My latest article at Examiner.com
It wasn't until several years after the show had become a cult hit and I heard my fair share of my teenage peers doing Cartman imitations that I first watched an episode of "South Park."
As for whether I am a fan, sort of. Sometimes the show's gross-out humor and juvenille tendencies can be a little too high for my tolerance, but their current events parodies can sometimes be impressively sharp.
I did recently started to notice that every single episode starring Butters is a home run to me. I have no idea what the general consensus is over which episodes are great and which aren't great, but to me Butters episodes seem to be drawn from an almost entirely different and better show. Butters episodes are great comedies of errors. The kid is too sweet and innocent to understand the world around him and his parents look absolutely awful in retrospect. I even think it's a good satire on alpha-level parents in general and it fits into the whole theme of the show really well. That theme is that fourth graders are the sanest people in society and as you grow into adulthood, you don't get smarter but rather just screw everything up through overcomplication.
A show that was centered around Butters would wear thin pretty quickly, but as it is, South Park knows how to use the character to good effect.
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
50 Different Ways to criticize a show + Me: Studio 60
I recently came across a great article in the Los Angeles Times about three years ago concerning the sharp and rather open criticism the comic community was throwing at TV show "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" (2006 to 2007).
If you've ever seen this TV show that detailed the backstage workings of a fictional version of Saturday Night Live, it was simultaneously one of the best and worst things you've ever seen. The acting was impassioned and there was a palpable drama to it but there were a number of jarring problems with the show as well. It was such a delight to know that people shared the same level of frustration with me at watching this show three years ago. Considering TV critics were in the sack for it at the time and Aaron Sorkin continues to have a career in Hollywood (he wrote the biggest film of this past weekend: "The Social Network"), who'd have thought.
It appears that there was a tremendous amount of very creative Studio 60-hate when the show was on. There was a comedic sketch troupe in Los Angeles who would reenact the truly awful sketches within the show. There was also a live blog in which a rotating group of panelists would critique Studio 60 episode-by-episode and talk about why this show was not good. That I absolutely loved reading every single guest blogger's take either says something about the nature of criticism when done well or the power of that one show to invoke such a large volume of insighftful criticism.
I thought I'd add my own unique voice on why this particular show was such an abomination of TV. Here are five completely original reasons why I didn't like Studio 60:
1. The characters all sounded like the exact same person. That should be the first rule of screenwriting: Don't make every single character in the movie sound like yourself. They were all highly intelligent, impassioned and could easily quote various sources of knowledge which they would throw out in conversation as if they were constantly at the world's most pretentious cocktail party. More than anything else, I wanted to see the introduction of some character in a scene who had an IQ under 150 and just go "huh?" to whatever the other characters were saying.
The characters also had a terrible habit of going on tangents when they spoke, but what was even worse was that the other participant in the conversation would willfully follow them. Two executives would be walking down a hallway talking about how the ratings have taken a turn and all of a sudden one of them would talk about the critical concensus on Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gough. How many business executives would willingly want to hire people who all of a sudden start breaking out into tangents like that? Fortunately the guy who likes to start talking about Dutch filmmakers lucked out by being surrounded almost entirely by people who have the same problem as him, so they all willingly participate in each other's tangents.
2. The laugh track of a show that isn't funny-One of the biggest complaints was that the show-within-a-show wasn't funny. I completely agree. It is interesting to note that the real SNL used the same premise as one of Studio 60s sketches "Science Schmience" to pretty good effect in the Michael Phelps episode. The way that the show suddenly stops becoming realistic and/or entertaining lack of has been covered pretty excessively, but I'm going to add something new to the conversation: How about that obnoxious laugh track? To me, the most obnoxious thing a sitcom can do is to have more laughter than the show's humor merits. Everybody Loves Raymond, Will and Grace and The Cosby Show all dissapointed me on this level. They were funny shows at one point but oftentimes the audience was laughing just because Bill Cosby or Ray's mom entered a room and the audience was just familiar with how funny that character was. It was an unearned laugh.
An overused laugh track stings far worse here because the show was never even funny in the first place. It was excrutiating, however, in scenes set in dress rehearsals or the writer's room where the characters are cracking up at each other's jokes. Because the jokes aren't there, if the characters are laughing at those non-funny things then you stop beleiving that they are competenet.
3. The idea that Harriett Hayes' religion would be an issue for anyone beyond Matt Alvey. Two of the most universally agreed upon flaws of the show were that Sara Paulson was terribly miscast as the show's star comedienne and that the show practically turned itself into a dysfunctional romantic comedy with all the attention between Matthew Perry's Matt Alvey and Paulson's Harriet Hayes.
For reference purposes, Matt used to date Sara but it didn't work out because they had religious differences and they are now awkwardly working together.
It was a pretty dysfunctional relationship which understandably might consume a lot of Matt's thoughts for a variety of reasons, but the show's flaw is assuming that anyone else would care about it. First of all, no one should care about Sara Paulson's Harriett Hayes because she was uninteresting, broody and not geared to be the star of a comedy show. But more to the point, the personal hang-ups that Matt has about Harriett shouldn't be an issue to other cast members (in an opening episode, a fellow cast member teases her for praying to God), the press or the show's viewing audience. The very idea that you could use a joke in a sketch (the episode where they did a Gilbert and Sullivan cold open) wish a verse of that song focusing on Harriett's religious beliefs is rediculous. What makes this worse is that Aaron Sorkin used his real-life break-up with actress Kristin Chenowith as inspiration for that plot so he basically thinks on both a show and a show-within-a-show level that his romantic hang-ups are something that a TV-viewing audience should know.
