Ah, the Franklin Mint. You’ve stood too long and produced too many “commemorative” items to go without some serious checking.
Wow! Don’t you feel patriotic! Don’t you want to own not one, but fifty pieces of American history? Well, let’s hope not, because then we couldn’t be friends. Let’s dissect a commercial, shall we?
I didn’t want my family to miss out…
Bandwagon
Ah, an appeal to emotion. It’s so passive-aggressive. Did you see what she did there? Here’s how it works based on a faulty premise – because she cares for her family, she bought them the product in this commercial. Because you have yet to do so, you don’t love your family. And she’s a better mother than you. Better start dialing now.
on a piece of America that’s valued today…
Appeal to Patriotism
Insert an appeal to patriotism. It’s worked before, and it’s technically true. Currency is technically a piece of America. As for value, we know that, it’s $12.50. Fifty quarters. That’s like a single person’s trip to the laundromat!
…and will be even more meaningful tomorrow.
Hasty Generalization
Define meaning. If you are equating “meaning” to “value” then you’re assuming that this set will be worth more tomorrow. And true, some coins will be more valuable tomorrow, but most won’t. Not bad, three logical fallacies and we’re only 9 seconds into the commercial.
So, thanks to the Franklin Mint, I gave them not one piece of American history, but fifty.
Questionable Math
Obscure Pronoun Use
No, thank you! Wait, since this is a work commissioned by the Franklin Mint, aren’t you self-congratulating there? So, it’s not a collection, a single entity, but fifty quarters?
The grammar nerds picked up on this one right away. In the above sentence “them” implies Franklin Mint, as that was the last noun used prior to the pronoun.
This is the complete collection of fifty commemorative state quarters from the Franklin Mint, a value never to be seen again.
Contradiction
Faulty Premise
And the first contradiction. It’s not fifty pieces, it’s a collection. And here’s the first use of the term “value.” Value is a really wonderful term, it’s not fixed or provable like “cost” or “price.” Value differs on a person to person basis. That’s some lawyered up language there.
That last bit “never to be seen again”? That’s a nice bit of false assumptions there. The Franklin Mint isn’t the only people selling these commemorative collections, but they would like you to believe they are, and that one day, they’ll stop.
These coins are in brilliant, uncirculated condition, have never been in circulation, and will never be minuted again.
Appeal to Authority
A fine example of making up a word that then turns a sentence into a redundant construct. The assumption at the end is a fairly safe one, but because an “authority” was used to make it (Jay W. Johnson, 36th Director of the U.S. Mint), we’re expected to assume it’s true. Mr. Johnson was the director of the U.S. Mint for one year (2000-2001), and since went on to work for both The Franklin Mint and Goldline International.
In fact, many have already increased in value, some as much as 400%.
Questionable Math
Yikes. This one is really bad. An increase in value of 400% for a US quarter is…are you ready for this?…$1.00. Seriously, do the math.
Oh, and were you able to read that fine print? Here’s how the Franklin Mint tries to cover their asses through tiny text: Historical increases in value do not guarantee that coins in this program will increase in value. So, even if those coins had increased in value before, there’s no guarantee they’ll be worth that much in the future, or even now. Because a lot of things can change the value of an object…like increasing the supply.
Why do I own these rare quarters representing every state in America? Because they’re a value I can pass on, that’s too good to pass up.
Straw Man
Appeal to Patriotism
Non-sequitor/Gambler’s Fallacy
Asking yourself a question is poor form in rhetoric. Why? Because when you do that, you frame an easier argument for yourself in the mind of the audience. By the way, did you catch the tasty irony I just used?
The answer provided can actually go one of two ways depending on how it’s punctuated. If Franklin Mint is playing it safe, and put a comma or period in that sentence, then it becomes a non sequitur. The first sentence says that the quarters are rare, and implies value. The second sentence asserts that the value would come from the ability to pass the quarters on.
If we remove the comma, than we fall into the Gambler’s Fallacy. By passing these quarters on, the speaker is saying that these quarters will eventually be worth money.
