Review: Royal Pains

Royal Pains is USA Network's latest summer TV offering, and I am quite certain it will be a license for USA to print money. That does not necessarily mean, however, that it's good. The premise is, as one reviewer put it, Burn Notice, M.D.: Hank Lawson, a massively talented up-and-coming doctor in New York, does the right thing, killing a billionaire hospital donor in the process. He loses his house, fiancee, and is piled up with debt until his brother swoops him off to a Memorial Day weekend in the Hamptons -- to those of you who are fortunate enough to not know, Memorial Day is essentially when the Hamptons hangs out the "Open for NetJets" sign. In any case, Doctor saves life, accidentally ends up being a concierge doctor, and ends up with adoration and a love interest. Yay. He may no longer be a respected doctor in the formal medical world, but as an on-call doctor for the Hamptons he's doing quite well.

It's nice to see perennial guest-star Mark Feuerstein get a leading role, and he's actually a pretty good actor. But his character isn't the most original thing on Earth -- indeed, Hank is almost exactly like Burn Notice's Michael Westen, but nowhere near as compelling. Family problems, disgraced from his job, surrounded by the super-rich, noble in spite of everything around him yadda yadda yadda. Where Michael Westen's use of household materials to create spy equipment is only sometimes absurd, Hank Lawson's use of household materials as medical equipment seems absurd almost every time. Admittedly, Royal Pains does seem quasi-aware of its own propensity in this capacity: in the pilot, for example, he gives a girl a list of items he needs to save her boyfriend's life and she responds by asking him if he's MacGuyver.

Even if you manage to get past seeing Royal Pains as just a bootleg Burn Notice, the show still doesn't shine. The writing lacks the crispness that many TV shows have showed of late and the characters aren't terribly compelling. There's no sense of struggle or of conflict within or between any of the characters, and I felt absolutely no sense of suspense whatsoever when watching the first three episodes.

But I am fairly sure that it will be fantastically popular. Even though people don't trust doctors and it's now fashionable to hate the rich, medical shows are still virtually-guaranteed TV hits and people are still curious to see (often over-the-top interpretations of) how the super-wealthy live. Royal Pains checks both boxes, and spends more time checking those boxes than, say, crafting decent characters. That's what will make it popular, but also what makes it weak. And USA is a top-tier cable network now, so there's a large potential audience for it to draw upon.

As it is now, Royal Pains isn't a good show, in part because it sometimes seems to not buy its own premise fully. And if that's the case, how can it expect the viewers to buy the premise? Nonetheless, it is an amusing show, a decent sort of Summer TV distraction, and you can argue that Burn Notice wasn't much more than that in its first season (though Burn Notice was still better written and more compelling in its debut season). Maybe it will improve in the future, and I hope it does: despite the fact that it may seem otherwise, I believe there are glimmers of promise for it... those just need to be brought out and polished.

Seven years ago Royal Pains would have ruled the Summer TV season. But seven years ago Summer TV, with the exception of The Shield, was pretty much rubbish. Now it's a very, very different story, and Royal Pains has a lot of work ahead of itself to get up to the standards set by shows like Burn Notice and Rescue Me. But as a way to kill the occasional 42-minute span, there are worse things to watch on Hulu. It's just that there are a lot of better things to watch, both on air and on Hulu.

Brain Droppings: an Idea of How to Make Top Gear US Viable

Some time ago a pilot was made for a US version of the British motoring show Top Gear, featuring Adam Corolla (car nut and TV/radio personality), Tanner Foust (American drift star), and some other guy I can't be bothered to remember (it's 2:09 AM, sue me). The pilot was shot for NBC, which wanted to air it as a mid-season replacement, but the Peacock network passed on it, presumably because if NBC put it on someone might actually watch something on their network. The network did allow the pilot to be shopped around, but to no avail, and the idea was eventually canned.

Why on Earth was the idea of a car program in the most car-crazy nation canned? I don't know. But I do have a few ideas on how it might be made to work. (Please bear in mind that I, like the entire planet except a few people, never saw the pilot of Top Gear US, though I did read a few forum posts from people claiming to have been in the audience.)

First, one has to bear in mind that at its core Top Gear is a talk and variety show along the lines of The Tonight Show, only with cars instead of ostensible social and political satire. Both try to engage with their audiences through humor, and there is a pretty fair reliance on interview segments.

