Winter TV 2023: 3 new shows reviewed

Winter blues no more, there’s some new TV to watch. There’s some promise in these shows.

Also, fun fact: Two of these three new shows have a character named Charlie.

Not Dead Yet

9:30 p.m. Wednesdays on ABC

Gina Rodriguez leads this sitcom, and she leads it with power.

She’s the best part of this newspaper-set comedy. The pilot includes some good setups, and while some characters are a bit cliche, they have hearts, too. I could live without the roommate dynamic; we saw it on “The Big Bang Theory.”

It’s a little sappy, and the premise is a little silly, but as an unmarried 30-something, I find it relatable.

Try it

Animal Control

8 p.m. Thursdays on Fox

Joel McHale is back on TV, playing another acerbic longer-type character.

It’s an office comedy but without the mockumentary bits. It seemed to be striving for a “Parks & Recreation” feel, but it missed the mark.

The opening credits are surprisingly long, which is unusual these days. But as usual these days, I didn’t find the sitcom that funny, especially with a cast of stock characters.

Skip it

The Company you Keep

10 p.m. Sundays on ABC

I’m always OK with having Milo Ventimiglia back on my TV screen. But I’m not sure this time will last long.

The premise reminds me of “The Catch” from a few years ago, and it’s the same network.

There’s a family element, which feels more like a watered-down “Sopranos,” with cat-and-mouse plotlines.

I think this could’ve been a better movie; I doubt the premise can keep up week after week.

Skip it

Winter TV 2023 includes a lot of procedurals

I know crime shows are popular on broadcast TV, but this winter includes more procedurals than usual, and it’s a bit boring.

Here are my thoughts on new scripted TV shows:

That 90s show

All episodes streaming on Netflix

This reboot is one of the better ones, but it still has flaws.

The references to the old show and the 1990s are spot-on, along with the casting of Kelso’s kid.

But the kids’ ages are off in more ways than one, and frankly, they are not the best part of the show. Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith own it.

Try it

Will Trent

10 p.m. Tuesdays on ABC

This show really needed a better name. The police procedural features a lot of actors returning to TV.

You’re dropped right into the action in the pilot, but you’ll quickly find out there’s a lot of emotional baggage. It was a bit complicated to follow, and the pilot focuses on the wrong plot points (for example, the dog plot is useless).

I’d rather watch Daniel Craig’s Benoit Blanc, the better version of this character.

Skip it

Alert Missing Persons Unit

9 p.m. Mondays on Fox

On the flip side, this show had a lot of setup, which feels necessary for this crime procedural.

You’ve probably seen the actors before, too, so it makes sense they’re on network TV.

But the pilot’s end twist was so predictable; I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it on TV before.

Skip it

Night Court

8 p.m. Tuesdays on NBC

This is another reboot (verified via the opening credits sequence) starring Melissa Rauch and John Larouquette, who reprises his role from the original sitcom.

Rauch plays the new night court judge, stepping in her dad’s shoes. In real life, the original actor died, so this is a nice tribute.

There are other callbacks to the original without being confusing to new viewers.

It’s going for the emotional heart, but it’s still fairly predictable and not overly funny.

Try it (with caution)

Accused

9 p.m. Sundays on Fox

This anthology show started with an episode that seriously creeped me out.

This drama is based on an award-winning British show. Each episode focuses on a different story in a courtroom.

It’s a great way to get bigger-name actors into your show for one episode.

I found the first episode, focusing on a father and son, the latter of whom seems to have psychiatric issues, really freaked me out. It was terrifying to watch to unfold between the events leading up and the courtroom.

Try it (with caution)

Can we reinvent IP successfully?

Last night, I watched “Beauty and the Beast: A 30th Celebration.”

I was more of a Cinderella than Belle kid, but I have some special memories associated with various iterations of the 1991 Disney film.

“Beauty and the Beast” was the first Disney animated feature nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and it won two (song and score). The Broadway musical ran for 13 years; the live-action 2017 remake was nominated for two Oscars. It’s a big deal.

So it made sense to celebrate the anniversary of the Disney classic with a movie on ABC (it’s now streaming on Disney+). And Disney brought the star power, with H.E.R. starring as Belle, Shania Twain as Mrs. Potts, Martin Short as Lumiere, David Alan Grier as Cogsworth and Josh Groban as Beast. Not to mention Jon M. Chu (“Crazy Rich Asians,” the upcoming “Wicked” movies) was a producer on the hybrid animated and live-action special.

But did it work? Yes and no.

