TheTVClub

This is Todd. (I feel like I'm responding to you on an old-fashioned two-way radio every time I say, "This is Todd." Home base to mobile base. Mobile mobile.)

I tried to think of a fancypants answer to this, or to tell you about my process, but my process tends to involve doing lots of Internet surfing, then realizing it's midnight, and I'm supposed to be writing about Nashville or something. I will tell you this: A critical reaction is nothing but a gut reaction, an emotion that comes to you based on what you feel, not what you think you're supposed to feel. If you enjoy something, that's perfectly valid. Criticism is as much about enthusiasm as it is about saying things that didn't work.

That said, the best way to get better at developing your critical voice is, as with anything else, to practice. Now, I'm an insane workaholic, so I used to write four or five short reviews of TV shows per night while also working a day job when I had my own personal blog. I would not recommend emulating this. But I DO think that starting up your own blog and posting on it four to five times per week is a good idea, because that will help you hone your voice. The most important thing is to watch TV, lots of TV, even TV you don't like, then read. And don't just read criticism or read about TV (though that's important). Read all types of writing. Figure out what you can steal. Start to learn what you admire in that writing and what you don't.

By far the most valuable thing you can do to learn about how TV works is to pick an episode of a show you like and watch it three times. The first time, do something else. See how much you retain by not really paying attention. The second time, take it apart scene by scene. Figure out what each scene is trying to do and where it fits in the overall structure. The third time, see if you can appreciate how it all fits together as a whole (i.e., watch attentively but don't necessarily take notes).

I hope one or two of those suggestions help.

Right now: Leslie Knope. In history: Sam Malone.—EA

I will give you four shows per decade of television. If you watch at least a handful of episodes of these shows, you'll have a pretty good idea what the medium is all about. (Okay, you'll have a pretty good idea of what the AMERICAN version of the medium is all about.)

'50s: I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Leave It To Beaver, Get your hands on the Criterion "Golden Age of Television" set and watch that.

'60s: The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Defenders, The Andy Griffith Show, Route '66

'70s: Mary Tyler Moore, All In The Family, Barney Miller, Taxi

'80s: Cheers, Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, thirtysomething or Moonlighting (take your pick, as they represent two sides of a coin TV would continue to evolve throughout the next several decades)

'90s: Twin Peaks, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, The Sopranos (I am cheating considering this a '90s show, but it DID start then, so)

'00s: The Wire, Arrested Development, Mad Men, The Office (both UK and US)

'10s: Louie. (After that, we don't know yet!) -- TV

I am too busy to get anyone ice cream. Even you. Even Erik. -- TV

Hey, everybody. This is Todd. Erik and I will be sharing this account, and will do our best to explain which of us is typing. I hope.

Anyway!

HBO's advantage over Netflix is that it, ostensibly, has a boatload of cash. (This is one of those generally accepted things; in reality, we'll never know how much either company has on hand, because the earnings reports released to the public are heavily massaged. If you get TV executives drunk enough, maybe they will tell you the truth. But probably not.)

Anyway, I don't think that HBO will break off from Time Warner. I think it will remain a viable asset to the company. There will just come a time when it will make more sense for them to have an online subscription service--i.e., turning HBO Go into a Netflix competitor--and then they will launch subscription HBO Go. That point will come when the amount of money they'd lose from irate cable companies is less than the amount of money they'll gain from new subscribers. I suspect that point will come in the next few years.

Will this diminish their ability to take programming risks? Time will tell. But in the short term, yes, I expect less risk-taking on TV. Then again, TV doesn't HAVE to take risks to be great. Good, old-fashioned stuff can be just as fun. Justified, for instance, doesn't break any new ground, but it's one of my favorite shows on TV.