So the big TV news today is the house clearing at The X Factor, as host Steve Jones and judges Nicole Scherzinger and Paula Abdul were shown the door. From what I can gather, Jones was thought to be too hard on contestants, Scherzinger never connected with fans, and Abdul was too "soft," which could hardly have been a surprise given the light touch she used for criticism on American Idol.
As much as this shake-up puts the show in the news, I don't think it will do anything to correct what I saw as the main problem with the show when it first aired: the format is tired and the show itself too derivative of the other music performance reality shows. I think what's really hampered the show was The Voice, which beat The X Factor to featuring live performances and teams mentored by an industry heavyweight. The only twist The X Factor could come up with - having the teams be all of one type - didn't bring enough interest, especially with the team made of groups. If you have to create two groups out of rejected individual performers, then you may want to reconsider if you need a team of groups at all.
I suppose some really big names may bring in more viewers - Mariah Carey is getting mentioned quite a bit as a future judge, and there's been some idle speculation about Ryan Seacrest moving over to host - but regardless of who they bring in, what the show really needs is a truly fresh approach. I have no idea what that would be, but I'm not the one getting paid millions by Fox. Good luck, Simon.
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Beauty of DVR Viewing
The number of shows we record on our DVR generally has us catching up with regular season shows over the summer and watching summer programming during the first half of the new season, with occasional sampling of new shows to see if we're going to keep watching them. This puts me behind the eight ball in discussing developments on existing shows (like how much Glee apparently sucks this year, save Dot Marie Jones), but it has given us a great new approach to some of the summer shows, most notably Hell's Kitchen and Master Chef.
.The approach is simple: watch one episode of each show each night until it's over. I know this sort of condensed season viewing isn't new for folks (especially those of you who stream seasons or watch DVDs), but it's been very helpful for these two shows specifically, as:
1. You can blow through episodes quickly, as you can skip over the ads and excessive recapping (really, I don't need 30 seconds to remind me of what happened two to four minutes ago). Not too unlike regular DVR viewing, but some added value for these shows.
2. You get to know the contestants very quickly. This is less of a problem on Hell's Kitchen, whose contestants tend towards oversized personalities. But it's really helpful for Master Chef, whose contestant pool starts large and, even with a quick cutdown, remains large enough to allow you to lose people in the first few weeks. You see these people every night, though, and it's easier to keep track of folks.
(An aside for Master Chef: please stop the in-program ads for your knives and cookware. Graham Elliot deserves better, I think.)
I will say that this has helped Master Chef seem more compelling this season, though some more interesting competitors have helped, too. They're certainly easier to take than the braying jackasses who tend make up most of Hell's Kitchen.
.The approach is simple: watch one episode of each show each night until it's over. I know this sort of condensed season viewing isn't new for folks (especially those of you who stream seasons or watch DVDs), but it's been very helpful for these two shows specifically, as:
1. You can blow through episodes quickly, as you can skip over the ads and excessive recapping (really, I don't need 30 seconds to remind me of what happened two to four minutes ago). Not too unlike regular DVR viewing, but some added value for these shows.
2. You get to know the contestants very quickly. This is less of a problem on Hell's Kitchen, whose contestants tend towards oversized personalities. But it's really helpful for Master Chef, whose contestant pool starts large and, even with a quick cutdown, remains large enough to allow you to lose people in the first few weeks. You see these people every night, though, and it's easier to keep track of folks.
(An aside for Master Chef: please stop the in-program ads for your knives and cookware. Graham Elliot deserves better, I think.)
I will say that this has helped Master Chef seem more compelling this season, though some more interesting competitors have helped, too. They're certainly easier to take than the braying jackasses who tend make up most of Hell's Kitchen.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
New on TV: The X Factor
If you've consumed mass media for more than three minutes over the last year, you've seen or heard something about Simon Cowell's new singing competition show, The X Factor. And if you've consumed mass media for more than three minutes over the last decade or so, you've probably seen a show that's very similar to The X Factor.
As much as the show would like to stake a claim to originality or uniqueness, it's pretty much American Idol meets America's Got Talent meets The Voice meets (insert show here). Auditions happen, some good and some bad (thankfully, this show isn't drawing out the bad like AI does). Judges say things, and some contestants are passed through to the next stage of the competition, all in the hopes of winning the $5 million grand prize (now actually in cash rather than a potential for making that much).
