As much as I love "Desperate Housewives," I never said it was an original idea.
You could argue that there's no such thing as an original idea in network television anymore. That it's all been done before. That what looks like an original idea is either (a) the revival of a genre that's been dormant, or (b) a fresh-feeling combination of familiar genres.
But that would be the subject of a whole 'nother column.
We've seen lots of prime-time soaps before — ABC was airing "Peyton Place" twice a week way back in 1964.
And it seemed like soaps were pretty much all anybody was watching back in the '80s. Remember "Dallas," "Dynasty," "Knots Landing" and "Falcon Crest" and "The Colbys"? (And a whole slew of less-successful imitators from "Flamingo Road" to "Paper Dolls.")
Fox revived the genre in the '90s with youth-oriented soaps like "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Melrose Place." (Along with another slew of failed imitations, such as "Models Inc." and "The Heights.")
And the WB had no small degree of success with "Dawson's Creek."
You could argue that "Desperate Housewives" is different from those shows because it's essentially a comedy . . . but you'd be wrong. And I'm not just talking about the 1977-81 sitcom "Soap."
A lot of the soaps were funny. "Dallas" has moments of high humor that were intentional; "Dynasty" was often so campy it was funny.
"Melrose Place" was sometimes unintentionally hilarious. And the pilot of the failed 2000 NBC soap "Titans" (a good episode of what quickly turned out to be a terrible show) was laugh-out-loud, uproariously funny.
We were never quite sure if "Titans" was actually supposed to be funny, but with "Desperate Housewives" there's no doubt. What makes the show so good is that it's great comedy wrapped in soap.
It's not that it's a new idea, it's just that it's a familiar idea that's done extremely well.
With luck, that's what makes a hit. (And that's the subject of yet a whole 'nother column. . . .)
When "Knots Landing" was good — which it was throughout most of its 14-year run — it was at least as good as "Desperate Housewives." It was not a comedy, but there was a lot of intentional humor wrapped in the soapy happenings.
"Knots" was a soap with humor; "Desperate" is a comedy with soap. But the latter owes a lot to the former, including the setting — an idyllic neighborhood where the neighbors' lives intersect. Today, it's Wisteria Lane; from 1979-93 it was Seaview Circle.
You don't have to take my word for it. CBS has announced that it will return to that cul-de-sac for "The Knots Landing Reunion Special," which will air sometime during the upcoming TV season. Cast members Michele Lee (Karen), Donna Mills (Abby), Joan Van Ark (Val), William Devane (Greg) Kevin Dobson (Mack) and Ted Shackelford (Gary) will get together to share memories. (Corporate memories are short. CBS's announcement calls the six "original cast members," which is only true for Lee, Van Ark and Shackelford. Mills came aboard in Season 2; Dobson in Season 4; and Devane in Season 5.)
I'm hoping the reunion will spend some time reminding us how funny the show was.
Personally, I've been amused to see that some of the TV critics who have written so glowingly of "Desperate Housewives" are the same ones who disparaged — even savaged — "Knots Landing." Often without bothering to watch the show.
You did know that happens, didn't you? That there are critics out there who write about shows without bothering to watch them?
Actually, that's not funny. That's sad. (And maybe the subject of a whole 'nother column. . . . )
E-mail: pierce@desnews.com