Past Deadline

It's for sure: Shannen Doherty returns to '90210'

By Barry Garron

TCA -- Will she or won't she, was the question on the lips of the multitude. The answer: she will. Like the proverbial criminal who always returns to the scene of the crime, Shannen Doherty will be back on the new "Beverly Hills 90210," the show that launched her career.

A CW press release trumpeted her return for "multiple episodes," reprising the character she originally played, Brenda Walsh. (You may recall that a younger and more difficult Doherty parted company with the show with the explanation that Brenda went to London to study acting.)

In the "90210," which the producers insist on calling a spinoff and not a remake, Walsh returns to her old high school to be a guest director of the school's musical production.

Indeed, the new "90210," which premieres Sept. 2, will be teeming with alumni. Tori Spelling will return as the owner of an upscale boutique, though no one knows quite when. "She was exhausted from having a new baby," said Gabe Sachs, exec producer alongside Jeff Judah. "When she's up for it, she'll be in."

Other characters, Kelly Taylor (Jennie Garth) and Nat (Joe E. Tata), will return as a guidance counselor and the owner of The Peach Pit, respectively. And, oh yeah, The Peach Pit is now "a cool coffee house with a music extension."

The original series kicked off in 1990 with the Walshes getting more than they bargained for when the family moved from Minnesota to Beverly Hills. The spinoff starts with the Wilsons moving to Beverly Hills from Kansas. Dad (Rob Estes) is the new high school principal. Mom is played by "Full House" star Lori Loughlin. Shenae Grimes and Tristan Wilds play Annie and Dixon, the new Brenda and Brandon.

But just as there are similarities, the exec producers vow there will be differences. "We're really having a strong adult story line," Sachs said. The Wilson parents will be trying to figure out "how they hold on to their moral center." (Being from Kansas, they must have a moral center.)

In addition, this fall's students with be texting and IM'ing all over the place. If only there was a West Coast gossip girl to put it all in perspective....

No 'SmackDown!' on CW? All's Well That Ends Well

By Barry Garron

So much of television--particularly unscripted television--is offensive, mind-numbing and brainless that it probably isn't fair to single out CW's "Friday Night SmackDown!" as one of the most egregious examples of tasteless TV. Still, I could not suppress a small smile at the news late last week that CW had decided to dump it.

From the start, it's arrival on broadcast TV was a bargain with the devil. In 1999, then UPN Entertainment head Dean Valentine practically held his nose in private conversations about the new show, then called "SmackDown!" and seen on Thursday nights.

But UPN was in desperate need of ratings and, as the saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures. At the time, professional wrestling, with its scripted stories, bloodthirsty fans and oversized combatants, had been relegated to cable television. Everyone knew you could get ratings with it, just as you could if you televised executions and dog fights. Still, there were some things a network and its executives did not want to be associated with.

So UPN took the plunge and, not unexpectedly, was richly rewarded with high ratings. That first season, the average "SmackDown!" telecast drew 7.2 million viewers. At the same time, though, it kept the UPN from developing an identity.

Was it the urban comedy network? Was it the wrestling network? Was it the sci fi network with "Star Trek: Voyager?" Yeah, sure, all of those things, or nothing at all. As long as wrestling was an anchor of the schedule, it would be hard for UPN to sell itself as a quality viewing option.

The next season, ratings dipped just slightly but remained strong. There were more dips each succeeding season. Just before the merger with WB, "SmackDown!" became "Friday Night SmackDown!" and ratings continued to fall. In 2005-06, it averaged 4.3 million viewers.

It improved just slightly last season but it was no longer the ratings monster it had been. While there's no question that CW needs to attract more viewers, the network decided that pro wrestling was no longer the way to do it.

Fans of the franchise have nothing to worry about, though. Last season's 4.5 million viewers may not have been potent enough for CW but it will look like manna from heaven to some cable outlet. I'd say that's a win-win situation.

A Report to GLAADen TV Network Hearts

GLAAD, whose formal name is Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, put out a report after watching all 4,693 hours of primetime TV on the five broadcast networks: ABC, CBS, CW, Fox and NBC.

It is worthy of your attention because, no matter what you think of gay and lesbian people, any group that asks its members to watch that much TV, deserves something for the sacrifice. And I don't just mean psychotropic meds.

The report says which networks were LGBT-friendly and which weren't. Basically, the more hours of shows with lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender in them, the higher the score. (A helpful tip to network execs: If you want to score high, don't go loading up any one show with a bunch of gays and lesbians. All you need is one in the hour to get full credit, so spread them around.) Now the results:

ABC--The winner. Thanks to shows like "Ugly Betty," "Brothers & Sisters" and even "Desperate Housewives," 15 percent of ABC's primetime hours had a character GLAAD could get behind, so to speak. Nonetheless, GLAAD wants more identifiable LGBT types in "Dancing with the Stars" and "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition."

