Television is uncanny in its mimicking abilities. When "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?" became an overnight hit for NBC in 1998, networks were quick to take notice. Within a year game shows like "The Weakest Link", "Greed" and even a "21" revival attempted to emulate "Millionaire's" charm for similar ratings boosts. A few years later "Survivor" overtook the "must-see" sticker and networks again flocked to the scene and filled their schedules with inexpensive, unscripted reality-TV. Both situations seemed to work, temporarily.
In 2005, the game-show trend was revisted and updated with "Deal or No Deal". The gaming concept was slightly altered, featuring a more open, 'flashy' set, a celebrity host, and a mindless theme. (maybe the concept wasn't that different) The suitcase-opening phenomenon was a surprise smash for NBC, and networks again observed programming potential. Months later, "Show Me the Money" (similar look to "Deal" with William Shatner at the helm), "Identity", and "1 vs. 100" jumped aboard the game-show rennaisance, proving yet again television's cyclical behaviour. This time, however, the concept could have a shorter self-life.
"Deal or No Deal" concluded its second season last night, and as the show attempted to stay fresh throughout the year by offering tangible prizes in deals and surprising contestants with celebrity guest stars, the reality of the show's repetitiveness began to sink in. Luckily, Howie Mandell has performed hosting duties masterfully, and his charasmatic interaction with contestants as well as his genuine emotion over the game at hand has been critical to the show's success. Mandell, however, can only take the game show so far.
Like "Millionaire" the program follows similar patterns every night, and with new shows airing twice a week TV audiences could grow weary of the formula. The show will undoubtedly rely even more on special deals, weekly spectacles, and celebrity guests to energize the game-show, but don't be surprised if ratings begin to slip next season and NBC announces "No Deal" sooner than expected.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Worst.... Sitcom.... Ever
Most of the sitcoms deserving of the "worst sitcom ever" title were cancelled before their second episode so it may seem unfair to award that distinction before sifting through television's garbage bin. However, after watching only five minutes of one episode I feel no guilt in proclaiming TBS's "House of Payne" to be the worst sitcom ever. And I mean ever.
I won't go into great detail because frankly, it doesn't deserve it. The sitcom is so 'payne'-ful to watch, it is astonishing that the TBS network who claims to be "very funny" would even allow this on television. I only recommend watching this show out of curiosity, but if you are as disgusted by the outrageously terrible humour backed by an equally awful laugh-track, you won't be watching for very long.
I won't go into great detail because frankly, it doesn't deserve it. The sitcom is so 'payne'-ful to watch, it is astonishing that the TBS network who claims to be "very funny" would even allow this on television. I only recommend watching this show out of curiosity, but if you are as disgusted by the outrageously terrible humour backed by an equally awful laugh-track, you won't be watching for very long.
Friday, June 8, 2007
The Good 'Ol Hockey Game
The NHL season concluded Wednesday as the Anaheim Ducks hoisted the Stanley Cup in front of a raucous California crowd. Outside of the Honda Center, however, few people took notice.
The fifth and final game of the series attracted merely 2.88 million viewers for NBC - the smallest audience for an NHL finale in 12 years. That statistic only caps off an abysmal ratings run for the NHL that prompted commisioner Gary Bettman to downplay the importance of TV ratings in his State of the Union address last week.
Versus, the exclusive distributor for NHL games during the regular season, experienced similar playoff woes. Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals managed 769,000 viewers, narrowly behind the Food Network's "Build a Better Burger" at 807,000. Perhaps that is an indicator of the NHL's order-of-importance south of the Canadian border.
But should NHL fans and analysts simply blame the States for ignoring the sport? Of course not. The NHL made a crucial mistake following the lockout by cashing in quickly on Versus' (then OLN) generous two-year, $130 million offer for regular season coverage. While this pooled a few more million to all 30 teams, it hid the league in a non-traditional sports network, and lost the league considerable exposure that ESPN could have provided. Not only does ESPN reach over 20 million more households than Versus (as well as hotels and bars), but they know how to promote a league. Unfortunately, ESPN was smart enough not to offer $130 million.
The NHL's ratings troubles reached a peak for game 3 of the Cup finals when NBC recorded their lowest ratings for a prime-time program in network history. The 1.1 national rating was 31% below last year's third game showdown between Edmonton and Carolina.
