Hawaii Five-NO

Sometimes in life you simply have to accept the small failures. Bombing a test, losing a promotion, hell, missing the bus, etc... So please know that I really, really wanted to like Hawaii Five-0, I honestly did. But I failed. Big time.

Now, before the Alex O'Loughlin Legion starts looking for ways to set me on fire, my disappointment with CBS' reboot of this 1970's classic has nothing to do with Alex. Indeed, as with most of his projects, he was one of the best aspects of the show. Certainly one of the prettiest. More than anything, I think this just simply isn't my kind of show. I can see where a lot of people will love the tone and style of this show, but I was honestly pretty happy when the pilot was finally over. And, after taking a quick peek at the ratings, I'm not the only one (more on that later).

I have honestly never seen an episode of the original, so aside from recognizing the theme song, I came into this show with few preconceived notions. As such, the pilot didn't leave me pining for the original or niggling over the minor details that weren't on par with its predecessor. No, I found my self unimpressed with this show all on its own.

I have no idea what the specifics of original were, but in this reboot, we have Alex O'Loughlin as Det. Steve McGarrett, a military/police/badass something or other whose father was murdered (somewhat as a result of McGarrett's actions). In his pursuit of the men who killed his father, he teams up with reluctant partner Scott Caan as Danno, reluctant asset Daniel Dae Kim as the accentily challenged Chin Ho Kelly (seriously, it was all over the place), and token chick Grace Park as Kelly's sexy, badass cousin, Kona. They come together in what seems to be the most convenient of ways and take viewers on a typical action show adventure, complete with all the standard cliches I generally can't stand, starting off looking into McGarrett's father's murder, but then casually ending up chasing down a Chinese human smuggling ring (you know, because it's Monday). Every genre has certain cliches that seem to crop up in just about every iteration. Legal dramas, medical shows, crime procedurals, they all have certain elements that are thoroughly unoriginal and that audiences just have to go with. I don't know what it is, but I guess in those genres, the cliches that come with the territory are ones that I'm more comfortable with and am more willing to let slide. With the buddy cop/ blow-em-up adventure genre? Not so much. It's why I've decided that this simply isn't my kind of show. It was no more hackneyed than any other show in any other genre, but this particular set of cliches annoy me more than most.

I understand that this show isn't aiming to be a searing character piece or a gritty detective show. It's a splashy, Jerry Bruckheimer-esque production complete with all the action, car chases, and explosions you'd expect. Given that that was the show's objective, they succeeded, cheesy cliches and all. Seriously, the dialogue alone had me rolling my eyes within minutes. There's just something about that macho, protect and serve, "sir, yes sir," tough guy tone that drives me up the wall. I knew I was headed for trouble when the governor (or whatever she was--just look for Jean Smart) said something along the lines of, "I heard you were the best of the best." Oh, gag me, please. Again, it's a standard line for this kind of show, but I have to remind myself that I can't let is slide because it's the kind of cliche you'd expect. I skewer other shows for such antics as well. At it's core, there's something fundamentally lame about a show, or a person, or a group that has to tell me again and again that they're the best there is. Show me that you're a badass and you don't need to tell me. Although, I guess the show's attempt at showing me the badassery is what led to the absolute worst moment of the pilot, so maybe that's advice that should only be doled out to capable hands...

In a beyond lame attempt at proving that Grace Park is one kickass chick, we watch her surf in a bikini for a few minutes, then watch her crash into some random guy who looked like he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Cue tough guy skepticism, "Are you sure she's up for this?" Followed by Park walking up the beach and punching Random Guy in the face. Tough guy skepticism neutralized by unjustifiable cylon retaliation for nothing.

Oh, good god, seriously?! That just happened? That was the moment when I decided I had failed in my attempt to like this pilot. I had let a lot of lameness slide up to that point, but that tipped me over the edge. The guy she punched didn't even do anything wrong, really. If he had said something snide or sexist to her or done it on purpose, the punch would have at least made a modicum of sense, but as is? She strikes me as an irrational hot head who shouldn't be a cop in a million billion years. Although, with this show's "shoot first, ask no questions ever" policy, I guess she fits right in. Because, you know, that's what real cops do. I don't mind a high body count, I really don't, but it at least has to make some sense. Maybe not in this genre, but in the universe of shows that I watch, killing a guy has to serve more of a purpose than simply trying to look cool. And yes, I realize I'm probably asking too much of a show like this. Which is sad. I look at a show like Burn Notice, which has even more car chases, gun play, and explosions than this show and I know that it really can be done. I don't need anyone telling me what a badass Michael, Sam, and Fiona are, I can see it. Their gun play and explosions make sense and are necessary to the story. To boot, their body count is incredibly low. The only reason I prefer a lower body count is that it makes deaths a lot more important. When Michael shoots Strickler dead, it's a very big deal. On Hawaii Five-0? It would be just mean it's mid-afternoon. I'm not saying that's a problem for the show, because that's the angle they've adopted, but for me, as an individual viewer, I find off-putting and lame, even if most people find it awesome.

