The Hulu Hula: Part Four

I have officially done the Hulu Hula and danced around the website (picture me in nothing but a grass skirt and coconut halves if it helps). And I have spent the last several days reflecting on the TV shows of the past and how well they play today. And all this dancing and reflecting (I try not to look at myself dancing while I’m staring at a reflection) has left me wondering about the future.

Sadly, I’m not able to hop into a device conceived by H.G. Wells and journey to a future time. However, like Wells, if I look into the past and use it as a guide or reference, I can predict what the future might possibly be. For today’s purposes, I’d like to take you 20 years into the future. The US has been entangled in at least two new wars. We’ve had at least one massive cycle of economic growth. The cost of a ticket to Disneyland has risen disproportionately to the average person’s income. We still do not have flying cars or jetpacks. The latest celebrity scandal involves a young sensation who, after experiencing fame at an early age, acted out in front of cameras.

In keeping with my quixotic nature, I’ll still be tilting at metaphorical windmills. I will find mainstream journalism woefully inept. There won’t be a political party that in any way resembles my point of view. And Shannen Doherty still won’t respond to my repeated advances.

Which is not to say that everything will be the same then as it is now. Television networks as we know them will be gone. The concept of a prime time lineup of shows will be a quaint memory. We won’t have a separate TV, radio, or computer; media will be housed/distributed en masse. Though a few traditionalists will insist on being able to purchase something physical or tangible, most electronic media will be housed entirely on the net.

What I will continue to find irritating, though, is that despite the revolutionary ways in which mankind can now send and receive media, the quality of the media will have changed very little. Humanity enjoys classifying things… giving them names or labels. And once we’ve given something a name or label, anything that can’t be squeezed into our preset form of classification doesn’t stand much chance of success.

As an extreme example, if we ever found a remote island with a significant population of humans who each had three nipples or 11 fingers… we’d have to kill them. We wouldn’t want to. We’d feel awful about it afterwards, but such inconsistencies are not tolerated. To a lesser extreme is the world of television. A show must comply with the rules of a certain genre (or fall victim to the “cult” label and be forever banished into obscurity). Oh yes, we think we’re so progressive because many of our sitcoms have eliminated the live studio audience and/or laugh track. But the sitcom format hasn’t been revolutionized in any way other than its method of production. The envelope may get pushed from time to time, but the barrier is no danger of being broken.

So, what’s on? Essentially the entire world’s archive of media will be available at the touch of a button or two, with only the owners of the content responsible for promoting their respective work. Given all that will be available, is there anything currently airing in prime time (presently available on Hulu) that will still be a draw for people “in the not too distant future?”

Here are the shows I’ve elected to discuss:

24
30 Rock
Chuck
The Daily Show
Family Guy
House
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Lie To Me
The Real Housewives…
Rescue Me
The Simpsons

I like some of them; I dislike others. But I wanted a wide variety of shows to discuss, and this assortment seemed to run the gambit. Some of them will still be around in 20 years. Others will not. And, as is often the case, what remains popular won’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the show. A lot comes down to the mood swings of a given citizenry, and what it chooses to be nostalgic about. The sad fact of the matter is that most assume the television of previous generations truly reflects the lives of those who lived in those generations. I, for one, am not unconvinced that the world was in black and white in the 1950s, and that father really did know best. In the same way teenagers presently adore the 1980s, the teenagers of 2030 are going to feel falsely nostalgic for this generation’s media. Selectively, of course.

The dawn of the most recent millennium will be chronicled as a period of heightened conservative ideals. We liked our governments small and our wars big. Factual or not, that’s how the history books will record it (yes, we will still have books in 20 years). And nowhere is the “get off my back and let me kick some ass” attitude more prominently displayed than the series “24.” Kids will still cheer on Jack Bauer as he bucks authority to preserve the Republican way of life for future generations. Plus, a lot of stuff blows up on the series, and explosions will always draw a certain segment of the populace.

