Monday, March 10, 2008
Getting Canterbury's Law in Order, Taking Aim at Jericho, Growing Weary of Eli Stone and More!
Julianna Margulies, Canterbury's Law
Question: I've been looking forward to
Canterbury's Law since I first heard about it, and your positive
review, along with the drought of new quality television, has gotten me even more excited for its premiere. However, I agree that it is not in a very ratings-friendly time slot, scheduled at 8 pm/ET on Mondays (starting tonight). Why wouldn't Fox premiere
Canterbury's Law after
American Idol, at least for a few weeks, in order to build the show a fan base by capitalizing on
Idol's huge ratings? It makes no sense whatsoever to me that they have
Moment of Truth behind
American Idol and they leave
Canterbury's Law out to fend for itself. Then again, it makes no sense that
Moment of Truth is on television at all.
— Katelyn
Matt Roush: No argument here about the relative merits of Moment of Truth, which is like watching a cesspool in action. This is really all about timing and priorities, and for whatever reason, perhaps because it's seen as a tougher sell, Fox pumped up the premiere of New Amsterdam last week with two previews on Idol nights. Canterbury's Law could be seen as easier to promote, boasting a name star (Julianna Margulies) and a familiar premise: maverick, self-destructive lawyer tackling sensational cases. She's a little bit House in court, with traces of Rescue Me's Denis Leary as well (he's a producer), and it could be that Fox sees it as a self-starter. More likely, though, Fox lacks confidence in either of these series (or so it would seem), which is why they're being lumped together on Mondays for the next few weeks — where they're about to face the juggernaut of a new season of Dancing with the Stars without benefit of an established show on the night. (Even pairing Law with House repeats would make more sense.) When you see how poorly the execrable Moment of Truth does on nights where it doesn't get that Idol halo, it does make you question Fox's value system in keeping any promising new midseason drama away from its biggest midseason hit. Look what Idol did for House in its first year. Still, Law and Amsterdam almost have it easy compared with The Return of Jezebel James, which is being asked to find an audience on Friday nights. That's gotta hurt.
Question: You said
recently that last week's episode of
Jericho would be "a pivotal one in the battle between the town and the sinister Jennings & Rall." After watching it, all I can say is, "Yawn." I am one of those casual fans who only started watching
Jericho in the summer repeats on the Space Channel here in Canada. I was surprised when Gerald McRaney's character was killed off, but this latest "kill-off" of Shoshannah Stern left me more disappointed. I know you have talked about this in the past, but if the "big surprise" of killing off characters is the best the writers could come up with, it shows that they don't really have enough imagination. It seems more and more producers get rid of characters as a shortcut to get a ratings spike, rather than inventing interesting plot developments. Some shows have done it well, like
24, when Nina Myers murdered Teri Bauer, and, to a lesser extent,
Lost's dwindling cast. But it has become just too common now, I think, and writers had better come up with something different to keep viewers hooked. Thanks for reading my rant.
— Chris
Matt Roush: Thanks for ranting. Imagine my surprise when this was the first response in my mailbox (and one of only a few) to Bonnie's death. I expected shock, sorrow, anything but ennui. I mean, Jericho just lost its most prominent and lovably spunky hearing-impaired citizen. But to address the bigger issue, of a show resorting to killing a sympathetic character, how can a thriller like Jericho not go this route every so often? The stakes are life and death, and if all of the heroes remain unscathed, isn't it even more of a yawn than playing the game of who's got a bull's eye on his or her back? Besides, this loss (along with Mimi coming under fire) was the catalyst needed to spur Stanley into action, and as I've said before, I feel that Stanley and those at his farm have become the emotional center of Jericho's universe this season. For them to come under siege this way was for me the most powerful twist so far this season.
