POP-CULTURE COLUMN: Reruns Left Us Feeling Burned
By Dan Brown The word “rerun” as it applies to a repeated episode of a network TV show is quickly disappearing from the English language. Yet viewers have never watched more reruns, meaning old content. There are entire channels now devoted to repeats. There was a time, in the 1970s, when viewers hated them. Cast your mind back to an era before streaming, before satellite TV, before cable, when the schedule for network sitcoms and dramas ran roughly parallel to the school calendar. The new season of a show would debut in September, there would be a Christmas episode, things would wrap up in May as summer approached. This was my childhood. Shows didn’t just start up any old time. There were no full seasons dumped at once. Back then, the unspoken contract the networks had with the audience at home was, there would be a new episode every week of a series like, say, Happy Days. For whatever reason, sometimes a new episode wouldn’t be available. Production delays was the most common excuse. One of the options available to programmers was to broadcast an episode that had previously aired. But they did so at their peril. That’s because viewers hated, hated, hated when this happened. The refrain you would hear is, “I’ve already seen this episode! I know what happens!” No one wanted to see the Fonz date the same girl twice. I do realize all of this must sound like an ancient-history lesson to younger readers who can’t imagine a time when repeated episodes were a big problem. That’s likely because the idea of appointment viewing isn’t a thing anymore, except for some reality shows. This was a period when your favourite show was on at the same time, same day, every week. And you had to be home in front of your boob tube to see it. Then a strange thing happened in the 1990s when specialty cable channels proliferated. They needed a cheap way to fill out their schedules. Suddenly, there were entire channels devoted to nothing except reruns – Three’s Company, Soap, the Simpsons, you name it. I joked at the time that we only hated reruns when they were free. Once we had to pay for them, they became a legit viewing choice. Fast-forward through the eras of grey-market satellite dishes, legal satellite dishes, and now streaming and YouTube. In a sense, everything we watch is a rerun of one stripe or another. Some of the most popular shows are old, whether it’s Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or Mad Men. The difference is, programs such as these were made with a radically dissimilar mindset. In the network-dominated television world of the 1970s, any single episode was an ephemeral thing, expected to live only for a week in the public’s imagination. These shows were made as cheaply as possible. But just look at a typical episode of, say, the Sopranos. The production values aren’t the same as when Gilligan’s Island first aired, no, the way the Sopranos was shot has more in common with a feature film than a series of old. That stems from today’s producers understanding their creations will automatically have an afterlife, even on a format or channel or service that doesn’t exist yet. I don’t know what comes after streaming. In his graphic novel The Private Eye (which L.A. Mood’s Graphic Novel Group is discussing this Saturday), set decades from now, writer Brian K. Vaughan anticipates a future format of ceiling-to-floor television called tee vee. And sure enough, in one scene there are characters watching an old episode of The Big Bang Theory on the tee vee. Maybe holograms are the future? If that turns out to be the case, be prepared to watch a lot of holograms of old shows you’ve seen many times before. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: The Inequality of the TV Renaissance
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: The Inequality of the TV Renaissance By Dan Brown I don’t know why fortune smiles on some old TV shows, and lets the rest go free. Why have a new generation of viewers warmed to the likes of Friends, Gilmore Girls, and The West Wing via streaming, while such shows as That ’70s Show, Northern Exposure, and Seinfeld enjoy no such renaissance? I don’t know the answers. That’s why this column is more of an observation than an argument. I work with young people in both my day jobs, and I can’t tell you how shocked I was when one of them asked me something along the lines of, “Have you heard of a sitcom called Friends? I’ve watched all 10 seasons and it’s my new favourite show!” Other productions they enjoy watching include The Office, New Girl, and even Breaking Bad. Keep in mind, the folks I work with were children when some of these shows originally aired on network TV. The phenomenon of kids watching old productions isn’t new, of course. When I was a tyke growing up in the 1970s, I couldn’t avoid reruns of duds such as Gilligan’s Island, which had stopped airing before I was born in 1968. In a universe of limited channels, it was just what was on. The difference is young people today are seeking out Friends and its ilk on their own, they aren’t being force-fed the same old slop over and over, like my generation was. Thanks to streaming services such as Netflix, today’s viewing