4. Nate Curddroy-There was a lot of talk about how obnoxious Harriet Hayes was but how about Nate Curddroy as Tom Jeter (he played another one of the actors on the show-within-a-show)? He was also not particularly funny on camera or off-camera either. At best, his comedic instincts might make him a somewhat decent character in a dramedy by Wes Anderson, Sophia Coppolla or Noah Bombauch.
Needless time was also consumed on a secondary romantic pairing between Tom and one of the show's writers that had no believable chemistry. Did the two have anything in common? Was there any reason for the writer to ask him out other than that he was the same height as her or famous?
One of the most rediculous attempts the show ever made to try to imbue serious themes was an episode in which Tom's parents came to visit the set and they tried to link one of thse oft-used "Dealing with Daddy's Dissapointment" subplots in a context that didn't makes sense. The dad's all grouchy throughout the episode and it's revealed that he doesn't think much of his son because he's not in the military. Seriously. That's his dad's big thing. He finds the idea of someone not being in the military distasteful. He basically wants the U.S. to be Ancient Sparta where every single able-bodied man must fight.
5. How obnoxious is the nickname "Big Three"? Coming up with this nickname for the three cast members who are also members on the show-within-a-show was an effort by the show to explain to the audience why the producers and directors would spend so much time talking to and talking about just three of the SWIAS's seven character and neglect the other seven so heavily. It was because these guys were the core of the show? But honestly, what lazy journalistic outlet would come up with such a dumb generalized nickname and what do these three performers have in common? The only people who get nicknames on Saturday Night Live would be like "The Women of SNL" because they're all...you know..female or "The Lonely Island guys" because they were on the Lonely Island before. The "Big 3" is a weekend update anchor and two disparate performers. Plus it assumes the show is that important with such a catch-all nickname.
On another note, please oblige me by checking out my columns
If you've ever seen this TV show that detailed the backstage workings of a fictional version of Saturday Night Live, it was simultaneously one of the best and worst things you've ever seen. The acting was impassioned and there was a palpable drama to it but there were a number of jarring problems with the show as well. It was such a delight to know that people shared the same level of frustration with me at watching this show three years ago. Considering TV critics were in the sack for it at the time and Aaron Sorkin continues to have a career in Hollywood (he wrote the biggest film of this past weekend: "The Social Network"), who'd have thought.
It appears that there was a tremendous amount of very creative Studio 60-hate when the show was on. There was a comedic sketch troupe in Los Angeles who would reenact the truly awful sketches within the show. There was also a live blog in which a rotating group of panelists would critique Studio 60 episode-by-episode and talk about why this show was not good. That I absolutely loved reading every single guest blogger's take either says something about the nature of criticism when done well or the power of that one show to invoke such a large volume of insighftful criticism.
I thought I'd add my own unique voice on why this particular show was such an abomination of TV. Here are five completely original reasons why I didn't like Studio 60:
1. The characters all sounded like the exact same person. That should be the first rule of screenwriting: Don't make every single character in the movie sound like yourself. They were all highly intelligent, impassioned and could easily quote various sources of knowledge which they would throw out in conversation as if they were constantly at the world's most pretentious cocktail party. More than anything else, I wanted to see the introduction of some character in a scene who had an IQ under 150 and just go "huh?" to whatever the other characters were saying.
The characters also had a terrible habit of going on tangents when they spoke, but what was even worse was that the other participant in the conversation would willfully follow them. Two executives would be walking down a hallway talking about how the ratings have taken a turn and all of a sudden one of them would talk about the critical concensus on Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gough. How many business executives would willingly want to hire people who all of a sudden start breaking out into tangents like that? Fortunately the guy who likes to start talking about Dutch filmmakers lucked out by being surrounded almost entirely by people who have the same problem as him, so they all willingly participate in each other's tangents.
2. The laugh track of a show that isn't funny-One of the biggest complaints was that the show-within-a-show wasn't funny. I completely agree. It is interesting to note that the real SNL used the same premise as one of Studio 60s sketches "Science Schmience" to pretty good effect in the Michael Phelps episode. The way that the show suddenly stops becoming realistic and/or entertaining lack of has been covered pretty excessively, but I'm going to add something new to the conversation: How about that obnoxious laugh track? To me, the most obnoxious thing a sitcom can do is to have more laughter than the show's humor merits. Everybody Loves Raymond, Will and Grace and The Cosby Show all dissapointed me on this level. They were funny shows at one point but oftentimes the audience was laughing just because Bill Cosby or Ray's mom entered a room and the audience was just familiar with how funny that character was. It was an unearned laugh.
An overused laugh track stings far worse here because the show was never even funny in the first place. It was excrutiating, however, in scenes set in dress rehearsals or the writer's room where the characters are cracking up at each other's jokes. Because the jokes aren't there, if the characters are laughing at those non-funny things then you stop beleiving that they are competenet.
3. The idea that Harriett Hayes' religion would be an issue for anyone beyond Matt Alvey. Two of the most universally agreed upon flaws of the show were that Sara Paulson was terribly miscast as the show's star comedienne and that the show practically turned itself into a dysfunctional romantic comedy with all the attention between Matthew Perry's Matt Alvey and Paulson's Harriet Hayes.
For reference purposes, Matt used to date Sara but it didn't work out because they had religious differences and they are now awkwardly working together.
