Category: TV trends

It’s time to update our family comedies

“Modern Family” paved the way on TV, but it’s time to move on.

“Modern Family” is airing its ninth season this year, with the tenth season already promised (though that may be the end of the run). All the original kids are in college now, or at least adults. Overall, the comedy has lost its spark. Yes, there’s growth, but it’s the same rag-tag group of humans trying to make life work with semi-similar storylines.

It’s not that funny anymore, either. Sure there’s an occasional chuckle, but the laugh-out-loud jokes are gone.

When it premiered, “Modern Family” was filled with promise. And it’s had great moments. It didn’t when 5 Emmys for best comedy (in a row, by the way), though it hasn’t won best comedy since 2014.

The TV landscape has changed, and “Modern Family” isn’t the only show focused on a so-called modern family anymore.

On ABC alone, the same network on which “Modern Family” airs, you’ve got “blackish” and “Fresh Off the Boat,” which yes, show some amount of traditional family structure, but also showcase other culture in a positive way.

Then there’s “Transparent.” “Grace and Frankie.” Even “Mom” and “This is Us” in some ways. TV now portrays all different types of families…many types of sexualities, races, cultures…we’re getting to a great time when you can see way more than white people on TV, and it’s not all stereotypes.

We just need to keep moving. (AKA not another “The New Normal,” a terrible show that did more harm than good.)

It’s time to show what America looks like now, not 20 years ago. Let’s talk more about families who deal with cyberbullying, foster care, adoption and gender transition. Let’s talk about families who are struggling with the economy, land rights, hate crimes, police brutality, civil rights…you name it, it’s happening in our country.

And let’s show what American looks like in a true yet entertaining way. “Modern Family” gracefully showcases different families in a way that doesn’t shove issues down the viewers’ throats, but rather simply shows it’s a normal part of life in today’s world.

In a TV world where we got “Mad Men,” “Breaking Bad” and even “Scream Queens” (while campy, it was at least different), let’s continue to show progression on the small screen.

Couch potato sometimes: How I workout while watching TV

Raise your hand if you hate working out.

Now raise your hand if you love watching TV.

Of course, I can’t actually see you, but I’m guessing many people would raise their hand on both accounts. I know I would.

Yes, working out is good for you, but I don’t get a runner’s high. I don’t even get a runner’s medium. I just know to stay in shape and to lose weight, I need to exercise.

But I also have little to no motivation, and no one to work out with. But last summer I discovered a “Bachelorette” workout, and I was in.

No, I don’t love the show, but it can be addicting to watch people try to fall in love…knowing they’ll probably break up within a year of the finale.

When I first tried the “Bachelorette” workout, it was tough. I was not prepared to do 100+ squats, 10 for every rose given out (it was early in the season). But by the end of the two hours, I was sweating…without feeling frustrated.

I did something I love (watch TV for an extended period of time) while doing something I need to do (exercise). And it worked.

After one or two weeks of this, I got two friends to join in with me. We’d meet after I got off work, set the workout list by the TV, and made sure to hold each other accountable for doing the exercises (and also questioned whether something counted or not…I mentioned it was tough, right?).

It was quite effective. One of the girls had no problems fitting into her wedding dress, and I lost some weight and gained some muscle. All around a win-win.

I started looking up other TV workouts, as I call them. BuzzFeed has a huge list, but I alter them to fit what I need or add to them for a more intense workout.

Alternatively, most shows (or even movies) have a drinking game associated with it. I altered a “Friday Night Lights” drinking game into a workout for watching the show. (Crunches for every time you saw a jersey did wonders for my abs.)

I will say the most effective TV workouts are for reality competition shows, like “Bachelorette,” “Dancing with the Stars,” or “Project Runway.” There’s more regularity to these shows because of their format, so you’ll get a more well-rounded workout.

On the flip side, you can always add to the workouts. I altered one for “Gilmore Girls,” and well effective some episodes, I wasn’t doing many exercises for other episodes. But my aforementioned group of friends has done one for “Drop Dead Diva,” and we’ve added a couple extra exercises as we’ve progressed in the show.

