A New Idea for Pilot Season

A few networks have aired their abandoned pilots as TV specials. These are shows where the first episode was filmed, but production didn't go any further than that, the pilot never having been ordered to series. They don't quite feel like TV movies because there isn't a clear conclusion, but the characters are doomed to never get further development or closure.

The most recent examples of this are USA's Over/Under, which premiered last week, and NBC's Mockingbird Lane, airing last Halloween. Mockingbird Lane had lots of potential and looked fantastic, but also had some very clear story problems that needed to be fixed were the project to move forward. Over/Under is a little more puzzling, because, despite some murkiness in the plot, the premise seemed solid.

The question is, why choose to air them at all? It will annoy fans who may like the show, who grow frustrated that they don't get any more of the tale, and for those who don't like it, well, that doesn't really matter. What possible benefit does the network get by putting these on TV?

One possibility is, if enough people tune in, the network might have a viable project on its hands without taking the risk of paying for thirteen episodes up front. This way, there is already a built in audience before more money is spent, lowering the possibility that viewers won't tune in, since it is known at the start how many people are interested in watching.

Yet, neither of these broadcasts has resulted in that happy occurrence as of yet. Instead, they remain a blip on the television schedule, likely to be forgotten in the annals of television history. It's a terrible fate for any show.

Which means that it is hard to argue for more of these abandoned pilots to make it to air. The schedule is filled with reruns. Wouldn't it be nice to fill some of those gaps with something original? Haven't you heard about a pilot you really wanted to see, but it never saw the light of day? Yet, if these types of experiments don't work, the networks won't be encouraged to try them again.

Of course, with many viewers knowing ahead of time that the chances of these kinds of pilots going anyway are slim to none, many won't tune in just because they don't want to get invested. What's the point? If they like it, they will just be disappointed in the end. If they don't like it, they wasted their time. It's a lose/lose situation for audiences.

I have a proposal, and anyone can use it free of charge. I promise here, in writing, I will not sue anyone if the idea is run with. In fact, I'll be ecstatic. Here it is: Broadcast networks have long struggled with what to air in the summer. They also rerun most shows through March and into April. Why not pick one of those two times and air lots of pilots that they are considering picking up?

There are so, so many benefits to this idea. For the networks, they get to make use of money already spent. They get to find out ahead of time what people think. They can drive up viewership at a time when not as many people are tuning in. For the people at home, they get to play an active part in the development of the fall slate. Don't like what's on? You can't complain if you didn't participate.

The set up would be simple for the digital age. The networks spend a couple of weeks airing the many, many dramas and sitcoms they have made first episodes for. Not only can ratings be taken into account, but so can reactions. Apps can be launched for instant feedback. This plays to the young demo, which is what advertisers want, anyway. In a perfect world, there may even be some way for audiences to offer suggestions for improvement, and the networks to pick the best ones moving forward. Buzz will build before fall premieres. What an exciting event that would be!

Now, there could be an argument against such populist sentiment, as the highest quality programming doesn't always translate to mass appeal. But our current system of ratings being a big deciding factor already runs this way. And studio bosses could still choose to push ahead with their favorite efforts.

This isn't a perfect suggestion, of course, but I do think it's better than the way things currently work. After all, wouldn't NBC have liked to have known ahead of time that no one wanted to watch The Playboy Club? It could have saved them money in the long run.

Think my idea is a good one? Weigh in on the comments below.

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!

Article first published as A New Idea For Pilot Season on Blogcritics.

Television Reboots

With a new year upon us, thoughts turn to fresh starts and new horizons. However, what will be dramatically different for us in 2013 than in 2012? Most people's lives are likely to stay very similar to how they are now. The trick is to make everything old new again. It's a feat our pop culture seems quite dedicated to, especially as of late.

I refer, of course, to reboots and remakes of television series. In this day and age, we cannot leave well enough alone, or commit just to original ideas. So many television shows are new incarnations of old ones, or based on movies or other material, that it seems like they outnumber the fresh concepts. Sometimes this can be bad, and other times, it's so well done that one can't complain.

Sci-fi seems to be the biggest beneficiary of good remakes. Battlestar Galactica springs to mind as a top notch effort, a show that took a poorly executed concept from decades ago (so I've heard, I haven't actually got around to watching the original), and managed to make it a grand political, religious, war-intensive, philosophical thriller. Interweaving the things that our society hinges on, and seeing them laid bare, with the trappings of B.S. stripped away, it is a true triumph.