It was a pretty dysfunctional relationship which understandably might consume a lot of Matt's thoughts for a variety of reasons, but the show's flaw is assuming that anyone else would care about it. First of all, no one should care about Sara Paulson's Harriett Hayes because she was uninteresting, broody and not geared to be the star of a comedy show. But more to the point, the personal hang-ups that Matt has about Harriett shouldn't be an issue to other cast members (in an opening episode, a fellow cast member teases her for praying to God), the press or the show's viewing audience. The very idea that you could use a joke in a sketch (the episode where they did a Gilbert and Sullivan cold open) wish a verse of that song focusing on Harriett's religious beliefs is rediculous. What makes this worse is that Aaron Sorkin used his real-life break-up with actress Kristin Chenowith as inspiration for that plot so he basically thinks on both a show and a show-within-a-show level that his romantic hang-ups are something that a TV-viewing audience should know.
4. Nate Curddroy-There was a lot of talk about how obnoxious Harriet Hayes was but how about Nate Curddroy as Tom Jeter (he played another one of the actors on the show-within-a-show)? He was also not particularly funny on camera or off-camera either. At best, his comedic instincts might make him a somewhat decent character in a dramedy by Wes Anderson, Sophia Coppolla or Noah Bombauch.
Needless time was also consumed on a secondary romantic pairing between Tom and one of the show's writers that had no believable chemistry. Did the two have anything in common? Was there any reason for the writer to ask him out other than that he was the same height as her or famous?
One of the most rediculous attempts the show ever made to try to imbue serious themes was an episode in which Tom's parents came to visit the set and they tried to link one of thse oft-used "Dealing with Daddy's Dissapointment" subplots in a context that didn't makes sense. The dad's all grouchy throughout the episode and it's revealed that he doesn't think much of his son because he's not in the military. Seriously. That's his dad's big thing. He finds the idea of someone not being in the military distasteful. He basically wants the U.S. to be Ancient Sparta where every single able-bodied man must fight.
5. How obnoxious is the nickname "Big Three"? Coming up with this nickname for the three cast members who are also members on the show-within-a-show was an effort by the show to explain to the audience why the producers and directors would spend so much time talking to and talking about just three of the SWIAS's seven character and neglect the other seven so heavily. It was because these guys were the core of the show? But honestly, what lazy journalistic outlet would come up with such a dumb generalized nickname and what do these three performers have in common? The only people who get nicknames on Saturday Night Live would be like "The Women of SNL" because they're all...you know..female or "The Lonely Island guys" because they were on the Lonely Island before. The "Big 3" is a weekend update anchor and two disparate performers. Plus it assumes the show is that important with such a catch-all nickname.
On another note, please oblige me by checking out my columns
The Fading Era of Women on Saturday Night Live
The most visible failure on behalf of SNL this past decade was keeping the wrong girl from the 2008-2009 season.
Why was it so important?
One of the really strong things about SNL this decade has been the women. In fact, it's the only solid argument about Saturday Night Live that you can make that the present is better than the past. You can't say that in any other decade of Saturday Night Live had women who outstaged their male counterparts, wowed the critics, and could become box office commodities and TV show leads then the 2000's.
To be more specific, I'm referring to Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler and Kristen Wiig. No offense to Rachel Dratch who was in the mix at the same time: You were serviceable and nothing was wrong with you, but in terms of star power, talent and respect that they attained while they were on the show, those are the four most successful women in the history of the show:
-Lorne Michaels once said in an interview that Kristen Wiig is one of the three most capable performers (guy or girl) he's ever had on Saturday Night Live. She has her detractors and some people think she overuses certain impressions but before fans felt that she was too much, they loved her more, they universally agreed that she was talented and she generated tremendous buzz whether you loved or hated her. She has also had a role in practically every comedy movie of the last 3 years.
-Maya Rudolph was beloved while on the show and highly recognizable to people outside the world of Saturday Night Live. She's later appeared with high-calliber directors such as Sam Mendes ("Away We Go") and Rob Altman ("Prairie Home Companion")
-Tina Fey routinely makes lists of the funniest people in America and her stock has only gone up. Her acting and writing in the hit film "Mean Girls" raised her profile in a positive way, 30 Rock became one of the most rewarded shows on television, and then to top it off, she single-handedly resurrects Saturday Night Live's popularity through a series of guest roles as Sarah Palin in 2008. Ironically, the total amount of sketches that Tina Fey was in during her time on SNL (she was a Weekend Update anchor from her first episode to her last) probably would rank among the lowest in the history of the show's cast members.
-Amy Poehler is a household name and was so before she left the show. She is now the star of the follow-up to the Office. To build a comic show on NBC around a female, particularly one with as much pressure to succeed as Greg Daniel's follow-up of The Office pretty much says it all. That woman has to be a big deal. Her talent is also unquestionable: She's entirely fearless on stage.
In case you're thinking Julia Louis-Dreyffus could rival any of these four, it was Seinfeld and her recent Emmys that made her popular and not Saturday Night Live.
Now here's the important thing: During every era of Saturday Night Live, people have always complained that it wasn't as good as the past, but at least the argument can be made that the woman are stronger than they've ever been and that keeps the critical brand of the show alive.
In choosing the right successor to these women, they hired Casey Wilson, then Michaela Watkins and Abbey Elliott. Wilson was serviceable, Elliott drew a little bit of praise with an Angelina Jolie impression, but Watkins clearly was the star. Her impressions and characters were hits right away. And that was only half a season.