Question: I like
Eli Stone, both the character and the actor (Jonny Lee Miller) who portrays him. I also enjoy his interactions with his acupuncturist and his boss. However, unlike some, I am beginning to find the musical interludes annoying. Last episode, I fast-forwarded through them without losing anything of substance. I also grow weary of the constant anti-business stereotypes that are so prevalent in TV and movies, where the vast majority of "evildoers" are in business. Characterizing Eli's own firm as "evil" and the "dark side" is also extremely one-dimensional. (Eli's boss seems like basically a decent guy. And in the SUV case, sans the contrived and clichéd "hide the whistle-blower" twist, I think the drunk, speeding, emotionally overwrought driver should have lost the case.) There are lots of people from all walks of life who do wrong. The baby custody subplot in the last episode was at least heading in a better direction. But regardless of how much I enjoy Eli, his humor and other aspects of the show, if they don't broaden the range of opponents, tone down the "evil" lawyer stuff and feature visions that do not include repetitive musical interludes, I may have to reconsider what I tape after
Lost. (And, no, I'm neither a lawyer nor a businessman.)
— Russell M.
Matt Roush: All fair points. (Although last week's pivotal episode shook up the formula quite a bit, with twists that should affect everything to come.) It's understandable for anyone to wonder how many times Eli is going to groove along to a musical fantasy, then snap out of it to be embarrassed in public, before he catches on. And while the fighting-for-the-underdog thing is part of what makes Eli and Eli endearing, it probably wouldn't hurt to switch it up a bit more. What you seem to be expressing is the ambivalence that tends to come when you realize that a show that initially surprised you is hitting too many of the same beats each week. Again, I felt last week's episode had plenty of surprises in it (some of them nicely emotional) and was a necessary game-changer to help move the series to the next level. I enjoy Eli's formula myself, but I get why up to now it has proven to be something less than appointment TV.
Question: Does it seem to you that CBS is actually trying to sabotage
Moonlight? I mean, instead of repeating it, they put on
The Price Is Right. Even if they wanted to air the game show, rerun
Moonlight at 9 pm/ET in its regular slot, or even on another night to perhaps pick up a new fan base. I just watched
New Amsterdam on Fox and frankly was unimpressed. I'll stay with it a while longer just to give it a shot, because I like this genre. The star (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) is a good-looking guy, but he really does not compare with Alex O'Loughlin. Does CBS understand what a gold mine they have in him? Granted, the character of Mick St. John is sultry, but the real draw is O'Loughlin's drop-dead gorgeous looks and style as an actor — he actually makes Mick funny. You can't help but love the character. His smile lights up the screen. Honestly, if they cancel
Moonlight, it would really be a shame, because it's on the verge of an extremely interesting storyline and the fan base seems to be huge. Could another network possibly pick it up (like
Forever Knight)? There are so many twists and turns this show could take. Perhaps they should do an end date like
Lost, where Mick either dies (heaven forbid), becomes human, turns Beth or realizes that Coraline is the one for him and they stay vampires together forever. Any thoughts?
— Debbie
Matt Roush: Beyond advising you to take a deep breath and calm down? (Although this kind of advice recently got me in hot water with Supernatural fans.) As I've suggested before, if CBS really had it in for Moonlight, the show would already have a stake in it and you wouldn't be getting four new episodes next month. The current hiatus is a result of the strike and is more about CBS preserving the series from repeating the same handful of episodes over and over, which tends to diminish a show's overall ratings average. (The hardcore Moonlight fan may have no problem watching episodes repeatedly, but most people don't watch TV that way, and that's what video recorders are for.) I agree with you about Alex O'Loughlin's appeal. He's been the show's main asset from the start. (I also agree he's more fun to watch than New Amsterdam's more reserved immortal hottie.) The fact that the show remains in production, despite a fair amount of behind-the-scenes chaos, is a sign to me that CBS would like to keep this franchise going and that the network is aware of what a keeper this star is. Just because you don't agree with a programming decision doesn't mean they're out to kill it. (If you want to see an example of a network actively doing its best to harm a show, check out what's happened to ABC's Men in Trees.)
