Why It’s Worth a Watch Wednesday – Do No Harm, NBC

WARNING: The following post contains liberal use of CAPS and bold letters.

 

This week on Why It’s Worth a Watch Wednesday, Tiffany and I once again go head to head, bringing you the latest in new TV. This week, we check out NBC’s new drama, Do No Harm.

Do No Harm stars Steven Pasquale as…wait. Starred. I should say “starred” not “stars”.

do-no-harm-canceled-by-nbc-after-two-episodes

Dude. They cancelled us. We have the sads.

Because it’s already been cancelled.

TWO. EPISODES. IN.

Yes, ladies and gentles, this show has the awkward distinction of being the lowest-rated scripted premiere in the HISTORY of the big four.

It must have been horrible, right?

Well…

Here’s the thing. By the time I got a chance to sit down and watch the show, I already knew about the cancellation. So, it was hard for me to be overly critical. If this were a real review, I probably would have made unfair comparisons to the BBC’s Jekyll (unfair, because, well, it’s the BBC). But, why kick a man while he’s down, right?

The premise to the show had promise. The main character, Dr. Jason Cole (Stephen Pasquale) has DID (dissociative identity disorder) but it manifests in a unique way. His alter, who goes by the name Ian Price, shows up at the same time every night – 8: 25 PM – and stays for 12 hours. Dr. Cole has little to no memory of what his other personality does, but he does know that he is a horrible person.

Because of this, it seems that he’s enlisted the help of a fellow doctor (Lin-Manuel Miranda) in creating a drug that suppresses his other half. It’s worked for a while, but they discover that Cole/Price has become immune to the drug.

The alter, angry after being suppressed for so long, is out for revenge on Cole.

And Cole, understandably, wants to kill Price.

It’s a Jekyll and Hyde-like tale. And I happen to enjoy Jekyll/Hyde stories. I also find DID interesting subject matter, even if this portrayal is over the top.

But, I’ll never know if this story would have been developed well, if Pasquale’s subtle shift between Cole and Price would have been refreshing or not enough, because the network didn’t give me a chance.

They did what they had to, right? If a show isn’t getting ratings, it gets the ax.

Here’s the thing. Not that I know anything about anything, but I get the feeling that networks haven’t caught up with the new generation of “TV” watchers. And by TV, I mean the countless numbers of people who watch their programs after the fact.

Show of hands: How many of you watch a show the second it comes on? There are a fair amount of viewers who are watching new shows On Demand, days later on their DVR, or online via network websites or Hulu.

Are networks accounting for these people?

I probably would have given Do No Harm a chance, honestly. But I don’t think my viewing figures are being considered.

Networks – catch up with the times. Find a new way to track your viewership. Put more of your marketing dollars into social media and online advertising. Offer sneak peeks (some have done this) of pilots to Social Media influencers who can get online viewers excited about the show.

Leverage the interwebs!!

And again, I don’t understand how things work, but if you’ve ALREADY filmed a certain number of episodes, why not air them all if all you are going to replace it with are RERUNS of another show? (Yes, they are going to air previously aired episodes of Law and Order: SVU.)

OH, OH! And stop premiering shows in timeslots where you historically underperform. NBC has been sucking wind in the 10 o’ clock time slot since, what, ER? Not to mention that the timeslot is occupied by Scandal – a HUGELY successful drama on ABC, and Elementary on CBS, which has also been doing well.

Go home, NBC, you're DRUNK.

Go home, NBC, you’re DRUNK.

A lot of folks have DVRs that only let them records TWO things. Sticking yourself in a time slot already inhabited by a couple of strong shows is kind of asking for horrible ratings, isn’t it?

AND…AND! How about you give the show a stronger lead-in? Sure, Thursday night comedies on NBC were once a strong bunch, but with The Office nearing it’s end, 30 Rock done, and the addition of the absolutely horrid 1600 Penn, you can’t expect viewers to stick around for an unknown drama.

1600 Penn. ::shudder::

How is it, exactly, that you’ve cancelled Do No Harm after two episodes and not this waste of TV space?

Sigh.

No ratings today. I’m guessing Do No Harm would have received an SSTV from me. But apparently NBC wants microwave programming.

Enjoy your hot pockets.

I don’t even know what I’m saying anymore.

Come back next week when I’m less angry at the world. Or, you know, NBC.

Don’t forget to see what Tiffany has to say about this whole debacle!

