The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (premiered September 8 @ 11.35/10.35) advance clips here

Dave Letterman retired, Stephen Colbert left The Colbert Report, and though no longer playing the role of Stephen Colbert, Stephen Colbert will now host (albeit without the Colbeard).

*

see Antenna’s roundtable discussion here.

Life in Pieces (premiered September 21 @ 8.30/7.30) trailer here

At this point in the American family sitcom’s history, what new spin could one give it? CBS is banking on telling four independent stories from the same extended family each episode, with cast Dianne Wiest, James Brolin, Colin Hanks, Thomas Sadowski, and more.

*

With Life in Pieces, CBS’s new vignette-based family comedy, I was hoping for Rashomon or Boomtown with a sense of humor: a family comedy with narrative overlap and distinct subjectivities through a sustained bit of storytelling. Instead creator Justin Adler gives something seemingly tailored to the assumed short attention spans of contemporary viewers. The 30-minute pilot includes 4 short, self-contained stories, three of which introduce the three adult children and the family matriarch and patriarch, and one that brought everyone together at a faux funeral/70^th birthday party. At 6 minutes per bit, the writers and actors have very little time to get anything moving or make us care. Sure, by the episode’s end we have a good idea of the who, what, and where, but the 4 parts pass so quickly, the viewer neither learns much about the individuals (who pretty much appear as gross stereotypes because of their lack of time to develop), nor has a reason to care about them. It reads a little bit as if Adler said, “hmm, I’ve done amnesia (Samantha Who?) and I’ve broken the 4^th wall (Better Off Ted), but I need a gimmick. Ooh, ooh, parallel stories!” The show could well pull together. It has strength in its cast: two-time Oscar winner Diane Wiest (Bullets Over Broadway, Hannah and Her Sisters) as the matriarch, James Brolin as the patriarch, and Colin Hanks (Orange County, Dexter, Fargo), Betsy Brandt (The Michael J. Fox Show, Breaking Bad), and Thomas Sadowski (The Newsroom, The Slap) as the grown kids. The pilot has some funny bits and ends with Brolin being rushed to a Jiffy Lube while locked in a casket. If it can figure out how to create cohesion between the bits, it might have some staying power. I mean, I give it points just for saying Jiffy Lube.

Kelly Kessler (DePaul University)’s work primarily engages with gender and genre in the American television and film, often as it relates to the musical.

*

In the quest to replicate the success of ABC’s Modern Family, few attempts have felt as strained as CBS’ Life in Pieces. While copying much of the fabric of that series–an extended family of adult parents, siblings, spouses, lovers, and kids, albeit all thoroughly white and heterosexual this time–episodes are divided into four parts. While this could have been an interesting programming tactic, distilling plots to five-minute chunks between ad breaks, this show also airs earlier, yet goes raunchier. By halfway through the pilot we’d already endured painful riffs on post-birth vaginas and adolescent penises. It’s not that the ABC show doesn’t also go into that territory; it’s just that they do it much better, as winking farce, rather than as Seth MacFarlane on a bulldozer.

Some might be surprised that this is on CBS. But this material is squarely in the comfort zone of the network that’s relied on Two and a Half Men, Mike & Molly, The Big Bang Theory, The Rules of Engagement, and Two Broke Girls. A wrinkle this time is that the raunchy yuks are produced single-camera style, rather than via the usual multi-cam laugh-track machine. More shockingly, there’s formidable comic talent in front of that single camera: James Brolin, Dianne Weist, Colin Hanks, Betsy Brandt, Dan Bakkedahl, Zoe Lister Jones, and Jordan Peele. That’s a hell of a lineup, and it almost actually redeems it. The material is full of typical pilot shrillness and flop sweat, but the cast, pros all, gives it their best shot.

In an alternate universe, the same cast might have worked in a quieter, slyer, darker comedy. But since that’s not the flavor in Lorre-land, we’re stuck with this. And while it won’t grace my screen again, I won’t be surprised if it actually works exactly as it was designed.

Derek Kompare (Southern Methodist University) is the author of Rerun Nation (2005), CSI (2010), and many articles on television form and history.

Limitless (premiered September 22 @ 10/9) trailer here

Jake McDorman gets a pill from Bradley Cooper, reprising his role from the film of the same name, that gives him super intelligence (cause that’s Bradley Cooper’s gift to give, apparently) and perfect memory. Jennifer Carpenter plays the cop who tries to reel him in to help her and boss Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio.

*

Everyone wants something. But is there something everyone wants? There’s a whole lot of theory and a fair amount of experience that suggests not really. But, what the hell, it’s pilot season so Limitless is going to give it a shot.

NZT is a pill that makes you very smart. Apparently, being smart can get you things you want: money, women, a human liver.

Fair enough. But watching a chemically enhanced fictional character get the fictional things it fictionally wants is neither the stuff of great entertainment nor that of passable ratings. Imagine if Superman spent his time thinking up brilliant plans so that he didn’t have to fly.

Fortunately, that’s not what Limitless is about. It’s about a fantasy far bigger and more relatable. It dramatizes the same attraction that drives popular infatuations with big data and convinces young men to attend Pick Up seminars instead of just joining a gym or learning how to have a civil conversation.

It’s the tantalizing delusion that there really are answers to the messiest, most complex problems of human existence. That love only looks like an impossible Escher staircase because we haven’t seen it from all the angles. That getting rich is about plugging in the right variables in the right equations, not popping into existence at the right time in the right place. Hell, Bradley Cooper even shows up to remind us that death is the one puzzle that we can never truly solve, the one game we can never truly beat. Unless, of course, it isn’t.

Take the clear pill and find out. It’s what we all want.

Matt Sienkiewicz (Boston College) teaches and writes about global media, politics, and comedy.

Code Black (premieres September 30 @ 10/9) trailer here

Starring Marcia Gay Harden and Luiz Guzman lead the cast of this medical drama focusing on an overcrowded and understaffed ER in LA, and based on the 2013 documentary of the same name.

*

My interest in Code Black has more to do with its production history than its logline—after the show’s table read, Maggie Grace (who is 31) left the series, and producers replaced her with the already-cast-in-another-role Marcia Gay Harden (who is 56). It makes for a fun counterfactual: how different would the show be if the residency director bossing around the new residents was much closer to them in age, and without the same sense of presence that Harden brings to the part?

It’s admittedly more interesting than the show itself, which is rarely bad—the exception being the d-bag male resident who seems drawn from a d-bag male resident catalog—but is operating in some very familiar spaces. While based on a documentary, the show feels closer to ER, distinctive primarily in the fact that it resists any single point-of-view in its pilot: we get various backstories (grieving mother starting a new career [Harden’s original role], golden boy, etc.) but the various residents end up all blurring together. And while the sheer volume of patients-of-the-week fits the show’s focus on the chaos of a “Code Black,” there comes a point where no single character or story or even moment feels like it sticks with you.