Question: I'm sure I can't be the only one who absolutely hates the new ads some networks are running at the bottom of the screen during the whole shows! First we had the annoying network logos, then we had the even more obnoxious pop-up ads during episodes. But this new trend I've noticed recently is absolutely unbelievable. For example, I'm now watching
Just for Laughs on ABC (which I recorded) and there's a huge three-line promo at the bottom of the screen: "[Name of Show] season premiere [followed by date]." This is in addition to the network logo, and it is there for the
entire show! I believe I've also seen similar ads recently on at least one other network. Do you think the networks can really get away with this without driving away viewers? I'm seriously thinking about giving up on watching "live" (and recorded) TV to avoid being subjected to these constant eyesores. I think the networks have finally gone too far this time. What do you think?
— Chris H.
Matt Roush: Couldn't agree more. I notice this most on NBC (maybe because their shows being promoed are the most annoying), although all of the networks are increasingly guilty of this. To sit through an entire program with the peacock off in the corner proclaiming that Quarterlife premieres in two days or Knight Rider is only four days away from airing, I often say to myself, "Thanks for the warning." It's a complete turn-off, but the simple reason we're seeing more and more of this is because those of us with DVRs won't sit still for commercials, including network promos. The increasingly desperate networks believe this is the only way they can get their message across. Next stop: the constant promo crawl?
Question: It boggles the mind to hear that
According to Jim is
rumored to be getting an eighth(!) season this fall when such high-caliber sitcoms like
How I Met Your Mother and
The New Adventures of Old Christine are fighting for renewal survival. Couldn't CBS take that daring risk it keeps talking about and open a new comedy block on Wednesdays? Why not put
Mother and perhaps
Christine or
Rules of Engagement in the slots and see what happens? If they fail, at least CBS tried. Give them a 13-episode tryout. They could always be cancelled.
Kid Nation was put in that slot last year and it went nowhere. And they could be paired with one of CBS' powerhouses,
Criminal Minds, which could help. Come on, CBS, you keep going on about taking risks — this is one!
Moonlight was not a risk. Maybe
Welcome to the Captain was, but as ABC has learned with its "comedies," they need to be funny. I am tired of the whole "sitcom-is-dead" spin of this decade.
Mother,
Christine,
Two and a Half Men,
Big Bang Theory and even last year's short-lived
The Class are superior sitcoms, and although I get that NBC's foursome are special (but not "mainstream"), CBS really has some of the best programs on television with these shows. If any network is going to resurrect the sitcom genre, it should be CBS, which has four or even five strong programs (if you count the uneven
Rules of Engagement). To think that CBS is going to cut two of three current sitcoms is very disappointing.
— Chris C.
Matt Roush: This hand-wringing could be a bit premature, though I understand it's frustrating when shows as enjoyable as Mother and Christine remain on the bubble season after season. One or both could be back next season, and in particular the young following for Mother isn't likely to let that one go without a fight. Your suggestion is a fair one, but CBS has tried several times in recent years to open up new comedy blocks where there are holes, on Wednesdays as well as Sundays after 60 Minutes, but it just doesn't get much traction. The real risk would be to take a Monday tentpole like Two and a Half Men and use it to launch a new comedy night, but that would leave Monday diminished, and CBS is never going to go that far. Plus, it's too soon to move Big Bang Theory, which would be much further along in building an audience if it hadn't been for the strike. Still, if the networks are going to get serious again about comedy, and I wish they would, I'd like to see them all get more aggressive about scheduling new sitcom blocks on nights that are now currently and lazily occupied by increasingly bloated reality shows (hello, two-hour Biggest Loser episodes).
Question: I just had a dream where I ventured several months into the future. And the first thing I did? Run to the computer to see which dramas had been nominated by the Emmys for Outstanding Drama Series. I know, I'm a dork. To my surprise, here were the worthy five: Dexter, Friday Night Lights, House, Lost and The Wire. What a lineup! Also in my dream, I was excited by the Emmys' decision to finally get rid of all the forgettable TV movie and miniseries awards (moving them to the Creative Arts Awards). Too bad I woke up.— Marcus D.
Matt Roush: To be fair, ABC's beautiful remake of
A Raisin in the Sun and HBO's spectacular
John Adams miniseries (which begins this Sunday) are reason enough to keep the movie/miniseries awards in full view. I for one am beyond curious as to how the voting will go between
Raisin's Phylicia Rashad and
John Adams' Laura Linney, both remarkable performances. But yes, "dream on" where those best-drama candidates are concerned. Personally, I'd bump
House in favor of
Mad Men, but that would be one sensational dream ballot (it's never too early to start dreaming, I guess).
