Follow Zap2it:
Zap2IT First
'Undercovers' EP Josh Reims tackles 6 Zap2it reader questions
When Zap2it announced we would be speaking with "Undercovers" co-creator and executive producer, Josh Reims, we were flooded by reader questions.
Many of them were about the show (which experienced another fall in ratings this week). Others wanted to pick the mind of someone who deals with both story and the business of TV in general.
We grouped the 6 most asked reader questions and Reims was good enough to tackle them.
1.) Will there be more tension between the married leads, Steven [Boris Kodjoe] and Samantha Bloom [Gugu Mbatha-Raw]?
When we set out to do the show [co-creator J.J. Abrams] and I had a lot of discussions about who they should be. At one point we thought 'are they divorced and working together, are they separated and working together? Are they having issues? Are they in therapy?' And we kept coming back to 'okay, we just want to see a married couple who can have their disagreements, but who's in love and will stay in love no matter what happens and it's not a will they or wont they kind of thing.' Which, granted is harder to do because there's no inherent fighting between the two of them... As far as I'm concerned it's not particularly attractive when we have them sort of sniping at each other. It doesn't make you like them any more and it sort of takes away from their relationship. I can't disagree that there's not enough tension between them but that's on purpose.
2.) During missions, we see Steve and Samantha separated a lot. Will there be more scenes when they work together?
We are definitely trying and it is definitely something that comes up: Let's keep them together. Partially we do like them separated in the sense of one is watching the other, but they are speaking to each other through their earpieces. So, it's somewhat amusing that they can follow each other and what they're doing. But the funny thing is that what you just said has come up in the discussion when I've talked to the stunt people about him literally throwing her into people. [Note: We suggested seeing Steven swinging Samantha into their combatants would be awesome.] So, at some point we will do that. But it's always good, as much as we can put them together in the scenes, fighting or otherwise I think you're right, that will help.
3.) Will the show have the expected J.J. Abrams' mythology?
That's a good question. I think that there are a few things. I think that for viewers that just want to have a good time, Leo is a part of the show now and he's great and he brings sort of this energy and comedy and lightness and the fact that he knows secrets about both Steven and Samantha. He makes every scene with him deeper than it was because you're wondering what's he going to reveal, what he's not going to reveal. And then the other thing that I think will bring people in and sort of keep them is for lack of a better word, the mythology that we are sort of playing with. And there are two separate things. One is why they were actually brought back in to the agency and the other one is why each of them left the agency. As the first thirteen move along, we tease both of those things and we find out some big stuff from their past, that they eventually also find out. But it's something that will keep people interested from week to week, little nuggets here and there that we plant. But they aren't the kind of things where we say, 'tune in next week and the week after for the answer,' because we are not setting up a bunch of mythology and waiting until Season 3 to answer it.
4.) What's your take on this fall season's offerings as a whole?
I think there are some good shows and it's just interesting to see what people gravitate too. "Hawaii Five-0," sort of everybody knew people were going to watch that show. It's beautiful. It's in Hawaii and it sort of fits perfectly with what CBS does. But "Lone Star," I never saw, but obviously it was very critically acclaimed. It's just one of those things. You just can't tell what's going to catch on. I think people are very fickle in what they like and very quick to say, 'forget that, I gave it a chance and I'm moving on.' I think that's the one thing that I have noticed a lot even with my show, just by reading comments, which I shouldn't ever do because it's nothing but depressing. People saying, 'well, okay, I'm giving up on this show.' Whether it's this show or another show, and you want to say okay it's been one episode or it's been one and a half episodes, but you have to give it a chance. I think it's less about the quality of the show but people's attention. Obviously, there are a lot of places for that to go.
5.) How do you feel about TV viewership in general today?
I think in general fewer people are watching TV. Whether they are watching it on the computer or some other form, Netflix or whatever, it's just interesting that all those numbers are sort of down. I don't think it necessarily has to do with the quality of the shows. We were discussing this the other day here about how certain rating numbers that you get now, people say, 'oh my God, that's great. You're doing so well.' But if you took those ratings even five years ago they'd be a giant failure. So everything has sort of adjusted to this thing of fewer people tuning in in general.
6.) With less people tuning in live, do you believe DVR numbers should get more weight?
I do and I wish there was a better way to understand them and get them quicker. I haven't heard any DVR numbers from anything yet. I'm curious as to what is being DVR'd the most. And I don't know what our show would do one way or the other but I do feel like eight o'clock shows will be DVR'd because I don't feel that people will as quickly sit down at eight o' clock and say alright, let's turn it on. So, I wish it sort of was more important than what it seems to be right now.
What are your thoughts on Reims' answers?
Follow Zap2it and TheRealJethro on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest celebrity news and buzz.
Photo credit: NBC
Photo credit: NBC
Follow Zap2it on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest news and buzz
Related pics
Zap2it Elite Sheet Must Reads from the Web's In-Crowd
Our Partners
I really want to like UNDERCOVERS. . . but something just isn't right about it. And I can't put my finger on what it is. Maybe it's this Leo character who keeps popping up to get in the way. Maybe it's Hoyt who seems to be able to do impossible tech things that I just don't believe. Everything looks too easy. And I don't know if this is supposed to be a spy thriller or a romantic comedy or a bit of both, but I'm about to give up on what I thought would be a good show. Beautiful faces and bodies are only interesting for so long. . .
I do like Undercovers, a lot. I like the relationship between the leads, I like that the characters understand each other and still go on these adventures without keeping ropes tied to each other. I like very much the quality of the writing and the production values are terrific. The lead actors are impressively good - their characters seem "real" to me in a way most shows simply miss. As a viewer I find that very engaging because it makes me care about what happens to them. This is the kind of show whose characters need to solidify over time for it to really hit its stride, but everything about it says this will happen. I'm looking forward to that and am enjoying watching it happen.
If it wasn't for the fact that JJ created this show I would wonder what all the chatter is about. It's just not that good and the falling numbers are reflecting that. Not to mention the very low demographic 18-49 rating it's getting. I just don't buy the notion that all these readers flooded questions in to ask about the show.
i really like Undercovers, but something is off , not sure what. But please fix it, so it goes to the top. we dvr the show, copy and give to friends. but we watch the repeat on the wknd..thanks for that.
Give Gerald McRaney more to do!
Honestly. I don't think this show is missing any unidentifiable element. I love Undercovers. It's funny, sexy, action packed. I've seen this before with television. I honestly believe a large portion of viewing audiences are just not comfortable seeing black faces in leading roles. For those who think Undercovers is missing something, I challenge you to a little experiment - close your eyes and image the same show, same plot, same acting styles - but replace the leads with your favorite white actors - Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Megan Fox, whomever you like. Still think the show is missing something?
Yes, I think the show is missing something. Danger. I've been watching since the beginning, and there is no sense that the characters are in real danger. Either Steven and Samantha are freakishly good, or they're actually dilettantes and freakishly lucky - either way, there is no sense that they are in true danger in their adventures.
Also, Steven is turning out to be quite the meat-head. There is no excuse for "not reading the instructions." If you don't know how to operate your equipment, you shouldn't be allowed out in the field.
I'm about one more episode from bailing on "Undercovers." Not because the leads are African-American. They're both very likable, and Ms. Mbatha-Raw is a stone hottie. Also, not because of the humorous elements of the show, either. A little humor among the operatives is great, but there's a bit too much of it and not enough gravity.
It's a shame, too, since anything J.J. Abrams is involved in is bound to be good. Unfortunately, this show is losing me. Fast.