I’ve been against “30 Rock” from the first time somebody told me I needed to sue NBC for stealing my likeness and using it in the form of Kenneth the NBC Page. But this isn’t about my personal opinion of the show. This is about whether the show will work the way, say, “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” works. It won’t. First and foremost, the show features too much of what is colloquially referred to as “inside baseball.” The jokes rely on caricatures (NBC Page, network executive, etc.), but those roles won’t exist. Those who “remember the good ol’ days” might be able to chuckle at a few of the gags, but most won’t care to remember. Then there is the world in which the characters live… inside the ivory tower of “30 Rock.” One sure-fire way for a series to be beloved is if it is blue-collar. One sure-fire way to ensure a show dies the instant the series finale is finished is if it features the rich and famous. “Dynasty” and “Dallas” are folklore fantasies as opposed to syndication successes. “Burke’s Law” is banished to the nether regions of the American Life Network while “The Andy Griffith Show” can be watched on multiple channels 24-hours a day. “30 Rock” might feature a few blue collar characters, but the comedy seems to come from their interaction with the execs and the stars. That just won’t play down the line.

“Chuck” will not be received well, and not because of its present day “cult” status. The problem with this show is that a lot of people won’t get it. Big chain stores selling media to the masses probably won’t exist in 20 years, and it is already a stretch to refer to someone proficient in computers as a nerd or a geek. As we speak, kids look down on other kids who DO NOT have laptops, cell phones, iPods, and other gadgets, so the concept of Chuck as a geek with a geeky job won’t translate to future audiences. Which means the series will ultimately have, at best, a cult following.

I would like to believe that “The Daily Show” will continue on. But even if the name still exists, “The Daily Show” I know won’t be around. The show has already evolved and adapted, adding and deleting correspondents; even enduring (and prospering) after a change in hosts. Jon Stewart’s talk show was horrible, because he seemed to approach it from the position of, “I’m so cool.” When he took the reigns of “The Daily Show,” he’d been humbled by cancellation. He was not only self-effacing, but genuine… and viewers responded favorably to it. But will the formula work down the road? Not the way it currently does. “The Daily Show” satirizes the format of a network news broadcast, and the humor comes in large part from the jokes made about others in the media. But the networks and content delivery of tomorrow will only bear a passing resemblance to the media of those of today. The show works because we know the format of what they are trying to mock and parody. As a result, despite an extensive archive of the show already available on its website, “The Daily Show” we know won’t hold up.

Curiously, “Family Guy” will do OK, not because it is either groundbreaking or indicative of who we are as a society (though I enjoy the show, it is neither). But there will be a show in the future that references the pop culture and infamous people from this generation, and, animated or not, people will ultimately compare it to “Family Guy,” which will shoot the show back into the spotlight. If you were to ask me if the show would continue to prosper 40 years from now, I’d have to say no, but I can safely predict one more go-around for the series.

“House” is a 49/51 split in terms of its sustainability as a source of entertainment. And I hope I’m right when I predict it will be around for the generations to enjoy, but it is a close call. What I think nudges it in the direction of survival is that there is a compelling narrative woven throughout the series, and I have to believe that, given all the options viewers will have, if and when they select an older show to watch, it cannot simply be mindless procedural pabulum (that will still be around in newer yet identical forms). I believe that something extra will set it apart from shows like “Law & Order” or “C.S.I.” just enough to rate a regular viewership.

I was only recently turned on to “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” and I enjoy the show immensely. Sometimes old-fashioned in nature, sometimes contemporarily offensive (in a comedic sort of way, of course), the show is a unique blend of sweet and tasteless. But nobody will care about it in 20 years, because what makes it contemporary now (the foul language, odd sexual situations, etc.) will, frankly, seem old-fashioned down the road. So watch it now, and discuss it with others… while they still might know what you are talking about.