In today’s economy, who needs uncertainty? This is a solid, all-American value.
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Patriotism
Questionable Math
Yeah, the economy sucks. That solid, all-American value? If you bust those quarters out of the case and take them to the store, you can buy $12.50 worth of groceries. Unless the economy collapses, at which point, they won’t hold any value beyond the usefulness of the metal. Have fun trying to eat quarters.
Call now and ask how you can be eligible to receive the first ten quarters absolutely free. We will also tell you how you can attain the remaining forty coins to complete your question, as well as a free display, this special collectors booklet describing each coin, and a certificate of authenticity. As a bonus, you’ll receive “Hidden Treasures Around You” a guide to valuable coins that might be in your home right now.
What a sick block of text. Here the Franklin Mint is trying to sweeten the pot by promising free things. If we take this block at face value, that means that the customer is only paying for the quarters. All fifty, you’re paying $12.50. Get ten free and the price drops down to $10.00.
Call now because many of these mint condition coins are scarce and many have increased in value, some as much as 400%.
Questionable Math
Unfounded Premise
Ah, that 400% number does sound impressive, doesn’t it? And you should call now, because many of these “mint condition coins” are scarce. Scarcity is the source of value in physical goods, isn’t it? But we’re presented with this claim without any proof. How scarce? Which coins?
Today, it’s almost impossible to find a complete set of these quarters in mint condition and they will never be minted again.
Contradiction
Appeal to Authority
First thing’s first. Impossible to find? Hardly. You’re contradicting that claim by selling these sets. And the second bit? Now you’re just repeating a second fallacy. Repetition of a falsehood does not make it a truth.
If only I had bought that back then, look what it’s worth now. Now I say, if only I had bought two or three of these collections.
Hasty Generalization
Appeal to Emotion
A double whammy!
The first fallacy is implied. The argument is as follows, “Some coins rise in value. These are coins. These coins will raise in value.” Or not. You never know. But statistically, they won’t.
The second is an appeal towards happiness, or more correctly, away from regret. Don’t regret not purchasing these coins, buy them and be happy instead.
Less than 1% of Americans will ever own this complete collection. Will you be one of them?
Questionable Math
Snob Appeal
Less than 1% of all American’s sounds really small, doesn’t it? I mean, since it’s “less than,” it could mean like thirty people. However, it could also mean one person less than 1% of the American population. Taking a recent round U.S. population number, 330,000,000, that means no more than 3,299,999 people can own the set. That’s more than the population of Iowa, the 30th most populous state.
Knowing the reality of that number takes the impact out of the next claim, but the motive is implied. Only a lucky few will own this set. Are you part of the lucky few? Text book snob appeal.
* * *
For those actually interested in buying a set of these quarters, street value $12.50, you can contact the Franklin Mint. If you catch a commercial while it airs, you can get the set for two easy payments of $19.95. If you order online, you’ll be paying $49.50.
If you happen to follow my Twitter feed, you’ve undoubtedly notice that I tend to watch a lot of television. And by a lot, I mean not just in volume, but also in variety. I sample a large section of genres, with my primary viewing focused on story.
I am a sucker for story. I can overlook poor acting, even rough writing, if the overall plot and characters are worthwhile entities. Do it right, build both plot and character out in a serial fashion, and television can be just as fulfilling medium as literature and easily trumps film. Do it wrong, and you’re simply couching commercials and wasting everyone’s time. Do it really wrong, and you’re most of Bravo’s reality television programming.
But I really want to talk about one term which only true TV and movie nerds know: Ensign Ricky. It’s a fun little term used to denote a character who is quickly thrust amongst the major players in any story only to setup an emotional shock when said character is killed off. The term references the original “Star Trek” though I first encountered it in Fox’s “Family Guy.”
Tonight, I used the term in reference to AMC’s “Mad Men.” After weeks of half-assed episodes where the characters became their flaws rather simply being guided by them, AMC finally gave us a plot episode. And the Ensign Ricky moment (if you’ve seen the episode, you know what I’m talking about) actually got me to swear out loud and on Skype simultaneously.
