Friday, September 01, 2006

Vanished: better off vanishing from primetime

Knowing ahead of time that I will practically have no time to watch much new TV of the 2006-2007 season, I'm trying to do my best by getting a preview of new shows that exhibit some promise. Fox's latest offering "Vanished" is not one of these shows.

I only feel compelled to write about it because it misses the mark on so many levels, it's kind of maddening to think about why it was greenlighted. Basic premise: Senator's wife disappears, FBI gets involved, Senator's wife has shady dealings revealed (surprise, surprise), mystic symbols somehow relating to the disappearance start appearing in all the right places at all the right times.

Let's see how "Vanished" plays up to bat.

* Identity crisis: Is this a serial drama or an episodic drama? It seems to be a procedural that wants badly to be a serial. Each episode provides a high body count for a convenient FBI autopsy. Each episode gives us new FBI tricks to deepen the investigation (ATM camera with high-tech digital imaging quality, all within the hour; high-tech call center with instant-access organizational charts at the press of a button). Each episode features the Senator's teenage brood in some kind of trouble. But hold the phone.... we get random Celtic-like symbols at crime scenes! The senator has an ex-wife in town who's talked about a lot but apparently hasn't been casted yet! Keep tuning in viewer, questions will be answered! STRIKE ONE.

* Serial television tunnel vision. "Vanished" is all based around the disappearance of the Senator's wife. So, what happens when she's found? Show's over, plain and simple. No getting around that fact. They can't possibly drag this out for more than a season, two at its biggest stretch. Why are networks greenlighting serial shows that don't have a prayer for longevity? STRIKE TWO.

* Trashy smash cuts between scenes. Dear Fox: Computer generated cuts do not make good TV, they waste screentime. They're not good for "Prison Break", and they're not good for "Vanished". This is a kind of unfortunate afterbirth from "CSI", with its "let's follow the bullet as it entered the body!" sequences in flashback, giving us a gory pin-hole trajectory through a body coupled with gooshy sound effects. Maybe it worked for "CSI"'s first season way back when, but it's really old now. "Vanished" goes for variations on a theme, like computer-generated cuts as we follow the data as travels through the internet! We follow telephone calls as they travel through the wires! We also get white noise dissolves to commericals, as if we're looking through television static. Très artsy, now please stop. This is all a minor gripe, but still a gripe, and one that lessens the quality of the show. BALL ONE.

* (side note: Any show that relies on the audience to read emails sent to a character who is mentioned but never seen, or to read text messages between characters, is in dire danger. This violates the very tenets of screenwriting. Visual writing is paramount: what is seen must be written, and to maintain high energy there must be movement. Forcing the viewer to piece together overtly ominous plot points by watching some kid write e-mails to his offscreen may-or-may-not-be criminal mother is the opposite of energetic writing with movement.)

* Who's story is this anyway? The viewer is being asked to follow a couple of different storylines that don't gel together very well. Unfortunately, this makes their characters misguided, too. "Vanished" has three compartments: the FBI investigation into the disappearance, the Senator and his family issues, and the media coverage of the disappearance. Now, all good serial dramas balance multiple storylines with a large cast of characters that don't exactly always interact with each and every one another. "Vanished" goes to pains to try to keep each of these stories on the same track, all pointed in the direction of tracking down this missing wife.... thereby eliminating much room for growth. This seems to be a problem of a lot of serial television concepts, tying right back to the impossibility of multi-season longevity. This is something they're going to have to hammer out, and hammer out soon, so they get a pass, with strong suggestions to get in shape. BALL TWO.