Question: In regard to DJ's recent
question: I am not against retooling old shows and trying to make them new again, but shouldn't
Bionic Woman have made NBC want to shy away from this concept rather than embrace it so wholeheartedly? It seems like
Ben Silverman doesn't support any show that is unique or different but wants to go back to the yesteryear of television. But then I also wonder why he's picking such average shows to retool — why not show support for the original programming already on his network (of course I am referring to
Friday Night Lights) or take a cue from NBC's sister networks? I've often noticed how similar
Monk and
Psych are, including similar storylines (actor killed with real knife they thought was a prop knife, for example), but each show has such a unique and interesting voice that it make both of them big successes and draws people in. I worry that by taking shows that have already been done, he's trying to capture a voice that no longer resonates with today's TV viewer. Also, completely unrelated: Why do you think people have a harder time letting go of television shows now than people did, say, 20 years ago? There weren't campaigns and sending nuts or light bulbs to studios to show fan support. People just moved on to whatever was next. I think it's a strange phenomenon, fighting so hard for something that will eventually end. No show goes on forever (please, please, prove me wrong,
Law & Order!) I wonder why there is such a strong emotional attachment to shows nowadays.
— Mallory T.
Matt Roush: On your first point, a remake doesn't have to be schlock. Look at Sci Fi's Battlestar Galactica. Now there's a lesson Silverman could learn from one of NBC's cable cousins. The Knight Rider example, though, along with the revival of American Gladiators (harmless, but still) is a very troubling sign of where NBC appears to be headed, down a slippery slope of stinky cheese. On your second and very interesting point, don't fool yourself that fans have ever been less than passionate about TV. It just wasn't as viral as it has become since the digital/online revolution. I was there when Viewers for Quality Television was formed in the wake of successful grass-roots campaigns to keep Designing Women and Cagney & Lacey (among others) on the air. The current frenzy to keep every show alive, whether it's Jericho on CBS or (more recently) Wildfire on ABC Family, has a lot to do with the Internet and the rise of websites and message boards where fans can talk and commiserate among themselves, often convincing each other that their petitions and complaints can carry the day. The hard truth is that many shows are shut down for a variety of business (and sometimes, but less often, creative) reasons, and it's rare once the ax falls for the PTB to reverse their decision. But it can happen, and examples like the Jericho resurrection and the current efforts to keep Friday Night Lights' lights on will likely only encourage fans to take an even more activist role in their favorite shows' fate.
Question: Not that I'm totally up in arms, but what happened to Drew Carey's
Power of 10? It was a fun show I enjoyed catching when I could, but it seems to have vanished!
— Biff
Matt Roush: I like this one, too. Not a must-see exactly, but I find that hour is much more fun and certainly moves faster than that head-scratchingly popular briefcase-and-models show over on NBC. I'd expect you'll see new episodes of Power of 10 over the summer. When it came back this winter during the strike, it was clobbered by other reality competition. Some shows (including, obviously, Big Brother) are probably better off airing during the less competitive summer months.
Question: I got so excited when I heard ABC was bringing back
The Mole. I don't know how much you followed it, if at all, when it was on, but I've talked to so many people who say they hate reality shows, but they were won over by this. The new season is the regular, non-celebrity edition with 10 people, and I think it's supposed to air in the summer. Filming should have begun already, and I was wondering what other information you can provide, specifically an air date and Anderson Cooper's replacement.
— Stephen
Matt Roush: I've seen the reports of its return, but beyond that, no details. I bring up The Mole primarily to remind everyone that, however it looks, I'm not a reality-TV snob. There are some very good shows in this genre, and The Mole was one of my early favorites (before it went the ill-advised "celebrity" route). It was smart, innovative, original and, like The Amazing Race, it was beautifully produced in exotic locations. It may also have been ahead of its time, so I'm eager to see if a somewhat "simplified" (according to trade reports) version will catch on.
