As our 3rd Critic on the Spot, we welcome Matthew Gilbert, television critic for the Boston Globe. Among the shrines at which he has worshipped during his tenure: The Sopranos, Freaks and Geeks, Six Feet Under, Scrubs, Lost and The Office. He has written celebrity and author interviews for the Globe, served as literary and managing editor at Boston Review, clerked at a number of local bookstores, and gotten his MA in Literature. He has had other jobs and assignments, too, but he can no longer remember them because TV has destroyed his brain. Today: more questions from Andrew Altenburg.
Q:
It was disheartening to find out that Chris Carter never had any real back story to back up his elaborate mythology on the X FILES.. and quite frankly aside from the absurd gay subplot, this is what kept me from seeing the movie. If the creator of the series doesn't care about his own story, why should I? I bring this up because I wonder, as a TV critic, it's your job to keep track (to some degree anyway) of all the various storylines on various serialized shows.. which leads me to a few questions:
Q.3:
In a show like Pushing Daisies where the charm might be of the 'less is more' variety, I think the writers strike actually helped extend the novelty of the show, but realistically, how far can they push this particular premise?
A:
Not very far, I think. I admire the series for its originality and visual dash, but I get tired of watching it pretty quickly.
Q.4:
There are some serialized shows that feel more like a mini / limited run series rather than an actual ongoing series. What are your thoughts about why a network would take a concept that probably has about 10 hours of material in it and thinks that it has a shot of extending it to 22 hours per season for multiple years? I mean, what reason other than greed? Surely they can't be that short sighted!
A:
Of course you’ve answered your own question. Money. Greed. Short-sightedness. Ratings come in overnight -- that’s the pace of the TV world. And if a show is doing well, the networks perceive it as an opportunity to move ads more than an opportunity to tell a good story.
Also, the networks like the idea of becoming a habit to viewers, a dependable weekly or even daily fix. Short series don’t become woven into the fabric of people’s lives like, say, “Law & Order” or “CSI” or “The Tonight Show.” They want to grab viewers and hold them; none of this On Demand-type stuff.
But I do think that cable TV has ushered in a sense even on the networks that more is not always better, that short-season series can be hugely popular, that the Brits are ahead of us on that score. Twelve episodes of “The Sopranos” or “Dexter” can have as much impact as 24 episodes of… “24.” I think “Lost” is taking that approach, with 16 episodes per season. See the next question….
Q.5:
and finally, a little off topic...
What are the chances that network television will go the route of PBS, cable, LOST and produce multiple original episodes and air them in a row at strategic times throughout the year rather than confined to the current September - May television season (I think it would be great if, for example, there were 13 eps Sept - Dec of one series and 13 eps of another series Jan - May) or does that just split and fracture the audience even more?
A:
I think this is the direction the networks are already taking to some extent. Reruns don’t do well in the ratings, plus they are available instantly on other platforms. And the cable channels are giving viewers new options all year round. So the nets feel the pressure to run new content on a rolling basis, with no reruns.
More and more shows are arriving at non-fall-season times, not just “Lost” but “24” and “American Idol” and “Scrubs.” Last summer, CBS ran “Swingtown,” NBC ran “Flashpoint.” Reality shows help the networks with this approach; they can pop cheaply made reality shows in and pull them just as quickly, if they fail. But the seasons for scripted series are becoming increasingly short-term and uninterrupted.