They say it’s not good to watch TV for hours on end. But if you workout for at least part of it, you’ve earned some quality couch potato time. At least in my book.

Summer TV: We need to talk about ABC’s Summer Fun and Games

Summer: the time when shorts and flip-flops are everywhere, sangria is a drink of choice and TV hits a lull.

But ABC is hitting advertising hard with it’s Summer Fun & Games lineup. And it’s out of control.

Another networks are airing new reality competition shows (See Fox‘s “Beat Shazam” and NBC‘s “World of Dance“), too, but ABC has a plethora of them.

Returning this season are “Celebrity Family Feud,” “The $100,000 Pyramid” and “To Tell the Truth.” Additionally, new shows “The Gong Show,” “Boy Band,” “Steve Harvey’s FUNDERDOME” and “Battle of the Network Stars” will also premiere in June.

That’s seven reality competition shows. In theory, that’s one for every day of the week, but only Sunday and Thursday evening programming will center around these shows.

Is this really necessary?

All types of shows premiere almost year-round these days. Typically new summer shows are lighter, more soap-opera-style or a competition show.

Admittedly yes, this lineup includes all lighter shows. But they’re probably not interesting.

Maybe ABC is going for nostalgia. After all, “100,000 Pyramid” and “To Tell the Truth” are re-launches, as is new show “The Gong Show.” And “Boy Band” seems like a rip off of “Making the Band” made to fill the void One Direction’s hiatus made.

But substance is lacking immensely in these shows. It’s all about catching attention, especially with all the celebrities that’ll be on the shows, but not really keeping it. Yes, you get celebrities acting silly, but who really cares?

I’m always surprised when competition shows last more than a season. Something about “American Idol” worked for a time, but these shows usually don’t have it.

“The Search for Elle Woods,” a competition focused on finding Broadway’s next “Legally Blonde” star, was one season. “The Glee Project” lasted for only two seasons. One Directioners may watch the new show “Boy Band,” but they’ll probably lose interest too.

I’ll stick to “Hollywood Game Night.” And the “Bachelorette”…for the workouts (another blog for another time)

With ‘Rising Star,’ TV is saturated with singing reality competitions

This blog was originally published on elkharttruth.com on June 26, 2014.

How many singing reality competitions can there be on TV?

“Rising Star” is the latest singing competition to hit the small screen. It airs Sundays on ABC.

After watching the premiere June 22, “Rising Star” seems to be more about technology than talent, in my opinion. Yes, it’s innovative to use an app to “Raise the Wall,” which allows the experts, studio audience and viewers to vote on which contestants should move on to the next round, but so what?

“American Idol” was groundbreaking in 2002. But let’s be real. Without Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul, the Fox show just is not interesting anymore. And “The X Factor,” Cowell’s follow-up show, bombed in America, despite having high-profile judges such as Britney Spears and Demi Lovato.

And now anyone can be a judge or expert. On “Rising Star,” the so-called “experts” are Kesha, Ludacris and Brad Paisley. I think hiring Kesha is a publicity stunt after her stint in rehab, but I guess she does have a lot of fame.

“The Voice” is great. But after the auditions, the NBC show is no longer truly about the voice, considering the judges can see them face-to-face. So the best singer doesn’t necessarily win.

It’s such an influx. I get that ABC wants to break into the singing competition mold, but it’s just cliche now.

Yes, seeing and hearing great singers is entertaining, but there just aren’t enough viable twists to make all of these shows worthwhile to watch.

And since so few of them these days make a name for themselves after the show, maybe it’s a sign that others are sick of these shows, too.

Upfronts 2017: 3 takeaways for upcoming TV season

The sun may be out, but I’m more excited to stay in and watch these new shows.

Networks hosted upfronts presentations over the last week, presenting all their new shows and lineups for the fall and midseason.

Here are three takeaways:

‘American Idol’ is back…on ABC

Apparently the singing reality shows aren’t dead yet.

