Moonlightaholics

*cross posted*

Warning: Opinionated Ramblings Ahead :-X

I've been thinking more about this, trying to formulate a response. CBS really reminds me a lot of Channel Nine in Australia. Channel Nine makes some really out there programming decisions, puts shows they're trying to turn into hits in godawful time slots, airs and then pulls shows at the drop of a hat, don't seem to really be tuned into what different fan groups for shows are telling them, etc etc. And yet they continue to regularly be ranked as the highest rated network television station in terms of overall viewership.

I'm not sure though if that says more about the collective thought process of the average australian (american) television viewer, than anything else.

I do think CBS is being unfair to Three Rivers. With the time slot its in, putting up the weaker episode as the premiere, choosing to premiere the show up against the Football season, not giving due consideration to time run overs and the fact that that may reduce ratings. Seriously, if they want the show to fail, they're certainly going about it the right way.

I think one of CBS's biggest mistakes though, is the way they seem to be pushing Alex so much as the lead. And yes I know I might get a few tomatoes thrown at me for this.

As Moonlight Fans, we tried to get the point across that it was about the characters, and story as a whole we were interested, not necessarily one particular actor (Yes, Nina Tassler, I'm looking at you. ) It seems CBS is/was determined not to listen to us. Three Rivers has almost become the 'Alex' show, as if THAT is the only reason we would even bother to tune in. It even seems they're being lackdaisical with scripts, and the 'quick zoom in for the fan girls' camera work, as if all they need to do is stick Alex on a screen, with no consideration for his strengths, and treat the majority of his fanbase like idiots who will swallow anything and be happy.

CBS is concentrating so much on Alex, putting Alex under so much pressure to be the 'star', to the detriment of the other cast members, and the furor of many of their fans. Daniel Henney, and Kate Moennig have solid, and devoted fanbases in their own right. I know some of them are feeling pretty cheated, and miffed that CBS seems to be just 'Alex, Alex, Alex', as if none of the rest of the cast mattered. This sort of attitude/treatment is not fair on Alex, and certainly not fair on his fellow castmates, and their fans.

In my ever so humble opinion, Alex is not a lead actor. And it is detrimental to promote him that way. Not that I don't think he can't play a lead role, I just don't think it's necessarily the way Alex works best. At least from the point of view of comparing his work in Three Rivers, to some of his previous roles (eg Vincent in Criminal Minds). For me, personally, Alex's greatest acting strength lies in his Ensemble Character work. Alex is an ensemble character actor, not a 'lead' or a 'star' to be pushed above all others, as if he must carry the weight of the entire show.

Unfortunately, at the moment, it appears that TPTB are doing exactly what I have always been afraid of with Alex. Not seeing past his looks, to truly identify and promote his strengths. And in doing so they are making Alex's work look mediocre to those who are unfamiliar, and making us, his fanbase, look like a bunch of silly fangirls whose brains have fallen into their vaginas.

Dear CBS....

Try promoting Three Rivers as an ensemble based, character driven show. Not the 'Alex O'Loughlin' hour. Please take the pressure off, and stop shoving Alex down everyone's throats as 'the lead' or 'the star'. Back off and let the man get on with what he does best, fantastic character work within an ensemble cast.

Ep 2 was on air tonight in Oz, and I have to admit it had me in tears. It was also much better than ep 1 ... so I'm cautiously optimistic about next Wednesday's ep.

Yes, I agree that Episode 2 was light years better than the premiere (which was supposed to have been Episode 1 in the chronological order of things ). And for the reasons Emerald so eloquently stated above, the reason this episode was so much better, IMHO, is because the storyline allowed for the entire cast to have a role in moving the story along. It wasn't just "The Alex Show", with camera closeups and all the other doctors appearing to be there only to support "The Greatest Cardiovascular Surgeon in the World". Each doctor (Andy, Miranda, David and Sophia) played a crucial role in the world of fictional transplantation. If not for David and Miranda (and Ryan), there would be no organs to implant in the sick patients. If not for Andy and Sophia, who successfully transplanted said organs, the sick patients wouldn't have survived. So all around, everyone pulled their weight in this episode, both as characters and as actors. Could things improve? You bet, but I see potential here. Just hope CBS gives the show a chance to find its feet.

*cross posted*

I thought this article was interesting from an actor's perspective. I have always liked Kelsey Grammar and yet his last couple of shows have not done well. So, this is his take on it..

http://thetvaddict.com/2009/10/14/kelse ... ends-hank/

Exerpts:

The TV Addict: Why do you think HANK hasn’t connected with viewers in the same way in which FRASIER or CHEERS did?
Kelsey Grammer: In previous years there was more of a willingness to allow a show to grow, find an audience, get its sea legs. Now, you have to pretty much hit it out of the park, right out of the box. Which certainly is not easy. Especially when you’re well known for a previously somewhat successful character, the American audience specifically has a lot of trouble adjusting to a beloved actor of a beloved character making a change...

Why should audience give your show another chance tonight?
Well, this episode is funny. Arguably in the pilot you introduce the characters and hope for a couple of laughs, the subsequent show reminds people what the show is about, while the third episode .. gets to finally divert a little bit. It’s the way we did it with FRASIER and CHEERS. Tell ‘em, remind ‘em, then start to do different things.

Mandy Patinkin is going to guest star in a future episode. Here's an article from The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00956.html

Red

Oh, man... that could be a really wonderful story.

Oh my.

I watched a little bit of NCIS-LA last night. Meh. But the team lead seems like the perfect role for Alex. It speaks to his natural gifts and showcases what he does best. I just think TR as it stands is not the right vehicle for him, because, as Emerald pointed out, TPTB don't remotely know what Alex can do.

I also imagined Andy as having a little bit of a working class roughness to flesh out his pristine persona.

