SpoilerTV's Weekly Round Table: 16th Edition

Welcome to another edition of SpoilerTV's Weekly Round Table. This week I'm (MK) joined by some well-known STV culprits, Lisa (LM), Samantha (SB), Shal (KG), Milo (MI), Laura (LS), Jaz (JZ) and Kolin (KL). There are some major rants coming your way, so sit back, take a deep breath and enjoy the truly inspiring thoughts my colleagues decided to share with you.

1.Fall TV is just around the corner! Is the stress of Peak Tv getting to us? Do we dismiss and judge shows too soon not giving them enough time to show their full potential? What is your breaking point? How many eps before you say No more!?

LM: I am definitely feeling the stress of Peak TV. I've never felt more like I was missing out on some shows. On the other hand, I can't say I'm super excited for the network offerings! I don't even subscribe to any streaming services because I don't have time for what I'm already watching. And it has definitely made me a lot pickier about what I'm willing to watch. I used to try to stick it out to let a show find its stride, but now if a show really hasn't grabbed me by episode 3, I'm out.

SB: Considering I stuck with Somewhere Between until the final 2 episodes, I clearly don't love myself or have the best judgment with TV shows. Last year I dismissed American Housewife after thinking the trailer looked too cheesy & now I'm considering watching it, I also dropped a number of programmes including The Good Place as I was overwhelmed with college assignments and am now up to date with season 2, so I do think there is a danger in judging shows too quickly. However, I also feel that's the fault of the Networks. With the trailers, promos, photos etc, they're supposed to be selling the shows & persuading us to watch, and they don't always do that job very well, recent example of that being The Orville which was pitched in promos as being a Galaxy Quest/Star Trek like parody heavy on the laughs, and what you actually get is a really smart dramedy which knows when to take itself seriously & when not to. When it comes to dumping shows, my breaking point is when storytelling is beyond dumb. If in order to make a storyline work you have to write outside of how characters would normally act? You shouldn't be doing the storyline. If you have to retcon half of your series to make a twist work & suffer from massive continuity errors that insult the audience's intelligence? You shouldn't be writing. When you pander to particular fandoms and as a result either stall or erase all character development & promote abusive relationships? You shouldn't be allowed on a computer. It's really not that difficult to write TV shows well, and if you can't be bothered, then I can't be bothered to tune in.

KG: My Thursdays and Fridays are a mess this fall so I'm already stressing about that. I usually give shows about two episodes before I decide whether or not I'm going to keep watching.

MI: I normally do three or four episodes. I gave The Orville three before it became the first fall show that I dropped, but it will also depend on a lot around the scheduling and how many shows air on what day.

JZ: I think for a lot of shows we are quick to judge a series but that’s just a testament to the sheer amount of quality television we have right now. It’s truly the golden age of television. A lot of shows have to either hit the pilot out of the ballpark or have a kick-ass promotional campaign to keep audiences tuned in or at least keep the show on our radar.

I have a checklist when it comes to what new shows I’ll add to my lineup. I look for things like a great cast, resonating characters, and initial plot intrigue. I always say never judge a book by its pilot! I give a show at least four episodes before I decide if I want to add the show to my line-up. That way I get to see what the show is like without the flashy budget or rush through establishing the premise of the show.

KL: The stress of Peak TV? I get nothing but excitement, so many shows to explore, once in a while little gems pop up that I've never heard of like IFC's Stan Against Evil, which I discovered and binged three days ago - a more intelligent Ash vs. Evil Dead, for anyone actually wondering. My breaking point for a new show varies depending on expectations, how much I really want to like the show, and what I did or did not like. For example, I love the premise of Ghosted and the two leads, so I'm willing to give it 3-4 episodes despite its God awful pilot.

Yet, on the top of my head, The Shannara Chronicles two years ago - I was expecting it to be very teeny, and I tuned in to the pilot because why not, I love fantasy. When it ended up to actually be very teeny, one episode was all i needed before I was done because there was no way it was going to change - the target audience is what it is, won't change.

2.CBS has neither released screeners for Star Trek: Discovery nor allowed critics to review it before it premieres after they watched the first 2 episodes in press screening? Do you think that's a bad sign for the quality of the show?

LM: It's an odd choice for CBS to be sure, but I don't think I'm worried about the show's quality because of it. Honestly, ABC could take a lesson from this in regards to Inhumans! I like the fact that CBS is forcing viewers to make up their own mind.

SB: I have absolutely no interest in anything Star Trek related, and in normal circumstances, I would say refusing to release screeners and ordering reviews to be held back is a bad thing, but I can see their point of view. This fall season has seen a number of leaks so far, and I can't blame CBS for wanting to hold back so that viewers can enjoy the experience without being spoiled beforehand.

MI: I don't think so. Advance buzz on twitter seems to be good and it's generally more a case with films than it is with TV shows that the negative reviews tend to happen this way. That said, Star Wars reviews are nearly pretty heavily embargoed, so maybe CBS is hoping for the same kind of thing with Discovery. Either way, I'm super excited for it and can't wait to watch it!