It’s been only one year since “American Idol” went off the air, but it’s being revived on a new network after a reported bidding war among multiple networks.

This move is beyond me, because “AI” had been dwindling in popularity for years, with more focus on the judges than the winners.

If it can go back to its Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood days, great. Katy Perry was the first judge announced, and I can see her vibing with the other judges and singers. Simon Cowell will not be returning, however. He declined, plus he judges NBC‘s “America’s Got Talent.”

CW owns superhero shows

Does Greg Berlanti ever sleep? Or does he live at the CW office?

Berlanti produces multiple shows for the broadcast network, including all of the superhero shows.

CW will gain yet another superhero show in “Black Lightning.” The new action drama will not be part of the Arrowverse, so crossover episodes won’t extend to five.

But still, that’s a lot of superheroes on one network.

Reboots galore

“Roseanne.” “Dynasty.” “Will & Grace.”

After so-called success of “Fuller House” and “Gilmore Girls,” networks are clamoring for that nostalgia glory. I don’t either reboot was that successful, but I get the capture-the-old mentality (even if I also think it’s super risky).

I didn’t watch “Roseanne,” “Dynasty” or “Will & Grace” in their time, so I’m a bit behind. I’m hoping they’ll be on Netflix this summer.

Also, here are 3 new shows I’m excited to watch this fall:

“Young Sheldon” (CBS): I can’t deny my love for “The Big Bang Theory,” so count me excited for this prequel about your favorite physicist during his childhood.
“The Good Doctor” (ABC): I’m nervous how this show will handle itself since it focuses on a character with autism, but I think it could be a great conversation starter. My suggestion? Take notes from “Speechless.” Also, after his run on “Bates Motel,” I’m ready to see more Freddie Highmore on TV.
“Alex, Inc.” (ABC): If this show is three-quarters of what Zach Braff‘s other TV show, “Scrubs,” was in its early seasons, I’ll be happy.

History on TV: Examining ‘When We Rise’ and ‘Shots Fired’

Some shows take us to magical worlds…or at least away from reality. But not these two.

ABC’s “When We Rise” and Fox’s “Shots Fired” take a tough look at relevant issues: gay rights, women’s rights, police ethics and racism.

“When We Rise” is a miniseries based on an unpublished manuscript and starred Mary-Louise Parker and Guy Pearce, among others.

Looking back on history starting in the 1960s, each episode was 2 hours (with commercials), and it aired for four nights over the course of a week.

“Shots Fired” mentions Ferguson, but it’s a black cop who shoots a white teen— and everyone is trying to figure out what happened.

The only super big name star in this 10-part series is Helen Hunt; it airs at 8 p.m. Wednesdays.

The two shows are similar in structure — and ratings.

“When We Rise” ratings dropped each night, and the Dustin Lance Black-produced mini-series wasn’t deemed a success.

“Shots Fired” isn’t doing well in ratings either.

My question is: Why?

Maybe airing 2-hour arcs four nights in one week is too much. Perhaps 8 p.m. Wednesdays is too full of good options.

Or is it because we don’t want to face the reality that these issues exist?

It’s not easy to watch. But in this day and age, the fact is this does still exist. Rips of racism and homophobia still prevail throughout the United States.

Especially, after the election, could it be these shows are too close to reality?

TV and movies for some are an escape from the world. It’s why I enjoy musicals and Disney and not war movies.

But now, especially after a vicious election cycle, is it time to put that aside to relearn some history or see it from another angle?

Black wanted to show another side of the story. The duo behind “Shots Fired” wanted to challenge perspectives.

Is it worth stepping out of the comfort zone and learning something new? What do you think?

In support of TV’s supporting characters: Why ‘Manhattan Love Story’ and ‘A to Z’ were doomed TV shows

This blog was originally published on elkharttruth.com on Dec. 28, 2014.

After watching all the new fall TV shows and then seeing a lot of comedies, I came to a conclusion:

If the supporting characters on a TV show are less than desirable, not even good leads can save it.

