Ken Blathers: NCIS & NCIS: LOS ANGELES

I haven’t seen a lot of NCIS, but I saw some of it one year when it ran before The Amazing Race, so I’m somewhat conversant with it. Not enough that I didn’t have to drop by the IMDB to gather up the character’s names, but enough that I can of have a handle on the main characters. Of course, that’s because the characters are, very much, characters.

The notable thing about NCIS, a spin-off of CBS’ old series JAG and a show that actually has been building its audience as the years have gone along, is that it’s probably network TV’s squarest, most old-fashioned series, while desperately wanting to be a hip, cutting edge show CSI. It’s your stodgy uncle who wants to hang out with you and your friends. I’m not knocking the show, it’s a solidly crafted series, and that should not be underrated. It can’t help but being what it is, though. And although it tries hard, with occasionally very violent episodes, or even by graphically bumping off a long-running central character, it just can’t shake its essentially hidebound sensibilities.

The major form this stodginess takes is in a cast of characters right out of a kit. Gibbs (Mark Harmon) is the old school, tight-lipped ass kicking Marine sniper who leads the team. He’s right off an old Western show from the ’50s or ’60s, hard as nails, stoic, basically omniscient and invulnerable, but with a quietly supportive and sensitive side that winks at us occasionally. He’s a doer, not a sayer.

DiNozzo is the comically horndog, egomaniacal guy who alternates between being a valued, super-competent member of this highly elite team, and the screw-up butt of most of the show’s jokes. Remember how Jack Tripper on Three Company’s was always trying to get into every woman’s pants, unless they were trying to get into his pants, at which point he got all skittish and demure? Like that. DiNozzo entertains a lot of people, obviously, but I can’t get past the fact that he exhibits two sides, each of which basically contradicts the other. Plus, the guy playing him is over 40 now, and it just seems time for him to get away from the jackass thing.

Abby is the silly spunky Goth super tech grrrrrl, cute as a button, addicted to ersatz Big Gulp, and able to perform (pretty much literal) magic with her advanced computers and other scientific equipment. Basically she’s one of the Powerpuff Girls all grown up and majored at MIT. I find her continued Goth attire increasingly problematic as the show enters its seventh season (especially now that the actress playing her has hit 30), but apparently I’m in the minority. I mean, she still looks good and stuff, but really, how long can a grown woman sport the ‘Catholic school girl with studded leather collar’ look and not seem sort of pathetic?

McGee is basically the nerdy, easily wounded foil for DiNozzo’s antics. He’s the bland straight man. I guess he’s got ticks, but they are less readily apparent to a casual viewer like myself.

Ziva is an Israeli ex-Mossad assassin (I think) and your typical waifish butt-kicker. She has the inevitable love/hate thing going on with DiNozzo, and it’s a bit tiresome (to me at least) to watch these two adults dance around their obvious attraction to one another year after year. If I remember right, her comic trait is issuing an endless stream of malapropisms in her attempts to master American slang.

More on the sidelines is the show’s veteran actor, former Man from UNCLE David McCallum as coroner Ducky. Ducky appears to be the lovable eccentric wise man, sort of a mom figure for the younger cast opposite Harmon’s taciturn father figure.

The point being, these characters are patently artificial, and some of them are downright cartoons. This is held in check by the actors, who aren’t great thespians, most of them, but who manage to (generally) to make you look past their inherent goofiness. Still, it’s hard to get past the fact that this IS, in fact, your father’s action show.

I should again really stress that it is not my intention to knock this program. For my money, it’s old-fashionedness is its main strength. There are zillions of hipper, more lightweight shows on TV right now, but NCIS‘ all but utter lack of irony oddly gives it a fairly unique feel. It’s easy to mock the show for reaching an aging audience demographic, but at least it’s not about some half-shaven man boy tooling around in a cherry 1968 Barracuda and who lives in a gigantic loft apartment in a converted former fire station.

Last night we got the premiere of NCIS: Los Angeles, a new spinoff which will run after the original NCIS every Tuesday. I assumed the new program would premiere via one of those back to back crossovers, starting on NCIS and moving on to the new show. Somewhat surprisingly, this wasn’t the case, although such a crossover is surely only a matter of time.

This one is much more generic, being just your basic urban buddy cop series. They bicker and smartass one another, but deep down, man, they love each other like brothers. The show wears its own equally failed attempts at hipness more on its sleeve, especially in co-starring rapper/actor LL Cool Jay. His partner is played by pretty boy Chris O’Donnell.