Doctor Who, Star Trek, and Stargate also have found new lives, continually updating themselves to stay up with the current trends. The first two of these three had some pretty solid stories in the old days, but the technology just wasn't advanced enough to satisfyingly portray them. Now, not only have the special effects gotten better, but so has the depth and complexity of the tales. Dark sells better these days, and so the optimism gives ways to dystopia.

Next up in this category: Star Wars should soon get a long-awaited, live-action small screen adaptation.

Fantasy is right up there with the sci-fi. Once Upon a Time has shown us what can be done with children's stories when they are reinterpreted with a fresh eye and a creative wit. It helps that it is starting to feel a lot like Lost, which it borrows from almost as heavily as the source material. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, arguably one of the best television shows of all time, has its roots in a crappy film. These are the types of shows that give rebooting a good name.

And then there's Game of Thrones. Previously a book series, this epic tale has capitalized on the Lord of the Rings' success, and taken the genre to a new level. It's the amount of characters, mixed with the willingness to take risks in storytelling, throwing stereotypes out the window, performed by an all-around amazing cast, that makes this one soar.

Sadly, Mockingbird Lane failed to join this list. Despite a wonderful cast and stunning visuals, the characters just weren't good enough to earn a pick-up. The concept was solid enough, making a goofy comedy into an hour-long drama, but the execution, which sold itself short, going for the easy path, rather than breaking new ground, is what killed it.

Staying in a similar vein, superheroes are still the rage. Even after the ill-fated Heroes, they continue to be attempted over and over again, taking their roots from popular comics. Smallville is the biggest so far, and is about two-thirds good, amid some terrible arcs. But Arrow shows promise as a suitable CW replacement, with many critics calling it one of the best freshman shows of this past fall. Both of these took liberties from the original stories, but stay close enough to convention to be accessible for general audiences who haven't read the books.

Of course, if one really wants to look at comic adaptation done right, look no further than The Walking Dead. The genius of the show, in which the creator of the comics also helps with the TV series, is that both incarnations embrace their medium fully. What works on the page won't necessarily translate to the screen, and the writers have been brilliant about making those distinctions, while keeping the premise at heart. Plus, killing characters off at different points and in different ways keeps viewers guessing, and makes the show its own unique experience.

We Americans sometimes look across the pond for inspiration. One of the best examples of a remake here that made the premise its own is The Office, finally bowing out this spring after a long, mostly enjoyable run. Similarly, Ugly Betty took a Mexican telenovela and turned it into something great in English.

Being Human is doing its own thing, in a good way, and Homeland and The Killing do for drama what The Office does for comedy. All of these owe American ignorance of other cultures for their praise. After all, if the original is good, why remake it? Except, many of us still refuse to watch the originals, especially if we have to do it with subtitles. This seems a glaring flaw in our national makeup, but one not likely to be corrected anytime soon. As long as our versions are as good as those I've just mentioned, and not another failed attempt at Coupling, we're OK.

CBS's Elementary has been an interesting experiment this year. In a landscape so flooded with current Sherlock Holmes iterations, this one still manages to be different than its peers, and entertaining. I have a few complaints, but overall, it's been a pretty solid fall run.

The pitfall Elementary must avoid is sticking too close to its crime procedural set up. After all, aren't all the CSIs and NCISs just remakes of themselves? Hawaii Five-0 is also in this category, though I hear that the new episodes remain pretty decent; I gave up because crimes of the week usually get pretty boring, pretty quickly.

I could say the same thing about medical dramas, except, for some reason, these tend to be more character-driven. Maybe Grey's Anatomy owes its roots to ER, but if they're both good, why complain? (Disclosure: I did not watch ER).

One tactic I applaud is continuing a previous series. Perhaps Dallas was ready to end after spending the better part of two decades on the air (I don't know for sure, I was too young to watch), but I am glad they brought it back now, as it was a highlight of last summer. I cannot wait for Arrested Development to make its highly anticipated return on Netflix. I wish more shows would do this, calling back the cast members who made the show special in the first place, rather than trying to completely revamp itself, a la 90210.

I think, again, we could learn from the British. Obviously, its Doctor Who is a continuation, and a very, very good one at that. But it's far from the first time they made new episodes of a series that was over and done with. Absolutely Fabulous had new entries last year. Sure, we occasionally get a TV movie, like we used to with The Waltons and The Brady Bunch continuations, but mostly, nowadays, once a show is over here, it's over. Why? This doesn't make sense to me.

I've mostly listed the good shows, but I'll give you a few of the recent bad here, without too much explanation, as they don't deserve it: The Bionic Woman, Charlie's Angels, Melrose Place, Free Agents, Eastwick, V, Flash Gordon, Skins, American Gladiators, Crusoe, Kath & Kim, Knight Rider. These are some of the many reasons folks argue against a reboot.

