I've come to the conclusion that network television is in a rut.
On one network, NBC, it seems that there's only one successful formula--cops and lawyers. Four different variations on Law and Order, not only running on their regular nights but apparently used to fill space with reruns whenever some other show winds up in the rating cellar.
On another network, CBS, it's cops and science. Three versions of CSI, one variant that puts it in a military setting (NCIS), one that makes it psychology (Criminal Minds), and one that makes it mathematics (Numbers). Again, the CSI shows appear to be used as space-fillers in an emergency.
ABC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a successful "franchise" of any kind. Desperate Housewives is its big hit...but if there's a way to spin that off into other shows, they apparently haven't found it yet.
On Fox, the "franchise" is "reality"...largely based around American Idol. But I don't see the appeal to this show at all--quite frankly, there are better performers among my high-school senior's drama club...most of whom have no intention of going professional. Fox's one other notable show, House, seems to be taking a cue from CBS--forensic medicine, for lack of a better term.
WB? It's all teen angst, all the time. UPN? Other than shows aimed at the black, urban market, I can't see a strategy. No wonder these two are merging next year.
Situation comedy seems to have fallen into one of its periodic declines. (When Two and a Half Men is touted as TV's biggest comedy hit, you know you're in a decline.) And I don't think there's a Norman Lear or a Bill Cosby waiting in the wings these days to resuscitate it.
Seven years ago, I had high hopes that Aaron Sorkin and The West Wing would introduce new subjects and venues for TV drama. But it took that whole seven years for ABC to come up with Commander-in-Chief, a washed-out variation on its prececessor. And I wasn't really thinking then of a whole string of political dramas...I was hoping that the range of topics on Sorkin's show would lead some producer, somewhere, to find material in some other business or profession or concept.
Is the journalist so reviled in this day and age that there's no interest in a series about a reporter? (Make him a blogger if you want to make it "relevant" and "hip".) I thought NBC might be going somewhere with The Book of Daniel--surely there's room for an examination (serious, comedic, serio-comic) of the life of a member of the clergy beyond the platitudes of Seventh Heaven? Have Enron and Tyco and their ilk so turned us off that a series set in a major corporation has no chance?
For the record, I like the original CSI, the original L&O (and spin-off SVU), Criminal Minds, Numbers, and--to a lesser extent--Commander-in-Chief. But, at least recently, none of them has become for me what The West Wing once was, an "appointment"--a time when I would make a point of being in front of my set for the latest episode, when I was annoyed when it was pre-empted for a "special", or when I was disappointed when a real-life event conflicted with it.
I wish I had more "appointments" with my TV these days.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Why I'm Not Reading Marvel Right Now
Over the past few years, I've found myself only reading the comics that truly intrigue me.
The intrigue can be caused by characters I care about, interesting plot devices, or creative teams I trust to do competent, craftsmanlike work. That said, flipping through Marvel's titles in the store, reading the comments on message boards, I find that there's nothing intriguing in Marvel's current output.
Characters I once cared about--the X-Men, the Avengers, the Fantastic Four--have been so altered by creative teams and editorial decisions that I don't know who they are anymore. The X-Men of the movies--different as they are from the characters I grew up--are still closer to the people I cared about than the ones I see in today's comics. As for the Avengers, the editors seem to have lost all focus of what that team is supposed to be about; as a group with an ever-changing roster, having a solid idea of why the team exists at all is paramount to making it consistent and consistently interesting. Every time I open and skim an issue of this New Avengers, I find myself asking, "Why are these people hanging together and why are they called Avengers?" Characterwise, the FF are closer to my image of the team than any other set of characters at Marvel....but they seem to be retreading the kinds of stories they were involved in 20, 30, 40 years ago. The characters are right, but there's nothing interesting in the plots. I've read this stuff before.
When I first read about the upcoming Civil War, I had high hopes for a concept that I could get interested in. But the pre-release publicity makes me think this is just another excuse for big fights between people who have no reason to fight otherwise, and for another trip down Marvel's recent well-worn road of making everything look and seem like X-Men circa 1990 or so. The heroes are under suspicion, they don't trust anybody, nobody trusts them, it's them against the world. Ho hum.
Marvel, we already live in a dark world, filled with people we can't trust. (In government and out, unfortunately.) Any chance we could have a fictional world where that isn't the case?
The intrigue can be caused by characters I care about, interesting plot devices, or creative teams I trust to do competent, craftsmanlike work. That said, flipping through Marvel's titles in the store, reading the comments on message boards, I find that there's nothing intriguing in Marvel's current output.
Characters I once cared about--the X-Men, the Avengers, the Fantastic Four--have been so altered by creative teams and editorial decisions that I don't know who they are anymore. The X-Men of the movies--different as they are from the characters I grew up--are still closer to the people I cared about than the ones I see in today's comics. As for the Avengers, the editors seem to have lost all focus of what that team is supposed to be about; as a group with an ever-changing roster, having a solid idea of why the team exists at all is paramount to making it consistent and consistently interesting. Every time I open and skim an issue of this New Avengers, I find myself asking, "Why are these people hanging together and why are they called Avengers?" Characterwise, the FF are closer to my image of the team than any other set of characters at Marvel....but they seem to be retreading the kinds of stories they were involved in 20, 30, 40 years ago. The characters are right, but there's nothing interesting in the plots. I've read this stuff before.
