When it premiered in 2006, I was excited to check out the new series called Friday Night Lights. Why not? The movie was great, Kyle Chandler’s great, and NBC was a hit-maker (certainly relative to today). But I gave up on it after just a few weeks … it conflicted with two other shows that aired at the same time (NCIS and Gilmore Girls for the wife), and while I was sort of enjoying it, there was nothing about the show that screamed “must see” to me.
Since then the series has almost died, before being saved in a last-minute deal between NBC and DirecTV. But regardless of its ratings, come awards season the show usually generates a whole bunch of noise. So I figured it was about time I went back and checked out the goings on in Dillon, Texas.
Episode Summary – What a difference four years makes! When the show premiered, Coach Taylor’s daughter Julie (Aimee Teegarden) was a little girl; now she’s dating, and applying to colleges. I seem to recall something about her and a football player way back then, but I’m not 100% sure.
Anyway, as I’ve read in many places, Coach Taylor shifted over to the East Dillon football team, while his wife Tami (Connie Britton) remains principal at West Dillon. Not sure what happened there, but I could see the conflict that obviously broils under the surface in Dillon when Tami started hearing about how she’d purposefully sent a great quarterback (is that Matt Lauria’s Luke?) her husband’s way when she told him he was going to the wrong school.
Luke’s conflict with Vince (Michael B. Jordan) is a lot too Remember The Titans, without the historical setting’s natural racial undertones. But I loved seeing Jordan in something; I remember him fondly as Wallace on The Wire, and it’s great to see that he built a career for himself.
What in the world are Taylor Kitsch and Zach Gilford doing still hanging around? If I’m remembering correctly, Gilford’s Matt Saracen stepped in as quarterback after the starter got injured, while Kitsch’s Riggins hooked up with the injured quarterback’s (also his best friend) girlfriend. Right? But what are these guys plausibly still doing in Dillon? Did the show want them to stick around so badly that they stunted the progression of their lives? Is Riggins living in a trailer in someone’s backyard? Do they have anything to do with the rest of the show, save for Matt dating Julie Taylor?
I enjoyed the whole part about Coach Taylor trying to light a fire of pride in the East Dillon team, school, and alumni. I think that’s a really interesting story to pursue, and I am very curious about what Eugene Young (Steve Harris) is avoiding from his past. I think there’s a tremendous amount of depth to mine with the East Dillon Lions, and I just wonder why Tami doesn’t seem to be as involved with her own school as she is with whatever her husband’s doing.
Couple of things that I found weird: the token lesbian totally didn’t make sense, and what was going on between Julie and the assistant coach? Are those Coach Taylor’s assistants from West Dillon? And how did Jesse Plemons’ Landry end up at East Dillon?
Conclusions – Not a bad show, and I think the whole “building a program” at East Dillon thing could be amazing … but the show’s boring. The reason I didn’t choose to record it in some other way in 2006 is that nothing compelled me to watch it. Nothing got me excited about a new episode airing week after week. And while I really did enjoy the East Dillon stuff (as far as Coach Taylor was concerned; the Luke and Vince stuff was annoying), it was dull. There’s something about the slow, sleepy Southern feel that seeps into the very core of the show. Maybe people love it for that, but I need more happening, and not on the “X is sleeping with Y” front. I enjoy a good drama, but it needs to entice me. I just didn’t feel seduced by Friday Night Lights.
But I know plenty of people do, and for those of you who love the show, there are a hell of a lot of great things about it … I’m glad all the parts click together for you. Me? I preferred Chandler in Early Edition.
Clacked by Aryeh S.
on May 31, 2010 @ 16:30 EST5EDT
“Maybe people love it for that, but I need more happening, and not on the “X is sleeping with Y” front. I enjoy a good drama, but it needs to entice me. I just didn’t feel seduced by Friday Night Lights.”
The best dramas on TV in the past few years (The Wire, Lost, Treme, and Friday Night Lights) are defeated by the premise of your column, because individual episodes do not make the drama of the series; the entire arc does. This column can only work with good serialized dramas as a piece of humor that exploits the many questions that the show does not inform you about. It’s a conceit at the very core of these shows that’s ripe for a humorous exploration, but as a serious article, jumping into a random page of a book just to see how good that chapter is, this column truly fails.
