Procedurals are something which I have a rather torn opinion on, there is no doubt in my mind that the style of show in general is frankly lazy television which appeals to the laziest and lowest common denominator of television viewer. Many of the shows in the genre seem to follow the old maxim which was best stated in Futurama by Fry (ironically) - "At the end of the episode, everything's always right back to normal."

Looking back at earlier shows in the history of television we can see this maxim being applied over and over, especially in the genres of drama and situation comedy. The two genres I prefer over any other. Now I couldn't say with certainty when the procedural was spawned, but the 1950s seem to be a likely spot - at least in the medium of television.

Now fine, it is important for an episode to hold self contained moments in it - or at least it seems important - as this makes it easy for the casual viewer to dip into an episode at almost any point in the series and enjoy it. That makes it easy to captivate channel flickers and hold them until the end of the show. Sprinkle in a few occasional two or three parters and you have something which fills up time and entertains without ever breaking outside of it's own boundaries.

There is a place for the procedural, in truth there are some exceptional shows which have used the format - many sitcoms hold up well with this structure (Seinfeld for example), because their relatively short episode length leaves little room for anything else. But is it really an acceptable standard to be used for dramas? I'm not convinced at all, especially not the the area of police procedurals - a sub-genre which has spiraled out of control so far that it's managed to spawn a sub-genre of it's own, the medical procedural (House - which is a great show, but that's in spite of it's procedural nature).

Looking at our screens and schedules these days reveals an absolute glut of these shows; we have the CSI and Law & Order franchises, Bones, House, Psych, Lie to Me, Cold Case, Criminal Minds, NCIS and The Closer to mention just a few. And the past is even more damning, with a huge swathe of these shows running all the way back to Dragnet (and perhaps even before). Is there really a need for this many shows in the genre? What on earth distinguishes one from the next? The characters I suppose, that's certainly the appeal in Bones and House. Or perhaps it's the identical structure of the episodes, watching a procedural is like putting on a comfy pair of slippers, you know exactly what to expect from them and exactly what they'll do (keep your feet warm, rubbish to wear in the rain, fall off when climbing up stairs).

Maybe that's it, that's the big secret. Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree when I go watching clever shows that employ an ongoing storyline like The Wire. Perhaps even the hybrid shows I adore - shows with self contained episodes AND ongoing story lines (like The Shield, The Sopranos and Arrested Development). Perhaps I should just forget about these kind of shows, because it's clear that the viewing public has become conditioned towards receiving their stories in neat self contained packages, all wrapped up in a bow and fuzzy edges. Maybe it's to much to expect that viewers want to be challenged by what they're watching - it's clearly too much effort and discomfort to try and remember what happened from one week to the next isn't it?

I think that my main gripe with the Procedural is not exactly it's existence, but the sheer quantity of them. It just feels so lazy, here we have this incredible method of performing one of the oldest ways of human socialisation - storytelling - and instead of using it to explore new directions and challenge humanity the networks are taking the same framework and slapping different paint on it before feeding it to us. And the worst part is we just lap this shit up like it's gravy. We just can't get enough of it, and the networks can't get enough of our adoration.

I often picture how pitches must go for new shows, the creator of the show turns up for the meeting and after sitting down and engaging in a little small talk he begins his pitch. Painting a picture of a show with a sweeping story arc that runs across the entire season and builds up into a climax which leaves the viewers amazed and asking questions. The network exes nod sagely and ask "but is it going to get them off their tractors?" The creator defends his work for a while and then realises that it's a lost cause. The exes ask him if he has anything else and he replies "how about a police show with a detective who solves a different crime each exes are more interested in this and "ask what's the hook?" The creator mugs for a moment before responding he's blind and his partner is deaf. I call it 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil'.

Instant hit.

Bleah.