So what does this say about the future for the NHL? In Canada, no sport even approaches hockey's national popularity, but in the US the sport's wanning popularity has become the only topic for discussion regarding the NHL. With recent rumours of expansion teams in Las Vegas and Kansas City it appears the league is still trying to market the game to places that just aren't that interested. Lost in the mix are Canadian fans, who have watched three different Canadian teams fall at the hands of American teams over the past three consecutive seasons. Sure Tampa Bay, Carolina, and now Anaheim have embraced their winning squad, but in these Canadian cities where fans eat, sleep, and breath hockey, it almost doesn't seem fair.
The fifth and final game of the series attracted merely 2.88 million viewers for NBC - the smallest audience for an NHL finale in 12 years. That statistic only caps off an abysmal ratings run for the NHL that prompted commisioner Gary Bettman to downplay the importance of TV ratings in his State of the Union address last week.
Versus, the exclusive distributor for NHL games during the regular season, experienced similar playoff woes. Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals managed 769,000 viewers, narrowly behind the Food Network's "Build a Better Burger" at 807,000. Perhaps that is an indicator of the NHL's order-of-importance south of the Canadian border.
But should NHL fans and analysts simply blame the States for ignoring the sport? Of course not. The NHL made a crucial mistake following the lockout by cashing in quickly on Versus' (then OLN) generous two-year, $130 million offer for regular season coverage. While this pooled a few more million to all 30 teams, it hid the league in a non-traditional sports network, and lost the league considerable exposure that ESPN could have provided. Not only does ESPN reach over 20 million more households than Versus (as well as hotels and bars), but they know how to promote a league. Unfortunately, ESPN was smart enough not to offer $130 million.
The NHL's ratings troubles reached a peak for game 3 of the Cup finals when NBC recorded their lowest ratings for a prime-time program in network history. The 1.1 national rating was 31% below last year's third game showdown between Edmonton and Carolina.
So what does this say about the future for the NHL? In Canada, no sport even approaches hockey's national popularity, but in the US the sport's wanning popularity has become the only topic for discussion regarding the NHL. With recent rumours of expansion teams in Las Vegas and Kansas City it appears the league is still trying to market the game to places that just aren't that interested. Lost in the mix are Canadian fans, who have watched three different Canadian teams fall at the hands of American teams over the past three consecutive seasons. Sure Tampa Bay, Carolina, and now Anaheim have embraced their winning squad, but in these Canadian cities where fans eat, sleep, and breath hockey, it almost doesn't seem fair.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Everybody Loves Larry
Few people have experienced the television success of Larry David. After co-creating "Seinfeld", arguably the most popular sitcom in TV history, he went on to star in the cult-classic "Curb Your Enthusiasm" for HBO. So with a combined 14 seasons between the two shows and counting, shouldn't Larry's trophy case be overflowing with Emmy's?
Before discovering the writers room, David was a standup-comedian, and while his stubborn personality and off-beat humour didn't always resonate with audiences, he was considered a 'comedian's comedian.' Perhaps that helps to explain why David, who has personally been nominated for 19 Emmy awards (12 on "Seinfeld", 7 on "Curb Your Enthusiasm") has only won twice, both for "Seinfeld" in 1993. Clearly Larry's work has been recognized, but there seems to be a stigma involved with voting for his projects after the nominations have been cast. Of those 19 nominations, 11 have come in the "Outstanding Comedy Series" where he has been shut-out for "Curb" and defeated five years in a row by "Frasier".
Maybe this legacy fits well with David's reputation as the hapless loser -- a character he has utilized in both series' to great success. Perhaps Jerry's infamous "Newman!" catchphrase originated from David himself, who after yet another Emmy defeat couldn't help but lement "Frasier!"
Before discovering the writers room, David was a standup-comedian, and while his stubborn personality and off-beat humour didn't always resonate with audiences, he was considered a 'comedian's comedian.' Perhaps that helps to explain why David, who has personally been nominated for 19 Emmy awards (12 on "Seinfeld", 7 on "Curb Your Enthusiasm") has only won twice, both for "Seinfeld" in 1993. Clearly Larry's work has been recognized, but there seems to be a stigma involved with voting for his projects after the nominations have been cast. Of those 19 nominations, 11 have come in the "Outstanding Comedy Series" where he has been shut-out for "Curb" and defeated five years in a row by "Frasier".
