SOME NIGHTS, WE'RE AMERICA'S SIXTH MOST WATCHED NETWORK! Yes, NBC's fall schedule, despite the admitted gaps, is kind of boring. The more interesting projects like Smash (which seems to be Glee with adults) and Awake (trippy procedural from the creator of Lone Star), get held for mid-season (along with the return of 30 Rock, due to Tina Fey's pregnancy) and a launch in connection with The Big Game That May Or May Not Happen Depending On Court Decisions In Minnesota and a new season of The Voice.
I may check out The Playboy Club (Mad Men "inspired" but with more boobs), the remake of Prime Suspect, and trippy procedural Grimm (which sounds like a much better fit for SyFy than NBC, and is given a Friday Night Death Slot following the final 13 episodes of Chuck), and the new sitcoms certainly have a pedigree--one has Christina Applegate, Will Arnett, and Maya Rudolph and is from the writer who gave us last week's "Eagleton" episode of Parks & Rec, and the other comes from a co-creator of Party Down. That said, if you're trying to rebuild, maybe the first thing you lose is cutting Biggest Loser from two hours to one, and not building your entire schedule around talent shows (Sing-Off, Voice, America's Got Talent)?
You want NBC to trim Biggest Loser and marginalize the talent shows? Are you remaking Major League?
ReplyDeleteI feel like "Grimm" is going to be a crappier version of "Supernatural." The Wednesday night comedies seem solid enough (Maya Rudolph was awesome in "Bridesmaids"), but pretty uninspiring across the board.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think this doesn't violate the No Politics rule because it's about TV, but I thought Maureen Dowd's column today was really terrible (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15dowd.html?_r=1&hp). She's complaining about women being sexualized in TV, but only casually mentions there are nine new shows anchored by strong women and the Tim Allen show where he is surrounded by strong women, versus the three she has a problem with (Playboy, Pan Am, Angels). The whole part about Christina Hendricks doesn't make much sense either, because Joan Harris is an incredibly strong woman.
I haven't seen or read the script for Charlie's Angels, but my understanding is that this version follows more in the footsteps of the 2000 movie and its sequel, in which the Angels were depicted as strong, independent ass-kickers, who were willing to use their attractiveness and who had skills other than their attractiveness, than the original version, where the Angels' primary function seemed to be to be hot.
ReplyDeleteYour understanding is correct. :)
ReplyDeleteIt's more grounded than the movies (no wire work, etc), but it's the same bad-ass tone. I hope everyone likes it!