Truthfully, the use of Ensign Ricky as a plot device can a bad thing. Over do it, and the audience will become immune. Like any other device, once it becomes a clutch, it becomes cliché. Used sparingly, and in a wholly unexpected way, and the audience is suddenly much more aware. Other characters become more important. A sense of mortality is bestowed. More so, the writers look like they know what the hell they are doing.
So, congratulations go out to the writers’ room at “Mad Men” for pulling themselves out of their funk and finally delivering an episode where the plot shapes the characters and for tossing an Ensign Ricky in to put the cherry on the top.
So, I skipped the video for Episode 4, and you know what? I’m not going to apologize about it. But here’s last night’s rather middle-of-the-road episode “This Place is Death”
No real big suprised this week, except one teensy little one near the end which I’m not even totally sure of yet.
And sorry for the bouncing in the video, I need to stick with my tripod for these things.
Last night Ron Moore and company laid out the road to the end on Battlestar, and that end is bumpy. Contained below are my thoughts on not only last night’s episode, but also the rest of the series.
The show is pushing into it’s fifth (of six) season. If we are applying traditional story structure, we are in the “falling period” and working into the resolution period. If we’re looking at the original Star Wars trilogy this is the first half of Jedi.
There will be spoilers. There will be theories. There will be analysis. Why? Because I love that stuff.
I’m planning on using the comments to criticize and comment on episodes. You are more than welcome to join me.
Two days ago, the world suffered the loss of enigmatic and reserved Irish-American actor Patrick McGoohan. McGoohan is best known for playing the lead in the cult-classic counterculture television series The Prisoner.
Be Seeing You
Of course, if one were to be remembered by just one television show, the Prisoner is perhaps as best a choice as any. Ostensibly about a spy who resigned, the Prisoner is a show rife with deeper societal questions – about identity, motivation, individuality, and privacy – not to mention a wealth of symbolism which requires that scenes be studied for analysis.
I would go on, but I have only seen the first episode. I’ve read a great deal about the Prisoner, due in no small part to the debate which surrounds the show 40 years after its completion. Luckily for me, and the internet in general, AMC is rectifying that problem and is currently offering up all 17 episodes of the series online for free.
Of course, the reason AMC is now showing the original series on the internet is because they’re “reimagining” the original Prisoner, dragging it out of the Cold War and into the modern era. Ordinarily, I would balk at something like this, but after Battlestar Galactica, I no longer thing this an impossible task. Just one that’s very difficult to do.
God, I hope they don’t screw this up. Anyhow, here’s Episode 1 of the Prisoner.
And a bit on story – the reason the original series only ran for 17 episodes was because that’s how long the story needed to be. It wasn’t cancelled because of ratings, and perhaps could have been extended. But, the show runners wanted to tell a specific story and knew that a story has a certain length it needs to be. It’s a damn good mentality to have, and one that I wish modern networks would adopt when developing television properties today.
As the winter shifts beyond the holiday season, the networks and cable channels roll out their new crop of television shows in what is affectionately known as the midseason. Typically starting in January and rolling through March, we the viewing audience are given numerous new and familiar properties. Out of the hundreds of potential series produced during pilot season, a scant few are picked up for an initial run. Out of those, most won’t survive the initial season. Here’s a look at what’s new, what’s returning, and what, in my opinion, is worth keeping.
The New Stuff
December
Leverage – TNT – Dec 7
The cable channel which seemed to specialize in Lonesome Dove made-for-tv movies spun off into producing their own content a few years ago with the Closer. Saving Grace was added to the lineup a season or two later, and this year TNT is bringing two new dramatic properties to the mix in an attempt to cement themselves as a channel with original content. The first such show is Leverage.
The gang from Leverage
Flexing an ensemble cast with Academy Award winner Timothy Hutton in the principle role, the pitch is rather simple. Take the team of specialists ala Mission: Impossible (the show), add the youth of the Mod Squad (again, the television show), the A-Team’s philosophy of helping the little guy, and toss in a modern anti-corporate (or anti evil corporations) mission set, and you’ve got the gist of the show.
