Comments on: Your TV table (how to tell if a new series is going to make it)

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:26:05 +0000

I’ll definitely check out Life on the basis of that review, Grant.

As for House, I’m finished with him. He started becoming tedious for me mid-season last year. I knew I’d had it when I found myself hoping he’d run out of drugs and go into withdrawal on air. Oops. No longer appealing. Intellectually the show still had some attraction but emotionally he’d burned too many bridges for me. So, I stopped watching.

Did the cops every come back into the story? Hope so.

Now, Vic Mackey, of Shield, there’s a nasty s-o-b I can respect. House just started coming off like an abusive wise-ass punk.

By: Grant

Grant — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:32:06 +0000

Ivan, thanks for a great comment. I’m happy when there’s any departure from form, happier still when there is a continuous departure from form, and still happy even when an anti-form form. You are absolutely right. Life is House in a new genre. But it does so much for the genre that…well, as I say, I am happy. In a more perfectly world, every bit of TV (and popular culture) would be unprecedented, neither coming from form, nor helping to create one. Or maybe not. I think we like thinks form, and the thing about popular culture at the moment is that we are, some of us, (perhaps most of us) saying that things don’t have to be as formed as they once were. Thanks again. Hoping to see you at the MIT do in November. Grant

By: Ivan

Ivan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:06:40 +0000

Grant:

I’ve got to say that, while I agree with the basic premise of what you’re claiming about television here, I actually found the first episode of LIFE to be a pretty disappointing experience… not because it wasn’t well-acted, or decent entertainment; it was both.

The problem for me, as you’ve touched upon in your own comments, is that it was*way* too much like House-in-reverse: take a tired procedural formula, choose a strong lead actor, then have them act quirky as hell. A doctor who hates everyone and spouts biting one-liners? A cop who loves everyone and spouts zen aphorisms? And both of them are tolerated by their (fictional) colleagues and (non-fictional) audiences because they’re just too damn talented and charming not to like.

Problem is, LIFE feels *too* much like someone at NBC said, “House is a consistent success. People love Hugh Laurie. We need one of those on our network too.” And the result (if the pilot was any indication) is a show that tries too hard to be quirky, and doesn’t take its time establishing both the nature and depth of those quirks, nor provide a solid and plausible explanation for them. We know our detective takes a zen approach gained during his 10+ years of wrongful imprisonment, but nothing we see in the pilot indicates much about *why* that experience would have that particular influence on him. As a result, when I was watching, I felt like the prison-backstory was an excuse, not an explanation.

But: perhaps I’m over-reading this, or alone in my sentiment. I’d be curious to know your take on this assessment of the show.