Rita Moreno introduced segments and revealed behind-the-scenes tidbits. The back and forth between animated and live was mostly seamless. The costumes were beautiful and just enough over the top to be fun but not crazy.

On the flip side, it had a lot of live-theater work that just doesn’t translate on a TV screen. H.E.R. and Twain do not have the vocal range to pull off the more significant songs, though they did their best.

My biggest complaint was it tried too hard. There were some segments that were avant-garde, which doesn’t work in an anniversary celebration of a classic.

All this to say, is it worth trying to reimagine IP?

It feels like everything entertainment is a franchise or re-imagination. Original ideas fall by the wayside.

Yet people crave original ideas. Look at the success of “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” We want something new and exciting, where we can’t know what will happen.

Franchises, sequels, etc., make money, no question. They have a built-in audience. It doesn’t matter if people don’t like it, so many others will flock to screens to stay in the loop. There’s a reason why the MCU has multiple phases in the works. (I’m not an MCU person, and with all the movies and TV shows, there’s zero chance I will catch up.)

So what are execs to do? Follow money or creativity? Of course, they’ll follow the money!

I give the producers credit for the 30th anniversary special. They tried to keep the classic feel while providing new views. It just didn’t always work, and ultimately it went too far to truly bring in the nostalgia it was aiming for.

As viewers, we must try to promote and view original content often. Because I’m not sure I want to watch a 50th-anniversary celebration of “Beauty and the Beast,” even though I’m sure execs will do something for it.

Fall TV 2022: CW finally adds more new shows

We’re rounding out the new fall broadcast shows, but nothing will make you run for the couch.

The Winchesters

8 p.m. Tuesdays on the CW

Look, I didn’t watch “Supernatural,” so this prequel series may be a little lost on me.

But the CW knows its brand, and this show fits right in with demons, magic, chasing and more.

The pilot is a little bumpy as it tries to explain a lot in 43 minutes, but I’m guessing it’ll keep course over time.

Try it (with caution)

Criss Angel’s Magic with the Stars

8 p.m. Saturdays on the CW

I doubt this competition show will last since it’s airing on Saturday nights, but good for Criss Angel for getting a TV deal?

But he looks so bored, and the other two judges are uninterested for the most part as well.

It’s another boring, repetitive competition show, just with magic.

Skip it

Lopez vs. Lopez

8 p.m. Fridays on NBC

George Lopez is back on TV…he’s aged a bit, but the jokes are the same.

This hacky comedy is like taking “The George Lopez Show” with 2020s generational differences and jokes, racial conflicts, and way better lighting. They even makes nods to the original theme song.

It’s simple and predictable, but there are some laughable moments (most were in the previews though).

Skip it

Fall TV 2022: October shows

Fall is here, and new broadcast shows are hitting your TV screen.

Just not with a bang, but with a dull roar.

East New York

9 p.m. Sundays on CBS

It’s another cop show, what can I say?

Look, it’s not my type of show, but I can appreciate its efforts on cop-citizen relations, diversity, race and other issues.

Plus the romance so far is very minimal, which I’m hoping stays that way. Not every show needs a romance.

The music could use an update. I get they’re going for different voices to represent East New York, but it feels very out of place on a CBS show with a mostly 40-50+ cast.

Try it (with caution)

The Real Love Boat

10 p.m. Wednesdays on CBS

This reality show is giving major “Celebrity Dating Game” vibes. Hosts Rebecca Romijn and Jerry O’Connell are clearly reading a teleprompter. Romijn has a look of “what am I doing here?” and O’Connell has it dialed to 11.

It’s too bad this show was probably filmed before the latest Bachelorette season, which also took place on a cruise ship. It’s also a total rip on “Bachelor in Paradise” with a bit of “Amazing Race” or “Big Brother” pulled in.

It should’ve at least aired in the summer for the light, fluffy TV season.

Skip it

Alaska Daily

10 p.m. Thursdays on ABC

Hillary Swank and Jeff Perry are definitely holding the star power in this drama, though it’s not either of their best work.

But the pacing is off. It speeds up and slows down, which was jarring.

There is a lot to throw into one pilot episode, but I’m not sure the drama can gain enough momentum in any of them.

Skip it

Walker Independence

9 p.m. Thursdays on the CW

I didn’t mind the original version of this drama, mainly because of Jared Padalecki’s charm.

But this prequel spinoff is terrible. I was so distracted immediately by the 2020s hair and makeup on lead Katherine McNamara (the drama takes place in the 1800s), it was hard to focus on much else.

The show can’t decide whether it’s a period piece or a sexy love and crime show, and neither option is good. It’s so overall dramatic it’s borderline cheesy.