That being said, there are some differences between this show and Cowell's old show. Contestants can be any age 12 and up, and can include groups. Those making it past the audition are put into four groups (men, women, groups and "older performers") for mentoring and development prior to competing. In fact, this sounds a lot more like The Voice than anything else.
The auditions also take place in front of a live audience (like The Voice, again, which makes me wonder who is ripping off who here), comprised of 4300 of the loudest, most easily entertained people the producers could find. Seriously, this audience will clap and holler for pretty much anything (outside of the guy who dropped his pants during his audition, he got booed). I do think the audience makes a difference - it can build or erode confidence depending on the performance, certainly - but I wish it was a little less manic.
The judging panel is comprised of Cowell, Paula Abdul, Nicole Scherzinger (replacing Cheryl Cole and her Geordie accent) and L.A. Reid. They do pretty much what judging panels do on these shows, and are thankfully more willing to be honest than the AI folks. I especially like L.A. Reid, who manages to be no-nonsense without being a jerk. The producers did try to drum up some sort of conflict with him and Cowell based on their disagreements over contestants, to no avail. At this point at least, there's no ill will there.
People who are into the whole Simon-Paula dynamic, or into the glitter and unicorn-filled world that exists in Paula's head, will be disappointed. In the early going, at least, they played nice and Paula was as coherent as the next person.
There's a heavy redemption angle to the show, as the ratio of successful contestant to compelling/emotional backstory was pretty much one to one. I will say that hearing about the importance of the audition or how someone's whole life is about this moment resonates more when its from a single mom in her 40s than some 19 year old whose "struggle" only exists in their head. I have nothing against redemption, just hoping this doesn't turn into Dr. Phil: The Musical or something.
Whether or not the show is worth watching hinges on your expectations. If you're expecting a singing competition that's new and fresh and full of Fox attitude, well, sorry, you're going to be disappointed. If you just like singing competitions and are sick of the parade of meh that's been coming out of AI the last few years, you may find something to like here.
As much as the show would like to stake a claim to originality or uniqueness, it's pretty much American Idol meets America's Got Talent meets The Voice meets (insert show here). Auditions happen, some good and some bad (thankfully, this show isn't drawing out the bad like AI does). Judges say things, and some contestants are passed through to the next stage of the competition, all in the hopes of winning the $5 million grand prize (now actually in cash rather than a potential for making that much).
That being said, there are some differences between this show and Cowell's old show. Contestants can be any age 12 and up, and can include groups. Those making it past the audition are put into four groups (men, women, groups and "older performers") for mentoring and development prior to competing. In fact, this sounds a lot more like The Voice than anything else.
The auditions also take place in front of a live audience (like The Voice, again, which makes me wonder who is ripping off who here), comprised of 4300 of the loudest, most easily entertained people the producers could find. Seriously, this audience will clap and holler for pretty much anything (outside of the guy who dropped his pants during his audition, he got booed). I do think the audience makes a difference - it can build or erode confidence depending on the performance, certainly - but I wish it was a little less manic.
The judging panel is comprised of Cowell, Paula Abdul, Nicole Scherzinger (replacing Cheryl Cole and her Geordie accent) and L.A. Reid. They do pretty much what judging panels do on these shows, and are thankfully more willing to be honest than the AI folks. I especially like L.A. Reid, who manages to be no-nonsense without being a jerk. The producers did try to drum up some sort of conflict with him and Cowell based on their disagreements over contestants, to no avail. At this point at least, there's no ill will there.
People who are into the whole Simon-Paula dynamic, or into the glitter and unicorn-filled world that exists in Paula's head, will be disappointed. In the early going, at least, they played nice and Paula was as coherent as the next person.
There's a heavy redemption angle to the show, as the ratio of successful contestant to compelling/emotional backstory was pretty much one to one. I will say that hearing about the importance of the audition or how someone's whole life is about this moment resonates more when its from a single mom in her 40s than some 19 year old whose "struggle" only exists in their head. I have nothing against redemption, just hoping this doesn't turn into Dr. Phil: The Musical or something.
Whether or not the show is worth watching hinges on your expectations. If you're expecting a singing competition that's new and fresh and full of Fox attitude, well, sorry, you're going to be disappointed. If you just like singing competitions and are sick of the parade of meh that's been coming out of AI the last few years, you may find something to like here.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
New (To Me) on TV: Master Chef
The latest Fox-based Gordon Ramsey project, I'm catching up on it via the DVR. It's more or less Top Chef for amateur cooks, though somewhat in reverse. The main challenge occurs first (typically in teams, though not always), and the losers then have to compete against each other to see who goes home (a "Pressure Cooker" challenge). The main competition has mostly been cooking for groups (Marines, truckers, and in the next episode a wedding), while the elimination events have required contestants to pick out ingredients from a finished dish or name ingredients in their natural state using all the senses except taste.
