop robbing the airwaves of fresh ideas.

Now, that is not an argument against getting rid of all crime shows. "The Killing" is a unique take, spending more than a season solving just one crime. Why not try more experiments like this? This is the polar episode of new series "NYC 22," which has nothing in the first episode that hasn't been done a hundred other times, and is the perfect example of why this needs to stop.

But that's not what the people want. It's the same reason the airwaves are flooded with mindless "reality" shows and singing competitions. Which makes people who care about quality weep, watching great, interesting, original series after great, interesting, original series bite the dust, while yet another one of these same-as-the-last cop shows gets renewed or ordered all of the time. Is this fair? Is this right? No, but that's not the way life is.

So what can be done? Well, stop watching the pulp, and start looking for shows that deserve your attention. Encourage your friends to do the same. Many people want to watch what others are watching so they can keep up with the conversation. Change starts somewhere. Let it be on your television screen.

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter!