E6 SUNDAY, MAY 16, 2010
AS
SEEN ON TV
R
KLMN
BUBBLE
On the
Will your favorite shows be cancelled? The answer is hours away.
by Lisa de Moraes
The broadcast networks begin to unveil their primetime schedules on Sunday. Some of our best-known series have already been sent to that great Scheduling Board in the Sky — RIP “Ugly Betty,” “24,” “Lost” and, morbidly, “ ’Til Death.” But still more shows have fallen into that critical condition known as “on the bub- ble,” and their live-or-die fates will be revealed in the week ahead. Here is how network execs assess before they start popping:
Kathryn Morris of “Cold Case.”
“How’s the View From the Toilet?”
. . . in which shows that should be drain-bound are likely to survive.
Chuck: that show about a nerdy guy who gets a brain download, be- comes a spy, uses his powers to score. (NBC)
Heroes: that show about many pretty, demographically diverse people who wake up psychic. (NBC)
Mercy: that show about hot hospi- tal nurses in heat. (NBC)
Trauma: that show about para- medics as heli-jumping danger junkies. (NBC)
Shows that every week attract about 10 million people face possi- ble cancellation on healthy net- works, which is to say “Medium” on CBS, while half that many keep a show alive on unhealthy networks, which is to say all of the above on NBC. That soon-to-be-sold network has so many stinkers on its sched- ule that it can’t do them off all in one season. Oh, except “Trauma” — that one’s toast, trust me.
“Get Me Another “Lost” — STAT”
. . . in which sci-fi serials fall into a black hole.
V: that show about lizard aliens who mask their scaly insides with pixie cuts and eyeliner. (ABC)
FlashForward: that show about the whole world getting the vapors all at once and glimpsing the fu- ture. (ABC)
Happy Town: that show about a postcard-perfect hamlet that turns out to be rotten. (ABC)
It’s a fairly easy task to persuade fans of, say, “CSI” and “Law & Or- der” to become ardent fans of the next iteration: — “Law & Order: Los Angeles,” really? The down-the-rab- bit-holers who watch “Lost” are ac- tually a pretty picky bunch, leaving ABC with a contorted mess of Rube Goldberg dramas but no “Lost”-like winner. One of these shows will be lucky to survive.— My money’s on alien lizards.
“But Is It a Bruckheimer?”
. . . in which death visits underperformers with the wrong producing pedigree.
Medium: that show about Patricia Arquette as a spectral-visionary who wakes her patient husband up all the time. (CBS)
Miami Medical: that show about adrenalized Brit Jeremy Northam and his first-responding ingenues. (CBS)
Cold Case: that show about the pretty detective with messy hair who solves cold crime cases. (CBS)
Numb3rs: that show about the annoying math genius who solves his brother detective Rob Morrow’s cases for him. (CBS)
Ghost Whisperer: that show
about Jennifer “Love to My Friends” Hewitt’s bosom and how it heaves at the sight of dead people. (CBS)
Some of the slew of drama series on the bubble at CBS come from the house of hit-churner-outer Jerry Bruckheimer (of “CSI” franchise fame). Bruckheimer shows have an advantage because CBS wants Jer- ry to be happy. Bruckheimer shows enjoy the same advantages as em- ployees engaged to the boss’s daughter.
“ ‘Cheers’ funny or ‘Wings’ funny?”
. . . in which survival depends on likeness to comic tropes.
Accidentally on Purpose: that
show about Jenna Elfman contin- ues to believe she’s perky and 20- something. (CBS)
The New Adventures of Old
Christine: that show about Julia Louis-Dreyfus turns out to be the only one who did not suffer The “Seinfeld” Curse. (CBS)
Gary Unmarried: that show
about Jay Mohr is transformed from edgy comic to CBS contractor- guy sitcom star. (CBS)
Sons of Tucson: that show about
Tyler Labine plays slacker dude/ fake father. (Fox)
Nearly two decades later, TV com- edy that survives can still be divid- ed into two categories: Some are like “Cheers” — long-running hits — and others are like “Wings,” which managed to survive seven years as That Show After “Cheers.” Sitcoms that have no legs of their own and are not lashed to a hit go bye-bye, especially if that network has a new sitcom on the way from cur- rent comedy-king Chuck Lorre (“Big Bang Theory,” “Two and a Half Men”).
“What’s the Worst that Could Happen?”
. . . in which a network must choose between a known known and a known unknown.
One Tree Hill: that show about
high drama among twentysome- things in a small town. (CW) two brothers shoot hoops and duke it out over same chick.
Life Unexpected: that show
about teen foster child finds birth parents; cue weeping and tan- trums — by the parents! (CW)
If two dramas are vying for one time slot, network suits will try very hard not to decide. Maybe they like one (seven-season-old “One Tree Hill,” larger, passionate fan base, but no growth potential) but they also could like the other (half-sea- son-old “Life Unexpected,” unim- pressive initial ratings but more po- tential upside). Or, they could chicken out and or- der each for half a season. Wimps.
Zachary Quinto of "Heroes."
CHRIS HASTON/NBC
‘TRAUMA’: Sometimes a network has too many marginal shows to cancel. This one may go anyway.
