Chuck

What I thought was a pretty good, but not plot-busting or mind-blowing, episode of Chuck last night, has evidently set off a firestorm among Chuck fans.  As I detailed in my recap for "Chuck vs. the Mask," Sarah and Chuck, perhaps a bit begrudgingly but nonetheless happily, decided to embark on relationships with other people: Agent Shaw for Sarah, and Hannah (the new Nerd Herder) for Chuck.  These couplings have been set up over the past couple weeks, and certainly do not come as a shock by any stretch of the imagination.  However, a number of fans (a.k.a. 'shippers - those who are invested heavily in the relationships between main characters) are crying foul today, claiming they have been betrayed by the Chuck Powers That Be. 

This anger has spilled on to a number of Chuck message boards, but most notably at the blog of popular TV critic Alan Sepinwall of the Newark Star Ledger.  Mr. Sepinwall is a major Chuck booster, and posts his thoughts after each episode.  In the comments section for his post on last night's episode, a commenter listed as Anonymous ripped into the show's creators, the quality of this season's episodes, and called for a full boycott of the show.  This writer's intention is to persuade NBC to call on the creators to make the show "better" in some way Anonymous sees fit.  This echoes, of course, the movement last spring to save Chuck in the first place.  At the end of last season, with rumors running rampant that Chuck would be cancelled, a woman named Wendy Farrington led a campaign to save the show by encouraging people to purchase Subway sandwiches on the day of the season finale (Subway is one of the show's sponsors).  The resulting outpouring of support for the show (and revenue from the purchased sandwiches) convinced NBC to bring Chuck back for a third season.  Wendy, herself, has actually responded on Mr. Sepinwall's blog, arguing that a similar movement to protest what some believe to be the lower quality of the series would do nothing more than kill the show.  Reactions have become heated on both sides of the debate, and are summed up here in a post by NPR's pop culture blogger, Linda Holmes.

Personally, I think the quality of the series has been top-notch this season.  I have no problem with the creators delaying the eventual pairing of Chuck and Sarah.  As I noted at the end of my recap for "Chuck vs. the Mask," I think they should stop having the two of them say "goodbye" and "ending" their relationship every couple episodes, but having them apart for legitimate reasons is perfectly fine.  The creators have worked hard to give the new couplings true foundations, and not just throwing them at the audience to just be roadblocks.  Further, I agree with Wendy.  Chuck is already on the precipice of cancellation.  To boycott it now will only kill it; it will not force the creators to "improve" the show in some particular way.  Also, the episodes with Shaw and Hannah have, for the most part, been shot already.  Changes can't be made at this point, so what exactly are the creators supposed to do?

But at the crux of this controversy is the role of the audience and its particular control over a series.  With the advent of the Internet, message boards, blogs, etc., the audience is more tuned into the inner workings of television series then it ever has been before.  The audience knows network executives are trolling the message boards and believes they can influence whether a show lives or dies, or the direction the show will take.  This belief has been lent credence by the Save Chuck campaign, which was based on the Save Jericho campaign where fans of the CBS apocalyptic drama sent (literally) tons of nuts to CBS headquarters in a successful bid to save the show.  If the fans are able to save these shows with a well-organized campaign, who's to say the audience can't campaign to influence which characters get together or who gets killed off?  With the networks in such precarious positions with their advertisers these days (more channels and more distractions to move the audience's eyes away from the major networks, and therefore fewer ad dollars), can the networks afford not to listen? 

What do you think about the Chuck controversy?  Should the audience be able to influence the creative process of a show if it dislikes the direction the show is going?  Can entertainment by democracy (or, as some would say, entertainment by mob) produce gratifying programming?  Are there some decisions that lend themselves better to a popular vote (i.e. the death of a main character, the introduction of a new character, etc.)?  Please sound off below, and please be sure to check TVOvermind for coverage of this story and all TV news.

UPDATE: Alan Sepinwall conducted an interview with Chuck creators Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak and asked them about the controversy.  Check out their response here.