The media industry mantra “Content is king” once reflected the legacy industry’s power to dictate terms of media consumption through oligopolistic distribution and pricing. But technological change has undermined content control, and so at last many in the media industry are acknowledging a new ruler: the audience. Fortunately, the audience has an insatiable demand for content. Hurrah: long live content the king!

I saw this shift in industry discourse first hand at the 2012 and 2014 Time Warner’s Thought Leadership Faculty Seminars. As I previously reported, presenters in the July 2012 seminar insisted that TW was committed to “bolstering the ecosystem,” that is, the old business models. I saw presentations on the evils of “piracy” and the importance of physical media (DVDs), and I heard confident predictions that time-shifting millennials will enjoy linear viewing and commercial interruptions once they get a bit older.

TW executives toed a different line in July 2014. Opening the seminar, the Warner Bros. Senior Advisor of Media Research explained that TW executives are kept awake at night worrying about how “to protect our assets” from the “volatility of the media ecosystem.” Rather than sustain the “status quo” (translation: fight a rear guard action against change), TW must adapt to the “disruptive forces that challenge our business models.” Within the past decade TW has shrunk from a behemoth conglomerate to only three companies: HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros. Reducing its dependence on advertising revenues by spinning off Time Magazines and AOL, TW is now a “pure content play,” which will, executives claim, continue to thrive however distribution platforms evolve. HBO, as one of these executives baldly announced, plans to “feed the addiction” for its content. HBO’s recent deal with Amazon may indicate it is studying Amazon’s strategies for building consumer dependency.

When asked about the threat of piracy, the HBO executive neatly “pivoted” to piracy’s value as a form of market research: “Our learnings are that hits drive pirating behavior; hits attract pirates; and if we can convert pirates to paying customers, maybe one in ten, that will add up to real dollars.”  Another TW executive described a new “consumer friendly” approach to handling unauthorized access to content. “We want to give consumers easier access,” she explained, because “that’s where innovation is going on.” So TW is “piloting in the sand, not in concrete, because the world is changing.” TW wants to be flexible enough to follow consumers wherever they go (although the metaphor of sand seems an unfortunate one).

Though they conceded that young viewers timeshift, TW executives still insisted on the primacy of scheduled linear viewing, pointing to the “water cooler” value of Game of Thrones episodes. The HBO executive noted that social media chatter spikes when an episode is first released, then trails off. To “manage this conversation” and “keep subscribers engaged over time,” HBO simply has “too much investment in shows to release all episodes at once,” Netflix-style. HBO’s subscription strategy depends on an artificial scarcity of episodes (“We want to retain subscribers”), possibly because HBO is still dependent on MSOs to deliver their customers. Recently, however, TW CEO Jeff Bewkes has openly noted that HBO is trying to become more like Netflix, not the other way around, indicating a possible shift away from the strategy of content withholding.

A CW executive explained the changing economics of television advertising. In 2012, TW executives insisted that online (“digital”) episodes should have the same ad load as linear TV. Advertisers, however, were reluctant to pay for online viewership without the demographic data Nielsen supplies for linear viewership. In 2014, knowing the majority of its young audience timeshifted on digital platforms, the CW partnered Nielsen and Doubleclick data to prove that at least half of their digital viewers were the targeted 18-34 year olds. By offering to charge advertisers only for the 18-34 year olds (in other words, providing a 50% discount), the CW was able to sell more ads, doubling the ad load per episode, and thus to come out even. The CW also offered advertisers more buying flexibility. Most networks force advertisers who want to buy time on a top-rated program to buy time also on a lower-rated one; the CW allowed advertisers to buy only on the programs they wanted. The CW executive noted, however, that viewing and click-through metrics for digital commercials seemed to have much more to do with the quality of the commercial “creative” (the ad idea and execution) than with the quality of the program interrupted by that commercial. All these changes favor the advertiser, not the audience: eschewing policies such as YouTube’s True View, in which audiences may skip a commercial, the CW, like most of the rest of the television industry, continues to search for the holy grail: a technology that makes everybody watch the commercials.

Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, once the revenue powerhouse driving DVD sales, is now focusing on how to take TW film and TV content and “monetize it downstream.” Noting that physical media is a dying market, a Home Entertainment executive explained the new strategy of “electronic sell through.” In 2012, WB promoted Ultraviolet, a difficult-to-use digital service; in 2014, WB is simplifying consumer sharing experiences (although the “legal team is nervous”) and experimenting with social media, online communities of fans (WB A-list), and “long tail” content (WB Archive Instant has “rabid fans”).

Although the Time Warner Thought Leadership Faculty Seminar is designed by its media research executives, and so reflects only one company’s views, I recommend that scholars interested in learning more about the changing media industries attend these free events. Unlike trade press articles or industry conferences, they allow us to ask questions directly of industry executives, who likewise may benefit from hearing our perspectives. The 2014 seminar ended with TW executives making a plea for collaborative research with academics: as one executive put it, professors can research “longer term future ideas” that TW can’t get to because they “have to deal with today.” Whether or not we choose to collaborate with TW, this two-day seminar can teach us a lot about how such a legacy media conglomerate is hoping to transform disruption into “opportunity.”

Reign [Premiered 10/17/2013]

In this CW-ification of the story of Mary, Queen of Scots, a teenaged Mary (Adelaide Kane) arrives at the French court and upends the dynamics between Prince Francis (Toby Regbo), his parents, his bastard brother Sebastian (Torrance Combs), and a surprisingly youthful—some would say hunky—Nostradamus (Rossif Sutherland) who predicts Mary will bring the family to its ruin.

Maria Suzanne Boyd [Georgia State University]

Close your eyes and imagine you are watching Mumford and Sons or The Lumineers perform at a renaissance festival. Got it? If so, then you have a good feel for the overall tone of the CW’s new historical drama Reign. The pilot offers a nicely blended mix of fun, intrigue, danger and sex, and in keeping with the CW’s stable of regular programming there is also a hint of the paranormal. Adelaide Kane helms the overtly beautiful cast in her role as the young Mary, Queen of Scots, and it is nice to see her exercise her acting chops beyond her stoic portrayal of Cora on MTV’s Teen Wolf.

If gross historical inaccuracies do not bother you, Reign has the potential to be a delightful, guilty pleasure. The pilot exceeded my expectations both in relation to the production value of the program and the narrative setup.  The sets and costumes were dazzling, the large cast of characters was efficiently introduced, and the season’s main conflict was clearly established.

Put simply, Reign can best be described as Scandal meets Game of Thrones. This show has easily earned a spot on my DVR.

Alyx Vesey [University of Wisconsin-Madison]

This melodrama about Mary, Queen of Scots, as the teenage bride-to-be of Dauphin Francis wants to be many things, but “period appropriate” isn’t one of them. Following Marie Antoinette, the soundtrack utilizes marketable contemporary indie folk and validates such pop anachronism by securing artists like The Lumineers and music supervisor Liza Richardson.

Foremost, Reign wants to put the “rip” in “bodice ripper,” serving its demographics’ hormonal impulses with scenes of voyeurism, masturbation, infidelity, and post-adolescent erotic intrigue. It also wants to capitalize on ABC Family’s success with Pretty Little Liars by foregrounding Mary’s fragile bond with her handmaidens as they encounter regal treachery (prediction: the whole French court is “A”). Finally, it wants to legitimate itself by shading the margins with political machinations and grisly violence.