Leverage has the distinct advantage of being the only new series this midseason which I’ve actually seen prior to deadline, so my opinion is based on experience rather than educated speculation. And my verdict? I like it. It’s a solid show. And it has a lot of room to grow. Timothy Hutton earned my respect with his role in the woefully overlooked series Kidnapped, and he brings the same chops to Leverage.
The characters, so far, are largely foils to Hutton’s more developed mystery. Most of the crew are bringing only minor pieces of their past, typically represented through actions (a sign of strong writing), but the showrunners have given themselves strong foundations to work with. The plots have been predictable, yet enjoyable – the show provides clues in a manner that abides by its own logic – that is to say it’s not all grit and reality, but the Leverage rules agrees with the setting in which they are presented. For those who like a good mystery, you can typically predict the ending. However, the characters are presented in such a way that I found myself pulling for them.
And lest this seem like a guy’s show – the girlfriend has quickly become a fan. She joined halfway through the pilot, was interested in the second episode, and is looking forward to the third tonight. This ranks as one of the few shows that we can watch together and both enjoy.
Verdict – Set the season to record.
January
Lie to Me – Fox – Jan 21
It’s CSI minus blood splatters and LVPD plus private contractors times behavioral analysis. And I’m probably not going to watch it. While the premise seems to such metaphorical concepts such as “truth”, I have a strong feeling that this series is going to be a reskinned House or Bones. Or, to put it another way, it’s a formula.
Verdict – I like Timothy Roth, so I might do an episode or two. Who knows, maybe Fox can commit to an actual serial drama other than 24…
Trust Me – TNT – Jan 26
TNT’s second new property this year stars Tom Cavanagh and Eric McCormack (the guy from Ed and the guy from Will and Grace, respectively) star as two best friends who work at a high power Chicago advertising agency. The play is that McCormack is the workaholic familyman art director and Cavanagh is the creative, single, and likely manic copywriter. Despite being friends, they are an obvious odd couple, and those odds come to a head when McCormack gets a promotion that makes him his Cavanagh’s boss.
Labeling itself as a drama filled with witty banter, this looks like it’s going to be a more modern version of Mad Men, and walks a tough path in that shadow. I’m forced to wonder how the series will do without the booze, broads, and smokes that made advertising seem interesting in the 1950s. Though, Cavanagh did impress me with his work on the failed CBS vehicle Love Monkey, and the two characters he played bear a strong resemblance on paper. If we’re in for a repeat performance, this show could have me watching religiously.
Verdict: I’m in for at least the first three episodes.
February
Dollhouse – Fox – Feb 13
Dolls apparently are also models
For a show that’s still two months out, this one has been garnering a lot of buzz. And with a name like Joss Whedon prominently attached, there’s a reason why. Whedon has fans by the bucket after creating properties like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefox. His fans might not be the biggest in number, but they are very, very vocal. And they’re mad about the show being given a dead slot – Friday evening. They have reason to be, given the networks’ reliance on the very flawed Neilson rating system. However, this is the age of the DVR.
The plot of the Dollhouse is similar to a point to the recently pulled NBC drama My Own Worst Enemy in that it follows a set of agents (Actives or “Dolls”) who have their minds wiped and imprinted with mission critical materials. The drama comes into play when the protagonist, Echo (Eliza Dushku), starts to become self aware. The Dolls operate off the radar and are supposedly being hunted by a Federal Agent.
The plot itself holds a lot of merit, and like Whedon’s prior properties, this one has real potential for a balance of character and action. The real make-or-break for this show will be whether it drifts into cheesy territory, and whether Fox wrests creative control away from Whedon and Co like they did with Firefox.
Verdict: I’m watching, though with some reservations. If the plot or dialogue drifts towards high school, I’ll likely leave.