(PS – I am really disappointed that the cancellation means I don’t get to see more Lin-Manuel Miranda. For those who don’t know, he is the uber-talented guy behind the musical In the Heights, and had a memorable guest appearance on House)

Remember to stop by the #watchwed hashtag in Twitter to discuss any of today’s reviews, or to mention any television programs that you’d like to see on Why It’s Worth a Watch Wednesday in the future.
A Recap of The WatchWed Review System:
GTV (Gourmet TV): Everything we want and more
MacTV (MacNCheese TV): Guilty pleasure. Not perfect, but is satisfies
GMacTV (Gourmet MacNCheese TV): A combination of fine wine and comfort food
JFTV (Junk food TV):It’s not great for us, but we’ll go back for seconds
TBPTV (Twice Baked Potato TV): Part gourmet and delicious, while absolutely horrible for our cholesterol
SSTV (Still Simmering TV): It has potential, but the jury is still out
NIV (NyQuil Induced Viewing): Perfect for that late night television sleep timer
LOTV (Liver&Onions TV): Do we really have to explain? Blech

 

You Can Go Your Own Way

I love the interwebs.

I love that I can be watching TV and think “why do I know that face” and two minutes later I’m staring at a list of an actor’s past work.

I love how I can be in the kitchen wondering if there is a suitable substitute when the recipe calls for cream and I have none, and moments later the iPad is giving me answers, complete with instructional video.

Basically, I love how easily I can access information and instruction on just about everything ever.

The thing is, just because the information is out there, doesn’t mean it’s all good information. Even if it sounds like it is.

Like so many things in life, with the good comes the bad. Just as the interwebs made it easy for us to access information, it also made it easier for people to dole it out.

There was a time when, for the most part, you had to go to someone with a proven track record to get information. A “how-to” book was vetted, and likely written by someone with proven success in whatever it is they were demonstrating.

Now, anyone with a blog and the tiniest sliver of charisma can offer up their word as instruction.

And sadly, we can fall for it.

To be clear, I don’t think that everyone who gives advice and/or instruction has to have the same experiences. I’m not at all the type who believes that a certain level of education automatically qualifies you for, well, anything.

But I do believe there are signs that distinguish between someone who is truly knowledgeable and someone who’s advice-giving should put one on alert…

 

The Semi-Accomplished

This is one I see all too often. This is the person that will talk ad infinitum about how to do something that they’ve never actually done themselves. It goes something like this:

“You want to know how to build a table? I’ll give you the tools, and measurements, and a general idea of how to put it all together. What’s that? How’d my table come out? Uhh…LOOK AT THESE SHELVES I made. Everybody loves my shelves! Buy my shelves.”

For those of you scratching your heads…yeah. That doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Sure, shelves and tables may both be made out of wood, but making one thing out of wood doesn’t make someone a woodworking wizard.*

What it might mean is they’ve read a lot of woodworking books and have enough reading comprehension to regurgitate what they’ve read in a palatable manner. Throw in some jokes about wood and hey! The interweb peoples are feeding at your table.

The table that doesn’t exist.

Ad Nauseam

I’m not at all against lengthy blog posts. If a person has something interesting and original to say, I’ll read it, with pleasure. But, some things just shouldn’t take 2000 words to explain.

‘Nuff said.

So My Friends Say…

quote

Have you ever seen the movie Emma? There is a character, Mrs. Elton, who rather than say she is a talented musician, says that her friends say she is.

If an expert’s friends, colleagues, and/or success stories want to sing their praises, by all means, they should let them.

Let me reiterate – they should let THEM.

Related to this point: Quoting yourself. It should never happen.**

Because I Care

I’m here to help.

No, really, I mean it.

I don’t give advice much on this blog. But anything I do share in the way of a “teaching moment” is shared because I want you to benefit. Whether it be something that’s helped me with my writing, a home remedy that’s served me well, or things I’ve read that keep me motivated – whatever it is, I share it freely.

Free being the key word there.

I don’t begrudge people an income. I know what it is to try to make ends meet, and I know that sometimes you have to get creative in bringing a paycheck home.

However.

If you dole out advice or instruction and you get paid, I can’t help but raise an eyebrow when I hear “I share ’cause I care”.

When I was a software instructor, I loved my job. And I did enjoy knowing my students would take what they learned and benefit from it. I probably even cared. But I was also there, mostly there, for a paycheck.

I’m not saying that those out there giving advice/instruction don’t care. But constantly reminding an audience how much they care just before telling them to buy something? It smacks of insincerity.

The Ring of Truth

At this point, some of you may be reading this and nodding your heads. I distinctly heard an “amen” from somewhere in the back.

But you may also be thinking that you’ve learned things from bloggers who may display one or more of these traits. Valuable things.

And I wouldn’t be surprised.

Remember how this conversation started? There is a wealth of information at our fingertips. Technology has made it possible for you to find the answers to most of your questions with click of a keyboard or the swipe of a touch screen.***

The experts/gurus/people-who-can’t-stop-talking have the same access the rest of us do. And some of them even have a bit of talent. They’ve culled together information from qualified sources, and they deliver it to you.

