I spent ten hours of my day off recently lying on the sofa in a semi-vegitative state watching tv. What kept my attention for so long you ask? It must have been something amazing, right? Well …?
I was watching the recently released season three of Virgin River. It is a formulaic, emotionally manipulative, sappy and not particularly creative show about a nurse practitioner who in an attempt to escape her past relocates to the picturesque small town of Virgin River, where she realizes you can’t run from your problems and also somehow finds love along the way. I finished it within 36 hours of it being released.
What is it about bad tv that is so good?
The new millennium has been a boon for television programming, a time described as Peak TV or the Second Golden Age of Television.
The original Golden Age of television was over half a century ago, from the late ‘40s to the late ‘50s. TV shows in this era were diverse in structure but placed an emphasis on good writing and humor; I Love Lucy aired from 1951 to 1957, need I say more? By the ‘60s the Golden Age was distinctly finished when networks produced shows they deemed the ‘least objectionable programming.’ By this time even though a majority of households in America had a television in the home, as a medium, it was seen as a major cultural toxin. (To be honest, I feel like this sentiment has never fully left. TV, no matter how good it is considered to be, is usually seen as a low-brow form of entertainment, a guilty pleasure.) With only three networks at the time, executives believed that Americans would be more drawn to TV shows that were seen as unobjectional, rather than good or enjoyable; unfortunately this led to some pretty boring programming.
That brings us to the current day. As a child I remember there being a clear delineation between a movie star and a tv actor; the serious, truly gifted actors were in movies, tv actors were still famous but definitely second tier. However, that all began to change as Y2K approached, when HBO aired some of their first, extremely successful, original programming, with Sex and the City (1998) and The Sopranos (1999). These shows and the advent of streaming services like Netflix, lead to a steady stream of prestige tv shows, with increasingly big name actors attached; shows like, The West Wing, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Game of Thrones, House of Cards … this list goes on. Now we have legitimate A-List stars flocking to television with shows like Big Little Lies (Reese, Nicole and Meryl), Homecoming (Julia Roberts), West World (Anthony Hopkins), Sharp Objects (Amy Adams) and almost everyone on any season of True Detective. There is no distinction between a movie star and a tv star anymore.
But some argue the bubble is bursting (or it already has)! In 2019, there were a whopping 532 original scripted television shows created. There is quite literally a show out there for everyone. The market is completely oversaturated. The emphasis doesn’t seem to be placed on quality anymore (not that there aren’t amazing tv shows being made now or there weren’t bad ones before); but it feels like we are back to the first post-golden age era where decisions are made with $$$ in mind instead of quality. Looking at Netflix as an example, to me (a commoner & outsider) their programming decisions feel like they are throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Quantity over quality. Which brings us back to Virgin River. Even as someone who has watched every season as soon as it's released I would not call this quality tv.
According to some critics there seems to be a few characteristics that differentiate great TV from just good (or even bad) TV. Critics Sean T. Collins and Claire Spellberg agree that the best shows are challenging, that TV at its base should entertain but great tv makes you think. Alyssa Rosenberg of the Washington Post, says some shows may have good acting or good writing, but truly good tv does it all well, acting, writing, directing, cinematography, etc. Finally, critic Natasha Winters says character development is key to great tv, when you can understand why characters make the decisions they do and their journeys make sense, then you know you have great writing.
None of these things are true for Virgin River. Half the time I truly don’t understand why some of the characters do the things they do. The acting and writing is mediocre; and it isn’t particularly thought provoking. But, according to Netflix’s public ranking system, Virgin River is the number one program in the US (and still is over 3 weeks later). Clearly, I am not alone in my love for the show.
Does TV have to be critically acclaimed, quality, or good to have value? How do we assign value any way -- for some it is through money made and others it is through praise and awards? This question has become even more heated with this year’s Emmy nominations; with soapy shows like Bridgerton and critically panned shows like Emily in Paris getting the nod. Both have also seemingly been successful financially for Netflix. The politics and history of entertainment award shows could be a story on its own.
Ultimately I think the argument isn’t, what or who are the arbiters of quality but more about whether quality is even a valid requirement to the notion of value? Does something have to be good to be worth our time?
There are many reasons that I love Virgin River so much, some of which I would wager are also why the show is so popular. Yes, it doesn’t meet standards set by the critics of being thought provoking but maybe that is the point. To put it frankly, sometimes life sucks, things are hard and you need a break; a show like Virgin River with its beautiful scenery and pretty people is like a salve for the soul. It is the definition of comfort viewing.
There is no doubt the casting could be more inclusive. But there is appeal in a storyline that focuses on the innate kindness of human beings, people looking out for each other in a small town working hard to build a sense of community. People are yearning for more unironic depictions of compassion and happy endings. Just look at the both critically and financially successful, Ted Lasso.
I could honestly keep talking about this subject for a thousand words, I love TV. But, I’ll spare you for now. Moral of the story, watch the TV you love, good, bad and ugly.
Next time a 1500 word essay on the magic of reality television.
(Don’t worry I’m joking … I think).
I spent ten hours of my day off recently lying on the sofa in a semi-vegitative state watching tv. What kept my attention for so long you ask? It must have been something amazing, right? Well …?