Skip it

Fire Country

9 p.m. Fridays on CBS

To save some head scratching, this show stars the young boy in “The Pacifier.”

This drama kept my attention, even though the character connections are a little too neatly tied.

The pilot presented a lot of plotlines, but it wasn’t heavy-handed.

Try it (with caution)

Fall TV 2022: Here we go again

Fall is here, and it’s time to get cozy.

Though I don’t think these new shows are your next comfort watch, especially if you’re not a procedural fan.

Monarch

9 p.m. Tuesdays on Fox

This drama reminds me of “Filthy Rich,” only this time we get Susan Saradon instead of Kim Cattrall and it’s country music instead of a Christian TV empire.

The music is fun, but at its core it’s a dark family drama. It’s a bit “Succession” lite with more attention to beauty and age standards.

The pilot sets up a “Bunheads” style twist and a murder mystery, which is nothing we haven’t seen before, but it could go somewhere.

Try it

Quantum Leap

10 p.m. Mondays on NBC

This is a reboot of a late 80s/early 90s show. The pilot leaps to the 80s, and they definitely want you to watch live (episodes are streaming only on Peacock, but you can find them on the NBC website).

It’s a very run-of-the-mill reboot. Nothing super exciting, just a mission of saving someone in each time the main character leaps to.

Skip it

The Rookie Feds

Tuesdays 10 p.m. on ABC

This spinoff of “The Rookie” stars Niecy Nash-Betts plus a lot of other TV actors you may or may not recognize.

The premiere had a Nathan Fillion cameo to tie the shows together after Nash-Betts guest-starred on the original earlier this year. Plus, it’s great for marketing the ABC show that’s lasted more than two seasons.

It’s another procedural with a strong female lead, but the characters are cliche.

Skip it

So Help Me Todd

9 p.m. Thursdays on CBS

I know Marcia Gay Harden isn’t super A-list anymore, but wow, her character is this drama is awful.

It’s such a bad boomer stereotype, it ruined the affable character of her son, played by Skylar Astin.

Both deserve better than this predictable courtroom plus family drama.

Skip it

Thoughts on the 2022 Emmy nominations

It’s another year of lots of TV, and there is a lot to award.

The 2022 Emmy nominations were announced yesterday, and as always, there are snubs and surprises.

Here are my thoughts.

Lizzo is part of an emmy-nominated show

Lizzo’s reality competition show is on Prime Video, so while I knew it happened, I forgot.

But how cool? She’s making a name for herself, and I’m here for it.

Broadcast nominees

It boils down to 2 shows: “This is Us” getting snubbed and “Abbott Elementary” getting some love.

I appreciate the premise of “Abbott Elementary,” but it hits too close to home for me to enjoy since I know many teachers. It is well-loved by critics, so the network was the only thing that could’ve potentially spoiled it.

Usually, final seasons get a lot of Emmy love, so I’m shocked “This is Us” didn’t get any big nominations (it has one nomination for music). The penultimate episode was so poignant and touching, which is the show’s bread and butter, but I still think about how good that episode was months later.

A lot of nominees

The sheer number of nominees is staggering. There are so many per category, that it seems like they couldn’t narrow it down.

Very few categories have only five nominees, which is typically the norm.

There were more than five nominations in many of the categories last year, but most categories have even more this year.

I’d imagine it would be so hard to pick nominees, especially with the limited categories and bigger casts, but how do you vote or pick a winner?

Some needed changes

Separate the TV movie and limited series category. With the ever-rising number of limited series (most based on true stories, giving them more edge in voting), movies are tucked away.

Make a cast category like SAG. This would help supporting categories, which have too many nominees from the same show, and credits chemistry among casts.

For example, “Only Murders in the Building” deserves an ensemble credit. It would relieve the fact that Selena Gomez was snubbed. Yes, Steve Martin and Martin Short are legends, but she’s holding the show with them and deserves some credit.

Remove primetime from the name. Why are we still calling these the Primetime Emmys? With streaming, prime time isn’t really a thing. Course who am I to judge given my blog name.

The 74th Primetime Emmy Awards will air Monday, Sept. 12, on NBC.

The truth about dating reality shows

We all know reality shows aren’t really reality. They’re a contrived environment meant for entertainment.

So what happens when dating shows become a joke? TV networks create even more gimmicks.

Monday is the start of season 19 of The Bachelorette, or The Bachelorettes. Two women will be handing out roses the entire season. Bachelor Nation has done this twice before, but never for an entire season.