Think about it. As a project, what is the extent of the information you can garner from such a column? That characters are not understandable? That the dialogue seems dull or filled with inside references? That the plot is similarly lacking in understanding or even silly? When it comes to a good serialized show, this becomes an exercise in ignorance. In Friends, Two and a Half Men, House or many episodic shows, the audience is given most of the answers it needs, and most questions are readily answered in 44 minutes. In good episodic TV, the strength is not explaining what happened before, not rehashining an explanation of why a character acts how s/he does, and not explaining yet again how the plot resulted in the state it is in for that episode.
“But what are these guys plausibly still doing in Dillon? Did the show want them to stick around so badly that they stunted the progression of their lives? Is Riggins living in a trailer in someone’s backyard? Do they have anything to do with the rest of the show, save for Matt dating Julie Taylor?”
There were some quite plausible reasons for both being on. Riggins started college and then left because he didn’t like the structure. He came back to Dillon to see his brother and start an auto repair shop. His brother was very angry at him for leaving college, but I think the decision to leave college was true to his character. As for Matt, the only person in his own life who has never left him has been his grandmother, and he’s not about to leave her — especially given her problems with dementia. His storyline for this season actually is about why he’s still there, is he mentally stuck there because of his grandmother and because of Julie, and what is required for him to leave (spoiler: money from his father’s death to take care of his grandmother). He leaves in a few episodes, but in this next episode, Zach Gilford deserves an Emmy.
“Couple of things that I found weird: the token lesbian totally didn’t make sense, and what was going on between Julie and the assistant coach? Are those Coach Taylor’s assistants from West Dillon? And how did Jesse Plemons’ Landry end up at East Dillon?”
The token lesbian served some good dramatic purposes earlier: she was the object of Landry’s affection before he found out her orientation, and now, by bringing Julie to a gay bar, Julie discovers that one of her father’s assistant coaches is gay, which is what he denies to her in the confrontation you saw. One of the coaches for Taylor now was his assistant in West Dillon. And for Landry, he plays for East Dillon because when the new rezoning took place, his house is on the East Dillon side, so he had to change schools.
It’s a great show. If it’s not for you, that’s fine, but to call it boring after jumping in mid-season is just ignorant.
Amazing Reply! :-)
*POST AUTHOR*
I’ve already heard this a number of times in response to the handful of scripted shows I’ve approached in this manner, people in one form or another saying, “My show can’t be taken on an episode-by-episode basis.” Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? It means that no one can jump into a new show if they’ve missed the pilot. It means that all the cries, from critics and fans, to check out X are completely pointless, because if new viewers watch X in season 4 episode 4, of course they’re not going to like it!
You’re intertwining a person’s ability to jump into the plot mid-stride with a show’s overall enjoyment luring a new viewer in. The latter is to which I refer when I say the show’s boring … whether or not I understand the plots, if they’re interesting they’re interesting. That’s when I’d say, “I have to know what’s going on” and seek out the first episodes or seasons. To say that a show is rightfully inaccessible unless viewed for the long-term defeats the entire idea of a show promoting itself and trying different ways to attract larger audiences.
I started watching The Sopranos in season 4, and I was completely lost in the grander plot. But I loved it! And so I went back to the beginning and watched it the whole way through. Because something about episode whatever in season 4, that had a totally foreign plot to me, made me want to see more. The same with The Wire –- which, by the way, you can’t possibly say wasn’t enthralling on a weekly basis –- I started in the middle, had no idea what was happening, but totally loved it. Obviously a show has to be interesting to the viewer at large, even while the story lines aren’t understandable; otherwise a show should just pack it in now and not waste anyone’s money!
I would argue as well that a good book must interest you whether you read page one or page 90. Someone glancing at page 90 won’t get the plot, but shouldn’t they be able to discern whether or not they enjoy the writing and want to go back to the beginning? If a writer isn’t keeping the fire burning mid-story, no one will publish them.
As for the questions I pose, that’s the point here. They’re a) my experience as I watch, and b) an attempt to initiate conversation such as this. But what does it matter if I know why Coach Taylor is at East Dillon now? The only important thing is if the episode makes me want to know more, something it should absolutely be able to do whether or not I’m aware of the background. And while I do pose questions throughout, I don’t believe that I gave the impression that any of them were the reason why I found the show boring. That had nothing to do with the plots.