This is a total guys' show with a bunch of boys playing with guns, so if that's what you're into, you'll love this show. Unfortunately, it's not really my bag. It's a slick series with high production values and big, flashy everything. For what it is, it's well-made and well-done. If that's what you're into, you probably loved this. I was unimpressed by most of the pilot, but it honestly wasn't without charm. O'Loughlin and Caan have a nice rapport together and there's a palpable chemistry that makes you believe them as partners. Both actors did a nice job with fairly weak material, but I think Caan was the best part of the pilot. He settled right into the role and made the best of it. He even managed to make the cheesiness of his relationship with his daughter endearing. The two actors played off each other well and managed to temper the predictability of the odd couple antics that ensued. The rest of the principal cast was considerably less likable, but they had even worse material to work with, so it's really not their fault. Seriously, the writers on this show really didn't seem to trust their actors or their viewers. The plot exposition was clunky and the backstories were thin. I suppose they could be planning to build on this foundation, but I wasn't interested enough to care. As for the audience, it's always annoying when something happens on a show and they flash back to an earlier incident to remind viewers why something is important. It's really annoying when the earlier scene was like, 3 minutes ago. Yeah, shockingly, we actually remember McGarrett's father calling him "champ" a dozen times two scenes back. Ugh.

Long story short, I don't know that I'll even be giving this show a second episode. I had very high hopes going in, because I genuinely do enjoy a good shoot-em-up once in a while, but Hawaii Five-0 fell pretty short. I just took a look at the ratings for last night and it seems I'm not the only one who wasn't bowled over by this reboot. Everyone, including me, thought this would be an insane smash hit. It opened strong (with a 3.8 key demo rating, which is solid), but its ratings were nowhere near what I expected. Seriously, in the key demo rating, it lost a tenth of a point from its lead in. It's lead in was Mike & Molly. I'll just let that information sink in for a second... What's worse, the show actually lost viewers after the first half hour. That generally doesn't bode well for the next week. I honestly think this show will ultimately do just fine, but it isn't the mind-blowing hit that people anticipated. It easily won its timeslot, so assuming it retains a fair proportion of that audience, it should be safe. I imagine it will lose a fair percentage of viewers next week (including this viewer, most likely), but then will stabilize in a range that CBS is comfortable with. I sincerely doubt Alex or his fans have anything to worry about.

I'm really pretty bummed that this was such a let down for me. I'm guessing it has more to do with my show sensibilities than anything else, but I was thoroughly disappointed and found myself cringing at the dialogue and rolling my eyes at the cliches. When the final fight scene draws to a close and McGarrett is on the ropes, he employs both. "Before you kill me, I think there's something you should know. Your brother died the same way you did." BANG! Oooh, that was badass! Oh, good lord, so lame. I wanted to like this one, and did my best to give it every available chance, but when the episode finally ended (thankfully), and my DVR asked me if I'd like to delete the recording, I scrolled up to "Yes, delete" and literally thought in my head, "Gladly." Such a shame. I'm going to try to give this show one more week to appeal to me, but I'm not holding out much hope.

In short, if this is your kind of show, it's really your kind of show. If it isn't, you were probably as disappointed as I was.

Pilot Grade: C-/D+

I'm actually quite fond of Alex O'Loughlin...

Wowzers, I don't often get a lot of comments on this blog, but the Alex O'Loughlin fans really turned out for my last post! I think my comments may have been a bit misconstrued or maybe my definitions are a bit off...