Maybe this legacy fits well with David's reputation as the hapless loser -- a character he has utilized in both series' to great success. Perhaps Jerry's infamous "Newman!" catchphrase originated from David himself, who after yet another Emmy defeat couldn't help but lement "Frasier!"
Friday, June 1, 2007
"30 Rock" Packs Comedic Punch
How do you decide which new TV shows to watch?
Networks would like to say it's their clever advertisements that capture viewer attention, but is that accurate? Maybe you scour the internet for information on next year's best programs, or maybe you just flip through the box and make the decision for yourself.
I've grown to accept that, as Bart revealed roughly 15 years ago, TV sucks, so when network spinners articulate why their new programming is the best of the best, I tend to tune it out. The first show that I read about before its premiere and made sure I was at a television for the series pilot was 1999's "Futurama". My anticipation was rewarded, so when I read about a cartoon tentatively titled "American Dad" from the creators of "Family Guy" in late 2003 (before the "Family Guy" revival was known) I thought I may have discovered another hit before the series hit the airwaves. Most recently, I was washed away in the "Studio 60" publicity wave that promised Sorkin's next behind-the-scenes concept would take flight for a grounded NBC. My latter two hopefuls did not pann out as hoped, so lately I've relied purely on word-of-mouth. So when NBC's one-hour drama about the 'adventures' behind an SNL set did not deliver on its promises, I was more than skeptical to try "30 Rock" (same premise but half-hour comedy) when told it was near-"Office" funny. Apparently, he was right.
After watching the first few episodes of the series I concluded my intial perception of the series was correct -- interesting to watch, funny at times, but nothing special. However, much like "The Office", after the fourth or fifth episode the show suddenly gells, and it becomes a legitamite 'laugh-out-loud', entertaining comedy. I was never a fan of Tina Fey on Weekend Update, or of "SNL" as a whole during her stint as head-writer, yet she has not dissapointed yet with "30 Rock". Tracey Morgan never seemed to click on "SNL" but he too has found a role that allows him to excel.
Alec Baldwin has embraced his part in a television comedy, and the transition from villain to just odd is likely the leading reason for the show's improvement during its first season. Much like "The Office", some of the best moments involve the secondary characters, and the series will benefit in both storylines and humour outlets from such a strong ensemble.
"30 Rock" hasn't generated significant attention, but if the second season carries on where the first left off, it certainly should. However you decide which shows to watch and which to snub, hopefully you'll give word-of-mouth a try. If I hadn't, I still may not have discovered "Arrested Development". I've also been told to give "Gray's Anatomy" a shot, but I like to think I'm just not that desperate for more TV.
Networks would like to say it's their clever advertisements that capture viewer attention, but is that accurate? Maybe you scour the internet for information on next year's best programs, or maybe you just flip through the box and make the decision for yourself.
I've grown to accept that, as Bart revealed roughly 15 years ago, TV sucks, so when network spinners articulate why their new programming is the best of the best, I tend to tune it out. The first show that I read about before its premiere and made sure I was at a television for the series pilot was 1999's "Futurama". My anticipation was rewarded, so when I read about a cartoon tentatively titled "American Dad" from the creators of "Family Guy" in late 2003 (before the "Family Guy" revival was known) I thought I may have discovered another hit before the series hit the airwaves. Most recently, I was washed away in the "Studio 60" publicity wave that promised Sorkin's next behind-the-scenes concept would take flight for a grounded NBC. My latter two hopefuls did not pann out as hoped, so lately I've relied purely on word-of-mouth. So when NBC's one-hour drama about the 'adventures' behind an SNL set did not deliver on its promises, I was more than skeptical to try "30 Rock" (same premise but half-hour comedy) when told it was near-"Office" funny. Apparently, he was right.
After watching the first few episodes of the series I concluded my intial perception of the series was correct -- interesting to watch, funny at times, but nothing special. However, much like "The Office", after the fourth or fifth episode the show suddenly gells, and it becomes a legitamite 'laugh-out-loud', entertaining comedy. I was never a fan of Tina Fey on Weekend Update, or of "SNL" as a whole during her stint as head-writer, yet she has not dissapointed yet with "30 Rock". Tracey Morgan never seemed to click on "SNL" but he too has found a role that allows him to excel.
Alec Baldwin has embraced his part in a television comedy, and the transition from villain to just odd is likely the leading reason for the show's improvement during its first season. Much like "The Office", some of the best moments involve the secondary characters, and the series will benefit in both storylines and humour outlets from such a strong ensemble.