I was watching the recently released season three of Virgin River. It is a formulaic, emotionally manipulative, sappy and not particularly creative show about a nurse practitioner who in an attempt to escape her past relocates to the picturesque small town of Virgin River, where she realizes you can’t run from your problems and also somehow finds love along the way. I finished it within 36 hours of it being released.
What is it about bad tv that is so good?
-----------------------------------
The new millennium has been a boon for television programming, a time described as Peak TV or the Second Golden Age of Television.
The original Golden Age of television was over half a century ago, from the late ‘40s to the late ‘50s. TV shows in this era were diverse in structure but placed an emphasis on good writing and humor; I Love Lucy aired from 1951 to 1957, need I say more? By the ‘60s the Golden Age was distinctly finished when networks produced shows they deemed the ‘least objectionable programming.’ By this time even though a majority of households in America had a television in the home, as a medium, it was seen as a major cultural toxin. (To be honest, I feel like this sentiment has never fully left. TV, no matter how good it is considered to be, is usually seen as a low-brow form of entertainment, a guilty pleasure.) With only three networks at the time, executives believed that Americans would be more drawn to TV shows that were seen as unobjectional, rather than good or enjoyable; unfortunately this led to some pretty boring programming.
That brings us to the current day. As a child I remember there being a clear delineation between a movie star and a tv actor; the serious, truly gifted actors were in movies, tv actors were still famous but definitely second tier. However, that all began to change as Y2K approached, when HBO aired some of their first, extremely successful, original programming, with Sex and the City (1998) and The Sopranos (1999). These shows and the advent of streaming services like Netflix, lead to a steady stream of prestige tv shows, with increasingly big name actors attached; shows like, The West Wing, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Game of Thrones, House of Cards … this list goes on. Now we have legitimate A-List stars flocking to television with shows like Big Little Lies (Reese, Nicole and Meryl), Homecoming (Julia Roberts), West World (Anthony Hopkins), Sharp Objects (Amy Adams) and almost everyone on any season of True Detective. There is no distinction between a movie star and a tv star anymore.
But some argue the bubble is bursting (or it already has)! In 2019, there were a whopping 532 original scripted television shows created. There is quite literally a show out there for everyone. The market is completely oversaturated. The emphasis doesn’t seem to be placed on quality anymore (not that there aren’t amazing tv shows being made now or there weren’t bad ones before); but it feels like we are back to the first post-golden age era where decisions are made with $$$ in mind instead of quality. Looking at Netflix as an example, to me (a commoner & outsider) their programming decisions feel like they are throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Quantity over quality. Which brings us back to Virgin River. Even as someone who has watched every season as soon as it's released I would not call this quality tv.
According to some critics there seems to be a few characteristics that differentiate great TV from just good (or even bad) TV. Critics Sean T. Collins and Claire Spellberg agree that the best shows are challenging, that TV at its base should entertain but great tv makes you think. Alyssa Rosenberg of the Washington Post, says some shows may have good acting or good writing, but truly good tv does it all well, acting, writing, directing, cinematography, etc. Finally, critic Natasha Winters says character development is key to great tv, when you can understand why characters make the decisions they do and their journeys make sense, then you know you have great writing.
None of these things are true for Virgin River. Half the time I truly don’t understand why some of the characters do the things they do. The acting and writing is mediocre; and it isn’t particularly thought provoking. But, according to Netflix’s public ranking system, Virgin River is the number one program in the US (and still is over 3 weeks later). Clearly, I am not alone in my love for the show.
Does TV have to be critically acclaimed, quality, or good to have value? How do we assign value any way -- for some it is through money made and others it is through praise and awards? This question has become even more heated with this year’s Emmy nominations; with soapy shows like Bridgerton and critically panned shows like Emily in Paris getting the nod. Both have also seemingly been successful financially for Netflix. The politics and history of entertainment award shows could be a story on its own.
Ultimately I think the argument isn’t, what or who are the arbiters of quality but more about whether quality is even a valid requirement to the notion of value? Does something have to be good to be worth our time?
There are many reasons that I love Virgin River so much, some of which I would wager are also why the show is so popular. Yes, it doesn’t meet standards set by the critics of being thought provoking but maybe that is the point. To put it frankly, sometimes life sucks, things are hard and you need a break; a show like Virgin River with its beautiful scenery and pretty people is like a salve for the soul. It is the definition of comfort viewing.
There is no doubt the casting could be more inclusive. But there is appeal in a storyline that focuses on the innate kindness of human beings, people looking out for each other in a small town working hard to build a sense of community. People are yearning for more unironic depictions of compassion and happy endings. Just look at the both critically and financially successful, Ted Lasso.
I could honestly keep talking about this subject for a thousand words, I love TV. But, I’ll spare you for now. Moral of the story, watch the TV you love, good, bad and ugly.
Next time a 1500 word essay on the magic of reality television.
(Don’t worry I’m joking … I think).
My week in Social Media …
The cutest thread ever. Cats on ships.
A variation on the theme. Bodega Cats.
Glow in the dark deer out there saving lives.
This is talent.
Color palette of my dreams.
Louder.
Wow. 👀
An amazing use of TikTok.
Okay kiddies lets end it there. I’m glad your here. Come back, you are always welcome (and bring a friend.) I hope to see you in the comments.
Kelley