Featured article: "'The Event' is One Big, Entertaining Disaster"

I came across this article on tv.com this morning and loved it. Whenever someone posts an article about how much they aren't liking a show or how much a show sucks, every commentor comes to its defense and insists that the writer is just a hater who doesn't even like TV. Yes, it's debate in its finest form. No one can acknowledge that some shows aren't as good as they think they are and some people aren't just being bitter, jaded, miserable humans when they criticize a show. I don't know why I'm still shocked every time a commentor insults the writer rather than their writing. Maybe because the writer made some good points and it's easier to attack a person you don't even know than address the points they raised?

Anyway, here's the link. "'The Event' is One Big, Entertaining Disaster"

It talks about how "The Event" is bad but, for the writer, it's still fun. I agree that it's bad but I was definitely not entertained. If anyone reads my blog and also watches this show, I'm very curious to know why you still do (watch the show, that is). I watched "Heroes" for years way after it got bad, so I'm always interested in why other people stick with bad shows. At least "Heroes" had one great season to get me hooked before it slid downhill.

Why has this Fall TV season been so lackluster?

At first, I thought it was just my busier life this year that caused me to watch much less television lately. But then the other articles started up, asking why there are no break-out hits this year. It made me stop and think about this season and realize that it wasn't just me - there really aren't any big hits this year.
It's been a while, but it's been a long time since there was not a single new show I was excited about. I decided to drop "The Event" this week, "Nikita" never grabbed me, "Undercovers" just felt unnecessary with "Chuck" still around, "No Ordinary Family" sounded like a perfectly ordinary family drama, and I couldn't even bring myself to watch more procedurals. You want to know what my big, new obsession is this fall? "Six Feet Under." I recently acquired the DVDs and have been making my way through that show, effectively extinguishing any desire for a new show actually on the fall schedule. But I've turned to old cable shows because I just can't see beyond the flood of more and more procedurals. At some point, the American viewing public has to get sick of cops and lawyers, right? I'm fine if cops and lawyers are done well (like in "Southland") or with some interesting premise that hooks you ("Life on Mars" or "Eli Stone"), but the majority of shows out there are just run-of-the-mill, boring procedural shows. And I suppose a lot of the new fall shows are okay, but they aren't anything to get excited about. I remember how thrilling "Heroes" was in those early days, or how "Pushing Daisies" transported you into a fantasy world unlike any other, or how riveting "24" was every week, and I still get glimpses of the heartwarming enjoyable hour "Grey's Anatomy" used to be and still can be.

It's like "Lost" just left a huge void in quality TV and everyone is afraid to try anything big again. Although if they do try something big, they will be inevitably compared to "Lost," whether they intended to copy it or not. "Lost" was just such a big sensation among all demographics that I think TV is taking some time to collectively catch its breath. Also, as my new "Six Feet Under" love has noted, it's just easier to find quality television shows on cable networks. Cable networks still have freedoms that basic channels don't so they end up taking more risks, producing fewer shows but concentrating on making those few shows stellar. It's why a lot of good TV comes out of the UK - their seasons are short and they end the shows after only a few seasons. It may not be as satisfying in the short term, but in the long term, you realize that's why it was able to maintain its quality. Who knows, maybe a show like "Firefly" wouldn't have gone down in TV history as one of the greatest shows of all time if it had had more than one season to screw things up. Sure, there are some shows that can last a long time at a great level. "Supernatural" has had ups and downs, but I think it's one of the most consistently well written and acted shows on television now. But the lesson here is that the basic networks rarely take chances on something big, and more often than not, it doesn't pay off anyway.

So that's why I'm not blogging as much about TV as I wish I was. Long-term loves have been my focus as some shows, like "Fringe", have finally become great while others have always been great. It's also about that time when shows five or more seasons in experience a revitalization of creativity. But nothing new this fall has captured my attention, and that's really a shame because I'm not too hard to please when it comes to TV. I guess we'll all just hold on until next fall and hope someone, anyone, takes a gamble and brings us something great. It doesn't have to be the next "Lost." Just the next show that doesn't rehash the same formula we've seen a million times.