"30 Rock" hasn't generated significant attention, but if the second season carries on where the first left off, it certainly should. However you decide which shows to watch and which to snub, hopefully you'll give word-of-mouth a try. If I hadn't, I still may not have discovered "Arrested Development". I've also been told to give "Gray's Anatomy" a shot, but I like to think I'm just not that desperate for more TV.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
There's Just No Justice
I don't follow many TV shows. That is, when most people are racing to their couch on Monday to watch "24" or on Thursday to catch the latest "Grey's Anatomy" I was comfortable watching Futurama reruns. Outside of "The Office" there wasn't one show I felt compelled to keep pace with. While this diminishes my credibility in critiquing TV, I have skimmed through much of what the small screen offers, so when presented with a few puzzling statistics, I natuarlly search for the most logical answer.
This week's mystery is the enourmous popularity of "CSI" relative to "Law and Order". Both original police dramas had two spinoffs, both franchises are considered cornerstones to their respective networks, and all six shows follow similar 'find the bad guy' episode formats. (Law and Order - NBC; CSI - CBS) So if they're so similar on the surface, what is the underlying difference that explains the ratings gap? "Law and Order" has been an NBC primetime staple for over 15 years, and combined with multiple-station syndication contracts, you've likely caught a glimpse of the series at some point. Unfortunately for NBC, fewer and fewer people decided to tune into the "Law and Order" franchise last year.
The original L&O series narrowly escaped NBC's "cancellation" stamp last week and has been ordered to significantly cut costs for the 2007-2008 season. "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" received even more cancellation buzz, and although it too escaped the axe, NBC demoted the series to sister-station USA Network.
"CSI", premiering in 2000, has become a ratings giant for CBS, with "CSI: Criminal Scene Investigation" and "CSI: New York" averaging over 20 million viewers per episode. While this should imply "CSI" is the superior drama, from the amount I have seen of each, "Law and Order" appears better written, more engaging, and with a significantly more talented acting ensemble. I recently caught a "CSI: Maimi" episode, and was bewildered by its terrible, if not laughable dialogue that made "Star Wars" love scenes appear nearly Shakespearean.
I often look for reasons to explain why seemingly inferior TV shows are well-received (How did "Yes, Dear" last six years whereas "Arrested Development" didn't even air three full seasons?") but this case has been difficult to crack. Perhaps "Law and Order" has been branded as 'stale' or 'boring', while CSI's illuminated setting has given the series a 'fresh' feel. Whatever the reason, if the ratings story doesn't turn around for "Law and Order" next year, NBC may be forced to find new programing for their vacant primetime slots.
This piece is not to mock people who enjoy "CSI", but rather do help dispell the misconception that the "Law and Order" franchise should be 'put out of its misery'. The recent cancellation speculation will not help this cause, but if you get a chance, watch a complete "Law and Order" episode, start to finish. As catchy as the original "CSI" theme is, if you give the veteran series just one hour, you may find yourself humming a different tune.
This week's mystery is the enourmous popularity of "CSI" relative to "Law and Order". Both original police dramas had two spinoffs, both franchises are considered cornerstones to their respective networks, and all six shows follow similar 'find the bad guy' episode formats. (Law and Order - NBC; CSI - CBS) So if they're so similar on the surface, what is the underlying difference that explains the ratings gap? "Law and Order" has been an NBC primetime staple for over 15 years, and combined with multiple-station syndication contracts, you've likely caught a glimpse of the series at some point. Unfortunately for NBC, fewer and fewer people decided to tune into the "Law and Order" franchise last year.
The original L&O series narrowly escaped NBC's "cancellation" stamp last week and has been ordered to significantly cut costs for the 2007-2008 season. "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" received even more cancellation buzz, and although it too escaped the axe, NBC demoted the series to sister-station USA Network.
"CSI", premiering in 2000, has become a ratings giant for CBS, with "CSI: Criminal Scene Investigation" and "CSI: New York" averaging over 20 million viewers per episode. While this should imply "CSI" is the superior drama, from the amount I have seen of each, "Law and Order" appears better written, more engaging, and with a significantly more talented acting ensemble. I recently caught a "CSI: Maimi" episode, and was bewildered by its terrible, if not laughable dialogue that made "Star Wars" love scenes appear nearly Shakespearean.