But for all its demands, Reign is timid. The young cast lacks distinction. They all have excellent cheekbones and offer tepid line readings. Kane is no match for Catherine de Medici (Megan Follows, forever Anne Shirley), who will call upon the supernatural (Nostradamus is her confidant) to prevent her son’s impending marriage. If Mary wants the crown, she’ll have to take on her mother-in-law first.

The Tomorrow People [Premiered 10/09/2013]

Robbie Amell stars as Stephen, a high schooler hearing voices who discovers he’s not crazy; he’s simply one of the Tomorrow People, a superhuman species with powers— Telekinesis, Teleporting, and Telepathy—threatened by a government containment program, Ultra, and its leader Jedekiah (Mark Pellegrino).

Myles McNutt [University of Wisconsin-Madison]

Having been responsible for writing the summaries for each and every new fall series, I’ll say this for The Tomorrow People: there’s enough going on that there isn’t enough room for it in the above. We didn’t get to the sentient supercomputer, or Cara (Peyton List) and John (Luke Mitchell) as Stephen’s guardians in this new world, or the daddy issues underpinning the whole shebang.

However, we also didn’t get to the ideas of The Tomorrow People, which are pleasingly evident in this pilot. While far from new, the questions of humanity percolating through the pilot are effective, and the duel for Stephen’s allegiance offers a setup—Stephen working undercover with Ultra—that feels both sustainable and dynamic. Nothing in the show’s mythology is new—the daddy issues are particularly unoriginal—but the math in the pilot feels well calibrated.

Yes, Robbie Amell clearly looks his twenty-five years and has no business playing a high schooler. Yes, the sentient supercomputer is a bit on the nose. Yes, Sarah Clarke is woefully underused as a generic, overworked mother. However, there’s a bit of a wink to The Tomorrow People that keeps it from drowning in self-seriousness; while far from brilliant, there’s enough here to suggest a show capable of evolving into a solid piece of genre television with the right guidance.

Melanie Kohnen [New York University]

I probably wouldn’t have watched The Tomorrow People’s pilot if I hadn’t seen it by chance at San Diego Comic-Con. While I watch a number of CW programs, nothing about the premise stood out to me, and the pilot confirms this at first glance. The Tomorrow People is a cookie cutter CW show featuring a mostly white ensemble cast of attractive young actors who portray outcast characters bound together by a shared supernatural fate stemming from genetic difference (think X-Men). If it hadn’t been for the last scene, I would have had no interest in watching the show again.

But Stephen’s decision to work for Ultra surprised me and makes me curious about what is ahead on the show. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised by this twist because Stephen’s decision embodies the ambiguity of so much millennial-oriented television, in which questions of belonging are not easily settled. Ultimately, the pilot suggests that biological family and a family of friends, good and evil, social outcasts and corporations are not extreme opposites, but co-exist. If The Tomorrow People builds on this ambiguity, it has a chance to exceed its too-familiar premise.

Bärbel Göbel Stolz [Indiana University]

This US remake of a 1970s UK teen sci-fi show did deliver. It is a teen drama that provides love triangles, high school bullies, a societal system that has to be rebelled against and displays at its center teen angst, all wrapped up in a coming of age story. In millennial fashion, the coming of age as Stephen comes to terms with his outsider status and powers develops at lightning speed, crystallizing within just 42 minutes.

The Tomorrow People also throws in Abel and Cain, a little bit of The Matrix’s Neo, X-Men mythology, and gender norms we have grown accustomed to in much of teen male melodrama (physically strong, non sexually-threatening males who’ve been partially orphaned; smart females, emotionally torn; bad-boy side-kicks). Given these elements, you may think “seen it, been there, I don’t care.” Yet, this show does provide a few interesting alterations from the norm that could be intriguing down the line, the most interesting one being the lead character’s choice—after just finding out some important truths about himself—to work for the enemy, most likely as an infiltrator.

All in all: If you expected a CW show, you got exactly what you expected.

The Originals [Premiered 10/03/2013]

In this spin-off from The Vampire Diaries, the Original family of Klaus (Joseph Morgan), Elijah (Daniel Gillies), and Rebekah (Claire Holt) arrive in New Orleans to play a part in an ongoing struggle for power between vampires, werewolves, and witches in the Big Easy.

Karen Petruska [University of California – Santa Barbara]

I’m a fan of The Vampire Diaries, but I am NOT a fan of Klaus, the character whose rabid fan base prompted the CW to create a spin-off based on his petulant, whiny, egomaniacal, and—oh yeah—completely immortal hybrid werewolf-vampire character. I am giving The Originals a chance, though, since it has finally removed Klaus from TVD. The pilot suffers from too much exposition and a lack of focus. Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised.

The character at the center of the action in this pilot was not Klaus but rather his brother, Elijah. This is a smart choice because I suspect a little bit of Klaus goes a long way, even with his biggest fans. Elijah, on the other hand, not only has a code of honor but also tends to get stabbed on a regular basis by his brother with a magical stake (that renders him pseudo-dead); as a result, Elijah is a character for whom you can root, while Klaus is an irredeemable “dick,” as program co-creator Julie Plec called him on Twitter last night.

The fact that Klaus remains irredeemable, though, now has me intrigued. His greatest crime on TVD was his immortality, which rendered all actions against him inevitably futile: inaction is the death of a plot-based program. If The Originals chooses to focus less on Klaus to consider more the stakes of Klaus’ redemption for his long-suffering siblings, I may be able to get behind that. Beyond the Original family, other characters—particularly those of color—will likely suffer as pawns of Klaus, an unfortunate perpetuation of discomfiting racial politics that weakened TVD, as well. My determination that The Originals is not as bad as I expected is not high praise, but coming from a Klaus hater, it is pretty dang impressive.

Kyra Hunting [University of Wisconsin-Madison]

While the pilot form is always a fraught one, The Originals walks a particularly high tightrope as a spin-off of a very serial show, The Vampire Diaries. In this respect, it was quite successful; providing a logical motivation for introducing non-viewers or sporadic viewers of TVD to the history of the Originals while providing enough new material to engage fans. While it felt weighed down at times, the narrative conceit of a supernatural turf war, with the pregnant woman’s body as pawn, was interesting. The Originals narrative and dark aesthetic, which often felt like a mafia movie, also could appeal to male viewers who are underrepresented in TVD audience. While it seems improbable, in practice, that the series will gain a large number of non-Vampire Diaries viewers, its move away from this show’s valorization of romantic love to a focus on, and problematization of, familial love provides a nice bookend for Vampire Diaries fans. While there was a little characterization regression, and a “you send one of mine to the hospital I’ll send one of yours to the morgue” machismo that put me off balance at times; I found the first episode’s engagement with questions of power, loyalty, and love, as alternatively revelatory and weakness, a compelling direction for The Vampire Diary’s storyworld.