When I first read about the upcoming Civil War, I had high hopes for a concept that I could get interested in. But the pre-release publicity makes me think this is just another excuse for big fights between people who have no reason to fight otherwise, and for another trip down Marvel's recent well-worn road of making everything look and seem like X-Men circa 1990 or so. The heroes are under suspicion, they don't trust anybody, nobody trusts them, it's them against the world. Ho hum.
Marvel, we already live in a dark world, filled with people we can't trust. (In government and out, unfortunately.) Any chance we could have a fictional world where that isn't the case?
Friday, April 14, 2006
I'm baaack!
Yeah, I know, it's been eight months since I posted anything here. Yeah, I know, that's no way to run a blog.
Forgive me. Sometimes there's just nothing to write about. Sometimes it's easy to lose interest in posting regularly if you feel there's nobody responding (or maybe even reading).
But I decided to give it another shot and to start with something a little controversial (see below), something I know there are strong feelings about on many sides.
Let me know what you think.
Forgive me. Sometimes there's just nothing to write about. Sometimes it's easy to lose interest in posting regularly if you feel there's nobody responding (or maybe even reading).
But I decided to give it another shot and to start with something a little controversial (see below), something I know there are strong feelings about on many sides.
Let me know what you think.
Whither Superboy?
By now, most of you have seen this or know the gist of it:
Here's my take on it all, from someone who--though not a lawyer--has looked at copyright and trademark issues for a number of years.
1. I sincerely doubt the Siegels want to actually produce their own Superboy stories. None of them are in the writing, drawing or publishing business and it's unlikely they want to go through the hassles of finding someone to do it for them, not when they have DC Comics sitting right there with 75 years of experience at doing it and making pretty good money from it.
2. I sincerely doubt the Siegels want any kind of creative control over Superboy in comics or any other medium. Again, they haven't the expertise to do it.
3. This next is purely guess work, based on what I know of the principal people involved. If DC president and publisher Paul Levitz had the power to make a substantial financial agreement with the Siegel family right now, he would. He doesn't have that power; this is now being handled at a level way over his head.
4. The most likely outcome? I suspect the Siegels will wind up with an agreement not very different from the one the Marston family has regarding Wonder Woman. They will get a substantial yearly payment (perhaps based on where and how Superboy is used, perhaps just an agreed-upon sum, indexed to inflation) with additional money coming from percentages of out-of-comics licensing of the character. How long will it take for this to happen? Depends on how stubborn Time-Warner's lawyers are and how much they want to protect the Smallville property from being part of this settlement.
5. Is Smallville about Superboy? Good question. To me, Superboy is a kid who wears the "S". Since the Clark character in the show has yet to do that, maybe there is no connection to Superboy. But if the courts define "Superboy" as any depiction of the youth of the man who will become Superman, then Smallville is just a non-costumed version thereof.
Final prediction: This won't be finally resolved until Smallville is out of production, once and for all....because then, T-W's lawyers will have a better handle on the real worth of that property and be able to put real numbers on what they're willing to accept.
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald S.W. Lew ruled last month that [Jerry] Siegel's widow, Joanne Siegel, and daughter, Laura Siegel Larson, recaptured the Superboy character's copyright in November 2004.Much has been made of what the Siegel family wants and what they will do with the ownership of the character; indeed, much has been made of what they can do with the character, especially since DC Comics claims trademarks on such things as the "S" shield.
Here's my take on it all, from someone who--though not a lawyer--has looked at copyright and trademark issues for a number of years.
1. I sincerely doubt the Siegels want to actually produce their own Superboy stories. None of them are in the writing, drawing or publishing business and it's unlikely they want to go through the hassles of finding someone to do it for them, not when they have DC Comics sitting right there with 75 years of experience at doing it and making pretty good money from it.
2. I sincerely doubt the Siegels want any kind of creative control over Superboy in comics or any other medium. Again, they haven't the expertise to do it.
3. This next is purely guess work, based on what I know of the principal people involved. If DC president and publisher Paul Levitz had the power to make a substantial financial agreement with the Siegel family right now, he would. He doesn't have that power; this is now being handled at a level way over his head.
4. The most likely outcome? I suspect the Siegels will wind up with an agreement not very different from the one the Marston family has regarding Wonder Woman. They will get a substantial yearly payment (perhaps based on where and how Superboy is used, perhaps just an agreed-upon sum, indexed to inflation) with additional money coming from percentages of out-of-comics licensing of the character. How long will it take for this to happen? Depends on how stubborn Time-Warner's lawyers are and how much they want to protect the Smallville property from being part of this settlement.
5. Is Smallville about Superboy? Good question. To me, Superboy is a kid who wears the "S". Since the Clark character in the show has yet to do that, maybe there is no connection to Superboy. But if the courts define "Superboy" as any depiction of the youth of the man who will become Superman, then Smallville is just a non-costumed version thereof.
Final prediction: This won't be finally resolved until Smallville is out of production, once and for all....because then, T-W's lawyers will have a better handle on the real worth of that property and be able to put real numbers on what they're willing to accept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