It made virtually no sense to fire Michaela after so soon a time and keep her unproven counterpart. I think the pressure to find new girls to replace the female stars has been so strong that they've been a little trigger happy out of an urgency to find that strong women right away. Before this year, SNL has bought in five new females as Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler and Kristen Wiig were departing and over that time they only brought in one male.
The following season, neither of the two new girls nor Abbey made as much of an impact as Michaela. It could be that even he knows that neither of the girls are as talented as he hoped but the problem is that firing both of them shows that he admits the girls he replaced Michaela with weren't any good either and that the era of good women is over. So he has to keep one of them: He picks the one who created a couple good characters and went with it hoping that she'd grow into the role.
I'm not saying that Nassim is necessarily bad I am saying that her survival from last season to this season wasn't entirely based on her.
Also, I'm beginning to see Abbey Elliott's kind of raw. She might have her moments but she seems inexperienced and doesn't really nail her roles with the same precision as someone who's been doing this for a while. When I read the other day that she was only 23, I felt like that sounded about right.
Please support me as a writer by donating, subscribing, or clicking on this link (and clicking all around within that link) that pays me www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
Why was it so important?
One of the really strong things about SNL this decade has been the women. In fact, it's the only solid argument about Saturday Night Live that you can make that the present is better than the past. You can't say that in any other decade of Saturday Night Live had women who outstaged their male counterparts, wowed the critics, and could become box office commodities and TV show leads then the 2000's.
To be more specific, I'm referring to Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler and Kristen Wiig. No offense to Rachel Dratch who was in the mix at the same time: You were serviceable and nothing was wrong with you, but in terms of star power, talent and respect that they attained while they were on the show, those are the four most successful women in the history of the show:
-Lorne Michaels once said in an interview that Kristen Wiig is one of the three most capable performers (guy or girl) he's ever had on Saturday Night Live. She has her detractors and some people think she overuses certain impressions but before fans felt that she was too much, they loved her more, they universally agreed that she was talented and she generated tremendous buzz whether you loved or hated her. She has also had a role in practically every comedy movie of the last 3 years.
-Maya Rudolph was beloved while on the show and highly recognizable to people outside the world of Saturday Night Live. She's later appeared with high-calliber directors such as Sam Mendes ("Away We Go") and Rob Altman ("Prairie Home Companion")
-Tina Fey routinely makes lists of the funniest people in America and her stock has only gone up. Her acting and writing in the hit film "Mean Girls" raised her profile in a positive way, 30 Rock became one of the most rewarded shows on television, and then to top it off, she single-handedly resurrects Saturday Night Live's popularity through a series of guest roles as Sarah Palin in 2008. Ironically, the total amount of sketches that Tina Fey was in during her time on SNL (she was a Weekend Update anchor from her first episode to her last) probably would rank among the lowest in the history of the show's cast members.
-Amy Poehler is a household name and was so before she left the show. She is now the star of the follow-up to the Office. To build a comic show on NBC around a female, particularly one with as much pressure to succeed as Greg Daniel's follow-up of The Office pretty much says it all. That woman has to be a big deal. Her talent is also unquestionable: She's entirely fearless on stage.
In case you're thinking Julia Louis-Dreyffus could rival any of these four, it was Seinfeld and her recent Emmys that made her popular and not Saturday Night Live.
Now here's the important thing: During every era of Saturday Night Live, people have always complained that it wasn't as good as the past, but at least the argument can be made that the woman are stronger than they've ever been and that keeps the critical brand of the show alive.
In choosing the right successor to these women, they hired Casey Wilson, then Michaela Watkins and Abbey Elliott. Wilson was serviceable, Elliott drew a little bit of praise with an Angelina Jolie impression, but Watkins clearly was the star. Her impressions and characters were hits right away. And that was only half a season.
It made virtually no sense to fire Michaela after so soon a time and keep her unproven counterpart. I think the pressure to find new girls to replace the female stars has been so strong that they've been a little trigger happy out of an urgency to find that strong women right away. Before this year, SNL has bought in five new females as Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler and Kristen Wiig were departing and over that time they only brought in one male.
The following season, neither of the two new girls nor Abbey made as much of an impact as Michaela. It could be that even he knows that neither of the girls are as talented as he hoped but the problem is that firing both of them shows that he admits the girls he replaced Michaela with weren't any good either and that the era of good women is over. So he has to keep one of them: He picks the one who created a couple good characters and went with it hoping that she'd grow into the role.
I'm not saying that Nassim is necessarily bad I am saying that her survival from last season to this season wasn't entirely based on her.
Also, I'm beginning to see Abbey Elliott's kind of raw. She might have her moments but she seems inexperienced and doesn't really nail her roles with the same precision as someone who's been doing this for a while. When I read the other day that she was only 23, I felt like that sounded about right.
Please support me as a writer by donating, subscribing, or clicking on this link (and clicking all around within that link) that pays me www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Fall Schedule I'm settling on
I do this every year:
Monday: Castle-I think I'm going to with this after a search for another drama or two in my schedule. I looked at Fringe and some HBO shows but decided that because this is on cable and I don't have to pay through the roof to watch it, it will suffice. I like the chemistry between the stars and it held my attention better than Fringe.
Tuesday: Glee-I liked this show plenty last year. Issues about its annoying lack of consistency from episode or even within each episode linger, but it's good imperfect escapist fun. Looking forward to seeing more guest stars and more Michael Chang this year.
