Made (Not) in America

Article originally published as Made (Not) in America on Blogcritics.

It seems like there’s nothing new any more. The number of old shows being rebooted has skyrocketed in the past year (Coach, The X-Files, The Muppet Show, Full House, Boy Meets World, and Twin Peaks, to name just a few). But while restarting canceled American series is the current fad, the lack of originality is not confined to this arena.

Not long before this trend, remaking foreign shows had been the rage, too. Some of the more famous examples are Homeland, which was adapted from the Israeli series Hatufim, American Idol, based on Britain’s Pop Idol, The Killing, from Denmark’s Forbrydelsen, The Office, which became The Office, and Gracepoint, a remake of Britain’s Broadchurch, which even starred the same actor. Less successful examples abound: Life On Mars, Skins, Kath & Kim, and multiple attempts at Coupling. Even the U.S. classic All in the Family can trace its roots overseas, as it owes its DNA to the UK’s Till Death Do Us Part, not to mention Sanford and Son!

Although conventional reboots tend to copy the source material pretty directly, with series of foreign origin creators often get a little more creative. Americans don’t tend to watch other countries’ broadcasts (although the rest of the world watches our shows), and those not in English acquire even smaller U.S. followings. When American shows adapt, it tends to be with an eye toward bringing the series in line with “our own sensibilities,” or whatever executives think those are this week.

This has me wondering: what if other countries did the same thing? What if Lost was reset in Scandinavia? Or 24 in the Middle East?

So, without further ado (note: yes, these play on stereotypes, and no offense is intended.)

Lost: Denmark Style ~ A bunch of strangers are thrown together on an island. They don’t know each another, and their actions are steeped in mystery. The plot is often dense and confusing. Come to think of it, with darker lighting and slightly less humor (like, say, removing Hurley), the remake would be pretty much the same as the American version.

Law & Order: UK Style ~ This police and courtroom procedural is just like the American version, except with powdered wigs and fewer episodes per season. Each week, officers of the law work together to put a common criminal away. I don’t think anyone has done yet, right? I’d better run a Google search to make sure. (Oh, and fewer guns involved!)

Grey’s Anatomy: Mexico Style ~ At a hospital, a group of unnaturally hot doctors spend more time sleeping with one another than treating patients. Some of their number die in freaky, unbelievable accidents, and others learn of unknown siblings or hidden affairs at inconvenient times. Actually, just add a filter and some more dramatic music, and they can reuse the footage from ABC.

24: Israel Style ~ A single-minded hero goes after the enemies of the state, who are portrayed as flat, one-dimensional villains. Politicians get in the way, but the writers know what the viewers really want to see is action and torture in the name of patriotism. So it would differ from our 24 because, oh, um…

Hmm. Maybe we’re not so different after all.

All kidding aside, though, there are as many differences as similarities, if not more so. When Everybody Loves Raymond was sold internationally, changes had to be made to the material in order to make the laughs translate. Can you believe that the Russian writers didn’t even understand what a restaurant booth was because they don’t have them there?

American dramas tend to sell better than comedies overseas. Everyone can understand deep emotions, laughter, tears, and romance because these are universal concepts. Humor is much more subjective, and much of what we watch contains pop culture and societal references that aren’t echoed in other lands. If you’ve ever spent any time with British sitcoms, you’ll see what I mean. You may enjoy them, but it’s pretty obvious there are layers going on that we just don’t get with our frame of reference. Or, at least most of us don’t.

Globalization has started to blur or erase these lines. Every country has internet and every country has cell phones, at least to some extent. Developed, first-world nations have similar life styles, with shared technology and products. We are becoming more homogenous overall.

And yet, I Survived A Japanese Game Show, in which citizens of the U.S. underwent crazy challenges that would seem run-of-the-mill on Asian television, didn’t play well here. Residents of a country share a history that built world views a certain way and drives interests. As much as we may think we’re shaping our national conversation, its shaping us, too. People like the familiar, and if we’ve always done one thing a certain way and some place else has done it differently, there’s a fundamental chasm that must be bridged before understanding can happen.

Why bring this up now? On recommendation, I recently checked out Smartling, a translation software company, and they have a very cool service for businesses and websites. (No, they're not paying me to say this.) Connecting with people the world over has never been more important. Even more than finding a way to translate a humorous point of view, it's vital that the customers you're communicating with understand the words you are saying. Smartling can help with this, and as we get more and more global, this is definitely the type of help we all need in order to bring our services and products to a variety of places and people. They help drive this incredibly pertinent conversation.

I look forward to international television enjoyed the world over, but we have a long way to go before we really reach that point. For now, American studios rarely even give us the chance to get used to foreign styles, preferring to just remake a solid story with a bend towards what is already popular and known in this country. I don’t think TV is the medium that will bring us together, but will be very helpful to spread artistic masterpieces once that common mindset is found.

For now, I’d just settle for BBC America airing more than a small number of British programs and more foreign networks joining my cable package. If our producers can’t find a new idea, let’s try looking else elsewhere in the world, not just for inspiration, but to actually see what other people think. I think this is the easiest path back to freshness, at least for awhile. And it would do some of us good to read a few more subtitles.

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.

Was GRACEPOINT Worth It?

Article first published as Was 'Gracepoint' Worth It? on Blogcritics.



WARNING: If you intend to, but have not yet, watched the full first seasons of Broadchurch and Gracepoint, you’ll probably want to bookmark this column and come back after you’ve seen them. Major spoilers are contained within. You’ve been warned!

When FOX decided to remake the British series Broadchurch, starring the same lead actor no less, my first thought was, “Why?” The original is in English and was produced recently, a second season not even out yet. It’s also brilliant, a compelling, twisty drama with terrific acting and a gripping story. Now that all of Gracepoint has aired and a second season is a pipe dream, we are left with the question, was this project worth viewers’ time? Spoiler alert: my answer is no, definitely not.

The first thing that strikes me about Gracepoint‘s pilot is just how similar it is to Broadchurch. The producers deviated very minimally from the source material. The problem with that is, every time an element goes head-to-head in an obvious comparison, Broadchurch wins. Every single time. Why try to copy a successful series if you can’t do it better or offer a fresh viewpoint?

A large part of the inferiority stems from the cast. I’m not talking about David Tennant, who overcomes bad hair coloring and being forced to speak in an American accent to give us a performance that is essentially as good as when he played the role the first time. He’s a reliable, consistent, impressive actor. I’m also not talking about Anna Gunn. I love Olivia Colman and I wouldn’t say Gunn is better, but she’s as good and Gunn proves here that her Breaking Bad gig will be followed by a long, respectable career. Pretty much everyone else, though, especially the victim’s family, just do not stack up to the originals.