I have to say that I am on the fence with “Lie To Me,” because it is too soon to tell exactly what the showrunners of the series will choose to do with it. It certainly has the potential to thrive and survive, but it could easily fall into the procedural pattern. Tim Roth is a name not known to a lot of people (maybe more than a cult following, but only barely), and his future successes will also dictate how well remembered this series will be.

I admit that I use “The Real Housewives…” series as a gateway (in other words, a cheap excuse) to cover the fate of reality television in general. The Housewives shows are some of the few reality programs offered on Hulu. Despite my sometimes violent protestations, reality television isn’t going anywhere. Right now, reality is the genre of choice for broadcast and cable networks, because it is cheap to produce, generates immediate buzz, and advertisers crave the demographic. Whenever I try to explain that the purported demographic boils down to gullible dullards, fans of reality TV shockingly get insulted (I say shockingly because I’m impressed they know what either gullible or dullard means… but seriously folks). But the proof is in the advertising dollars being thrust into the mix: Reality viewers literally buy what reality TV is selling… if they didn’t, advertisers would shy away from the genre. But in the future model, where distributors are the ones who stand to gain and advertising takes an entirely different form (and function, but that is a whole other predictive article), what will matter most is the long term. DVD sales of reality programs trend downward compared to dramatic and comedic TV shows. Much like sports coverage, reality TV is “event TV,” and once you’ve seen it (or even indirectly learned the outcome), it just isn’t watchable anymore. In a few decades, nobody will know who these Housewives are, which is good because a 20-year reunion of people who fake-and-bake and get plastic surgery… well… it would look unpleasant.

“Rescue Me” will stand the test of time, not because it is well written and well produced (though it scores on both counts), but because the tragic events of September 11th will continue to preoccupy the nation (if not the world) for generations. Like Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy Assassination, conspiracy theorists will debate the issue, espousing whole new theories about the planning and the aftermath. We, as a people, are seldom content to allow heroes to be heroes and villains to be villains. We must deconstruct everyone and everything to such extremes that the resulting analysis in no way resembles the truth. “Rescue Me” will endure because it deals with 9/11 without really dealing with it. It creates a fictional subculture that plays off of the reality and surreality of dead firefighters, survivor’s guilt, and the subsequent trauma of living in a reshaped society. In short, the series is a window through which things can be discussed without offending the real victims.

I am in the tall grass on this: “The Simpsons” is not a family show. Small children should not watch it. I am keenly aware that I am in the extreme minority with this theory, and that the minority shrinks with each passing year. But despite its equaled (and surpassed) longevity, the only thing “The Simpsons” has in common with “The Flintstones” is they are both animated shows. I don’t know if it is merely because the show is animated that people generally assume it to be family-friendly, or if it is because several of the characters are children, but I chalk it up to a drastic change in values. Don’t get me wrong, I love the series and have no interest in it being changed or censored in any way. But a show where characters routinely hit, lie, and insult one another while glorifying the life of the lazy and stupid is not what I feel little kids should be exposed to. But even in the future, television will be babysitter, and when mom’s doing dishes, she’ll rest junior in front of a big screen, and junior will watch Homer drunkenly marry a strange woman Vegas, or junior will watch Bart seek and receive emancipation from his parents. And those sorts of things sink in. Several people, myself included, made fun of Mr. Rogers and his gentle (yes effeminate) methods of talking to young children about respect and friendship. One needs only look at the first generation of kids who weren’t raised in his neighborhood to know that, while TV isn’t the cause of youthful indiscretion, it has ceased to be even a small part of the solution. Expect it to get worse.

And that is the future of television. I came to my conclusions based on how television has already evolved and how it has remained the same. I couldn’t have honestly made these predictions without previously reviewing which shows from decades past still hold relevancy today.

I tried to be neither optimistic nor pessimistic, hoping the real world’s seemingly neutral take on things like quality and substance would continue. Of course I could be wrong, and if the internet continues to archive my every thought, in a few decades someone can rub these digital words in my face. But I feel I am on solid ground here, and that my personal likes and dislikes didn’t govern my take on the future.