*Raising Hope-I defended it as one of four new shows with promise in my last blog post, but lately I don't see it as going anywhere significant like My Name is Earl did. After three episodes, I feel like most of the will-they-or-won't-they drama between Sabrina and the protagonist has run dry and a lottery winner who interacts with different parts of the community every week has much more to it than a show about a guy raising a baby. I don't see an ever-expanding universe of quirky characters (i.e. Norm McDonald, Giovanni Ribisi, Mike O'Malley, Jon Rappaport, Katherine Kinney, Alyssa Milano, Burt Reynolds, Clint Howard, etc.) and I don't see many interesting plots they can pull out of this. That being said, I'll give this show a little more of a chance and I might find myself watching this because it's between Glee and Running Wilde and I don't feel like leaving the TV for a half hour.
Running Wilde-Running Wilde has improved greatly between the first and third episodes and is starting to look like a promising entrant on my top ten list. Disturbingly, the negative reviews are getting increasingly worse.
No Ordinary Family-I still intend to give this show a chance. It's on the same time as Glee so I'll have to watch it on itunes/hulu.
Wednesday: Modern Family-Definitely becoming a favorite
Thursday: Community-30 Rock-Office-Outsourcing-I'm in for the penny, in for the pound on these four.
#@%*) My Dad Says-I'm liking it for the dialogue
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Saturday: SNL-So far so good. I have an increased interest in this show just for the sake of distinguishing the cast members from each other alone
Sunday: Family Guy/American Dad
Monday: Castle-I think I'm going to with this after a search for another drama or two in my schedule. I looked at Fringe and some HBO shows but decided that because this is on cable and I don't have to pay through the roof to watch it, it will suffice. I like the chemistry between the stars and it held my attention better than Fringe.
Tuesday: Glee-I liked this show plenty last year. Issues about its annoying lack of consistency from episode or even within each episode linger, but it's good imperfect escapist fun. Looking forward to seeing more guest stars and more Michael Chang this year.
*Raising Hope-I defended it as one of four new shows with promise in my last blog post, but lately I don't see it as going anywhere significant like My Name is Earl did. After three episodes, I feel like most of the will-they-or-won't-they drama between Sabrina and the protagonist has run dry and a lottery winner who interacts with different parts of the community every week has much more to it than a show about a guy raising a baby. I don't see an ever-expanding universe of quirky characters (i.e. Norm McDonald, Giovanni Ribisi, Mike O'Malley, Jon Rappaport, Katherine Kinney, Alyssa Milano, Burt Reynolds, Clint Howard, etc.) and I don't see many interesting plots they can pull out of this. That being said, I'll give this show a little more of a chance and I might find myself watching this because it's between Glee and Running Wilde and I don't feel like leaving the TV for a half hour.
Running Wilde-Running Wilde has improved greatly between the first and third episodes and is starting to look like a promising entrant on my top ten list. Disturbingly, the negative reviews are getting increasingly worse.
No Ordinary Family-I still intend to give this show a chance. It's on the same time as Glee so I'll have to watch it on itunes/hulu.
Wednesday: Modern Family-Definitely becoming a favorite
Thursday: Community-30 Rock-Office-Outsourcing-I'm in for the penny, in for the pound on these four.
#@%*) My Dad Says-I'm liking it for the dialogue
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Saturday: SNL-So far so good. I have an increased interest in this show just for the sake of distinguishing the cast members from each other alone
Sunday: Family Guy/American Dad
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
In Defense of Four New Prime Time Comedies of the 2010 Season
Six new comedies came out on prime time this fall season and I've watched four of them: $#)%* my Dad Says, Outsourced, Raising Hope, and Running Wilde. I like them all and think that the kinks that came with the pilots can be eventually worked out.
The critical consensus is that of disappointment with some, if not, all of these shows. Since I've been liking everything I saw on the comedy front this season, it might look like I'm soft but it's more of an issue of me tuning out the crap. A good amount of TV is derivative and uninspired and I knew fairly early on that "Mike and Molly" and "Better than You" fit that category. The former (premise: fat schlub finds a woman willing to marry him) was also identical in premise to "King of Queens," "According to Jim," or "Still Standing"; the latter (some variation of newlyweds awkwardly adjust to larger social circle) looks indistinguishable from "Worst Week", "Til Death", "For Your Love" or "Everybody Loves Raymond." I was bored before I even tuned in and I'm thankful that only two shows on that level of blandness exist this season.
The other four new comedies each offer something original and for that they deserve our attention and the benefit of the doubt that given time they can grow. This is dually important because unoriginal and uninspired TV still populates the airwaves.
Here are those four shows:
1. Running Wilde on Fox
The Hook (What drew me into thinking that this would more than an ordinary show): Creator Mitch Hurwitz practically reinvented comedy with Arrested Development and Will Arnett and David Cross both excelled under his tutelage. The premise of a rich man who is absurdly out of touch with reality being brought down to Earth by the only woman he's ever had any contact with is certainly unique. On top of that, add in the two obstacles that she's: 1) Already engaged to someone and 2) Is voluntarily on the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum than him
How the show delivers: The pilot was sluggish but by just the second episode we saw the kind of intricately absurd plotting that made Arrested Development so great. We also saw the complexities of the love triangle once David Cross entered the picture. Also, this show has the same chemistry between Cross and Arnett with a much better framework that pits the two against each other in a way that Arrested Development never did: Cross's character was an asexual outsider without any business accumen, so he never competed with Arnett's the way Arnett and Bateman would compete over girls and status.
What the detractors say: The pilot felt a little sluggish to the reviewers as well but there were other complaints.
