Lone Star - (FOX): Canceled at No O'clock

Of all the new Network shows for Fall 2010, by far the best Pilot belonged to Lone Star, a slick yet very human tale about a Texas con-man trying to juggle a double-life and find something real.  

Of all the new Network shows for Fall 2010, the biggest ratings disappointment (when comparing lead-in audience, expectations, etc.) and the very first show canceled was Lone Star. 

I can't help but feel that the last two sentences are linked, which is why I am so glum about the state of Television in the foreseeable future.  

Orwellian paranoia aside, Television doesn't exist to control the masses.  Neither (as most people seem to think) was it invented to entertain them.  Television was invented for advertisers to show you about their products, that you might go out and buy them.  From this idea sprang Networks, initially side-projects of Radio Stations, eventually their own mini-nation-state companies.  

We all know what the purpose of companies is.  These companies, these Networks seek to make money, and as such they put programs on their airwaves - free of charge - with and then make their money by charging confiscatory prices (which means "as much as they can") to advertisers, which brings us back to the inception of Television mentioned above. 

Another time I will write at length about how Remote Controls and Tivo spell the end of free Television as we know it, but for the moment, let's concentrate on the most basic of TV transactions. Advertisers pay money - a lot of money - to air commercials (an in some cases "sponsor" programs) with the idea that we will watch.  Advertisers are looking for certain segments of the population (the oh-so-coveted 18-49 Demo, as well as others), but as a general proposition, the more viewers a Television show has, the more successful it is, as the Networks can charge more money, etc. 

So far I think you're all with me, as none of this is rocket science.  But here's the rub: while some of the "creative" types at the Networks care about Emmys and Peabody awards and "art," they all take a back seat to the almighty dollar.  There's no simpler way to put this: the Networks serve only one real master: Ratings. If you could guarantee 30 million viewers by putting a baby  up on screen who sat there for an hour (minus 17 minutes of commercials) doing nothing other than picking his nose, the Networks would air it in a heartbeat.  I'm not kidding. Even if all the baby ever did was sit there and root around with a stubby little index finger in each nostril, 30 million viewers would guarantee Thursday night at 9:00.

What does all this have to do with my Lone Star review? 

I created TV Warrior to praise great Television (and lambaste the Awful), for two noble purposes.  One - I do care about sharing great art, and if there is something great out there, I want you, my readers, to hear about it, and get the chance to watch.  I've often been criticized how useless TV is, but that's malarkey.  If I lived in the age of Shakespeare I would exhort you to the Globe Theater, and when Sherlock  Holmes was being serialized I'd have been out on the street corner barking newspapers.  Great art is great art - and there has been TV the last decade to rival anything in human history.  

The problem is - I can't get enough people to pay attention!  If people watched - in flocks, in droves - the good stuff, and actively, aggressively, sneeringly ignored the bad, guess what would happen?  The Networks would be viciously competitive to get great programming. Every night would be show after show with transcendent laughs, life-changing drama and quality up, down and to the sideways.  

As it is, the quality of a Television show is so seemingly unrelated to its ratings that one suspects the two things often have nothing to do with each other.  

This brings me back to Lone Star. 

Would Lone Star work in the long run?  I don' t know.  The kind of show it was (a night-time soap) chews through plot in a hurry, and the tension of a man with two lives - well just how long can that high-wire act stay up?  I don' t know the answer, and it's a legitimate question.  

But I bet everything I have that it's not why the audience didn't watch.  The American audience couldn't be bothered, didn't want to take the time to engage, and instead stayed with something safe and un-thinking.  

It's not the end of the world.  Lone Star wasn't the greatest pilot ever, and there will be other great shows, some of which will actually find enough people who say "Wow!" and go and tell others.  But, it's part of an all-too common trend, and it doesn't bode well for any of us who care about quality.  

One more "what could have been" goes down the drain, as we click over to something else.