On the flip side though I do have to admit that there are some exceptional procedural shows out there, shows which manage to transcend the rather pathetic design of the procedural and give us something which is genuinely special. The strongest example for myself is the 1990s show Homicide: Life on the Street - a show which was definitely a procedural show in structure but managed to play around with it's format and result in something which was a little less predictable. This wasn't a show which always delivered easy answers at the end of each episode, at times there would be hanging cases left unsolved or the criminals would get away with their crime. This uncertainty makes the show more enjoyable for myself because it's the outcome isn't a forgone conclusion, there was always a little doubt when watching each episode that everything would turn out OK in the end. This, added to the generally dark and pessimistic tone of the show resulted in a rather unique experience - many procedurals like to shock with visual "darkness" (autopsies, violent deaths and so forth), but Homicide went with a bleak tone that just made everything feel more real and more hopeless.

But the greatest triumph of Homicide lays in the two shows it spawned; both of which are the two shows I hold dearest to my heart. Shows which are the kind of innovation in the procedural I wish was more prevalent. The first is Homicide's direct descendant, the other Baltimore Cop Show - The Wire. Spinning the procedural show out by basing an entire case over a season rather than an episode. Allowing for a (more) realistic portrayal of the work involved in building a case against high level criminals. If you look at the ebb and flow of the episodes in each of The Wire's seasons they are structured like a procedural (and a novel), but the time line of events is played out in a more natural, less condensed (and less condescending) fashion.

It results in an experience which can be difficult to 'get into' and is impossible to pick up partway through a season, but it's a rewarding show which challenges the viewer and rarely offers the easy way out.

And if you're willing to buy into that theory it's also part of the Dreams of Tommy Westphall. But that's a discussion for a different time and place - so just enjoy this visual depiction of all the shows caught in Tommy's dream and note how incestuous the world of police procedurals actually is.

The second show Homicide spawned was The Shield; but in this case the show was partially inspired by Homicide rather than being directly descended from it. (As long as Clark Johnson's character "Handsome Marshall" wasn't actually Meldrick Lewis - which is a vague possibility). The Shield also perverts the nature of the procedural, this time by blending multiple story lines into the show - some of which take place over the entire season and many of which span just the one episode. While Vic and the Strike Team provided the main ongoing continuity it was Dutch and Claudette who gave us the 'crime of the week' story lines. This makes The Shield an easier show to dip into for the casual viewer (if you can stomach the material, which it seems many weak willed people can't), while still maintaining the 88 episodes combined into movie style of the show.

I raise The Shield here for two reasons, first - I unashamedly adore the show, enough said there. Second, and more significantly, The Shield offers a medium between the serial procedural and The Wire. You can have a show with contained story lines within the episodes and still provide an over arcing storyline. But you need to build it in from the start (Bones has attempted to do this - but falls a little short) and even if you don't know exactly where the story is going to end up you should at least be content that some plot threads will dangle for a while and get picked up later on in the shows run.

So I've meandered my way along in this and I've not really hit any genuine conclusion about procedurals, I do know that I feel they are a lazy way out for both television and the people who watch it. But there is also no doubt that the style of show has spawned some fantastic television as well.

I think I'd settle for less standard format procedural shows and more shows which attempted to push the boat out and take it in unusual directions. True these attempts might fail but there is uncharted territory out there and that could result in the unique shows I want to see on our screens.

Failing that I'll settle for less David Caruso, a lot less.

Direct Link

Recently there's been more than a few people out there across the Internet who've been pleased with the direction that The Office has taken with regards to two of their core characters. Specifically Jim and Pam, who had a long run with the dreaded "will they, won't they" trope which was predicted by many to end something like this:

"Pam is very attractive, no question. If I didn't have an award show to host, I could easily see having two or three seasons of will they won't they sexual tension that ultimately goes nowhere." -- Conan O'Brien

Many shows continue to use this trope as a major engine in their plots, and most don't risk resolving the question until near the end of their run. The debate about Pam and Jim was also confounded a little by the precedent set by the UK one (which didn't resolve Dawn and Tim until it's Christmas special and then it was all over) but more importantly by the ridiculous idea which is often known as 'The Moonlighting Curse' (Also known as The Cheers Rule) - which suggests that the moment you resolve a 'will they, won't they' that the series will crash to the ground and stop being interesting. This is a theory which seems to hold in the minds of the TV executives and writers in particular. It's constantly being rehashed and held up like some kind of sacred rule which must not be violated (despite evidence to the contrary).

