Fall TV New Series Part 1 - The Bad and The Disappointing

My friends and family think its cool that I get to see all the new series pilots before they air on television.  It actually is pretty cool, but it's not always fun.  That's because I have to watch them all - the good, the bad, and the very bad.

This three part series of blogs is not my predictions for hits and misses, but rather which new series pilots I liked, which have potential (but were disappointing), and which were just plain bad.  You may be able to figure out by my comments which I think will succeed.  It's much easier to pick flops (or modest successes).  The big-time hits almost always come out of nowhere and surprise the pundits.

I'm going to start with the bad.  And not just the bad... 

The Very Bad

Free Agents (NBC, Wednesday 8:30-9)

 This may well be the worst pilot I have seen in my nearly 30 years of evaluating TV series.  I'm surprised NBC would schedule something like this at 8:30, when kids are likely to be in the room.  I was embarrassed to watch it with my wife and 12-year-old son, and turned it off after 5 minutes to watch later by myself.  It didn't get better. 

The cast had no chemistry, the writing was bad, and the whole pilot just seemed like one long crude joke.  It was so bad it made the canceled (and dismal) Outsourced seem like brilliant comedy.

I Hate My Teenage Daughter (FOX Wednesday 9:30-10)

I hated the daughters and hated the moms.  There wasn't much to like about this sitcom.  It will follow FOX's new The X Factor, so it may initially do better than it deserves to, but whatever benefit it gets from its lead-in probably won't last long.

 The Disappointing

Charlie's Angels (ABC, Thursday 8-9)

As much as I wanted to like this one, I just couldn't.  It's not just that the pilot seemed kind of cheesy, it's also that none of the Angels had any charisma.  I also didn't like the new (younger, hotter) Bosley.

Other than introducing the term "jiggle TV" and "T & A" to the television lexicon, the original Charlie's Angels did actually have some social significance.  This version just seems unintentionally campy.  That doen't mean that people won't tune in.

The Playboy Club (NBC, Monday 10-11)

The pilot was nice to look at but surprisingly not fun to watch.  Makes you realize how difficult it is to produce a stylized period piece such as Mad Men.  Cast members had to sign a nudity clause, so we'll probably see some skin going forward, but that will only help if the show itself gets better. 

The name should get some viewer sampling, so we'll need a few episodes to see where the ratings settle.

Whitney (NBC, Thursday 9:30-10)

Whitney Cummings clearly has star potential, so it's too bad this comedy does not have hit potential. There is no chemistry between her and her boyfriend (Chris D'Elia), and the writing (at least in the pilot) was just plain bad.  Give her a better show and she will shine.

Up All Night (NBC, Wednesday 8-8:30)

I always like Christina Applegate and Maya Rudolf (Will Arnett too), but this seemed like a sitcom from the early 1990s.  Someone thought it was cool to have a working wife and stay-at-home dad trying to raise a new baby.  But that's not the novelty it once was.  In subsequent episodes, many of the elements that made the pilot funny (and it was funny) will no longer be as relevant. 

NBC is reportedly re-rooling the pilot and the show to focus more on Maya Rudolf's character, which seems like a good idea.  But usually when a network starts fooling with a show at this stage of the game, it's not a promising sign.

 

Comments

[Cadillac Power Steering Gear Box]

This is calculated by dividing the annual cash dividend per share by the current market price of the stock.

[Nicky]

There's no reason why their layewrs would offer such an opinion. Selective enforcement is completely OK in copyright and patent law, it's only a problem for a trademark. By selective enforcement I mean it's legally not a problem to chase Bill, Terry and Mike for infringing your rights, while turning a blind eye to Harry, Samantha and Oswald doing the exact same thing. It's your privilege as copyright holder to make these decisions.I think it is much more likely that a very low level drone has the job of searching Youtube and filing the necessary paperwork for infringing Youtube videos, and nuances like "this seems harmless" are above their pay grade, so everything gets the axe.

[μεσιτικό ξάνθη]

Very energetic article, I enjoyed that a lot. Will there be a part 2?