There’s nothing wrong with the storytelling engine in place here, and the casting switch has given the show a solidness that feels comforting in its own way (especially if you take this as a stealth spinoff of Harden’s character on Trophy Wife. But the “So what?” of the whole affair makes it difficult to recommend the show beyond a case study in how the ups and downs of TV development can dramatically reshape a series’ identity.

Myles McNutt (Old Dominion University) studies media industries and definitely paid more attention to the pilot’s casual violation of IRB protocol than your average viewer.

*

Code Black, a term meaning an influx of patients without enough resources to treat them, is aptly named, for it was just as overcrowded with problems.* The first and most distracting was The Good Wife’s new wig, which we saw early in a tease for the premiere, that poor dear. Give back Johnny Depp’s toupee, CBS.

Unlike Grey’s Anatomy, there’s nothing glamorous about Angels Memorial Hospital in Los Angeles, a place so afflicted even its blue fluorescent lights cast a jaundice-yellow glow. The set is dirty, the walls all scuffed up, and the action plays on a constant background of dying people of color waiting hours for treatment while a troop of doctors fuss over a young white girl and her feelings. But before you write me off as a queen with a heart raisin, though normally an accurate assessment, hear me out: Weren’t we supposed to translate all these gritty aesthetics and the show’s own premise into a cultural criticism about race, class, gender, and the injustices of this country’s healthcare system? Because if so, what happened in the script, and why was it so hyperfocused instead on the female resident’s age?

There was remarkably little plot in this episode, and the patients moved in and out of importance so quickly, I failed to grasp onto someone to actually care about. It really did feel like video footage of an ER rather than a TV show, and yes, that could be simply symptomatic of it being a sweaty pilot, but it could also mean it will never explicitly address issues of race and class. Will they ever mention why this hospital is always in a code black? Maybe. Or maybe we’re just supposed to infer from it looking vaguely “inner-city.”

Of course an implied cultural critique is not helped here by centerpiece Marcia Gay Harden, a woman who plays roles so typically Hollywood glam and posh, she actually gets away with the name Gay. Look, I am normally all in for MGH, but I’m not here for another white savior show, and I feel some confidence she’s about to be blindsided, Sandra Bullock style. That’s if Code Black succeeds ratings-wise, which it might since Madam Secretary is somehow still a thing.

*I did enjoy the joke about the IRB, though. That was satisfying.

Taylor Cole Miller (University of Wisconsin-Madison) studies syndication and queer television.

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (The CW, October 12 @ 8/7) trailer here

Because stalking is always an endearing premise for romance (?!), and because crazy women are the bread and butter of many a comedy (?!), this musical rom-com focuses on a woman who ten years after being dumped decides to move across the country to pursue her ex.

*

From its opening scene, a flashback to the end of a short-lived romance at summer camp, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend’s humor relies upon gender disparities. While Rebecca imagines her first romantic and sexual relationship as a meaningful one, Josh does not. He suggests they “take a break,” to which Rebecca responds, “What? But I love you!” “And thanks for that,” Josh says, unmoved by thoughts of emotional attachment and long-term commitment.

With such an introduction, I settled in for a tedious rehash of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. Set to music.

Thankfully, however, CEG quickly moves to problematize the differences between men and women. Rather than simply assuming an inherent binary gender division, it considers why women experience the world differently from men and sympathetically explores painful experiences common to many women.

By the end of the opening scene, the show has introduced viewers to anger at divorced and unloving parents, suicidal behavior, and talk of abortion. By the episode’s end, the show has expressed a host of feminist critiques. The sexist double-standard of beauty culture is depicted in a manner both humorous (woman struggles to put on Spanx) and graphic (full bikini wax results in blood splatters on the bathroom wall). The exploitation of women is figured through sex work and unfulfilling pink collar office work. And, perhaps most significantly, a woman’s unwavering romantic attachment to a man—the very premise of the show—is found to be untenable. When confronted with the accusation that she moved across the country for Josh, Rebecca counters with the absurdity of such a decision. “So you’re saying that I moved here from New York, and I left behind a job that would have paid me $545,000 a year for a guy who still skateboards?” she asks sarcastically, only to realize that she actually has. For a woman to sacrifice so much for a man is “crazy”—not as in a Beyoncé lyric celebrating the overwhelming effects of love but as in an actual mental health issue.

I may be taking it too easy on CEG. It puts racism and anti-Semitism on display but, at times, only to produce an uncomfortable situation. Mental illness is played for laughs, perhaps too uncritically. The show’s tone can be confusing, and musical interludes outlast their purpose. In spite of these problems, I’m curious to see how dark the show will get, how unappealing yet sympathetic (particularly to women viewers, I suspect) the main characters will get, and how many feminist-inflected jokes will make it to air. For these reasons, this strange and potentially disappointing show is worth watching.

Jennifer Clark (Fordham University)’s work in television studies tends to gender concerns both historical (women’s labor and role in production) and contemporary (representations of masculinity and anxiety).

*

I want to like Crazy Ex-Girlfriend because it’s created and written by women, Rachel Bloom and Aline Brosh McKenna, and directed by a woman, Joanna Kerns. I’d hoped that meant the series would engage a feminist sensibility in its humor (especially given Bloom’s history producing funny yet thoughtful videos). Raising my hopes, Entertainment Weekly compares the series to Portlandia and Flight of the Conchords, and calls it “an empowerment fantasy.” Going a step further, Time asserts that the show flips “the Bechdel Test on its head.”

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is a great example of how passing the Bechdel Test doesn’t mean a media text is feminist. Bloom’s character, Rebecca Bunch, has spent much of her life miserably cramming down her own feelings, yet it’s hard to watch her leave her job as a respected lawyer to relocate to West Covina, California, chasing an ex-boyfriend she dated for two months at summer camp as a teenager. Rebecca needn’t become Alicia Florrick, but I wish she hadn’t spent the remainder of the pilot chasing after her long lost beau Josh to the exclusion of anything else. The one great moment in the episode is the musical number “Sexy Getting Ready Song.” Rebecca’s song describing her preparations to see Josh that evening is humorously interrupted when a rapper, who (presumably) enters the song to objectify the women dancing in Rebecca’s fantasy, expresses horror at what it takes women to get ready for men. He apologizes and walks off set, reemerging at the end of the episode to apologize to a list of women he had previously disrespected.

I loved these moments in the pilot, but believe that this humor is at odds (at least so far) with Rebecca’s character. At the end of the episode when I’d hoped she’d give up on Josh and move on, her co-worker Paula pledges to help her get Josh just as he texts to ask her to dinner. These two are going to have to talk about more than Josh to keep me watching!

Melissa A. Click (University of Missouri) studies media audiences and loves the fall TV season!

*

When I first heard the premise of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, I immediately thought of Felicity, in which Keri Russell’s character moved to New York because a guy she’d had a crush on, but never spoken to, was attending college there. It was presented as only slightly crazy.