The two women, Gabby Windey and Rachel Recchia, were dumped by last season’s bachelor at the same time (please cue a massive eye roll for how dumb that was). So far, it seems they’ll make it through the journey without drama between them, but will it be dramatic in other ways?

Bachelor producers certainly want us to think so. This gimmick seems like a huge ploy to attempt to get ratings back up after recent declines.

While Bachelor Nation has been going strong for 20 years, its success rate isn’t good. One Bachelor is married to his winner (though two are married to their runners-up after both pulling switcheroos during the finale), and the most recent two are still in a relationship with the woman they chose.

The Bachelorettes have a slightly higher success rate, with four still married to their pick (another final couple announced their divorce in 2020 after eight years together).

The spinoff Bachelor in Paradise could be deemed the most successful in terms of couples staying together, but there’s not a clear-cut formula to mark success for that show.

The Bachelor and Bachelorette have all but monopolized the dating reality show realm. Its tradition of handing out roses, 1-on-1 and group dates, the limo entrances, the fantasy suites, and travel make it seem like such a fairytale.

And maybe early on it was. Who wouldn’t mind a little humiliation for travel opportunities, a swag bag and the chance to fall in love? (Contestants don’t get paid monetarily, but the lead does.)

But in the age of Tinder and other online dating sites, why bother taking unpaid time off work for a person you don’t know and probably doesn’t live in your state when you can just go online and find hundreds of available options?

In a word: influence.

It’s not just 15 minutes of fame anyone; contestants can buoy a 3- or 4-episode run (or a particularly interesting night-one or villain turn) into an Instagram influence deal and verified account.

Tayshia Adams, one of the more recent Bachelorettes, is an influencer and co-host. She was a phlebotomist. She’s not alone in leaving her profession for “lifestyle expert” work.

The romance doesn’t matter on this show anymore; it’s how you can score celebrity status.

Producers know it too. The dates are almost verbatim every season, and manipulation of contestants is fairly obvious. But people seem more than willing to sign up for humiliation at the chance of mediocre fame (ironically, at least one person each season is called out for not being there for the right reasons, aka finding love).

Reality TV isn’t great, let’s be real. It’s mindless entertainment that allows you to turn your brain off and laugh at other people. It’s watercooler TV, even in the age of remote work.

With as many options as there are these days, you can listen to or watch recaps, which typically boil down a 2-hour, with commercials episode into around 20 minutes, instead of watching the actual episode. You lose some of the drama, but you also save time while still staying in the know.

Because we all see the fame opportunities and Bachelor shows still have social and pop culture traction, other TV networks keep trying to find their own version.

This winter, Fox brought back Joe Millionaire with the subtitle “For Richer or Poorer,” but the bits I saw looked so early 2000s, it was almost gross. And neither couple lasted long past airing.

NBC brought “The Courtship,” which felt like Bridgerton meets Bachelor. The winning couple isn’t together anymore either.

The process doesn’t work. That’s obvious. But people love to watch other people crash and burn. And the fantasy of falling in love still rings so true for people, it’s hard to resist. We hope they work out, but deep down we know it’s unlikely.

I just wish the gimmicks would stop, but that’s what goes viral.

I could stop watching (I prefer the recaps more and more), but it’s hard not to watch to see what wacky date or trick they’ll try next.

Hulu’s three true-life stories examined

Truth can set you free…if you can handle it. 

Hulu has dropped three miniseries, eight episodes each, based on true events. 

Is this OK? Is this good TV? Is this informative in a harmful way? Let’s take a look.

Pam & Tommy

Casting/styling for realistic looks: Amazing

When first-look pictures came out, I was shocked at how Sebastian Stan and Lily James looked.

Accuracy: Iffy

Look, this is about a celebrity couple and their sex tape. It seems like some parts are accurate, like their whirlwind beach wedding, but some things happened but not in the order portrayed.

The show is based on an article (and bits of Tommy Lee’s biography), but this is the type of show where we’ll never know the whole truth, especially without the consent of Pam or Tommy.

Pamela has spoken out on her approval of the show, Lily James seems to have gotten her voice right.

Rating: C

This is a super-stylized show (#iykyk), and it’s not for everyone. The saga of Pam & Tommy is a lot about sex, but they still should have some privacy for their own items.

This was a private tape, and it feels wrong to capitalize on it, even if it’s for cultural context.

The Dropout

Casting/styling for realistic looks: Only the styling

Amanda Seyfried has a unique look, so it’s hard not to see her as herself, and she only has a slight resemblance to Elizabeth Holmes.

But they’ve got the look of her down. The red lips, the messy hair, the black outfits? Check.