DAVID GRAY/ABC
‘V’: Where will the fans of “Lost” go? Maybe to “V,” with its lizard aliens led by Morena Baccarin.
REED SAXON/ASSOCIATED PRESS
‘NUMB3RS’: Without a Jerry Bruckheimer pedigree, this show’s number could be up.
MONTY BRINTON/CBS
‘GARY UNMARRIED’:Jay
Mohr stars in this sitcom, which is not “Cheers” or “Wings.”
FRED NORRIS/CW
‘ONE TREE HILL’: It’s a tossup
between this show and “Life Unexpected.” Split the difference?
TV’s faux reality sitcoms: Mock till they drop
television from E1
derrated 2005 HBO series “The Comeback,” in which Lisa Kudrow played a sitcom ac- tress who allows a camera crew to follow her through a professional nadir. The format remains funny because it seems just real enough. When they’re look- ing right into the camera, the characters seem to be talking to us, the audience, their confidants— which is flattering in a way. It’s like irony frosting on an irony cake. That said, the form has wavered. The chronic mediocrity of NBC’s “Parks and Rec- reation” and a palpable onset of boredom at “The Office” have me questioning mocku- mentary’s many shortcomings. Especially when those two shows are matched against the soaring brilliance of ABC’s “Modern Family,” which is easily the best show of the 2009-10 season.
Thinking about it too much (and watching these shows too much) recently steered me in an epistemological direction. That fourth wall was partly ours, in the way that a fence can also belong to your neighbor. Then they tore it down.
Who, I wonder, are the mockumen-tar- ians? By now, the imaginary, unseen film
crew tasked with completing a documentary about an average American workplace (“The Office”) has amassed five full years’ worth of footage. What do “they” intend to “do” with it all?
No one in “The Office” ever asks when the project will conclude. If it’s to be a reality TV show, why has it never aired? If it’s a film project, where does the unlimited funding come from? (That’s one heckof a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur grant.)
All we know — or presume to know — is
that a film crew follows Dunder Miffliners around each and every workday with un- heard-of journalistic access, to the point where the crew was even at that roadside gas station when Jim proposed to Pam. This ac- cess persists even as the company was taken over this season by Sabre Corp., which makes computer printers and is run by a steely Floridian (Kathy Bates). She’s a type of woman who seems disinclined to open up her business to a documentary crew. Only rarely do the characters ever interact with their ever-present observers. Jim and Pam (and sometimes Oscar, the gay accoun- tant) are most frequently the only ones who ever glance with pleading eyes at what we believe to be the mockumentarian camera crew, in a new way of breaking what used to be the fourth wall. They are acknowledging
the full absurdity of the world around them to a sympathetic watcher. I have entertained the idea that “The Of-
fice” is a reality show in the making, and that when it comes time for the editors and pro- ducers to “assemble” the “footage,” they will cut it in a way that betrays Jim and Pam as snarky and needlessly cruel, and makes Mi- chael, Dwight and other DunderMifflin em- ployees appear smart and competent. Although some loyal viewers insist that
“Parks and Recreation” has improved this season, I still find it to be a dreary and cyn- ical attempt to photocopy the success of “The Office.” Why that happened is anybody’s guess: Maybe lead actor Amy Poehler’s talent is squandered on a character who isn’t strange enough. If “The Office” and “Parks and Recreation” wish to rejuvenate themselves, they would do well to mimic a key innovation of Ku- drow’s “Comeback” series. There, Valerie Cherish (Kudrow) was con- tinually interacting (and interfering) with the film crew and the “show’s” producer. Val- erie eventually watches the resulting reality show, and sees how she’s been edited into a pathetic (if accurate) version of herself. “Parks and Recreation” would especially
benefit from this new layer: Poehler’s Knope needs to suffer the pain of journalistic be-
trayal, seeing herself and her bureaucratic milieu laid bare. We need to watch her watching us watch her. (Follow that?)
What sort of project has the extended fam-
ily of Jay Pritchett (Ed O’Neill) signed up for, thus creating the premise for “Modern Fami- ly”?
Could what we’re seeing be the making of
a film or reality show about family relation- ships and conflict? Is it a serious social study, harking back to the tumultuous Loud family of PBS’s seminal documentary series “An American Family” back in the 1970s? Or is it a project destined to run on cheap cable? (What, with no “little people” making cup- cakes?)
Of course, these questions test the limita- tions of the form. Anyone who’s ever studied or participated in actual documentary film- making can point out hundreds of examples of “ungettable” moments in “The Office,” “Parks and Recreation” and “Modern Fami- ly” — places where cameras (and crews) mi- raculously gain access to both sides of a locked door, so to speak, and other lapses in verisimilitude. The improv styles in these shows are mas-
terfully handled, since mockumentaries are usually cast from an alumni directory of the
DIRECT MARKETING: Shows that featu
Groundlings, Second City, Upright Citi- zens Brigade and other theatrical comedy incubators. But a real documentarian can immediately see the precise stage block- ing of mockumentary; the moments we find most funny and spontaneous, he will detect as finely honed script writing. Try reading snippets of a teleplay of a
“Modern Family” episode, as text on screen. The writing and pace are crisp, and yet you’ll barely crack a smile. It’s like reading a lukewarm sitcom pilot. But then watch the same scene in an
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166