For Felicity, though, the choice was Stanford or the similarly prestigious University of New York. For Rebecca, it’s between $545,000 dollars a year in New York City vs. a bigoted boss in West Covina, where “People dine at Chez Applebee’s” and the beach is four hours away. She comes off deranged.

It’s the most original show this season—star Rachel Bloom parlayed YouTube videos into a co-writing gig—and yet still seems derivative. It’s like Glee, in the sense that the lead is a Jewish overachiever who sings and dances. Or maybe it’s more like Smash, because of the original songs, and the Broadway stars. Some songs had funny lyrics, but I never laughed out loud, except at the Simone de Beauvoir- referencing rapper.

Rebecca does not seem all that rootable so far, although she got more so when teamed up with the similarly crazy Paula. The notion that the last time she was happy was when she was 16, at summer camp, and that she’s trying to recapture that through the seemingly boring, aimless, Josh, is sad. So are allusions to a past suicide attempt. I get that we are in the age of anti-heroes, but this seems like it’s supposed to be a straight-up comedy, not even a dramedy like Orange is the New Black or Nurse Jackie are supposed to be. It’s hard to imagine how this holds up long term.

Cindy Conaway (SUNY Empire State College) writes about girls on teen dramas and dramedies.

THE FLASH [Premiered Oct 7, 2014]

In this spinoff of Arrow, the DC Comics universe expands to Barry Gordon, who gains unexpected powers following a tragic explosion and wakes up with a new, motion-blurred view of the world, one that sheds light on tragic details from his childhood.

*

Paul Booth, DePaul University

Full disclosure. I have never read any of The Flash comics. But I was a big fan of the 1990 CBS version of the show, and I love the current CW show Arrow, which spawned the current CW version. I have no knowledge of the character Barry Allen nor if creator Greg Berlanti is screwing up the mythology or not. But, because I watch Arrow each week, I have a number of Wikipedia sites and DC pages bookmarked to aid my understanding of each hint and nudge towards the larger mythos. Gorilla Grood? Can’t wait!

But here’s the crux: Is Flash a good show? It may be too soon to tell, but I really enjoyed the humor, especially at the beginning, and the hints towards a larger mystery—indeed, the fact that (spoiler alert) time travel might be involved really makes me eager to see where (when) they’re going. But I’m sure it’s not a spoiler to reveal that The Flash illustrates DC’s major problem with women. While both Iris (Candice Patton) and Dr. Caitlin Snow (Danielle Panabaker) are supposed to be smart female characters (despite the fact Iris seemingly doesn’t know how to backup her dissertation on Dropbox), they are also both hindered with awkward and unnecessary relationship baggage – and Dr. Snow is even told to “smile more.” Yikes.  But if The Flash can move beyond the trappings of teen angst, there’s the possibility of a truly interesting sci-fi show at its heart.

*

Bradley Schauer, University of Arizona

The premiere of The Flash is so predictable, there’s no real need to bring you up to speed. Every choice is safe, in a timidly bland way. We are introduced to a whole cast of characters that fit neatly into tropes: love interest, love-triangle-rival, alternate love interest, secret villain. In true/bad comic book form, Barry Allen’s mother is introduced, then fridged in literally the very next scene. Everybody announces their emotions outright, presumably because it’s too hard to make facial expressions that say “I was worried about you” or “I’m sad.” Other times, characters blurt out their backstories so awkwardly that I felt uncomfortable seeing it, like being stuck in an elevator with a couple of strangers having an argument. The climactic moment- wherein Flash has to spin counter-clockwise against a tornado to dissipate its energy- is so awkwardly contrived that it made me seriously doubt the show’s ability to find a problem every week that can be solved with running really fast.