"The Event" - a show that wants desperately to be riveting and intriguing

I was hoping the second episode would hook me, or at least get me more excited about "The Event." Alas, I'm still lukewarm on this show. But lukewarm is better than cold hatred, so I'm sticking with it for now.

I was really surprised that they decided to break out "not of terrestrial origin" in the second episode. So much for not embracing SciFi. That said, I'm still not intrigued by their human-looking aliens, why these aliens are here, what they're doing, are they good or bad, etc. I just suddenly feel like I'm watching the less promising bastard offspring of "V" and "Flashforward." There are aliens infiltrating our society for some unknown reason, there's a mysterious event that happened, and meanwhile Jason Ritter is off running around in the desert. The plane crash victims' untimely end surprised me, but I still feel like this show is incredibly scatter-brained. We know that Jason Ritter's missing girlfriend/plane crash storyline is somehow connected to the alien prisoners, but I just don't care because they're going to have to take some giant leaps to connect the conspiracies. I don't know what the plane stunt was for, but I highly doubt the answer is going to be anywhere close to satisfying. These days, shows write giant mysteries to hook viewers then write themselves into corners because they didn't think to develop an eventual conclusion to their narrative. The result is unhappy, bitter viewers who are less willing to trust the Next Big Show. After "Invasion," "Flashforward," "Heroes", and "The Nine," we're just less willing to commit and put our faith in the showrunners. Additionally, the fractured timeline is needlessly confusing and isn't adding much of anything to the show. There are bits and pieces of character development, (Jason Ritter meeting his girlfriend, the CIA agent who is an undercover alien) but not enough at any one time to make us care especially about any one character.

I will say this for the show: I can't help but like Jason Ritter as the sort-of protagonist. Yeah, he hasn't done anything really spectacular or heroic yet, but he does have that Everyman quality every critic has been mentioning. But I could just be getting that impression because I haven't seen him in many things. I think the show needs to stick with him for a little bit as the main protagonist to get us invested in at least one person's business, then they can add on all the other characters they want in more depth. If they narrow the focus from this epic scale a la "Flashforward" and give us a more intimate look at one man's struggle to find the woman he loves while being wrongfully accused of murder, they could just make viewers care about the vast conspiracy. I really think they should take some tips from an older, semi under-the-radar SciFi show, "The 4400." They managed a big mysterious event that changed the entire world while focusing on fascinating characters. That show made you care about what happened to their fictional world because you cared about the people in it. If "The Event" can focus more on its characters and less on its EVENT, then it will turn out to be a much better show. Oh, and if they could get someone to write dialogue that doesn't sound like it was written by a high schooler, it would be greatly appreciated.

"Nikita" - pretty people fighting and a whole lot of familiar faces.

It's always fun around this time to see where actors end up. Each season you get shows that are inundated with familiar faces who aren't famous enough to land their own vehicles but not insignificant enough to drop into obscurity. "The Event" was practically its own drinking game of "hey, it's that guy" moments. Likewise, "Nikita" employs plenty of faces who bounce around TV that you'll recognize if you watch a lot.

I never watched the original "La Femme Nikita" or the movie so I'm not going to even try to compare the two. This modern update stands on its own so you really don't need to know the franchise's past. Maggie Q plays the titular Nikita who is forced into being an assassin by the mysterious Division and goes rogue after they kill her boyfriend. Another plotline involves young new "recruit" Alex who is being introduced to life at Division. She's more than just the audience surrogate, luckily, as lots of exposition comes from Nikita herself. The cast is pretty good so far, certainly better than you'd expect from the average CW show. I still love Maggie Q and she has the chops to back up her ass-kicking ways. Her acting is nothing brilliant, but it's not awful either. It was also nice to see Aaron Stanford, even if he is relegated to the obligatory computer nerd role as Birkhoff. I constantly need to remind myself lately that I'm one of, like, 12 people who actually saw (and loved) ABC's "Traveler" so I'll just say his best-known work is his role as Pyro in the "X-Men" movies. I'm glad he got to be a bit of a badass, although I hope his entire role on the show isn't to sit behind computers and track people. Melinda Clarke of "CSI" and "The OC" fame plays a leader in Division and seems like a good fit for the show. It took me forever to remember where I knew Xander Berkeley, who plays Division leader Percy, from - as George Mason on "24."