So, sometimes, their advice on something may be dead on.

The important part is understanding that being right about something doesn’t mean they’re right about everything.

Why does any of this matter?

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend lately of groups who follow different “experts” advice like it’s law. And I’ve seen the damage it can cause. I’ve seen them disappointed when they’ve done everything they’ve been told only to see it fail, and are left wondering what they did wrong.

I post this not to be snarky and point fingers. I post it to remind others to diversify your research. Looks for opposing views. Come to your own conclusions.

The interwebs may help you figure out that the actor who looked so familiar was on an old episode of Law and Order, but it might be wrong when it says you can use butter and milk in place of cream.****

Go your own way.*****

 

And now, earworm…

*for the record, I am not obsessed with woodworking. While writing this, my sister told me that she gets to see the Nick Offerman in D.C. Ergo, the woodworking references.

**you can quote me on that.

***now if I can just get one of those nifty food replicators, my Star-Trekkian dreams will be complete.

****seriously. the results were not good.

*****today’s post is brought to you by: Mondays. Mondays are for ranting. And helping. But mostly ranting. In association with: A sick toddler. Starving you of sleep since 2009.

It’s Not About You

By the time I post this, a moment of silence will have been observed for the victims of the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary one week ago today.

Like anyone else hearing the news last week, I was horrified. I felt sick imagining the terror every parent must have experienced, not knowing if their child was okay. The horror for those who found out their child was among those who did not make it out.

And then I felt disgust.

I felt disgust as I watched my social media feeds light up with arguing over guns and health care. I watched brands and individuals in brand mode go right back to self-promotion, while the death toll was still rolling in.

It’s not that I think everyone must stand vigil the moment tragedy strikes. We have to move forward. That’s life.

But…I couldn’t help but cringe hearing people respond to what happened with hateful arguing. I watched people tell others they “shouldn’t exist” or “should be shot” when they disagreed on guns/healthcare/too much violence in entertainment

I couldn’t help but cringe as I watched tweets acknowledging the loss one minute, and literally pimping a product the next.

I couldn’t help but think that we’ve all grown so accustomed to being heard that sometimes we forget that sometimes we need to just shut up.

Are we such a narcissistic culture that we can’t take a moment to refrain? To refrain from snarky commentary? To refrain from hateful speech? To refrain from self-promotion?

Sometimes, it’s not about us. It’s not about our views or opinions or products.

Some moments in life merit stepping back. Staying silent. Pondering.

And eventually, we go back to our lives.

Hopefully, having learned something.

Learning to have intelligent exchanges, heated perhaps, but not hateful. Learning not everything is open to be mocked or joked about. Learning that everything isn’t about us.

There’s a time to speak. And a time to be silent.

 

 

 

 

Confidence versus Doubt: Becoming a Better You

Today is the day that I generally try to share something encouraging. Get the weekend off to a positive start and all that.

And then I saw this:

I’ve been thinking about this for some time. Dipping your toes into any “artistic pool” (writers, photographers, etc) it always amazes me how people view themselves. It seems that when I have the opportunity to read/view work that is witty or uniquely composed, the creator is full of doubt, constantly second guessing themselves.

What I see far more often is the person whose work is, at best, average (but often, so much worse than that), who exudes confidence in what they produce. Some are so sure of themselves that they go around telling others how to be better at their craft, how to be successful (even if they haven’t had any kind of measurable success themselves). They also don’t take feedback well, unless the feedback is “hey, how’d you get to be so full of awesome”.

This isn’t specific to artists and their work, either. There is a seeming increase in people who act as if they are perfect, without any room for improvement, and should be treated accordingly.

Maybe it’s a new generation, a generation that grew up with reality TV stars, people who garnered fortune and fame for merely existing, or worse yet, for their scandalous behavior. Maybe it’s a generation who grew up with parents who praised them for every little accomplishment (“way to get a D on your report card!”), a generation filled with the idea that they are “perfect as they are”. Maybe it’s a generation growing up with YouTube and blogs and social media, where their ego is stroked with every hit, view, like, and follower they get.

Whatever the reasons, man, it’s annoying.

And honestly, it’s more than annoying. If everyone is running around thinking everything they produce is awesome, that there is no room in their lives for improvement, then everything stagnates.

People don’t try to be better, they just become self-involved. Why look externally if what’s internal is so amazing?

Maybe doubt is there for a reason. To keep us hungry for something better. To make us listen to critique, even when we don’t want to, and find ways to improve.

Maybe life shouldn’t just be so simple as “just be you“. Maybe it should focus more on being the best you.

And maybe that starts by focusing less on ourselves and our wants and our talents, and more on those around us.

 

[In line with focusing on others needs, please go check out the GoWithout campaign reboot. I'll have a special surprise for everyone when we get our first ten participants.]