I was wondering about Riggins and Matt being around on its face, but also because I know that the creators felt that they couldn’t lose the two actors. I admit there to laughing at that decision a bit because of how meaningless their presence seemed to me — I may not watch the show, but I do know what’s happening on it from reading.
I have no interest in using the word ignorant, but it makes no sense for anyone to insist that their show is simply not for the new viewer. Any show runner who heard a viewer saying that would scramble like mad to change their show to make it accessible to the casual viewer … they want to grow their audience! If a stand-alone episode isn’t gripping or compelling in any way, they would see that as a failure by them to get something right, not further support that you can’t enjoy a serialized show without all of the facts.
I find it interesting that viewers of certain shows grow defensive when someone comes in “from the outside” with an opinion, almost like there’s residual anger that, if you weren’t here for us before, we don’t want you now. Believe me, NBC and DirecTV want more than 3.5 million viewers, and if they were hearing from enough people that new viewers weren’t watching because the show was boring them, you’d see a lot more action thrown in immediately.
I’m glad that you love it, but to say that a person would only find Friday Night Lights good or exciting if they’ve seen the last 60+ episodes is counter-intuitive to what TV is.
You wrote “but the show’s boring”.
Of course this is an editorial piece but to assume you won’t piss off fans of the show by this offhand remark is… well… thanks for the long-winded answer but you either understand what you are going to get as an answer when you write stuff like this and are ready to defend it with a short “This is an editorial piece and if it wasn’t clear I was simply stating my opinion” then you might not understand “editorial” yourself.
The long-winded reply instead seems pretty defensive. You assume that every show needs to be accessible or “interesting” to the viewer who just happens to tune in to the show. I’d say that this isn’t something every TV critic would agree to. It’s nice that “The Sopranos” managed to interest you, but to be honest you argued against this standpoint in the post itself already. You mentioned that you watched the show in the past already. If the show didn’t manage to interest you then, when you started watching from the beginning of the show, how to you expect it to be interesting to you now from a complete different perspective? Did you assume it would miraculously turn into something that it wasn’t in the first place?
*POST AUTHOR*
Actually, due to the fact that it had been saved from near-death multiple times, I assumed that the show had improved somewhat. I wanted to see if that was the case.
Everyone can choose the route that they prefer, but I think if you can’t articulate your position, and choose instead to hide behind “This is an editorial piece and if it wasn’t clear I was simply stating my opinion…” you might as well not bother to state your opinion in the first place. Far from being defensive, I was attempting to elaborate on why I completely disagree with the notion that new viewers can’t enjoy shows already in progress. Even if my own reasoning is flawed, the theory goes against the very thing that every single person in television is trying to do – grow an audience. How much simpler can a premise be?
I don’t mind pissing off fans, but at least disagree with me with regard to the show. Don’t try using a theory that every TV exec in the business would be horrified by.
It has been saved from near-death due to the quality of the writing and the acting.
Your whole train of thought is that it must’ve gotten better because the ratings improved. You could’ve found out that that is not the case by reading Brett’s Ratings Clack column.
After your statement that the show is “boring”, you then go on to say that it most likely would not improve by adding sex. Your example of a show where you didn’t know the story but which you were still interested in is “The Sopranos” which is pretty laden with sex and violence.
So let me get this straight:
ratings = quality
sex = ratings
violence = ratings
Your whole analysis of the show is based on ratings. When I then tell you that not everybody considers ratings as a measure of the quality of a show you ask me not to use that argument.
I’m sorry but isn’t that a bit irrational? Why should I try to convince you that the show is good based on story, plot, acting and maybe setting when you clearly find those points “boring”, when I already told you that the only way to defend that standpoint is by saying that that is your own opinion which the fans of the show most likely (or better: definitively) won’t share?
I mean I could try arguing based on the plot but I honestly think that’s a moot point when it comes to you. Back when you were writing about “Eli Stone” and I desperately tried to tell you why I thought the show sucked you dragged out the ratings to underline that the show can’t be that bad because the ratings weren’t that bad.
I won’t even get into the whole complex that a TV exec isn’t interested in quality but rather in selling ad space, which means that as long as you find a buyer for an ad spot the ratings don’t matter. And as soon as you enter the Pay-TV and DVD sales complex it gets even worse.
