Anyway, I kept watching through this fall and finally gave up after “Garden Party.” This piece reminds me that that was a good decision.

Uhm, what?

Nope. Rob Thomas has stated that the plan was for Trevor’s 100th match-up to be Claire and Trevor. In other words, to Trevor’s way of thinking, he would choose to stay human, and not return to Olympus, for his true love.

re: “The only other example I can think of right now is Parenthood, which started as a film and then was turned into a television series soon after the film’s release, but the series failed and then NBC decided to try again a decade later.”

Michael Mann created L.A. Takedown, tweaked the pilot script and turned it into a feature film, Heat, and then tweaked the script again to launch Robbery Homicide Division.

(Excuse me while I rant about showkillers a little bit)

As for Paula Marshall, I don’t really believe that showkillers exist – most people who’ve gotten that label are actors who kept getting cast because they were talented, but just never found the right project.

I mean, I don’t know – Judy Greer and Andrea Anders are also showkillers, right? JoAnna Garcia? Maybe Lizzy Caplan is on her way? (Speaking of which, why do all showkillers except Eric Balfour seem to be women?) I think all of those actresses are terrific.

And then you have people like Good Company/Townies/Conrad Bloom/M.Y.O.B. star Lauren Graham, who were able to shake that title when they were lucky enough to get cast in a series that stuck around. I’m sure Gilmore Girls was a lot better than any of those others, but I guarantee “showkiller” Graham wasn’t the problem with any of them. The problem was that they were bad shows and/or just didn’t get watched.

If you don’t like Paula Marshall, that’s fine and understandable. But she didn’t kill any of the shows she was in.

If Leslie doesn’t win, I bet she’ll get promoted to Ron’s job and Ron will become the new city manager. Way back in season two’s “Summer Catalog,” Ron and Leslie talk about the things they’ll do when he’s City Manager and she’s Director of the Parks Department.

I wouldn’t think anything of it except that a couple of episodes ago, they did that storyline where Chris suddenly wants to spend a lot of time with Ron and it turns out that he’s grooming Ron for “Ben’s job” (which is basically City Manager, right? Chris has been interim city manager this whole time . . .) So I wonder if that’s where they’re going with all this – it would certainly alter the Leslie/Ron dynamic and allow them to tell new types of stories.

Secondly, I think if we give it time, the subplots revolving around individual characters will evolve into stories that are more…believable and concrete. I’m guessing that for this first episode they wanted to give the audience a (hurried) glimpse into each character’s struggles and in so doing it came off a bit rushed.

I’m hoping that eventually each episode will focus on just one or two subplots in addition to the main plot.

I was surprised that I liked this pilot as much as I did. I really hope it is a smash! : )

Of course, Schwimmer was always a much more talented comedic actor than Anistion anyway (I liked his performance more than I liked Ross as a character most of the time), so that certainly helped.

That said, I completely agree that Aniston was pretty symbolic of the problems of stunt casting – I’d actually completely forgotten she was on this show until you reminded us. I’d argue Julianne Moore and her terrible Boston accent were much more of a problem for the show, but I think that could be because it dragged out for much longer than Aniston.

Speaking of Jennifer Aniston and good ABC comedies, what did you think of her appearance on “Cougar Town” last season?

(i’m a french tv critic so forgive me if my english is not that articulate…)

I realize that sounds like a gigantic humblebrag for anyone who *does* appreciate the shows, but I do wonder whether experiencing these stories, devoid of typical TV idealization, opens wounds that never quite scar over for a lot of people. Which could also explain why people keep “discovering” the series, as they get to places in their lives (at different paces) where enjoyable hindsight becomes possible.

I’m not quite sure if procedural-heavy is where NBC needs to go. CBS pretty much has a lock on that strategy. Its viewers are actually CBS-loyal, which is something you don’t see anymore. They’re not just going to flock in droves to NBC just because they churn out a few more procedurals a year. They have CBS for that. Why would they stray?

They need to carve out a different niche, an NBC-niche, if you will. What that is, I have no idea anymore, but it’s not what they’re currently doing, that’s for sure.

Some of their new projects you mentioned about I am excited about, because Bryan Freaking Fuller.