Had I not seen Broadchurch, I would likely have loved Gracepoint from the start. It’s a solidly-written story, and as I mentioned, the leads are terrific. The case has lots of mystery surrounding it, and it’s like an East Coast version of The Killing, a series I adore. Any cringe worthy moments in the early installments are purely colored by my memory of the first edition.

As the season unfolds, I do get drawn into Gracepoint. It doesn’t make many major changes, but it does have a couple of extra hours (being ten episodes instead of eight) to fill, so a bit of layering is added in. Around the mid-point, it starts to look like it may veer off entirely and be it’s own beast, and that gets me excited. I enthusiastically told a friend who was holding out to give it a chance. This experiment may end up being a good one to watch after all.

Then I arrive at this week’s season finale. From the start of the series, we had been promised a killer different than the one in Broadchurch. There is foreshadowing in earlier episodes that this will not be the case, but I assume the writers are being misleading, not truly setting up the reveal. Halfway through the finale, Gracepoint had returned to a nearly carbon-copy of Broadchurch and the same perpetrator is arrested.

After that, there is a big twist in that the person who is charged didn’t actually kill the boy. But he’s still guilty of criminal acts and deserves to rot in jail. I guess this is how Gracepoint gets around the “same killer” charge, but it feels like a technicality more than an actual change, just broadening the circumstances surrounding the death a little more, rather than making it drastically different.

I do believe that if Gracepoint were to get a second season, there is the possibility to overcome the comparison issue. The fact that Danny’s best friend accidentally does the deed, his child molester father is (nobly?) taking the blame, and his mother is covering up the true crime are all rich veins to tap. Danny’s mother’s partner clearly grows suspicious of the outcome at the end, threatening to put fixing his life on hold, though he definitely should not, to further pursue the case. But since the running time of the season is almost out at this point, there’s no time to really explore any of that, and Gracepoint ends on a semi-cliffhanger that will most likely never be resolved because the ratings are pretty bad.

Without this further exploration, most interestingly Ellie (Gunn) hiding things from Carver (Tennant), Gracepoint doesn’t have a lot to set it apart from Broadchurch. If the original had been subtitled, one may argue Americans are too lazy to read them. If the shows went completely separate ways in their second years, a case could be made that they really are different stories. If we lived in a pre-Internet age and Americans didn’t have easy access to the original version, it would be somewhat, flimsily arguable to make our own, homegrown, series. As it stands now, though, Gracepoint is an inferior copy of an easily obtainable show with very few significant differences. So what was the point?

No official word on Gracepoint‘s renewal has been released, but I’m pretty sure it’s not coming back, and it does not really deserve to do so.

Broadchurch season two premieres in February on BBC America. Please check it out.

When Fans Do It Better

Article first published as When Fans Do It Better on Blogcritics.

We are in an era of constant remakes and sequels. Everything old is new again, and aging properties, from the popular to the obscure, keep getting new life. Sometimes, this is good, such as in the case of Star Trek‘s film reboot and the revival of British TV favorite Doctor Who. But for every win, there are plenty of losers, such as Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties, and, perhaps most egregious, the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie, currently in theaters.

I grew up a TMNT fan. Not the original comics by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, which the purist worships, but the hokey cartoon and live-action films with guys in costumes. Perhaps these properties don’t hold up today, but they were beloved to me. As one of four brothers, at one point we boys all had pajamas in the design of each of the turtles as befitting our personalities, more or less (I was Donatello, the geeky, peace-maker, brain). We enjoyed their sarcastic humor and not-so-realistic fighting skills, playing with their action figures, and endlessly copying them for hours. And I got dragged to the 2007 animated movie, which is actually pretty cool.

I understand that the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles may not be for me. After all, if the previous efforts, beloved by young me, aren’t any good on a re-watch from an older perspective, they could very well be in the same vein as what Nickelodeon is doing with the property today, now with Michael Bay-explosions, giant plot holes, inconsistent characters, and Megan Fox trying to act, the latter not as bad as expected, but still far from good. It’s painful to watch something from my childhood destroyed by such an awful film, which I groaned and suffered through recently. The fact that the movie is making loads of money at the box office only rubs salt in the wound.

The thing is, while I only enjoyed the for-kids version of the story, one of my oldest and best pals, podcaster and webcomic author Nick Arganbright, is and long has been pretty obsessed with the comics, so I did eventually read them. They are sharply written with a distinctive, unique style. They may not be my cup of tea, but I respect them from the quality they clearly exhibit, and it’s a shame they’ve been bastardized so badly.

Now, while Hollywood may not always be faithful to the source material, the Internet has provided a place for fans to go and remake the series in their own way, distributing it to others who share their interest. Fan-faction has been around for a very long time, but seems to be much more prevalent today, and easier to get a hold of. Some of it is great, much of it is crap, and almost none of it is blessed by the original creator, which makes the ethics of it questionable and a genre I typically stay away from it.

However, every once in awhile, some fan boy gets it right more so than the official entity in charge of the franchise. Nick, whom I mentioned above who loves TMNT, has an effort called Ultimate Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and it’s good! It fits the spirit and personalities of the old comics extremely well, capturing the essence that the producers in charge now get so wrong. Speaking with those who care more for the original stuff than I do, I’m not the only one who thinks so. Nick writes the script and pays artist Eryck Webb to draw the pages, and he gets to see what he dreams of for his favorite series, regardless of whether or not a studio or publisher will ever make it good again.

The question is, should he be allowed to do this? And should more take up the cause for their own favorites? That’s hard to say. I have no problem with people wanting to let their imaginations run free, and even using already established characters and universes. This helps the mind develop story-telling skills, and can be a step to making up your own works as you analyze the positives and negatives, learning from what the ‘real’ version gets right and wrong.

But, in this particular case, which is a rarity, what this author is doing seems so much better and more true than other fan-fiction. Nickelodeon dropped the ball, and he picked it up and hit a grand slam with it. Obviously, he cannot profit from someone else’s ideas, and he’s not trying to, mindful of the law. But when some guy in a basement can write it better, shouldn’t he be permitted to do so?

The main problem here is not that UTMNT exists; any fan of the Teenage Mutant Turtles should be glad to find it. The problem is sorting through all the junk out there to find the gem. And the other problem is that our current system doesn’t always mean that best minds get to make the decision, which results in the obscenity that is currently in theaters. I don’t know how to solve such issues, but when there’s an example this glaring, it certainly highlights what’s broken. I guess it’s up to you to decide for yourself if Nick and others like him are a possible solution and should be promoted as such.

Throne Beseiged By Pirates

Article first published as 'Game of Thrones' Pirates on Blogcritics.

For years now, online piracy has been on the rise. The very public spectacle of the demise of MegaVideo aside, there doesn’t seem to be much stopping it, as virtually any television show or movie that has been publicly released can be found somewhere on the web for free. True, you may have to wade through false links and spam and viruses to find a program, but it’s out there.