Every character on AD was strong but the butler and the secretary characters don't really seem to add anything. Already, TV.com added Mr. Luntz (the secretary) to their list of least likable characters writing that, "He seems to be half-British and also weirdly half-effeminate, but he also has no real point of view."
Three reviews I've come across don't like Will Arnett as a lead character for a sitcom. Ken Levine "does not find him funny for a second", TV Guide says the show delivers "more smarm than charm" (an implication to Arnett who's comic persona is all about smarm) and Time Magazine's James Poniewozik makes the unfavorable comparison of Will Arnett as the lead to Jason Bateman in AD.
My defense: Even though the reviewers only have the pilot to work with, they should be ashamed of themselves for writing off Hurwitz so quickly. Poniewozik is already proclaiming that Hurwitz's talent will shine through eventually but probably not in this series which sounds like he's writing his epitaph. The massive improvement between the pilot and the second episode shows how promising this show can be. Will Arnett was deservedly nominated for a supporting Emmy as Gob and regularly stole the show from an incredibly talented cast. He is more of an extreme than Bateman's Michael Bluth but he's counterbalanced by greater extremes as well and there do exist relatively normal characters in the form of Migo and Puddle.
2. Raising Hope on Fox
The Hook: Just like Running Wilde, my interest in the show comes from the past work of it's creator Greg Garcia who was behind "My Name is Earl."
How the Show Delivers: I'll concede that the show's premise isn't as novel as "My Name is Earl." One show was about a lowlife crook whose winning of the lottery inspires him to make entirely unique life changes for the better and "Raising Hope" is just about a lowlife teenager who knocked up a girl. However, many of the same elements of "My Name is Earl"- characters driven toward unexpected self-improvement; exploring people on the socio-economic fringes of Americana; characters who are endearing in spite of their stupidity; moments that are genuinely touching- are here as well and that's a good reason to invest yourself in this show.
What the detractors say: Of the four TV shows, Raising Hope is getting the most positive reviews even those reviews are pretty cautious. Most have said that the pilot isn't that great but that it shows promise. Looking at a couple of those reviews at Time Magazine and AV Club), there seems to be some criticism of the show treating their characters with contempt as well as the gags being lazy. Former TV scribe Ken Levine, who blogs here wrote "this show felt like all the white trash jokes they couldn’t get to on MY NAME IS EARL they jammed in here."
My response: I am in agreement here that the show's humor is unimpressive early on and coming from desperate places. At the same time, I would expect a low laughs-per-minute ratio on a show like this in comparison to a better sitcom. The humor doesn't come from one-liners but rather our relationships to the characters and those will grow over time. Early on, the change in pace and the general weirdness of "My Name is Earl" meant it took a little while to grow on you as well.
3. #@)$*() My Dad Says on CBS:
Hook: #@$*( My Dad Says comes from a unique source in the form of a guy on Twitter who started blogging funny things his old-fashioned dad was saying. That doesn't necessarily mean the show will be good, but it gets my attention because if the show is created by an outsider, I'll probably get a fresh perspective. Also, it is a perspective that is pretty relatable: Most of us have at least one elderly relative who casually says things in the privacy of their own home that would get us in a lot of trouble if those words came out of our mouths.
How it delivers: William Shatner, who can be easily pigeonholed in our heads as that caricature of his Captain Kirk character he's been doing for years, is delightfully fresh here. Thanks to the writing, his character is a relatively unique comic creation. The show has heart as well. When the father and son are dancing at the end of the pilot, it's an earned moment. The best indication, however, that I wanted to see more is simply that the show made me laugh. Numerous times.
What the detractors say: One reviewer (TV Guide) sees Shatner's character more as a "shallowly conceived grouch belching trite punch lines." Alan Speinwall and Joel Keller of AOL's TV Squad both think Shatner's character is too crude to solicit empathy although Keller thinks Shatner showed potential in one scene. There was also some criticism that the rest of the cast is somewhat weak in comparison to Shatner.
My defense: First off, the cast includes Will Sasso and Nicole Sullivan who might be taking a while to find their chemistry but they certainly have the talent as evidenced by their work on "Mad TV." Jonathan Sadowski was a last-minute replacement and he's the straight man to Shatner's funny man so he doesn't have to be the show's strongest link. The major question here is whether Shatner is convincing and it's just a matter of me buying it whereas others didn't.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this show is on CBS. The network's bread and butter is mediocre middle-of-the-road comedies like "Everybody Loves Raymond" "Yes Dear" and "Two and a Half Men." Admittedly, "Raymond" has more pathos, but none of those shows were innovative in anyway, whatsoever. At best, they were good for a few laughs in a familiar setting. If it can get past the initial torrent of negative reviews and survive its first season, there's no question "#@$* My Dad Says" could at least deliver at the bar set by the other shows on the network.
4. Outsourced on NBC:
The Hook: Outsourcing is interesting. An article on what life is like for an American middle manager transplanted to India would be intriguing so a TV show set in that world would naturally be intriguing as well. It’s not just because I was a geography major in college but because it’s relevant and has affected people I know.
How it delivers: Outsourcing has a natural go-to place for its humor in the form of culture clash jokes and the writing seems competent enough that they know how to mine it. Culture clash humor is going to rely more on the relationships between the characters than the "Hey, you guys are wearing funny hats" type of observational shtick. In that category, potential is developing in the network of relationships that’s being established. The protagonist has an American colleague (Diedrich Baker) who’s kind of boorish, a passive-aggressive assistant manager and a team of subordinates with whom he’s having several awkward Michael-Scott-like moments. There’s also an flirty Australian love interest but she’s been kept in the background so far.