Cases in point: “A to Z” and “Manhattan Love Story.”

These two comedies were among the first of the 2014 season to be axed (Though “A to Z” is still airing new episodes, production will most likely not continue). And I was not too surprised.

I thought the leads for the shows were endearing. But their friends on the shows were awful.

The lead actress in “Manhattan Love Story” roomed with her college friend and her husband.

And boy, were they obnoxious. The college friend, Amy, was always talking like she knew everything, with a whiny voice, might I add. And her husband, David, was just stupid and loud.

Same sort of problem in “A to Z.” Cristin Milioti (“How I Met Your Mother”) and Ben Feldman (“Mad Men,” “Drop Dead Diva”), the leads, were quirky and entertaining.

But both characters had best friends who were archetypes. The girl friend was desperate for love and the guy friend was a player.

It’s 2014, almost 2015. TV viewers are smart — they are beyond watching stereotyped characters. It’s boring, uninteresting and a waste of time.

Not every show can be an ensemble show like “Friends” or “Modern Family,” where every character has enough of a story line each episode to give them purpose.

But shows should not have useless characters that only add frustration instead of enjoyment to a TV program.

Think “Breaking Bad” or “The Big Bang Theory.” Those shows have obvious lead and supporting actors. But you’re invested in every character no matter how many minutes they are on your TV screen.

A smart show needs smart characters. And only smart shows will survive.

I get that comedies are hard to write because it’s difficult to be funny. But it can be done. And we don’t need to bog down with dramas. We need to laugh, too.

Colbert, Letterman: Late-night talk show shuffleboard

This blog was originally published on elkharttruth.com on May 4, 2014.

Jimmy Fallon. Seth Meyers. Jimmy Kimmel. Conan O’Brien. Chelsea Handler.

All of these people are late-night talk show hosts.

Anyone else notice they are all men, except for Handler? And her late-night show isn’t even on a big network. It’s on E! And it’s only half an hour.

On April 3, David Letterman (who, in case you didn’t know, is a Ball State alumnus) announced he would retire from the late-night talk show circuit in 2015.

On April 10, it was announced that Stephen Colbert would replace Letterman.

Really? Why?

I personally find Colbert a bit intolerable. I don’t enjoy his show, and it really annoys me when people call it a news show. It’s news satire.

And what about Craig Ferguson? You would think the person who has a talk show after Letterman’s would be next in line.

To me, it wasn’t a surprise when Ferguson announced his departure from CBS on April 28.

And what about women in late night?

There are plenty of women in the talk show world. But most are featured during the day, and many of them are in groups (Ex: The View, The Talk).

A woman could easily hold her own on a talk show. Rachael Ray does it. Ellen DeGeneres does it. Handler does it.

And, in case anyone forgot, Oprah did it with flair. Her show had heart, but it tackled tough issues, too.

Woman like talking, so what’s holding major networks from throwing a woman in the late-night ring? Is it too risky?

If it is, it’s 2014, so get over it.

According to news reports, Ferguson’s departure had been in the works for some time. But since he doesn’t step down till December, I say it’s time to give a woman a chance.

New Year’s 2017: 3 wishes for the new year

New Year’s resolutions may not happen, but I can hope these wishes come true, right?

As we usher in 2017, here are my wishes for TV.

No more crossovers

This might be an unpopular opinion, but these two-, three-, and now four-part crossover episodes are too much.

With the success of The CW‘s superhero shows, I get the marketing behind combining all the shows over a week, with each individual show airing a new episode. But when they started these with “The Flash” and “Arrow,” it wasn’t entirely necessary to watch both shows to keep up.

But the recent 4-part crossover between “The Flash,” “Arrow,” “Supergirl” and “DC’s Legends of Tomorrow” ended that. I didn’t watch the “Supergirl” part. But “The Flash’s” part ended on a cliffhanger, so then I had to watch “Arrow.” And then “Legends of Tomorrow” finished the saga.