Part of the trouble is a lack of available, convenient legal options. CBS has the worst record of online offerings of the Big Four broadcast networks, which is likely it has two shows in the top ten most pirated of 2013. Most cable networks don’t offer any streaming service at all, so AMC’s Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, History’s Vikings, and Showtime’s Homeland and Dexter also rank quite high on the list.

These are quality shows that appeal to the younger demographic who most engage in piracy, but were there another easy option, many would not. Even for those networks that put their stuff on the web through one portal or another, access must be easier. Hulu and official show websites usually force one to watch commercials. While I know commercials pay for programming, those used to DVRs have given them up and aren’t about to go back. Netflix gets away with a subscription, rather than ads. How about using that model, or putting more current shows on the service?

Personally, I will admit to having pirated stuff, but only rarely. The exceptions I make are if a DVR recording is screwed up, the air time is unexpectedly pushed late by sports so the ending is cut off, or the broadcast is interrupted for weather alerts or the like. The latter two, I feel completely justified, blaming the network for messing with my show, and I’m usually only missing a few minutes. Because it’s a short bit, I’m certainly not paying for it again (I already pay plenty for cable), and don’t even think of it as wrong. For the first example, though, a missed recording, which is usually a full episode, I do seek legal means first, such as buying the episode on Amazon, and only pirate if I can’t find it.

Now everyone’s barometer on what’s acceptable is different, and I’m sure my reasoning is more conservative than most, though some will say piracy should not be practiced under any circumstances. It’s become a grey area, and while the law may disagree that it should be, it’s impractical at this point to cut it out completely, so instead, steps should be taken to not drive viewers to it. At least, not those who want to behave.

Piracy is only getting worse, and in the Internet age, it’s nearly impossible to stop it. Once the video file is removed from one site, it pops right back up somewhere else. I’m certainly not excusing this terrible behavior; as much as I want as many people as possible to watch fantastic entertainment like Game of Thrones, viewers should also be prevented from stealing it. But if it’s going to continue, the networks simply have to find a way to make it a less attractive option.

Some claim piracy is a victimless crime. This is not true. I don’t believe it hurts anyone for me to grab the end of The Good Wife on an illegal site because CBS still inexplicably doesn’t know how to figure out football scheduling decades after it started. But frequently grabbing shows online through less than savory means takes away from not just the big studios and networks, but the working actors, creative team, and even the same viewers who are illegally watching. Don’t understand that last category? I’ll explain.

According to at least one report, HBO’s Game of Thrones was the most pirated show of the year, with the 5.9 million illegal views nearly equaling the 6.1 million that tuned in properly. This is a crying shame.

Besides being an awesome series, it’s also one that deserves to be paid for. With that many people opting out of the subscription price, the budget cannot be nearly what it should be. The production team does a good job with what they have, but it could be better without piracy. There have been memorable sequences from the books slashed by the series because of the prohibitive cost of filming them. Can you imagine if those 5.9 million all signed up for HBO, at least for a couple of months out of the year? Game of Thrones could be a much more faithful adaptation on an even grander scale.

So those who pirate Game of Thrones are hurting themselves. Stop trying to skirt the system, guys! The pirates are taking advantage of all of us who do pay for HBO, and who are stuck subsidizing the series for the rest of the viewers, as well as lowering the amount of money that can be spent making it as good as it can be.

One way HBO could reduce piracy is to offer the episodes for sale on a service such as iTunes or Amazon, or offer online HBOGo subscriptions for sale. However, this is complicated by a number of factors, not least of which is that cable companies have a vested interest in not allowing viewers to get to the shows any way other than the traditional model. Complaining about those cable companies could fill several more columns, HBO needs to break away from its conventional model.

In the end, I hope those who’ve illegally downloaded Game of Thrones episodes feel bad enough to eventually stop doing it. So, let’s make them feel bad for doing it and shame them into wearing the white hat. If you have a friend who steals what you pay for, tell them how angry it makes you.

They are robbing you, and you have every right to smack them around (metaphorically speaking) for it. Our culture is too permissive of this particular sin, and it’s time we stop sitting by and allowing it. Perhaps cutting off fingers for piracy, as Stannis Baratheon did to Davos the Onion Knight, is a little extreme. But speak up. If you see something, say something. (To the individual, anyway; I’m not advocating calling the cops.)


The next time, I want to see Tyrion lead the army in battle, not get knocked out and wake up after the action is over!

Why ‘Once Upon a Time’ Is the New ‘Lost’ : Part Deux

Article first published as Why ‘Once Upon a Time’ Is the New ‘Lost’ : Part Deux on Blogcritics.

I began my Jerome-ing the TV Landscape column just about a year ago, and for my 25th column, I decided to go back and revisit the very first. Entitled Why Once Upon a Time Is the New Lost, it examines the similarities between the ABC shows, which share writers and producers. After watching last night’s Once Upon a Time mid-season finale, the parallels are even more striking, providing new fodder to muse over, without repeating the same points as before.

At the end of season three of Lost, the Oceanic Six left the island. This was a huge deal because it took many of the main characters home and turned a corner in the storytelling, focusing less on the characters’ pasts and more on the present and future. In fact, when talking about the series as a whole, this makes a very specific break, and Lost can be discussed as two separate halves that fit together nicely.

Once Upon a Time is only midway through its third year, but something very similar has happened. As the most recent episode ends, Emma (Jennifer Morrison) and Henry (Jared Gilmore) leave Storybrooke, their memories wiped, and everyone else returns to the Enchant Forest. This effectively find the characters split up and returning home, which obviously ruins the premise of the show.

“We have to go back!”

Those words, echoed repeatedly by Jack (Matthew Fox) on Lost apply. The aforementioned episode doesn’t even close out before Hook (Colin O’Donoghue) is knocking on Emma’s door, trying to tell her that the family she doesn’t remember is in danger. Emma is the Savior, as Jack was, and they have to be where the action is in order to save the day. I don’t know how Emma will get back and if that journey will be quick (it’s likely to be a great deal easier for her than it was for Jack, though both south places not on any map), but that has to be an immediate focus when the show is next on the air.

A hero’s accomplishments are not just given, they must be earned. Emma has done a few notable things, such as breaking the original curse, but she hasn’t really lived up to her power or potential yet. I do not know if this will be her moment, but it seems an opportune time, based on the tiny bit of magic we’ve seen her produce before now and her being in a unique position, outside of the Enchanted Forest, to do things those within surely cannot.

Plus, Emma’s choice between Hook and Neal (Michael Raymond-James) is eerily similar to Kate’s (Evangeline Lilly) decision of Jack or Sawyer (Josh Holloway). You could compare Emma to Jack, who had Kate or Juliet (Elizabeth Mitchell), but the swarthy, smarmy Hook is absolutely a Sawyer, so I like the first triangle better.