It's an OK derivation of the cooking competition, helped by Ramsey taking it down several notches. His co-judges, chef Graham Elliot and restraunteur/vintner Joe Bastianich (frequent partner of Mario Batali's places and son of PBS fave Lidia) add a kind of good cop/bad cop element, as Elliot is more likely to champion contestants while Bastianich is more cutting (and, occasionally, pervy, at least in vibe). It is still a Fox production, which means lots of useless voice overs, banal contestant interviews, and the like.
It's not the best show out there, and it's not even the best cooking show out there. But I do like that there's now an outlet for amateur chefs, even if it's one that can tend towards insufferable. It's still better than The Next Food Network Star, though that's not saying much.
It's an OK derivation of the cooking competition, helped by Ramsey taking it down several notches. His co-judges, chef Graham Elliot and restraunteur/vintner Joe Bastianich (frequent partner of Mario Batali's places and son of PBS fave Lidia) add a kind of good cop/bad cop element, as Elliot is more likely to champion contestants while Bastianich is more cutting (and, occasionally, pervy, at least in vibe). It is still a Fox production, which means lots of useless voice overs, banal contestant interviews, and the like.
It's not the best show out there, and it's not even the best cooking show out there. But I do like that there's now an outlet for amateur chefs, even if it's one that can tend towards insufferable. It's still better than The Next Food Network Star, though that's not saying much.
Friday, July 17, 2009
New on TV: The Great American Road Trip
At the start of this NBC summer reality show, the host makes an important point when he tells the competing families that this is not a race. And given the nature of the show - seven families going from Chicago to LA in RVs while competing in challenges along the way - it was hard not to think (with reference to a similar CBS show) that is is also not amazing.
That being said, the show isn't awful in any obvious way. The host, Reno Collier (a comedian best known as Larry the Cable Guy's opening act), is game if not particularly dynamic. The families, as you'd expect, come from the various elements of our great melting pot/salad bowl. Just with more "energy." And in the case of the family from Texas, a set of gigantic fake knockers.
But I digress.
The point of the show is that the families drive their RVs to a location with some historic impact (such as Lincoln's home in Springfield, Illinois) and compete in a task. The winner gets a prize, while the bottom three families participate in another challenge, with the loser there going home. In the first episode, the yuppies from Westport, Connecticut, who saw their education as their greatest asset, lost in large part because they forgot that the shortest distance between to points is a straight line. I'm sure that'll keep them up nights in their McMansion.
And, of course, there's drama along the way, but as it's a family show the drama is more light comedy than something from Chekov. The Alabama housewife and Yonkers dad have a desperate moment while trying to come to grips with the uses for "youse" and "y'all." The Yonkers mom accuses the downstate Illinois family of cheating. The Long Island daughter throws a tantrum over gummy worms. Woo.
So while it's not particularly worth seeking out, it's not the worst a network could do for a summer series (ABC's The Scholar, for example). Just don't expect anything surprising.
That being said, the show isn't awful in any obvious way. The host, Reno Collier (a comedian best known as Larry the Cable Guy's opening act), is game if not particularly dynamic. The families, as you'd expect, come from the various elements of our great melting pot/salad bowl. Just with more "energy." And in the case of the family from Texas, a set of gigantic fake knockers.
But I digress.
The point of the show is that the families drive their RVs to a location with some historic impact (such as Lincoln's home in Springfield, Illinois) and compete in a task. The winner gets a prize, while the bottom three families participate in another challenge, with the loser there going home. In the first episode, the yuppies from Westport, Connecticut, who saw their education as their greatest asset, lost in large part because they forgot that the shortest distance between to points is a straight line. I'm sure that'll keep them up nights in their McMansion.
And, of course, there's drama along the way, but as it's a family show the drama is more light comedy than something from Chekov. The Alabama housewife and Yonkers dad have a desperate moment while trying to come to grips with the uses for "youse" and "y'all." The Yonkers mom accuses the downstate Illinois family of cheating. The Long Island daughter throws a tantrum over gummy worms. Woo.
So while it's not particularly worth seeking out, it's not the worst a network could do for a summer series (ABC's The Scholar, for example). Just don't expect anything surprising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)