There are so few chances taken that it’s hard to find anything specifically good to say about it. About the only notable thing in the episode is the special effects, which were surprisingly good, given the difficulty in making running fast look interesting and cool. In the end, the show doesn’t do much wrong and it doesn’t do much right. The Flash will likely survive long enough to develop a fan-base, but there’s no guarantee it will ever find its footing.

~~~~~

JANE THE VIRGIN [Premiered Oct 13, 2014]

What would happen if a twenty-something virgin was accidentally artificially inseminated? And what would happen if the sperm involved was attached to an absurdly contrived set of circumstances that create legitimate tension over whether or not the pregnancy should be terminated? Jane the Virgin is here to tell this story.

*

Melissa A. Click, University of Missouri

Jane the Virgin is one of the best pilots I’ve seen this fall. Based on the Venezuelan telenovela Juana la Virgen, the series follows 23 year-old Jane Villanueva (Gina Rodriguez), a virgin who is accidentally artificially inseminated while at a routine checkup. Building on the telenovela’s strengths as a genre, the series lays out a complicated story—a story that would take many paragraphs to explain with clarity. Suffice it to say that it will take the whole season to untangle Jane’s life, which until the accidental insemination, had been meticulously planned. The story, adapted and produced by Jennie Snyder and Ben Silverman, is reminiscent of Ugly Betty, yet thankfully lacks that series’ endless jokes about Betty’s appearance.

Unlike many of the other female characters on The CW, Jane is honest, thoughtful, and principled; she truly wants to do the right thing. The trouble is that everyone in her life—from her grandmother (Ivonne Coll), who likens Jane’s virginity to a flower (if crumpled, “you can never get it back!”), to Jane’s boyfriend (Brett Dier) who proposes to Jane on the same day she learns she is pregnant—has a different opinion about what Jane should do. The series’ complex story is strengthened by its playful narrator (Anthony Mendez) and Jane’s wild telenovela-inspired daydreams. Such devices remind the viewer of the implausibility of the story, but they skillfully anchor the series in its Latin roots and help it stand out among the CW’s standard fare. And Jane the Virgin should stand out—put this one in your weekly line up!

*

Kyra Hunting, University of Kentucky

Jane the Virgin’s most obvious asset is the actress playing its titular character, Gina Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez was instantly charming and expressive in a way that added depth to often funny but occasionally awkward dialogue. While the narrator as a device is one that I have largely been burnt out on, in this case I found its storytelling capacity and tone deeply appealing (and oddly evocative of Pushing Daisies). I entered the first episode deeply skeptical about what seemed like an unsupportable premise and was impressed by how intrigued – and sometimes surprised – I was by the series. While the Catholicism of Gina and her family is important, it is not the simplistic motivator that I had expected it to be, and so instead the series appears to offer a rare representation of faith on television that articulates it as important, complex, and sometimes influenced or complicated by the exigencies of real, messy life. In many ways the pilot episode suggests a series with a strong eye for effective diversity and cultural specificity done in subtle ways. It should particularly be applauded for having a very important, and complex and likable character, speaking almost exclusively in (subtitled) Spanish. While I still am skeptical of (and somewhat offended by) the way in which the series instigates the pregnancy, its ability to give Jane real agency and emotional depth, its offbeat humor, and its interesting family dynamic charmed me. Like fellow telenovela adaptation Red Band Society, it charmed me and I will likely continue to watch as long as it remains on the air – which I hope, but doubt, will be long enough to see her child go to preschool.

*

Karen Petruska, University of California – Santa Barbara

With critics like the typically grumpy (and CW-disparaging) Bastard Machine, Tim Goodman, praising the heck out of this show, I pretty much expected the second coming of the Lord. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to find the show is much harder to categorize, and that’s terrific. There’s plenty of potential for soapy drama, with rival lovers for our heroine, an absentee father back in town, and a ridiculous set of coincidences motivating all our characters to action. And yes, there’s a lot that is hard to swallow—an emotional doctor accidentally inseminates Jane with the ONLY sample cancer-stricken Rafael will EVER produce? (and that is among the least crazy elements of the show). But Jane the Virgin’s carefully calculated tone, balancing the craziness of its inspirational telenovelas with a lovely performance by Gina Rodriguez as Jane, intrigues more than it alienates. Jane also has two loving women in her life, grounding the otherwise whimsical series in the stuff of real life for a girl raised in a Latina, working-class matriarchy.

I’m not sure if this will be world’s slowest developing pregnancy, such that the program will sustain multiple seasons through it alone, or if it will find newer, crazier plot points down the road. I’m also not sure how this is a CW program, aside from the love triangle at its heart. Perhaps Jane is evidence of the CW working hard to defy expectations of what the network can be. But the part I’m most hesitant about is “baby as excuse for a love story,” a subgenre within which Knocked Up is my least favorite example. Should the writers remember that this pregnancy can provide an opportunity for Jane to learn more about who she is as an adult person, there may really be something unusual here beyond the tone.

*

Sharon Ross, Columbia College Chicago

Te amo, JtV! And te quiero—because I want more! This telenovela-like pilot was utterly enchanting, waltzing gleefully through the premise of mistaken artificial insemination to settle warmly on a core of familial love and the unpredictability of charting one’s personal growth in relation to those around you. The acting was top-notch; it is not an easy thing to walk the fine line of genuine, dramatic moments and comedic whimsy but every actor pulled it off. This is a testament to skillful writing and production as well—from the pop-up type set that painted quick pictures of the characters tongue-in-cheek, to the true-to-life dialogue as Jane worked her way through dealing with her pregnancy and the ripple effect of this with her mother, grandmother, and boyfriend.

I am a cynical watcher, particularly when it comes to shows being highlighted in part for their diversity. JtV won me over quickly, however, creating depth for most of its characters (the conniving wife Petra could stand some backstory that I’m hoping will involve the tarot cards we kept seeing). This has the mark of Ugly Betty (Ben Silverman can be thanked for that), but with a gentler form of humor that lets you suspend disbelief just enough to embrace the emotional realism. By the end, I had enjoyable tears in my eyes, desperately wanted to see the next episode, and really wanted to have a grilled cheese sandwich. This show is like fabulous ice cream—the kind you go to a funky ice cream parlor for (green tea ice cream with chocolate chips); it’s sweet but not in an expected way, you won’t get the headache, and you sense that in the near future you’ll be returning to see what flavor emerges next.

As the posts go up, we’ll add links to them here, should you wish for this page to be your gateway to all the reviews to ABC’s new shows, CBS’, The CW’s, FOX’s, NBC’s, and those on cable and at other venues.

In the meantime, we invite you to watch along with us. Towards that end, below are short descriptions (penned by our own inimitable Myles McNutt) of what’s coming your way, along with premiere times.

~

Comic Book Drama

THE FLASH (The CW, Tues Oct 7 @ 8/7) – In this spinoff of Arrow, the DC Comics universe expands to Barry Gordon, who gains unexpected powers following a tragic explosion and wakes up with a new, motion-blurred view of the world, one that sheds light on tragic details from his childhood.

GOTHAM (FOX, Mon Sept 22 @ 8/7) – It’s a basic police corruption procedural starring Ben McKenzie and Donal Logue, but the city they’re patrolling will grow up to be Batman’s Gotham. In the meantime, your favorite caped crusader and his villain buddies—Penguin! Riddler! Catwoman! The gang’s all here!—are still living through what will eventually become their origin stories.