This entire fall run, in which a number of main characters were in Neverland instead of Storybrooke, feels like when several of the castaways went back in time and worked for the Dharma Initiative in the 1970s. They were separated from their friends, but their actions were still relevant to the normal setting. They were in an unfamiliar place, but adapted as they needed to in order to get by, biding their time until they could get home.

Of course, the daddy of all comparisons is that of daddy issues. Lost‘s Jack and Christian (John Terry) have nothing on Rumple (Robert Carlyle) and Peter Pan (Robbie Kay). There is some death and disapproval involved, but the most similar thing about both is that a father and son just can’t get along, since one show takes things to a whole other plane above the other. A plane that won’t crash like Oceanic 815 did.

Emilie de Ravin was benched twice. Granted, Lost left her out her for an entire season and Once Upon a Time just skipped most of the fall episodes, but still, she was missing and her absence was felt.

Lastly, as OUAT fans saw in the preview for the spring return, Rebecca Mader, a Lost alum, will be playing the Wicked Witch of the West. Funnily enough, Lost also contained Wizard of Oz references, with Ben (Michael Emerson) originally claiming his name was Henry Gale.

Sadly, Once Upon a Time still falls short of Lost. Even in the best of episodes, there are usually lots of places to poke holes in the writing or the continuity on OUAT. Yet, it remains an entertaining series, so should it never rise to Lost‘s lofty heights, it doesn’t shame its forefather, either.

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.

How To Be a TV Reviewer

I use Grammarly for free proofreading because I feel bad he was left out of Snow White.

Yep, this post is sponsored by Grammarly, which I just discovered, but appears to be a very cool site.

How does one get into the field of television reviewing? There are a variety of ways to do so, but since I've written around 2,000 articles in the past four years, I thought it might be nice to give some tips for newbies interested in breaking into the business.

First of all, I prefer the term 'TV reviewer' over 'TV critic.' This is because critics seem to have gotten a bad reputation over the years, often considered snobby, elitist, and judgmental, in a bad way. Yes, it's our job to evaluate things, but in my opinion, the best critics are fans who encourage and celebrate success, rather than those bent on tearing down. This is a personal opinion, not an across-the-board requirement, but it does inform the tips I offer below.

Watch what you like. I will review any new show that premieres, but I only keep reviewing the ones I enjoy. Once a bad review is given for a "Pilot," there is no need to keep slamming that same show on a regular basis. Negativity may get attention, but I don't think it earns you fans or followers, and to survive as a writer, you must build a following. People like others who share their interests, not those who are against them.

Engage with fellow fans. If someone tweets at you on twitter, reply. Most of us like to feel included or like part of a group. A TV reviewer who participates in the community is more likely to have others pass on their work or regularly read it. Always be kind, gracious, and willing to chat (online, at least) about new episodes of the latest show. This tip goes double for commenters posting on your articles, offering their own opinions and insights. Nothing attracts more viewers to your article than a lively, respectful debate. Which brings us to...

Don't engage rude behavior. This is a lesson I definitely learned the hard way. The first few times someone wrote something mean about one of my articles, I responded angrily, personally offended. This is what a classic bully wants, to spark a reaction. It does no one any favors, and makes the responder look as bad as the antagonist. I know it's hard at first, but just ignore the insults, and if there's a grain of real criticism or critique with that, feel free to reply specifically to that point in a polite, open-minded manner. Maybe you can even win a little respect if you stay classy. Just deleting out-of-line comments when possible is also fine.

Be fair. It's OK to not like a series and to say so, especially in your first and only review for it. However, giving blanket criticism without backing up your assertions is a bad move. I figured this out when lambasting The Mentalist, whose fans rose to its defense. Any complaint you lay out, you must give supporting details to what you say. People may not agree with you, but at least you look like you've thought about it and reasoned your opinion, rather than being a detestable flamer.

Write often. I know reviewers who write a lot for a little bit, burn themselves out or get busy with other things, and disappear, as well as those that just can't built momentum to keep going. The key is to write some every day, but not so much so that you don't feel like writing. Get in the habit of setting aside a portion of your day, preferably the same time every day, and just write about anything you've been watching. Once it becomes part of your regular routine, it becomes a mostly easy task to keep up with.

Say yes to everyone... at first. Starting out, the key is to get your work posted somewhere, anywhere. There are plenty of reputable, intelligent websites that do not pay, but are a good forum to be on. I wrote many unpaid articles starting out, for several different websites. I always found the owners of those sites to be appreciative and gregarious, and they'll usually understand, without hard feelings, if you move on to better offers later. Even examiner.com, which is rotten to its writers (trust me, I wrote for them for awhile), is fine for someone just trying to get started.

Don't expect to quit your day job. It would be lovely to be a full-time writer, but there are very few who ever make it as such. Even now, writing for three different websites that offering varying levels of pay, past my days of writing for free, it's little more than some extra entertainment money in the budget. I also have a donate button on my website, and I would be grateful if my readers started using it, but it's very, very difficult to get to the point where you can do it and earn a living, and it requires a lot of luck along the way, too. If you ever find a sure-fire way to do this, please share it with me. I'd love to know.

Don't be a snob. As I mentioned, critics have a reputation for looking down their noses at populist entertainment. I admit, it's hard to see reality TV or a crime procedural as being worth my time because I spend so much time with higher-quality stuff, and this is still a point I struggle with. However, it doesn't hurt you in the slightest to keep your mouth shut about people who enjoy this kind of entertainment, and you can usually write about good work without pointing out the bad.

Find your own voice. My voice is one that has a little speculation, but mostly likes to focus on a handful of details that were seen on screen. Others prefer to predict what may occur next. Still others are more recap driven, not wanting to get into what they think as much. If you're going to do this consistently for any length of time, you have to find a style that is true and honest to yourself, something you can be proud of.

Have fun. It may not be fun every day, and occasionally it may feel like a chore. But if you dread writing several articles a week every week, TV reviewing may just not be for you. It's for those with a passion and a drive in a very specific field. This doesn't describe everyone, and that's OK. Now, I'd prefer to be writing fiction, myself, but I still greatly enjoy viewing and evaluating shows, so it doesn't have to be the best thing in the world to you, but still a job you appreciate. I recommend finding something you enjoy, not just going through the motions. People can often tell when you do that, and it doesn't work for anyone.

I hope these tips help, or offer a little motivation for those on the fence. I'm on twitter @JeromeWetzelTV and my main website, jeromewetzel.com, has links to all my work. Feel free to reach out to me any time about any topic, and I look forward to seeing you all on the web. Happy writing!