Second, the temptation is going to be to have Top Gear US' co-hosts be big enough names to draw a crowd. That won't mean squat if the hosts don't have the kind of chemistry that Top Gear GB's co-presenters have. A good portion of the enjoyment I get from watching Top Gear is watching three guys "cocking about and arguing," to quote Clarkson. It isn't just about reviewing cars; it's about three guys who love cars sharing their passion for the subject... and insulting each other's tastes while engaging in ludicrous challenges. Incidentally, Colin Fleming wrote a really great article on this chemistry for Slate, which should sell all but the most foolish non-believers on the premise of the show.

I grant you, this is TV: egos abound. But Top Gear is supposed to be three guys who are charming and funny first and foremost, and celebrities second. Finding people who are both (e.g. Seinfeld, Leno) would be preferable, but if you make it funny I believe they will come. And they should be able to share the spotlight... or at least pretend they can on camera.

So let's move on to the 300 ib gorilla and his cousin the elephant over there in the corner of the room: sponsors. Automakers are the biggest advertisers on TV, even in the current environment, and a show about cars would be a logical fit for advertising dollars. But what makes you actually listen to what the presenters on Top Gear GB say is that it's a BBC program, so the lack of ad money means that the only bias the presenters have toward cars is their own, and even then they sometimes eat their words. And yes, NBC did say for the Top Gear US pilot that the hosts could say what they wanted about cars, but if the show had actually gotten off the ground that probably would have started to change in the editing room. And the Stig means that cars make laps at top speed, regardless of who makes the cars... we hope. Plus he makes for an excellent fourth cast member.

Excluding sponsors via ad revenue makes this a very difficult show to be profitable, but there's an obvious choice: HBO, Showtime, or other subscriber networks. This works well since they make money off of DVD sales and subscriptions more than ad sales, and a typical season for one of their shows is only 13 episodes or so, which fits with the rough length of a Top Gear series (though I admit they generally have two series per year).

Speaking of seasons, where to shoot? The obvious choice is California, of course, but obvious is boring. Also, it's hard to get those long freeway glamour shots on the Top Gear car vs. train/plane/Robocop-on-a-unicorn challenges when the cars are stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic for all day. And the advantage of having a 13-episode season that films and airs during the spring/summer/early fall is that you can get beautiful shots of the northeast without having to deal with winter. Or you can go for the other obvious choices that are Texas and Florida, though I would argue having actual seasons happening around the cars might make for nice scenery when camera crews are setting up those near-pornographic shots of all the exotica.

As for costs, I must concede that I doubt this would be a budget show to film. Top Gear GB's first few series were pretty narrowly budgeted, and while they were fun the show didn't really hit its stride until its fifth series. This doesn't mean a limitless budget is in order, however: manufacturers will readily supply press cars for most vehicles. As for the hyper-exoctica that's already been sold out, look more for Top Gear's strategy when they wanted to test an Enzo: beg, beg, beg, beg and do some heavily tongue-in-cheek promoting (if you watch the clip this actually makes sense in the context of what I've written previously in this piece). The camera work will have to be top-notch though, and that won't be cheap. Neither for that matter, will some of their challenges (though not all, of course).

But hey, this can't be as ludicrous as what they were spending on salaries for The Sopranos by the time it went off the air. And this would be much, much more fun.

Used Review: 2006 Subaru Impreza WRX

Every once in a great while, I drive a car that makes me wonder why on Earth people buy anything else. These aren't necessarily the most refined cars, or have the best interior quality, or cost a lot, but represent such massive overall value that I can't help but be amazed. The sixth- and seventh-generation Honda Accord are pretty much the standard for this, in my mind.

Still, though the Accord is an exceptional all-rounder, what is one to do when they've had kids and need something practical, but also want to thrash about like a greasy-haired eighteen-year-old? Simple: you buy the 2002-2007 Subaru Impreza WRX.

The GD-chassis WRX became an instant hit upon its release (2002 in the US, 2001 in the rest of the world), with American buff books hailing it as a leap forward in performance motoring for the masses. And they have a bit of a point: I can only think of a few four-door cars and wagons that can do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, and that number grows even smaller when you consider how (relatively) cheap to buy and run WRXs are.

Its EJ205 engine is rev-happy in the extreme -- like all of Subaru's turbocharged boxers it doesn't really get going in power and torque until about 3000 RPM. But then oh man does it ever go. It doesn't make the most pleasant noise in the world, but it's a purposeful little growl and if nothing else it makes the machine so much fun to drive that you don't even care all that much about the noise.