Crime Drama

FOREVER (ABC, Mon Sept 22 @ 10/9) – Ioan Gruffodd stars as an immortal medical examiner who knows death more intimately than anyone who’s alive, but whose inability to truly know the meaning of death continues to haunt him.

GRACEPOINT (FOX, Thurs Oct 2 @ 9/8) – If you haven’t seen Broadchurch, this tells the story of a Northern California town racked with tragedy following a young boy’s death, and the detectives and family members caught up in the pursuing investigation. For those who have seen Broadchurch, it’s an often shot-for-shot adaptation of that U.K. series, although they’re promising a different ending.

NCIS: NEW ORLEANS (CBS, Tues Sept 23 @ 9/8) – In this second spinoff from the highest-rated drama on television, and the first to be shot outside of Los Angeles, Scott Bakula stars as yet another specialist in Navy-related crimes, this time in the Big Easy: The Land of Mardi Gras and generous filming incentives.

SCORPION (CBS, Mon Sept 22 @ 9/8) – Based on a real-life genius who has done work with the government, it’s a high-octane—seriously, there’s a big car setpiece—procedural about a gang of anti-social geniuses who work alongside Homeland Security to solve high-tech problems while learning how to survive when life stops being high-tech and starts being real.

STALKER (CBS, Wed Oct 1 @ 10/9) – Maggie Q and Dylan McDermott star in this sensationalist drama from Kevin Williamson (Dawson’s Creek, The Following), which focused on a stalking prevention unit of the LAPD where each member of the team has their own history—either as victim or perpetrator—with the crime in question.

Crime Dramedy

THE MYSTERIES OF LAURA (NBC, Wed Sept 17 @ 8/7) – Debra Messing stars in an hour-long comedy procedural about a mother of twin six-year old hellions who just also happens to be a great detective—the mystery is how she keeps it all together. Alternate title, per NPR’s Linda Holmes: MomCop, CopMom.

Family Drama

THE AFFAIR (Showtime, Sun Oct 12 @ 10/9) – Starring Dominic West and Ruth Wilson, it’s the story of an extramarital affair during a summer in Montauk, but told through a distinct structure that explores issues of class and gender intersecting with the affair itself.

KINGDOM (DirecTV, Wed Oct 8 @ 9/7) – A multi-generational family drama set in the world of Mixed Martial Arts, the series stars Frank Grillo as a the patriarch of a family on the wrong side of the law who work out their issues in and out of the ring in southern California.

Family Sitcom

BLACK-ISH (ABC, Wed Sept 24 @ 9:30/8:30) – Anthony Anderson, Tracee Ellis-Ross, and Laurence Fishburne star in this exploration of how race and identity are understood in the context of a 21^st century, upper middle class, multi-generational African American household. If this description made even the faint image of the word “Cosby” form in your brain, ABC has won.

CRISTELA (ABC, Fri Oct 10 @ 8:30/7:30) – A multi-camera family sitcom from Cristela Alonzo, the series focuses on a young law student struggling to get her life started, and her multi-generational Latin American Texas family whose love doesn’t always offer the kind of support she’s hoping for.

Family Dramedy

JANE THE VIRGIN (The CW, Mon Oct 13 @ 9/8) – What would happen if a twenty-something virgin was accidentally artificially inseminated? And what would happen if the sperm involved was attached to an absurdly contrived set of circumstances that create legitimate tension over whether or not the pregnancy should be terminated? Jane the Virgin is here to tell this story.

TRANSPARENT (Amazon, available Fri Sept 26) – The Jill Soloway-created family comedy focuses on Maura (Jeffrey Tambor), a transgendered patriarch beginning his transition from a man to a woman while his children confront their own identity crises and their changing relationship with their father.

Horror

AMERICAN HORROR STORY: FREAK SHOW (FX, Wed Oct 8 @ 10/9) – Pushing further into people’s most-common nightmares, Ryan Murphy and his collaborators return to explore the clown-riddled terror of the freak show in the series’ fourth installment of its seasonal anthology model.

Hospital Drama

RED BAND SOCIETY (FOX, Wed Sept 17 @ 9/8) – Octavia Spencer leads an ensemble cast of those who live and work in an extended youth hospital wing, where the diagnosis is hormones, pathos, and self-discovery as chronic illness mixes with adolescence.

Legal Comedy

BAD JUDGE (NBC, Thurs Oct 2 @ 9/8) Kate Walsh stars as a party-loving judge who lives the contradiction of being bad at living a healthy life but great at punishing those who break the law—I would tell you more, but it’s on its third showrunner, so other than this your guess is as good as anyone’s.

Legal Drama

HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER (ABC, Thurs Sept 25 @ 10/9) – Viola Davis stars in the latest Shonda Rhimes-produced series, this one focused on a first year law school class that doubles as an internship competition for a prestigious law firm, and which may or may not have students exploring the series’ title by the time they earn their credits.

Other Sitcom

MULANEY (FOX, Sun Oct 5 @ 9:30/8:30) – Based on the standup of star/producer John Mulaney, it’s a throwback multi-camera sitcom about a comedy writer working for a difficult boss (Martin Short) and living life with his roommates.

Political Drama

MADAM SECRETARY (CBS, Sun Sept 21 @ 8/7) – Tea Leoni stars as a CIA Analyst turned university professor who’s called into service following the tragic death of the previous Secretary of State.

Reality

UTOPIA (FOX, already started) – What happens when Fox sends 15 strangers to live on their own without rules? What kind of society will they form? What kind of lives will they lead? What role with religion or government play? And will anyone actually be interested in the answers to these questions? Only time will tell.

Romantic Comedy

A To Z (NBC, Thurs Oct 2 @ 9:30/8:30) – Ben Feldman and Cristin Miloti play a couple who unexpectedly stumble into a relationship that might well be the product of fate, which the series’ frame narrative reveals may be more complicated than its alphabetical title would suggest.

MANHATTAN LOVE STORY (ABC, Tues Sept 30 @ 8:30/7:30) – The story of two young and attractive New Yorkers whose relationship gets off to a rough start, the show works to differentiate itself by having two internal voiceovers from both male and female leads. The results will surprise you (if you’re surprised by essentialist depictions of gender, which seems unlikely).

MARRY ME (NBC, Tues Oct 14 @ 9/8) – Happy Endings creator David Caspe returns with another irreverent comedy, this one focused on a couple (Casey Wilson, Ken Marino) whose delayed engagement creates tension between them and their friends and family following a proposal mishap.

SELFIE (ABC, Tues Sept 30 @ 8/7) – Karen Gillan and John Cho star in this social media-age Pygmalion riff, as Eliza must detox from her Instagrammed existence to confront her sense of identity with the help of an uptight but successful Henry.

Teen Dramedy

HAPPYLAND (MTV, Tues Sept 30 @ 11/10) – Set in a low rent Disneyland-style theme park, it follows a young woman who grew up in the park with her employee mother whose own time working at the park brings laughs, romance, and an episode-ending revelation that may or may not involve a Les Cousins Dangereux-esque situation.

Although Hellcats may just be dangerous in general.

FOX

Raising Hope (Premiered 9/21/10 on FOX)

Kyra Glass von der Osten, UW – Madison:

When I decided to respond to Raising Hope my own hopes were pretty limited. While the premise was intriguing and I occasionally enjoyed My Name Is Earl, I very rarely connect with thirty minutes sitcoms. At best I was hoping for a show I could watch with my comedy-loving boyfriend that I didn’t hate. Instead I was pleasantly surprised with a show that I loved and think is genuinely a fantastic comedy, likely the best new sitcom of the year.

The show’s humor has the snarky, sophomoric edge that cropped up in My Name Is Earl, and this  humor is instrumental in preventing Hope from becoming sappy. That more familiar humor, which can be found on several other current sitcoms, is nicely mixed with a quirky, simmering, humor that is more common to films like Juno. This other humor comes across most strongly in scenes with the main character’s mother, wonderfully played by Martha Plimpton, and her apparent love interest. But for me the real secret to Raising Hope’s success is its sincerity and sweetness. There are plenty of laughs but at its core Raising Hope is a story about a family doing the best they can for each other. The actors ooze sincerity but with such an odd edge that it is never boring or maudlin. In a way Raising Hope is the perfect show to follow Glee because both have seemed to find the perfect cocktail of snark and sincerity. It has raised my hopes for this seasons comedy landscape.

