There are two types of shows out there. There’s the type
of show that wins Emmys, and the type of show that, well … is
just there. In other words, it’s on the WB or UPN. (Note: I
will refer to WB and UPN as one entity since they are almost the
same.)
WB and UPN aren’t trying to win Emmys. They’re just
trying to get viewers and don’t care if the shows are stupid.
Take, for example, “Charmed.” What was Aaron Spelling
thinking when he created a show about three young witches and cast
Shannon Doherty as one of them? Who would have thought that it
would attract viewers? Even my brother watches it (I am ashamed to
say).
Then there’s “Smallville.” Who would have
thought that somebody could make Superman sizzle after Christopher
Reeves and Dean Cain?
WB and UPN are the underdog stations. They are easily
pigeon-holed as carrying crappy teenage angst shows since teenagers
are the main audience, but they do so much more.
Unlike the major TV networks, WB and UPN are showing different
types of programming (though it’s not as well done as it
should be).
WB and UPN are able to take chances because they can; the stakes
for them aren’t as high as NBC, which has a “Must-See
TV” reputation to uphold. WB and UPN’s motto is more
like “leave your expectations at the door,” and they
have been able to get away with it with such shows as “Buffy
the Vampire Slayer.” Come on. Vampires? You know guys watch
that show because they think Sarah Michelle Gellar is hot, and
girls watch it for the cute clothes.
I don’t think people should discount WB and UPN for
showing those types of shows. They do have their crowning glory,
“Gilmore Girls,” a show that demonstrates WB and
UPN’s capabilities. Here you have a show that presents an
alternative lifestyle where a single parent is trying to raise her
daughter. It has good plots and good dialogue, which (surprise)
make for a good show.
Now “The West Wing,” “Frasier,”
“ER,” and “Friends” are some of the most
watched shows, because they win Emmys and stick to the conventions
of “good taste,” but it’s kind of boring to have
the same-ol’ same-ol’ each time around. Three out of
four of these shows are about white-collar professionals.
The other difference is their priorities when it comes to
content. Gee, how can we compare protecting the security of our
nation in “West Wing” to whether Lex Luther’s
bald head is real or not?
NBC could never pull off “Dawson’s Creek,”
which for me went up the damn creek a long time ago, because people
who watch NBC expect witty quips or good dialogue. Admittedly, in
its heyday Dawson’s Creek had some really intellectual
dialogue that was fun to listen to because, being a misunderstood
teen myself, I thought “Great, a show that doesn’t make
us look stupid.”
All the big networks are trying to compete with HBO, but the
thing is, HBO is too good. It’s cable and that provides a
license for smart, risque material that audiences like. Respectable
broadcast TV looks bad when it tries to imitate the “real
thing.”
WB and UPN are commendable because they don’t even try.
They’re just doing their thing and don’t really care
about the awards. They don’t care if what they’re doing
is “quality,” as long as the people tune in. They
target the teens (and grab some adults too) with some hot-looking
stars and the newest fashions couched in twisted high school
drama.
Maybe NBC and the rest of the pack should try and follow WB and
UPN for a change. I don’t mean they should make a lot of bad
teen shows, but maybe it would be worthwhile to do something
different. That way they may be able to get out of HBO’s
shadow.