How The Online Manifests In TV Dramas

The ever-evolving world of tech has changed the way stories are told on television. Most notably, the existence of the web has impacted the way a plot unfolds.

When mobiles became commonplace, television storytelling was forced to adjust: characters were no longer be unreachable. The Internet introduced more changes, forcing TV storytelling to adapt at an even faster rate.

Luckily tech is often either unreliable, or more accurately, rendered unreliable by the way humans interact with it—making for a good story.

Search engines FTW

Modern procedurals are more fast-paced than classic cop shows because information is readily at hand: characters can find details on events, people and locations in moments. Experts are one search—and video call—away. Leads can be followed up ASAP.

Castle searched on his mobile instead of the
police precinct computers. #butheremails 

On the flip side, the unpredictable nature of today’s search engines also allows for red herrings, and misguided leaps of supposed logic. The exact wording of a search can throw off the results; misinformation offered by the web can slow down the story, and enrich a mystery.

Random fact: Creating pretend search engines is easier for TV shows than dealing with copyright fees associated with popular platforms.

The Riverdale crew use a fake search engine called Sleuthster.

Can you track their mobile?

Tracking people via their phones has become quite a popular storytelling tool. Disproving an alibi used to take up screen time: now a phone call sets a person within a tower’s radius, often neatly placing them at the scene of a crime.

Borderliner tracks mobile phone usage to reveal vital clues.

Of course, mobiles aren’t embedded in the body, so location details aren’t irrefutable evidence. They can be left behind or used to plant false leads—or alibis. But since most people have their mobiles with them 24/7, this storytelling tool is becoming more common.

Apps or websites that illegally track are also ways for characters to step over the line. Installing an app that tracks a loved one, without their knowledge, can say a lot.

Safe brims with morally gray parental decisions, including
the lead using an app to track his daughter's phone.

But you can hack it, right?

A lot of shows have hackers now. If three people are friends in a TV series, one is bound to hack. Probs not statistically accurate IRL but hey, it makes for easier storytelling.

An average viewer doesn’t know much about coding which is probably why hackers have become common characters on television.

Superhero shows such as Arrow really like the tech-savvy.

Since the general public doesn’t have much idea of the limitations of hacking, writers feel quite free to play with the boundaries of what is believable.

In regards to their impact on the plot hackers are a bit like magic users in supernatural dramas: jumping the story across plot holes, manipulating data, and conveniently revealing restricted information.

On television, hackers work surprisingly best in the context of time travel. The ability to do unbelievable things on the web is easily explained away when the hacker is either from the future, or has somehow gained access to future tech.

Philip hacks with his future know-how on Travelers.

Random pet hate: The standard hacker trope involves super-fast typing, but what appears on the computer screen rarely matches the motion of the actor's hands. First in terms of speed, and second in the way the character's fingers move across the whole keyboard but the screen shows primarily numbers have been entered.

My suspension of disbelief doesn't extend that far.

Dark web and deep web

And no, they’re not the same thing. While shows now reference the dark web and deep web, often it is vague and cryptic, used more to emphasize the moral ambiguity of the “baddies”. 

For some scriptwriters the deep web and dark web have become the Internet equivalent of the dark side.

A few years back shows began exploring this concept as people become more accustomed to the Internet (and internet crime) but the results were mixed.

CSI: Cyber was cancelled after two seasons.

Mr. Robot brought in-depth representation of facets of the Internet to the small screen, garnering a more positive response from experienced coders. For the general populace the Internet is becoming less of a vague concept, and more of a complex system people are enjoying researching.

Mr. Robot doesn't shy from inundating the audience with accurate tech.

I'll find you in the game

Over the years online gaming has continued to grow in popularity. Recently there have been storytelling forays into the idea of community and connection, and how those boundaries can stretch.

Love o2o is a Chinese series about a romance
spanning the real world, and an online connection.

Of course, meeting strangers via an online game can have menacing undertones. The way people interact online can be different to how they function in everyday life: the beauty of  an online world can be a far cry from the mundanity, or even brutality of their offline environment.

Kiss Me First explores the intersection
 of online and offline reality.

This dichotomy is definitely a storytelling area that, in terms of television potential, hasn’t been fully utilized yet.

Did you see this post?

The Internet has proven a breeding ground for rumor and suggestion—the stuff of which many dramas are made.