{My assistant Jadriana found me a bunch of great pictures in anticipation for my Review, but before I could write it the show got canceled, which left little reason to work the pictures into an informative review. Maybe the filmed episodes will come out on DVD or something. In the meantime, look at the pictures and think of what might have been.....}

See reviews for all the New Fall 2010 TV Shows

Return to TV Warrior Home

Go to The Hyperion Institute


   

Among TV aficionados (and Film too, for that matter), there are those I call the "Genre Watchers." They will watch anything that splashes across their Genre radar. (Conversely, while being far less discriminate about their viewing habits, they also tend to be hyper-critical of their favorite shows. Go figure.)

My problem is not with Genre Watchers. My problem--as always--is with any viewers of any medium who are content with and give patronage to--Utter Crap.

Yeah, it's your life, and why should I care if you won't come in out of the rain? Why? Because it affects me too. The central premise of TV Warrior is that the more people watch and support Quality Shows, the more Hollywood will consider Quality to be their best means of making money.

Don't kid yourself: Hollywood cares only about money, and that means the rates they charge for advertising, which in turn means viewers.

Sadly--very sadly--high viewership is not always or even often highly correlated to Quality. We see that happen, and the Renaissance of Great TV the last 10 years will spread throughout the airwaves.

Anyway, Rant aside, this brings us to Sanctuary.




The program (airing on Sci-Fi on Fridays at 10:00 with several more viewings throughout the week; premiering on Space Channel in Canada next week) is smack in the Middle of Genre Land. Geeks will likely jump on from word Go, complaining about anything and everything on Message Boards all the while. For the semi-geeks and regular viewers, the Question is: Should you bother?

Here is the story: there are monsters out there, genetic mutations that come from....Science? Magic? At this point it is unclear, and honestly, it could not make the least bit of difference.

Our heroes track down these monsters. Fairly standard so far. Ah, but the rub. Some of these Monsters are quite dangerous, and the public needs to be protected. But some of these Monsters are quite innocent, and they need protection from the public. Friendly Fluffy Freak or Malevolent Menacing Monster, they are all safe in a Giant Castle/Zoo/Prison/Home run by Dr. Helen Magnus (Amanda Tapping).



From what I gather, Amanda Tapping is very popular in the Sci-Fi community. She does fine, although it's too soon to tell what Tapping brings to the table. You might wonder why the evil monsters aren't destroyed. "Soft-on-Crime Sci-Fi Liberalism" run amok? Maybe. But if you've seen any show about Monster hunters, you know that there are always dark secrets around the corner.

In the pilot we learn that Dr. Magnus is 157 years old, and like any woman who walks the night, feels an attraction to the Darkness that's more than job-related. (At this point half of you roll your eyes at the idea of another Horror-Whore, while the other half lick your lips with a "Sign me up!")




Dr. Magnus has a daughter Ashley (Emilie Ullerup). From the two hour premiere she's easily the weakest "actor" of the crew, by far the least believable character. Shockingly, she's hot as hell. Who would ever watch Sci-Fi without someone to lust after? (Admit it.) Ashley has secrets she's not even aware of....blah blah blah, you get the idea.

The rest of the cast includes a Forensic Psychologist (Robin Dunne, as Dr. Will Zimmerman), brought in to help understand the monsters, the requisite tech-geek, a token black weapons guy, a lovable version of Bigfoot and Jack the Ripper. I did not make that last sentence up. (He's the most interesting character so far, and that was before I learned he murdered prostitutes in the Victorian Age, which, all things considered, would be an ice-breaker in any social situation.)

Sanctuary isn't trying to reinvent the wheel, concept-wise. Echoes of X-Files show up, as there are of Heroes, Buffy, Beauty and the Beast, Alias and even Harry Potter. Many of the conventional tropes of Genre TV (weak writing that keeps people from saying what any normal person would to alleviate the situation, coincidences that explain whatever is needed and the like) are here, but to be fair, it's not any different than most modern TV. (Much as I love Heroes, I spend at least ten minutes a week grumbling about the conversations characters DON'T have that would make things so much easier. When I'm making movies or TV some day, don't any of you ever let me get away with that shit.)

What makes Sanctuary potentially appealing--to only a semi-geek like me--is the look. Shot almost entirely on Green Screen, the backgrounds--while not always completely believable--are gorgeous, far beyond what we're used to in limited-budget cable TV. Think of your favorite Gothic and Baroque Art, mapped in fairly realistically as background. Beautiful to look at.