TV Neglects Independence Day

Article first published as TV Neglects Independence Day on Blogcritics.

Think of all of the best television holiday specials of your favorite shows. Christmas will spring to mind, for sure, as will Christmas and Halloween. Possibly, a little Valentine’s Day thrown in for good measure. But who celebrates the 4th of July?

Despite being a major national holiday, the 4th of July falls in the summer months, when network television is taking a break, and so is rarely, if ever, covered on scripted television. True, series in the United States don’t actually air fresh episodes on Christmas or New Year’s, either, but they get close enough to make it work. Besides a few weirdos like this past season of Community, though, most of television tends to keep the action in the appropriate season that the story airs.

Why? A year doesn’t equal a year in many series, and Christmas episodes get the rerun treatment all year ’round. Why is 4th of July so off limits? It’s a celebration of our nation’s birth, and deserves recognition along with the others.

Next year, broadcast television is making inroads into the warm months by airing new episodes of Glee and 24 past the end of May. Combined with the growing popularity of summer cable shows, there is plenty of opportunity to celebrate our country’s independence. Here are some possible ideas on what could be done. Television writers, feel free to run with them, royalty free. Readers, feel free to toss in your own ideas in the comments below.

24 – Jack Bauer is an American hero fighting the terrorists who seek to harm America. What better day for the bad guys to strike to ruin our spirit and morale than the 4th of July? Perhaps next season, which will unfold over the course of a day, could be set on July 4th. Jack is being honored for his deeds, which have come to light after a media hacking scandal, but the party is cut short when a bomb is found on the Washington Mall. And then bio weapons are released in the Capital. And then a mole is found inside CTU. And then the president’s daughter is kidnapped. And then…

Community – In the January season premiere, Greendale is invaded by City College and conquered in an episode set in June, shortly after most of the students (save all of our favorite starring and recurring players) have left town. Then, in February sweeps, it’s the 4th of July, and the study group leads the fight for independence. The Dean dresses as Rosie the Riveter to support the suppliers, and Chang goes undercover as a spy for both sides. In the end, though, it’s Jeff’s big speech that saves the day, evoking much swooning from Nurse Annie.

The Daily Show / The Colbert Report – Have the week off.

Falling Skies – Aliens are attacking on July 4th, which coincidentally is also the New United States’ birthday, honoring the formation of an official rebel army. President Tom Mason tries to enjoy the day with his family, but not only can’t sit still when the perimeter is breached, but leads the attack personally, in which one of his sons is injured, but survives. A couple of supporting characters are killed, then laid to rest in a public funeral, complete with a new style of American flag.

Glee – The New Directions have won Nationals and come home to celebrate with a patriotic theme. Alumni return, mashing up the traditional tunes with modern pop. For some reason, the cast is still hanging out in the school building. Unfortunately, Sue, fed up with our government and authority in general, joins the Tea Party and tries to bring her own values to McKinley, unless they kids warm her heart with some Woodie Guthrie.

The Newsroom – Tired of the way the political parties are bickering and causing strife, Will broadcasts an emotionally moving monologue that laments the way things used to be and encourages everyone to get back into the patriotic spirit. Leona is furious because Will slams a couple of major sponsors during his tirade, the Republicans are furious because he trivializes their positions, and the Democrats are furious because he isn’t hard enough on the Republicans. Sloan is asked in an interview about the treatment of Asian Americans during World War II, and when she complains it hasn’t gotten much better, there’s serious blow back that could cost her her job. Jim and Maggie slip away and have a romantic time watching the fireworks on the roof, until Don shows up and ruins the mood.

True Blood – Arlene and Terry take the kids to a 4th of July parade, and Terry notices something strange that he doesn’t mention to anyone. And that’s the only part of the hour that even vaguely touches on the holiday, as the rest of the episode is spent on the season’s eight large arcs, spread out among the thirty main characters.

DVD Return Policies Need a Change

Article first published as DVD Return Policies Need a Change on Blogcritics.

It’s been awhile since I tried to take a Blu-ray or DVD purchase back to the store. I remember a time when it was possible to return or exchange an unopened DVD, even without a receipt, for at least store credit. If a disc was opened and damaged, I could swap it out for a new copy. Merchants were accommodating and nice, making sure we got a good product and they got the sale. It made everyone happy, and produced loyal return business.

Sometime over the years, this has changed. I discovered this the ugly way last week when trying to swap out a Blu-ray combo pack I had received as a gift for the 3D version. Although I did not have a receipt, I didn’t think exchanging a mint-condition, unopened package, still in the plastic wrap, would be a problem.

Boy was I wrong!

First, I went to Best Buy, but without a receipt, I was turned away immediately. I was surprised, assuming that my local brick-and-mortar store would be the go-to place for excellent customer service. On this day, there were no apologies or well wishes, just a firm “No.”

Assuming this an anomaly, as, after all, big chains have lots of locations and employees, I called another location. This clerk was much friendlier, but again I was told that it would not be possible to exchange without a receipt. I trudged on.

But I had the same experience at Walmart. The customer service lady at Meijer was super nice and even brought a 3D copy to the counter, but before the transaction was completed, a manager stepped in and cut it off, telling me that store policy required a receipt. Target said they would exchange it, but didn’t have any 3D copies available at this time. I really didn’t want to wait the two weeks.

The more stores I contacted, the more I realized that this has become an industry-wide practice. I was completely confused and shocked. Why couldn’t they take my perfectly good, unused copy and put it back on the shelf? I was certainly willing to pay the price difference for a 3D version, but was not willing to drop $35 on a new copy of a film I already owned (albeit not in 3D).

Wanting to understand, I finally talked to a couple of friends who work at retailers not mentioned here. Both informed me that stores cannot resell a returned copy, no matter how pristine it is. It has to go back to the manufacturer, but that cannot be done with a disc not originally in a retailer’s inventory. And not having a receipt, I couldn’t prove which retailer my disc it came from.

In an age where viewers are increasingly shifting their focus to digital versions, and buying fewer physical copies than ever, why make things so much more restrictive for purchasers? I would certainly understand if a store declined to exchange an opened package, but when the one in my hand looks exactly the same as the one on the shelf, why can’t an exchange be made? To me, it is simply a case of bad customer service, and a policy that makes life more difficult for consumers, at a time when people can easily obtain the video without leaving their home, either legally or illegally, there will be little reason for people to return to stores.


In 2013, it feels like customer service is slipping in a great many areas. I just didn’t think it had reached these levels of ridiculous yet. All the more reason to stay home and find another, more practical use for your money.

At least, don’t accept the status quo. If you’re a customer and you can’t get what you want, don’t buy anything at all. I didn’t happen to spend money personally on this title, but I do purchase plenty of other releases. Now, I will think twice about which ones I buy, and from where I buy them. If you run store chain, push back against such terrible policies; they will cost you business. And if you happen to be an industry decision maker, think carefully about the direction in which the industry is heading, and don’t make dumb moves that will hurt everyone involved.