FNL isn’t for you, I get it, but please don’t try telling us that it isn’t a good show because the ratings are bad or because you don’t like it, or that it would be better when you add things that usually raise ratings.
*POST AUTHOR*
I appreciate that you feel so strongly about the show, but I’m not following you. I didn’t say the first thing about ratings in my post (except to mention that regardless of ratings, it gets awards buzz). My review had nothing to do with how many people are watching the show … what do I care? I brought in numbers to elaborate why the network would want to grow their audience, but I don’t base my opinions on shows on what anyone else thinks, or who else is watching. When have I ever given the impression that I do?
What I said about sex and violence was that those are not the kind of things I’m talking about when I say I need more happening, not that I don’t enjoy shows that might include them.
“Your whole analysis of the show is based on ratings” … I really don’t understand where you got that from. Sorry.
As far as my saying it is or isn’t a good show, a) Of course my making a statement like that would be based on whether or not I liked it; what else does a viewer base such an opinion on? And b) I never said it wasn’t a good show. In fact, I went out of my way to not give the impression that I was implying that. “Not a bad show” may not be a ringing endorsement, but it’s certainly not negative.
You mean the renewal of a show usually is based on how good the story is?
I’m sorry but how is your comment that the show got renewed several times even though it was on the bubble not a statement about ratings? I know that you didn’t write down anything about ratings but when you mention TV execs and the ideas about how to make the show more interesting and that it needs to be easier to get into not about ratings? How would making a show more easily approachable highten the quality of the show as a whole? Since when is how good a show is based on how easy you can jump into it? I really don’t get your book analogy there either and, to be honest, I think it is absolutely wrong. Opening a book on a page and then reading there just gives you an impression about the general style of the book. I understand that this was your approach to every show you visited on “What’s this show called” and it’s an interesting concept when you come from the perspective of the viewer who is zapping around and might come across a show that has an avid fanbase. But I think you went a little too far here trying to find out how the show could be made “better” because you are trying to change the show to interest people who fit your approach. Now this approach might be very common but I think it severely conflicts with the idea of “quality” which can be defined in a very wide range of points just like the reasons for renewal can be very different.
Maybe I am understanding you wrong completely but I can’t do more than read what you write and try do argument along the impression I get from reading what you write. Most likely my interpretation of what you try to get across is completely wrong but I’m having a real hard time to understand how you could mean something different when you use these examples.
It’s really hard to get into your head here… I’ve been thinking about this for over two hours now and I simply can’t really understand your line of thought any different…
I mean I know a lot about FNL and simply know that the show had a strong backing at NBC from the start. They liked the way the show was done and always stood behind it no matter what. No matter how bad the ratings were. They didn’t even ask the showrunners to do it cheaper (the reason Dollhouse got a second season was that they managed to show with Epitaph One that the show could be done cheaper and they did so in the second season). FNL survived because DirecTV got on board and funded the show together with NBC and that way they could simply keep on doing what they were doing and give the show another three seasons.
Again, it’s not that I sit here and that I’M angry that you say the show is “boring” it’s more that I understand your thought process in a certain way, I comment on it, and all the while you say I’m complete misinterpreting what you are trying to tell the reader. I’m really not angry about what you write it’s just that I think you are completely wrong about your conclusions and what you write. And you keep telling me I simply understand you wrong.
And now I’m here thinking and thinking trying to understand you, what you could’ve meant an if my own understandings of how a show is judged lead to the me misinterpreting what you write. If that is really the case then you should, or maybe could, please, elaborate more. How come you think that a show must’ve gotten better because it got renewed for several more seasons? Did you know about the DirecTV deal? What was your research before writing this blog post?
Maybe my whole judgment about this is so “clouded” because I thought about this show a lot. I mean I reviewed it last year and thougth about doing it again this year before finding out that the show is done after five seasons. They are currently producing season five, which will air next year around the same time most likely at the same time as the new shows all the actors will get on board with.
