My theory is that shows that are very premise-dependent are usually at their best in the first season, while shows that are character-dependent are never at their best in the first season. A procedural show is often, not always but often, at its best in early episodes because the writers are using their best ideas early and the formula is still fresh and new. Whereas a sitcom, or a very character-dependent hourlong show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, always improves in the second season when the characters’ relationships have developed further.
Apologies to Chris Haddock, but if anybody's gonna run the CBC and pick shows, shouldn't it be a guy like this? Weinman consistently shows an incredibly detailed, trenchant understanding of the TV medium. His disquisitions and analyses of genres and TV series shows a sensitivity to both audience trends and issues of craftsmanship. He has watched more drama and comedy than any network executive I've ever met (and I've met some who've seen a lot of tv. A lot.)
Last time I checked, the CBC job was filled, but any time somebody moves on, if they decide to make "knowledge of television genres and trends" a premium -- here's a guy to take a long hard look at.
A smart network would make him a creative consultant a la the deal Al Magee had with Showcase. Just sayin.
8 comments:
You say that a lot nicer than I do, but I mean it in the best way possible: Jaime Weinman's knowledge of and insight into tv freaks me out.
I wish I could afford to hire him. And he's one person I wouldn't begrudge my tax dollars going to.
Weinman rocks....seriously.
Whoa. That makes scary sense.
Also, I've been afraid to watch Square Pegs again for fear of damaging my fond memories of middle-school squee. This gives me faith that maybe it won't...
if i were a child, i would want to be Jaime Weinman when i grew up.
Too true. I'd say a perfect example of premise-dependent would be Heroes. After they save the world...so much felt lost to me.
I think that's why Jericho and Cane suffered in the ratings. It took too much time for your average watcher to wait until the characters were properly introduced and developed before getting into the really good storylines. Your average watcher is too IMPATIENT. You were talking earlier about why sci-fi shows failed in the ratings and I think it is because of this impatience. If something isn't good and jam-packed ASAP, your average viewer will move onto something new. That in itself spells disaster to sci-fi type shows which rely on character development prior to mega-storylines. That's why you get the real die-hard fans with the character-driven dramas and not with the procedurals. It's those viewers who have the patience who are able to truly fall in love with a show because they've waited around for the complexities to develop. It's too bad the majority of true character-dependant dramas rarely make it through a full season if at all and it's also the reason why there are such diehard fans. "Real" TV-watchers recognize a show with a vast potential to be great.
And, of course, any series built around 'will they, won't they' inevitably declines once they do.
Post a Comment