'Quarterlife's' improbable third quarter

(photo courtesy NBC Universal)

The story of "Quarterlife," which premieres tonight on NBC, has been more about the ambitions of the show's creators, Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick, than about the show itself. This drama about being young in a confusing world is in many ways the tale of two TV-makers being confused in a young person's world. 

"Quarterlife" -- which Mary McNamara reviews in today's paper, and which I wrote about in November -- began as a pilot for ABC way back in 2004, when YouTube was still a far-off twinkle in some nerd's eye.  For one reason or another, "1/4life" didn't make it to prime-time, forcing Zwick and Herskovitz -- who wanted to keep their idea alive -- to figure out another approach.

What they came up with sounded pretty good on paper:  an "Internet show," complete with a main character who's also a video blogger -- and all wrapped in a real-live social network.  If that wasn't cutting-edge television, then kiss my grits.

But despite a good deal of hype, some newfangled trimmings, and a partnership with MySpace, "Quarterlife" never quite crossed the Web's success threshold: it didn't go viral. The episodes on MySpace tended to hover around 100,000 views over their lifetime, with maybe another 50,000 or so each from each episode's YouTube incarnation.  (For reference, a semi-well known YouTube blogger named KevJumba scored 450,000 views this week when he posted a video about how he broke his shin and had to "get a cast that extends up to my unmentionables.")

The strangest turn happened when, very soon after the writers strike started, Herskovitz and Zwick sold the show to a content-strapped NBC.  "Quarterlife" had quickly come full circle -- imagined as a TV show and then reimagined as an Internet show, it was now being re-reimagined as an Internet show that beat the odds to make it onto TV.

Will the show work on NBC, even though it didn't really work online?  In a recent essay for Slate, Herskovitz waves away the question: "We've already won the main victory, no matter what happens."  In this case, the main victory is not making a hit show, but getting a network TV deal that gives him "100 percent ownership and creative control."

In the same piece, he blames the show's Internet failure on the Internet -- and the people who use it:

Even the most brilliant accomplishments on the Internet are essentially cold. Google has changed the world, but you don't snuggle up to it. YouTube is a giant carnival, filled with freaks and mountebanks, a place to gawk and laugh and get bored. Certainly not a place to feel anything.

And because the Internet was invented by "geeks, engineers, and boys" who ...

don't naturally select for emotionality (they'd rather play video games) or exploration of inner life (they'd rather watch porn) or being in deep relationship with other people (they'd rather build Web sites till all hours), the Internet is singularly devoid of these colorations of humanity.

But, Herskovitz seems to imply, "Quarterlife" transcended the Internet's emotional paucity.  For its fans, "the show and the Web site had come to represent an environment they couldn't find anywhere else, that supported their dreams and addressed their fears, and in which they could recognize their truest selves."

Times critic McNamara did not reap the same psychic benefits.  "Quarterlife," she writes, "may be the most relentlessly traditional, nay, even nostalgic show to ever air on television."

But at the end of the day, it's the audience -- not TV executives, not the cold-hearted Internet, and not us critics, who will write the next chapter of "Quarterlife."  Just as it should be.

Comments

[Jeremy]

I can't help but take a little offense to the quote made about the "geeks, engineers, and boys" who "invented" the internet.

In my experience a good story is a good story no matter the medium it is presented in. For example Halo, Mass Effect, (I could go on). The success of these games hinge on their ability to strike emotion in the participant. To blame the internet for the show's failure is only trying to play off of stereotypes that the internet is still nothing more than "geeks and engineers" sitting in their basements playing WoW for 56 hours straight. The internet has grown up, it's mainstream. So don't put out crap and then blame it on the medium or say "it's ahead of its time". If there's good story, people will connect emotionally (no matter what their hobbies or gender).

[johndoom]

great show. the 4th episode is suppossed to be the coffee episode unless the exec's at nbc start editing..
http://johnnydoom.blogspot.com/2008/02/nation-shocked-starbucks-closes-all.html

[Ken]

Wow. Herskovitz comes across as a condescending blowhard with a bad case of sour grapes about his show's apparent inability to get a significant share of eyeballs on the web. Way to promote stereotypes about web users. Perhaps the problem is less a case of cold, emotionless internet audience, and more a case of overblown, dull television content.

[Joe]

Uggg...
Yet another show about privileged twenty something year olds who whine and complain all day while screwing each other and being way overly dramatic that their little lives just aren’t perfect enough. Waaaaaaaaa. And hey, what’s the deal with their bare feet? Do they all hate shoes or something? Oh yeah, it’s suppose to be deep like... ‘Hey look at us, we’re special. We’re unique and connected with the earth.” I hate people like that, I see ‘em here everyday here in Venice. Go step on some glass you freaks. This new generation of ruminating punks are like a cross-breading of 60’s hippies, mating with 70’s yuppies and their spawn was raised by MTV, internet, nannies and trust funds. Go away I’m bored with you.

[Tony]

Got some anger issues Joe? This is a good show that could sprout legs with a network audience. Before throwing out your generalities and dubbing it a “show about privileged twenty something year olds” you should STFU and watch, then comment or don’t comment at all. Closed minded fools that think they have seen it all like you are what is ruining the world.

[Roger]

I received a link for a show that shreds Quarterlife called 2/8 Life. http://www.icn.tv/series/28life

After watching last night's episode of Quarterlife, I doubt I'll watch another episode.

[Alex P. Michaels]

First, I respect the creators of the show. I fondly remember "Thirtysomething." It seemed real and the people were involved with one another. I saw a bit of "Quarterlife" online and I thought it was a bit pretentious. "I blog therefore I am." Still what works online won't work on the air where you need millions of consistent viewers to make advertisers happy and satisfy the network's bottom line. The show has to make money.

I agree a person should watch enough of a show to make a fair judgment of it. Yet, I really wasn't that interested in the people when I saw it online. I could barely tell you who they were. And it's been years since "Thirtysomething," but I still remember Michael and Hope and Eliot and Nancy.

I'm a filmmaker myself so I don't wish bad on any other filmmaker, but "Quarterlife" just doesn't seem destined to survive on the network. The demands for a huge audience are too high.