Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by bigdaddy, Feb 2, 2013.
3 seasons of Haven are almost the same length as any one season of the original Star Trek.
Is it wrong that I am kind of glad? I have not liked the changes already this season (the Ava show canceled, Reagan now at home/Chris working), and when I heard about the camera format changing and the live audience, I decided I may skip those episodes.
The only thing good this year are the neighbors getting more depth and Sean Hayes.
We've probably seen the last episode.
Wow, even more actors who have reputations as "show-killers." Usually I'd expect to hear a reference to Summer Glau, or maybe Ted McGinley. Of course, the more examples there are of actors with that reputation, the more it underlines how ludicrous the very idea is. Most TV series die young; that's the norm, not the exception. So any steadily working actor has a good chance of being in a number of different short-lived shows; indeed, that's more likely than having steady employment in a long-running hit.
Heck, just the other day, I saw that Chi McBride has got a new series upcoming, and that made me realize how many short-lived shows he's been in. He's had a couple of shows that ran four seasons each, The John Larroquette Show and Boston Public, but he's starred in a number of shorter-lived series -- The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer, Killer Instinct, The Nine, and Pushing Daisies all ran one season while Human Target lasted two. (Plus he's the voice of Nick Fury on Ultimate Spider-Man, currently early in its second season, and it's too early to tell how much life that has in it.) Yet for some reason nobody seems to have saddled him with a "show-killer" label -- perhaps because he has had a couple of successes. But then, McGinley had regular or recurring roles in several long-running series, so it's odd that he got a show-killer reputation. Just goes to show how unconnected to reality such perceptions can be.
I've never heard of McGinley as a "show killer" at least as the term applies to cancellation/ratings. The rap on him was always that his mere presence made the show "Jump the Shark" in terms of quality, usually because he replaced actors whose loss hurt the show: Richie on Happy Days, Gopher on Love Boat, Steve on Married with Children, etc. It might run for years afterwards with him on it, but it was never the same.
The promos were terrible - almost as stupid as the old Enterprise promos on UPN.
And we know what ended up happening to that show!
I know. Actually, that one was my favorite of all the Law & Order spin-offs. I thought the characters were pretty interesting. Also, J. August Richards played one of the lawyers, so I would sometimes watch it and pretend that Charles Gunn continued his legal career under a different name after Angel ended.
I stand corrected. I'd never heard of the show before, nor had I ever heard that Eric Balfour was on it. Good for him.
Is it any good?
I didn't realize that about Summer Glau. I mean, I knew she was on Firefly & The Sarah Connor Chronicles but I figure a sci-fi icon like her falls into a slightly different category. Sci-fi shows are notorious for gaining a fiercely loyal cult following and then getting cancelled. Also, I hadn't realized she was on The Cape. (To be honest, everything I know about The Cape I learned from that one episode of Community. "Six seasons and a movie!")
Pushing Daisies lasted 2 seasons, although the first was cut short by the 2008 WGA strike.
Wow, they're taking Up All Night to a live audience format?
I saw the show a few times just because it was on in between better shows. It was a pretty decent show, not great. But turning the show into the exact kind of stupid format the 'psuedo-doc' format was rebelling against? Do they really think anyone's going to go for that? I doubt any of the show's fan base wants a switch to a format that tells them when to laugh.
They might as well convert Parks & Recreation or Modern Family to the 'series of unconnected gags that tell you when to laugh' format.
Anyway, back to Do No Harm, CBS news radio actually did a snarky little story on its cancellation this afternoon. Kind of came off as kicking a rival while down.
Haven is goofy, and frequently insane, but strangely addictive. And Balfour seems to be having a good time playing a wise-cracking ne'er-do-well with a heart of gold . . . who is one-third of a love triangle involving the show's heroine.
The show itself has been running on the Syfy Channel for years now.
If you could compare it to one other show, what would it be?
Hmm. Imagine a cross between X-FILES and WAREHOUSE 13. A couple of local cops investigate weird happenings in a strange little town in Maine. Less overtly comic than WH13, but a bit more whimsical than THE X-FILES. And a complicated arc plot that defies rational analysis . . . .
Did I mention that the Season 3 finale involved a shape-changing serial killer, a deadly meteor storm, and a mysterious barn that only appears once every 27 years?
Yes, it's that kind of show.
The Barn wasn't a barn, that was just Hicksville hillbilly camouflage which is how the Supernatural powers that be saw fit to talk down to and patronize the sad little muggles frightened and confused by all the goings on.
Well, I didn't want to give too much away . . .
I was talking about a Barn circa 1920 which Caretaker used to house his rape victims in the pilot of Voyager just yesterday and the similarity to Haven was amusing. This is taking "if it's not broke, don't fix it" to extremes that these boogymen can use the same mummery to calm the masses for hundreds of years and expect the greatgrandchildren of the first dopes to fall for this crap to be equally as dull witted.
It did look extremely stupid, but I like Steven Pasquale, and I think he could be a very effective lead with the right story.
As for the big networks, I'm often astonished at how little of an effort they seem to be making in the face of so much vastly superior opposition, so much choice. When film was threatened by television, they staggered for a while, but eventually embraced the changes that needed to be made, and the filmmakers, actors, writers and the like who could bring about those changes in a commercially viable way.
It's not the best comparison, but I do see parallels, and I do wonder if a network like NBC can embrace its own assortment of necessary changes.
I don't think it's about a network adjusting to the reality of the market place. I think it's about a network making poor creative decisions. Look at CBS and ABC, they are doing very well.
Especially CBS. They get a lot of eyeballs watching their shows. They may not be the riskiest creatively, but... they know how to entertain a vast swath of the American population.
Which is wise, considering that other parts of the body are not as good at watching shows as eyeballs.
Separate names with a comma.