Josh Jackson, UW – Madison:

Raising Hope has more heart than you’d expect from a comedy that features both an onscreen execution (by electric chair, no less) and a throwing-up-on-a-baby gag done twice. Loaded with the easy charm that characterized the best moments of My Name is Earl (producer Greg Garcia’s last gig), Hope, like Earl and progenitor Malcolm in the Middle capably manages a quirky, irreverent, and sometimes wicked, sensibility.

Though perhaps merely a result of the pilot’s effort to reach its status quo, a great deal of the credit goes to Hope’s jaunty editing, which does a terrific job creating a sense of manic propulsion. The cast, generally careful to stay on the human side of zaniness, hit all the right beats. Special mention goes out to Martha Plimpton’s wise-and-wisecracking Virginia Chance and Garret Dillahunt, so endearingly puerile that you almost—almost—forget his performance in Deadwood as prostitute-killing sociopath Frank Wolcott. Hope‘s biggest misfire is the terribly unfunny Alzheimer’s-inflicted Maw Maw, though Cloris Leachman tackles the material with her characteristic gusto. Favorite new show so far.

Myles McNutt, UW – Madison:

I have been campaigning for Martha Plimpton to get her own show for a while, especially after two great guest turns on The Good Wife and Fringe last season, but Raising Hope has one fundamental problem: while the show eventually gets to a fairly heartwarming place where Plimpton shines, the lengths it goes in order to get there are outright ludicrous.

Greg Garcia clearly wanted to make a show about a lower class extended family raising a baby, and by the time we get to Plimpton and Dillahunt singing the baby to sleep I can see why he wanted to make that show. However, what I couldn’t understand was why there had to be a serial killer baby mama, or a gruesome execution, in order to get to that point: the early scenes, along with Leachman’s character, are so over the top that it makes the show’s already somewhat ridiculous premise into something which seems wholly inorganic.

My Name is Earl was similarly about a sudden change putting one’s life into perspective, and in some ways Princess Beyonce is not unlike Earl’s lottery ticket: however, while Garcia’s previous show got to that point through issues of luck and fate, Raising Hope crafts an unwieldy scenario which served to plot-block the remainder of the series’ premise and kept me from fully embracing all it has to offer.

Sharon Ross, Columbia College:

There is a lot that irritates me about the sitcom Raising Hope—maybe it’s the network exec living inside my brain, but I worry about this show’s legs. When your premise rests on the antics of a family struggling to adequately raise an infant, you have to wonder what happens as that infant ages and the producers face a scenario of a series centered on a cute toddler/preschooler/tween…You get the picture. I also winced more than once—Cloris Leachman, who I love, is wasted in the pilot in a thankless role, and do I really need to see SNL-style fake vomiting on Tuesday nights? However, there were some laugh-out-loud moments as well, and if the show can focus more on the humor of current parental obsessions with protecting babies and children, they may have something here. Martha Plimpton is stellar as a hard-edged, white-trash mom with more to offer her son and granddaughter than she realizes and so if I see more of her (and the great grocery store girl) I’ll stick with this show. (Though I still think it’s better suited to a Brit-style short-term lease.)

Running Wilde (Premiered 9/21/10 on FOX)

Megan Biddinger, University of Michigan:

In one of her voice-overs, 10 year-old Puddle Kadubic nods to Arrested Development when she describes Steve Wilde feeling “like he made a huge mistake.”  The this pilot was uneven, I’m not quite ready to say the same for Running Wilde‘s producers (Arnett, Mitch Hurwitz, and James Vallely—all Arrested alumni). Steve Wilde could’ve been just a re-hashing of Gob Bluth, but Arnett manages to imbue the character with some humanity and self-awareness, playing him as a man who could possibly change, but lacks courage and direction. The show also avoids making Emmy, an environmental activist, Puddle’s mother, and Steve’s childhood love, into a saint. Unfortunately, Emmy sometimes feels too much like a tepid Lindsay Fünke. Still, this move allowed me to understand how these two might actually want to get together even though there isn’t much chemistry between them yet.  Besides building relationships between these characters, Running Wilde simply needs to be funnier. The snappy exchange between Steve and Emmy at the hotel pool is bookended by lame gags about the indigenous people Emmy works with. Similarly, the last iteration of the running tiny pony joke, which I really enjoyed, was accompanied by dialogue that fell flat. I’d like to see the show really tighten things up, but I’m already amused and intrigued enough to come back and see what happens next. Here’s hoping I’m not making a huge mistake.

Andrew Bottomley, UW – Madison:

By all appearances, Running Wilde (in addition to Raising Hope) is Fox’s big attempt to fill the network’s live-action comedy void left by Arrested Development and Malcolm in the Middle, both of which went off the air in 2006. Fox, of course, cancelled Arrested and hasn’t heard the end of it ever since from fans and critics. So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they’ve brought back Arrested’s creator, Mitchell Hurwitz, and one of the series’ stars, Will Arnett (David Cross gets a guest role as well), for Running Wilde. And – guess what? – the new series’ basic plot and character types are remarkably similar to Arrested. The dysfunction of the rich is a prominent theme. Arnett’s Steve Wilde, like Gob Bluth before him, is a vain, seemingly clueless fool infantilized by wealth. Keri Russell takes up the Jason Bateman straight role of a seemingly selfless, grounded person who is tasked with trying to bring the loons into touch with reality and change their misguided ways, but in doing so it is revealed that she doesn’t have it all together either. Only, the elements that made Arrested so remarkably funny – namely, its self-reflexivity and metatextuality – are mostly absent here. Granted, it’s a pilot that needed to pack in a lot of backstory, and there’s clearly room for improvement. Personally, I’m willing to stick with it for a bit. But on first blush, Running Wilde appears to have carried over some of Arrested’s story elements but very little of the edgy, innovative comedic style that actually made the show, you know, enjoyable and funny. And that’s a shame.

Josh Jackson, UW – Madison:

Will Running Wilde become Fox’s first genuine live-action sitcom hit since Malcolm in the Middle? Man, I hope not, if the pilot is an accurate indicator of the show’s quality. My goodwill for the program—which reunited Arrested Development producers Mitch Hurwitz and James Valley with scene-stealers Will Arnett and David Cross, and then threw in Peter “Thanks, ants. Thants” Serafinowicz (yay!) in brownface (boo!) as a bonus—dissolved quickly under the weight of its stale comedy and a premise that was hackneyed when the episode opened and tedious by its end. There’s not a single character I’d like to see get a second of additional screen time. Arnett is once again doing his self-obsessed manchild thing, softened, unconvincingly, for his turn here as conflicted lead Steven Wilde, and his will-they-or-won’t-they relationship with environmentalist childhood love Keri Russell is missing the basic elements of chemistry. I, like many, continue to be a huge cheerleader for Arrested Development, but Running Wilde has a steep learning curve ahead of it, and if it can’t make the climb, then I welcome its cancelation.

Myles McNutt, UW – Madison:

Running Wilde‘s pilot never stops moving: characters zip back and forth to the Amazon without any real sense of time, and the emotions of Steven and Emmy’s fling seem surprisingly fresh for over a decade later. It’s all in an effort to establish the show’s premise, but the problem is that the end result doesn’t feel worthy of the buildup. While that premise — Emmy and Puddle moving in with Wilde and forming an unconventional family with his cadre of servants — is established by episode’s end, the amount of time spent explaining emotions instead of displaying them, either through narration or through in-narrative storytelling, is problematic. We never get the chance to connect with the characters because they’re too busy reconnecting with one another, and in the process are defined much too broadly based on their individual passions of self (in the case of Wilde) and blanket environmentalism (in the case of Emmy).