Criticism: Todd van der Werff of the A.V. Club declares this is the end of NBC Thursday night's glory days. According to him, the show's scenes between Americans feel like they're on a different show than the ones portraying American-Indian culture clash and neither are executed particularly well. Some critics found the characters boring like the blogger from Film School Rejects who named this show the failure of the season. James Poniewozik acknowledges "satire is a dangerous zone" but says the show is a disappointment with cheap jokes that insult the audience.
My response: Again, it's a matter of placing too much emphasis on the pilot. Characters might be one-dimensional in the pilot because there's not enough screen time to develop everybody and give exposition in 22 minutes. The show's breakout characters in Parks and Recreation, Ron Swanson and Tom Haverford, seemed like dumb one-note characters in the pilot too. Swanson gave a speech about he preferred Chuck-E-Cheese to government and it seemed like the writers were trying too hard to inject the characters with quirks. Over times, his quirks formed part of a fully-fleshed personality that strengthened because it stayed consistent over several episodes. I could see three or four of these characters as pop culture stalwarts like Ron Swanson or Dwight from "The Office." In addition, there were only a few one-line gags in the pilot which is an indication that the show is going to be going for broader situational laughs.
Thanks for reading and be sure to click on my work at examiner.
The critical consensus is that of disappointment with some, if not, all of these shows. Since I've been liking everything I saw on the comedy front this season, it might look like I'm soft but it's more of an issue of me tuning out the crap. A good amount of TV is derivative and uninspired and I knew fairly early on that "Mike and Molly" and "Better than You" fit that category. The former (premise: fat schlub finds a woman willing to marry him) was also identical in premise to "King of Queens," "According to Jim," or "Still Standing"; the latter (some variation of newlyweds awkwardly adjust to larger social circle) looks indistinguishable from "Worst Week", "Til Death", "For Your Love" or "Everybody Loves Raymond." I was bored before I even tuned in and I'm thankful that only two shows on that level of blandness exist this season.
The other four new comedies each offer something original and for that they deserve our attention and the benefit of the doubt that given time they can grow. This is dually important because unoriginal and uninspired TV still populates the airwaves.
Here are those four shows:
1. Running Wilde on Fox
The Hook (What drew me into thinking that this would more than an ordinary show): Creator Mitch Hurwitz practically reinvented comedy with Arrested Development and Will Arnett and David Cross both excelled under his tutelage. The premise of a rich man who is absurdly out of touch with reality being brought down to Earth by the only woman he's ever had any contact with is certainly unique. On top of that, add in the two obstacles that she's: 1) Already engaged to someone and 2) Is voluntarily on the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum than him
How the show delivers: The pilot was sluggish but by just the second episode we saw the kind of intricately absurd plotting that made Arrested Development so great. We also saw the complexities of the love triangle once David Cross entered the picture. Also, this show has the same chemistry between Cross and Arnett with a much better framework that pits the two against each other in a way that Arrested Development never did: Cross's character was an asexual outsider without any business accumen, so he never competed with Arnett's the way Arnett and Bateman would compete over girls and status.
What the detractors say: The pilot felt a little sluggish to the reviewers as well but there were other complaints.
Every character on AD was strong but the butler and the secretary characters don't really seem to add anything. Already, TV.com added Mr. Luntz (the secretary) to their list of least likable characters writing that, "He seems to be half-British and also weirdly half-effeminate, but he also has no real point of view."
Three reviews I've come across don't like Will Arnett as a lead character for a sitcom. Ken Levine "does not find him funny for a second", TV Guide says the show delivers "more smarm than charm" (an implication to Arnett who's comic persona is all about smarm) and Time Magazine's James Poniewozik makes the unfavorable comparison of Will Arnett as the lead to Jason Bateman in AD.
My defense: Even though the reviewers only have the pilot to work with, they should be ashamed of themselves for writing off Hurwitz so quickly. Poniewozik is already proclaiming that Hurwitz's talent will shine through eventually but probably not in this series which sounds like he's writing his epitaph. The massive improvement between the pilot and the second episode shows how promising this show can be. Will Arnett was deservedly nominated for a supporting Emmy as Gob and regularly stole the show from an incredibly talented cast. He is more of an extreme than Bateman's Michael Bluth but he's counterbalanced by greater extremes as well and there do exist relatively normal characters in the form of Migo and Puddle.
2. Raising Hope on Fox
The Hook: Just like Running Wilde, my interest in the show comes from the past work of it's creator Greg Garcia who was behind "My Name is Earl."
How the Show Delivers: I'll concede that the show's premise isn't as novel as "My Name is Earl." One show was about a lowlife crook whose winning of the lottery inspires him to make entirely unique life changes for the better and "Raising Hope" is just about a lowlife teenager who knocked up a girl. However, many of the same elements of "My Name is Earl"- characters driven toward unexpected self-improvement; exploring people on the socio-economic fringes of Americana; characters who are endearing in spite of their stupidity; moments that are genuinely touching- are here as well and that's a good reason to invest yourself in this show.
What the detractors say: Of the four TV shows, Raising Hope is getting the most positive reviews even those reviews are pretty cautious. Most have said that the pilot isn't that great but that it shows promise. Looking at a couple of those reviews at Time Magazine and AV Club), there seems to be some criticism of the show treating their characters with contempt as well as the gags being lazy. Former TV scribe Ken Levine, who blogs here wrote "this show felt like all the white trash jokes they couldn’t get to on MY NAME IS EARL they jammed in here."