Social media is one way to move a plot forward, offering a “reveal” that is similar to the old, listening in the hallway trope. Following a rival online via their social media can cause myriad complications. Treating another person’s interpretation of a situation as fact will always prove problematic (online and off).

Although technically a blog, Gossip Girl was a great example of
the Internet being used to fuel a drama, disseminating truths
and untruths with abandon.

As social media platforms continue to expand and grow, so does the negative potential, especially in bullying scenarios. More and more shows are exploring the consequences of online defamation and innuendo.

13 Reasons Why shows the dark side of teen
behavior on social media, and the consequences.

Occasionally the positives of social media platforms are also explored, mostly in the context of the reach it allows.

In the future more shows will probably explore the difference between the personality presented to the world on social media, and the reality—especially as that gap continues to widen.

Watching Comic-Based TV Shows When You Haven't Read The Comics

Writers of a television show adapted from a comic are writing for two very different audiences: avid fans of an already existing narrative, and those who've never read the comics and therefore need to be introduced to each element of the story.

Writing about comic-based television shows online while declaring a complete ignorance of the source material feels somewhat risque. Critiquing comic-based shows is often viewed as the domain of comic book fans. But as an aspiring tv writer and avid consumer of scripted television, I think my opinion is just as relevant, especially when you take into account the companies screening such programs are hoping to secure more than a niche audience.

I've thought about this topic a lot following the release of Daredevil and the subsequent tweets and posts in my social media feed. For me, Daredevil had a great freshman season. The series has a confident style (I think establishing a visual/editorial style is a key element of success on tv these days, but that's another blog). The script was strong, free from chunks of clumsy exposition, and the acting was high calibre. Yet I didn't find it groundbreaking or magnificent, like so many comic fans claimed. 

Scanning the reaction of comic fans to comic-based television shows seems to be a lesson in extremes, a rollercoaster ride of highs and lows. Often when they're onboard it's in the form of overzealous praise. Good doesn't really exist; everything about the show becomes magnificent, incredible, unbelievable. On the other hand, disappoint them with your television interpretation of an adored character and the criticism can be scathing: no redeeming qualities acknowledged.

Trying to discuss a program by putting forward a mix of positive and negative reactions to different elements of the production can become tedious, and prove nigh on impossible. (Also because source material is so often cited in conversation, which means nothing to a viewer who draws a distinct line between the two mediums.) I haven't read any of the comics that provide the inspiration for the television programs I'm watching. Experiencing the story only in a television format made me understand how vast the gap between the uninformed viewer and the informed viewer can become.

You might argue films and television series' adapted from books are in a similar boat, but generally they don't seem to incite the same level of extreme reactions you encounter when discussing comic adaptations.

On watching The Vampire Diaries, my first reaction was apathy bordering on dislike for the lead character Elena, apparently a reworked version of the Elena found in the original novel. (I think the dreaded "relatable female character" trope came into play—another blog for another day!) I didn't feel compelled to read the books because watching the show as a separate entity has become more standard procedure for book-to-tv transformations.

Looking back, I experienced the same comic fan/non-comic fan conundrum when Arrow hit the small screen. The show was entertaining, beautifully done, and I loved Stephen Amell in the lead role. But many fans focused solely on disparate elements between the comics and the small screen: how his character was costumed differently, and his kill count. Commenting on the television show as a stand-alone experience wasn't really welcome online.

In a way, I felt like I wasn't part of the fan base for the show because I couldn't discuss what happened in Issue Whatever of the comics compared to what was unfolding on the small screen. On the other hand, becoming a hit series involves turning casual viewers into avid fans, separate to the comic-saturated portion of the fan base. It's the only way to pull big ratings, meaning my feedback was just as valid/of worth, even if it didn't feel that way.

The Flash is another example. Grant Gustin is brilliantly cast, as are most of the supporting roles. I think the show itself skews younger than Arrow, and I think it works. The series has heart, and an earnest sort of youthful optimism. The concept of the mentor is also a big theme. The Flash has it's own definitive style that comes together to create an entertaining hour of television. Still, a lot of online conversation stayed focused on the discrepancies between the comics and the small screen interpretation.

My only issue with both programs is the representation of women, problematic at best. Don't get me wrong, characters like Felicity and Caitlin are great, but the love interests our leads pine for from the pilot feel like forced plot points, becoming the program's weakest elements.