Not to harp too much on the Arrested Development comparisons, but what made the show work is that we were eavesdropping on a family with history and (dysfunctional) community. Here, the mashup of the two worlds was more jarring than the episode’s storytelling acknowledged, resulting in a dysfunctional pilot instead of a pilot about a dysfunctional situation – it will take word of a substantial turnaround for me to bother sticking around.

Lone Star (Premiered 9/20/10 on FOX)

Derek Kompare, Southern Methodist University:

There’s a lot to like about Lone Star; I can see why the buzz has been so strong around it. It starts with the premise, which amazingly, for a 2010 network show, doesn’t involve cops, supernatural events, or high school kids. This is a family drama in which “family” is a precarious construct; earnestness here always comes with doubt. The cast is outstanding, particularly Jon Voight and David Keith as the lead character’s dual patriarchs. While I can see the Clooney comparison to James Wolk, and his performance is strong, he seems a bit too cuddly, lacking a certain danger with he could better counter Voight, Keith and Eloise Mumford and Adrianne Palicki (as his wives). Still, the relationships are very intriguing, if a bit difficult to see how they could be strung along for too long with straining credibility. The production itself is gorgeous: virtuosic in places, with the almost-seduction scene a particular standout. Texas (actually, all Dallas; yay!) looks fantastic as well; this wouldn’t feel right elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this may all be a moot point, with the show’s abysmal ratings reportedly having sealed its fate already. It certainly deserves another shot, but it’s sadly unlikely to get one.

Myles McNutt, UW – Madison:

While Lone Star is the most engaging pilot I’ve seen so far this year, I would not necessarily say it is the best: great pilots, after all, usually create fewer fears about a series’ longevity, and while I found Lone Star compelling I had some problems when I looked into my crystal ball and imagined the series’ future. Many critics called the show one of the best of the year, but the majority expressed concerns similar to my own in regards to how well this concept will sustain itself over time.

I am not so naïve as to believe that critics have considerable sway over the viewing public, but I wonder if these concerns over longevity led those usually influenced by critical opinion to avoid the series entirely – considering its atrocious ratings performance, there was certainly something which kept viewers from tuning in. While critics raised similar concerns with a series like The Event, a slow-paced melodrama is drawing from a much smaller audience and has little in the way of “must-see” potential when compared with a much-hyped genre premiere.

While I am personally willing to give Lone Star a chance to prove me wrong in regards to its uncertain future, I don’t necessarily think that viewers who read those reviews felt the same way – and, perhaps most importantly, Fox is unlikely to feel the same way in light of the series’ summer burn-off-esque numbers. It seems criminally unfair, but the year’s most compelling pilot is unlikely to survive to see November Sweeps because of concerns that it will not be able to live up to said pilot (or, more accurately, those concerns combined with the fact that nobody bothered to watch it, potentially because of the pre-air prevalence of those concerns).

Jason Mittell, Middlebury College:

Lone Star was pre-hyped as the season’s best example of innovative television storytelling. But while I quite enjoyed it, the pilot did not meet my expectations. The plotting seemed quite straightforward, portraying the cons without any sense of confusion or layered deception. The plot unfolded with conventional melodramatic storytelling, with clear heroes and villains (and anti-hero), rivals and romance. Aside from the premise, there was little new here, despite being billed as the season’s most innovative show.

So why did I still enjoy it? Lone Star highlights how televisual pleasures can flow from the effective execution of the conventional. At its core, Lone Star is a primetime soap evoking Dallas with a bit of a con game framing the story. But it’s so well done that its conventionality seems original. The show’s stand-out element was the lead performance of James Wolk, who leaps off the screen like a cross between George Clooney and Kyle Chandler (minus 20 years), and this is a huge asset in a show like this – Wolk’s charisma sells the semi-ridiculous premise that he’s fallen in love with both women and the real lives they represent. The supporting actors all inhabit their roles effortlessly, creating a consistently enjoyable ensemble and selling all the relationships, no matter how contrived (jealous son looking to unseat his favored brother-in-law) or narrow in scope (the girlfriend with a sexy small-town charm with a bad news ex-). The strength of the ensemble and Wolk’s leading turn reminds me that more than any element in a show, if I don’t want to spend time with the characters, I’m unlikely to come back next week.

The series that Lone Star most reminds me of after one week is The Good Wife, my favorite network drama from last year. While both shows feature premises that are more original than typical procedurals or melodramas, their shared strength seems to lie more in the cast’s execution of their conventional elements rather than the value added from their innovations. It’s what television has always done at its best, inviting us to return each week to spend quality time with characters whose charisma overrides their flaws.

Sharon Ross, Columbia College:

FIRST: DO WHAT YOU CAN TO SAVE THIS SHOW! I am beyond sad that FOX is already talking cancellation after dismal ratings rather than seeking a better time slot. This was one of my favorite pilots from the season, and I think it could be a big hit if viewers find it. (Dancing With the Stars is killing it.) This show is lovingly made; you can tell that the writer (a relative newcomer) loves the prime-time soaps of the 1980s—but also wants to add more depth and raw emotion than that era brought us. There are truly genuine moments of familial love (and antipathy) in this series, and the pilot dares to ask a weighty question: What is “real” and what can be counted on in a world where we believe the American Dream is about making your own reality? I would never imagine a character leading a double life could be someone I would empathize with, which is also a testament to James Wolk’s acting. FOX, please don’t rob me of a solid, character-driven, inventive drama! (Sigh…look who I’m appealing to…)

The CW

Nikita (Premiered 9/9/10 on The CW)

Jonathan Gray, UW – Madison:

Nikita plays like many an action video game – it’s visually quite beautiful, a true product of the HDTV era; it has stark villains (including Shane West having fun with his role) with an almost infinite number of random henchmen, and the occasional boss-type more-skilled henchmen at their disposal; the key story is kind of inconsequential (at this point), driven by revenge and little else; and the fight sequences are built-up to well, and exhilarating when they come. Nikita has plenty of costumes, weapons, and styles of combat, too. Perhaps it could become more complex narratively, and perhaps we’ll see more depths to the characters, but in the meantime, this is remarkably fun. As with Chuck or Human Target, I don’t know if I’d care to see a bunch in a row, but as with those shows, it shows every sign of being something very enjoyable. And when up against Grey’s Anatomy, CSI, The Office, and Fringe, it’ll need infinite ammo to survive, so let’s hope someone at The CW knows the cheat code.

Sharon Ross, Columbia College:

This is one sexy show, for sure—and the reboot of the previous 3 iterations feels as modern and fresh as the producers want it to. I like Maggie Q a lot and she makes you believe that she will eventually best the Big Baddies who ruined her life by turning her into an assassin and enjoy every second of it. The cast is spot-on and I think the surrounding ensemble is where the real potential for the show lies. I found myself bored pretty quickly during the pilot—you can only watch so many cool fight scenes before they wear thin, and if that emphasis continues the show is likely doomed. Likewise, the Charlie’s Angels/Dollhouse strategy of women in provocative clothing and role playing is a little too retro sexist for my taste. However, the final moments of the pilot suggest that there could be some meat to future plots, allowing the ensemble to show their acting chops with stories of double agents/moles and political shenanigans. If they embrace this aspect, the show might take off—so I’ll watch again to see what happens…

