There are times when you love television networks. They stick their necks out for a show like Lost or X-Files or Chuck and they make your season.

But sometimes… they suck.

Here are a few times when the networks sucked:

Pushing Daisies: Even though it was cancelled in 2008, the remaining episodes played in 2009, pouring salt on the open wound of missing a great show. Pushing Daisies had it all; a cute lead, a quirky heroine, an awesome private dick, and a chipper best supporting actress. The show also had some of the most interesting mysteries and the best narrator since Arrested Development’s Ron Howard. It was a show like nothing I’ve ever seen, a show with a compelling storyline, with interesting characters, and everything about it made me want to return to the screen every week. Bad move, ABC, canceling Pushing Daisies. I’m going to miss Chi McBride’s Emerson Cod saying “dead girl”.

The Unusuals: There is still a part of me that refuses to believe that Southland got picked up by another station but that The Unusuals was pushed out the door. Don’t get me wrong, Southland is a good show. I just think that The Unusuals was an awesome show. A great blend of comedy and tragedy, character dialogue that sparkled, complex relationships that intrigued us, a writing staff that didn’t take themselves too seriously – it was great. Those were characters I wanted to see on a weekly basis. I think there were actually tears when I learned they were canceled and I never searched so hard for information about whether the show would be picked up by another station. It worked for Medium, why not The Unusuals? Another dropped show by ABC that would have done really well given time and a steady timeslot.

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: There are people who would disagree with me because of the slow pace of the final season, but the awesomeness that was John Connor jumping forward in time spelled an interesting third season opener for me. To me, it meant more action, the act of storytelling was kicking into high gear and the overprotective mother being hunted down by vicious, intelligent robots would mean it was time to get serious with the story. Also, I liked the big screen Terminator reboot (retelling, rework, rewhatever they were calling it) and thought that if they moved the television show towards that movie future, it would have been an excellent way for the series to go. Alas, poor future John Connor. We know you no more.

Life: There is just something about a police procedural that I like. I didn’t watch Homicide: Life on the Streets or NYPD Blue or even The Shield (although that’s my next tv marathon). I was too late for those shows. So for me, these shows are not retreads of better cop procedurals. Of the investigative shows that I like – Castle, Bones, The Wire – Life was my favourite. In real life, I’m a notorious lover of red-heads (if you knew them, just ask my friends), so that put Charlie Crews above the rest. But the story is what got me. Done documentary style, it told the story of a cop who was sent to prison for a crime he didn’t commit. When he is acquitted, with the help of his lawyer, after spending 12 years in prison, he sues the city and the police department, wins $50 million and gets his job back on the force. His partner Dani Reese was a great character too. A recovering addict from one too many undercover assignments, she doesn’t trust Crews at first. Why should she? He comes off as a little crazy with is Zen like assuredness, but underneath the unflappable exterior beats the heart of a man who will find the truth at all costs. Season one was a nail biter and season 2 had me enthralled, especially the finale when I thought he was coming to the conclusion that he was in love with Dani. I would have loved to see how that thought would run through continued seasons, but my time with Detective Charlie Crews would end much to prematurely for me.

I loved all of these shows. I will miss all these shows. So what about you? What shows do you think should have come back for the 2009-2010 season? (All links lead to watchable episodes of the show)

I’m so excited! For those of you who have not watched the first two seasons, Chuck Season 1, consisting of 13 episodes, is on sale at many video retailers like Amazon.com, as well as streaming for free on the WB.com, here. Season 2 goes on sale Jan. 5, which gives you five days to watch 22 hours of knee-slapping, edge of your seat spy/Nerd Herd action before the 3rd season premiere on Jan. 10. You can also catch a few episode on nbc.com, here, and on hulu.com.

Until then, check out this third season preview, which you can also find on nbc.com.

So I’m going along, minding my own business, watching tv willy-nilly, when an article about Hulu.com catches my eye. So I click that link, which takes me to an LA Times article about how entertainment companies are whining like bitches because, for once, tv is doing what we, the viewer, want.

More tv. More accessible. On my time.

Hulu isn’t perfect, but it was rapidly going that way, by offering more seasons of current episodes so that those of us who missed shows could play catch up as we wait for DVDs to come out.

Yes, whining and complaining because we get what we want, yet they lose money. When did the point of programming stop being viewers? I know, I know, it’s always been about the advertisements, but when Hulu had approximately 42 million viewers in March, according to the LA Times article, which means that they have the viewers, how have they not figured out a way to monetize this? And why, then, is Hulu caving to cable and satellite companies crying?

Companies like Time Warner Cable Inc. and DirecTV Group Inc. pay cable networks billions of dollars each year to carry programming. Believing that they should have exclusivity because their payments support the enormous cost of producing TV shows, such companies have been pushing back against the Hulu freebies. (LA Times)

Yes, follow the money still exists. The advertisement options on Hulu are limited purposefully, and limited in a way that most people can deal with. If things like Tivo/DVRs are great joys to people because they can skip the commercials, doesn’t that put up some kind of red flag to the people who are trying to make money off of us poor, demented, television watching slubs who have nothing better to do than to go right out and buy KFC just because BSG told us to? And while Hulu is pulling well more numbers than traditional tv, they are still making concessions to “the entertainment companies”.

The conflict has forced Hulu to make concessions that have hurt users who have come to expect a rich menu on the video site. In recent months, entire seasons of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” were abruptly taken off the site, along with episodes of other cable TV shows such as “In Plain Sight” and “Psych.”

Hulu even blocked access to a technology that lets its users watch content on their TVs. The move provoked outrage among fans of the software, called Boxee, drawing 385 angry comments on the company’s website.

“Big Media had better come out of their hole and embrace the power of Internet streaming or they’ll be in big trouble down the road,” wrote one poster who identified himself as Lew Ciokiewicz.

Hulu’s pullback in the case of “Always Sunny,” one of the site’s early favorites, underscores the tug of war within established media companies over the wisdom of placing TV shows on the Internet for free.

The quirky sitcom about a group of slackers has become a signature of the FX cable channel. (FX is a division of Fox, whose parent company, News Corp., is one of Hulu’s founding partners.)

Even as FX acknowledged Hulu brought it new viewers, the cable network nonetheless demanded that the video site drop three seasons from its free online offerings over fears it would undercut the show’s ratings and hamper lucrative DVD sales. (LA Times)(bold emphasis is mine)

So, it is basically fear and the fact that Nielsen dictates what money goes where when it comes to viewers and shows. How many shows have suffered for Nielsen ratings? With the advance in television watching that Hulu offers and the specific ability to count hits, with the way Google and other online advertising has helped monetize plenty of sites base on hits or visits, I can’t see how coming on board in such a momentous time wouldn’t be anything but a plus? The article also points out that cable and satellite companies could benefit from the increase in High Speed Internet users.

If cable wasn’t so FRAKKING expensive, then maybe they wouldn’t be so worried about the threat that internet television watching poses. What’s refreshing is that with something that is the fraction of the cost, you can watch great shows. Even if Hulu doesn’t have it, the network site will have it. As long as they don’t go into the “tiered internet” strategy that has been threatened for the past couple of years, the system we have now with online viewing is fair and equitable to the person that can’t afford to pay $70 a month for their entertainment, but can get away with $20-$30.

Entertainment companies, get your head out of your asses and try to make yourself look good, for God’s sake. That’s the best way to make money off of us, whether you know it or not. P.S. if it’s not free (viewing tv shows online, full seasons, anytime we want…) they will download it and if you don’t like it when you can at least monetize it, you’ll frakkin’ hate it when you can’t even count it. </promise>