The only actor I had a problem with was Shane West as Michael, the Division operative tasked with dealing with the Nikita situation. I think he was really miscast in this role, partly because he seems too young for it. West is 32, but I just don't think he looks mature enough for the part. There can't be too much of an age difference, I suppose, if they want to make a history between Michael and Nikita, but he just doesn't command the authority that his character requires. He plays assholes well, but a little facial scruff and a rough voice don't a gritty performance make.

My one problem out of the way, I have to say I enjoyed this show. Granted, my expectations weren't high because it's on the CW and it's a remake of an old show, but then again "Supernatural" is on the CW and "Battlestar Galactica" was a remake of an old show. It's just nice to be pleasantly surprised, especially after watching the bland "The Event" last night. The dialogue isn't a huge step up, especially with the cringeworthy "this is war" line from Percy, but the narrative is solid so far. I thought it was an good pilot that was a nice mix of action and set-up. I didn't actually see the big twist coming, that the new recruit Alex is actually going undercover in Division for Nikita. I was expecting Birkhoff to somehow become her mole on the inside after she captured him and voiced her ideas about taking down Division. But it's nice to have Alex as the mole since they'll underestimate the new girl. I'd like to know more about her history, especially after they threw in that random thing about her Ukrainian past. I also think they cast her well as she actually looks like a young kid acting tough.

I enjoyed the action, but I hope they get a little more creative with it. I'd love to see them do what "Chuck" does where they add flavor and character to their fight scenes, using different environments, objects, and styles to create unique action sequences. Maggie Q can certainly handle it. I'm not going to take the show to task for not being fun enough though since they're going for a more serious tone and I'm okay with that. As long as they have riveting stories and characters to go with it, and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt there.

I still need to catch up on the second episode before the third airs on Thursday, but it looks like this will be an entertaining romp this season. It may be too dark or serious for some people, or not dark and serious enough, but this is the CW, not TNT or USA. I still highly recommend it.

"The Event" - It's the next 'Lost'!

I had to title it that because you know it's what they wanted to market it as, but after the abysmal failures of "The Nine" and "Flashforward," they didn't want to go that far. But the "Lost" vibe is what it's going for, and it's no surprise that it's no "Lost."
Take the crazy crisis situations, minority President and Jack Bauer tactics of "24," add in elements of the first, second, and fourth "Die Hard" movies, multiply it by "Lost" with all its vague mysteries, throw in a little "Independence Day" action hero and "need to know" dialogue, add a whole lot of "Flashforward"'s ambitions, and "Flashforward"'s, "The Nine"'s and "The 4400"'s emphasis on a big occurrence, and you've got NBC's "The Event." I was struggling to find something, anything, that was original or at least a fresh spin on tried and true elements of the mystery/SciFi genres, but I don't recall finding any. So many elements just felt lifted from other projects with recognized, recently free actors thrown in. The dialogue was nothing special and downright irritating in the scenes with the politicians, where they talked in broad, noble rhetoric without any real arguments on the situation they were discussing. No one character had any distinct personality which made it hard to care about any of them in particular. "Lost"'s main strength was their characters and I give them all due respect for creating realistic, distinctive, multi-dimensional, morally ambiguous characters.


I'm suspecting I've become jaded after being let down by "Heroes," "Flashforward," and "Lost." Again and again, I've learned that the payoff is hardly worth the investment so you have to be content with the journey. The problem is when you get shows like this that so emphasize the mystery primarily, (it's called "The Event" after all. And no matter what fans say, "Lost" was unique and lit up the fanbase because of its mysteries) you have to hope they have a good plan for the mystery and they aren't just stringing you along.

