I checked out two new shows last night in 2005's new crop.
First up was Bones, on Fox. This was worth trying for me basically just because I'm a Buffy-verse fan, and I'm stalking David Boreanaz to see if his new show is any good. The answer is... sorta. There was nothing bad about the show in particular. The banter was good. The mystery was somewhat interesting. The problem for me is, this is episodic forensic crime drama #47 on TV. Thus, for me to even consider making "appointment TV" out of it, it would have to be something exceptional. It would have to be to that genre as Battlestar Galactica is to sci-fi. Otherwise: thanks, but no thanks. Too many shows on for me as it is. That was Bones in a nutshell -- decent, but not noteworthy enough to rise to the top of the heap.
Then came Supernatural on The WB. This is one of about four new "spooky" shows the networks are debuting this fall. So here again, the same situation -- if this one isn't exceptional in some way, it gets kicked to the curb. Well... the jury's still out on this one. The plot was nothing revolutionary. The exposition was rather ham-fistedly handled. But again (as with Bones), the banter between the leads played well enough.
The thing that made Supernatural possibly worth a look is that it was genuinely creepy. Think of some of the more "horrific" episodes of The X-Files (as opposed to the more bizarre, sci-fi alien stories). That was the vibe tapped by Supernatural, and it did so multiple times throughout the premiere. If the show continues to refine this edge, it could be the one legitimately scary show on television. And, as I'm reminding you now for the umpteenth time, I love a good scary movie. So, I'm probably in for sampling this once or twice more to see what happens.
6 comments:
Supernatural featured a fairly unique piece of imagery -- twice. It was genuinely creepy, but I'm sick sick sick of the "strings of evil" that play when bad things happen.
Excellent. I'll just get you to watch all the new shows for me and tell me what I should be seeing. :)
Rumor has it there really aren't any major breakout hits this year. Last year, critics were all abuzz about Lost, Desperate Housewives, and Veronica Mars. (And rightly so.) This year, the word is there really aren't any worthy successors to those thrones.
As they say, stay tuned...
I saw a print ad for Reunion today, which looks like a 20 episode season told at the rate of one per year in the characters' lives. If you ever saw a BBC drama called Our Friends In The North, it was an interesting format - the total antithesis of 24! Instead of seeing every tiny piece of action for a day, characters essentially go and have lives and then meet up to report what they've done.
I'm scared there could be some really bad make-up as they age, but I'm interested to hear what you make of it once it airs.
Is anyone else dreading the new "Night Stalker"? For those of you old enough to have watched the original in first-run, this punk kid they have playing Carl Kolchak just doesn't cut it. The joy of the original was the rumpled suit, bad hat, attitude of Darren McGavin. This year is really looking weird with the supernatural.
Actually, I've seen Reunion, which debuted last Thursday. I didn't mention it because I'm probably giving up on it. Maybe I'll do a more detailed post on why in the next couple days. The are re-running the first episode tomorrow night, though, if you want to judge for yourself.
Post a Comment