I actually quite adore Alex O'Loughlin and can't believe I spelled his name wrong. (In my defense, I pulled the cast list off a show description on the web, and that's how they had spelled it. I should have questioned their spelling, but took it at face value rather than putting in the effort to look it up for sure.) I was a late-comer to Moonlight, but really enjoyed it once I got started. I was completely bummed that it got canceled and kept hoping Alex would find a steady gig that was truly deserving of his talents. His many talents.. which were not showcased on the awful beyond awful Three Rivers. I couldn't agree more that it wasn't his fault that the show was terrible or that it got canceled. Indeed, he was the only redeeming quality. When that show premiered, I lamented the fact that Alex had found himself in such a poor role and was glad it got canceled because that would mean he could move onto better projects.

In terms of him being a "showkiller," based on reader response, I think my definition of the term must be a bit off (or simply not as hyperbolic as it really is). As I understand it, the status of "showkiller" has very little, if anything, to do with the talents or appeal of the person in question. Nathan Fillion, one of my absolute favorite people in world, is totally a showkiller. In my mind, it's simply someone who finds him/herself in projects that get canceled quickly (whether justifiably or not). One definition I found online reads, "A show killer is basically someone who bounces from television show to television show because each one gets canceled." And indeed, this website lists the actors it considers the top 8 showkillers, Alex O'Loughlin among them. Many of the actors on the list are superb and are people who bring a tremendous amount to the table. In my mind, I've never chalked showkiller status up to the relative abilities of the actors with said dubious distinction, but rather to unfortunate writing, poor circumstances, or, as is so often the case, some completely undefinable element that gets a show canceled too soon. In looking around further on the web though, there's certainly room for interpretation of the definition (everyone seems to have his/her own take), so I can see where my post provoked some ire.

Indeed, in seeing that my feelings about Mr. O'Loughlin were delivered with verbal butterfingers in my last post, I was pretty dismayed as well. He has a dedicated legion of fans, myself among them. I'm really hopeful that Hawaii Five-0 is as solid as it seems and that our fine friend Alex has finally found himself in a show that won't get killed. Honestly, if CBS just wants to put an Alex O'Loughlin screensaver with rotating pictures on the screen, I'd be fine with that. :)

I think I sense a spin-off in the works... The awesomest spin-off of all time...

CBS Pilots: Changing things up a bit...

Not only is CBS changing things up a bit, but so am I. Rather than break up the CBS slate of pilots into two digestible blogposts, I'm just going put the whole magilla into one. What can I say, we're in the home stretch and I'm getting lazy.

CBS, however, is actually putting forth more effort than usual. Rather than simply spinning off their library of crime procedurals into even more crime procedurals, they've actually added some variety to their fall line-up. Oh, don't you worry, the bulk of it still fits into the standard TV genres, but at least it's not all from the same genre for once. Hopefully the success of The Good Wife is what bolstered their confidence, but really, I'm guessing it's the sagging ratings of their aging line-up that led to some toe-dips out of the box. Whatever the reason, it's a nice change.

Here is how the new fall schedule is stacking up:

MONDAY
7:00 pm How I Met Your Mother
7:30 pm Rules Of Engagement
8:00 pm Two And A Half Men
8:30 pm Mike & Molly (new)
9:00 pm Hawaii Five-0 (new)

TUESDAY
7:00 pm NCIS
8:00 pm NCIS: Los Angeles
9:00 pm The Good Wife

WEDNESDAY
7:00 pm Survivor
8:00 pm Criminal Minds
9:00 pm The Defenders (new)

THURSDAY
7:00 pm The Big Bang Theory
7:30 pm $#*! My Dad Says (new)
8:00 pm CSI
9:00 pm The Mentalist

FRIDAY
7:00 pm Medium
8:00 pm CSI: NY
9:00 pm Blue Bloods (new)

SUNDAY
7:00 pm The Amazing Race
8:00 pm Undercover Boss
9:00 pm CSI: Miami

Why CBS does some of the things it does in terms of scheduling, I'll never understand, but whatever. I realize that both NCIS and The Good Wife skew older, but I can't imagine it's really the same demographic of older. Their placement of Hawaii Five-0 also has me scratching my head. It's one thing for people to stick around after the god-awful, but shockingly successful Two and a Half Men for Mike & Molly, but it's quite another to think they'll stick around after that. If Mike & Molly is a dud, then a lot of the lead-out from Two and a Half Men could be seriously diminished. It seems like a risky move to me. I would have paired Hawaii Five-0 with a returning show directly. Whatever. I'm sure it'll do fine regardless (barring Alex O'Laughlin's showkilling abilities, that is).