"Flashforward," "Lost," and it looks like "The Event" as well all had the same problem for me. I feel like they were terrified of outright embracing their SciFi side. Executives still think SciFi could never be mainstream, so I get this feeling that these shows skirt SciFi, insisting on bizarre mysteries to draw in viewers but not going deep enough into the SciFi realm to give satisfying payoff to their mysteries. Everything stays in this vague middle-ground where they try to please everyone.

Regarding the event itself, I hate the whole "too soon to reference real-life terrorism in pop culture" argument, but it still bothers me a little to see a hijacked plane getting flown into a building in a fictional setting. It wasn't fun watching Clark Kent burn down twin towers on "Smallville" and it wasn't fun watching a plane plummeting to the ground on "The Event." I guess using planes gives you an automatic, built-in anxiety about the situation due to real-life plane crashes/hijackings and fictional ones. Still, when you name a show "The Event," I expect a little something bigger than a strange occurrence during a plane hijacking. This just felt like an old episode of "The Twilight Zone." So did they go through a wormhole? Was is some weird, man-made technology like on "Flashforward?" Were they transported through time like in "The Twilight Zone" or "The 4400?" Is everyone on the plane dead and now in purgatory, getting prepped for their journey to heaven? (I couldn't resist.) Did they just get transported somewhere else on Earth? That seems unlikely since the plane still would have crashed, just somewhere else. All in all, I'm not so sure I care. Maybe they'll do something interesting with the concept, but I'm not holding out hope.

There were so many moments in the pilot that took me out of the show. As a frequent flyer who gained all her flight experience in the post 9/11 world, a lot of security issues took me out of the episode. How did Jason Ritter get a gun on the plane? I saw that he ditched some clothes or something in the bathroom after boarding the plane, but didn't notice what they were. If they were a uniform for airplane personnel, wouldn't the other airplane personnel have noticed him? And if it wasn't a uniform, then still how did he get the gun on the plane? How did that guy in the car just drive onto the tarmac? Why were there no people on the tarmac at all? I was incredibly relieved they didn't ignore the existence of Air Marshals, though, so they gained a couple points back for that.

Stray other thoughts:

• So I figure some conspiracy group took Scott Patterson aka Michael Buchanan's daughters hostage after shooting his wife, then forced him to crash the plane. That was quite an elaborate plan then since they bothered to disappear the older daughter, going so far as to take out her cell phone.


• Couldn't Jason Ritter have just asked the guard or the hotel manager to look at the security footage to show he and his girlfriend were there? The footage would probably be gone since the kidnappers went through so much trouble to make it look like they were never there, but it didn't even occur to Jason's character to try?


• "I'll explain everything once we're on the ground." You can't at least say something, like someone is hijacking the plane as the pilot? Or just something?


• I'll be honest, it took me some time to realize that the names before certain scenes were the characters' names, not the credits. I was thinking the credits were taking a long time to come up, but then I realized that I wasn't recognizing any of the names. Yes, it was a dumb moment.


• Once they're on the ground, "you can arrest me all you want." Lol.
  
  
• Why didn't ANYONE try to drive the President away from a plane rushing towards him? Where was his Secret Service detail? He was already in the car with his family, and they all just sat there.


• That whole post-drowning scene where the couples are hanging out and drinking felt exactly like the setup for a horror movie. The young lovers on vacation, the exotic locale, the mysterious strangers forcing their way into your life, the odd way they met...


• Without distinctive characters, I still have to resort to saying "hey, now we're talking with Dr Kerry Weaver, and now we're talking with Luke Danes, and now we're talking to that "Joan of Arcadia" guy, and is Zeljko Ivanek on every single damn show?"
  

I'll tune in for the next few episodes. If it's going somewhere interesting or there's actually some character development, I'll stick with it. If the dialogue and cast are still bland as all get-out and they drag out the mystery forever like it's the most fascinating question to plague mankind, I'll drop it.