Arrow (Premiered 10/11/2012)

Following the lead of the Superman-inspired Smallville, Arrow follows the adventures of a billionaire playboy-by-day, vigilante-by-night (no, not Batman), based on DC superhero Green Arrow. Reemerging after being thought dead for five years, Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) returns to Starling City looking to exact his own brand of archery-based justice and reconnect with his estranged girlfriend (Katie Cassidy) and complicated family. [Andrew Zolides]

Andrew Zolides – University of Wisconsin-Madison

Coming from the same network, source material, and pilot director (‘pilot whisperer’ David Nutter) as Smallville, the comparisons between the two DC Comics superhero adaptations are bound to come up in droves. However, the tone, style, and even major plot points of Arrow fall more in line with Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (and its sequels) moreso than the CW’s former ten-season Super show, and this is very much a good thing.

The hour-long pilot moves at a brisk pace: rather than overload the audience with backstory upfront, this episode moves back and forth between Oliver’s return home and the possibly not-so-accidental disaster that led to his castaway years. This is a wise move, as it gives the audience a mix of pre- and post-accident Queen, played convincingly if not a bit dryly by Amell. Clearly changed from his playful ways into a serious, hardened man, the cross-cutting lets the viewer fill in the missing pieces for this change in personality (and, apparently, in fashion and archery skills).

Yes, in the biggest departure from its Superman-show predecessor, Arrow ups the action considerably, wasting little time before Queen dons his hooded, Robin Hood-esque secret persona to start cleaning up the city, a task entrusted by his father who died in that shipwreck. While the production quality leaves a lot to be desired (so many punches and arrows land just off-screen, and off-sync with the sound), I feel this level of action is sorely missing from network television, and Arrow fills the job adequately.

Where the show fails, however, is in the acting from most of its players, relying on overly dramatic, wooden performances from nearly everyone, including both Oliver’s family and his former/future(?) girlfriend Laurel (Cassidy). What will be most intriguing are which elements the show emphasizes in the future? While an end-tag promised more ‘soap opera’ shenanigans from Oliver’s possibly evil mother (Susanna Thompson), the tease of several DC villains (like the assassin Deathstroke) bodes well for the future of costume-clad action on the CW.

Jenna Stoeber – University of Wisconsin-Madison

The shadow of the Dark Knight lies heavily over the series premiere of Arrow. Our hero, Ollie Queen (Stephen Amell), shares plenty of qualities with his contemporary Bruce Wayne; both are super wealthy playboys with abs of steel who fight crime on the side. Yet the many wonderful ways in which DC comics has differentiated Ollie have been discarded. For example, in the comics his playboy personality, unlike Wayne’s, was not an act. In Arrow, instead of a frolicking socialite with a tendency to overindulge in liquor and romance, we get a brooding, traumatized hero bent on revenge.

The changes seem mostly motivated by a desire to transform Ollie into the dark, Christopher-Nolan-esque superhero in style these days, but the character suffers for it. The choice to bolster Ollie’s repertoire with some parkour skills was smart, adding a layer of interest and believability to an otherwise relatively action-less superhero. However, the show deeply undercuts the fact that the Green Arrow is a bow–based hero. Although we are treated to some fantastic shots of him jumping over obstacles and doing flips, we almost never get to see him actually shoot his bow; all the neat tricks are performed off-screen.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the romance between our hero and Dinah “Laurel” Lance (Katie Cassidy), a plucky attorney from Ollie’s past, and another comic-to-TV change, reminiscent of Rachel Dawes of the Batman movies. Only, what is there to say? We’re supposed to view her as The Love Interest, in place for a love-triangle with Ollie and his best friend – and probable future enemy – Tommy Merlyn (Colin Donnell), but the stark lack of chemistry between Cassidy and Amell stopped this romance short before it could get going. Amell’s stiff portrayal robs the character of all his potential vivacious energy.

In the end, Arrow was a very familiar take on the superhero genre (two parts Robin Hood, one part Batman), with nothing particularly offensive or brilliant standing out. Viewers inclined to give shows a few episodes to get going will find enough questions laid out (what’s up with that mysterious island? What was the Queen patriarch involved in, and why does the Queen matriarch need to know?) to give them a reason to come back. Those less interested in the mysteries – or in the acting performances – might not be compelled to return.

Beauty & The Beast (Premiered 10/12/2012)

CW’s latest urban fantasy offering stars Kristin Kreuk as Catherine “Cat” Chandler, a homicide detective and “Strong Female Character.” Troubled by memories of her mother’s murder—and by the mysterious beast-like man who saved her life—she seeks to track down the assassins and happens to find her Beast, Vincent Keller (Jay Ryan) along the way. Vincent’s presence pulls her away from her partner, her sister, and her handsome, emotionally-available, doctor co-worker and into the dark and dangerous underworld of the city that he calls home. [Jenna Stoeber]

Jenna Stoeber – University of Wisconsin-Madison

There’s a lot to be said about the horrifying gender implications that are inherent in the Beauty and the Beast concept, but I’m going to side-step those discussions in favor of focusing on what this incarnation of the legend brings to the table.

Beauty and the Beast wastes no time in setting up several story arcs, a tactic that might help hold the attention of those audience members less interested in the storybook (literally) romance between Cat (Kristin Kreuk) and Vincent (Jay Ryan). Both characters’ tragic-pasts-story-arc get air time in the premiere. Cat has grown into a steely-hearted detective, afraid to let anyone get close, though you’d never tell by Kreuk’s friendly and compassionate performance. Her side of the story plays out in a standard police procedural format, which I was surprised to see carried out to completion. However, it wasn’t particularly well done, generally lacking in cohesion and believability. Perhaps the creators were banking on viewers to be so familiar with CSI-style police investigations that they could brush over the facts of the case. And indeed, I didn’t have any trouble following the conclusions they come to; it just wasn’t as compelling as it could have been.

I hope in the future, the show will find the right balance between the crime-procedural format that is Cat’s side of the story and the government-hit-squad that is Vincent’s side. As it stands, the main thrust of the show is focused on Vincent, which gives him ample chances to be the hero and save our beauty. It’s worth noting that Cat did not go down without a fight; I was quite pleased with the well-choreographed and intense fight scene in which she holds her own against three assailants. The action was exciting and well paced within the overall story.

Despite the loads of information the audience gets front-ended with, it’s not at all hard to follow, and the chemistry between Kreuk and Ryan is palpable and entrancing. The same cannot be said for the chemistry between Kreuk and the other participant in the prerequisite love triangle, Evan Marks (Max Brown). The show hurries past the Evan segments and lingers with Vincent, though this could be a reflection of where Cat’s own interests lie. In that vein, I was relieved to find that instead of being propelled by a Sudden Emotional Connection, Cat has a decent reason- wanting information about her mother’s assassination- to continue to put herself in situations with Vincent. I was worried this aspect of the show was going to be rushed- and there is still time for it to be- but for the time being they seem comfortable enough to build up the relationship the old fashioned way.

In the end, Beauty and the Beast has a lot of issues which could easily be fixed, perhaps by the next episode, plus the beginnings of what might be an interesting- if ever familiar and deeply flawed- romance.