Fickle TV Fans

Article first published as Fickle TV Fans on Blogcritics.

I am always baffled by the behavior of fickle fans. I’m talking about those who abandon a series quickly or without logical reason. Sometimes series do go downhill and, in that case, it’s understandable to jump ship. But when the writing and acting remains at a certain standard, and it’s not a procedural that just gets old because it’s the same thing week after week, why do viewers tune out?

The most recent big example of this phenomenon in recent memory involves AMC’s The Killing. After a critically acclaimed freshman run, people were outraged when the murder was not solved at the end of the year. Thousands of watchers, if not more, took to the Internet to pour out their hurt feelings, claiming to have been betrayed or cheated by the series they loved.

Why? The show never promised to tie things up in a year. I believe many jumped to the conclusion that it would be once the case wasn’t closed in the first episode because that’s what made sense and was predictable. But there was never a stated contract that this would be the case.

Taking two seasons to solve the murder was a bold and brilliant move, but The Killing paid dearly for it. Because it didn’t kowtow to an expected formula, viewers punished it with much lower ratings in year two, which resulted in the (thankfully not permanent) cancellation of the series.

As someone who loved both seasons, and was thrilled that The Killing was daring enough to take twenty-six hours to investigate a single murder, I became quite disappointed and baffled with the behavior. Why did anyone feel betrayed? We got more of the same high quality story we were loving! And by really taking its time, The Killing let the story breathe so much more than the typical crime show. It was able to really get inside the heads of those involved in the case and how a family deals with such tragedy.

But that was last year, and The Killing does get to live on, albeit as a slightly neutered version of itself that has to promise to end the latest case by the close of the season.

The more immediate example, which I find even more disturbing, is the way fans have quickly turned on HBO’s Game of Thrones after last week’s penultimate installment, “The Rains of Castamere,” in which several pivotal, main characters were slaughtered at an event known as The Red Wedding. In the past week, people took to facebook and twitter, lamenting their broken relationship with author George R.R. Martin and the series, vowing to be done watching it.

Now, as I write this, the ratings for last night’s season finale have not been released, but already reviews and rankings have not been nearly as positive as before, which worries me. I feel like the negative feedback is part of the backlash from last week, not an actual judgment on the season’s conclusion, which was a very typical episode.

Game of Thrones is one of TV’s biggest series, certainly when compared to other cable networks. This has worked out well because it is such an expensive show to make. Yet, as the three seasons have played out, more and more viewers have gotten on board and sang the show’s praises. A dramatic falling of the numbers could put the future of the show in jeopardy.

Game of Thrones is a little different from The Killing because it is based on a book series, and more or less follows the author’s already-published story. Those who previously read two thick volumes knew of this event before it happened, and I feel like the negativity is coming more from those who have only watched the show, not expecting something so brutal to occur. So it’s the casual “fan,” not the diehard, that is doing the snubbing.

Yet, Game of Thrones has always been nothing if not cruel. Other characters have been taken out without warning, too, and violence and death are routine components of the tale. Ned Stark’s execution in season one’s penultimate offering is a great example of the same type of twist. Why are people so upset now? Yes, they’ve had more time to get to know these characters, so their deaths are harder to deal with than Ned’s, but because death is built into the fabric of the show, it should not be so surprising.

Should Game of Thrones suffer the same drop-off in viewers as The Killing, this could scare away makers of high quality television. Lost weathered the slings and arrows a few years back and still got to finish on its own terms, but with cable stretching into more creative realms, they risk both great reward and great loss. Could this be the beginning of the end for such clever storytelling?

I sincerely hope not. I know things like this, killing off beloved characters in graphic ways, can take people out of their comfort zones, and many people don’t want to be disturbed. However, in an era when so much has already been done before, such bravery should be rewarded, not derided. If you watch Game of Thrones, I urge you to stand against the haters. The fate of the Seven Kingdoms, and great television, could be in jeopardy, and we cannot allow that to happen.

And if you are one of those who have turned your back on the fantasy series, please explain to me why in the comments below. I just don’t understand it, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Let the world know what you are looking for in a show, and why you would suddenly be against something you once loved. Perhaps through understanding, writers might know better how to serve your interests.

When Good Shows Go Bad

Article first published as When Good Shows Go Bad on Blogcritics.


NBC's The Office was once one of the most praised, funniest sitcoms on network television. Community, on the same channel, was a brilliant, creative, original show that broke all the traditional bounds of what sitcoms were capable of. FOX's House was an intelligent character study wrapped in a medical procedural. What do these all have in common? They were great shows that fell apart in the end.

Although I list House, which I still enjoyed through to the end, even if I admit I see the point many make about the creative sagging of the final couple of years, this is usually more of a sitcom problem. A show that is funny and beloved will frequently age and tarnish. I think it's something about a certain type of comedy that just begins to wear thin over time. Jokes are only good for so long, and then they stop getting a laugh out of us. If a comedy series doesn't adapt and grow with its audience, rather than deliver the same thing over and over again, it begins to wither and die.

This isn't a new phenomenon. Many criticized Friends as it approached its end, frustrated with an unrealistic Joey / Rachel romance. The Seinfeld series finale is renowned for how much it disappointed fans. But it's also not going away, as The Office and Community prove. A show that once delighted can go sour.

Perhaps it's a lack of passion. A new show runner may feel edgy and their creative juices may flow, but they can get tired after awhile of working with the same characters and premises. Or new writing staffs may come in and just not understand what makes the characters tick.

The latter is definitely true for Community. Abed used to be the linchpin that made the series work. Even in the installments that could be considered filler, his keen eye and specific viewpoint always made things rise above what seemed to be happening on the surface. Now in its fourth year, with series creator Dan Harmon ousted from the project, Abed is easily the worst character in the ensemble, and the show suffers mightily for it. It may go off the air for good this week, with no fanfare and a very unsatisfying ending.


The Office, on the other hand, is taking its victory lap. It struggled to find its way after losing the star of the show, Steve Carell, and his wonderful Michael Scott. After over a year of floundering, the team threw in the towel and began gearing up to send the characters grandly off into the sunset. It's made the show seem a little better, with the players having some direction and the plot getting movement. But it's curtain call, which, while well deserved, should have come much earlier.

A series can pull itself out of a creative rut. After several strong initial seasons, CBS's How I Met Your Mother spiraled into unfunny drivel for a few years. It clawed its way back to being good by adding emotional heft. This was present in the beginning of the show, of course, before disappearing, but now it's the bread and butter of every installment, with the drama being of a far better quality than the comedy. Even as the final push begins, as next season will be its last, all the major stories are based on pathos, not gags.

