Coco, Chromatic Comics, and the Changing Face of TV

At the time this post uploads, Conan “Coco” O’Brien will have been off the air for a couple of days. I won’t re-hash the O’Brien-vs.-Leno/NBC fight here (if by some incredible circumstance you missed it, go to Gawker‘s great coverage of Late Night Wars 2). I’ll just say that on Friday night, O’Brien confirmed was so many of us had always suspected: that he is one classy, classy act. I can’t wait to see what he does next.

Whatever Coco does, though, I hope he and his management team have the savvy to realize one thing: the Team Coco fans that got the story such huge coverage are a key demographic that doesn’t watch late-night television.

Many have noted that if all the Team Coco members making such a fuss over O’Brien’s dismissal from The Tonight Show had actually, y’know, watched the show, O’Brien would not have been fired. But comments like this miss the point, a point that no one involved in the fight seemed to be cognizant of (or, perhaps, didn’t want to discuss). Late-night talk shows are of little-to-no interest to the upcoming and current generation, the 18-to-34 year olds that advertisers value so highly. They may watch them, but they only watch the segments that interest them, and they prefer watch them online, via means both legal and illegal. What’s more, the proliferation of set-top boxes such as Tivo and Roku, as well as Blu-Ray boxes that support streaming, all are beginning to dramatically and swiftly increase the usage of the Internet as living room entertainment. Netizens are no longer constrained to sitting in front of their monitors to watch online content. Now, the content of their choice is sent right to their television, when they’re ready to watch it.

In the end, The Tonight Show no longer means to the current and upcoming generation of comics and comic fans what it meant to O’Brien and Leno’s generation. It’s a relic, sailing into the irrelevant pop-culture past with Leno at the helm, and O’Brien should be grateful that he got off that sinking ship when he did.

Moving to the Internet would be a move towards the future. Think about where the Internet will be in five years (if you can–it’s hard to conceptualize, frankly, when you think about where it was five years ago). Now think about where broadcast television will be. The DTV switch-over has been a seventeen-sided clusterfuck. People all over the nation who relied on the analog signal bought converter boxes (or new HD-compatible TVs!) and were still unable to get the signal because the government didn’t mandate upgrades to the transmitter towers. Networks continue to promote “reality” programming to cut production costs.* They still obsess over controlling their content by restricting access–Hulu.com is considering charging subscription fees, for example. Like the beleaguered newspaper industry, the major networks continually miss the boat when it comes to the Internet. They’re trying to make up ground, but in the end the consumer’s habits have changed. Consumers aren’t going back to 20th-century ways of consuming media, and if you don’t believe that, ask the good folks over at the RIAA how trying to stop MP3s worked out for them.

Will Internet TV be able to offer O’Brien an annual salary of millions, the way NBC did? Of course not, not immediately. The revenue isn’t there yet. However, thanks to NBC, Conan’s walking away with millions. He can afford to take some time to explore Internet options. Why not check out Revision 3, or Cracked.com, or even the more ‘Net-savvy networks like Cartoon Network? Why not try doing a podcast for a while, a la Adam Carolla or Ricky Gervais? Why not make the rounds of well-known podcasts and be a guest for a while, to figure things out (hint: O’Brien would make a fantastic DiggNation guest)? O’Brien’s got a built-in new media audience that wants to support him; he should start reaching out to them in their natural habitat–online.

This has nothing little-to-nothing to do with television, but there’s been a delightful meme making its way around LJ, Dreamwidth, and other blog sites this weekend. Fantastic Fangirls christened it Chromatic Comics, and simply put, the bloggers took their favorites comic book casts and re-cast them with non-white actors. The results are brilliant and thought-provoking:

Handyhunter’s Chromatic Marvel
Bossy Marmalade’s Chromatic Marvel
Entwasian’s Chromatic Buffy
Trascendenza’s nuTrek and DC Comics

I’m sure there’s more out there, but the point, as beautifully put by FF’s Sigfrid, is this:

The next time someone says that people of color aren’t cast in geek franchises because there aren’t enough qualified actors for the roles, feel free to link them to any of these.

*Except for ABC. Thank goodness for ABC.

DVD Review: Kings (NBC)

I have a weakness for cancelled TV shows. I don’t really know why, as in my opinion most TV shows that are cancelled deserve their fate. Sacrilige, I know, to suggest this to TV fans, but let’s face it–there’s a lot of dreck out there, and that does include the show you liked.

That said, some shows just have lousy luck. They’re ahead of their time (Action!, Profit) or they’re the victim of network meddling (Firefly), or they just have a tough time finding an audience (Arrested Development, Pushing Daisies). In those instances when a truly good show fails in the ratings, t’s nice to know that some of these “Brilliant But Cancelled” shows still survive today on DVD.

I received the DVD release of Kings as a gift for Christmas, and I can’t tell you how sorry I am to have missed it when it originally aired. If my watching it could have helped the ratings a tiny bit, I would have made more effort.

‘Kings’ was easily the most ambitious show to debut on American TV in ages. It takes as its inspiration the Old Testament tale of the struggle between King Saul and the young shepherd David, as Saul loses the favor of God and David begins his rise towards power (and his relationship with Saul’s son Jonathon).

The writers place the story in a modern setting– a fictional kingdom called Gilboa that in thirty-odd years has been dragged from a near-Stone Age state to a contemporary state by its beloved but ruthless king Silas Benjamin (played by the exquisite Ian McShane). Silas came to power by leading a coup against the depraved former king, Vesper Abaddon (what a fantastic name for a villain!), uniting the people and establishing an absolute monarchy. He builds a capital, the city of Shiloh, a glittering metropolis arising from the ashes of war (which looks a lot like Chicago, or maybe Minneapolis-St. Paul), and proceeds to manage his kingdom–and his current war with the Republic of Gath, an aggressive neighbor to the south.

