Monday, March 24, 2008
Will Fox Give Dollhouse a Chance? Is Moment of Truth's Moment Up? What's Happening to HBO? And More!
Eliza Dushku, Dollhouse
Question: As we all know, our dearly beloved
Joss Whedon is returning to Fox this fall with his new show
Dollhouse, starring Eliza Dushku. While it's a bit too early to speculate on whether it's going to be a success (critically or otherwise), I'm still interested in what you think about how patient Fox will be if the show does not become a hit right away. Fox has canceled some pretty good shows quickly in the past (including the amazing
Wonderfalls), but it seemed like the network was more patient with Eliza Dushku's
Tru Calling and Joss Whedon's
Firefly than with other shows. Although both shows only attracted mediocre ratings, they at least kept them on for half a season (or in
Tru Calling's case even a little bit longer than a full season). It was as if they were waiting for them to become sleeper hits despite their horrible time slots. Also,
Firefly proved that Fox can make a lot of money with Joss Whedon's shows, even if short-lived. DVDs of the show are still selling. Might Fox be more patient with
Dollhouse than with other shows because it knows that Whedon has a strong fan base that can bring them an awful lot of money, or will the network treat it just like every other show? Also, I'm curious how you see Fox scheduling the show. I for one hope it won't be on Friday nights. Fox has a lot of mystery/sci-fi themed shows in development (
Fringe, The Oaks, Dollhouse) and on the air (
Terminator, New Amsterdam), and I'm wondering whether Fox is going to become the sci-fi/animated network, just like ABC became the female-centered network, CBS the crime network and NBC the offbeat, "we're not so mainstream" network.
— Donnie
Matt Roush: Never too early to obsess, is it? Joss Whedon's return to TV is without doubt big news, but I would be surprised if Fox's expectations go much beyond a cult sensation, which these days ought to be enough. Could Dollhouse break out the way Heroes and Lost did in their first seasons, or Alias did in the media? Let's hope. If the show is as good as the buzz is over the pilot script, I'd think Fox would do everything it can to ensure it gets maximum exposure. Which means not scheduling it in a Friday death slot, and which absolutely means being patient. As you rightly note, there's incredible potential in the merchandising marketplace for anything Joss touches, so it's in everyone's best interests to do right by this one. As for Fox's brand identity, it seems to me that landing a sci-fi/fantasy hit has been a priority since The X-Files signed off six years ago. It's just easier said than done. But if anyone can do it, Joss can.
Question: What do you make of the boomlet of non-Americans playing American characters on TV? From
Terminator's Lena Headey to
Pushing Daisies' Anna Friel and
New Amsterdam's Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, TV is full of fresh faces. Do you think this is the result of
Lost breaking through with a largely unknown cast? I also have to give a shout-out to the sublime
Alan Dale. He's clearly the go-to actor for evil, or at least gruff, corporate types. I miss him on
Ugly Betty and thought that
The O.C. started careening downhill around the time he left. I was watching
Torchwood, and he showed up again, this time playing a Brit! He flawlessly goes from American to British to his native Kiwi accent. Why doesn't this strong utility player get his fair due?
— Eric
Matt Roush: The fact that you see Alan Dale everywhere tells me he's hardly hurting in the "fair due" department. He's a popular character actor and clearly a versatile one. As for the importing of lead actors from overseas, that is a curious phenomenon, to be sure. The producers will tell you every time that he or she was the right person for the role, and in some cases (Anna Friel in particular), I buy it. I've also long been a proponent that TV is better at making new stars (the "fresh face" theory) than repackaging old ones. Lost is a perfect example of that, including its diversity. Makes you wonder, though, how Hollywood actors feel about losing so many leads to Brits, Aussies or, in the case of New Amsterdam's star, the Danish.
Question: New Amsterdam has an intriguing concept that I find enjoyable to watch. Amsterdam seems like a genuinely nice guy and interacts well with his adult son. It's great to see a male character on television searching for his true love, too. I liked the reference to
Leaves of Grass and the witty way they introduced the history of the book to people. The second or third episode had an interesting view on why people remember traumatic events so vividly. I like entertainment that also makes me think a little bit, so I hope this show does well. Is it just me or have we seen most of
New Amsterdam's guest stars on
Law & Order?