I sometimes wonder if this is because it's part of a comic trope from earlier years that isn't sitting as well in modern television? I'm not versed enough in the origin stories to say. But every time someone talks about "protecting" Iris on The Flash, I can't help wincing. 

My core issue, though, is the inference Laurel and Iris are more sexually desirable than Felicity and Caitlin. You can't cast beautiful, slender actresses to play women who are geniuses, each with a successful, complex career, not to mention a great sense of humor (also styled gorgeously btw) and then write narrative that implies Felicity and Caitlin are obviously not as attractive/desirable in the eyes of the modern world as Laurel and Iris. Considering higher IQs seem to be the only real differences (to me as an audience member), between Felicity and Laurel, and Caitlin and Iris, I find the implied subliminal messages here quite disturbing.

Obviously over time the scripts are working—episode by episode—to change these dynamics and give us more rounded female leads, but I would say definitely at the cost of initial retention in audience numbers (especially those early days of Arrow). I didn't get the same impression from Daredevil. I really like the multifaceted female characters on that show from the outset. 

I've since been told Daredevil is by Marvel, and Arrow and Flash are from DC. Once again, this aspect of their origins hadn't occurred to me, but it probably should come into consideration. I thought perhaps the fact two of the shows were on CW and the other on a different television format, explained part of the differences. Who can say?

Which brings me to Marvel's Agent Carter. This nearly slipped under my radar, and what a loss that would have been. The program didn't have the fanboy support shown for The Flash and Arrow. Someone whose opinion I trust recommended it, saying I would enjoy the series. I'd read it was about Captain America's girlfriend, and a girlfriend-of-a-superhero focused show sounded like a terrible idea.

Next I saw online that the series was set in the past. I remember thinking, who is going to watch this?! Eventually I checked it out and found the show to be absolutely fascinating. (But more on that later.)

Part of what makes the series so interesting, from a cultural perspective, is the way the show stacked the odds against itself. With no superhero lead, comic fan hype was low. But non-comic fans were staying away too, assuming the series was a kind of superhero thing. At the time, calling the show Marvel's Agent Carter probably seemed like an obvious positive, but in retrospect, I'd consider it a misstep, alienating the program from audiences who would have appreciated it the most: those unfamiliar with its comic roots, but appreciative of television with complex themes.

Basically, Marvel's Agent Carter fell through marketing gaps left, right, and center before the pilot screened. When I watched the episode, I noted the stylized look. The series came across like an old-fashioned television show, in terms of angles and lighting. Even the editing seemed slower paced (although I could be wrong). An entirely different aesthetic. Beautiful, yes, but not really on trend.

Then I realized it was on trend, stylistically, when lined up next to a show like Mad Men. It just wasn't being compared to that, it was being compared to Arrow. Fans who would appreciate the wit and intelligence at work in the scripts weren't watching because they didn't consider themselves part of the target audience. 

And then you ran into other problems. Peggy Carter was a feminist who loved glamor (always wearing lipstick), but wasn't hyper-sexualized. In the modern day, we're not sure if this is an iconic female hero. But Carter is much more complex and interesting than most women who've appeared in comic-related fare; Hayley Atwell's portrayal of the under-utilized agent hits the mark (and then some), making this by far my favorite of all the television shows linked to either the DC or Marvel comic universes.

(On a side note, seeing the openly sexist society of the post WWII workplace on Marvel's Agent Carter was sobering, partly because so many women have experienced echoes of such attitudes in the modern day. The show is an unsettling multifaceted mirror, reflecting both how far we've come, and how far we have to go.)

I'm not sure if the series is based on certain comics. No idea if Peggy has her own comics or is a side character referenced in other characters' adventures. I don't need to know because I enjoyed the series as-is. (I haven't seen the first Captain America film, so I had no idea who Carter was.)

Maybe that's the point. Maybe the idea that comics provide a ready made fan base for television outings is only true to a certain point. As television shows with a link to comic-based narratives step further away from accepted traditional narrative forms and explore the opportunities a different medium provides, so must marketing adapt to bring a different kind of audience into the fold. 

Comic-based television shows don't just belong to fans of comics: those discovering new heroes and inspirations are just as welcome audience members, even if, occasionally, it really doesn't feel that way. 