It's pretty clear that reboots and remakes are not going away anytime soon. And I don't necessarily want them to, not when there are so many great ones to list above, including some of my favorite programs on television. I guess, the point is, when considering a reboot, those in the creative industry should ruminate more fully on what has worked and what has not. If it's obvious to the fans the reasons some of these shows soar and some flop, it should also be apparent to execs. There are lessons to be learned. Take them to heart, and we'll all be happier.

After all, we do not want a new Gilligan's Island on the fall 2013 slate. Unless there's a smoke monster.

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!

Article first published as Television Reboots on Blogcritics.

Don't really want to move to Mockingbird Lane

Considering the cast and crew of NBC's Mockingbird Lane, created by Bryan Fuller (Pushing Daisies), I was super psyched for the series this fall. When it was held back, and decided that the "Pilot" would be aired as a stand alone Halloween special, without producing more episodes, disappointment set in. That is, until it actually aired. Then disappointment of a whole other kind appeared.

It's not that Mockingbird Lane is bad; it's just that the first episode doesn't live up to its potential. The set and effects (save for the werewolf in the opening sequence) are spectacular, and glimpsing the Golden Gate bridge behind the infamous house is a stroke of brilliance, providing a stark contrast every time it's seen. This links the show to the real world, even as it feels like fantasy. Lily's (Portia de Rossi, Arrested Development, Better Off Ted) introduction is even more cool, spiders flowing gracefully around her to make her garb.

But the rest of the episode is just too tame. Whereas The Munsters, the goofy sitcom Mockingbird Lane seeks to update, relies on gags and schlock, Mockingbird Lane treats itself like a serious drama. This doesn't work. Sure, these actors are capable of deepening the characters, and making this new show mean a lot more than the old one. But they don't get the chance, skipping over much of what should be an introduction-based episode, and jumping right into a boring story. Combining the comedy with the drama is what it needed here, and the mix is almost absent in this premiere, which skews more towards the drama side.

The crux of the first episode is how Eddie's (Mason Cook) parents are going to tell him that he is a werewolf, a monster, or Munster, like them. One would think that this is exactly what Mockingbird Lane should be doing, since it is taking an element of the classic series, and putting it into context people can relate to, providing a moral dilemma. Instead, the implications of what this means are glossed over, replaced with an empty "be yourself" type of mantra.

Herman (Jerry O'Connell, The Defenders, Crossing Jordan) is the only one of the Munsters that comes across as fully realized. He knows he is dying, but refuses to let Grandpa (Eddie Izzard, The Riches, United States of Tara) kill Eddie's new scout leader, Steve (Cheyenne Jackson, 30 Rock, Glee), to obtain him a new heart, thus saving his life. He also wrestles with what to do about Eddie. As a man who is made into a Munster by Grandpa, Herman straddles the two worlds, and is a compelling lead.

It's too bad this plot is cut short, though, when Steve accidentally dies. His death is funny, but there is definitely more that could have been milked from the situation, considering Herman's internal struggle is the best part of the episode. Once Steve is dead, not murdered, Herman doesn't mind taking his organ. Which kind of ruins what is built up til that point. How much darker and deeper would it go if Grandpa killed Steve, and then forced Herman to take the heart against his will? How would that affect family dynamics, as well as how Herman feels about himself? And why not let Steve stick around for a few episodes first, so the family can get to know him, and his death would mean more? After all, Jackson is terrific in the part.

Grandpa can be excused for being how he is, because it seems logical that he would think the way that he does. I just wish he was played more over the top, or commit to the scary, rather than doing neither at one hundred percent, either of which Izzard would shine in. Lily doesn't get much to do in the first episode, so it's hard to see where she fits in, though she is clearly torn between Herman's want for the family to be good, and Grandpa's longing to return to the traditional ways of feeding on humans freely. De Rossi has the chops to make this work, given screen time to do so, which she is not in the "Pilot."

The real problem is with the kids in the cast. Eddie is too flat, not up to the task of the real emotion his situation calls for. Marilyn (Charity Wakefield) is no better, though her fault lies in the writing. We know that she wants to stay with the family, even though Grandpa despises her for being born normal. This needs to be explored, especially in the opening of the series, but is pushed off for another day, if ever.

Should Mockingbird Lane be allowed to continue, there is plenty of potential here for a fantastic show. I just fear that the luck luster plot of the "Pilot" combined with the lack of faith the network has put into it has killed a bold experiment before it even begins.

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter! Check out my website, JeromeWetzel.com! First posted on TheTVKing