The way I see it, NBC has had plenty of broad comedies and generic procedurals. But they still need to launch 2-3 genuine hits – shows with a hook that actually draw people to the network. You’re right that remakes of old shows and super high-concept shows probably don’t work. But they still need something different enough to bring viewers in. THEN they can use those viewers to fill out their schedule with the more generic stuff and (on the other side) a few prestige programs.

I think part of our disconnect is what a lot of what you’re talking about is sort of related to taste, and to a certain extent the distinctions between cable and broadcast. Of course, I’m not necessarily excited to see a Dane Cook sitcom or really anything they have in their comedy development. And sure, broadcast TV can be “synonymous with lowest common denominator TV,” but that’s not really what my post was about. I don’t think CBS gives a damn about what TV nerds on the internet think about their programs and that’s certainly part of the reason they’ve had so much success. But NBC wants to literally exist in five years, they’re going to have to think about going that route more often. You can only appeal to rich, super-educated white people so much. Pointing out the failure of Kings or Black Donnellys only further emphasizes my point that NBC is trying to graft a certain kind of strategy onto a system and landscape where doing so automatically equals failure. In this discussion, I don’t care if NBC tries “good” programs or “bad” programs, I just think they should be way more aware of the realities of broadcast television and plan accordingly. And saying the broadcast model is not long for this world just plays into the defeatist thinking I mentioned. NBC is basically waiting around hoping that the model gets revolutionized while CBS, FOX and ABC are laughing at them. I don’t see the model going anywhere in the 10 years, especially when the other networks are doing well (relatively speaking). The infrastructure and system that keeps broadcasting alive will still exist. Local affiliates will still exist. They might continue to lose audiences, but it would take an unbelievable amount of programming tragedies for CBS and FOX (and probably ABC thanks to Modern Family) to be where NBC is right now. I’d love for every program put on the air to be great, but that’s not the case. NBC might lose some rich white folk by filling up its schedule with procedurals, but it also could gain a lot of others back. And even if they don’t do this, they HAVE to stop chasing dumb trends and concepts like they do. FOX and ABC take a few chances with somewhat interesting programming each year, but still know when to go broad or simple. NBC continues to be unbelievably stupid, in almost all regards.

Or are today’s networks so “realistic” that they make zero seasons of such shows rather than just the one?

Moreover, NBC has attempted to launch broad sitcoms with little yield. The last time they had a broad sitcom was that hit was Earl which, in retrospect, they cancelled too soon. But, shows like Perfect Couples and 100 Questions were broad enough that they should have found an audience and didn’t.

At this point, NBC should embrace their elitist mantra and market to smart, rich, white people who like to buy things. After all, who do you think is watching Harry’s Law? The broadcast model is probably not long for this world. Affiliates have become more of a nuisance to networks than they once were, and even Les Mooves would love to remove them from the equation.

In a comment above you mention 2 Broke Girls, Unforgettable, New Girl, Once Upon a Time as this season’s break out hits. Since you wrote that we’ve seen big numbers for Alcatraz and Betty White’s Off Their Rockers. The former is a high concept show like those NBC is chasing and the latter an NBC property that sprung from the zeitgeist. Now, of the four you mentioned, 2 Broke Girls and Unforgettable would have flopped on NBC much like Whitney and Prime Suspect have. New Girl is a hit because Zooey is a star and Once Upon a Time is a Lost-like fluke.

Even still, the vast majority of the comedies that NBC has in development this cycle follow your logic. Multicams from Sarah Silverman, Dane Cook and Rosannne, among others. Are you looking forward to any of those? I know I’m not. Broadcast TV should be synonymous with lowest common denominator TV. Parenthood could have been a hit, if NBC wasn’t afraid to schedule it outside of the 10pm hour and its anything but lowest common denominator.

Thoughts?

Also, since you’re a big Community and Parks fan, I can’t imagine you’d be happy if NBC completely stopped broadcasting shows like that. Do you really think they should completely drop that? Or would you rather they build an audience with broader programming and keep some niche programs around for prestige, awards, etc.?

Our cautious but semi-hopeful take here: http://wp.me/p1VQBq-kR