Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Articles of Quality

Okay, first of all, go read this. Seriously, go. This whole post is centered on that article, it's not that long, so I'll wait.

You done? Good.

I have some basic complaints about this article (aside from the pretentiously proprietary, "Hey that's my thing"). First of all, it's terribly written, with a thesis statement that isn't supported by the body of the article. Secondly, if LOST is the only example of deep, thought-provoking television that the author could come up with, perhaps she's not anything close the the authority she writes like she is. I mean, what about Studio 60? Babylon 5? Soap?

Deeper than that, though:
Sure, there are some astounding clunkers, but television is getting better and better. Writing is more compelling, better actors are becoming attached to televised projects.
What? Tell me, do you watch anything that's actually on, or do you only Netflix dead shows? Writing is not getting better in television. It's exactly the same as in any other medium: Primarily competent but bland with a few sparkling gems that stand out from the mire. And since Aaron Sorkin has departed from television for awhile with no return in sight, JMS is doing Superman (correct me if I'm wrong on that one), Joss Whedon's busy with the Avengers and Cap,  Andrew Marlowe's doing Castle (one of the aforementioned gems), and... no other great TV writers spring to mind.

Which means that we're left with Glee and (shudder) CSI.

What about that "better actors" comment?

Anyone who doesn't know who Richard Mulligan is should be ashamed of themselves. And from the same show, Robert Guillaume. From other great shows: Andreas Katsulos, Peter Jurasik, Alan Tudyk, Ed Wasser, Jewel Staite, Katheryn Helmond, Bradley Whitford, Matthew Perry (I'm forgiving him for Friends), Timothy Busfield, Thomas Gibson, Stana Katic, Emily Proctor (I don't forgive her for CSI: Miami, though), Richard Schiff, Dule Hill, Kathryn Joosten, Paul Gross, Nathan Fillion, Kelsey Grammer, Neil Patrick Harris, John Larroquette, John Lithgow, French Stewart, Robert Carlyle, Michael C. Hall. I'm sure there are more that I missed, but I think my point has been made.

The acting is as good now as it ever has been, the writing is the same. The trick is that most of everything is crap. Sturgeon's Law. It's not that the television is getting better, it's that there's so much more of it that it's easier to find the good stuff.

Television won't just "get better." Sorry, but it won't. As with any other medium, it's only as good as the people in it, and the people who pay attention to it. I can agree that television has been sidelined as an entertainment medium. I can't agree with... anything else in that article.

How will TV get better? Simple. We need to have higher expectations. There should be no "good enough," no "well, it's only a sitcom," no acceptance of the mediocre.

It can be better. But it always starts with the audience, and that, kids, is you.

-Gets off soapbox-

9 comments:

  1. I think her argument centered around Lost because she perceived it to be a game-changer. The shows you listed were well-written, but they certainly didn't cause the sea change Ms. Grunewald implies Lost is effecting (correctly or not). That still doesn't prove that TV will just get better; it just proves TV will "follow the leader", and that isn't provocative by any stretch of the imagination.

    Anyways, you're still right that it's an incredibly facile (not to mention infantile) argument, and you're still right that audience is, for the most part, the determiner of quality. That's why the Wii still exists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even better than finding two different people intelligently discussing a topic I like at length: one of them discussing the other's thoughts.
    I'd say you're both right. It does start with the audience. Her argument seems to be that new ways to watch TV have opened it up to a new kind of audience. An audience with exactly the higher expectations you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @The Schust: Actually, The West Wing set the stage for shows based purely on dialogue and character interactions (like Studio 60; they have the same creator). It proved that they could be good, and smaller writers have been trying to duplicate that success since 2000. Babylon 5 also opened the field on what a sci-fi show can be, not only by being well written and well acted, but also by coming in under budget every single episode with ground-breaking (for the early '90s) special effects. It also took the entire genre away from 'splody boom and closer towards something other than a space opera.

    And I own a Wii. :/ Metroid ftw.

