Need I say who's reading?
What TV show do you find the most erratic? Usually you can pretty much predict that a certain show will be good or bad? You watch it once or twice and discard it. Or stick with it for the long haul.
But certain shows seem bi-polar. My favorite example is THE CLOSER, which seems to be written by two very different teams of writers--one who favors cute, kitteny and parents-oriented. These episode make our Chief seem like a ditsy broad.
The other team who comes up with some pretty interesting cases-ones that look at the strains between various police orgs working in LA. From week to week, I never know which team will show up. So I stick with it, but 65% of the time, regret it.
What about you? What TV show has bi-polar problems for you?
21 comments:
I'm going neo-classic--TWIN PEAKS. Went from jaw-dropping (back in the day) Lynchian hipness to Hoover vacuum suck to coolness to please stop this compromised garbage already.
When MONK began, the writers seem to have tapped into some good ideas; however, as seasons progressed, the episodes were hit-and-miss as writers (probably different ones) either went to the well too often by relying upon Monk's idiosyncratic schtick or they relied too much on developing other characters with Monk being a foil for their development. So, I have mixed feelings about the show coming to an end this year.
Actually, I watch very little television these days because so much of it is disappointing. Even PBS Masterpiece Theater and PBS Mystery offerings have been less interesting and less well made.
Of course, all of this could simply be that I have reached an age where my tolerance for time expenditures is carefully managed, and television is increasingly becoming a waste of time (or I have finally realized that it has almost always been a waste of time). Too harsh? Too cynical? Perhaps.
No series currently on strikes me as inconsistent as CROSSING JORDAN was, which could range from brillant to remarkably stupid and dull. Of course, creator/showrunner Tim Kring went on to HEROES, so you can see how patterns will replicate.
The most erratic show I've seen lately is the British Primeval, an SF time travel show. They are coming up on their second season finale next week.
So far, midway through the first season, they changed time, having one character change to a completely different person(same actress though), adding others and completely overhauling the sets. Then, season two brought the killing off of the lead male, the previous actress mentioned leaving the show, new characters added, mew plots situations dropped haphazardly in, no kind of coherence at all.
All in two seasons of which British shows are considerably shorter than ours: about twenty total.
Does this inconsistency arise from different writers? And btw, I agree with all of these.
I know what you mean about THE CLOSER, Patti. One week it's a comedy, the next week it's a gritty crime show. I stick with it, too, because I enjoy the ensemble. But, you're right, when you tune in you don't know what you're going to get.
MONK is a real problem for me. Once in a while, they come up with a really interesting case but too often they rely on his neuroses to carry the day. Absolutely right, RT.
With something like THE X-FILES, I think the shift from writer to writer excerbated the weariness of the production staff (the new cast in the last season did what they could with what they were handed). I think TWIN PEAKS was a victim of Mark Snow taking it relaitvely seriously and David Lynch resenting being bound to any kind of narrative...and both have a penchant for dumbass slapstick that doesn't actually help. Seeing the deputy weeping over the corpse of Laura Palmer in the pilot was both strange (particularly for the time, as Kieran notes) and believeable...seeing banging his head on every available surface in the second season premiere was just the wrong kind of painful. I think HEROES, as a serial, flattens the erratic nature of Kring and comapany's inconsistent attention that CROSSING JORDAN suffered more heavily, since it was mostly in standalone episodes with a bit of (occasioanally interrupted/apparently forgotten about) longer arcs. Haven't given PRIMEVAL any time, and it sounds as if my brief bad impression wasn't too far off...I enjoyed how, in the second season episode I rather randomly caught, that the other characters were mocking the Kyra Segwick's character's makeup, notably the lipstick that makes her large lips look very artificial indeed...Sedgwick's atrocious accent in the first season seemed to have been corrected considerably as well.
RT, tv is actually on average nearly as good as it has ever been (I'd say that it averaged a bit better a decade back, but still, it's much better now than any period previously). Which, frankly, is a low bar...so I think you've probably grown a bit tired of "safe" uses of formula.
Actually, I vote for Fox News. First they say fair and balanced, then...
Ys, TV is better than the past, mostly due to cable. If you don't partake, you have very little. Is that a good trend?
The ep. about KS makeup was really splendid. Something we had thought about but not voiced. Although is looking more generic a good thing.
Well, having Sedgwick play a Southern woman rather than a bad parody of the Southern woman was an improvement, I'd say.
TV ca. 2000 was the best it's ever been in this country in part because of cable, and in part because broadcast was trying to draw back some audience lost to cable...and was just rediscovering game shows and other tripe. Meanwhile, even the bubblegum drama ca. 2000 would've tended to shine like a diamond if transported back to, say, a 1978 blighted by the likes of Bionic People and THREE'S COMPANY. (At least we had THE ROCKFORD FILES.)
Also, the smaller broadcast networks were coming into their own, offering some good programming, the WB somewhat more readily than UPN, but even Pax (now Ion) had a decent series or so (MYSTERIOUS WAYS, TWICE IN A LIFETIME, SUE THOMAS...). PBS even had a good, if at times bland (and at times brilliant, as with the episode "Silence of God"--there's another inconsistent series for you), dramatic series in AMERICAN FAMILY (not the more famous documentary series from the '70s, but the one featuring Edward Olmos and half the Hispanic actors in Hwood). MTV slipped up and had something worth watching in DARIA.
And apologies for the typical hasty typing in my previous comments here today...Busy day, though.
I can escape any quirks or dislike of programs for the simple reason: I do not watch TV.
Patti this is why I watch cooking and housing shows on TV, never a let down or a bad script just wickedly uninformed people who really shouldn't be home owners unless they have someone who is a builder on payroll.
My husband's with you, Mark.
Well, I don't know if it's bipolar but Nip/Tuck is certainly psychotic.
I gave up on Nip/Tuck when they had that serial killer a few years back. One day it occurred to me I was hoping he;d murder both of the men. Didn't seem healthy to stay with it.
TV shows usually have a 'showrunner' or head writer/producer who gives all the scripts a final pass. Sometimes that final pass is slight but sometimes it's a complete rewriting.
TV shows just need A LOT of material, though, and not every show can be top drawer.
As for most erratic show, I'd have to say it's the one I'm working on ;)
That's just between us.
I thought I was the only one who noticed this about THE CLOSER. Gritty one week, weak the next week.
There must be two teams of writer-one favoring stories that supposedly humanize her, the other team makes her tough.
Post a Comment