There was a considerable span of time where NBC was the dominant force in television.  They were behind a long series of hit shows that included The Cosby Show, Cheers, Night Court, Will and Grace, Seinfeld, Hill Street Blues, etc.  NBC’s “Must See TV” lineup gave people reasons to stay conscious on a Thursday evening that didn’t involve preparing their livers for a Friday night of clubbing.  Something happened in 2004.  Maybe it was the re-election of George W.  Bush or maybe it was the ending of their last truly great series “Friends,” but at some point in time that year, something broke both NBC’s spirit and their brain.  

It started simply enough.  Then Network President, Jeff Zucker, tried to replace “Friends” with two sub standard shows, Coupling and Joey.  Coupling was a British show that NBC tried to bring to an American audience.  The problem was that this program was the Brits low rent version of Friends.  Replacing a popular show, with something that looks a little like it, but without the charm is sort of like trying to replace your first love with a latex based product bought at a Fredrick’s of Hollywood outlet.  It’s just not the same.  Coupling didn’t work out and neither did the show, Joey.  Building a spin-off around the least intriguing character of the Friends cast was a mistake on par with the New Coke, the show After M.A.S.H. and “Hope and Change.”  After that the bad decisions just kept on coming. 

They cancelled My Name is Earl (a show three years removed from its ratings peak, but still viable with over six million viewers) and replaced it with the horrible Parks and Recreation.  From a ratings perspective, My Name is Earl was (at its worst) more successful then Parks and Recreation was at its best. 

From 2004 to 2010, NBC was the broadcast network version of the Trail of Tears.  They piled blunder on top of blunder with nonsensical moves that included trying to turn their massive layoffs of hundreds of workers and deep cost cuts into a marketing campaign.  They veiled their failures in with the publicity campaign NBC 2.0. Nobody was buying this, and the networks average rating sank to 3.1.  NBC followed up this marketing disaster by resurrecting such shows nobody wanted to see rise from the grave.  Despite this, Knight Rider and American Gladiators were brought back from the dead.  During the writers’ strike, network President, Jeff Zucker, believed it would be a good idea to go on prime time television and mock the people who actually bring to life what we see when we tune into a program.  

While all of the above would be considered lethal errors, the crown jewel of incompetence that NBC managed to perpetrate involved The Tonight Show.  In 2004 Zucker gave Jay Leno a five year heads up that Conan O’Brien would be taking over Johnny Carson’s seat in 2009.  After leading up to the Leno/O’Brien transition for half a decade Conan only lasted 8 months as the in the job.  He left the network (after they paid him $33 million to go away) and Jay Leno was reinstalled as The Tonight Show host.  

This laundry list of gaffes would be acceptable for any network owned by a guy named Shemp, but not for NBC.  This is something that the powers that be at Comcast probably realize, and there will probably be some big changes coming to the Peacock network. 

Nobody knows what Comcast will do with the network, but just about anything they do that doesn’t involve water boarding the cast of The Office has got be an improvement on the current product.  Comcast, being a cable provider, has been exposed to a diverse world of programming that is well beyond the borders of the media bubble that Zucker and his sycophants lived in.  It is likely they would not have botched The Tonight Show handoff, resurrected Knight Rider, or passed on bringing Battlestar Galactica to network television.  

Those of us who love television are waiting with great anticipation to see what happens to the Peacock under the new regime.

It was NBC’s ambitions, inherited from the innovative TV programmer Sylvester “Pat” Weaver in the 1950s, that led to expensive, high-concept shows such as Kings, Heroes, The Event, and the like (note the high-flown titles of these series). Even last season’s Tonight Show debacle can be seen as part of this trend, an attempt at innovation and specialness on the cheap.

—–

This approach has failed at least as often as it has succeeded—NBC’s ratings were seldom spectacular under Weaver; CBS tended to rule the roost then, as today. In fact NBC’s greatest success in the post-Weaver years was the Brandon Tartikoff era, when the former ABC program exec wedded  the network’s typical ambition and thirst for innovation with a smart quest for personable actors and entertaining concepts.

With Zucker now on the way out and Jeff Gaspin installed as board chairman, NBC appears to be trying to return to the Tartikoff approach, and the new series Undercovers (Wednesdays, 8 p.m. EDT) is a good example of the changes at the network.

It’s another action-adventure  series in the mid-1960s style (like Fox’s Human Target and Fringe and much of the USA Network’s original programming). Created by J. J. Abrams, creator of Alias, Lost, Fringe, and the Star Trek reboot movie, Undercovers is not particularly original, but that may actually be a good sign. Following the pattern established by Fox and the USA Network (and taking a cue from NBC’s glory days under Tartikoff) is probably more sensible than continuing down the same unsuccessful path NBC has trodden in the past decade.

The show is also an unacknowledged remake of the mid-1960s NBC comedy-drama espionage series I Spy, which starred Bill Cosby and Robert Culp as secret agents for the Pentagon who travel the world as a tennis bum (Culp) and his manager (Cosby) and encounter adventure in exotic locales. This nod to the past, like other such formula elements in the series, is actually a good thing: Abrams and his team are smart enough to learn from the past and use what works, and then put their own original spin on it.

