In a good recap of the current situation at NBC (worth reading, but nothing particularly new), Mark Harris in New York Magazine wonders:
If creaky old NCIS can draw 20 million viewers, imagine what the combination of money, creativity, smart casting, production values, and an innovative broadcast-network programmer could do.
Huh?
Presumably every television network (arguably, even NBC) is using its best combination of all those elements, and for the most part they haven't been able to touch NCIS' ratings.
Is Harris "imagining" a broadcast renaissance that's being held back if someone would just make the right decisions? Or does he just figure all existing broadcast programmers are clueless?
I "imagine" that given the best of all those elements, an innovative broadcast-network programmer would be overjoyed to achieve NCIS' current ratings.
As I remember, NCIS wasn’t much of a hit in its first few seasons. Maybe the problem is that network programmers chase the latest thing rather than seeing if a show can be developed into a hit over time.
It comes back down to the soccer paralell I think, sometimes Chelsea can spend 150 million on Ballack and Drogba, renovate the stadium and have Janet Jackson sing at halftime and it’ll still be Arsenal that sells out the seasonal tickets fastest. Because people like comfort and greasy hotdogs and tradition and there is no chart for that.
So could NBC pump hundreds of millions into a modern TV version of The Getaway with Yvonne Strahovski and Alexander Skarsgard having a lot of sex and car chases and piles of location shoots in old town San Antonio? Sure they could. Would that be in anyway certain to beat Mark Harmon and Michael Weatherly acting out the old bddy/father figure cop scheme we’ve been loving since Streets of San Francisco. Signs point to no.
I saw that too. It’s not the first time some critic has referred to NCIS like that either. I think a lot of it is that most critics dismiss NCIS as “yet another procedural” and don’t understand why people would watch that (or any procedural) over the “innovative”, “cutting-edge” stuff they all drool over. It’s just a variation of “viewers aren’t smart enough to understand the shows I like.”
In a world of political correctness, Leroy Jethro Gibbs gets away with literally slapping his employees upside the head. In this day and age, that *is* innovative!
NCIS is formula incredibly well done–there is absolutely nothing innovative about it, not much in the way of character development and the stories are predictable rather than believable–but for what it is, it’s good and entertaining. It provides the type of dependable television we used to take for granted.
I’d venture to say whoever is putting on NCIS is the innovative programmer. Even if NCIS isn’t an innovative program creatively, it’s innovative enough to achieve exactly what he’s describing. I don’t know who put NCIS through initially, but clearly, it was an innovative broadcast-network programmer.
Also, doesn’t NCIS have money, creativity, smart casting and production values? without it, it wouldn’t be doing what it is.
Holly made a good point, critics dismiss procedurals because they are easy to follow and rarely have a storyline throughout the season. Look at Damages, critically acclaimed and drooled over by critics and with a stunning cast but rarely crack 1m.
“NCIS” is PFM. It has the cast chemistry that overrated turd chasers like “Mad Men,” “Friday Night Lights” and “Southland” can only dream of having. Also, it is about the Navy. The Navy is much more fun and exciting than whiny advertising agents, whiny football players and whiny police officers. I am not surprised that whiny critics prefer shows about whiny people. Roger that.
Perhaps people are tired of “innovation” and simply want to watch an entertaining programs with appealing characters, compelling stories and more than two weeks to find an audience.
Perhaps television critics are just as useless and out of touch with regular television viewers as the networks are.
Maybe a lot of us are just could be thought of creaky and old and like to look at nice looking actors who each have their own character and have fun sparring with each other and have some suspense in the story.
:=)
CBS tried a novel concept. It put a show in a timeslot AND KEPT IT THERE FOR A LONG TIME. Fringe is tanking this year because Fox, too eager to take away some of Grey’s audience, monkeyed with the timeslot rather than letting it gain a loyal audience.
There is nothing particularly innovative or creative about NCIS. The mysteries are convoluted or too predictable. The dialogue can be hamhanded. But because of the characters and the team dynamic, the show is like comfort food. It’s like tomato soup and a grilled cheese sandwich: It’s warm, goes down easy and we don’t ever get tired of consuming it.
Taste is subjective, but I’d say the elitists and the critics have MUCH more interesting favorites than the Nielsen families. Give me low rated Mad Men, FNL, and Damages over high rated NCIS, American Idol, and Two and Half Men every single time.
I am amazed at how well NCIS does. I have only ever watched 3 or 4 episodes of NCIS and I like Mark Harmon but just never got into it. Too formula for me.
I am one of the million who loved Damages and my current favourite is catching up on the Sons of Anarchy streaming over the internet as I do not get FX on cable. So lately my 2-3 hours of primetime have been spent watching content streamed over the net.
He says that like you can just wave a magic wand and achieve all those things. Um, no.
If anything, CBS should be praised for sticking with NCIS and allowing it to grow into the hit it is.
NCIS did not become the number one new show because it gained legions of new fans, but more because it didn’t lose the amount of viewers that all of the other shows did. Looking at my files, in seasons 1 and 2, it was between 13 and 15 million viewers, and season 3 showed a bump to the 17-18 million range. Since then, it’s gained a bit, but nothing crazy.
NCIS’s circumstances are very particular to the show – syndication helped it immensely, and not all series have that option (ie – the never make it to the 5th season, or they don’t have mass syndication appeal).
NCIS’s parent JAG also didn’t hit the top 10 until later in its run.
NBC has all of those elements – they are over at USA Network where they have more freedom, better characters and great storylines. Big fear: move great USA Network shows over to network TV, add 12-year old actors to “draw younger demographic”, compromise storylines and play around with the time slots, they would kill those shows.
Perfect example: I loved Friday Night Lights but when it went exclusive to satellite for furst-run, I lost interest in it & I have no interest in watching a football-themed show after football season.
You must also factor into the recent uptick in viewership of NCIS the “free” Season 6 episodes (Netflix/Hulu) available over the summer and the ongoing earlier seasons on USA Network and ION.
Personally, I caught a couple of episodes of NCIS a few years back and concluded “boring police procedural.” Then I caught an episode this summer featuring Michael Weatherly’s character and I liked the comedy, despite its goofiness, and also enjoyed all the movie references.
Finally, I do not watch the CSI’s and other such shows because they too often seem to victimize women and children. I have found that NCIS has strong women and even child characters who often triumph over adversity. I guess given the state of TV, this is innovative!
People say that America is to dumb to get serialized shows. I don’t think thats true. America is busy, we don’t have time to sit and watch TV week after week. In NCIS is you miss a week you can go back next week no problem
What does a crime procedural have to do to be innovative?
The critics might as well make a blanket statement ridiculing all procedurals and their viewers.