TV Criticism

Because I love TV, I often have conversations with my friends about what constitutes as "good TV".  My friends know that I stay on top of what's happening in the industry, so I'm often asked for my professional opinion.  I often regurgitate what I've read from critics and express my own personal opinion, which usually conflicts with the general TV professional.

I was led to wonder, what is it that I'm not getting?  What do they see about this TV show that they find so amazing, that I think is so boring?  Then, I realize, almost every "critically-acclaimed" show always has the lowest ratings and is generally struggling for an audience.  My opinions are generally more aligned with higher-rated shows.  There are clear exceptions to this; I am hard-pressed to find a reality show I can sit through.  But I do understand why certain reality shows are beloved, apart from my personal opinion.

When I watched previews of the fall lineup this summer, I predicted who was going to make it and who wasn't.  I should have blogged about it, but I never got around to it.  But I was most surprised that Lone Star was a critic's favorite.  I didn't understand how I could become emotionally attached to a main character that was deceptive.  As a woman, I couldn't see entertainment in watching a man lie to his two secret families.

Clearly, America agreed because it was the first show to get chopped.  It came on right after House, and most of the viewers changed the channel, probably to NBC to see the The Event, which was my choice.  The show's creator begged and plead on the internet for people to watch his show the second week, but even less viewers tuned in.

I can't say I never agree with the critics.  We all thought NBC's Undercovers wouldn't work because sex and action alone to equal to a good show.  Spy shows have been struggling on TV for years.  Spy show fans are pretty hard core, just ask loyal followers of Chuck and the canceled Jericho.  But spy show fans generally have to identify with the characters and I did not see the Comic-Con fan base jumping on the bandwagon behind a sex-crazed African-American couple.  I guess that was just me.

But if what I think makes a good TV show are higher rated shows, who's wrong?  What criteria are reviewers even using?  My guess is that TV is rated by the same community that rates films.  The last few years of Oscar-nominated pics are a strong indication that regular people don't agree with the general film community.  Everyone I've ever met who worked in the TV industry was more interested in film, and liked the steady paycheck that came with TV.

This is one of the many reasons why I want to work in the television.  I can't say I know what's best, I've never worked for a network, I have no idea what's involved in their criteria.  But I do care.  I love TV and I always will.  When I finally get to LA, I hope I get a better understanding.

Season 2 of Glee

There's no question, I love Glee.  Season 2 is no different, I love it.  I love singing, I love dancing and I'm in a group called Chicago Glee for a reason.  Regardless of the fact that I love season 2, I think it could be MUCH better.  The first season was magical.  The dialogue was witty, the plot points were original and the characters were presented with iconic Steve Urkel-like material, especially Jane Lynch's well-deserved Emmy-winning role as Sue Sylvester.  

And as much as I love singing, there's a little too much of it going on right now.  I feel like every episode is designed for iTunes sales.  There's barely any dialogue or any plot at all whatsoever.  But when 7 songs are in a one-hour episode, how does one have any time for an actual good show?  If this season is any indication of what Glee looks like now that it's found some success, I don't think it's going to be riding this success wave very long.