Like many actors of his maturity-impaired generation, O’Donnell remains boyish even though he’s nearly 40, and the show really makes sure we understand how GOSH DARN VULNERABLE AND RACKED WITH INNER PAIN he is. (Oh, for the days of James Stewart, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Gregory Peck, etc.) The show is much more forthrightly urban than its progenitor and its cast skews younger, except for netting Oscar winning actress Linda Hunt as the guy’s boss. Hunt’s presence is the most exciting thing the program has to offer.

The buddy cop thing is the show’s major divergence from it’s predecessor, and arguably its greatest weakness, until they get a groove going between the two. NCIS is toplined by old school hardass Mark Harmon, due to turn 60 in a few years. Although the show features an ensemble cast, everyone else is Harmon’s supporting character, much like the folks who revolve around David Caruso in CSI: Miami.

NCIS: Los Angeles, in contrast, features your usual mismatched two man template, like a zillion other series since Starsky & Hutch. The pair is surrounded by a highly generic—your basic young, hot Benetton ad array—backup team who chill at your now obligatory super high-tech headquarters with insanely advanced computer equipment. It’s pretty clear already that they will constitute your normal group of pretty ciphers and purportedly loveable eccentrics, like the guy whose shtick appears to be that he’s a walking encyclopedia. He’s basically like Dex in those Yellow Pages ads.

In the end, it would be risky to reinvent the wheel, and NCIS: Los Angeles most surely doesn’t try. It’s unfair to judge the show after one episode. Given its pedigree it will surely be professionally mounted, and quite possibly provide fans of NCIS, and JAG before it, with another pleasant if not particularly strenuous hour of TV every week.

Even so, I expect the lack of a canny pro like Mark Harmon at the helm will hurt the show more than they think it will, rather than draw in a younger demographic. The fact is—and who would have thought it 20 years ago?—that Harmon dominates the screen with an effortless masculine grace that neither Cool J nor O’Donnell can remotely touch. Indeed, neither can hold a candle even to the increasingly calcified and hilarious David Caruso. The latter might be our new William Shatner, but he still has a lot more ‘it’ than these two. (Indeed, if he didn’t, he couldn’t be a Shatner.)

Primarily, I hope Hunt’s character grows into more than the parade of wacky quirks we see in this first episode. I certainly don’t begrudge her a steady paycheck, but man, she brings a lot more to the table than they are using so far.

  • Foywonder

    “I find her continued Goth attire increasingly problematic as the show enters its seventh season (especially now that the actress playing her has hit 30)”

    Actually, Ken, the actress who plays Abby turned 40 (!) in March.

  • Ericb

    A lot of these shows (Bones and NCIS: LA in particular)seem like mundane, everyday versions of Batman. So they don’t wear costumes and have their super high tech labs in regular buildings rather than a cave but otherwise they operate on similar priciples. I guess you can blame it all in CSI. Somthing like Law and Order: Criminal intent seems like Sherlock Holms in comparision. At least those detectives actually use their wits to figure out the crimes.

  • Toby C

    “I assumed the new program would premiere via one of those back to back crossovers, starting on NCIS and moving on to the new show. Somewhat surprisingly, this wasn’t the case, although such a crossover is surely only a matter of time.”

    Actually, there was a backdoor pilot last AprilL Season 6, Episode 22 and 23.

  • P Stroud

    “Still, it’s hard to get past the fact that this IS, in fact, your father’s action show.”

    Er, yes. Although on one level the entertainment industry seeks out the younger audience one mustn’t forget the truly massive spending power of the older adult population. These are the guys who can afford to go to NFL games and buy Escalades.

  • “Actually, Ken, the actress who plays Abby turned 40 (!) in March.”

    Yikes! Then she really is in danger of becoming the 21st Century’s Miss Havisham. Give that woman a makeover!

  • “Er, yes. Although on one level the entertainment industry seeks out the younger audience one mustn’t forget the truly massive spending power of the older adult population. These are the guys who can afford to go to NFL games and buy Escalades.”

    For sure. Again, I consider NCIS’ stodginess a feature, not a bug. Not everything has to be aimed at the CW demographic.

  • Ericb

    You’d think that with the boomers entering senior citizenhood that there would be more programming aimed at an older demographic. I’m sure that was the reasoning for the Jay Leno show.

  • Actually, the main reasons for the Leno show were a) they didn’t want him skipping to another network, like ABC, and beating their late night brains in, and b) because a week of Leno basically costs less than a single hour of series television, much less five of them. So even if his ratings at middling at best–and he gets beaten by both CBS and ABC every night of the week–his program will be profitable.

    A lot of industry people are praying the program fails for that reason; it challanges the series status quo that has massively enriched so many of them. However, whether Leno’s show succeeds is almost beside the point. As argued here many, many times, the mass culture / market era is passing, and cheaper alternatives like the Leno show will pretty much have to be found. Scripted programs that cost 2-3 million an episode just won’t be cost effective much longer. They’ll have to find ways to make them cheaper if they are to survive.