But reinvention isn't always possible. Sometimes it's better just to end things, whether the show's story gets tied up or not. NBC pulled Heroes after a fourth season cliffhanger, and ABC didn't give Brothers & Sisters its due five years in. But neither of these series were worth watching anymore, and the networks decided to cut their losses and move on. This outraged fans, but most soon forgot about it.

Maybe we'll never know exactly why our favorite shows can't remain our favorite shows forever. For every Lost and Battlestar Galactica, which maintained quality through the finish line, even with polarizing swan songs, there are plenty like The X-Files or Veronica Mars, which just never recaptured what once made them so special. I'm sorry Veronica Mars fans, I've donated to the Kickstarted campaign and am greatly looking forward to the film, but it's true that each of the three seasons was weaker than the one before it. Storytelling is a tricky thing.


I do think series tend to be better if they maintain one creative vision. Gilmore Girls and The West Wing faltered after losing their guiding person (though the latter eventually found its stride again). A single voice having control allows better consistency than a production team; ask George R.R. Martin. However, if The Walking Dead can continue to thrive, even though it is now on its fourth show runner, this can't adequately explain away the phenomenon.

Taste is not only varied, it is fickle. Catching lightening in the bottle takes a high degree of skill and luck, but to cultivate that lightening and to not let it burn out for one hundred and fifty or two hundred episodes is a very rare feat. Maybe this could be solved with shorter seasons, like the cable channels tend to do, as you'll notice I've mainly talked about programs on the broadcast networks. But systems are slow to change, and there doesn't seem to be movement on that front.

Awesome television that doesn't age well will always be a part of life, sadly. For now, I guess we just enjoy what's good while it lasts.

When Series Break Genre

Article first published as When Series Break Genre on Blogcritics.

Glee shocked many this week, when, in the middle of another goofy choir room scene, shots broke out in the halls of McKinley. For a full 10-minute act, students cowered and cried, terrified for their lives, not sure if they would soon be dead. They made videos to say goodbye to their loved ones, and a teacher even risked his life to save some students.

The fact that it was a false alarm, and no one was hurt, is incidental. For those minutes, viewers sat on the edge of their seats, deeply worried and upset.

This is an excellent hour of television; I am not arguing that. With school shootings and gun violence such a timely issue, Glee spoke to us about a political view that needed to be expressed and heard. It was very well handled, no one had to act out of character, and the resolution was believable.

Yet, as I consider what to write for my forthcoming review of the episode, which will soon be posted on this site, I can't decide whether to congratulate or lambast the show. Glee is a comedy, first and foremost. There is some drama from time to time, a teen pregnancy, a car wreck, but nothing even comes close on the scale to this week's episode. I don't believe it was a stunt done for ratings, not even airing during sweeps. But it does completely break the tone of the series.

Sure, there was a warning at the beginning of the episode, saying there would be disturbing violence. Yet, no hint of any appeared for the first half hour, as the show went on with the light-hearted story lines, and so it was with great surprise that events unfolded.
 
But as good as the installment was on its own, should Glee have broken out of its mold so completely and so startlingly? Parents may let their children watch Glee, and then be surprised when something so dark suddenly happens. Regular viewers may have been looking forward to a bit of fun, only to be shocked into stunned silence. 

Glee is far from the first show to do such a departure from their normal storytelling. I remember watching the beginning of an episode of All in the Family on the morning of September 11th, 2001 in which Archie's wife was raped. I never got to see how it ended, for obvious reasons, but you get the point. This is a long tradition in the television world.

I applaud series that take risks and do something big. Grey's Anatomy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Scrubs are among the shows that have done a musical episode in the past decade or so. Angel had puppets. Community has done both of those and much more.

Yet, sometimes it just doesn't feel right. Felicity may have broken new ground for college dramas when the series made the last five episodes full of magical time travel, being almost completely a typical series before that. But those episodes didn't match the rest of the show, and that can be troubling.

It's one thing for a show like M*A*S*H to go dark, as very early in its run it began dropping in serious subject matter amid the comedy. As the years went by, it naturally grew more dramatic, and became a more serious show. Plus, it was always about war. But it's quite another for Glee to bring gun violence into a series about singing teenagers.

Now, one can argue that school shootings are tragic and horrible and almost always happen with little warning, unexpectedly rocking a world that doesn't deserve or expect to be rocked. That is a valid point, and makes Glee's entry realistic. However, it also shook me to the core and, two days later, I can't stop thinking about it.

Maybe that's a sign of good TV, being memorable and having a true impact. But the fact that I still haven't decided if I liked the occurrence or not is a little unsettling, and not everyone likes to be unsettled by a favorite TV show. So instead, I'm left pondering.

What do you readers think? Are you glad that Glee went there, or do you wish they'd left it alone? Is it ever OK for a series to veer so far off of its normal course, or should it keep pleasing the fans that support it, giving them what they think they want? Does motivation count, with the writers being excused if they do it for the right reasons, to draw attention to an important issue? Feel free to weigh in and discuss in the comments below.

Lack of Imports

 Article first published as Lack of Imports on Blogcritics.

The United States severely lacks the importation of television programs from other countries. We only like our own fare. Why?

It's extremely common for us to remake shows in the American style. Ugly Betty and Homeland are two examples of successful series from lands far away we've remade in our own studios with our own actors. But how many series can you think of that you watch that do not come from America? I expect that is an extremely short list, if you can think of any at all. Why?

One obstacle may be our country's resistance to subtitles. Sure, there is a certain segment that enjoys an occasional foreign film, and occasionally bad reality TV provides words on the screen for those with thick accents or who mumble a lot. But for the most part, we avoid such things.

Dubbing over the shows with American voice actors is worse. Thankfully, that is trend that never took off here.

It could be because people here are lazy. Books, while still popular among some, are shunned by others. Many people sadly do not equate reading with relaxation, and at the end of a long day, don't want to have to think about their television programming. Even if the content is simple, reading subtitles means some thinking is involved.

For others, television still holds that idiot-box reputation, and subtitles are seen as an uppity thing for the elite or over-educated. They assume they won't like anything with words on the screen because they watch TV for mindless entertainment, and think that anything with subtitles won't appeal to their demographic.

However, I do think that the issue goes much deeper than subtitles. Our entertainment industry has an arrogance that, because the rest of the world gobbles up our content, we are the best. They think they can do it better than anyone else, and so decide they want to do their own version, rather than serve us up a foreign package.

This mindset is not completely unjustified. We do have a thriving entertainment industry which is syndicated around the world, and sometimes we do remake things better than the original. Other times, though, we do not. In this case, I really wish there was more importation.