    @Nocturnal: I interpreted her argument as "TV can't improve as long as it's restricted by the one-hour length of the episodes" Perhaps these are parallel interpretations, but the (perceived) implication that television NEEDS more time in order to be better, I found to be so offensive that had I written a comment on the thread, I would have gotten my ass banned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Actually, The West Wing set the stage for shows based purely on dialogue and character interactions (like Studio 60; they have the same creator). It proved that they could be good, and smaller writers have been trying to duplicate that success since 2000. Babylon 5 also opened the field on what a sci-fi show can be, not only by being well written and well acted, but also by coming in under budget every single episode with ground-breaking (for the early '90s) special effects. It also took the entire genre away from 'splody boom and closer towards something other than a space opera."

    While I don't deny they had great impacts within their genre, she's claiming that Lost had a trans-genre influence in forcing all TV shows out of the television and onto the computer. Whether or not that's true, she's claiming what amounts to arguably the most influence a single work has had on a medium as a whole since the first movie with sound.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, in that case, I can safely disagree without qualification.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, not a single work and not Lost. That was just her example.

    "The reason is much simpler, and is tied to the rapid evolution of technology. The expansion of television away from the television set has resulted in better TV."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Exactly: Her claim that the ability to watch more of a single show in a single sitting essentially give the show more time to tell a single story component. I would have really liked to see more (and better verbalized) examples, but that ties back into how awful that article is written.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well I do get your point on the writing of the content of the article. Though I think it was more along the lines of, here is what I think then a thesis.

    Though I am inclined to agree since Fringe a well made X-files that has the heart of Star Trek(entertaining while being smart) only exist because of Lost.

    The Walking Dead a show(6 episode first season wrapping up next Sunday) that is essentially a zombie movie with character development being the star as they deal with zombies on a channel that only shows re-runs of movies would not of occurred if there wasn't this change in medium.

    Since AMC use to be able to coast on TV edits of movies, had to create new product to be stay alive. TBS wouldn't of tried doing My Boys(one of my favorite shows) or have late night show like Conan if the old model still could work.

    I agree TV hasn't gotten better, otherwise My Boys still be on. Though the idea that TV is change is true. I don't think that fun shows like Burn Notice or Castle would of had a chance otherwise.

    If things weren't a changing I still be down to 1 show a season(fall,spring, whatever) I get to watch. Right now that is up to about 6 or 7 since it knows they can't rely on just going on the same old, same old to work.

    This from the point of view that the same old same old may make money in syndication won't always be true. No matter how much they want to replicate the "I Love Lucy" or "Seinfeld" effect. That making money off of DVD sells of a quality product may not make as much at first, but have a longer sells over time. Fox is still making money off of Firefly because of this.

    Even though that there may not be more out there of quality more shows are given a chance to become of quality. So the increase of quality shows means that to some television as a whole is getting better. It does go back to your point in that there is just more shows, and Sergon's Law is true as well.

    Sorry about misspelling. I hope you didn't mind but I used two of your reviews as examples in a post of mine. I'll remove it if there is a problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @MykalWane Yes, the article is not a thesis, but all articles have a thesis statement. That's the sentence or two at the beginning that sets up everything else in the article.

    And no, I don't mind you linking me. Thanks for letting me know, though!

    As for the rest... See, I didn't watch TV for years and years. I only started watching again in the last year or so (which is one of several reasons I'm so critical of it), so I didn't get to watch the transformation that Lost allegedly made to the medium.

    The problem with the idea of a complete shift away from scheduled television and more into streaming (one of them. It just occurred to me, but, hey, as long as people are still reading this...), is that the episodes are televisions main selling point. The capsules of story and bit-sized character development allow for stories that don't have to be intense (in any way. Not just talking about explosions here) for longer periods. There's a much greater buffer of deadtime allowed, which has the ability to produce extremely powerful scenes or episodes.

    Think of the lead-up to the Criminal Minds episode "100." Now, I streamed it the first time, and yeah, it was amazing. But later when I was re-watching, I was called away and got distracted, so I watched two or three episodes and came back to "100" a couple days later, and despite it being the second time I'd seen it, I reacted a ton more to it than I had the first time.

    That rest period between shows needs to happen, and it needs to be taken into account by everyone involved in the medium, otherwise television gets treated as "just" more time to tell a story. Or (Gods forbid), an excuse to be plotless.

    Streaming is great, I use it all the time, but it's a supplement. A convenience. If streaming replaces television completely, it won't be "television on the computer," it'll be something new entirely, and television as we know it will die. And that's terrible.

    ReplyDelete