Accuracy: Good

This is based on the podcast of the same name, so it has more research behind it. Plus, the story has been in the news for a while.

The imagery of Seyfried as Holmes for her 2017 testimony looks accurate.

The facts are there, from what we know. You’ll never know private conversations, just like we’re still unsure how real the deep voice of Holmes is.

Rating: B-

To help interpret the different years, music is used. But it’s so incredibly distracting, especially in the first two episodes, which cover roughly 2001 to 2007. We get it, the music was different then; it’s fine.

In my opinion, Holmes is a narcissist, and I have more questions about her than answers, even after watching a few episodes.

It’s an interesting story of ambition, technology and capitalism, but it could be harmful for the trust in healthcare.

The Girl from Plainville

Casting/styling for realistic looks: Great for the lead, OK for everyone else

Elle Fanning looks like Michelle Carter for the most part, especially in the later years.

But the supporting characters don’t look like their real-life counterparts at all.

Accuracy: Mixed

There’s fact and fiction in this miniseries based on an Esquire article.

She liked “Glee,” and talked about it often. But the couple didn’t see each other that much before he died.

The key, though, is the text messages are real. They’re part of court record, so they’re detailed exactly as they were typed.

Rating: B+

As much as I found Elle Fanning’s portrayal gritting (probably because she’s playing a vapid 15-year-old at the start), it’s such an intriguing story.

I zipped through the first few episodes and haven’t stopped thinking about it.

It’s a little scary to focus on something dubbed the “texting suicide case,” but I think we see something beyond glamorizing suicide by instead focusing on grief and social media’s influence on society.

All of the episodes for all three series are on Hulu. It’s a lot of true-life stories, but remember TV isn’t real.

Oscars 2022: Did the awards show sink or swim?

It’s the slap seen ’round the world. Not heard…because the audio was cut quickly from the U.S. broadcast.

This year’s Oscars tried some new things, but did it work?

Unfortunately, it’s hard to say since Will Smith slapping Chris Rock after Rock made a pointed jab at Smith’s wife Jada is what everyone’s talking about. I don’t have commentary to add to this moment; none of it was OK.

Here are my thoughts on the 94th Academy Awards:

Did the 3 hosts work?

Hiring three women is cheaper than hiring one man to host was one of my favorite jokes of the night because it’s funny while being relevant.

Amy Schumer, Wanda Skyes and Regina Hall hosted this year’s ceremony. They were announced late and are the first to host in three years.

All considering I thought they did well. They had funny bits, though some ran long (Skyes at the academy museum) and felt thirsty (Hall’s “random” COVID test callout).

The segmentation of one host at a time felt disjointed and rigid over the night’s run. They were best together.

Overall I prefer having hosts to no host. And more than one allows synergy and takes the pressure off.

Did cutting awards work?

Pre-Oscars, the biggest controversy seemingly was cutting eight awards from the telecast. Except they weren’t cut; they were announced early and edited into the show.

Usually, these nominees are stuck in the back of the theater because they aren’t big names. So in a way, it saved filler time by cutting out the part where they have to run to the stage to get the award.

But the point was to reduce the overall run time. And the Oscars still ran for more than three and a half hours.

There were other ways to ensure the ceremony went less than three hours. While the anniversary bits were nice, they could’ve been shorter (especially the Pulp Fiction one since it was a 28-year anniversary, not a milestone year like 50 or 25).

I actually liked that the Oscars were more of a celebration of movies overall, not just this year’s nominees. The nostalgia made it more enjoyable. But it was disappointing to have some of it take away from well-deserved wins.

What news source should you use for your Oscar pool?

I reviewed predictions from Entertainment Weekly, Vanity Fair, Gold Derby, The New York Times and NPR ahead of Sunday’s ceremony.

The best predictor? It’s a toss-up between Entertainment Weekly and Vanity Fair; the two publications got the most right. Entertainment Weekly got all the craft categories right but missed Best Picture. Vanity Fair got all the top-of-the-line winners correct.

So if your Oscar pool is weighted, you can decide where to go next year.

What were my standout moments?

I think it’s interesting that Billie Eilish won an Oscar before Taylor Swift or Beyonce. Eilish’s reaction was joyous.

I appreciated that during Troy Katsur’s acceptance speech, his interpreter was off-camera so we could focus on Katsur, the true winner.

The In Memorium segment was much livelier than normal, and I liked that it was more celebratory than sad.

I’m glad they added the Best Song performances back into the telecast, along with using movie soundtrack songs for the background scores for various parts of the night.

What did you think of the Oscars?