  • P Stroud

    “Scripted programs that cost 2-3 million an episode just won’t be cost effective much longer. They’ll have to find ways to make them cheaper if they are to survive.”

    You are probably right and that saddens me. A&E did two excellent movies based on the Hornblower series by CS Forester several years ago. Originally they planned to do movies on the entire series of novels. Even though the movies made money the series was canceled because A&E decided they could make more money filling their time with reality shows. Once again decent entertainment that was profitable was axed for crap like “Extreme Makeover” and “10 Stoners Deciding What to Buy For Munchies”. Well I hope A&E is happy because I’m one of those guys who can afford to go to NFL games, even though I prefer to buy libraries of Toho and Vincent Price movies. I never watch A&E now specifically because of their decision. What’s the point of having 10 times as many shows to choose from if they are all reality crap?

  • Ericb

    I don’t even bother with cable. Back in the 90s when a channel’s title actually had something to do with its content cable was worth the extra money but now, when even The Learning Channel and The History Channel (!) have reality tv, there’s really isn’t point to it. If there is anything good that I’m missing it will be on DVD in a matter of months and I can rent it from Netflix.

  • I still don’t get the anti-reality show thing. There are good ones and bad ones–Amazing Race and Mythbusters rank among my favorite shows of the last ten years–just like there are for scripted shows.

    In any case, railing against networks for such programming is missing the point. They’ve love to preserve the old model of doing things in amber, because that’s when they were on top and making money almost without effort. However, the plethora of entertainment options now is dissolving mass culture, and for good and bad, you just can’t put that genie back in the box.

  • Ericb

    Reality shows aren’t bad per se but their relevance to some networks (does a reality show related to the current timber industry really belong on the “History” Channel) is questionable. Also I wouldn’t consider Myth Busters as “reality television”. It’s more like a type of documentary like some of the National Georgraphic programs. And I may be wrong but is sending a camera crew out to the Pacific Northwest to film lumberjacks that much cheaper than making a documentary on the Aztecs or the War of 1812?

  • mitch

    I also find the de rigueur dismissals of reality TV tiresome. Alot of reality shows are terrible, just like alot of scripted shows are terrible. I think a hatred of reality shows has become the accepted norm because the people who have a big influence on what accepted norms are also happen to be the people threatened by reality shows: writers.

  • Ericb

    “I find her continued Goth attire increasingly problematic as the show enters its seventh season (especially now that the actress playing her has hit 30), but apparently I’m in the minority”

    Does the real NCIS have such a lax dress code? I could see giving leway for someone working undercover but I doubt that someone working at the man office would be able to dress like that.

  • Terrahawk

    I thought CSI actually handled the young, wiz kid thing well. You had Sanders move up and out of the lab. And they actually had him messing up and learning that the man-child thing had to end.

    I loved the Hornblower series. They also were doing some nice little period pieces about the Revolutionary War and WWI. I don’t think I’ve watched A&E in over two years. When I’ve even noticed it it has been along the lines of “What is that doing on there?”

  • There is a term for all of these channels showing programs that don’t fit their original intent. The term, according to TV Tropes.com, is called ‘Network Decay’. Its the reason why MTV and VH1 don’t play music videos, History Channel plays non-history shows like ‘Ice Road Truckers’, Cartoon Network plays live action shows, and FOX plays non-entertainment like ‘Family Guy’. Next, I assume, Food Network will play nothing but shows about drywall installation and ESPN will have symposiums on collecting china dolls.

  • Terrahawk

    John, actually your listing makes a good point. Food Network and ESPN pretty much stick with their niche and do well. Although ESPN has dabbled in the sports movie and series area. The NFL pretty much squashed that experiment when they dictated the end of the football series they were running (don’t bite the hand that feeds you). A lot of the other niche networks seem to be lost at sea. Why in the name of all that is holy is the Sci-Fi channel running Ghost Whisperer? Why???? Spike runs more sci-fi. Actually Spike also sticks with their general niche, guy stuff, and seems to do well.

    Let’s take the Sci-Fi channel (I refuse to use the new “name”). How would one fix it if one were in charge? First, they need to dump wrestling, Ghost Hunters, Ghost Whisperer, and shows like that. Now, they will probably claim that those shows are highly rated and therefore need to stay. They may be highly rated but they hurt your brand image as a science fiction channel. You’re killing your base to pick up some people who don’t care about the rest of your offerings. I would say they need more original shows but part of the problem is that sci-fi as a genre is in trouble. It’s been infected by too many tropes (i.e. the evil corporation, etc.)….gotta stop, I’m rambling now.