March
Kings – NBC – Mar 19
Although NBC’s promotional department is playing this one close to their chests, it has attracted Deadwood noteable Ian McShane as the titular King. Set in a modern, or slightly futurist setting, the story is supposed to focus on the story of a small town boy who somehow get’s mixed with the ruling powers of a totalitarian state. It doesn’t sound simple, and the plot get’s even more convoluted when you factor in that the pilot was written by Heroes vet Michael Green and is a loose retelling of the Biblical story of David. Whether we’re getting David vs. Goliath, or David as Badass King, isn’t yet known. Here’s a video, so you can start to piece together your own conclusions.
Verdict: My interest is piqued, and I’m reserving judgment until I get to see the pilot.
Beyond or Undated
Blue Blood – NBC – The true story of a Harvard educated man turned cop. Action-drama.
Verdict: Meh.
Courtroom K – Fox – It’s another legal show, but unlike the myriad procedural dramas out there. This one is a comedy. I guess most people are now too young to remember Night Court.
Verdict: Has some decent names attached to it. Will need more information to actually pass judgement.
Harper’s Island – CBS – Apr 9 2009 – A murder is loose on a small island near Seattle. The plot is basic, and if done with care, could provide some really intense storylines. Jeffery Bell is the showrunner (writer-producer) and he’s got a pretty decent pedigree with Alias, the X-Files and the short lived Day Break. Yes, he wrote for Angel, but I’m not going to hold that against him. Jon Turteltaub, of Jericho, is the show’s Executive producer. Hopefully CBS can bear through the initially low ratings and let these two build a good solid story.
Verdict: Looks interesting. On my “To See” list.
Man of Your Dreams – NBC – half hour comedy (we used to call them sitcoms) about a bartender dispensing love lessons. Set in Chicago, expect lots of attractive people, contrived situations, and me not to be watching. I like Michael Trucco on Battlestar, but not enough to start following a sitcom. I do not like the 22 minute canvas.
Verdict: Sorry Michael, I’m skipping this one.
Merlin – NBC – It’s Camelot, but inspired by 21st Century storytelling? Can anyone make any sense out of that? Seems to be it’s the King Arthur story meets the OC. I don’t know if I’m down for that. And NBC is playing around with the premier time, it’s slated for Sundays at 9pm. Which Sunday it starts on, well, that’s anyone’s guess.
Verdict: I’ll be surprised if this makes it to the air. And I’ll most likely skip it.
Outnumbered – Fox – In the promo material, Fox admits that the family sitcom is “staid”, and rightly so. Though in the same breath they promise that this is a new take. Their pitch is the improv of Curb Your Enthusiasm meets the life of Malcom in the Middle. And if they could pull that off, it would be great. How exactly does Fox do this? Well, they’re doing the tried and true and remaking a show from the UK.
One huge advantage that this show has? Ken fucking Marino. Yup, in the age where every comedian is pulled from the Daily Show, Fox is going old school and grabbing talent from the State. And they’re better for it. If Ken improvs a “I wanna dip my balls in it” line, I will DVR the entire season.
Verdict: I’m pulling for this show, but I don’t think the odds are too high. Even with Ken Marino.
Animated Characters over Real Backgrounds...okay
Sit Down, Shut Up – Fox – Still under a working title, this animated project has drawn some rather large names – Will Arnett, Jason Bateman, Will Forte, Cheri Oteri, and the freaking Fonz (Henry Winkler) and that’s just for the voices. The writing is being taken up by Mitchell Hurwitz (Arrested Development) and the team of Eric and Kim Tannenbaum (Two and a Half Men). On the talent pool alone, this looks like a real winner. But Fox is quite fickle about the animation it chooses to show. Hopefully they won’t dumb this one down to keep it on the air.
The setting is a high school in a small, northeastern fishing town. Judging by the promo materials at Fox, the plots seem to be internal struggles and full of that modern insecurities and insanities that the writers are known for on their previous projects.
Verdict: It’s a keeper. Weird mix of animation on live sets aside, I am totally down for this show.