Emily Owens, M.D. (Premiered 10/17/2012)

Mamie Gummer—Meryl Streep’s daughter—plays the eponymous character in this medical drama about a med-school intern (not M. D., as the title might suggest) in Denver. Emily is a bright, yet awkward young girl, who finds both her high school enemy and her med-school crush doing internships alongside her at Denver Memorial Hospital.  Thus, she must somehow find a way to retain her quirky idealism for life while dealing with interpersonal challenges at work, and adjusting to life after medical school. [Eleanor Patterson]

Karen Petruska – Northeastern University

I’m a Mamie Gummer fan.  Proof: I sat through more than one episode of Off the Map and also suffered through Evening.  Despite Gummer’s bumpy ride to what will inevitably be great fame, I was eager to check her out in the CW’s Emily Owens, M.D.

Though skeptical about the show’s “life as a doctor is just like high school” conceit, when Emily’s lesbian colleague Tyra walks her through the various cliques at the hospital, I got it (really, it is a funny and apt bit).  Emily is particularly troubled about having to return to high school since she wasn’t exactly cool back in the day.  To be honest, anytime I go to a new conference, I still feel 13, in the corner at a mixer. The thing about being an adult, though, is that even though I still can tell who are the cool kids, now I could give a crap about being a cool kid.  Emily, unfortunately, is not yet that enlightened.

That said, Dr. Emily so far wins hands down in the “who’s a greater model for modern feminism” match versus Dr. Mindy on The Mindy Project, a program that so far has made Mindy’s profession an excuse to create a rom-com. Sure, Emily has a crush on her med school colleague, and she has chemistry with her resident, but she also is a great doctor—competent, compassionate, and determined.

Gummer’s appeal extends beyond the fun of seeing her mother flash across her face (though that, too, is fun)—as Emily she evokes an optimism that is contagious (Emily is not a Grey-style twisted sister). At one point, the resident who is Emily’s future love interest prescribed some tough love for Emily, convincing her to hand over the Ring Dings into which she was crying by reminding her of patients with real problems. I was impressed that the CW took a moment to shatter the illusion in which their entire network operates—with characters free from financial care and a multi-ethnic cast who rarely acknowledge race as, you know, a thing.  Can you imagine Serena on Gossip Girl realizing that her white-person problems may not be so important, after all?   Even though Emily’s internal monologue can sometimes run a bit long, and even though the plotting can be clichéd and predictable, I’m not done with this show. I think there’s something there—and even if that something is just Gummer, that’s okay with me.

Lindsay Giggey – University of California – Los Angeles

Oh Mamie Gummer… I wanted to love you in Emily Owens, M.D. since I love you as Nancy Crozier, recurring character on The Good Wife.  Whereas Crozier allows her opponents to misconceive her as a girl-next-door when in actuality she’s a calculated opponent, Owens frustratingly lacks any such self-awareness.

Emily Owens, M.D. is a perfect C.W. show in the most frustrating way possible.  Whereas The C.W. (and The WB before it) have a long tradition of creating smart shows engaging with teen and adult audiences alike, Emily Owens, M.D. takes The C.W.’s young female demographic so literally that it misses the underlying intelligence of its predecessors.  It positions itself as Grey’s Anatomy for teens through its use of internal monologue as a narration technique and its blend of melodramatic relationship stories with case-of-the-week medical drama.  Moreover, Emily Owens, M.D. literalizes the “life is high school” trope played with by shows like Grey’s Anatomy, as Owens herself says as much several times throughout the episode.  In case we missed the connection, Owens’ high school nemesis is now her colleague, and the hospital itself is located directly across the street from an actual high school.

I should sympathize with Owens, since she’s smart and socially awkward, but I found myself frustrated with how consumed she is with her past nerdiness and how much she wants to be considered cool.  It’s telling that in the pilot episode, her strongest connection is with a teen girl patient as they talk about boys.  Whereas the show seems to want to show Owens coming into her own by the fact that she is clearly a smart compassionate woman, her accomplishments are undercut as she continuously acts and reacts like an unqualified girl.

Accents – Jonny Lee Miller’s Sherlock in Elementary would lead the way in any other year, but Made in Jersey doubles down with a promo trailer ever-so proud of Janet Mongomery’s transformation from her native British to Jersey (aw, it’s so cute that Hollywood just discovered the existence of voice coaches).

Bows – Hot off their co-starring role in summer blockbusters The Hunger Games and The Avengers, bows will appear in The CW’s adaptation of The Green Arrow, Arrow.

Crazed beasts – From Do No Harm’s Jekyll and Hyde tale to Beauty and the Beast’s noble, Kristin-Kreuk-saving beast, beasts are in.

DJs and radio hosts – Perhaps nostalgic for the early days of radio when they actually had an audience, NBC has two new shows (Go On, Next Caller) with radio hosts. Don’t tell Louis CK, but the latter stars Dane Cook.

Executive Producer of GI Joe – Anyone see that movie? Anyone like it? Zero Hour boasts of this famed auteur in its advertising, perhaps because “a bland Da Vinci Code wannabe” doesn’t sound as good?

Fava bean aficionados – Hannibal starts mid-season, and with Bryan Fuller behind it, I’m intrigued. If Fuller’s signature magic realist whimsical style proves an odd fit for the franchise, FOX also aims to cover all your psycho stalker serial killer needs with The Following.

Gay friends – The New Normal sees a gay couple hire and fall in love with a single mother who offers to be their surrogate, while CBS’ Partners focuses on best friends and business partners, one of whom is gay (and while the trailer isn’t promising, wouldn’t it be nice if CBS could convince their audience of 60-something men not to be scared of gay men?).

Housewives, desperate – You thought the show was over? And that it had spawned enough failed copies already? Think again, as I introduce you to ABC’s Mistresses.

Investigations – ‘Cause there just aren’t enough of these already on TV, Elementary, The Following, Zero Hour, Red Widow, Made in Jersey, Hannibal, and Revolution will all feature bold acts of getting to the bottom of things.

Jack Black wannabe – 1600 Penn recasts Bill Pullman as President, but far from his heroic, alien-killing Independence Day-self, he’s now pudged out a bit and is plagued by a college-age son trying so very hard to be Jack Black.

Kid named Butt-Kiss – ABC’s The Neighbors features a kid named after Dick Butkus, and hence pronounced “Butt-Kiss.” Apparently it was written by the two 11 year-old boys on my bus home the other day who spent the entire time thinking up names for farts. And Butkus is an alien. I present to you the runaway winner of next year’s Emmys.

Locke – Imagine if Season 6 Locke from Lost owned a fancy yet haunted apartment building in Manhattan (not in De Forest, WI, as Google suggested when I typed the show title in just now!), and there’s the premise of 666 Park Ave. However, the trailer suggests we’ll need to wage through lots and lots of scenes of Rachael Taylor getting changed before we get to see Terry O’Quinn.

Mysterious monochrome monitors (and yes, I get 3 points on Scattergories for this one) – Speaking of Locke, his favorite sidekick appears to be back in NBC’s Revolution. A JJ Abrams / Eric Kripke / Jon Favreau (gee, I wonder if it’ll have a built-in fan following?) production set fifteen years after the world loses electricity, apparently someone in this world still has their Commodore 64 up and running.

Nuclear submarines – For most original premise for a television show, I’m giving some cred to The Last Resort, ABC’s show about a nuclear submarine that refuses to fire on Pakistan and instead goes rogue and sets up a principality on a small island, while facing down the US that gave it the orders.