Like I Spy or a Fox or USAN show, the pilot episode of Undercovers opens with action scene; this one is set in and on the roof of a fancy high-rise hotel. It’s pretty much by-the-numbers stuff, to be sure, but it’s highlighted by a distinctive and suspense-inducing music score, a sign that Abrams and his crew are working hard to make a high-quality show.

Also interesting is the producer-creator’s decision to use a relatively unknown but talented and personable pair of performers as his leads—another smart return to the Tartikoff era and the Fox-USAN approach. Protagonists Steven and Samantha Bloom (Boris Kodjoe and Gugu Mbatha-Raw) are a married couple of former CIA agents working as high-class caterers who are temporarily reinstated into the agency when their skills and knowledge are needed in order to track down a former assaociate, still in the agency, who has disappeared under suspicious circumstances.

The pair are still fairly young and attractive and are well-mannered and apparently rather well-to-do—another of the countless screen couples based on the charming Nick and Nora Charles of the Thin Man mystery film series of the 1930s and ’40s. The Blooms take on the job for patriotic reasons, to help an old friend, and to bring some spice back into their lives.

The villain, per formula, is an arms dealer and all-around bad guy named Alexander Slotsky (a Russian, as his name suggests; it will be interesting to see how long it takes Abrams et al. to introduce a Serbian villain), and the couple’s quest leads them to Madrid, Paris, and Moscow, all in the course of just a few days.

The pilot episode hits all the formula marks for this sort of series: deceptions and impersonations, unexpected setbacks, chase scenes, fisftfights, lively banter, “sexpionage,” glamorous settings, murky lighting, plenty of computer searches, the gruff boss, sinister wealthy people,  hidden agendas among the agents’ superiors, crime bosses wantonly killing underlings for minor failures, and so on.

As noted, this is all true to formula, but there’s a reason formulas happen: they work. And they work because the represent good things that work together to convey positive values. In Undercovers, the lead characters are on the good side, and their general demeanir of good cheer during their adventures demonstrates laudable character traits such as courage, perspective, optimism, loyalty, and their sincere love for each other.

The last-named sentiment is expressed very effectively in a brief scene involving a difficult moral choice on the couple’s part before the climactic action scenes. It’s also conveyed in some comical moments between the two, as they quickly express their fondness for each other and then rush off on some urgent task.

Any married couple with busy lives can appreciate those moments in this show.

In the course of the adventure, the relationship between the two lead characters undergoes some mild strains, but of course they overcome them. That’s necessary if the show is to continue. Also in accord with modern TV conventions, there is an underlying plot line which is alluded to but not explained: the Real Reason that the CIA has brought this couple back into action. One hopes that no wormholes will be involved.

Whether audiences will take to this couple and their amusing adventures over the long haul remains to be determined, but it’s clear that Abrams and his team have done their due diligence, bringing a creative flair to the formula. The placement of appealing people in spectacularly dangerous situations has long been a route to success in American popular fictions and their imitators around the world. Who knew that the creator of Lost would turn out to be a closet classicist?

Now, there are certain projects that even a Bedouin nomad knows will be a monster hit.  Lord of The Rings is one.  It also happened to be executed with near perfection. There are also certain projects that any inmate of Shutter Island knows will be a total disaster. Battlefield Earth is one.  Catwoman is another.  

Otherwise, it’s a total crapshoot.  But there’s a difference in perception depending on how things turn out.  If it’s a hit, it’s easy to look like a genius by saying you knew it would be a hit the day the project came across your desk.   Or, if it’s a surprise hit, you can coo,“we were just passionate about the project and knew audiences would love it if it was given a chance”.  Presto.  

But it’s easy to look like a fucking moron when a movie or TV show fails and it usually is because the programmer is a fucking moron.  Because anyone can tell when a truly crap project is a crap project from day one.  (The exceptions to the failure rule are those truly great works that fail, but find reverent critical reception – thus saving all involved from embarrassment and even giving them bragging rights by creating a “cult classic”). 

The Network Chief Hippocratic Oath 

Until now, when someone became the head of a network or cable channel, the truth was there was very little s/he could have done to guarantee that programming choices might be hits.  There was a lot s/he can do to avoid total failure, however. 

Don’t be a fucking moron. 

Or, “first, do no harm.” 

It’s easy to peg Les Moonves as a brilliant businessman and CEO, because he is.  As a programmer, however, what he did was recognize a trend.   Beginning with the C.S.I. franchise, he saw that (for no definable reason) audiences saw CBS as the network of the crime procedural.  That’s what he’s ordered up for what now seems like forever.  And CBS is in first place. 

Do no harm. Presto. You’re a genius.  Mr. Moonves need not do very much different. 

Everyone else has a problem.  They don’t have a brand.  