Hellcats (Premiered 9/8/10 on The CW)

Kyra Glass von der Osten, UW – Madison:

Since it premiered two weeks ago, I have been describing Hellcats to my students as cotton candy television: it is saccharine sweet, fun, silly, sometimes plain bad, and you may feel guilty about it the next day. I agree with most critics that the show is in many ways derivative, as it is essentially Bring It On and ABC Family’s Make It Or Break It blended together and set in college. I also agree that the writing is at times spotty, both in terms of quality and logic: a former gymnast who doesn’t know what a layout is? Seriously? At the end of the day, I am not sure that either of those things affect my enjoyment of the show. I enjoy the sappy drama, over the top humor, and bubbly energy, and I think much of its target audience will too (while many others will loathe it for just those qualities).

Ultimately I don’t think that it will be quality that will matter most in the failure or success of Hellcats. The most important part of the show to me seems to be the casting. Placing Ashley Tisdale and Aly Michalka at the center of the show positions it to attract younger teens who may be growing out of venues like the Disney Channel and/or may be followers of ABC Family summer shows (like Make It or Break It) that have just ended. If these former Disney stars can attract former Disney viewers to the CW and establish them as loyal viewers throughout their teen years, Hellcats may prove to be far more important then its pom poms suggest.

Jonathan Gray, UW – Madison:

Hellcats suffers from two key problems:

(1) Aly Michalka can’t carry the show. She’s just way too earnest, and trying too hard, making it look like work.

(2) It’s not fun. Only Ashley Tisdale seems aware that the script could even be played for camp value (which makes Michalka’s performance all the more problematic in comparison). Sometimes actors can play it straight and let the script do the work (witness Michalka’s similar performance in Easy A that works because of a good, fun, and funny script), but the bland script here provides no such rescue. Bring it On it ain’t. Granted, nobody at The CW is programming for me. But my household television spends a lot of time tuned into tween fare, so I’m not immune to the pleasures of teen camp. I’m a sucker for good high school or college melodrama. But give me Greek, Buffy, FNL, Gossip Girl, or, heck, even 90210 over this any day.

Sharon Ross, Columbia College:

I find myself rooting for this show because of the glimmers of potential evident in the pilot—but having had the chance to see episode 2 I am more reluctant and now wavering in my assessment. It’s light-hearted and fluffy fun, and I see no problem with that being an option in a landscape of teen TV full of often adult-like angst. The choreography is fabulous and right up there with Bring It On. But Bring It On was a film, and so far Hellcats isn’t holding out much promise of long term investment in the way that Greek did. The world of this show is too narrow for a college campus, with everything centering on the lives of the cheerleaders as cheerleaders. I know the producers’ goal is to balance Marti’s pre-law ambitions with this new environment she has entered, but the character leaves me cold with her blend of snarkiness and sexual display. (It’s just not right to condemn cheerleaders for their outfits and then show up to class in a midriff-baring tank. Come on, CW!—give your audience some credit for class!) But dare I say this, Ashley Tisdale’s Savannah is a revelation of the actress’s skills; she makes me laugh in a good way and even when she prayed to God I bought the sincerity with which the moment was meant to be interpreted. If TPTB can let the show stretch its legs, it might be worth watching.

What works best and what shows the most potential in this series is the simple central question of how we define family in this country. This question has been the through-line so far in the first three episodes, exploring in particular the system of foster care in the United States–a system few people truly understand unless they have somehow been involved with it. Other potentially rich areas of exploration include the idea of friends as family (e.g., Lux’s foster care cohorts, Baze’s bar buddies/co-workers) and the idea of linked families–that is, multiple sets of parents and siblings via divorce and remarriage, etc.  The pilot highlighted these notions of family, and won me over with its unflinching peek into foster care and a talented cast that allowed me to buy into the messy relationships laid out in spite of some unrealistic conveniences.  There were indeed remnants of Everwood and Gilmore Girls, two series that thrived via their unconventional understandings of family and adept look at the awkwardness of adolescence for both teens and parents.

However, I had three misgivings after the pilot that have unfortunately only been aggravated as I watched two more episodes.  The first is the screaming lack of diversity in the casting of the show, which is set in an urban area and with enough examinations of Lux’s background in foster care that it really does seem like Life Unexpected has taken us via the wayback machine to the 1997 WB roster of predominantly white characters. The second is the uneven examination of the foster care system; we hear only negative things–hints of horrific stories of the families that Lux and her friends have been placed with over the years. The foster care system in this country is indeed deeply flawed, but there are people involved with it who have the best of intentions and who have helped children find love and security in their lives. It would serve the show well to more thoroughly explore this tension of a bureaucratic monster that often–but not always–thwarts the creation and support of loving family units, rather than simply use it as a backdrop for explaining Lux’s pluckiness and sarcasm or for reminding Cate and Baze that they’ve always had it easy compared to their daughter. Last, and emerging from the previous misgiving, the tone of the series is uncertain. The melodrama of Lux’s situation is fairy straightforward, but there are attempts to infuse humor into the adult characters’ personas and situations in particular–and the right balance just isn’t emerging for me yet. It’s not that some of the scenarios we see aren’t amusing (such as when a social worker visits Baze’s bar and finds a lamp made out of a bong)…It’s more that the periodic scripted “insert funny moment here” feel to the somedy robs the show of opportunities to fulfill its ability to be realistically heartfelt. I am still waiting to see some of the blowout fights and meltdowns that I am pretty damn sure (being adopted myself) would be occurring between birth mom and dad, daughter and birth parents, Cate and her mother, etc.  Instead the humor kicks in when such opportunities present themselves and I can almost hear a CW executive in the wings asking the producers to make sure they “don’t let things get too depressing.” This is perhaps the biggest missed opportunity; one of the hallmarks of Everwood and Gilmore Girls was that their humor was always fully motivated and never stood in the way of representing the uncomfortably realistic moments that occur in any family that has a teenager in it.

So right now, Life Unexpected isn’t living up to my expectations–either in terms of reminding me fondly of the shows I used to love on WB or in terms of offering a fresh and original portrayal of a unique teen girl and her parents. I actually do plan on holding my breath for improvement, though–I am hopeful that the network and producers will figure out where they want to go and follow the natural lines of the premise of this story. At the very least, it’s nice to see a show that a teenager can watch with their parents that offers some sense of realistic teen behavior and respects a teen perspective, and that still gives voice to a parental viewpoint as well. While it’s disheartening that for a show to accomplish simply this is “unexpected” on TV, I’m hopeful that the series can move beyond this basic accomplishment and strive to live up to its title by telling stories that reveal the ways in which life and family can surprise us–for both better and worse.