Superhuman Is Both A Fox Special And A Description Of The Patience Required To Get Through It

I know it's been a big topic of discussion in critics' circles starting around the second half of last year, but I personally don't subscribe to the theory of #PeakTV. True, I do watch a shitload of TV, and can because (a) it's my job; (b) I don't have kids; and (c) living in a place where primetime starts at either 3 PM or 2 depending on the time of year, I also kind of have more hours in the day to do it. But I still feel like people who really do feel oppressed by the contents of their DVRs are not being discriminating enough. Yes, I saw the FX study that found there were 409 scripted series on TV in 2015. Yes, that sounds like a lot. But just because a show is scripted doesn't mean it's good. For every Fargo, there's an NCIS: New Orleans. For every Brooklyn Nine-Nine, there's a Dr. Ken. And while I understand that there's also the pressure of the critical consensus that seems to form around prestige shows you think you need to watch in order to be part of the cultural conversation, you, as a viewer, also know in your heart that when some show starts to stack up, unwatched, three or four deep on the DVR, you don't actually like that show, and you don't have to watch it. "But everyone I follow on Twitter can't shut up about it! If I don't watch it, they'll think I'm dumb!" To that, I respond by quoting the great Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." (I'm pretty sure she said it about people who were trying to shame her for thinking Game Of Thrones was silly.)

That said: I do still think we are living in a time when more TV shows are good and worth watching than possibly ever before, which is why it's actually kind of shocking when something weasels onto the free public airwaves that doesn't meet the standards contemporary viewers have become accustomed to, which is why I absolutely can't with tonight's Fox "special," Superhuman.

I can't with its flawed competition model

Superhuman is, per a Fox press release, based on a format that's already been mounted in Germany, China, Spain, Italy, Brazil, and most recently France. People who have savant-like abilities get the chance to show off their talents, Smart Human Tricks-style, before a live audience; at the end of the show, the audience votes to award a cash prize to the participant they deem the most awesome. The problem is that the audience is required to compare displays of developed skill/innate ability that are in NO WAY comparable. How do you determine who is more gifted between a guy who claims to be a human radar gun and a woman who can match audience participants to the objects they've rubbed on their bodies to mark them with their scent?! A bunch of the contestants we see in action (more are dispensed with in a montage) have amazing memories, yet they're set to a variety of different tasks; wouldn't it be more fair to compare just those?

I also just can't, generally, with shows where the studio audience votes. Granted, it's not like American Idol or America's Got Talent where home viewers are also involved and get a whole season to form attachments to particular contestants. But in this case, you have to assume that once audience members have discarded the contestants who didn't nail their challenges -- some don't -- they're going to be voting not for the most impressive display of skill, but for whichever they find most charismatic in his or her segment. Or the only guy who got to be congratulated on stage by a loved one -- his sainted mother. Yawn.

I can't with the size of its prize

$100,000? Who cares. That's what the winner of Child Genius gets, and that's just going to be some pre-teen punk!

I can't with its "guest panel"

As noted above, this is not a judged show: your star power comes from host Kal Penn (doing what seems to be his actual best and not phoning it in like Drew Carey on The Price Is Right), and a "guest panel" of people called upon to do assistant-type tasks and offer commentary. The only one with any kind of credentials is Rahul Jandial, a neurosurgeon and cancer researcher, and even he just ends up saying things like "If he can pull this off, it will be very impressive" or whatever without offering much in the way of explaining how brain function allows the contestants to do the things they're doing. Then there's Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist and domestic abuser who somehow has successfully pulled off an image makeover that gets him on shows like this that are obviously supposed to appeal to the whole family. (When one memory freak is tasked with learning names, phone numbers, and notable facts about a roomful of "cowgirls" in a fake honky tonk bar, Tyson cheers him on with a lot of intensity, and given what we know about his history, it's kind of uncomfortable to watch.) But at least when Penn introduces Tyson, he can tie him in with the premise of the show by noting that he's the youngest boxer to win heavyweight titles in all of the WBC, WBA, and IBF; Tyson's...obviously not a great person, but that is an extraordinary record, which he earned. Penn then has to go on to the third panelist, Mary Lynn Rajskub, and introduce her as "super-funny." As an actor and a comedian, she's fine? But nothing I'm aware of on her CV is at all superhuman, and it's weird that she's there. (Maybe they tried to get MENSA member Geena Davis and she wasn't that excited about sharing a couch with Mike Tyson.)

I can't with the constant reminders of how impressed I'm supposed to be

Look, some skills just have more intrinsic value than others. The guy who can instantly add a long series of numbers flashed on screen for fractions of a second has more potential to contribute to society than the woman who claims she can pick a guy out of a lineup after fondling his chest blindfolded, and then doesn't even get it right. But also, the entire premise of the show is that these are people who can do things normal people can't. No one needs to hear Penn yelling, "HOW ARE YOU DOING THIS?" or a cut to the panel for Mary Lynn Rajskub's take on a contortionist's blindfolded trip through a laser obstacle course.

But then that just leads into my final point of can't, which is...

I can't with the length of the broadcast

Why is this shit two hours long. Why. Why? For Fox to think you have two hours to throw away on this nonsense is insulting to you and to the many legitimate demands on your time -- including those that are just other, better shows you could be watching. If the producers hadn't been greedy, this could have been Supermemory -- since that's what more than half the tasks we watch boil down to -- which would have pitted contestants against each other on a level playing field, and been an hour long. It would still be eminently missable, true, but not a laughable overreach on top of everything else that's wrong with it.