Sanctuary promises to have that X-Files Monster of the week aspect, with (likely) an ever-growing conspiracy of some sort. We've all seen it before, but that's not a criticism. The strength of weakness of the show will be in the writing and how the characters develop.

If you're a Genre Fan, or even if you're not, Sanctuary might be worth a shot. Some of you aren't Sci-Fi geeks, but look at how Firefly and Battlestar Galactica and even LOST transcended their genres to be some of the best TV in years. I'm not predicting or saying to expect that from Sanctuary. I'm just saying people should keep an open mind. If you ever watch TV on Friday nights, why not?

And even if Monsters aren't your cup of tea, please grasp and believe my central tenant. The more you support and get others to support good TV, the more Good TV we will get.

Since--like an idiot--it did not occur to me to make notes until much later, I found myself trolling the web for quotes from tonight's Episode. (Did you know this was Season 20???) I found this Message Board full of people just tearing the show apart; some were not even waiting for the show to conclude! Over and over I read how terrible the show was, how it was not like the olden days, how the plot was nonsensical; one guy, who had over 8000 posts on this message board, said he was never coming back. (Somehow I doubt it.)

This is what I don't get. Why would fans of a show be so....gleeful to tear their favorite programs apart? I mean, if you don't like it, say it once and QUIT WATCHING!

Of course, that said, I have already written a piece tonight--in my very first day doing this site--worrying about the direction of Season 2 of Californication, and this after one episode!

I don't want to be one of those "Everything Sucks!" people. My goal for TV Warrior is to champion television shows that deserve an audience, and implore people not to watch things that don't. However, in practical terms, I will be doing a lot more of the former, since A) I'm a TV optimist and B) I usually quit watching things that are terrible.

There is a reason I'm doing all this. I'm going to write about it more in depth later on, but let's say it boils down to this: the more people who watch good shows, the more likely good shows are to get made.





Back to those Message Board people for just a moment. A personal taste is one thing. If you don't like something, you don't like it. But for a fan of The Simpsons to claim the show is "awful" now tells me that person should be sterilized, because we don't need any more of their dumb-as-hell genes. I am totally serious.

Objectively speaking, you can make the case that The Simpsons had a few years when they did not hit it out of the park. Even today, I will grant you that not every episode goes straight to the top ten list. This could be partly because of the difficulty of coming up with fresh material after so long (while not ripping themselves off too badly), and also because those early episodes have cemented such a place in our hearts through repeated viewings and nostalgia for our younger years.

What is also objectively true, but any competent analysis, is that The Simpsons can still hit the cover off the mutha-f*&king ball. When they are on, it's amazing. Just last year, the venerable series had seven great episodes, four outstanding episodes, and one that arguably is in the top ten-fifteen of all time, once the dust settles. (They also did two "out there" episodes, that don't completely work, but that's another reason why I love The Simpsons: they take chances.)


Off the Soapbox for now. As for the first episode of this season's The Simpsons:

"Sex, Pies and Idiot Scrapes"

A bang-awesome episode, one I found myself consistently laughing all the way through. Start with an inspired couch opening (with actual foreshadowing by Boba Fett), and then straight into the opening scenes, where poor Irish heritage gets trashed. (I WISH I had written some of those lines down!)

Marge's plot revolved around (unknownst to her) working in an Erotic Bakery, while Homer and Ned team up to become bounty hunters (while listening to Ned's favorite group, an AC/DC cover-band: AD/BC).

The Marge stuff was funny, with several risque moments (involving Patty and Selma and then Principal Skinner and Superintendent Chalmers), but the heart of the episode was Homer and Ned. I don't know why, but I love all Homer/Ned interaction. There's even this amazing chase scene that has the two flipping off walls ninja style. (And then still doing it, even in an elevator!) I don't know how to describe to you how subtly brilliant those last two sentences are. I guess you'll have to see for yourself.

I would probably watch a B or even B- Simpsons out of out loyalty, but I am not afraid to call a spade a spade, and if an episode falters I would say so. But coming out of the box, The Simpsons are still in fine form.