Summary
This year’s crop of television shows has some real potential, with some obvious risks being taken in the midseason that wouldn’t be done during the fall, but perhaps show too much potential for the summer. Granted, this type of scheduling is largely old hat due to the invention of the Internet. Leverage is a hands down winner, with several other shows – Dollshouse, Sit Down Shut Up, Kings, and Trust Me – showing potential. I have a strong feeling that, if allowed to grow, Harper’s Island could be a very intelligent thrill ride.
Check back tomorrow for the returning shows which have a permanent spot in my DVR, and to learn who’s on the bubble.
But wait, there’s more… here are the new shows that I will undoubtedly be skipping:
Chopping Block – NBC – Oh look, another cooking reality TV show.
The Goode Family – ABC – Mike Judge is at it again. This time he’s not lampooning Texas suburban living (King of the Hill) or teenage metal heads (Beavis and Butthead), nope, this time it’s being morally correct. The Goode Family tries to do good liberal things, but the consequences are such that comedy will certainly ensue…
The Listener – NBC – Mind-reading paramedic. Did you hear me just sigh?
Mama’s Boys – unscripted by Ryan Seacrest (I just puked in my mouth)
Salavage & Swords: Lives on the Line – both NBC – Look, I have the Discovery Channel. I have lots of Discovery Channels, in wonderful HD. Let’s leave the fishing/ocean shows there.
Superstars of Dance – NBC – While really just a mini-series-event, this is the show that’s bumping Chuck and Heroes for January. It’s supposed to be a more global version of Dancing With the Stars, what is will be is something I refuse to watch.
Top Gear – NBC – Another British important, and one that’s been on TV for 30 years. I don’t know if NBC is attempting to remake the show, or will simply begin to air the BBC series outright. Either way, I won’t be watching.
Unholy Union – ABC – okay, that’s not the name of the show, it’s a comment on the premise of what is still being billed as the “Unnamed Ashton Kutcher / Tyra Banks Project.” I think my title aptly sums up not only how I feel about the show, but also about the principles.
For those of you who have to yet to see NBC’s Monday lineup from November 24, 2008, you might want to skip this post, as I’ll be using several plot points as evidence.
As a writer, I tend to watch television with a semi-critical eye. Fully formed characters, well established settings, and plots that are realized and move – these things matter and they are what will get to me to tune in on a regular basis and push me to extol a show’s virtues both online and off. To put it bluntly, television shows should be well-crafted stories. Unfortunately, NBC’s Monday night selection seems to have forgotten this. The network’s flagship scripted drama, Heroes, is in need of some serious saving and the slow motion implosion of this property is threatening to take the rest of the night’s line up down with it. The products aren’t doomed, but they need to return to the basics of story to save themselves.
Heroes’ Hard Reboot
Last night’s episode of Heroes attempted to push the series into a hard reboot, something difficult to do mid-season, yet something that the show has needed for quite some time. The reboot, carried out in the form of an eclipse that robbed all characters of their powers, intended to return the show to where it had been in Season one. Sylar was once again a bad guy. Peter and Nathan were returned to their roles as contentious brothers. And Claire was once again in trouble. While stripping the characters of their powers can easily be written off as contrived and clichéd, it did push the series back towards a much more familiar ground, redrawing lines towards the Heroes the audience once loved. However, the reboot might have come just a bit too late. Even as Claire was being rushed to the hospital, bleeding from a gunshot wound, I found myself not able to care. Not one bit. None at all. All of the emotional capital that these characters had built up in their first season, and managed to hold onto through the short second season, had already been squandered.
The Road Ahead
The show needs some serious help to get back on its feet; the reboot, in and of itself, was not enough. Returning Heroes to the general, comfortable status of Season one will not work. In this case, the viewers are demanding blood, retribution, and they should be placated. NBC needs to show that it is willing to take serious risks on it’s flagship drama, and in doing so, get the audience to once again invest. How? It’s not easy, and perhaps the story will be kneecapped by contracts of those involved, but Heroes needs to start killing off characters. Not just second or third tier characters, but actual primary characters. The cheerleader? Dies from wounds. One or both of the Petrelli boys? Killed in the jungle. Any many more need to die. The show needs a serious cleansing.
