Having not watched an entire season of a network TV show since Fringe left the airwaves in 2013, I was excited for Accused. I figured that if any show could get me back to the traditional TV dial, it would be one created by Howard Gordon (he of 24 & Homeland fame). After a promising first three episodes (7/8 star quality), however, a slate of four below-5 star episodes by my ranking led me to jump ship and not continue watching.
For a very basic overview, Accused is an anthology show that tells a different court/trial-based story every week. It is not at all serialized (no carry-over from week to week) and features new guest stars every outing.
Like I said, the first three episodes definitely held my interest and had me hoping for continued improvement. Nothing groundbreaking, to be sure, but I could tell they were produced by talent that is largely beyond what is usually glimpsed on the major networks.
Unfortunately, the quality quickly devolved instead of gradually improved. It became readily apparent that each episode was simply picking a "social cause of the week" and sketching out a thinly-constructed court case based on that concept. Pablum for the most generic audience possible, in other words. There is very little intriguing exploration of the topic-at-hand.
I also believe that the 42-minute network window does Accused a great disservice and can potentially explain a lot of the weaknesses. By the time the writers establish a theme and flesh out a whole new set of characters, there is very little time remaining for meaningful thematic or character-driven analysis. In a genre-court-where emotional backstory is everything, this is a glaring weakness week-in and week-out.
So, despite really wanting to like/follow this show, I felt it becoming a chore to watch-the surest sign of needing to find other TV pastures.