Anyway, on with the show! ...er, shows!

HAWAII FIVE-0

Description: Stars perennial showkiller Alex O'Laughlin, Lost alum Daniel Dae Kim, Scott Caan (Ocean's Eleven), and Grace Park (Battlestar Galactica). The behind-the-scenes talent has changed hands a few times, but I believe they settled on Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to script a pilot episode, and Peter Lenkov (CSI: NY) to serve as series showrunner.



My Take: Well, first off, no one can seem to decide if that's a zero or an "o" in the title... I saw a tweet that CBS issued an official memo, but I can't remember what is said and neither can anyone else. I believe it's supposed to be a zero, but that looks awfully funny depending on what font you're in. Anyway... This is a remake/reimagining of the original series from the 70's. I have to admit, I have never seen even a single episode of the original, so I came into this latest incarnation without any substantial pre-conceived notions. Coming in blind generally helps more than it hurts because shows don't have anything to live up to or exceed in my mind. As such, the trailer was pretty solid and managed to pique my interest (for more reasons than the simple fact that Spike appears to be the baddie-of-the-week in the pilot--yay!). Unlike the majority of cop shows coming down the pike, Hawaii Five-0 seems to be taking the splashy, fun-loving, thrill ride approach, rather than the gritty, nastily realistic approach of its genre compatriots. It's a bit of a throwback to older buddy cop shows, which I guess makes sense, what with it being a remake and all. I wouldn't say I'm on the edge of my seat for this one, but it looks like some low-commitment, carefree fun. I've always liked Alex O'Laughlin, even if his latest career moves have been... uh... how to put this gently...? Okay, he's a showkiller, plain and simple, but I think the shows he's been on had already signed DNRs, so he's a mercy showkiller. I don't think anyone is going to miss Three Rivers... Hopefully, third time really is the charm for O'Laughlin's relationship with CBS. If ever a show he was associated with looked like it could break his bad streak, I'd say it's this. It looks a little shallow, but that's what most people seem to like. I'd like to believe that it's a serial, but I'm willing to wager it'll have a bad-guy-of-the-week and get wrapped up in a nice, neat little bow at the end of every hour. Sigh. If they do it right, that's fine with me. I've learned to accept the fact that most Americans can't bring themselves to follow a storyline for more than one episode at a time, so I've learned to enjoy encapsulated episodes in their own right. Long story short, this looks like a slick, expensive production with a solid cast. I've never watched CSI: NY, so in terms of showrunners, I can't really offer much of an opinion, but I think we can all thank our lucky stars that at least he's not coming from CSI: Miami. I think this show will do very well and just might have enough panache and budget to pull this off. I'll definitely be giving it a shot.


MIKE & MOLLY

Description: From Chuck Lorre (“Two and a Half Men,” and “The Big Bang Theory”), stars Billy Gardell and Melissa McCarthy (Sookie from Gilmore Girls, not True Blood (yeah, cause that wouldn't be weird at all)), and the resplendent Swoozie Kurtz.



My Take: Okay, wow. I shouldn't be surprised considering Lorre's other shows, but Mike & Molly looks absolutely terrible (The Big Bang Theory is okay, I guess, in small doses, but Two and Half Men is positively pestilent). I didn't even crack a smile during this trailer. I'm a little conflicted though because I keep reading things on the web that says the full pilot is actually pretty charming and funny. Based solely on what I've seen so far, I find this hard to believe. Near as I can tell, it's just going to be 23 minutes of fat jokes and lame relationship anecdotes. I love Melissa McCarthy and her comedic timing is unimpeachable, but I'm afraid the jokes she was given fell pretty flat. She tried, she really did, but it all just struck me as predictable, forced, and stupid. The only reason I will even be screening the pilot is because I have heard some good reviews, but I'll be absolutely shocked if it's anything but painful to watch. Honestly, getting through the three minute trailer was fairly difficult... Also, on a purely shallow note, I have a hard time watching unattractive people engaged in romantic relationships, and the guy playing Mike is thoroughly unappealing... Sookie can do better, methinks. Much better. In all honesty though, I doubt I'll be around long enough for it be an issue.


BLUE BLOODS

Description: Stars Tom Selleck, Donnie Wahlberg, Will Estes, and Bridget Moynahan. From executive producers Robin Green and Mitch Burgess (The Sopranos).