A Map Drawn in Blood
The end results of the killings would pay dividends on multiple fronts. First, it provides a story-based motivation for those who survive to actively regain their powers. Second, it thins the cast out, allowing the story to return to a core group of characters, making the show easier for the audience to follow, and easier for your writers to craft. Third, if enables your writer to develop a believable, and seemingly insurmountable external conflict that humanizes the heroes (fear of death is perhaps the most human quality there is). And finally, and most importantly, it allows the viewers to re-invest in the characters. This might seem counter-intuitive, why would “we the audience” invest in characters that stand a very real chance of dying at any minute? Because we’re Americans, we love acts of redemption and of underdogs. Right now, your characters need to redeem themselves. Right now, they’re just wasting our time, and we’re going to stop watching.
Heroes Is Not Alone
NBC already pulled the plug on Christian Slater’s quasi-futuristic spy drama, “My Own Worst Enemy,” proving that perhaps the suits who make the decisions regarding scripted properties don’t have the heart for long, drawn out plots. Not that “Worst Enemy” was a piece of pure magic, but the premise of the show did show some serious heart, and stacked against the weakened and delirious third season of Heroes, it looked much better by comparison. As this show has been canceled, I won’t waste any bits over it. I will write about perhaps one of my current favorite television shows, Chuck.
Chuck
I was apprehensive about this show from the beginning. Why? It had ample opportunity to go wrong. And NBC has a history of not allowing most of its properties to get things right before pulling the plug. The show, however, has proven to be quite the success, due in large to the chemistry of the actors involved, and has become the highlight of my television week. Last night’s episode, the close of a three-story arc, showed a bit of self-awareness that crept beyond the fourth wall, and could have been seen as a plea from inside the writer’s room. The title character, very bluntly, asked if everyone in his life was actually a spy.
Exposing Flaws
Chucks question, while providing a means to reveal the doubts and frustrations of the character, also highlighted a weakness in the show’s formula – how many people can one person know who are actually covert agents on either side of a secret war? To answer the question, “Chuck, I think you’re pretty close to knowing all of them.” This means that the show is quickly coming up on a moment where it has to decide where exactly it’s going.
Remember the Basics
As I noted in the introduction, the basics of a good story, be it a short story, a novel, or a television series all revolve around three main areas: character, setting, and plot. So far, Chuck has pushed furthest into character and left the setting understood, and seems to have mined a bit too far into its general plot, using premise points as specific points, and in doing so, the show itself is in need of some serious guidance.
Embrace the Plot
The current plot formula is quickly running out of room to operate in. Right now, the two largest external forces which drive the plot are Chuck’s competing lives – that of a spy, and that of a hapless civilian. The character is leaning more towards hapless civilian, yet, his moments of spy ascension are the ones that get the audience to cheer. The powers that be need to move Chuck more on the path of breaking from his civilian life and towards being the spy, coming to grips with the role of reluctant hero.
Reinvent the External
The best means to do this is to allow the repeat antagonist to become something more than an ephemeral idea. Some work needs to be done on Fulcrum, the evil spy organization that serves as a string of cardboard baddies. Who is Fulcrum? What are their motivations? What is Fulcrum’s history? And what does that have to do with Chuck? The measure of a hero isn’t who he is, but that which he fights. Chuck is in dire need of an adversary.
Embrace the Backstory
Several Chuck episodes have paid more than lip service to Chuck’s being kicked out of Stanford. The Bryce Larkin character was used as a device to show him saving Chuck from the life of an analyst in the intelligence community, while single-handedly dooming Chuck to his current situation. Jill, Chuck’s old girlfriend, was also recruited at Stanford. The humiliation of being kicked out, wrongfully accused of cheating, has time and time again, been a motivating factor in Chuck’s personal arc. And thanks to Sarah, Chuck’s spywork, he has been granted his degree, partially closing the book on perhaps the single most humiliating time in his life. The “what” of Stanford has been discussed, but the over-arcing “why” has largely been untouched. Why were both the Intelligence community and Fulcrum recruiting at Stanford? Was Stanford unique? Was Chuck’s story unique? Is there a group of similar recruits, a virtual spy class of two thousand and X out there, right now, fighting an unseen battle? These are questions that should largely be answered to move the plot of the show forward.