In summary, the current comic-to-television model is a strange one, relying on a difficult fusion of established fans of another medium and new fans completely unfamiliar with said medium. This also means offerings working outside a (roughly) standardized structure, no matter how entertaining, are at this point in time invariably doomed to slip through the cracks, which is a great pity. Hopefully, in the future, the dynamic will change.*

*Note: I haven't referenced Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. or Constantine in this post, as I barely made it through the pilots. I've yet to watch Gotham. It will be interesting to see if Gotham, also working outside the standard superhero format, suffers for it. Hopefully it will be another step in breaking the mold. (Also worth noting, this blog only addresses recent television productions sourced from comic material, and not classic examples of small screen superhero outings.)

2012: A CW Odyssey

When it comes to blogging on the last day of the year, most of us lean toward one of two options. Either evaluating the past year and alternating between ranting and raving, or focusing on the year to come by engaging in a whole lotta speculation.

Today, I felt like I was in the mood for a (scripted tv) round-up. So, what to write about?

Cue a blog draft lamenting the downfall of Last Resort and the formal pass on Mockingbird Lane, which are the two standout television losses of 2012, to my mind. 

Then it struck me... I don't feel like writing all el serious-o. It's New Years Eve. My heart is light (or something like that).

Instead, I want to go girly. Talk about the times throughout the year that tv shows made me jump up and down and clap like I'm at a Bring It On audition (yes, I am that lame). The kind of shows I like to watch after a hard day's work, when I don't have the energy to figure out a Poirot mystery (yes, it's true, I heart the Inspector).

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate complex scripts, love science fiction, adore formats that challenge viewers, and a number of the programs below do offer some of these elements, to a certain degree... but another part of me also likes particular tv shows just because they're charming, sweet, even a litt-le bit silly.

Deciding to take it to the next (girly-girl) level, I've focused solely on CW shows, because let's face it, I do enjoy the network's offerings. They make up a decided chunk of my viewing schedule. Some are darker in tone and deal with more complex themes, while others are light and frothy, like the tv version of a guilty pleasure. 

In summary, this year's final blog is a tribute to half a dozen notable moments (in no particular order) that the CW entertained me with this year. Some people will agree, others will be horrified, and many will secretly agree while pretending to be horrified.

But hey, I'm pretty happy to own my own tastes. C'est la vie, right?

1. Gossip Girl Ended Forever and I Cried.

It's true, there were actual tears. (Hey, noone was as surprised as I was!) Admittedly, Gossip Girl went completely off the rails for a while there, to the point where even I couldn't make it through an episode, but the last season reclaimed a little of the iconic show's original sparkle. 

I admired the fashion, the interiors were always fabulous, the nod to modern contemporary art was admirable, and frankly, Blair and Chuck were my FAVOURITE tv couple. 

The early days of the series were notable because Gossip Girl was one of the first shows to utilise mobile phones and internet access as a positive narrative tool, rather than viewing technology as something that hampered the standard scripted television procedures and formats established for decades.

And I am one of those people who loved the final Gossip Girl identity reveal... it was a lovely nod to The Great Gatsby.

2. Hart of Dixie Won Me Over.

I fell in love with Hart of Dixie, in all its occasionally caricatured Southern awfulness/awesomeness, because the show has an odd kind of charm.

There's something so gentle about it. The characters are kind, community-minded, and more often than not, so very romantically confused. There are constant love triangles on this show, to the point where the characters move from one triangle to another. (In a kind of respectably kooky way, might I add.)

The setting itself qualifies as another character. The South is so beautiful! (Well, on tv anyway. Maybe it's the imaginary South I want to visit one day?) Bluebell's eccentric citizens remind me a little of the oddballs on Gilmore Girls back in the day, or even Northern Exposure's quirky crew.

Let's face it, Rachel Bilson is great. Who didn't love Seth and Summer in the OC? She's just as fun in Hart of Dixie.

3. Arrow is the New Cool Kid At School.

It actually surprises me how much I love this superhero show. 

I was never a huge Smallville fan. The program had a specific tone that was sometimes too melodramatic for me. When I did watch it, I often enjoyed it (partly because I could see how much effort went into each episode), but I never went out of my way to catch it every week. And while there were aspects of the show I really appreciated, others aggravated me no end. 