Once again, if I were angry about your conceptions about the show or if I thought you “just don’t get why the show is so great” like a “Twilight” fangirl thinks about anybody who doesn’t understand how “great that movie/book is” *barf* ;-) I would’ve attacked you about the points you made about the plot, but Ganesh already did that pretty nice. Asking me to argue along the lines of your post is a bit moot here, Ganesh did a real fine job there. Repeating something he already said would be kind of moot and telling you why I like the show so much is also a bit moot when you say that one of the points why you don’t like it is because of the southern slowness which I really like (same on Treme by the way). I mean one point would be that the whole football thing and finding out how those teams fare at the games is really interesting and how they use that to generate tension is also really moot don’t you think when you write about a show that is about football. It’s like saying you like ace of cakes because of the cakes.
Well duh! ;-)
*POST AUTHOR*
Let’s back things up for a second. At the end of the day, all I said was that I found the show to be boring. Period.
As for the reason it’s still on the air, DirecTV, in an attempt to make their 101 station a destination for scripted programming, sought out a deal with a show that they felt had a strong niche audience. That deal was irrespective of historical ratings … the company felt that a strong offering would bring viewers. Friday Night Lights was in the right place at the right time … I don’t believe that its DirecTV deal was related to an improvement in quality at all.
I didn’t make any suggestions about how to change or improve the show – I was attempting to forestall anyone who might argue that there’s usually more sex or violence, and that I just picked a low-key episode to watch. Obviously I wasn’t clear, but I never attempted to suggest how to change the show in any way.
I also didn’t equate quality with accessibility; rather, I simply stated that if a show isn’t accessible, its audience will never grow.
But going back to the body of my post, all I said was that the show was boring. The rest of this is a result of discussing whether or not the casual viewer should be able to get hooked into a serialized show by watching a random episode. And I still argue that, if a show is inaccessible, it has done something wrong. That’s on an interesting level, not an “I can follow everything that’s going on” level. There’s a difference there that I’m making – I’m not saying, “explain the back story every week.” I’m saying “be interesting, and make me want to catch up and find out what’s going on.” Those two things are distinctive, and completely separate.
I guess that for me, the way this column is uninteresting is that it’s solely about you. It’s not really about the show you’ve chosen, since it’s a random episode of a show devoid of the context that show may be in. It’s not really about the show’s themes or ideas, since as a new watcher, you won’t even be aware of what those themes are, especially in their nuanced form. It’s not quite about the acting, since you’re seeing a 44-min episode that may not even feature the main actors of a show.
Ultimately, this column is about you and what you find interesting. Other reviews on this website provide more detailed information about a show, about what makes a particular episode weak or strong in the context of the series arc. Actors’ performances are compared to how they acted in previous weeks. Conjectures about plot are made leveraging the information from prior weeks. More importantly, a relationship is developed to the audience about the likes and dislikes of the reviewer.
This column does not do these things. It’s as if you applaud your ignorance about a show, and use the parameter of what is interesting to you in this single episode to extrapolate about the series in general. I don’t think I would have as many objections to the premise of your column if you restricted the judgments you make solely to the episode you saw, but you don’t.
As I said before, the method used to create this column is ultimately about you and what you find interesting. The problem is that I don’t know you, and what I see doesn’t impress me. I don’t know how much you can understand from a decontextualized episode. I don’t know how well you can see subtlety or when a scene is making reference to a previous interaction. I don’t know how well you can surmise themes or character transitions from a limited viewing. The only substance you can provide us is how much an episode interested you (and by proxy, how much a show is interesting), and that information is just quite limited.
*POST AUTHOR*
But that’s exactly the point … most columns are essentially editorials; this one relays my experience watching a new show. Who should it be about?
And of course it’s not an analysis of the series in a greater sense, just the one episode I’m viewing. This isn’t a show review, to which you compare it – this is a column about my experience.
The problem with your suggestion that I not comment on the show at large is that no one watches TV that way. I’m like any other viewer checking out a show for the first time, be it the pilot, a random season’s premiere, or a random episode in a random season. Any one of many, many people who try new shows at various times during their runs. And the vast majority of people make decisions about continuing to watch said new show based on that one episode … how else would any of us not continue to watch every single thing we’ve ever caught an episode of? To use your theory, all I could say about a disappointing show would be, “Oh, bad episode. Let’s try again next week,” because you’re insisting that generalizations can’t be made. Can you honestly say that you watch TV like that?
Like I said: it’s an editorial so nobody can really attack you for what you wrote down. Only for the way you approach it.