I always remember that Simon Baker went through several series (the last one, Smith, , IIRC was almost immediately cancelled) before the planets aligned for him.

Emerald, I 'm not sure I agree about lead v ensemble. Alex was pretty well in every scene in ML and was definitely the lead. I don't get the sense of him being the lead in TR , but rather being crammed into an ensemble. The show doesn't centre around him as it did in ML. An example of true ensemble, IMO, is NCIS- I don't get the feeling that Mark Harmon is the lead, just top-billed, like Alex.

I think everyone who argues that pushing Alex as the star is not a good idea is right; in this case it's confusing and detrimental to the show as a whole. It raises expectations that can't be met.

In my opinion at first some fans were totally okay with Alex being pushed to be the star. Now it seems to be detrimental to him. It's fine with me if people change their mind and see things with a bit more perspective.
Of course as the lead actor he's doing more interviews than the others, but Daniel and Kate have been doing them too. We just didn't care for them much before we saw how good they were as actors.
The fact that Alex chose TR might not be CBS's "fault". He was given a choice, and he was opting for TR. And I get the ensemble vibe a lot from the second episode. In the first one I was probably too fixated on "I have Alex back on screen" to notice, but even there it wasn't all about Alex. The boy with the pica was Miranda's case, and Ryan and David had some nice dialogue.
I try to be less opinionated and just go with the flow. In my opinion TR has all the ingredients, and I don't want to worry about ratings but just enjoy the show.

Emerald, your post was interesting and I'm chewing on it, and I can see some truth in it. I think, frankly, TR at this point isn't showing off Alex's true potential, and I think it's mostly because of the writing. But I'm also not sure it's playing to Alex's strengths to play a concerned, competent doctor. And I'm hoping for more for Andy to do. I think Alex can be a lead but it doesn't seem his character in TR is interesting enough at this time to be a lead. I think Miranda, frankly, is more interesting, Dr. Lee more saucy and Ryan more spunky. If I had never heard of Alex before and watched the show, I would think of his character as a bland, skilled professional. So Alex being the "star" and his character not being that interesting (yet) is a bit disappointing. I'm hoping for more!

redwinter101 wrote:Mandy Patinkin is going to guest star in a future episode. Here's an article from The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00956.html

Red

And another article from ew.com:

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/10/14/mandy ... ee-rivers/

Red

redwinter101 wrote:

redwinter101 wrote:Mandy Patinkin is going to guest star in a future episode. Here's an article from The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00956.html

Red

And another article from ew.com:

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/10/14/mandy ... ee-rivers/

Red

What this means to me is they will NOT be cancelling TR any time soon as some on tvbythenumbers have predicted.

Perhaps Mandy wanted to do an episode to promote organ donation.

You've made a lot of sense and some very valid points ladies.

Emerald, I don't see TR as 'the Alex show' at all. It's certainly being promoted that way, but the show itself is very much ensemble, which of course Moonlight wasn't. Alex did a great job as the lead in that show, and I think he proved he has the chops for the title of leading man in it too. But unfortunately, Dr Andy is too unexciting to stand out so far in TR. David Lee and Ryan are more amusing and Miranda Foster is more interesting, but hopefully that will change as time goes on. We know Andy has depths, but unfortunately the hints aren't obvious enough to pique casual viewers' interest.

It's true CBS is trying to push Alex as some sort of sex symbol, which is really unfair on him and his talent as an actor, but I think the fault lies with Carol Barbee and the writers for not fleshing out his character better. The audience needs to know that he has come from a working class background soon, and they need to know why he became a transplant surgeon in the face of (doubtless) great odds. Then he'll become more interesting to watch and Alex's natural charisma will do the rest. He's not being given a whole lot to do so far acting wise.

It seems to me that the vision of the show is in making the medical stories the star of the show, just like CBS does so successfully with its crime procedurals. Obviously that isn't working so well. Because the regular characters take a back seat to the transplants and the patients, their characterisations are suffering. I think that will change as the show goes along, but of course it has to survive to become more interesting. They need to develop all the characters better, and very quickly IMO. Maybe not reduce the focus on the multi-stranded transplant stories themselves, but use them to delve deeper into what drives and motivates the doctors. It will make the doctors more interesting at the same time as better establishing their characters. Moonlight used to use the weekly plots that way to great effect.

MoonMad wrote: It's true CBS is trying to push Alex as some sort of sex symbol, which is really unfair on him and his talent as an actor, but I think the fault lies with Carol Barbee and the writers for not fleshing out his character better.

I totally agree with everything you said. On a shallow note: if they are trying to promote him as a sex symbol then I want to see his natural athleticism, I want to see him without two layers of clothing that hide everything.

I imagine he looks all kinds of hot in that football game, and IM shallow O that should have been aired in the premier ep. I think the original scrubs
would have been way more effective in that regard, if that's what they were looking for.

Having said that, who knows, it might all still come together. Just like ML.

Just got home and caught up with the thread.....several thoughts come to mind

Re: Mandy Patankin being a guest star certainly won't hurt TR and I agree with helloeeze that barring some thunderbolt from on high, 3R looks as though we'll get to see a few more (2 or 3 at least) before they either move it (if the numbers don't improve) or pull it. I don't remember who said it, but I agree that CBS will move it first to see if there is a better time slot for it. The fact that various media are highlighting Patankin as guest star doesn't hurt, either.

Emerald's post gave me something to think about.....Moonlight focussed on the characters of Mick and Beth, but Josef was a strong presence in many of the episodes and when they were all in an episode, the chemistry was great. Is Alex better in an ensemble role? Maybe, but I do agree that the other 3R actors also have strong fan bases and should receive their share of the spotlight. And from what I've seen so far, I've been impressed, especially with Katherine Moennig.