— Susan
Matt Roush: Not just you. New Amsterdam actually films in New York, which is one of its main assets, in that it gets to tap the New York acting pool (much like Law & Order) for its guest and recurring roles. But I should have known better than to have mentioned last week that my mail on the show has been predominantly positive. Because you know what that means: Backlash. Read on.
Question: As a huge fan of
Moonlight,
Lost and now
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (I am so glad FX is repeating it on weekends or I never would've found and adored this show!), I love sci-fi. That's why I wanted to try
New Amsterdam. Sorry to disagree with some of your other readers, but I am not a fan in the slightest. The first episode showed a tinge of promise — I thought it was interesting the way they were handling the immortal aspect, showing potential to become an original show. But by the second and third episodes, I was bored to tears. Some of those were tears of laughter because, honestly, some of the dialogue is just
terrible! It's essentially a crime procedural with the slightest haze of a supernatural element. This is more for the
CSI fan than the sci-fi fan, and even then, it is easily predictable and poorly acted. The twist with Omar came as a surprise, but then turned sour for me as I found the whole aspect of John's numerous children to be badly executed. Where is the pain in his eyes? He doesn't even act like a father! I won't be watching any longer, and I sorely wish that the far superior
Canterbury's Law had gotten those prime post-
American Idol slots.
New Amsterdam may be a "supernatural" show, but the holes in the plot are way too huge to avoid. I've definitely fallen away from this one.
— Angie L.
Matt Roush: I agree that the procedural part of the show is the weakest. It's generic in every way, but I'm still relatively intrigued by the way Amsterdam's longevity and his knowledge of ancient New York plays into the cases. But back to the bashing, as Connie L. chimes in with this even harsher critique: "The flashbacks, which a lot of people seem to like, are artificial and boring to me. Mr. Amsterdam is not what a man who has lived 400 years would be. Where are the wrinkles from so much loss and grief? Yes, he's 35 or so, but he's been through so much death and pain that I don't see! I can't get past that at all. I want someone to shoot him, stab him or just have him fall off a building so I can see what happens. How does he stay alive and how does he deal with the people that see it happen? And a point his grandson made, which I can't get out of my head, is what if someone cut his head off? Yes, what if? He does not act like a father or grandfather at all. I want to see feelings, and he doesn't have it. I see this show as a crime show with flashbacks, nothing else. Mr. Amsterdam is no Mick St. John. I'll take my Mick any day. In fact, I'd like Mick to stake Mr. Amsterdam and cut off his head."
Lesson here: You really don't want to get on the wrong side of Moonlight fans.
Question: I would hope that in your position of some influence over television content and its value to the community, that you will do your utmost to remove one of the most contemptible and crass shows ever created:
Moment of Truth. It's unfortunate that the American public and the network involved have seen it necessary to further reduce the ability of a family to sit and watch a program together. A promotion of that contemptible show was aired many times during
American Idol. Consider the irony of that situation:
American Idol gives hope and focus to the thoughts of hopefuls that they may achieve amazing success in life, only to have that level of inspiration decimated by the unmitigated vilification of the American family unit as perpetrated by other network advertising promotions. I watch little TV for this very reason, so perhaps I am not your normal audience, but I have been so incensed by this promotion, that I feel obligated to do something about it. This program must be removed. I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination, but to perpetuate the anguish and the deceit that is portrayed on this program is beneath what I believe to be the core decency of the American people. They had a great idea in the context of
Moment of Truth that they could have made into a fun program that would "reveal" fun secrets. But instead they chose to debase their contestants in the most public way. I understand that these people did this at their own risk and their decision to be on the show was made wittingly and openly, but now they will possibly pay a hefty price for that unassailable game of chance, as will their children, families and friends.
— Alex
Matt Roush: I appreciate the fact that you seem to believe I have some sort of magical influence in the industry, but I'll let you in on a sad fact when it comes to sensational swill like Moment of Truth. It's critic proof. In fact, the ghoul in charge of Fox's reality division loves that Moment of Truth is reviled by every thinking critic and yet, thanks to its advantageous scheduling and train-wreck promos, is a hit. He loves to point out that we're out of touch with the portion of the viewing public that lines up for every gruesome sideshow. And you know what? I'm kind of proud of that myself. But the more we call attention to this ghastly show the more they benefit from the buzz the controversy creates. So while it may disappoint you that I'm not leading a crusade, I think my most appropriate strategy (as it is with the majority of cable celeb-reality and other bottom-feeding TV) is simply to ignore it as best I can.