FNL like Lost and other shows like “The Wire” shouldn’t be written about like this. You gave that book analogy. I have to strongly object that you can open books like “War and Peace” somewhere in the middle and like the book based on the writing. It’s god awful boring like that. So it’s a little bit funny that you ask me to argue based on the show when you can’t be attacked for what you wrote down about the show because of the way you chose to approach it.
*POST AUTHOR*
I think I was also hunting you just a little bit…. ;)
Oh I forgot something :-)
In general I agree with you. Browsing for books via opening them IS a way to find out if you like a book. Why else would Amazon offer that for almost all books? Usually it’s enough to find out what’s on the cover and the inside of the jacket, what others wrote about the book. Then you browse a little bit and flippig through channels is just like that. I did it too back when I was still watching regularly.
I also agree that any TV exec is right when he says he wants a TV show to be appealing to all viewers especially those who come to the show for the first time. In FNL, those times unfortunately are the starts of seasons, so all I could ask for here would be that you should’ve started with the first episode of the season but again that’s not how you chose to approach it. So all in all – you are right in everything you say. But there’s (of course) always an exception to every rule and unfortunately it’s a show like this one.
You see the older I got the more I rely on the opinion of others. With the internet and social networks and those networks trying to get you together with people who have similar tastes, I found that relying on the opinion of others is great. I would’ve never watched “Venture Bros.” if it weren’t for Annie Wu.
I understand that you write these editorials to tell us what the casual viewer might think of these shows that are regarded as good TV. The problem with that is that you very easily come off as ignorant while doing so. I know you aren’t I guess that’s why I was so irritated when I first commented. I couldn’t grasp what was going on here ^^; Every fiber in me revolted against telling you that you are an ignorant bastard not to think FNL is the greatest show on TV ;-)
All in all I understand why you didn’t like the episode, that irks me even more. Not every episode on FNL is great. But it’s hard to accept that when you feel connected to the show, you know? :-) And it’s very hard to argue with someone based on the show when you’d like to criticize aspects of it for being idiotic to yourself who really likes the show and doesn’t like certain plot lines while the other person thinks that it’s flat out boring :-D
*POST AUTHOR*
Interestingly, my decision not to do the premiere of Friday Night Lights was based on an assumption that viewers would be upset, after waiting for the show to return for so long, were I to slam it. Hindsight is 20/20. :)
It’s fair for anyone to view what I had to say as being ignorant, but people have to realize that there are going to be viewers who have this same experience. A show needs to at least capture their interest if it wants them to return the following week … and people will do so despite being lost as to the plot.
A show’s tune-in value, for lack of a better word, is separate from how easily one can leap into its stories. The former is the only thing that will turn a first-time viewer into a repeat viewer. As long as everyone understands that….
As an aside, this is the kind of exchange I expected to have with you about the column, having had these discussions with you before. but I certainly do understand passion for a show.
I started watching S1 on DVD this weekend and am half way thru and hooked. I have heard for years that this is a great show and now? Another great show I watch after the fact!
I don’t want to jump in with the fervor of some of the others on this board, and I respect your opinion.
Let me just politely say that I completely disagree :)
FNL has stumbled, in my opinion once. And I don’t have the hatred for that storyline that others do (Anytime the lovable nerd gets school hottie? I’m a sucker for that storyline). Other than that, I feel it is one of the best shows on Television, period.
This season was a bit down, not in quality, but in tone, not making it the most fun season to watch. You question about Riggins is easily answered, especially if you’ve grown up in or around small towns. Some people don’t want to leave … They like the life, and don’t want it to change. With Matt, it was more about how he grew up, leaving his grandmother behind, and, frankly, leaving Julie, the only thing that ever gave him confidence. No, football didn’t, just Julie. I didn’t like the storyline, but I understood it.
I like the show too, and it does have some boring parts, but the more I watched this season on DirecTv, the more I wanted to watch. I too liked Chandler in Early Edition; it was one of my favorite shows back in the day.
Wow, what a terrible article, a show that thrives on long story arcs and the intertwining personal relationships of its characters can’t just be picked up. You have to show some patience like an adult and learn the relationships. Or maybe since you apparently know how to used a computer, read the episode synopsis from previous seasons.