 Enter Arrow as the network's superhero replacement. Somehow, this show struck the BULLSEYE of my viewing preferences. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I think it's partly the lack of jarring slapstick humour that seems to creep into a lot of superhero offerings (a format truly mastered by superhero maestro Joss Whedon, but not always pulled off by everyone else). In contrast, this program plays it straight (as an arrow! I gotta stop this). 

Our main guy, Oliver McQueen, is brutal... and I love it. I love the dark aesthetic, and the way the narrative structure draws parallels between our protagonist's experiences on the island, and his present day experiences back in (so-called) civilisation.

I could go on, but I think I'll save the Arrow love for it's own blog in 2013.

4. Supernatural, The Show With a Never-Ending Afterlife.

I would have to say, in recent years, Supernatural has offered some of the best television writing I've ever seen... and some of the worst. Yes, the script has gone from heavenly heights of awesomeness to hell depths of awfulness (kind of like this pun). 

 For a show to span such a broad spectrum, in terms of quality, while consistently managing to avoid cancellation... well, that's an achievement in itself. The most recent season appears to be more of a return to form, though some still claim the series jumped the shark long ago.

Just knowing Sam and Dean are still on the air is somehow reassuring. I like the Winchester brothers. I love the way they struggle on. In the eternal battle of good versus evil, these two are epic in their dogged persistence, like re-imagined heroes of old. AND, just like certain heroes of old, they have one of the most complex sibling relationships (television has) ever seen. 

They also helped usher in the era of popularised supernatural-themed fiction, television and film. Sure, the vamp craze get a lot of the credit, but seeing Dean and Sam in mainstream press certainly helped inch open a few doors.

For anyone who's wondering if I'm Team Dean or Team Sam.... the answer is, Team Castiel. That's one smokin' Fallen Angel. (Now I'm not even sure if I'm punning. That's how far I am over the line.)

5. Damon and Elena Finally Hook Up (or more accurately, Stefan and Elena Really Break Up).

Yes, I watch The Vampire Diaries. 

I take my hat off to the scriptwriting team. They have dozens of subplots on the go at any time, many often left static till a later point in the season, when re-introducing a particular conflict or character has the most shocking and unforeseen impact. Kudos for a fine display of narrative juggling.

Probably the most erratic aspect of the program is the varying levels of acting talent. Aside from above-par scripts, the series basically survives on quality guest stars and the charismatic skills of Ian Somerhalder and Candice Accola, who carry less impressive leads Nina Dobrev and Paul Wesley.

The only flaw I would point out this season, is the continuation of a of determined naivety from certain characters (here's looking at you Bonny) that helps plotlines along, but is slightly less believable as the years go by. (For example, the fact anyone ever had a conversation with creepy Professor Shane to begin with, beggars belief...!)

6. Beauty And The Beast Austen'd Me.

I know, judge away.

This show is pretty terrible. I'm not denying it. The procedural aspect is GOD AWFUL, and I kind of wish the creators would realise it's borderline irrelevant/unnecessary, and shift their primary focus to character interactions.

Some of the support cast are appalling. Any connection to the original concept is so negligible that using the same name is a total marketing fail. (Did the network learn nothing from the 90210 fiasco?!).

Frankly, there are so many things to complain about. AND YET... 

I would never miss an episode, because Katherine and Vincent's emotional entanglement makes for heart-wrenching, old-fashioned, pure, unadulterated romance. It's endearingly sweet.

Actors Kristin Kreuk and Jay Ryan heat up the small screen with more chemistry than I've seen in a long while (hampered by less touching than a Georgette Heyer novel, mind you). 

While the screenwriters managed to get everything else about the show wrong, when it came to developing and exploring the integral connection between the two leads, they (accidentally?) excelled. (Or maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt here?)

The backstories help this tortured coupling work. He's lost a brother and lives in a horrific situation. She saw her mother murdered and hence has more issues than most. Two damaged characters, who as a result of their traumas, feel compelled to help other people. 

I think it's this aspect that hooked me in. I also like that despite being the mutual attraction, they're so bad at connecting with other people that it makes for an inevitably rocky (and therefore interesting) road to romance.

Basically, I'm happy to hang in there and hope the show can avoid cancellation long enough to figure out a stronger narrative direction, and learn to work with its strengths, because Kreuk and Ryan deserve   the chance to make this show work.