Question: Do you ever think that TV shows, even with all the money spent on them these days, aren't as enjoyable as they were 20 or 30 years ago? If you were not a TV critic and couldn't search out and watch the gems, would the modern TV landscape hold any interest for you? As a child, my mom and I were addicted to
Little House on the Prairie, and later, I used to look forward all day to watching the Thursday night lineup on NBC. But now everything seems so different. If people aren't being tortured, killed and autopsied on camera, they're living in a house together ready to kill each other. I guess it's best that kids aren't addicted to TV like I was, but it still seems the total package just isn't as appealing as it was.
— Sarah, North Carolina
Matt Roush: I don't hold to the notion that TV was that much better in the "good old days" — except, I suppose, when it comes to TV comedy, which really is in a noticeable downturn right now. The modern TV landscape, as you put it, is enlivened and enriched by its variety and diversity, in part because of the many avenues of interest on cable TV. Any year that gives me Mad Men, Damages, Burn Notice, as well as Pushing Daisies, Chuck and Big Bang Theory is fine by me. Now, if you're looking for safe havens like Little House, you probably have just cause for nostalgia. And I'm not sure that an addiction to the Internet and/or video games is any more healthy than my upbringing, when I was glued, more or less, morning till night to the tube.
Question: I read reviews of
The Return of Jezebel James that panned the show, but I decided to give it a try anyway. I was expecting it to be uneven, but I thought that maybe the combined talents of Amy Shermin-Palladino, Parker Posey, Lauren Ambrose, and Dianne Wiest would win out. And then, the laugh track. As anyone who has ever watched even one episode of
Gilmore Girls knows, ASP's writing isn't meant for setups and punchlines. It's witty and certainly humorous, but not in that old "taped in front of a studio audience" kind of way. So what I want to know, Matt, is why? Laugh tracks are not in style. Surely ASP didn't want one. I would be willing to give this show a few more weeks to find its footing, if not for that laugh track. So again I ask, why?
— Ashley
Matt Roush: Why? Because Jezebel James isn't Gilmore Girls. Amy's background is in traditional sitcomedy (most famously with Roseanne), and it's not beyond reason that she would want to go back to that classic format after the exhausting process of running an hourlong comedy-drama for years. Jezebel is filmed in front of a live studio audience, and there's no doubt the laugh track is sweetened here as it is on most shows of its type. While this practice may not be in vogue with "hipper" audiences, there are still some very popular shows who pull this off quite well. Jezebel James, sadly, is not one of them. I agree, though, that nothing's worse than a laugh track that's being called into service for a show that just isn't funny.
Question: Ironically, your
March 14 column responds to a viewer by saying "Keep in mind that many more people are watching their favorite shows on a different schedule, thanks to DVRs, or even on a different screen, in the case of streaming video online or downloads," yet you fail to extrapolate that to the impact
Jericho has had since day one. Your answer, in large part, was brought to network attention by the
Jericho fans' nuts campaign which underscored the Nielsen ratings' inability to accurately measure the true viewership facilitated by today's technology. Yet it is this same faulty ruler that seems to hold significant power with the networks, their sponsors and those who write about TV. I give CBS enormous credit for understanding that the passionate
Jericho fan base is much larger than is reflected by an antiquated ratings system. Hopefully, CBS and their advertisers will read their fan mail and not your columns when they print their schedule for Fall 2008. No television network or media "expert" should ever disregard, even for a split second, the power of a relentless fan base that is otherwise subjected to endless and unoriginal iterations of
Law and Order, troubling and sensational realities like
Moment of Truth or insidious showcases for the mindless and talentless Paris Hiltons of the world. Telling readers who "regard this short season as anything but a gift" that they sound "cynical" is the pot calling the kettle black. There should always be a place in commercial television for quality programs like
Jericho that appeal across genders and age and for the critics who recognize that.