Operating rooms – it’s American primetime, so there must be doctors, and lots of them. More on Animal Practice in a second, The Mindy Project gives the titular Kaling her own vehicle, Mob Doctor is kind of self-explanatory (albeit perhaps with less ORs and more dark parking lot operations), Do No Harm has a doctor with a double life, and Emily Owens, MD wins the “most out of my demo” award for its interest in how hospitals are just like high school (wasn’t that Grey’s Anatomy?).

Primate surgeons – … but isn’t it time that primetime TV had a monkey who scrubs in? Poor Justin Kirk, finally and deservedly gets his own show only to be doomed to be upstaged by a monkey.

Quirky families – I bet you’ve never seen one of these on TV? Lucky for you, there’s Family Tools, Malibu County, The Neighbors, Mistresses, Made in Jersey, Mob Doctor, Ben and Kate, The Goodwin Games (trying to be The Royal Tenenbaums meets Running Wilde), Save Me, The New Normal, Guys with Kids, and How to Live with your Parents and Have a Title that’s Way too Humanly Long for Any TV Critic or Fan to Ever Bother With.

Re-Reba – Reba was cancelled, yes, but ABC’s market analysis clearly suggests that all that was missing was palm trees, since it’s back, in Malibu County. Supposedly the premise is different too.

Snuglis – Guys with Kids is one of the most aggressively not funny trailers of this upfront season. And I even watched it wearing my baby in a Snugli. So I should like it, right? No.

Tami Taylor – We all need more Tami Taylor in our lives. She’s now an aging country singer who is forced to tour with the annoying Hayden Pannettiere. There is nothing about the plot that interests me. But it is Tami, so I will watch Nashville. All hail Connie Britton.

Unhappy people – Go On sees can’t-find-a-new-show-that-sticks Matthew Perry leading a support group with Chandlerisms and bracketology. Many of these shows, though, will create even more unhappiness in the world.

Very well-toned men – Pecs and six packs are out in force. The trailers for both Chicago Fire and Arrow remind me how very unfit I am. Maybe I should watch 1600 Penn instead?

Westerns set in old Vegas – It’s like Mad Men meets Bonanza! CBS’s Vegas aims to look at early Vegas, with Dennis Quaid as the horse-riding sheriff trying to instill justice, and Michael Chiklis as the East coast mobster on the other side.

X-treme measures – People pushed to the edge. What will they do? Tune in to Revolution (fighting The Man), Red Widow (with an avenging Widow who isn’t Natasha Romonoff), Vegas (see above), The Mob Doctor (trading appendectomies for protection), Arrow (super hero by night!), 666 Park Avenue (“what’s Evil Locke doing to us, honey?”), Last Resort (see Nuclear Submarines), Do No Harm (fighting the beast within), and Infamous (a Revenge wannabe) to find out.

Young Carrie Bradshaw – At first I thought The Carrie Diaries was a CW spinoff of The Vampire Diaries with an even scarier supernatural beast at its core, but apparently it’s actually about Carrie in the Eighties.

Zealots – Prepping us for November’s next wave of Tea Party candidates, network tv is giving us cults (Zero Hour, CW’s Cult) and people who speak to God (Anne Heche in Save Me).

First came the awkward placement of the HP TouchPad into the season premiere of The CW’s Gossip Girl.  Leaving aside the oddity of these characters using the TouchPad rather than the iPad, the promotion garnered attention because HP decided to get out of the PC business (including killing the very technology used by Serena) several weeks before the GG premiere.

As Advertising Age reports, this is the problem of the production schedule–placement deals are worked out months in advance, and sometimes by the time they air they’re already out of date.  The Ad Age piece cites Modern Family‘s spring 2010 integration of Toyota, a promotional effort that came to fruition at precisely the same time as Toyota’s massive recall PR nightmare.  In the case of both HP and Toyota, these promotions were developed into the storyline and filmed up to nine months in advance of their airing, making any changes in the final months an impossibility.

On the heels of the Gossip Girl awkwardness came the two most recent episodes of NBC’s The Sing-Off.  For the past two weeks, contestants competed with their interpretations of a current chart-topper and a 1960s hit.  The latter was being used as a cross-promotional opportunity for the network’s The Playboy Club, which aired in the 10 p.m. Eastern slot directly following the a cappella competition.  The end of the first episode featured host Nick Lachey exhorting, “If you enjoyed our ’60s songs, be sure to stick around for more of the decade and watch The Playboy Club, coming up next!”

When news of The Playboy Club’s demise came the following day, the promotion seemed like an awkward but charming moment, but this week’s episode of The Sing-Off–filmed over a week prior, mind you–was almost uncomfortable.  As the ’60s performances commenced, Lachey addressed his costume change by noting that the slick suit he was wearing had come from The Playboy Club‘s costume department.  As I fought the giggles (thinking that the costume department was probably happy to get rid of it as they cleaned house), it got even more awkward–at the moment Lachey finished this comment, a graphic appeared on the bottom of the screen, informing viewers that up next was Prime Suspect.

These two virtually concurrent instances of awkwardly out-of-date product integrations reveal two key truths about the nature of television advertising.  First, that the television production schedule requires a great deal of pre-planning on the part of advertisers, studio executives, and writers.  Second, that as product placement and cross-promotion become the norm due to ad-skipping with DVRs, DVDs, and online streaming, we’re not only going to see more integrations, but more moments when those placements just don’t work by the time they hit the air.

In the meantime, let’s get Serena and Blair some iPads, and hope next week’s episode of The Sing-Off doesn’t feature a cappella versions of songs about workplace romance.

Hart of Dixie (Premiered 9/27/11)

Sharon Ross, Columbia College

Hart of Dixie is not really anything special or original, but I have to say it has its charms and offers a compelling antidote to the more typical images of young adult women that we see on mainstream TV (I’m looking at you, Snooki). If you’ve seen the promos, you know that Zoe Hart is a whiz surgeon but needs help with the basics of practicing medicine—and “lucky” for her, her biological dad (surprise!) from Blue Bell Alabama dies and leaves her half his medical practice. So, mixing in Northern Exposure, Gilmore Girls, Sweet Home Alabama and Something to Talk About we have a fish-out-water in the South, with all its quirks and misunderstood traditions. And Zoe needs to decide: will she stay or will she go?

Well, of course she stays—with the help of the mystery dad, 2 hunky guys, and an emergency baby birth that proves her value to the town. As I said—not much original here. But the cast is killer and the characters show great potential (especially for a pilot, they are nicely drawn out). Rachel Bilson holds her own (after you get over the initial shock of Summer Roberts being a surgeon); in fact, the characters made me wistful for the early days of The OC, when silly stock characters came together and created some magical fun, helped by excellent older characters and actors. Here we have Tim Matheson, Nancy Travis (soon to be Elsa Davis of The Wire), and JoBeth Williams; the young adults offer Jamie King, Cress Williams, and Scott Porter (nice to see Friday Night Lights alum continuing on past guest-ing roles in other series). I also enjoyed the trademark Josh Schwartz/Stephanie Savage snarky humor popping up—even if it entailed at times clichés like alligators in the road, rocker neighbors you kiss when drunk, or Southern belles oozing sugar and venom. Is it worth watching? If you have some time and want something sweet and well acted, make an appointment!