audience has a virtually unlimited library of content from previous decades at their fingertips. According to different studies, as much as 60 per cent of their viewing time is spent watching comedies and dramas from the past (that is, when they’re not on TikTok). But why do they gravitate toward certain offerings, but not others?Have they heard or read that Friends, for example, was really popular in its day? Were their parents or older siblings fans of Gilmore Girls? Streaming companies have an endless hunger for content, so it could be a case of the younger generation watches whatever is available, and whatever is being promoted. That might explain why no twentysomething has come to me and said, “I love The Drew Carey Show! It’s so great.” After all, there are 233 episodes of that thing! Even a huge hit such as Seinfeld gets no love now. Viewer's couldn't care less about House, as well, even though it once had a diehard following. It’s enough to make me believe the old saw about television is actually true. In the Before Times, the theory that explained why a telecast was popular went like this: Viewers made a show popular because they enjoyed spending time with its characters at the same time every week, thus those characters were regular visitors in the collective living room. Perhaps in our crazy post-postmodern world, hanging out at Cheers with Sam, Diane and the rest of the gang is the ultimate comfort food. Do you have any theories that would explain why certain shows transcend their era, yet others have no success at doing so? I would love to read them in the comments! Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: Give Doctor Who A Rest
By Dan Brown I haven’t watched Doctor Who on the regular in a long time. And I don’t believe there should be any new episodes of the venerable BBC series for a long time, either. That’s to help guarantee the viability of the program far into the future. Why am I saying this? You may have heard Doctor Who is at a crossroads. Showrunner Russell T. Davies has exited the series, and the rights to produce the show have been put out to tender. My feeling is, for the Doctor to survive, the character needs to go away for several years. Maybe even decades. It last aired on Disney+ in May, 2025. Although it was a staple of my childhood pop-culture diet, I haven’t been a regular viewer for ages. I think the BBC needs to send a message to fans: You’ve been taking the long-running show and its title character for granted. In a world with seemingly unlimited sci-fi content, Doctor Who has been getting, with its built-in generational audience, the short end of the proverbial stick. It needs to go fallow. Doctor Who aired for the first time in 1963, and made a generation of British children jump behind their living-room couches with its weird mix of rubber monsters, cliffhanger endings, and bargain-basement special effects. It eventually came to North America, where kids like me – watching on public broadcaster TVOntario – were enchanted, many of us becoming fans for decades. And yes, it has gone on hiatus before – notably from 1989 to 2005. Then it got a new lease on life with Davies at the helm. But lately, it feels more like background noise than compelling appointment viewing, whatever that might mean in the age of streaming services. I admit, I’m one of those boring, middle-age fogies whose first Doctor was played by Tom Baker. And in my view, he’s never been surpassed. Honestly, I couldn’t tell you who the last couple Doctors were, and I’m a Disney+ subscriber! (That’s the conceit of the show, that the Doctor regenerates every so often into a new body.) So let’s put it on the shelf for, say, a decade, and give fans a chance to miss the ever-quipping Time Lord. The character has stood the test of time before, I’m not worried Doctor Who will be forgotten. Besides, in our streaming reality, many programs take years between seasons to come back into our living rooms anyway. As smarter people than me -- like science-fiction writer Mark Shainblum -- have pointed out, the premise of the show is “inherently self-refreshing,” meaning each new actor who takes on the role represents an opportunity for the production team to set off in a new direction anywhere in this or any other universe. I think this was true in the show’s early days, but the Doctor isn’t in an environment anymore where his competition is other network productions. Now his competition is TikTok and YouTube. Besides, there are plenty of precedents for franchises that went on hiatus (imposed or voluntary) and came back stronger, built for the long run: Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica. Even Marvel Studios is producing fewer superhero movies and shows now. Speaking of Marvel, the worst thing the BBC could do is go on making Doctor Who content just for the sake of making Doctor Who content. I am open to one slight variation on the hiatus though: I hear an animated Doctor Who series may be in the works. If true, I could get behind that – so long as Tom Baker returns as the voice of the character! He’s still kickin, so The Fourth Doctor: The Animated Series sounds good to me! Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly Graphic-Novel Group book club.