  • Jay

    I can’t watch the show without counting all of the various potential physical & sexual harassment lawsuits that are just waiting to be filed.

    Must be nice to live in a universe where people just brush off being slapped on the head by their boss or being continuously hit on by a smarmy co-worker.

  • “Must be nice to live in a universe where people just brush off being slapped on the head by their boss or being continuously hit on by a smarmy co-worker.”

    Well, the folks in Hollywood sure seem to like living there. Maybe not when they’re at the bottom of the getting hit / getting hit on ladder, but as long as they can dream of the day when they will be horribly abusing underlings themselves, they seem fairly cool with it.

  • ProfessorKettlewell

    “Scripted programs that cost 2-3 million an episode just won’t be cost effective much longer. They’ll have to find ways to make them cheaper if they are to survive.”

    I agree absolutely. Dead serious question for Ken especially, but everyone in general: how do you think these cost savings could be made? Where does that 2-3 million go to?

  • Derek O’Brien

    Thanks for this, now I know to avoid it. Sick and tired of this lazy cookie cutter approach to characterization. I get that they want to emulate the style of other shows, but they need to give us characters we can care about if they want people to continue to invest in watching. Otherwise you won’t care if they live or die – what my girlfriend calls The Cloverfield Syndrome :-)

  • Well, a lot of the money goes to production values, obviously: location shooting (especially in exotic locales), digital effects, etc. You can probably save some money there, but how much is hard to say. Shows might start relying more on sets and things, and go back to be shot like b-movies were.

    However, I think talent is going to take the big hit. I’ve been arguing for a while that there aren’t really ‘movie stars’ anymore who should command super gigantic salaries, and then was agog myself recently to learn that people like Denzel Washington has at time made $20 million a picture. That’s crazy.

    People in show business obviously want to keep that super-rich lifestyle thing, if only because it’s part of being a ‘star.’ However, movie salaries are going to have to come down, and even more so are TV show salaries.

    People might have to start living on hundreds of thousands of dollars a year instead of millions. The unions are going to fight that tooth and nail, but again, we are transitioning out of a mass culture era, and you just can’t pay people starring in shows watched by 10 million people what you were paying people starring in shows watched by 30 million people.

    In real terms, the networks are really kind of just becoming very successful cable stations, or at least the difference between those two strata is rapidly diminishing. I think what we’re talking about here is that a LOT more people are going to make very nice livings off working on TV (including those working on cable shows), but fewer are going to become extraordinarly wealthly.

  • ProfessorKettlewell

    Ken: thanks for the reply. I really liked this point:

    “In real terms, the networks are really kind of just becoming very successful cable stations, or at least the difference between those two strata is rapidly diminishing. I think what we’re talking about here is that a LOT more people are going to make very nice livings off working on TV ”

    I actually kind-of hope it goes that way. I have a hard time being terribly sympathetic to people who have to settle for *merely* making several hundred grand a year, particularly since, as you have said many times, there just isn’t a Cary Grant or James Stewart out there right now. But I REALLY hope that what gets cut isn’t the writers or directors. I grew up on UK TV so B-movie production values don’t upset me at all, but a decent writer / writing team is about the most bang-per-buck you can get, and can’t be done without. I really think that if the scripts are there, and you give a flying one about the characters, viewers /will/ ignore or forgive the occasional wobbly set or back-projection.

  • Man, there was an NCIS discussion here and I missed it?

    I’m with Ken: NCIS is fun because it is so square. And if Abby turns into Miss Havisham … actually, that might be an interesting character turn.

    But NCIS: LA … beh. I don’t think Bellasario has his hands on that show, and it’s pretty apparent. NCIS: LA is trying way too hard to be cool. At least with Bellasario, character — no matter how cartoony — is king. So far with the new show, I can’t really tell the characters apart, even the two make leads! Linda Hunt’s Edna Mode character has the most potential, and I think she has enough acting chops to transcend beyond her initially one-dimensional characterization, but other than that I do not have high hopes. NCIS: LA seems more like latter-day Knight Rider than the original formula.

  • Reed

    I just wanted to say: I know several NCIS investigators and they are evenly split between loving the show (which is, of course, incredibly unrealistic on all levels) and not being able to watch it.

    NCIS has undergone major growth in the last few years, and is now an extremely young workforce. Many of them are assigned to carrier groups (which the ones I know hate). As Federal law enforcement has a mandatory retirement age of 57 (with some exceptions) it ensures a relatively young workforce anyway. Also, since you have to be a US citizen you don’t run into a lot of ex-Mossad. Always possible of course, if they naturalized, but highly unlikely.

    Does anyone know if the show about the Department of Homeland Security is still running? I never saw it or know anyone who has seen it.