CW--Second place with a 12 percent score but don't gloat. If not for "America's Top Model" this network would be a virtual LGBT ghost town. GLAAD wants more and thinks the new CW series, "Gossip Girl," would be ripe for LGBTs.

CBS--Third place with 9 percent, and most of that was from reality series such as "Survivor," "Big Brother" and "Amazing Race." GLAAD found a few gays popping up on CBS sitcoms but recommends that one of the "CSI" shows put an LBGT person in the lab. Also, a Latino LBGT would like nice on new series "Cane."

NBC--Fourth place. First, they give us "Will & Grace" and now, pfffft. A lousy 7 percent. "The Office" has Oscar, "ER" has Chaz Pratt and "Friday Night Lights" has Mayor Lucy Rodell, but come on. Where, GLAAD asks, is the gay with special powers on "Heroes?" Wouldn't a lesbian be perfect for "Law & Order?"

Fox--Last place with a measly 6 percent. And most of them weren't even human. They were cartoons on shows like "The Simpsons," "Family Guy" and "American Dad." GLAAD says Fox could do better just by spotlighting the personal lives of LBGTs on "American Idol" and "So You Think You Can Dance." (It's not like Clay Aiken is fooling anybody, anyhow--ed. comment.)

Of course, this is just a summary. It omits important but somewhat arcane data, such as the fact that NBC is the lesbian leader on TV, thanks to Dr. Kerry Weaver on "ER." However, that character left the series in January, which means NBC may have trouble retaining the lesbian crown.

Will things change next TV season? Good question but a better one is, will GLAAD continue to find members willing to watch every hour of primetime broadcast TV?

Posted by Barry Garron

Debauchery? Heck No, It's Heightened Reality

I love to watch tap dancing. That's why it's such a pleasure to listen to TV executives answer questions during the TCA tour for TV critics.

There are still a couple of networks left to go before the tour ends (Fox and ABC) but, so far, the award for the most facile and graceful performance belongs to Dawn Ostroff, CW Entertainment president.

The average age of a CW viewer is 31, which is about 10 years younger than even Fox. One way the CW goes after teens and young adults is with sexy actors or, in the case of reality shows, sexy contestants.

A new fall series, "Gossip Girl," based on a series of books for tweens, goes one step further. Not only is the cast sexy, but they have sex, take drugs and drink booze. And, oh yes, they're in high school.

Without getting into a long sociological spiel here, it's probably fair to say that a certain number of kids are going to watch this and get the impression this is typical and normal behavior for teens. Of course, there are many things that influence adolescent behavior but one is what they watch and believe to be true.

So the critics ask Ostroff why CW would telecast this distorted and potentially dangerous depiction of teen behavior. And on went the tap shoes.

"It's a book franchise that over 10 million copies have been sold, so young women have been reading those books for quite some time," she said. She's right, of course, except that the books don't have teens screwing each other right and left or doing drugs. Perhaps this is what they mean by literary license.

So let's try again. What justification is there for seemingly placing a stamp of approval on deviant behavior?

"We're talking about a group of kids who, as I said, live a heightened reality. In the series, there are consequences for the actions that a lot of the characters take," she said.

She could be right about that. Only the first episode was screened for critics and there were no "consequences" in it. Oh, a guy got hit during a date rape scene, but that was about it. Still, I suppose, it's possible that if kids watch enough episodes they'll find out drugs, booze and lots of sex isn't such a good idea.

Assuming the show stays on the air long enough.

Posted by Barry Garron

Pussycat Doll Turns Tail on the Group

The CW network isn't exactly flush with series that pull in high ratings. One that did very well, though, was "The Search for the Next Pussycat Doll."

You don't have to be a genius to figure out why it drew an audience. Men like to watch hot-looking women and, for reasons that aren't readily apparent, so do women. In fact, women make up most of the viewing audience for beauty pageants. But I digress.

Before it went on the air, TV critics asked Dawn Ostroff, president of CW Entertainment, whether the sexy attire of the Dolls made them good role models for impressionable teen girls. Ostroff said it wasn't about looking sexy and provocative. It was about the effort and emotions of the young women as they competed for their dream of joining the Pussycat Dolls.

Fair enough. Over the course of the series, no one tried harder (and maybe looked better) than Asia, the eventual winner and the Brand New Pussycat Doll! Oh, but wait. When the Dolls performed earlier this month during the Live Earth megaconcert, there was no Asia.

What happened to Asia, asked the critics, when Ostroff took the stage again at the summer TCA press tour.

"Asia has decided to do a solo career," she answered. Nor was Ostroff the least bit embarrassed that her network led America to believe it was watching an actual Pussycat being selected. "We always said, you know, it's their choice to either do a solo career or join the Pussycat Dolls."

What a letdown. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us the Bachelor doesn't actually propose to the woman he selects as the love of his life.

Posted by Barry Garron