• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

There are two types of shows out there. There’s the type of show that wins Emmys, and the type of show that, well ... is just there. In other words, it’s on the WB or UPN. (Note: I will refer to WB and UPN as one entity since they are almost the same.)

WB and UPN aren’t trying to win Emmys. They’re just trying to get viewers and don’t care if the shows are stupid. Take, for example, “Charmed.” What was Aaron Spelling thinking when he created a show about three young witches and cast Shannon Doherty as one of them? Who would have thought that it would attract viewers? Even my brother watches it (I am ashamed to say).

Then there’s “Smallville.” Who would have thought that somebody could make Superman sizzle after Christopher Reeves and Dean Cain?

WB and UPN are the underdog stations. They are easily pigeon-holed as carrying crappy teenage angst shows since teenagers are the main audience, but they do so much more.

Unlike the major TV networks, WB and UPN are showing different types of programming (though it’s not as well done as it should be).

WB and UPN are able to take chances because they can; the stakes for them aren’t as high as NBC, which has a “Must-See TV” reputation to uphold. WB and UPN’s motto is more like “leave your expectations at the door,” and they have been able to get away with it with such shows as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” Come on. Vampires? You know guys watch that show because they think Sarah Michelle Gellar is hot, and girls watch it for the cute clothes.

I don’t think people should discount WB and UPN for showing those types of shows. They do have their crowning glory, “Gilmore Girls,” a show that demonstrates WB and UPN’s capabilities. Here you have a show that presents an alternative lifestyle where a single parent is trying to raise her daughter. It has good plots and good dialogue, which (surprise) make for a good show.

Now “The West Wing,” “Frasier,” “ER,” and “Friends” are some of the most watched shows, because they win Emmys and stick to the conventions of “good taste,” but it’s kind of boring to have the same-ol’ same-ol’ each time around. Three out of four of these shows are about white-collar professionals.

The other difference is their priorities when it comes to content. Gee, how can we compare protecting the security of our nation in “West Wing” to whether Lex Luther’s bald head is real or not?

NBC could never pull off “Dawson’s Creek,” which for me went up the damn creek a long time ago, because people who watch NBC expect witty quips or good dialogue. Admittedly, in its heyday Dawson’s Creek had some really intellectual dialogue that was fun to listen to because, being a misunderstood teen myself, I thought “Great, a show that doesn’t make us look stupid.”

All the big networks are trying to compete with HBO, but the thing is, HBO is too good. It’s cable and that provides a license for smart, risque material that audiences like. Respectable broadcast TV looks bad when it tries to imitate the “real thing.”

WB and UPN are commendable because they don’t even try. They’re just doing their thing and don’t really care about the awards. They don’t care if what they’re doing is “quality,” as long as the people tune in. They target the teens (and grab some adults too) with some hot-looking stars and the newest fashions couched in twisted high school drama.

Maybe NBC and the rest of the pack should try and follow WB and UPN for a change. I don’t mean they should make a lot of bad teen shows, but maybe it would be worthwhile to do something different. That way they may be able to get out of HBO’s shadow.