— Hannah
Matt Roush: In the wake of Friday's cancellation, this is not an I-told-you-so response, but an acknowledgement that a show like Jericho isn't likely to survive if it lacks both media support and decent numbers. Jericho came into its second season riding a wave of good publicity because of its almost unprecedented resurrection, and CBS kept it on the same night in the same time period against mostly reruns (thanks to the strike). It didn't have a compatible lead-in, but honestly, this is about as good a shot as Jericho could have hoped for to build an audience. Also, while the show did have its champions in the critical press, this is not a show that impressed a lot of critics for a number of reasons, in part (and as usual) a subjective reaction to uneven acting and writing. And while its online fandom remained passionate — that's hardly unique to this show — it didn't somehow translate to an adequate number of people watching it in its initial network run, so I'm not sure how CBS would have been able to justify its survival financially. That still is the bottom line, although it's probably no longer nearly as rigid in that regard as it used to be. The second season of Jericho was a noble experiment in responding to fan fervor. I happen to think that (despite some exciting episodes toward the end) it didn't work. I would have been OK if I'd been proved wrong, but that didn't happen.
Question: While at first I was devastated by the writers' strike, things haven't been as bad as I feared. Two reasons are
The Wire and the return of
Lost, but one of the biggest is the HBO show
In Treatment. I've found the show fascinating, more so as it progresses. Gabriel Byrne is wonderful. It's so interesting to see him as appealing, attractive and insightful when he's working as a therapist, yet so withholding and remote to his own family. You haven't written much about this show. What do you think? Is there the faintest chance of its returning? It would be a great summer show, when there are fewer distractions.
— Pat O.
Matt Roush: I'm a fan of Gabriel Byrne, but not of In Treatment, as good as he was in it. I found the format off-putting and frankly more numbing than stimulating. The more I watched, the more I zoned out. But I know that those who stuck with it were passionate about it. They'd have to be. As for its chances for a second season: Hard to say. Given that HBO is in the process of replacing its entertainment chief, in part because shows like In Treatment didn't exactly become a phenom, you have to conclude that HBO is in a major transition mode right now, and some things are going to have to give.
Question: I just finished reading an article about HBO deciding not to air the six produced episodes of one of their more anticipated new programs,
12 Miles of Bad Road. Ever since
The Sopranos ended, people have been criticizing HBO for its lack of quality TV while I have been defending it. HBO still has some good shows like
Big Love and
Entourage (even though its best years are behind it). It still puts out the epic miniseries — see
John Adams and this summer's
Generation Kill (produced by David Simon and Ed Burns). My last argument was that HBO's development requires a longer process than most networks, and that it was in a rebuilding stage. The two shows that were in development that I thought could appeal to mainstream audiences were
12 Miles and Alan Ball's
True Blood. However, now that HBO has cancelled a Lily Tomlin starrer before it even aired, I can no longer defend it. I don't know if it's a good show — it could be horrible. But why not air the six episodes they have produced. It's not like they have ad revenue to worry about. Plus, they have marketed the show since the finale of
The Sopranos. They are not going to have any new programs airing in the summer because of the strike so they really have nothing to lose by airing them. I don't know if Carolyn Strauss is to blame or the people who urged her to step down. What I do know is that HBO has a superiority-complex that's become a problem. They think they are better than every other network. They produce big budget shows such as
Deadwood and
Carnivale only to cancel them because the audience is too small. I got excited when I found out about a possible
A Song of Ice and Fire series, but then I realized that it would have to get
Sopranos-type numbers to stay on the air. I can no longer defend this once-great channel. I only hope that I won't be saying the same things about the now-great AMC five years from now.
— Chris K., Michigan
Matt Roush: I get and share your frustration. Not only am I a Lily Tomlin fan, but I've been a champion of the show's creator, Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, since her Designing Women heyday, and I was intrigued by the idea that HBO would be in business with someone so populist and broadly (pardon the pun) funny. Maybe 12 Miles wouldn't have been a perfect fit for the brand. So what? What brand? Here's how I counter that argument: John From Cincinnati and Lucky Louie. So much for HBO being all high and mighty after those colossal turkeys. Not to mention programming back-to-back downer dramas about therapists (Tell Me You Love Me, which I actually mostly liked, and the aforementioned In Treatment) which hardly proved to have universal appeal. I wouldn't lose hope yet for any network that can get behind something as magnificent as John Adams, but there's no question that HBO has some serious image problems to overcome.