That’s a lot of time to spend on one “event.” And I watch only “The Flash” regularly.

Even though they show what’s happened, it’s still confusing. I felt lost keeping up with some of the story lines because I didn’t know the characters. But I’d be confused not watching the episode of “The Flash” because I might miss stuff.

It shouldn’t be a requirement to watch four shows to fully understand one week of programming. It’s like being an outsider on a show you don’t watch…except you do.

Keep shows available online for at least a month

I made a similar plea for this last year, but I still wish for it.

With Hulu for only subscribers now, it’s more difficult to keep up with weekly TV. It’s doable since networks post content on the websites, but some networks still make you wait eight days unless you verify a cable provider.

But most networks give you only two weeks to watch a show. During midseason breaks, you might get the chance to catch up, but it’s not a guarantee.

We all need time to catch up, even with our favorite shows. So give us a break. Especially in a binge-watching culture, some people would rather watch a few episodes at a time instead of week-to-week.

CBS All Access is the next up and coming thing, especially with “The Good Wife” spinoff “The Good Fight” coming exclusively to it in 2017 (though the first episode will air Feb. 19 on CBS), I’m guessing it won’t be long before TV show won’t ever be free online, but I don’t want to subscribe to multiple TV streaming services.

end the revival trend

“Fuller House.” “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life.” “The Exorcist.”

So many shows and movies are rebooted, revived, etc. And yes, it’s great nostalgia. But I’m done.

“The Exorcist” was creepy but predictable. “Fuller House” isn’t that good of a show. “Gilmore Girls” filled a need to hear the final four words…and then sent fans into a tizzy over what’s next.

Sometimes it’s better to just let a show end in its time and be good, instead of filling an empty void in our hearts.

What do you want for TV in 2017?

New Year 2016: My 3 TV wishes for 2016

This blog was originally published on elkharttruth.com on Dec. 27, 2015.

It’s almost 2016, and there’s still myriad TV shows to watch.

Last year I made a list of TV wishes, and some of them came true. So here’s hoping some of these wishes will come true!

NO MORE SPINOFFS

“Chicago Med.” “Chicago P.D.” “Chicago Fire.”

“Real Housewives of Atlanta.” “New Jersey.” “Potomac.”

“The Bachelor.” “Bachelor Pad.” “Bachelor in Paradise.”

Seriously? I’m over it.

Just because one show is good doesn’t mean a spinoff will be. Sure, it makes sense because, in theory, there’s a built-in audience. But it also saturates the channels with shows some people don’t want to bother watching.

Where’s the variety? I want it back!

DON’T TAKE SHOWS OFFLINE TILL AFTER MIDSEASON BREAK

I’m a TV blogger. I love TV. But do I have time to keep up with every show? No. I’m sorry, but there aren’t enough hours in the day. Plus, you know, there are other parts of life.

That’s not to say I don’t want to eventually watch episodes of current seasons. But I messed up this year.

I didn’t make time to watch “Scorpion” or “The Flash” when their second seasons premiered. By the time I could, the premiere episodes weren’t online for free anymore. These are not shows that you can start in the middle of the season.

So I’m out of luck. And I don’t even mind watching ads!

Especially in today’s binge-watching culture, current shows should keep their full slate of episodes in the current season until after the midseason break. That way, viewers who fell behind can catch up.

LET EVERYONE SEE AWARD-NOMINATED EPISODES BEFORE THE AWARD SHOWS

Even I have been that person who hasn’t seen what has been considered a popular, acclaimed show. (I’ve never seen a single episode of AMC’s “Mad Men.”)

Many shows contend for the Emmys and the Golden Globes. And while some years a few shows dominate the nominations, there are still many shows and respective episodes in the races.

Unless you have all access to all networks and shows, you can’t see the shows after nominations. So, why can’t viewers have the chance to do so?

These award show sites should allow viewing of nominated episodes (shows and actors submit episodes for consideration) so people who watch the shows have a better idea of the competition.

What do you think will make TV better in 2016?