Enter David Shepherd (Christopher Egan), a farmboy gone to war with his older brother Eli. In combat with the feared Gath tank units, David single-handedly destroys one of their Goliath-class tanks and rescuses Jack Benjamin, the king’s only son, from the enemy. He’s declared a hero and catapulted to fame, fortune, and a court full of intrigue.

Surprisingly (for American broadcast TV, at any rate), God is not left out of the story. As the series unfolds, it becomes clear that Silas is a man of faith, one chosen by God to lead the country of Gilboa. His claim to the kingship was reinforced years ago by Reverend Samuels, a minister who–while holding no official government position–nonetheless wields powerful influence over the people. As Silas becomes more ruthless, however, Samuels begins to suspect that God is withdrawing His favor from the king. Silas scoffs, until he meets David.

The story–like the Biblical story that inspired the show–is rich with intrigue and politics. Silas loves David for his loyalty and guilelessness, but he also fears that God has chosen David to supplant him. Silas’s wastrel son Jack realizes that his father sees in David the son he never had, and with his conniving mother Queen Rose conspires to hurt David’s reputation in the eyes of the king. And Silas’s daughter Michelle has to choose between her growing love for the young soldier and her loyalty to her family. In the meantime, David risks losing his own family (a mother and six older brothers) over choosing a position at court, and must deal with the various intrigues launched by would-be usurpers.

‘Kings’ has wonderful touches that add to the richness of the story. The writers weren’t afraid to keep the Biblical associations–characters and locations have names that are derived from the Old Testament (David’s mother is Jessie, for example; Michelle and Jack are clearly Michal and Jonathan). God moves in the story in ways that are mysterious to both the characters and the viewers: Saul is prone to enigmatic visions and bargaining with spirits, David (who’s not even sure he believes in God) has unexplained knowledge thrust upon him, and offhand statements by Rev. Samuels turn out to be prophecies–he tells David at a party “You’ll like the one in red” and points out Michelle. The characters use what I think of as “court language” (think of it as “Shakespeare Lite”) when in formal situations, or situations that call for a degree of emphasis or urgency. The show is shot with breathtaking scope–Shiloh shines like the proverbial “city on a hill”, clouds part to reveal rays of holy light, the palace and court convey awe and power. All of these characteristics add an elegance and intelligence to the show that keeps it from devolving into pure soap-opera camp.

The casting of the leads is superb. Ian McShane–whom many of you will recall as Al Swearengen on “Deadwood”–is too smart to play King Silas as merely a petty, vengeful ruler. He brings to Silas the same vulnerability and tragic air that he did Swearengen–you see that Silas is in real pain at the idea that God has turned from him, you sense the price he had to pay for the political power he now holds, you believe him when he’s gentle with his family and you believe him when he’s ordering the assassination of a close friend. Christopher Egan’s David is sweet but smart, naive but clever, young but self-reliant, loyal but not blind, humble but not unrealistic. He makes David Shepherd refreshing because he plays Shepherd as uncomplicated, unlike the conflicted, angsty anti-heroes we’re so used to these days. Shepherd is simply a young man that wants to defend his country, serve his king, and go home. The dynamic between Silas and David is wonderful but builds towards heartbreak–Silas dare not trust him, and David’s passion of purpose means he has no choice but to trust his king. The rest of the ensemble is equally strong, especially Dylan Baker as William Cross, Queen Rose’s treacherous brother, and Eammon Walker as Rev. Samuels.

The show is an interesting exercise on several levels. As one might expect, ‘Kings’ explores themes of absolute power’s ability to corrupt, the dangers of sudden fame, and the damage done to a country by internal politicking in its government. But bravely, it also imagines what America might look like if we were an absolute monarchy, and what the modern subject owes to a king under such a government. It examines the idea of the divine right of kings in a contemporary world. How does a king exercise such a right, when even he isn’t always sure of God’s favor–or existence? What purpose does monarchy serve in the modern era? Why are we still attracted to monarchy centuries after its been abandoned for other forms of governing?

‘Kings’ was canceled after failing to find an audience. Creator Matthew Green felt that the show was badly marketed (lots of commercials that told you nothing about the show), especially because gun-shy execs at NBC shied away from talking about the David-and-Saul aspect of the show. Critical response was mixed: some loved the scope, the vision, and the swinging-for-the-fences ambition of ‘Kings’, others felt the narrative was unfocused, or that the show was too full of itself given its resemblance to any random Aaron Spelling production. And a few said that “de-gaying” the relationship between David and Jack removed what could have been one of the most interesting parts of the show.

I think there’s something to all of these arguments, myself. I can see where the gravitas of the show could be read as melodramatic to some viewers. I didn’t find the narrative unfocused, but can see where others might (of course, I cut my teeth on ‘Dynasty’ and ‘Dallas’ and their convoluted plot-lines). The modern setting might have confused people who didn’t realize that they were essentially watching a fantasy show. I can easily see that NBC would have gotten nervous about the religious elements, for fear of offending religious conservatives–there would always be someone out there that wouldn’t accept that ‘Kings’ was a re-interpretation, not a to-the-letter retelling. Plus, for those who don’t concur with the theory that David and Jonathan had a romantic relationship, Jack’s homosexuality would have been hugely controversial.

So, the show’s not perfect. Regardless, ‘Kings’ remains a visually stunning, narratively rich, wonderfully-acted, imaginative, compelling drama, one unlike anything that’s been on American television since–well, at least since the revamped ‘Battlestar Galactica’. It’s out on DVD, and it is definitely worth giving a shot.