Yet Subaru's symmetrical all-wheel drive system means that you never really feel out of control. For instance, I drove the particular WRX on review here from Baltimore to New York at night in pouring rain, but did 85 mph the whole way without ever feeling at all unsafe. Indeed, I have taken this particular WRX out at night on curvy, rainy roads and truly thrashed the thing, yet I have only ever felt it even begin to give up any grip just once. And even that was under massive duress on a road soaked with rain and coated with wet leaves.

But while those older Accords don't perform like sports cars, they have a really quite nice interior. The WRX performs much better, but that performance does seem to come at the expense of interior quality and comfort. The plastics are typical Subaru: fairly hard, but durable and easy to clean. More worryingly, the shifter is actually somewhat sharp, and the action is perhaps a tad too vague. In addition, the manual transmission only has five forward gears (the six was reserved for the STi), so on highways the engine can be both noisy and inefficient. There was supposedly an automatic, but if you're trying to find an automatic on a car like this you're missing the point entirely. The stereo is decent -- it comes stock with a six-disc changer, but the sound quality is perhaps not so good. Yet it's a fairly standard double-DIN unit, so it's swappable. The seats, however, are a joy: comfortable yet supportive bucket seats. I can't speak for the rear seats, which are more standard, but in the wagon they do fold down to allow enough room for a large Ikea flat-pack bookcase. In all, the WRX's interior betrays its economy car roots, with the notable exception of the seats. Those, however, are not fitted to the Impreza's base model, the 2.5 RS.

The GD WRX is such an exceptional all-rounder: quick, safe, reliable, fun, well-built... the list goes on. There are certainly a few downsides to the car, but as a reasonnably-priced all-around performance car/family car for sale in the United States, I can think of only a few cars that really come close to this wonderful machine. And to be able to get such a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde vehicle as a wagon... well, that's just magnificent.

Brain Droppings: Could Toyota + Lotus Be Decent Math?

Evo magazine reports that the 2012 Esprit redux from Lotus could have the 500 hp V10 engine out of the (supposedly) upcoming Lexus LF-A, which is once again in development after a hiatus. Why-oh-why, you ask, does this rumor merit a mention by me? Because it makes absolute sense. Consider this: the Elise is powered by a Toyota four-cylinder, the new Evora is powered by a Toyota-sourced V6, and consistency is a beautiful thing. Plus it is rumored that if and when the LF-A is released it will cost in the neighborhood of a Lamborghini, so licensing the engine could certainly help Toyota recover some of the costs related to its production. Of course, the V10 will almost certainly be a top-spec option on the Esprit, with some form of V8 also available... probably also sourced from Toyota.

And if you're prone to overthinking things like I am, this begs the question if Toyota have designs on Lotus, and if so would it be a bad thing? Toyota would certainly benefit from such an acquisition: they are a massive car company with absolutely nothing like a real sports car, especially at a lowish price point. The closest thing it has is the Lexus IS-F, which misses its mark (i.e. it is by all accounts inferior to the BMW M3, plus it costs more and looks worse). Indeed, even throwing all the money it does at F1, Toyota is somehow unable to be truly competitive, year after year. And the rear-drive sportscar currently under development with Subaru -- codename 086A (much to the glee of Toyota freaks everywhere) -- will be sold as a Subaru outside of the Japanese domestic market.

By buying Lotus, Toyota would be buying a company that only knows how to make sports cars. They could do a quick-and-dirty sports car platform development using the Elise, a la the Tesla. If Toyota cut down the hybrid system out of the Prius, maybe stretched the Elise platform a bit (or use the Europa, like Dodge is for its EV sports car), they have a quick and dirty and relatively cheap hybrid sports car to compete with the upcoming offerings from VW/Audi group. A green sports car would fit with Toyota's image while also filling a void in the range. In addition, Proton (which owns Lotus) is trying to expand even in the face of heavy losses, and Toyota certainly has the money to pay pretty much whatever Proton could want. Plus, Lotus Engineering could help tune the LF-A, since a Lexus sports car that is rumored to cost around as much as a Ferrari had best steer damn well.

Would the deal be as good for Lotus as it would be for Toyota? Perhaps, perhaps not. By all accounts Proton is more or less letting Lotus be, so the best case scenario is that a regime change would continue that. The worst case is that Toytoa does something dumb, like try to absorb the company. Though the latter scenario is stupid, it is not out of the question: to my knowledge Toyota has never pursued growth by buying another company, which means that if they do try it Toyota could mess it up royally. Or they could nail it.

I don't want to say which side of a potential deal I'd support, mostly because I'm not entirely sure. I just want to have the notion out there in the ether.