You know what? A little bit of "will they, won't they" isn't a bad thing, it's like foreplay - it gets you all warmed up for the main event and sometimes it's even an acceptable substitute. Some shows do it very well indeed - The Office is one of those, it danced away for three years before resolving it by getting Jim and Pam together. This moment was incredibly sweet, fun and didn't kill the show, in fact it strengthened it by providing one of the most real and entertaining adult relationships in a sitcom ever.

Other shows which managed it well include Frasier's Niles/Daphene dance - though that one did lose it's luster for a period before getting back on track. The period where Daphene was aware of Nile's feelings but they weren't together was weak.

Spaced is of particular note here with an unusual and subtle take on the whole trope, I'd go as far as to call it one of the best versions of it - putting Tim and Daisy together in a fake relationship and then gradually hinting at an unconscious and unrecognised desire between them worked exceptionally well - it was subtle enough to remain funny. The West Wing is another show which did this well - this time with Josh and Donna (though it does become a tad tiresome once Sorkin stops steering the ship because his subtle touch is gone).

In Buffy the Buffy/Angel tension worked well by resolving it early, putting an interesting spin on it by having Angel turn into the big bad from it created one of the most memorable Buffy villains in Angelus. Seinfeld parodied it quite a few times with Jerry and Elaine - there wasn't really any "will they, won't they" vibe there, but some felt there was and the characters (and plots) often mocked it superbly - all the way to the finale. Arrested Development also deserves mad props for their spin on the whole trope - the George Michael/Maeby tension had a great extra layer with the whole related angle that made for amazing comedy. Futurama's Leela/Fry thing also works well, but they have moved towards some form of resolution with that one and never made it the main focus of the show.

But then we have shows which are just terrible for doing it, Friends milked ten seasons out of Ross and Rachael, pushing it to the point where I was just watching the show for Chandler and Monica - blanking most of the nonsense between the two R's as it had grown tired. (Side note: I own all ten seasons of Friends for one reason, so I'll never watch the show again - owning it means I don't watch it when it's repeated on television and then I just never take the boxed set down from the top shelf). As if that wasn't enough, the spin-off Joey attempted to pull a similar stunt and it's probably one of the reasons why the show collapsed (not the main reason though of course). Speaking of Joey, I adore Andrea Anders - she's now in Better Off Ted - you should watch it.

That 70s Show pulled the stunt multiple times with differing degrees of success - Eric/Donna wasn't bad and resolved well at the end of the show. But Jackie's relationships were a terrible mess, the appropriate tension was with Hyde in the post-Kelso part of the show - and she ended up with Fez? What the heck?

I'm not sure about Scrubs' J.D. and Elliot by the way, they pretty much ran with it the entire time the show was on the air, even when one of the pair was in a relationship it always felt like it was designed to be doomed. They did end up together and had a solid relationship in the eight season, and frankly that was the best season for a long time as a result. It's half and half if it was done well or not, I think it's fair to put that one in the maybe column.

But now we get to my ultimate bug bears - and I know I'm not alone on this one - it's the second appearance for Mr David Boreanaz and this time it's in Bones. Seriously, I'm sick to death with the supposed sexual tension between Booth and Bones. It's gotten out of hand to the point where it's actually making the rest of the show intolerable. Seriously, it needs to be resolved because it's not helping at all. Gah! If I see one more moment where the two of them stand longingly close together only to do nothing because one or the other (or both) is a complete f***-t**d I'm not sure if I'll be able to stand it. I might do something rash like set myself on fire, it's irritating me that much. The same can apply what I've seen of the "The Big Bang Theory" and "Chuck" - I'm still only on the first season with each of these shows but I'm already annoyed with their abuse of the trope. It's a shame because they're both shows I like otherwise.

I've rambled on for a while now without to much of a point, so I guess I'd better get to one. While I have listed shows which have pulled it off to a reasonable degree, most of these didn't drag the entire thing out too long, or span it well enough to make it feel fresh. The thing is, just because some shows have done it well doesn't mean we need more new shows built around the premises. In fact, we don't, we really don't. It's time to put this particular cliched, hackneyed old trope out to pasture for good.