Alyx Vesey, University of Wisconsin – Madison

I’m excited for Rachel Bilson’s small screen return. I enjoyed her brief appearances on Chuck and How I Met Your Mother. I follow her InStyle column, even though I know stylist Nicole Chavez deserves most of the credit. And she’ll always be Summer Roberts to me. So I was particularly interested in Hart of Dixie reuniting Bilson with executive producers Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage, who made television magic together (for one season) on The O.C. The show also gives Gossip Girl producer Leila Gerstein the opportunity to run a series.

But I’m not sold on this fish-out-of water medical dramedy. Bilson’s Zoe Hart is destined to take after her distant father and become a cardio-thoracic surgeon before she gets dumped by her boyfriend and her supervisor does not recommend her for a post, believing she has the hands but not the (wait for it . . .) heart for medicine. A strange old man named Harley Wilkes has hounded Hart to join his practice in Bluebell, Alabama since she graduated medical school. Hart visits Wilkes’ practice, only to discover that he died but instructed his assistant to keep sending postcards in anticipation of her arrival. Because, you see, he’s her real father.

Just as this show has dad issues, it does not like mothers. Hart is distant with her mom, who does not want her to be a doctor. Thus, she empathizes with a female patient whose mother is similarly dismissive. Hart also establishes a romantic adversary in high-born Lemon Vreeland (Jaime King), who is engaged to George Tucker (Scott Porter). There might be a potential intergenerational friendship between Hart and precocious Annabeth (Kaitlynn Black), who bond over Sex and the City. The cast is promising, particularly Porter and Cress Williams. But the show lacks originality, and will have to do more than cast Meredith Grey as Doc Hollywood to get me to watch.

The Secret Circle (Premiered 9/15/11)

Sharon Ross, Columbia College

You know you’re watching a WB show when…Ooops!—I mean CW…

But Secret Circle did feel oh so very 1990s and ergo WB-ish: The Craft meets Dawsons meets The OC meets Twilight (thus the modern twist). If they can lose the Twilight angst and embrace the camp or comedy values of these other texts, they might pull off a fun adventure for us as viewers. There are some good ingredients: dead adult witches—with the remaining live ones apparently up to no good as their children discover their own latent witch powers; secrets galore, involving forbidden sex/romance and magic; a teen hangout by a carnival pier; a blend of adults and teens; hottie casting; decent soundtrack. But then there are the bad ingredients: a sorry slow pilot, with the “big reveals” visible a mile away (you don’t have to be clever to watch so far); central casting that led to my husband and I imbd-ing everyone to see where we knew them from (thus, you don’t have to be paying full attention so far); and stock characters that led to me remembering everyone as Nice Witch, Slutty Witch, Punk Boy Witch, Sexy Chippendale Witch, Reluctant Heart of Gold Orphan Witch…and perhaps most grievously: Vaguely Multiracial Witch—who gets next to no dialogue and no character background comparatively.

Still, given my love of The Craft, the appeal of Australian Mermaid Show Girl (H2O) aka Slutty Witch, and a decent cast overall, I’ll tune in for a few more episodes. Vampire Diaries started out similarly weak and found its footing, so it’s worth at least the old college try if you’re into the supernatural and the wonders it can offer for metaphorizing the teen experience.

Kyra Hunting, University of Wisconsin, Madison

It would not be a The Secret Circle review unless it described The Secret Circle as Dawson’s Creek meets Eastwick meets Pretty Little Liars, etc. with a healthy dose of The Vampire Diaries and just in case you were liable to forget it the CW is happy to remind you with a Bing commercial featuring Kevin Williamson researching The Secret Circle.  As a result the series feels more than a little familiar, with many of the “twists” revealed in the first fifteen minutes of the show and many of the other mysteries certainly not requiring a connection to the other world to figure out. However the familiarity of the program is not always a bad thing and the show has something of a comfortable nostalgia to it. The trope of adolescent power had proven interesting in the past, much of the cast is charming (if largely stolen from failed CW shows and obscure Scream sequels), and the show has a strong combination of teen angst and drama and supernatural mystery that can be built on in future episodes. While the pacing of the show felt a bit off at times, too much was given away too quickly, and the writing varied from slightly clever to pretty trite; the show’s cozy small town feel, potentially intriguing familial mysteries, and extensive cast (not to mention my residual love of Gale Harold from years of Queer as Folk) were more than interesting enough to make we want to return next week and it received the highest praise a CW show can receive from my vaguely television adverse husband “okay, sure, I’d watch it again.” While not exactly a grand slam, I’m sure many will agree with him.

H8R (Premiered 9/14/11)

C. Lee Harrington, Miami University

H8R cracks me up.  Based on the premise of celebrities meeting and trying to win over people who hate them, the premiere featured Snooki – who successfully transformed her hater into an accepter – and Jake Pavelka, who failed profoundly. Hosted by Mario Lopez, who himself could be a reasonable show participant, H8R explicitly claims an anti-bullying tone, with Lopez stating the goal of the show is to “hold haters accountable.”  Cameras catch the hater in the midst of a rant, unaware that the celebrity is witnessing the behavior and is about to surprise them in-person and sans wary publicist guiding their response. In some ways the show reminds me of the compelling values clash that signaled early seasons of “Wife Swap,” but here instead of social class being the barrier, celebrity culture stands in the way. The potential to really explore core issue – what people think they know about celebrities from reading the tabloids and the open vitriol with which people express their distastes – is unfortunately subverted by cheesy tabloid graphics and a Jerry Springer-ish confrontational set-up that’s unnecessary, in my opinion. I’m curious to see what celebrities have signed up for this – presumably not A-listers and hopefully not all reality stars – so I will probably stick with it, at least for a while. I have reservations about whether the show can develop at all – the problem with “The Marriage Ref” after a couple of amusing episodes – but the premise is fab.

Amber Watts, Texas Christian University

It’s surprising that we haven’t encountered this premise before: Mario Lopez forces a celebrity to hang out with someone who hates him or her.  In theory, the hope is that the hater can learn and grow, and viewers can learn how to “combat bullying” or something that sounds just as earnest but rings completely false. In reality, the show trades on our desire to watch someone call Snooki worthless, or Bachelor Jake Pavelka “a douche,” while Mario Lopez laughs at him. As a schadenfreude-aficionado, I loved the first episode, although I fully understand why most people would not.  The Jake-hater in particular, a punchy 20-year-old named Daniele, was hilarious.  Unlike the Snooki-hater, who seemed to reluctantly cave in by the end of the episode, Daniele remained unimpressed with Pavelka, even after he gave her a mini-Bachelor experience that ended at the actual Bachelor mansion.  Her response was, “It’s a house. I’ve seen it before.  I don’t need to be in front of it to know it’s real.  Like, where’s the rest of his life?”  Why I found it fascinating: Neither Snooki or Jake seemed surprised that they had haters, but both countered the hate with the same argument: “You don’t know me.”  Snooki, in particular, seemed convinced that the only possible reason someone could dislike her is if they don’t know her well.  Neither seemed to understand that their haters mostly hated what they represented. The Snooki-hater’s large Italian family was leery of how Jersey Shore depicted Italian-Americans, and having dinner with Ms. Pollizi wasn’t going to change that.  So as a purely academic exercise in gauging how celebrities read (or misread) their own status and understand how their fame works, H8r is worth watching.  Also, I’m really looking forward to the woman yelling at Joe Francis in a few weeks, because he deserves it.