HONOURABLE MENTION/TOO COOL FOR SCHOOL MOMENT OF 2012:

The actor who played Logan Echolls on Veronica Mars, the inimitable Jason Dohring, had a daughter  this year, who he and his wife named Lilly (yes, same spelling as the show). Now that's Meta!

Happy New Year x

Is It Your First Day?

Finding a fantastic new scripted tv show in the latest batch of releases can be like searching for a narrative needle in an, occasionally mediocre, storytelling haystack. 

Here's my take on ten recent small screen debuts. The good news is, every now and again, you hit pay dirt. (On a side note, what does this saying even mean? Why dirt??). 

My Favourite So Far (drum roll please)…

1. MOCKINGBIRD LANE

Why Check It Out? Because it's from the producer of Pushing Up Daisies. Mockingbird Lane is fun, but don't get excited. The network passed on it, which means the most promising show of the season was cancelled before it even really began. 

What's It About? A ver-y loose retelling of The Munsters, which is why it has a different name (good call). The concept's been modernised to accommodate a more gore-savvy audience. The pilot was screened as a Halloween special.

After I Watched It… I was blown away by how kooky but cool the whole idea was, and how well the core cast meshed. I loved the art design too. The opening sequence, where Marilyn buys the house, made me smile, as did Lily and grandpa's arrival (cue rats, smoke and spiders). Fantastic television.

Hits: Deliciously macabre all-round! 

And Misses: Maybe the pacing? The program is such an unexpected style of small screen storytelling, there's no currently popular formula to follow (unlike a procedural).

Other Shows Worth Trying On For Size...

2. ARROW

Why Check It Out? Because superheroes are still all the rage. Speaking of rage, the theme of this show seems to be a slow burning rage that's almost consumed our hero. I love it. 
What's It About?  A billionaire playboy is found five years after he's presumed dead. The sole survivor of a shipwreck, he returns home to discover corruption and greed have taken over the city.  Deciding to protect the innocent by adopting an alternate persona, he becomes the vigilante known as Green Arrow.

After I Watched It… I realised there's often a jovial kind of humour to shows based on comic books, but this series plays it straight. I actually like the intensity. 

Hits: The flashbacks to the boating tragedy, and his time on the island. Beautifully woven in at just the right times. Rather than being jarring, they really contribute to the narrative.

And Misses: I'm not a Green Arrow comic fan, so I honestly can't compare the character mythology to this interpretation. I like the grittiness and brutality of the violence, it kind of blurs the line with the hero a little, bringing a darker edge to the tale. On a side note, just what is it with the girlfriend/love interest of a superhero hooking up with the best mate? 
Note: This is a CW show, so the budget's nowhere near as high as pilot programs on other networks. CW's programming also skews younger. These factors combined mean my expectations were not quite  as high as they might be for a big budget effort on other networks, or cable. But I was pleasantly surprised by the quality here. Big step forward from the 90210 remake, or the show about musical chairs(!).

3. LAST RESORT

Why Check It Out? Co-creator Shaun Ryan's had his finger in a lot of (tv) pies, including Chicago Code, Terriers, Lie To Me, and The Unit.

What's It About? The crew of a submarine are on the run (in a sense). When you're a patriot doing your duty and your country tries to kill you courtesy of internal political machinations, well, the psychological effects are going to be complex O_O Think combat-style pressure, to the nth degree. 

After I Watched It… I started recommending the show to anyone who would listen. This was easily the best premiere of the television season. The follow up episodes are not as strong; partly because not much can compete with the setting up of the original premise, and partly because the move to focus on 'emotional' storylines doesn't translate well. 

Hits: Worth watching, if it can avoid cancellation. The ensemble cast is incredible.

Misses: Sub-plots centred on the bar girl and the wife back home just make me sigh. I think they're supposed to provide, what, emotional fodder? Instead, the characters come across as overly simplistic and tiresome to watch. They don't compare to the intricacies of Autumn Reeser's character.

4. HUNTED

Why Check It Out? Ah, BBC, you send so many good shows out into the world. Major props!

What's It About? I thought it was about a spy who survives an assassination attempt, realises one of her team had to be involved, and (once recovered) returns to work to uncover the culprit. For me, the show lost a little gloss when it turned out the protagonist is not a spy. Instead, she works for a privatised company. Laugh if you like, but the thing is, I can get behind patriotism. Ditching your ethics for cold hard cash? Not so much.