* The cast. Some things look good on paper, such as Ming Na as a spunky FBI agent. Too bad she seems more content taking orders rather than carving out an interesting character for herself. Rebecca "The Noxema Girl" Gayheart plays a sexy/take-no-prisoners/predictably-smarmy television news reporter. Unfortunately she doesn't have the poise of an actual television news reporter and delivers each of her lines like an actor. At least she'll always have Urban Legend.... which she rocked in. The other characters are swimming through stereotype (the lead FBI agent guy plays the hardened officer committed to his cases, barking orders and slamming things around, but damn it he wants to get to the bottom of this! The senator character kind of bumbles around in shock over his goodie-goodie wife's apparently intricate past, just like we'd expect him to). Didn't the writers have a plan to write about anybody interesting? The characters are the key to the show, and if they suck, your show sucks. STRIKE THREE.

This show blows.

And bad news: "The Nine", forthcoming from ABC, isn't all that great either, and falls prey to the same serial television tunnel vision problem. But that's for another post.

6 comments:

Writeprocrastinator said...

Ooh, ooh, ITSW, I'm right with you because I feel a rant comin' on!

First...

"Senator's wife has shady dealings revealed (surprise, surprise), mystic symbols somehow relating to the disappearance start appearing in all the right places at all the right times."

Good, let's mix the cryptic runes and paganism of "Millennium" with the Eve complex of "24." Okay, President Palmer's wife was one of the ultimate villains, along with Nina. Fine, it's been done. Okay, no more wives or ex-girlfriends, please, networks?

"Identity crisis: Is this a serial drama or an episodic drama? It seems to be a procedural that wants badly to be a serial."

At least you will try to endure these confused-genre dramas, I pass them up on face value. I can't understand it, are there showrunners anymore at Fox, NBC or ABC? Or do they hand it off to the first person that shows up for the writers' meetings?

"Each episode provides a high body count for a convenient FBI autopsy."

"Plausibility," why have you forsaken us?

"Each episode gives us new FBI tricks to deepen the investigation"

Gadgetry instead of trying to craft a real mystery...hmmm, tell me that these shows aren't written on the fly.

"Each episode features the Senator's teenage brood in some kind of trouble."

Fox Network Head: Let's base all of our shows on "24" or "American Idol!"

"The senator has an ex-wife in town who's talked about a lot but apparently hasn't been casted yet! Keep tuning in viewer, questions will be answered! STRIKE ONE."

Stunt-casting? Again, why not substitute story, instead of gimmicks?

"So, what happens when she's found? Show's over, plain and simple. No getting around that fact. They can't possibly drag this out for more than a season, two at its biggest stretch."

Half of the previews of the new shows that I've seen went this same route. Which begs the question...

"Why are networks greenlighting serial shows that don't have a prayer for longevity? STRIKE TWO."

This I really don't get. You can make only so much on DVD sales and overseas syndi. Worse yet, what if no one remembers your show? Who is going to buy it then?

I seriously think that they are setting dramas up to fail on purpose, only because there is no other rational explanation. They just want you to watch that particular slot so that they can build up a big enough audience for the reality show that will slot in there as soon as this is canceled.

* Trashy smash cuts between scenes. Dear Fox: Computer generated cuts do not make good TV, they waste screentime."

Unfortunately, they believe all of America is ADD-addled. You hire people to stand around for hours, you might as well film them. It was good enough for TV and film for nearly eighty years, wasn't it?

"This is all a minor gripe, but still a gripe, and one that lessens the quality of the show. BALL ONE."

It's not minor anymore, it's on the verge of a nasty plague.

I'm surprised that I see other screenwriting blogs criticize movies for lazy writing, but you are one of the few that points out TV. Why should TV get a pass? Especially since TV doesn't have to endure as many studio head changes, lack of funding or development hell. Kudos to you.

"Ming Na as a spunky FBI agent."

With the exception of Sandra Oh, no Asian woman will ever be offered a good TV role. This is one of the main reasons I didn't even bother to watch this show.

"Rebecca 'The Noxema Girl' Gayheart plays a sexy/take-no-prisoners/predictably-smarmy television news reporter."

