Last year I started watching "Harry's Law" and couldn't wait for each new episode. This year, I watched the second episode and could less if I ever watch it again. Why? Because they took away the totally original idea of the first season and turned it into "Boston Legal".
I loved the character of Harry because she was a woman who wanted something more out of life than the same old boring legal practice. She stepped out of her safe life and into something entirely new to her. I loved the shoes, the neighbors walking in off the streets, and I especially loved when she pulled the gun on the street's protection guy. She embraced this new life.
The whole concept of the show was a cast of characters who were totally outside of their safety zone, there was room for them to grow, to experience a life that was totally unexpected. So why the change? Why throw away the complete originality of the first season to replay a tired, dead show with a different cast of characters?
What is wrong with originality? I know there is "nothing new under the sun" but when you can put an original spin on that old theme why shrug it off? Why do we feel the need to make our stories conform to the mold created by those who wrote the stories before us?
I'm working on a short story now with a fifty-something bag lady playing a superhero of sorts. And I keep asking myself is this going to fly? Will readers accept an old lady playing superhero or are they going to say that's impossible? I can hear the whispers in my ear, superheroes have muscles and form fitting costumes and the women are beautiful with big boobs. How is my character going to fit into this genre?
So, I wonder, does stepping away from an original idea have more to do with the writer's fear of actually writing that original piece or the fear that editors and readers won't accept the story because it doesn't fit into their perception of what the story should be?
11 comments:
I can't tell you how often I have watched a show do this. Drain what little originality there was out by the middle of the season.
I think series that are marginal in the ratings do this most often.
Yes, they seem to think that by giving it a sameness to every other show on TV that people will watch. That said, I'm loving Terra Nova, because it is so different from the ususal fare. Don't know if it will survive the ratings war but I'll enjoy it while I can.
How much of this has to do with the writing being turned over to less original writers? It seems sometimes that the current crop of screenwriters knows only other movies and TV shows and lacks what it takes to think their way out of that box.
Yes, it seems like they don't know how to deal with real people at times, Ron. Everything is a remake of someone else's original idea, be it TV show, video game, or Saturday morning cartoons.
I should have stuck with that one. Maybe I can catch on DVD.
Walking Dead was much better last year and I think they did lose their major writer. Now it's like LOST with zombines
I hate when t.v. shows do that.
I remember watching the John LaRoquette show back in the late 90's, and whereas the first season was somewhat dark and explored the problems a recovering alcolhic running a bus station goes through, they killed the show in the second season by trying to turn it into a comedy.
Ditto for another show that featured James Earl Jones. The first season was a bit dark and got viewers hooked, then they killed it by turning it into a comedy.
All of this stupidity has been a major factor in me not watching network t.v. since th 1990's.
Does anyone remember Shannon's Deal from the 90s? Jamie Sheridan played a lawyer acting like a real lawyer, getting the best deal he could and staying out of court at all costs. I had never seen that before. It didn't last long enough for the people behind it to lose their nerve.
Boy, Blogger really hates me of late! All my comments were vanished because I don't exist :)
I haven't watched The Walking Dead this year, Patti. I get bored easily with series if I don't find a character I really like and want to watch. I liked the series until he joined up with his wife's group of survivors and none of those characters appealed to me enough to keep watching.
One of the hazards of being pigeon-holed, G. They want you to do the same thing all the time.
I remember that show, Al! Of course, I'm a big fan of Jamie Sheridan. And yes, a lawyer show must have courtroom drama or it just doesn't fly for the powers that be. Expectations!
Sandra, I wait with bated breath for the story about the fifty-something bag lady superhero. Do it!
This one is tough for me because I thoroughly loved Boston Legal. Last year, I was on Harry's Law b/c it was the only David Kelley show out there. This year, in episode one, I realized that they recreated Boston Legal. Sure, I liked season one, but I'm still liking the show. Have to say that the meta-nature of the Harry's Law episode when Brittany Snow's character left and Nate Corddry's character basically said exactly what you just said was spot on and touching. And Tommy Jefferson is basically Denny Crane. And Mark Valley is there, too. Despite all of that, I'm still enjoying the show. It's a nice 1-2 punch when paired with the Ted Danson-led CSI.
Working on it, Anita! I just have to take a big stick to those annoying voices :)
My problem is I didn't care for Boston Legal, Scott. Over the top characters like Tommy and Denny tend to grate on my nerves. They seem more like clowns than real characters to me.
I do like Ted Danson on CSI though, he's a nice change.
Post a Comment