After I Watched It… I took my hat off once again to the BBC. All the clever kind of espionage double crossing at the beginning is riveting. The lead role is written as a very intense, complex character, and while I think it's a bit of a stretch for George, she comes through.

Hits: That would be the entire cast. It's a solid ensemble cast, you're not sighing your way through any scenes. The camera work, the editing, the lighting in a lot of shots, every aspect is top-notch. The real mystery is what they're putting in the water over there?

And Misses: Melissa George's pouting. The actress's interpretation of a stern, serious spy face, includes a slight pout. Spy chic? If you created a drinking game and tossed back a shooter for every pout shot, you'd be wasted asap.

Good, But Probably Could Have/Should Have Been Better...

5. ELEMENTARY

Why Check It Out? Reinterpreting the iconic character of Sherlock Holmes, ie placing him in a modern day setting, worked so well for the Brits. 

What's It About? A genius-type who notices everything, works with the police (for free) when he gets out of rehab, assisted by a retired surgeon hired by his father to act as a sobriety companion.

After I Watched It… To be honest, the Sherlock character doesn't seem frighteningly clever to me. He seems more like a highly intelligent individual with a personality disorder. Kind of a stupid person's version/idea of genius.
Let's face it, the crew over on Castle solve these types of crimes quite regularly. If Sherlock's going to stand out from the crowd, the procedural aspect needs to be a lot more polished. Today's audiences are quite jaded in regards to the solving of homicide mysteries.

Hits: Lucy Liu. She's a great actress, and her character here is a very different take on Watson, a much more proactive interpretation of the famous sidekick.

And Misses: Elementary is just a standard procedural, with a little Sherlock wrapping. More similar to House, or The Mentalist. If you're going to cash in on the success of the BBC effort, you have to put in the budget to equal the quality of their product, and pay the same attention to detail (considering the topic at hand, that's almost a pun).

Still To Come...

6. PRIMEVAL: NEW WORLD

This is screening soon, so I'm taking a punt on it and putting it in the list as a potential fun show, (maybe) in the same way Warehouse 13 is entertaining. Why? Because I enjoy the occasional Canadian program, and because Amanda Tapping and Gillian Horvath are involved (think Sanctuary). I don't mind the leads either (guy from Eureka, girl from The Vampire Diaries). Will update this blog with impressions of the first episode when it airs later in the week. Since I've never seen the British original, maybe I'll check that out too...

Currently On The Fence...

7. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

Why I'm Not Sold: Oh, for a lot of reasons. Mostly the script, and most notably the atrocious procedural aspect, which is highly cringeworthy. Not to mention, taking an old show and creating a modern interpretation rarely ends well. This is the network that tried 90210 and Melrose Place reboots, so you think they'd have learnt their lesson by now… Nostalgia is a powerful thing, so shows are judged a lot more harshly when they reference a past favourite to pull an audience. 
Most would argue this should be in the 'Avoid' category, but I really like Kristin Kreuk. She was a big factor behind the original success (ie the early years) of Smallville. And I do enjoy the stylised fight scenes. Fingers crossed it gets better? Maybe the production company could pull a Walking Dead with the writing staff? (And no, I don't mean eat or zombify- just replace!)

8. 666 PARK AVENUE

Why I'm Not Sold: This one comes down to personal taste. I enjoyed the opening few minutes (I'm always up for a series with a supernatural slant, I love seeing how writers work it into the narrative)... till I discovered Rachael Taylor has a lead role. I am not a fan of Rachel Taylor on the small screen, in the same kind of way I'm not a fan of Anne Hathaway on the big screen. Meaning, I can only sit through about five minutes of screen time before I have to leave the cinema, or turn off the telly.

Those Best Avoided…

9. MADE IN JERSEY

I was going to say, avoid this one like the plague, it's horribly oversimplified and has an oddly condescending tone (God-awful barely describes the clunky script effort), but it's already been cancelled. 

10. REVOLUTION

Don't even get me started. There are just too many logistical problems with the concept, and honestly, who wants to read a reall-y long rant? Nobody, I'm guessing. I love stories set in dystopian futures, but in the last few years it seems networks have conveniently ignored the fact this kind of programming requires solid conceptual script work. The premise here has a slapdash feel to it that I find truly aggravating. When you create a world, it has to be consistent, so the audience can maintain suspension of disbelief... Two words, people. Robert McKee. Google him!