I often look for reasons to explain why seemingly inferior TV shows are well-received (How did "Yes, Dear" last six years whereas "Arrested Development" didn't even air three full seasons?") but this case has been difficult to crack. Perhaps "Law and Order" has been branded as 'stale' or 'boring', while CSI's illuminated setting has given the series a 'fresh' feel. Whatever the reason, if the ratings story doesn't turn around for "Law and Order" next year, NBC may be forced to find new programing for their vacant primetime slots.
This piece is not to mock people who enjoy "CSI", but rather do help dispell the misconception that the "Law and Order" franchise should be 'put out of its misery'. The recent cancellation speculation will not help this cause, but if you get a chance, watch a complete "Law and Order" episode, start to finish. As catchy as the original "CSI" theme is, if you give the veteran series just one hour, you may find yourself humming a different tune.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Out of the FOX-Hole
It wasn't long ago that NBC was revered within the television industry as the model network. Between 1985 - 2000, NBC boasted the top rated series eleven times in the sixteen season span. For two decades NBC overlapped hits from "MASH" to "The Cosby Show" to "Cheers" and "Seinfeld". Their overwhelming success even prompted Brandon Tartikoff, president of NBC during arguably its most successful period, to refer to incoming network FOX as a "close-hanger network". Lately, however, the peakock's feathers have faded and FOX has raced to the front of the network pack.
There are two recognitions that networks fight most fiercely to earn - most viewers, and most viewers between 18-49. When FOX was launched in 1986 the "Big Three" (NBC, CBS, and ABC) generally agreed FOX would never become a legitimate threat, and in the network's earliest years it drew little national attention. FOX's first show to break the top 50 rated shows, "America's Most Wanted" didn't exactly have the potential to challenge ratings giants "60 Minutes" or "ER". Over time the network that branded itself as 'edgy' made risky decisions with polar-opposite outcomes. The controversial "Married With Children" put FOX on the map in the late 1980's, and the bizzare idea of greenlighting a prime-time cartoon series with "The Simpsons" struck TV gold.
Although FOX has been criticized heavily for its share of flops, it has slowly built a strong repitoire of programs that has rewarded the "clothes-hanger network" with the most viewers in the 18-49 demographic for the third consecutive year. Three of the year's top five rated timeslots are FOX shows - Tuesday and Wednesday's "American Idol" and "House". NBC meanwhile rarely lands one series in the top 20 weekly rated programs, and only NBC's "Heroes" has consistently cracked the top 15 among 18-49 year-olds. What was unimaginable just 15 years ago has become reality in television's ever-changing landscape.
Network success can be considered cyclical, so NBC executives may simply be waiting for the TV public's preferences to turn in their favour. But as FOX starts next season bolstered by "American Idol", "House", "24", and a consistent cartoon-filled Sunday, NBC may need a few more 'heroes' to rescue the network from yet another ratings finish at the bottom of the "Big Four".
There are two recognitions that networks fight most fiercely to earn - most viewers, and most viewers between 18-49. When FOX was launched in 1986 the "Big Three" (NBC, CBS, and ABC) generally agreed FOX would never become a legitimate threat, and in the network's earliest years it drew little national attention. FOX's first show to break the top 50 rated shows, "America's Most Wanted" didn't exactly have the potential to challenge ratings giants "60 Minutes" or "ER". Over time the network that branded itself as 'edgy' made risky decisions with polar-opposite outcomes. The controversial "Married With Children" put FOX on the map in the late 1980's, and the bizzare idea of greenlighting a prime-time cartoon series with "The Simpsons" struck TV gold.
Although FOX has been criticized heavily for its share of flops, it has slowly built a strong repitoire of programs that has rewarded the "clothes-hanger network" with the most viewers in the 18-49 demographic for the third consecutive year. Three of the year's top five rated timeslots are FOX shows - Tuesday and Wednesday's "American Idol" and "House". NBC meanwhile rarely lands one series in the top 20 weekly rated programs, and only NBC's "Heroes" has consistently cracked the top 15 among 18-49 year-olds. What was unimaginable just 15 years ago has become reality in television's ever-changing landscape.
Network success can be considered cyclical, so NBC executives may simply be waiting for the TV public's preferences to turn in their favour. But as FOX starts next season bolstered by "American Idol", "House", "24", and a consistent cartoon-filled Sunday, NBC may need a few more 'heroes' to rescue the network from yet another ratings finish at the bottom of the "Big Four".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)