Grow the Characters
Last night’s “Unleash the Casey” line brought a smile to my face, and was mentioned over a dozen times on Twitter, a sure sign that the primary character trait of the show’s pit bull (played marvelously by Adam Baldwin), resonated with the audience. Casey, who’s largely a foil for Chuck, shows that they know how to handle at least some of their assets.
The character of Sarah Walker, who’s primary trait seems to be the mystery surrounding her past, largely remains an unknown. Other than the knowledge that she dated Bryce, and that her high school life as a nerd was a cover, not much has been established about her. Her relationship with Chuck is constantly flirted with, and it’s generally understood that she has definite feelings for him. By keeping her sense of mystery, that relationship isn’t done justice, and her character should either have her backstory exposed, or have a her current story grown. This isn’t just a desire to have more screentime for Yvonne Strahovski, it’s a desire to keep one of the principle characters as a character and not mere a lighting rod for the title character’s failed and frustrated romantic interests.
It’s About Chuck
The character who perhaps needs the most work, is Chuck himself. Though numerous attempts have been made to qualify the character as a nerd, none have been fully embraced. The fact that he “likes and knows computers” is established by his job at the Buy More. However, the measure of a nerd is not a mere “like” or a normal measure of knowledge paired with wearing a pocket protector; nerds embrace their chosen medium like a true artist. That is to say that nerds find their true love and they follow it to the point of obsession. Nerds are rarely the socially awkward Jack of All Trades that Chuck has been made out to be, they’re typically single-field specialists, and it is their single minded obsession that renders them socially awkward.
Chuck works best when he’s taking advantage of his specialized knowledge, and when he readily displays his intelligence he is allowed to not be awkward, but to be shown taking steps on the hero’s journey. This needs to be both highlighted and contrasted. Though the character is ultimately human, he often feels boxed in and two dimensional under the weight of the current plot formula. The point of Chuck seems to be his growth from the emotional destruction of being kicked out of college and his descent into a sad, flat, nerdy lifestyle. Establish the lifestyle, and let Chuck take steps towards becoming a true hero in the fight against something, anything.
Know the Future
Though Chuck does not need to become a heavy serialized drama like 24, Lost, or even the first season of Heroes, the future of the show needs to be established. When the future is known, the characters can move forward, they can grow, and the audience can further invest in them. Doing so will hopefully ensure that Chuck the show gets to grow into the full potential that Chuck the idea has. And that should keep what is perhaps my favorite current show on the air from become stale and tired. However, this it the time where Chuck needs to really start making moves. With Heroes failing, and the audience starting to bleed away, the coattails timeslot and chemistry of the crew are not going to keep the show on the air forever.
NBC, if you need help with any of this, let me know. I’ll lend my pen your way.
TNT’s second new property this year stars Tom Cavanagh and Eric McCormack (the guy from Ed and the guy from Will and Grace, respectively) star as two best friends who work at a high power Chicago advertising agency. The play is that McCormack is the workaholic familyman art director and Cavanagh is the creative, single, and likely manic copywriter. Despite being friends, they are an obvious odd couple, and those odds come to a head when McCormack gets a promotion that makes him his Cavanagh’s boss.
Outnumbered – Fox – In the promo material, Fox admits that the family sitcom is “staid”, and rightly so. Though in the same breath they promise that this is a new take. Their pitch is the improv of Curb Your Enthusiasm meets the life of Malcom in the Middle. And if they could pull that off, it would be great. How exactly does Fox do this? Well, they’re doing the tried and true and remaking a show from the UK.
Bradley Robb likes TV and books, and has an intense dislike for cinnamon. Once, Bradley stopped a Soviet T-60 with his middle finger. Bradley writes speculative fiction and edits Fiction Matters, and never really got the hang of talking about himself in the third person.