Now, with the exception of Jaime Pressly, actors of Rebecca's caliber get stuck in the horror movie/Lifetime Channel ghetto. I'm not slamming these fine actors, I just think that they should've cast someone that I know for a fact, would see a good TV script.

"The other characters are swimming through stereotype (the lead FBI agent guy plays the hardened officer committed to his cases, barking orders and slamming things around, but damn it he wants to get to the bottom of this!"

WTF? Send them old episodes of "C-16" and "Line of Fire."

Anonymous said...

Dude,

Doesn't Twin Peaks' first season almost completely rely on "Who killed Laura Palmer?" Once we found out the show only got better. Is it different for Twin Peaks because they built other story lines?

Mike

is that so wrong? said...

WP -- What a response! I'm glad you're on board with my loony ravings about how crappy TV shows can be sometimes. Hope on the horizon: I just saw the pilot for "Heroes" and am pretty impressed. Stay tuned for a positive (*shock*) blog post about it.

Mike -- I have to be careful not to give a disseration on the topic (wait.... maybe that's a good idea), but you asked for it.... You're right that "Twin Peaks" started off with the 'Who killed Laura Palmer?' conceit, but from the very first episode the show went at very calculated pains to introduce the viewer to the world of the characters in Twin Peaks and try to pull us away from the Laura Palmer mystery. Lynch himself said that if he had his way, no one would ever find out who killed Laura Palmer because that's not what the show was supposed to be all about. So, the show has lots of balls in the air, many of which are not remotely connected to Laura Palmer (Packard family, Ed/Norma, Jean Renault, Windom Earle, etc); the show ultimately was supposed to use the Laura Palmer mystery to allow the other stories to expand. So, "Twin Peaks" passes the test of not being afflicted with serial television tunnel vision because every aspect of it isn't anchored to the same conceit. That said, the viewers demanded an answer to the Laura Palmer mystery and they got it, and unfortunately the show wasn't able to recover; once the audience got its answer, they left. BUT.... once the show regained its footing and developed the Black Lodge stuff (and linked it back around to Laura Palmer, brilliant brilliant brilliant), "Twin Peaks" was never better.... and the series finale is perhaps one of my favorite (if not my very favoite) episode of any TV ever. And I know you agree. =)

Writeprocrastinator said...

"WP -- What a response! I'm glad you're on board with my loony ravings about how crappy TV shows can be sometimes."

ITSW,

Absolutely and thank you for getting my blood boiling, I was going to go on a rant during my vacation about...

"Hope on the horizon: I just saw the pilot for "Heroes" and am pretty impressed."

I was impressed with four of the five ads I saw for "Heroes," which United showed on a contiuous loop that verged on irritating. The one of that I didn't like was the cheerleader jumping off the oil refinery container.

I didn't like it the first time, nor the next eight (thank you *expletive* much, United!).

"Stay tuned for a positive (*shock*) blog post about it."

To be fair, I saw this without audio, though I was amazed at the film quality production design. I love stories of synchronicity when they mesh and the stories that seemed to be about that, drew my attention the most.

I look forward to your post and your review of the pilot after it comes on.

I don't have HBO and I have to catch their shows on DVD. So I just saw a preview for this season of "The Wire" and what amazes me is how HBO seems to pull no punches when it comes to story and dialogue.

I've been hoping for the last five years that the networks would follow cable's example, but it seems that they only want to push the limits of gore and taste, instead of placing a higher value on story. When cats like Rod Lurie get fed up and they follow cats like David Milch into cable, we the non-premium cable audience are the losers.

Writeprocrastinator said...

"I'm glad you're on board with my loony ravings about how crappy TV shows can be sometimes."

BTW, how are the ravings "loony," when these so-called writers violate the basic tenents of story-telling?

Writeprocrastinator said...

"Hope on the horizon: I just saw the pilot for "Heroes" and am pretty impressed. Stay tuned for a positive (*shock*) blog post about it."

Ignore that Write Procrastinator assh*le and please, post it ; )