Ringer (Premiered 9/13/11)

Amanda Ann Klein, East Carolina University

The first few minutes of the pilot episode of Ringer finds Sarah Michelle Gellar being strangled on the floor of a darkened New York City loft. As I watched her struggle, I became frustrated. “Just kick his ass, Buffy!” I yelled at my TV. Then my husband reminded me, “That’s not Buffy.” Right. This is Bridget, a recovering addict/prostitute who escapes the witness protection program by pretending to be her own estranged twin sister, Siobhan. Bridget is able to take over her twin’s identity because Siobhan killed herself in front of green screen (errr, I mean, in a big ocean) and because becoming Siobhan is as easy as pulling her hair into a chic bun. Much of this episode was disappointing: the dialogue was often clunky in its attempts to provide exposition; the background music made me feel like I watching the Lillith Fair, not an urban thriller (a saccharine cover of “25 or 6 to 4”? Really?); and I do wish the show had waited a few more episodes before revealing the identity of the mysterious Sean. But the pilot was not all terrible green screens and rich people clichés. The scenes in which Bridget tentatively navigates her relationship with Andrew, Siobhan’s husband of five years, were both nerve-wracking and enlightening; every wrong turn Bridget makes with Andrew tells us a little bit more about Siobhan and her quirks. For example when Bridget kisses Andrew upon his return from a two-week trip, he responds with surprise, “Aren’t you friendly?” (Aha! Siobhan was having an affair!) Likewise, every time Bridget encounters someone new she doesn’t know if he¹s there to kill her, have sex with her, or arrest her. Watching Sarah Michelle Gellar wear couture and tremble is not as fun as watching her stake vampires, but Ringer is definitely worth a second look.

Eleanor Seitz, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Darkness pervades the CW’s neo-noir thriller Ringer. In typical noir fashion,  mystery, intrigue and a femme fatale drive the narrative of this show. The unique premise of the show is appealing, and abounds with opportunities for engaging complex story lines. Recovering addict Bridget seeks redemption and respite from her past and reaches out to her twin Siobhan, who she hasn’t seen in six years, and then ends up assuming Siobhan’s identity after she kills herself (or does she?) But this enticing plot is perhaps overshadowed by Sarah Michelle Gellar’s first return to television since her departure in 2003.  Gellar plays the role of producer, as well as twins Bridget and Siobhan, and there are a lot of over the shoulder shots when the twins interact with each other, which kind of gave me whiplash. Luckily one of them dies (or does she?) and then we can commence with arty mirror shots that don’t overwhelm the viewer. The best I can describe this is to  compare it as some sort of hybrid between The Parent Trap, Laura, and Gossip Girl.  Ringer’s execution of this script is compelling and almost beautiful, with its dark narrative and luscious cinematic production, minus the sailing scene, which is evidently filmed on a fake lake backdrop like the one at Universal Studios.  Bridget’s own naïveté and ignorance of Siobhan’s glamorous (yet devious) life almost functions as an audience surrogate, and as she encounters each new reveal and threat, so do we. I like it, and I hope that it doesn’t get axed. The real question seems to be whether Sarah Michelle Gellar’s star still shines on the small screen enough to draw in a large enough audience in the CW’s demographic.

This year was especially active. By one count, 34 scripted shows were given the axe (though some had been killed much earlier than this past week), 28 of those being freshmen. Tied for blood on the floor were for ABC and NBC, each canceling 9 shows, Better with You, Brothers and Sisters, Detroit 1-8-7, Mr. Sunshine, My Generation, No Ordinary Family, Off the Map, The Whole Truth, and V for ABC, and The Cape, Chase, The Event, Law and Order: Los Angeles, Outlaw, Outsourced, The Paul Reiser Show, Perfect Couples, and Undercovers. FOX too, though, cut 8 shows (Breaking In, The Chicago Code, The Good Guys, Human Target, Lie to Me, Lone Star, Running Wilde, and Traffic Light), CBS said goodbye to Shit My Dad Says, Chaos, Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior, The Defenders, Mad Love, and Medium, and The CW cut Hellcats and Life Unexpected. By my math, that equates to 29 hours worth of television per week … before we add the reality shows (and Live to Dance, America’s Next Great Restaurant, and Shedding for the Wedding seem to have fallen by the wayside).

Conversely, a whole lot of shows got picked up. ABC commissioned 13 new shows, NBC was close behind with 12, FOX added 9, CBS added 5, and The CW added 4. That’s 35.5 hours worth of television.

I hope to blog about the previews and trailers for the new shows in more detail over at The Extratextuals later, but for now, I have a few general observations about the comings and goings and what they say about American television right now:

(1) Only two of the 43 new shows are reality shows: The X Factor and H8R. Otherwise, we seem to have weathered the storm of endless new reality shows. Each network more or less has its franchise shows (Idol on FOX, to be interchanged with X Factor based on season; Survivor and Amazing Race on CBS; Next Top Model on CW; Biggest Loser and The Voice interchanging with The Sing-Off on NBC; and Dancing with the Stars and The Bachelor for ABC), and scripted programming is back in development heaven.

(2) Who says the sitcom is dead? Four of the nine returning freshman shows are sitcoms, and the only two to be renewed well in advance of the upfronts (Raising Hope and Bob’s Burgers) were sitcoms. Plus 17 of the new shows are sitcoms. And 7 of those are multicam. Sounds to me like the genre is doing just fine.

(3) I’m intrigued to see that FOX continues to commission animated shows (it’s even commissioned a Flintstones reboot from Seth McFarlane for 2013), isn’t canceling any, and yet is keeping them all on Sunday evening. While it now has enough to take up two whole nights if it wants to do so, I also like the idea that they’ll have enough in store to switch them out between Fall and the mid-season. Here’s hoping that allows for a better quality of writing and less burnout.

(4) There’s a lot on offer for younger women in this new schedule. There are numerous sitcoms elsewhere that are female-centered (Apartment 23, Suburgatory, Whitney, Are You There Vodka?, Best Friends Forever, Bent, Two Broke Girls, I Hate My Teenage Daughter, The New Girl, and even Man Up seems to be as much for women to laugh at men), and between Revenge, Scandal, Good Christian Belles, Prime Suspect, Unforgettable, Hart of Dixie, Ringer, Secret Circle, A Gifted Man, and Smash, a whole bunch of the new dramas are female-centered or close to it too.

(5) And yet there’s something of a gender bifurcation observable, as a notable clump of shows are aimed wholly at dudes. Last Man Standing, How to be a Gentleman, and Free Agents seem especially dude-centered, even aggressively so; Person of Interest seems like Burn Notice for the Lost and Batman fanboy set; and while they may all be aimed at women too, the troika of Pan Am, Charlie’s Angels, and Playboy Club are clearly going for eye candy sales to guys.

(6) Speaking of which, what’s with the crappy Mad Men wannabes?

(7) There’s lots to complain about, but I must also give the networks credit for a few experiments. Terra Nova, Once Upon a Time, Awake, Smash, Revenge, and The River, for instance, all have some legitimately new things about them. Whether I’ll actually watch them is another thing, but it’s nice to see that we’re not just getting yet more odd couple sitcoms and procedurals centered around brilliant deductive minds … though we’re getting those too.