FOX has gone through a few incarnations, and presently has this quasi-brand of action/crime/comedy/reality network.  Whatever. Kevin Reilly is keeping things going. He’s done no harm.  He’s a smart guy.  FOX will survive, but all of television is crumbling, so he can’t afford to just do no harm anymore. 

ABC is trying lots of things, to Steve McPherson’s credit.  Same thing. It’ll survive, but ratings will decay. Flash Forward is a great concept with tremendous potential.  But somebody screwed it up somewhere.  There’s a provocative, mainstream hit in there.  I say it deserves another chance.  Get Ron Moore to take it over. 

Speaking of which, Mark Stern at SyFy looks like a genius, and well he should, because he knew that Ron Moore had something special on his mind with the Battlestar: Galactica reboot.  Most people still look at me like I’m a homeless madman when I insist it was the best TV show of the past 5 years.  This was not a losing proposition no matter what happened after the pilot. I knew Mark when we was starting out as a creative exec at Trilogy.  He matured into a great storyteller on The Outer Limits.  He’s the guy you want in charge of a network because he understands what good storytelling is.   He takes risks.  I mean, can you imagine the look on the faces of GE executives when they heard “Battlestar: Galactica?” 

Which brings us to NBC. 

The Venture Capital Attitude 

Jeff Zucker has been mercilessly hammered in the press.  Nikki Finkeamatrix can’t stand the guy.  And NBC has been a cluster fuck for some time.   Lots of harm being done there.

But…BUT…I give you the words of entrepreneur Marc Cuban. 

“Business environments change. When they do, as broadcast network television has, and continues to, there are two basic choices. You can do it the way it’s always been done, or you can challenge yourself to change the game.”

Everyone prophesized Leno would fail at 10 PM.   That was a Shutter Island slam dunk.  Still, Cuban is right that in the event that the move did work, the risk-reward potential made the attempt worth it.  Upside was huge.  Downside was Leno and Conan’s crocodile tears over their hurt feelings.  Yeah, like Conan’s upset at his $32 million payoff, and that he’s getting his own show back in the Fall.  Don’t think for a second that Conan’s agent, Rick Rosen at WME Entertainment, didn’t go into that deal knowing the Leno move wasn’t a win-win for his client.  Smart agenting, that.  

But did Zucker get any credit?  Nope.  But he did the right thing.  And Cuban was right to say so.  Read the article linked above as to why.  

And I’ll go Cuban one better.  Everyone excoriated Zucker for producing a little series called Kings. Actually it wasn’t so little.  The pilot cost $10 million, and each episode cost something like $4.5 million – about 65% more than average.  

Kings was a great show.  A stellar show.  13 episodes of pure bliss.   Creator Michael Green and his staff wrote 13 outstanding scripts.  They cast it perfectly. They found fine young, new actors. The locations were boffo. The drama was Shakespearean and crackling. It delivered moving, and thought-provoking drama of what you might expect from HBO.   

It came from NBC.  It came from Jeff Zucker.   It was a risk, and a good one. 

So what happened? 

Marketing screwed it up.  

Green told Newsweek magazine, “They were very confused with how to market our show. I got nothing but support and interest in the religious or magical or somehow belief-inspired storytelling. When the time came for the marketing, there was a very deliberate, outspoken, loud desire articulated by them that ‘we are not going to say King David.‘ They just felt that would be detrimental to the show.” 

Jesus Christ (pun intended)!  When will Hollywood Marketing realize that eighty-three percent of American identify themselves as Christian? And that there is virtually no programming or films that are made and targeted exclusively to them? 

Kings could’ve been a Roots-style event for Christians.  Instead it was a mega-loss for NBC.  I’ll fault Zucker for not ramming through that marketing mandate, but at least he had the courage to order a great show.  He took a risk.  He just didn’t commit all the way. 

The New Hippocratic Oath 

“Do no harm” no longer applies in television.  Network television is being overrun.  It needs to boldly counterattack before it becomes obsolete. 

Kevin Reilly, Steve McPherson, Whoever comes in to run NBC. — you want to overtake Les? 

Doing no harm is like buying Treasury Bonds.  I’m not a shareholder in these goddamn stocks for 4% returns.  I’m a shareholder because you’re spending venture-style capital.  You should get venture-style capital returns. 

So take risks.   

Worse case scenario is you’ll all look like fucking geniuses.

Larry also does a nightly talk show on Blog Talk Radio, and while it’s on past my bedtime (9pm PST), after listening to the podcasts over the past few weeks I realized that “The Stage Right Show” is very much a part of the BIGS — so much so that we’re leaning on him to change the title to “The Big Stage Big Right Big Show.” Over the weekend I also leaned on him to do even more work and put together a weekly “Best of” show to post here at Big Hollywood for the benefit of our readers. 

He’s agreed to take that on, and I thank him for that.

So please take a listen in the post below. Just a word of warning that we will be trying different time slots to find the most effective spot for the show. And I may do a full Jeff Zucker and after “The Stage Right Show” is a big success replace it with a program hosted by a much younger man who I’ll eventually unceremoniously dump before bringing Larry back