On Tuesday, a network that a lot of people don't watch -- the CW -- Next Doll," which is a TV show I have no intention of reviewing. Why? Assuming that it's not self-evident, I'll give you three quick reasons: and you don't have to be a trained critic to see through that transparency.
"self-empowerment" for young women, a show that is "aspirational" (instead of, say, "sensational"), which is too laughably absurd and crass even for my low standards. Had neither the network nor the producers pushed this so fervently as the chance for every young woman to achieve her life's goals, I might have Cove. Had they said, "This is an opportunity for hot young women to dress up Avenue for mad cash," well, sure, I'd have played along.
Ah, but they didn't. However, this show has provided me a small service as it does illustrate a couple of questions I get all the time. "How much television do you watch?
" And "How do you choose what to watch?" The answer to the first is, quite clearly, "too much." Because of that, I have to make a lot of difficult choices, which brings me to the second question, which is slightly harder to answer.
While it's good to be king of all things TV here at The Chronicle, the truth is most large newspapers have two, sometimes three people reviewing shows or otherwise writing television stories -- interviews with stars, features, etc. We don't have that luxury. So what I try to do is avoid most of the the five broadcast networks and hordes of cable channels.
fare. The onslaught is overwhelming. Sometimes deserving shows from smaller cable channels are overlooked.
Luckily I've got my boss and fellow TV addict, David Wiegand, there to help me pick up some of the slack. But trust me, he's not going to watch "Search for the Next Doll" either. I consider part of my job to be, as I've stated many times, taking a bullet for you.
Watching television so that you don't have to. Absorbing hours of dramas, comedies, movies, judge of how to spend your TV time. Even this working set of rules has some flaws.
Often -- meaning every programming available there, people get annoyed because they can't find it or realize they don't get it. Same goes for HBO. Many people would rather I spend most of my time on PBS programming only.
(Hey, some weeks I feel the same way. fear that I will pummel them into a bloody pile of bones, mistakes, bad decisions and regret, then those networks also wish I'd spend more time with PBS. But then when I do spend a lot of time with PBS, many people in public television wish I'd go back to beating up on bad sitcoms.
It's just hard to Arrows," "Kath Kim," or "Footballers' Wives," which are imported from places like Canada, Australia and England. There's two answers: It's my job to seek watching "Dancing With the Stars" all their lives. Secondly, those shows tend to be the next wave of "Americanized" offerings.
Look for all three of those series to be redone (probably for the worse) on our networks soon. has some benefits. By hunting for the artistically scrumptious morsels you might otherwise have missed -- "Slings and Arrows," "The Wire," "Rescue Me," etc.
-- you miss out only on stupid stuff like "I'm From Rolling Stone" or "1 vs. 100" -- and if the dreck manages to become a hit ("Deal or No Deal"), then you'll find out about it on your own, and I won't be complicit in your I bring this up because -- well, because a couple of my other column goodies, followed in very short order by three big event cable series at the start of April, one of them involving Italian mobsters singing their last arias. There are six or seven new series unfolding by mid-March, which may recent dinner party, allowing me to reveal some truisms that people are sometimes surprised to hear.
Like that I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care, what's going on with "ER." I once said that the entire cast could have been replaced by aliens and I'd have missed it. franchises, I get that queasy look on my face.
Yeah, I periodically check in to judge the quality. But I'm not following them religiously. One time a guy asked Once a show is established, by necessity it gets less of my attention -- It's one of my favorites.
-- Everybody is talking about it. "Heroes" for example. Exception: -- The quality of its content is in flux, or has recently improved or tanked, and needs to be monitored.
"Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," "30 Rock" and "Friday Night Lights" fall into this category. shock or disdain in loyalists. "Why not," they ask?
So I tell them about how there. (You could field a starting five of reviewers and never cover everything paper and Bay Area cultural integrity would be badly damaged.) There's always more coming.
March, as you will see, is a perfect example. And here's the scary part, at least for a critic who knows how the business works: By April, 40 or more new shows will be ready to go for next season -- just for the broadcast networks. The cable cobblers are also busy in their little workshops, cranking out new product.
And less than a month after those 40 or so shiny new shows scream "Pick me! Pick me!" to the networks, they will indeed be picked.
The current season will not have ended and the reinforcements (and replacements) will be coming. E-mail Tim Goodman at . You can read his blog, the Bastard Machine, at .
His TV Talk Machine podcasts are available at sfgate.com. Questions or thoughts about television can be left at (415) 777-8821.
News RSS