(8) 43 new shows and a whole lot of white. Really, Hollywood? Work It offers Prison Break’s Amaury Nolasco the chance to share the lead (though when the show is canceled, that will be over), Charlie’s Angels sees Annie Ilonzeh as one of the three angels, Scandal sees Kerry Washington lead the cast (with a disturbingly non-Scottish Henry Ian Cusack by her side), one of the Playboy bunnies in Playboy Club is African-American, and the hugely tall guy from Green Mile is in The Finder. I’m not impressed. Say what you will about the now-canceled Outsourced, but it had about as many non-white speaking roles in it as the entire slate of 43 new shows seem to have combined.

(9) For all those who saw promise in last year’s short-lived Lone Star, fear not, for Kyle Killen is back, with Awake. While, as with Lone Star, I worry about where it could go, it’s an intriguing premise – a man interchanges between alternate realities, in one of which his wife died in a car crash and in the other of which his son died in a car crash. I found it easily the most gripping of the trailers, and was amused to see that Killen learned his lesson about creating lead characters who we can’t empathize with … cause who can’t feel for the dude who lost his wife and his kid in a car crash?

(10) Finally, and speaking of those trailers, it’s refreshing to see the networks make these so widely available this year. In past years, it’s often been hard to get hold of them. For those of you who want to see more, I recommend going here for ABC, CBS, The CW, FOX, and NBC.

The Game is a sitcom with a predominantly African American cast set in the world of a fictional professional football team.  When it premiered in 2006, it was paired up with Everybody Hates Chris, All of Us, and Girlfriends to develop a night of programming obviously intended to target African American viewers.  In a move reminiscent of Fox’s recruitment and then abandonment of the same audience once it had built itself into a competitor for the Big 3 broadcasters, The CW slowly but surely canceled each of these series, with The Game and Everybody Hates Chris the last ones standing when the ax fell in May of 2009.

The series did not go quietly–the stars put together a YouTube video encouraging fans to help them save the show, and the outraged fans were happy to comply, mounting a sizable internet protest,

For a while, things were looking grim. The 2009-2010 TV season came and went without any promising news, but the story of The Game was not yet over.  Although ratings were steadily dropping off at The CW, when BET began airing reruns of the series in February of 2009, they drew huge audiences–often garnering higher ratings in the BET re-airing than they did in the original showing on The CW, according to Daily Variety.  The reruns did so well for BET that the channel picked the series up in October 2010 and began shooting new episodes over a year after its original cancellation.

In some ways, The Game‘s move from The CW to BET makes institutional sense.  When the announcement about the syndication deal was made in February 2009, Daily Variety quoted BET’s VP of acquisitions: “Not only does it have really fresh African-American stars, but it has a great lineup of guest stars. People like Robin Givens and Vivica Fox — these are people who are regularly on our network.”  And there’s certainly no denying that a sitcom with a predominantly black cast can and likely will find a very happy home on BET, given its programming slate and audience profile.  In fact, the series might indeed do much better on BET than it ever did on The CW–which may well be due to the fact that The Game was not a priority for The CW, but will be a flagship series for BET.  For the series and its fans, this is certainly the best possible outcome.

But I’m not so sure The Game‘s happy ending is all that happy–or if it signals a dangerous shift in programming logic.  As The Root’s Erin E. Evans noted in 2009, “The recent cancellation of The Game and the also popular Everybody Hates Chris has drastically reduced the number of black faces on network television.”  She goes on to say that even if the series were resurrected on cable (as it now has been), it might set a dangerous precedent–and I think she’s right.  Do we really want to say that cable is the proper home for stories about non-white experiences and characters?  That broadcast audiences simply aren’t interested, and thus shouldn’t be offered these stories?  That audiences who find their own lives represented in series like The Game can find solace on cable?  That “broadcast” means “mainstream”, and “mainstream” means “white”?

I’m not sure I know the answer to these questions, but I do know that the startling dearth of non-white casts on broadcast television is something to which we should be paying attention, even as we celebrate and enjoy The Game’s second life on cable.

My heartfelt thanks and appreciation to two of my outstanding students, Kiara Sims and Ayriel Warren, for their superb projects on The Game last fall–I wouldn’t have been aware of this interesting and troubling situation otherwise.
Edited to add: please be sure to check out this Variety piece an this post from Aymar Jean Christian on the topic, now that the ratings results are in.

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.

So far, the similarities are striking, and one would expect continuous comparison between the two, and yet their genre, pedigree, and network associations make these shows seem as far apart as The Wire and Gossip Girl. Oddly enough, I gave True Blood (TB) a second chance when Jason Mittell and Louisa Stein praised its politics and narrative complexity during a Flow conference Wire panel two years ago. In contrast, I tried The Vampire Diaries (TVD) again after my online fan friends praised its strong female characters and intricate plotting. Both shows contain complex plots with often unexpected surprises and fast turnarounds. TB follows a variety of plot and character lines to create an expansive set of stories while TVD remains more singularly focused and thus tremendously fast paced. Both shows take more than a couple of sentences to retell a single episode, with ambiguous characters and repeated betrayal as constants.

And yet one is quality TV on HBO, watched by men and women alike, and names such as Alan Ball and Anna Paquin all but guarantee that it be taken seriously as an artistic engagement–even if we may just watch it for the bloodied sexual encounters and the melodrama. The other is firmly defined as teen TV, runs on the CW and its stars are more likely to appear on the cover of the online Portrait magazine than Rolling Stone. Part of this difference in perception between the two programs is clearly gendered: TB’s extreme sexual violence and voyeuristic viewer position invites male viewers even where the initial topic of a female protagonist and her vampire lover might not. Moreover, the amazingly artistic and political trailer promises a depth that I personally feel the show fails to deliver. TVD, on the other hand, is clearly geared toward young girls with its high school protagonist and two male hunks who desire her. The high school setting and teen tropes mark the show as a typical CW show, with its melodramatic aspects foregrounded rather than hidden. Likewise this allows for viewers’ identificatory potential in a way that TB doesn’t: TB instead establishes a more distanced view position that profits from its visual spectacle.

Part of me wants to like TVD simply because it seems more honest in its range, goals, and intended audiences. But I can’t fault a show for its paratexts nor for its reception. So why do I ultimately enjoy and prefer the teen show over its more sexy, adult, quality counterpart. I don’t particularly like Elena better than Sookie (faux Southern accent notwithstanding) nor do I find Somerhalder that much more attractive than Skarsgård. Plots in both are a fast and crazy ride, and while the production values are clearly better in the HBO show, both are sufficiently glossy and visually enjoyable. I do find sexual and racial politics more problematic in TB, but my reasons for liking TVD are actually about themes and characters: I enjoy the teen characters as a way to explore coming of age and adulthood anxieties via supernatural metaphors, and I like the way I can identify with the characters rather than merely observing them on their wild rides. Television certainly doesn’t need to be edifying, but I more often feel like I want to explore the moral dilemmas and interpersonal conflicts in TVD. If I were to pick a worthy successor of Buffy’s Sunnydale, it would be Mystic Falls rather than Bon Temps.