JZ: It’s hard to tell, especially when we live in a time where screeners are being leaked like a holey bucket. Not releasing screeners could simply be a security factor over a lack of faith in their product. I still do believe in “all press is good press” so even if the select few reporters who have seen the show write an unfavorable review, there’ll be twice as many people tuning in to see if the rumors are true or to prove them wrong. With a franchise like this, I don’t think the show will have too much of a problem overcoming negativity if there is any.

KL: I don't think not releasing the screeners is a "bad sign." I think it's just a indication of a network wanting to maintain a veil of secrecy for it's much anticipated show. However, in light of Bryan Fuller exit and the constant delays, there is some concern, though I don't it is fair to jump to any conclusion.

3.Bi-Week/Bi-awareness day is behind us! How do you feel about the Bi-representation on TV? Do you feel them be marginalized and forgotten?

SB: I honestly feel that Bi-representation on TV is atrocious. Too many times instead of being serious about building a bisexual character up from the ground, Networks just want to play the Bi card for free promotion during sweeps, and after its ended the characters, bisexuality is never brought up again. Riverdale's pilot featured a kiss between Betty & Veronica for literally no reason whatsoever, and of course, it got people into shipping them, which members of the cast have been extremely rude in dealing with on some occasions, and others promoting the baiting for hype. Other times bisexuality is used to have a character be promiscuous and cheat on their partner which is an extremely harmful, not to mention dangerous stereotype

Or because a female character is now dating a girl after previously dating a boy, she is now a lesbian and the previous relationship happened but never happened. Most recent example of that lovely trope I've watched would have to be Wynonna Earp, which has had Waverly Earp & Nicole Haught get together but most of the fandom views Waverly as now being gay despite her previous relationship with Champ, and Emily Andras has said nothing to combat this. From what I've seen of interviews Dominique has stuck with not wanting to label Waverly which I completely understand, but then you have an episode where Waverly drunkenly kisses another woman, and suddenly she's a promiscuous bisexual.

It saddens me I could probably spend the whole night drawing up these examples, compared to that of good representation. On the whole, I think TV needs to do a lot better, but so do we as an audience. Because representation is so small, some viewers will take any crumb that TV shows throw at us and have a party with it, instead of demanding better and that gives showrunners the impression they can give us the littlest bit, because we might complain at first but eventually we'll be worn down and just accept it which isn't right. I'm sick of journalists & organizations like GLAAD questioning showrunners at press events & being told the same old story that they know they could be doing better, they want to do better, will eventually do better & just throw us that same old crumb.

MI: Bisexual representation on television is awful and really needs to be improved. I'm going to have to agree with Samantha Benjamin (SB) - there are far too many cases of where a female character, for example, dates a boy and then dates a girl and her relationship with the boy is all but forgotten. TV needs to get better with LGBTQ representation full stop though unfortunately, but hopefully, we'll see a change soon.

LS: Oh, #BiWeek. Should be a triumphant holiday where we all just get together and feel giddy about how much progress we’ve made, but unfortunately, this turns into a, “Look at us! We exist! Stop ruining us! We’re normal!” kind of charade. There are a handful of TV shows knocking it out of the park with this representation, and some of them are _Crazy Ex-Girlfriend_, _Madam Secretary_, and _Shadowhunters_, to name a few. (Normally I would include _HTGAWM_ here, but Annalise was just revealed to be Pansexual, not Bi. But I still love her.) But another problem is that when a good one comes around, they wind up leaving their show or their show gets canceled before it feels like they’ve truly come to fruition. _Grey’s Anatomy_, _Chasing Life_, and _Stichers_ come to mind here. But then there’s the good ol’ “Depraved Bisexual” trope that cable networks love to shove in our faces. _Mr. Robot_ seems like the prime example of this; when a character may not have a gender preference, but they use sex as power and manipulation to get what they want. Shows have used this ad nauseam in the past and it is always offensive and never feels like a cool trait of theirs. And then, of course, as others here have mentioned, we get the “character is Bi for sweeps and then it goes away and is never mentioned again”. Take a look at every bi character in existence. I guarantee every single one before, let’s say 2007, was created under this umbrella. It’s a cheap tactic networks have used to get ratings boost and it is not only offensive but also inaccurate these days. People aren’t falling for this anymore. I only hope that Bi representation can get better, but these days, in these political climates, I can’t say.

JZ: Happy Bi Week to the fellow bisexuals in our community! Bisexual representation in media is on the rise but sadly for all the wrong reasons.

Bisexuality is merely used as a plot device rather than a valid or accepted sexuality by the writers or the audience alike. Either bisexuality is written from the male gaze to titillate hetero viewers or a character becomes bisexual and is immediately written off as “homosexual” by the audience and they become dismissive of any relationship for the character that isn’t same sex.