To paraphrase Hyde [I] "can't stand another week of this will-they-or-won’t-they crap.”

(Except when it's used in Community, because I'm nothing if not a hypocrite.)
Direct Link

A week or two ago; while looking at my DVD collection in it's entirety something started nagging at my mind, then last week while watching TV another unrelated thought suddenly linked itself with the previous one and I stood up to consider my collection again.

I realised, I really don't like modern British shows and in fact the only kind of British shows I enjoy watching are sitcoms and documentaries. I rarely watch any British drama and when I do it's often with a mix of derision and scorn, I'm very harsh at poor old Doctor Who for one.

The current running shows that I manage to watch are My Family, Moving Wallpaper, Mighty Boosh and Gavin & Stacey (all which I only catch when they are released on DVD). Occasionally I also watch Q.I., Top Gear, Doctor Who and Live at the Apollo but more often than not I forget what time these shows are on and instead. I did used to watch Skins but I've decided the cast change has soured interest in the next season, and I can only mention just one decent drama in recent times - Life on Mars.

I did also watch Deadset but felt mostly let down by it, it's not something I'd ever want to watch again.

The complete list of British shows I own on DVD is even more damming:
Black Adder, Black Books, Coupling, Darkplace, Extras, Fawlty Towers, Gavin & Stacey, Green Wing, Marion & Geoff, Jeeves & Wooster, Mighty Boosh, Monty Python, Moving Wallpaper, My Family, The New Statesman, Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights/Max & Paddy, Red Dwarf, Spaced, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Sharpe (I've not watched the newest two yet), Skins, Spaced and a range of BBC Wildlife Documentaries.

The vast majority of these have now ended with no sign of a return and quite a lot of them are from the previous decade as well. My American shows on the other hand covers a range of genres, drama, sitcoms, police procedurals, sci-fi, cartoons etc etc.

So I've spent a bit of time trying to figure out why I prefer shows released by our American cousins over ones from this wet, dour country that I so love.

I think it boils down to a few simple things; length, resources, depth, guns and channels.

American seasons are simply longer than British ones, often by a factor of three or more. The American show will normally have either around a dozen episodes or two dozen, while the British show will have six or eight. This time is important, you've got longer to pan out any story arcs and set up situations and it also means you get a lot more bang for your buck when it comes time to pick up the DVD set. Paying £15 for 22 episodes of Seinfeld just feels better than the same for 6 episodes of The Mighty Boosh.

Tied into this is the issue of resources, Britian has some incredible writers but suffers greatly when it comes to implementing ideas. Our country is small and lacks the natural resources America has, so not only do special effect budgets suffer and overall budgets are smaller as well. There's not much that can be done about that unless someone out there decides to create a British TV industry city. (A Brit-Hollywood so to speak)

Depth is a personal peeve and one I understand doesn't influence everyone. I like shows which are intelligent and challenge the viewer, I more than appreciate that most people just want to be entertained - and they're well catered for in the current world of quick fix TV. But for every five or so reality TV shows, sketch shows and so forth, there should be an intelligent show with a real story to tell. Where's my British show with the depth and scope of The Wire? We've got skilled enough crime authors and writers to do this, so why isn't it happening?

Guns, well guns is an interesting one. I'm not writing that guns are a selling point for me, no I don't need guns to make things exciting. But it's more the case that British shows keep trying to bring in guns, this is something that normally looks very unnatural on the screens as guns are a rare thing in the UK (thank goodness). Torchwood's penchant for the metal phallus is a great example of how not to do it, Marion & Geoff on the other hand managed to include a gun in it's story lines in an intelligent and entertaining manner. I guess I'm saying guns should be an exception in British shows, not the rule.

Channels, now this is probably where the biggest problem lies. Most British channels are essentially repeat or syndication machines designed for giving us other people's programming. There are exceptions, but a lot of new material ends up being pushed onto the side channels (E4, BBC3 etc) and poorly advertised.