My Take: Man alive, exactly how many new cop shows and I going to have to watch this fall? At last count, I think we hit 17. The glut makes it difficult to really get excited about any of them at all. Anyway, I find that I'm even less excited about this one than most, but I can't quite pinpoint why exactly. There's something off-putting about police officers in general (police work and military experience are pre-existing conditions as far as I'm concerned and are not covered under my dating policy) and unlawfully brutal police officers are even worse. Seriously, just hearing Tom Selleck say the words "enhanced interrogation techniques" made me a little ill. Which, to the show's credit, is probably the point. They are trying to stir a debate into the nature of justice, which is commendable, but not exactly appointment TV for me. I'm not really on the fence in this particular debate, so hearing it discussed at length doesn't really appeal to me. Anyway, I don't suppose that's going to be the central aspect of every single episode or anything and it really does point to a deeper, more conscientious narrative construct than most shows. Maybe it boils down to Donnie Wahlberg and his total lack of any and all appeal... Sigh. I'm mildly intrigued by the multi-generational family and the dynamics of a "family business" of sorts, but I'm not sure this is a capacity in which I'd want to explore it. In spite of Wahlberg, the on-air talent is seasoned and solid. The creative team has similarly impressive pedigrees. I never watched much of The Sopranos, but I'm well aware of its sustained quality over the years. I think the problem here is that this creative team is moving from the freedom of HBO to the confines of primetime network TV. Gritty crime dramas have a hard time being reined in by standards and practices in general, but for a team like this, I think they're going to have a hell of a time translating their style to a more family-friendly format. My other concern is that this show is premiering on Fridays at 9 pm, so I think finding an audience is going to be difficult. CBS has a better track record with this timeslot than other networks, however, so if anyone could pull this off, it's them. I'm not all that excited for this one, but I can definitely see where it could be better than it looks.


THE DEFENDERS

Description: Stars Jim Belushi, Jerry O'Connell, Jurnee Smollett, Tanya Fischer, and Gillian Vigman. Created by a couple of people I've never heard of...



My Take: Okay, so when I say CBS is changing things up a bit, I mean in terms of the CBS network brand only. In terms of TV, yeah, no, they're just as pathetically "business as usual" as the rest of the airwaves. Sigh. Here we have yet another lawyer show. Dear TV Writers, there are scads of workplaces that would make for interesting show settings, but you only seem to think there are three: lawyers, cops, and doctors. If you could casually dip your toe into something, anything else, it would be greatly appreciated. Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. Anyway... this show is a legal show, but it's totally different, see, because it's told from the point of view of the defense! Sooo... not different at all, then? I don't know. It's hard to be objective at this point. This looks like your standard client-of-the-week lawyer show, but I suppose with a more low-brow edge to it than usual. It looks like it could be a fun, low-commitment show, but at this point, I'm so weary of this genre that I just can't bring myself to be excited about it. Really, The Good Wife is the only recent legal drama that has brought something new and interesting to the table, and that's why I love it. This doesn't look like a bad show or anything, and the two leads have an obvious buddy chemistry going that's appealing, but I just don't know that I really care. What aspect of the trailer piqued my interest the most? The fact that Natalie Zea was in it. She isn't listed as a series regular or anything, so I assume she's only in the pilot, which is a good thing for Justified's sake, but not such a good thing for The Defenders. I'm sure I'll end up giving this show a shot, but as with the deluge of cop shows, I find myself looking for something newer and fresher to explore. With legal, doctor, and cop shows? I'm pretty sure I've seen it all.


$#*! MY DAD SAYS

Description: Stars William Shatner, Will Sasso, Nicole Sullivan, and Stephanie Lemelin. From the creators of Will & Grace.



My Take: Yeah, you lost me at "Based on the Twitter sensation"... Ugh. While this isn't the worst comedy trailer I've seen this year, it's pretty damn close. This looks pretty awful. I actually quite liked Will & Grace back in the day, and the creative team has other impressive credits as well, so I'm not sure what happened here. Maybe it's the multi-camera format, maybe it's the oppressive laugh track, maybe it's the weak-ass concept, maybe it's the Shatner, but whatever it is, it isn't working. Geez, even Nicole Sullivan is awful in this, and I quite like her in general. As with most CBS comedies, I don't think this one is going to win me over. And, from what I've been hearing on the web, it won't be winning over anyone else either. It's a lame concept, with forced, predictable jokes, and an unsuccessful attempt at giving it some heart as well. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pass.