Another reason for remakes, rather than straight airing of other countries' shows, is social disconnect. This is especially relevant in the arena of humor, which often relies on commentary of a certain society or population.

This occurs even with the country we are arguably most closely related to, England. Some people like the British version of The Office, while others don't get it and prefer the American one because they can relate to it. For every Monty Python's Flying Circus, there are dozens of comedies that foreign audiences will just not understand. We love Ricky Gervais and Simon Pegg, but there are many others who experience obscurity here.

This isn't just an American problem. Shows like Everybody Loves Raymond are recast and remade so that viewers in other countries will get the joke, as illustrated in the excellent documentary, Exporting Raymond.

But they are also offered some American fare, as well, as that's where we suffer, because we get the choice for very little of anyone else's content.

While humor is subjective, one would think drama would translate much better. After all, stories of the heart are universal, right, and don't require a certain frame of reference? It's why Shakespeare remains so relevant, more so for his serious plays, rather than his whimsical ones. Then how come we won't sit for the original version of The Killing? Why won't we expend that little bit of effort, or why do studios think we won't?

There are inroads in the world of sci-fi. I think this is because this is the one genre where we expect to look past the surface to relate to characters who aren't like us. Any well-done alien will seem foreign, so who cares which country developed the creature? From Doctor Who to SyFy's broadcast of Canadian hits like Lost Girl, this is the type of show that gets here and finds a home and viewership in the U.S., even if it's not made here.

However, even if the vast majority of people won't watch programs from other countries, there are plenty of niche channels, so why don't we get import networks, too? IFC has a very narrow viewing audience, as I'm sure does Oprah's network. Yet, they have subscribers and still broadcast their thing. Where are the French and German stations?

One could argue that BBC American is the exception. However, BBC America airs very little British programming. Instead, it reruns American shows with British actors, like The X-Files or Star Trek: The Next Generation incessantly. Sure, it gives us lots of Top Gear, but other than that, the list of fresh programs we get every year is pretty short.

Now, BBC America is even getting into the original content game, making shows just for the U.S. With Copper and Ripper Street, they are stepping away from the BBC series American fans may want to see, and giving us things they think we'll like, based on a certain style. Can't they air the second seasons of Friday Night Dinners or Outnumbered instead? Isn't it cheaper to just show the stuff the BBC already makes, and that some American audiences really want to see? I am increasingly more disappointed with that network.

I can't say for certain if satellite TV offers more opportunity; perhaps it does. And Netflix and Hulu have offered a handful of imported shows, such as Skins and Misfits. But for those of us still using cable (which is all TiVo works with, though it does allow Netflix and some of Hulu), we get very little opportunity to expand our horizons.

Considering how much I've enjoyed the handful of foreign shows I have seen, and given the expanding reach of globalization in arenas outside of the entertainment world, it's a trend that should change, even though there have not yet been signs that it will. At least, I hope so.

Redefining Cancellation

Article first published as Redefining Cancellation on Blogcritics.


This week, Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell posted a call on Kickstarter soliciting donations to produce a Veronica Mars film. Within, 12 hours, they'd raised the minimum $2,000,000 needed for the project, breaking all fundraising records for the site. As I'm writing this article, the total now stands at $3,572,678, and the more they raise, the bigger scale film they can make.

Many are calling this the act that re-defines how cancelled shows can be resurrected. Veronica Mars ran for three seasons on the WB and CW, and was beloved by critics and fans. The new project came together because the studio, which had no intention of making the film itself, agreed to let the show's creator and star handle things themselves. Can other series in a similar situation, like Gilmore Girls, Party Down, Bored to Death, and Jericho follow the same path?

Well, there are a variety of obstacles to such projects. Sometimes, it may too expensive to revive with fan donations, like Dollhouse. Other times, the cast may be so busy that bringing them together would be awfully difficult, like Firefly or Freaks and Geeks.

Some have theorized that fans of other cancelled shows who don't particularly care for Veronica Mars may have donated money just because they want this to succeed. If so, their own beloved favorite might be next. While there could be some truth to this, I can't imagine most of those types would have donated a lot of money, without any guarantee their cash would help towards their own goals, so I assume the majority of the backing (including my own) came from people who actually really enjoyed and miss the series.

Also, I do think some of the backers of the Veronica Mars film might be upset if the movie makes a big profit. After all, Warner Brothers still gets to keep the money the movie makes, and Kickstarter investors are not paid back. Is it fair for a studio to force the fans to pay for such things, then keeping the profit? Shouldn't they offer some sort of return on the fans' investment if the end result a profit? Or maybe, if Warner Brothers wants to keep the fans happy, they should go ahead and greenlight a sequel, giving Veronica Mars extended life, and letting us know we've been heard.

Of course, there are some benefits to a Kickstarter campaign. Not only do fans get to take ownership and bragging rights, but the swag offered is also pretty good. For a donation of only $100, fans receive a movie poster, t-shirt, Blu-ray copy of the film, and a downloadable .pdf of the script. They will also receive a finished copy of the movie when it hits theaters. That's quite a bit of stuff thrown in for your support. Bigger donors will even get to name characters and appear on screen. These sorts of premiums and chances to be involved help fans feel even more connected and likely to support the project, though they are sort of unfairly balanced towards those who can afford to give big time.

But even should Kickstarter model not work long-term, there are other ways to resurrect a beloved series from cancellation hell. Sometimes network powers that be can be persuaded to change their minds, like AMC did for The Killing (with a little financial help from another source). Sometimes another producer or netword will come along to save the day, like Netflix did for Arrested Development or Comedy Central for Futurama. Occasionally, DVD sales are strong enough to justify another chance, like FOX did with Family Guy. Comic books can extend the show's life, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Then there are the prequels and sequels. 90210 got five more seasons with a new cast on the CW. Dallas is back on TNT, mixing old and new characters. The Carrie Diaries seeks to tell the beginning of the story for Sex and the City, eventually bringing in many familiar faces.

The point is, never has there been a time when cancelled doesn't necessarily mean cancelled. Sure, The River won't come back in any way, shape, or form. But that doesn't mean that some of those that deserve it aren't finding ways to continue.

This isn't entirely a new phenomenon. The Brady Bunch and The Waltons made TV movies long after they went off the air. Star Trek went to the big screen and produced ten films spun off of two shows, not counting the new reboot with recasts.

However, I think the newer model is more encouraging. Veronica Mars may only live for two more short hours, but many of the other examples I've listed have gotten far more screen time, and some even run for years after their resurrection. This brings them to all new fans, as well as the old ones, extending their lives exponentially.

Are we out of new ideas? Of course not. There will always be a fresh series right around the bend. But that doesn't mean there isn't still life left in those that have been put out to pasture, and for some, getting to fulfill untapped potential, playing out as they should, rather than getting an early grave, this a trend to celebrate.