POP-CULTURE COLUMN: The Pitt Is Eating At My Gut
By Dan Brown I gotta stop watching The Pitt. The HBO Max medical drama about a chaotic ER in Pittsburgh is stressing me out. Now in its second season, the Pitt is an unrelenting show from the beginning of every episode to the final minutes. My life is already stressful enough without having to keep track of all the storylines and characters. I have two jobs, a wife, two dogs, two cats. I have enough going on in my life without the extra pressure of not knowing if the ER team, led by Noah Wyle’s Dr. Robby, is going to make it through the day. Each hour of the show represents an hour of a shift. In the first season, the shift was unfolding like any other day when a mass shooting shook the city, flooding the hospital with wounded patients. In the current season, the major complication is how a ransomware attack means the doctors, nurses, and specialists on duty must do their jobs without the help of computers. The problem for me is that the show is so damn compelling. When the next instalment drops, I know right now it’ll be hard for me to resist watching. I guess I want to see how Wyle and his co-stars deal with the patients that wind up needing emergency care. It’s called competence p*rn – how fans get off on seeing characters who are professionals rise to an occasion beyond their understanding by improvising. The same fetish is also powering the stellar box-office numbers for Project Hail Mary in theatres right now. People love watching Ryan Gosling get stuff done on the big screen. Some human beings are apparently turned on by people who are really good at their jobs. I’m one of those suckers. I do feel a sense of relief when a dying patient is saved on the Pitt. Or when a student doctor pulls a solution out of their butt – the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center is a teaching hospital, a neat narrative trick that allows readers to understand what the medical team is up against in each individual case as the team talks out possible treatments. But it’s an ordeal to watch. The Pitt gets on my nerves in a way few TV shows ever have. When I was a young TV watcher in the 1980s, there was another series that had a similar effect, the cop drama Hill Street Blues. It was gritty and so realistic for its time. That was the first television offering to make me grind my teeth in the same way. Each episode of Hill Street Blues also started with the beginning of a typical shift and followed the characters through their long day. I credit the cast of the Pitt for grabbing my attention. The emotional give-and-take between head nurse Dana Evans (Katherine LaNasa) and Dr. Robby is the heart of this second season. Keeping up such a hectic pace, it’s easy to see how the folks working in this particular ER would get burnt out quickly. And there are all kinds of subplots. One doc is a recovering addict. Another was recently homeless. Another may be about to do self-harm, which means I gotta see if she goes through with it. Who am I kidding? I know I likely won’t change my viewing habits. The Pitt is just too damn good. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
Pop Culture Like Star Trek Used to be Disposable Fluff
By Dan Brown When I say “Star Trek,” I mean the old TV show that featured William Shatner as Captain Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Mister Spock. I don’t mean the Next Generation or Voyager or Upper Decks or Strange New Worlds or anything else. And if you’ve seen a Star Trek rerun in the last few years, you’ll have noticed the special effects stand up remarkably well. Although it was made on a shoestring budget in the late 1960s for an audience that had low expectations of science-fiction television, those shots of the Enterprise look crisp. But here’s the thing: Those aren’t the original effects. When you see the Enterprise floating in space, fighting a battle, or high above a planet’s surface, those images were inserted into the original episodes in a remastering process that dates back only to 2006. So the Trekkies who fell in love with the series in the 1960s did so without the attraction of modern special effects. My purpose here isn’t to argue which version is better. Nor is it to speculate if Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry would have approved of the new effects (he died in 1991). What I want to point out is how the revised Star Trek episodes represent a new attitude toward pop culture. What would surprise Roddenberry if he were alive is how long-lived his show has been. When the program originally aired from 1966 to 1969, TV didn’t have a great reputation. The medium was derided as “the boob tube” because the dominant perception was that the small screen appealed to those who weren’t all that bright. Consequently, Star Trek – which many consider classic stuff today – was just as disposable as any other show on the air at the time. In other words, despite embodying enduring social and political themes, individual episodes weren’t built to last. It didn’t matter back then if the show would hold up to repeated viewings, and I’m guessing the idea people would still be watching Star Trek in the year 2025 would have startled network executives. Nor is Star Trek the only example of pop culture that was created as ephemera that has far outlasted its creator’s intentions. Star Wars (by which I mean the movie with that title that came out in 1977) was made at a moment when few moviegoers were willing to pay to see a particular film multiple times. After all, a child’s ticket went for a whopping $1.50! Who could afford that in the hardscrabble Seventies, no matter how much you loved a film? As you likely know, several new coats of digital