TV trends that need to stop

[Sylph]

More about it - here:

http://www.latimes.c...72.photogallery

[DRW50]

That list is kind of contradictory, in that they don't like procedurals, but also don't like serials. There aren't a lot of non-serialized non-procedurals out there.

A-listers going to TV to revive their careers has been around for decades. Did they see the Jimmy Stewart Show? Or Henry Fonda's shows? Or Jack Benny and Bob Hope and Frank Sinatra and their shows?

Music people performing on shows is also old.

Vampire shows can be overused, but then, as long as they get the ratings, they will stay, as any trend does. Vampire Diaries is the only hit show the CW has this season.

[Sylph]

It's not "music people performing". The article states something different.

I agree with everything they said. It's all old, overused and done.

[DRW50]

I guess I just see some of that as being a part of TV for ages, more than a trend. Back when I watched Buffy, I would get annoyed at how they would have to spend time showing these pop acts at the Bronze, but I don't remember any critics being that put out. It's a way for these shows that aren't huge ratings hits, which are niche shows, to keep going.

I agree with some of the trends, like no more modeling shows, but others sound like changing the very way TV is made, not a trend.

The "let's not have any show on the bubble"...that's been around for many years. Shows like St. Elsewhere and Hill Street Blues spent several years near cancellation. Fans who read up on TV knew that, yet they still tuned in. The same happened for Buffy, which might not have ever had a second season if fans and critics hadn't stuck with it, among other shows.

The alternative is something like Southland, which NBC canceled before the second season even aired. I didn't see any fans who were happy about being told in advance instead of seeing some episodes and then getting canceled.

[MarkH]

I think I disagree with every curmudgeonly comment here.

I like how they trashed NCIS2 twice...90s movie stars AND procedural spinoffs. I don't watch it, but it's the #1 new show of the Fall. LOL. This article writer would NOT run a profitable broadcast network.

[Sylph]

Curmudgeonly? So if it's no. 1 show, what does it mean? We need 10 clones of such a show? You missed the point entirely.

[DRW50]

I agree with you -- I think the NCIS spinoff was a mistake; it's just kind of mediocre so far, the ratings are underperforming, and it's already damaged The Mentalist. However, this is something else which isn't a trend. Besides the L&O and the CSI spinoffs which started out 10 years ago, this type of thing goes all the way back to when CBS made Green Acres and Petticoat Junction because Beverly Hillbillies was such a success.

I just remembered another "on the bubble" show -- Star Trek. I know Star Trek isn't to all tastes (at least not before the JJ Abrams version that the press repeatedly told us was superior to the old show, as nearly anything JJ Abrams does is automatically considered superior it seems), but still, that went on to be a hugely influential and popular franchise. Yet this writer would have basically had the show canceled early on.

[Sylph]

I hate it how every show sounds alike and goes for the same thing. Alexandra Patsavas is everywhere and there where she is not we have her clone. There's no invention, it's all the same and derivative.

Well, something's obviously very wrong with that way. Perhaps there comes a time when certain things need to change. You can't keep thumping out the same formula and expect people to be happy about it and watch in tens of millions.

Sure. But I don't think this is about not tuning in, it's not about Oh, they will cancel it, why should I watch? It's not actually a pursuit which want to see the fans satisfied, but it's more about sending a very direct, defined message. Just being clear and not telling them OK, we might return, but then again who knows... Bla, bla. This is better. Announce the cancellation when it happens.

[Sylph]

Hm... Would he really? I think his outlook on shows would have been different in the, say, 70s or 80s from his attitude in 2009. It is precisely because of those Star Trek, CSI, Law & Order... spin-offs that we are where we are today. Every single show has a spin-off, and even though it is generally known that it almost always fails, people just keep ordering them as if the fact that it's a spin-off of a larger, more successful show guarantees ratings. And it doesn't.

[DRW50]

I agree, but most of the shows that are on the bubble are shows that might actually stay. There aren't a lot of shows that the networks plan to cancel before they even air. If the networks just automatically yanked anything that they weren't 100% sure they were keeping, then a lot of classic, popular TV shows would have never made it.

I think if a show is good, and knows how to draw some viewers, then people will stay with it even if the show has a strong chance of getting canceled. Dollhouse, which many know is dead after this season, has started to post ratings increases. I don't watch Dollhouse but I guess something there is possibly starting to click with viewers.

That's true, but I also think much of the entertainment industry is about formulas. TV has done a lot of this stuff from almost the start of the major networks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I wouldn't mind seeing some formulas changed, or phased out, but I don't agree with the writer calling them trends. Glenn Close being on two FX shows does not mean "A-listers" are running to TV. Not unless she has a time machine.

[Lucid]

Kurt Sutter, the creator of SoA just put up a blog post about network TV, thought it was an interesting read....oh and you couldn't pay me enough money to watch NCIS LA or Three Rivers or the Good Wife

http://sutterink.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-most-network-scripted-dramas-suck.html

[DRW50]

I'm glad SoA is doing well, and I get his basic point, but FX can be as generic as any network. Generally, in terms of FX's best known shows (Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck) if you're a white man, middle-aged, and you want to watch shows which put women and minorities in their place, then those shows fit your niche. Rescue Me, when I watched, was more conservative than most of what I could see on most network TV. That's why I lost interest. If FX trusts the storyteller, then, from my experience watching FX shows, it's usually because, most of the time, they pick shows that blur together. When they don't, those shows tend to be unsuccessful (like "The Riches"), and they are probably even more inclined to take less chances.

But I have only seen SoA once or twice and hopefully it's a better show than N/T or Rescue Me have been.

I think he overrates some of them, and he also neglects to mention that they did cater to network fears. Wolf brought in female characters for L&O's fourth season because NBC said the show was gone otherwise. It's also not a coincidence, I would imagine, that starting in season 4, every new assistant or detective was young and attractive; gone were the days of George Dzundza or Paul Sorvino.

Fontana was forced to add an attractive woman in season 3 of Homicide, and to put her in a hot sex storyline. They even had characters on the show joke in season 3 about how their show was being influenced and manipulated by network demands.

All Bochco shows after Hill Street Blues revolved around extremely attractive people. I remember female cops used to joke about NYPD Blue and the amazing life of these gorgeous women with their hair flowing, wearing see-through blouses.

Network TV has almost always been heavily regulated and watched, no matter how much of a visionary was around. And as cable has grown, the same has happened. The stuff HBO aired ten years ago, like Oz, would never be on that network today.

[Sylph]

This is true. But why has it happened?

[DRW50]

HBO had big success with shows that were much safer than Oz, shows that were more wish fulfillment, shows that were much more generic. They aren't going to risk any potential damage to their more acceptable image now that they have had stuff like Sopranos or Sex and the City.

[Sylph]

Precisely. That is why I'm wondering why they aren't using that formula any more: lot of generic + a bit of boundary-pushing shows.