Now I'm not totally bashing UK TV here, there are some bright spots, the BBC (thanks to Sir David Attenborough's influence) produces amazing unrivaled wildlife documentaries with superb narration (Attenborough again and Jack Davenport). We also do a brilliant cynical, grubby, low key comedy which often has unpleasant people being unpleasant to each other in hilarious manners. So there are bright spots, but there's a lot more trash on UK TV now than ever.

I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat myself here. I really think that the UK needs something like a UK equivalent of Showtime, FX or HBO over here. A subscription channel that's dedicated to making quality original programming, heck do it in co-ordination with an American channel if the funding is needed. I'd love a HBO-UK for example (HBO & BBC worked together for Extras). I'd even get off my critic horse and write some scripts if that happened, I'm that starving for some quality storytelling set in the UK. Oh and Law & Order: UK doesn't cut it if that's what you're thinking.

So, what do you think? Should I just get my head out of the sand and embrace UK TV, am I wrong in my perception that it's all comedy quiz shows, reality voting shows and repeats from the past? Am I missing some real genuine gems?
Direct Link

I'm gearing up to do a WYSW on Homicide, I just want to watch the last DVD from the first season of The Dead Zone as it's when Greg Stillson and the apocalpyse first turn up it's so brilliant. Why, oh why was it cancelled before it finished?

Anyway, I managed to get the region 2 versions of series 4 and 5 for £15 a piece in HMV, which is an absolute bargain as they were £40 each a week ago. But I'm not entirely thrilled with the direction the DVD manufacturers have gone in.

I'll show you why with a snapshot of the relevant part on my DVD shelf.



The first three seasons are in boxes that just ooze quality out of the wazoo. They're snug, tidy and have very stylish imagery on them with the white, black and coloured evidence bags/murder weapons. Now the 4th and 5th have managed to keep the colour scheme, which I must admit I love. But they've moved to the plastic transparent multi cases. Which are not only lower quality but are also shorter and smaller. So the whole set doesn't sit right when put together and also the images on the back of the 4th series are clearly stills from the first two series as they include characters who left. It's very dissappointing that the manufactuers felt the need to lower the quality of their product without dropping the price to match. Poor show.

Enjoy playing spot the show on the shelves there. Big bonus points if you can name them all. The final three in particular should be very difficult.


While I'm complaining about this kind of stuff I thought I'd share something else in the packaging front. This one is less of an oversight and more of a WTF?

It's from the cover of The Office (USA) season 2.

Unfortunately this small image doesn't quite show the true WTFery of the photoshopping on this. So I'll have to describe it a little as well. Trust me though, you want to pick up this when you're in a shop and look at it....



What this picture doesn't show you is how badly digitised the box art is. The resolution used for the actors is so low you can see individual blocky pixels with the naked eye. This is made even more confusing because the resolution used for the blinds, the text and the back of the box is exceptionally high quality. It's like this was made with some kind of bizzare in joke in mind.

As if that wasn't bad enough the actual images chosen are crimes against the people they're of. Jenna Fischer looks like she has some kind of fatal illness - perhaps the black plague - and is about to die. Steve Carrell looks like he didn't have time to pose for the photo, so they raided Madame Tussauds and used a wax-work version of him with someone elses hands opening the blinds. I say someone elses hands because the angle the top arm goes at is close to anatomatically impossible, at the very least it would be incredibly uncomfortable for him.
John Krasinski is almost unrecognisable, he's been given a new chin that looks like it was borrowed from Johnny Bravo or Brock Sampson and the photoshopped backwards in age until he appears to be twelve. Perhaps it is a photo from his high school book. I don't know.
As for poor Rainn Wilson, he's been wedged in the gap between Steve's shoulder and his not-arm at a level that makes him look like he's either 5'0" tall or Zardo the floating head. But he's better off than B.J. Novak, who appears in the image here but on the box art has been moved and can't be even seen on the front the picture. Instead he's been wrapped round and placed on the spine of the dust jacket along with the remainder of Jenna's head.

It's simply awful to the highest degree and really not what I expected to see from a show that is so exceptionally well made and produced.

The horror... The horror...
Direct Link