paint have been applied to Star Wars in the interim. There were versions with enhanced sound effects, then versions with enhanced visual effects, and on and on. They may have even released a 3D Star Wars for all I know. It doesn’t stop there. There are also updated editions – with outtakes put back in – of novels like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Stephe King’s ’Salem’s Lot. Albums such as Bob Marley’s Legend have likewise been retouched. The important thing to note here is our feelings about pop culture like the original Star Trek series have changed: What was once a throwaway indulgence meant only for a moment’s pleasure is now taken seriously, even expected to transcend its time. Heck, there are even such journalists as Rob Salkowitz who specialize in writing about pop culture! That didn’t used to happen. Expectations have risen dramatically. You could even argue it’s pop culture like Star Trek and Star Wars that is partly responsible for creating an audience that wants more out of its TV, movies, music and so on, than a momentary distraction. Me, I prefer the “original” versions of things that were released back in the day. To my eyes, the first Star Wars motion picture had a certain low-budget charm so I didn’t need a new, “better” one. But I’m glad it’s still around, even in a modified form, to light the fire of imagination in the minds of a new generation of pop-culture enthusiasts who have higher expectations than I ever did. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 32 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
Pop Culture Like Star Trek Used to be Disposable Fluff
By Dan Brown When I say “Star Trek,” I mean the old TV show that featured William Shatner as Captain Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Mister Spock. I don’t mean the Next Generation or Voyager or Upper Decks or Strange New Worlds or anything else. And if you’ve seen a Star Trek rerun in the last few years, you’ll have noticed the special effects stand up remarkably well. Although it was made on a shoestring budget in the late 1960s for an audience that had low expectations of science-fiction television, those shots of the Enterprise look crisp. But here’s the thing: Those aren’t the original effects. When you see the Enterprise floating in space, fighting a battle, or high above a planet’s surface, those images were inserted into the original episodes in a remastering process that dates back only to 2006. So the Trekkies who fell in love with the series in the 1960s did so without the attraction of modern special effects. My purpose here isn’t to argue which version is better. Nor is it to speculate if Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry would have approved of the new effects (he died in 1991). What I want to point out is how the revised Star Trek episodes represent a new attitude toward pop culture. What would surprise Roddenberry if he were alive is how long-lived his show has been. When the program originally aired from 1966 to 1969, TV didn’t have a great reputation. The medium was derided as “the boob tube” because the dominant perception was that the small screen appealed to those who weren’t all that bright. Consequently, Star Trek – which many consider classic stuff today – was just as disposable as any other show on the air at the time. In other words, despite embodying enduring social and political themes, individual episodes weren’t built to last. It didn’t matter back then if the show would hold up to repeated viewings, and I’m guessing the idea people would still be watching Star Trek in the year 2025 would have startled network executives. Nor is Star Trek the only example of pop culture that was created as ephemera that has far outlasted its creator’s intentions. Star Wars (by which I mean the movie with that title that came out in 1977) was made at a moment when few moviegoers were willing to pay to see a particular film multiple times. After all, a child’s ticket went for a whopping $1.50! Who could afford that in the hardscrabble Seventies, no matter how much you loved a film? As you likely know, several new coats of digital paint have been applied to Star Wars in the interim. There were versions with enhanced sound effects, then versions with enhanced visual effects, and on and on. They may have even released a 3D Star Wars for all I know. It doesn’t stop there. There are also updated editions – with outtakes put back in – of novels like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Stephe King’s ’Salem’s Lot. Albums such as Bob Marley’s Legend have likewise been retouched. The important thing to note here is our feelings about pop culture like the original Star Trek series have changed: What was once a throwaway indulgence meant only for a moment’s pleasure is now taken seriously, even expected to transcend its time. Heck, there are even such journalists as Rob Salkowitz who specialize in writing about pop culture! That didn’t used to happen. Expectations have risen dramatically. You could even argue it’s pop culture like Star Trek and Star Wars that is partly responsible for creating an audience that wants more out of its TV, movies, music and so on, than a momentary distraction. Me, I prefer the “original” versions of things that were released back in the day. To my eyes, the first Star Wars motion picture had a certain low-budget charm so I didn’t need a new, “better” one. But I’m glad it’s still around, even in a modified form, to light the fire of imagination in the minds of a new generation of pop-culture enthusiasts who have higher expectations than I ever did. Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 32 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