Our sexuality is rarely portrayed authentically, as most people still think of bisexuality in a binary way. Our experiences, our “coming out” and the issues or misconceptions that affect us are never discussed or told on TV. Greedy, indecisive, overly sexual, playing straight and fake gay are commonplace characteristics and tropes that are placed on bisexuals which further hinder our validity in media representation. There is also a lack of male representation.

I find when watching characters, our sexuality is never told in its totality. Hell, we never even get characters to “say the b-word” like it’s going to kill them if they do, and usually, it does. We typically have to deal with the scraps. We try and shape the writer’s dangerous tropes into positives and ensure the gaslighting from audiences when we demand better.

That being said, there are a few Bi (and bi+) characters that have broken the mold, ones which embrace the entirety of non-binary sexuality. I’ve particularly enjoyed characters like Nolan Ross, Ianto Jones, Mazikeen Smith, Annalise Keating, Tabitha Galavan and Lucifer Morningstar to name a few. But still, many of these characters still had to endure degrading tropes and stereotypes.

I’m hopeful things will change. But it’s not going to be overnight and it’s not going to be without people advocating for positive representation, educating monosexuals about our experiences and holding the writers up to a higher standard when writing our representation, and for all things sacred JUST SAY BISEXUAL!

KL: I think lately being bi/gay has become a trend, which is not a good thing - TV shows now are pushing to have more bi relationships because it's the cool thing to do, which in itself is problematic.

4.CW put into development another spin-off, after hints of The Originals spin-off and Wayward Sisters into (backdoor pilot) production is there a place for strong Original content on The CW or is their Safe play smart play?

LM: Was Riverdale really that big of a hit? And resurrecting Sabrina, the teenage witch? Really? On the other hand, given the new shows, the CW is putting on the air... Frankly, I think they've branded themselves into a corner. They need some new blood and some bolder programming. While I'm a Supernatural fan and I love Kim Rhodes, I wasn't overly impressed with her in the last season, and I outright dislike the less talented actors attached to the show - Kathryn Newton jumps to mind (she is horrendous). While the fans love all these women at the conventions, I do wonder if that will translate into ratings. Spinoffs are the safe play but likely not smart for long-term success.

SB: I really thought Networks would've learned by now that you can't just rely on one genre or reboots or spinoffs to fill the hours in the day. If you're trying to persuade people to watch your channel over others, then you need to give people a reason to do that and that reason is in original content. There are always gonna be genres out there to invest in, that other Networks haven't. Launching a Supernatural spinoff I can understand since the show has been around a while and has a solid fanbase that the network can work with. Riverdale doesn't have that. As someone who watches it, I can admit it's not the greatest show that will ever air. With this potential Sabrina spinoff, you could say it's TPTB way of placating the viewers who have been asking since before the show even started to explore supernatural elements, and most importantly, introduce Sabrina. Whilst I know a lot of people including myself would be interested in the show if it does get picked up, I think you have to remember Riverdale has only been on the air a year & doesn't have the best ratings, so there is a high probability this show could fail.

KG: While I don't even watch Riverdale, I'm really intrigued about this dark Sabrina reboot/spin-off to give it a chance. Seems like they'll have a built-in audience for spin-offs - I'm really excited about the SPN one, which I've been waiting for for years. We'll see how they turn out and whether audiences agree!

MI: Spinoffs seem like a smart bet for the network like the CW with Wayward Sisters and the potential Sabrina spinoff lined up. Wayward Sisters is something that I've wanted from Supernatural for a long time and it gives them a safe bet for their shows to tackle new ground knowing that they will have an inbuilt audience carried over from the parent show. It doesn't feel too risky - look at how many people are already predicting new shows like Valor to fail, but at the same time, Chicago Justice never hit the heights CBS wanted it to either, canceled after one season. I guess it all depends at the end of the day on how good the show is.

LZ: I mean as long as there isn’t another Superhero show…. but in all seriousness, I think the answer is no, original content is not safe on the CW. No original television dramas have survived past their first season on the network in many years and I think it has a lot to do with its viewership. Why spend time and money advertising new shows for a new audience when you can just build upon an established audience? It’s smart for a small network like the CW.

As much as I like The Originals, I don’t think the show has that much rope left in it for me to tune into another spin off. Especially if it’s a tweeny drama surrounding Hope’s time at high school. I’ve grown up with the franchise and I’m now too old to be invested in a story like that.

Wayward Sisters is something that I’m not interested in at all. I think Supernatural worked because it had an amazing creator in Eric Kripke and the great brotherly dynamic of Sam and Dean. To simply try and replicate this formula in a female form is going to fail. Especially teenage girls and without Kripke. But I’d love to be proven wrong with this show but from SPN’s last spinoff failure, I don’t think I will be.

KL: There is always room for new content, but as the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. CW has a strong built in audience who happily tune in to spinoffs of their favourite shows, so, why not?

Thanks for stopping by guys hope you've enjoyed the read. Before tunning out don't forget to share your thoughts in the comment section down below.