My response: I am in agreement here that the show's humor is unimpressive early on and coming from desperate places. At the same time, I would expect a low laughs-per-minute ratio on a show like this in comparison to a better sitcom. The humor doesn't come from one-liners but rather our relationships to the characters and those will grow over time. Early on, the change in pace and the general weirdness of "My Name is Earl" meant it took a little while to grow on you as well.
3. #@)$*() My Dad Says on CBS:
Hook: #@$*( My Dad Says comes from a unique source in the form of a guy on Twitter who started blogging funny things his old-fashioned dad was saying. That doesn't necessarily mean the show will be good, but it gets my attention because if the show is created by an outsider, I'll probably get a fresh perspective. Also, it is a perspective that is pretty relatable: Most of us have at least one elderly relative who casually says things in the privacy of their own home that would get us in a lot of trouble if those words came out of our mouths.
How it delivers: William Shatner, who can be easily pigeonholed in our heads as that caricature of his Captain Kirk character he's been doing for years, is delightfully fresh here. Thanks to the writing, his character is a relatively unique comic creation. The show has heart as well. When the father and son are dancing at the end of the pilot, it's an earned moment. The best indication, however, that I wanted to see more is simply that the show made me laugh. Numerous times.
What the detractors say: One reviewer (TV Guide) sees Shatner's character more as a "shallowly conceived grouch belching trite punch lines." Alan Speinwall and Joel Keller of AOL's TV Squad both think Shatner's character is too crude to solicit empathy although Keller thinks Shatner showed potential in one scene. There was also some criticism that the rest of the cast is somewhat weak in comparison to Shatner.
My defense: First off, the cast includes Will Sasso and Nicole Sullivan who might be taking a while to find their chemistry but they certainly have the talent as evidenced by their work on "Mad TV." Jonathan Sadowski was a last-minute replacement and he's the straight man to Shatner's funny man so he doesn't have to be the show's strongest link. The major question here is whether Shatner is convincing and it's just a matter of me buying it whereas others didn't.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this show is on CBS. The network's bread and butter is mediocre middle-of-the-road comedies like "Everybody Loves Raymond" "Yes Dear" and "Two and a Half Men." Admittedly, "Raymond" has more pathos, but none of those shows were innovative in anyway, whatsoever. At best, they were good for a few laughs in a familiar setting. If it can get past the initial torrent of negative reviews and survive its first season, there's no question "#@$* My Dad Says" could at least deliver at the bar set by the other shows on the network.
4. Outsourced on NBC:
The Hook: Outsourcing is interesting. An article on what life is like for an American middle manager transplanted to India would be intriguing so a TV show set in that world would naturally be intriguing as well. It’s not just because I was a geography major in college but because it’s relevant and has affected people I know.
How it delivers: Outsourcing has a natural go-to place for its humor in the form of culture clash jokes and the writing seems competent enough that they know how to mine it. Culture clash humor is going to rely more on the relationships between the characters than the "Hey, you guys are wearing funny hats" type of observational shtick. In that category, potential is developing in the network of relationships that’s being established. The protagonist has an American colleague (Diedrich Baker) who’s kind of boorish, a passive-aggressive assistant manager and a team of subordinates with whom he’s having several awkward Michael-Scott-like moments. There’s also an flirty Australian love interest but she’s been kept in the background so far.
Criticism: Todd van der Werff of the A.V. Club declares this is the end of NBC Thursday night's glory days. According to him, the show's scenes between Americans feel like they're on a different show than the ones portraying American-Indian culture clash and neither are executed particularly well. Some critics found the characters boring like the blogger from Film School Rejects who named this show the failure of the season. James Poniewozik acknowledges "satire is a dangerous zone" but says the show is a disappointment with cheap jokes that insult the audience.
My response: Again, it's a matter of placing too much emphasis on the pilot. Characters might be one-dimensional in the pilot because there's not enough screen time to develop everybody and give exposition in 22 minutes. The show's breakout characters in Parks and Recreation, Ron Swanson and Tom Haverford, seemed like dumb one-note characters in the pilot too. Swanson gave a speech about he preferred Chuck-E-Cheese to government and it seemed like the writers were trying too hard to inject the characters with quirks. Over times, his quirks formed part of a fully-fleshed personality that strengthened because it stayed consistent over several episodes. I could see three or four of these characters as pop culture stalwarts like Ron Swanson or Dwight from "The Office." In addition, there were only a few one-line gags in the pilot which is an indication that the show is going to be going for broader situational laughs.
Thanks for reading and be sure to click on my work at examiner.
Monday, September 27, 2010
TV actors who I wouldn't hesitate to watch if they were in a show
This past fall stars a number of stars who I have missed are returning to TV in a new role:
-Keri Russell, previously of Felicity comes back in the form of Running Wilde
-Will Sasso, previously of Mad TV and Less than Perfect, now comes back on Shit my Dad Says
-Will Arnett, previously of Arrested Development comes back on Running Wilde
-Maura Tierny of ER and Newsradio comes back to TV in The Whole Truth
-William Shatner, previously on Star Trek and Boston Legal comes back in Shit my Dad Says
-Skeet Ulrich of Jericho comes back in Law and Order: Los Angeles
This inspired me to make a long somewhat frivolous list of TV actors and actresses currently not working in TV as a series regular, who I wouldn't hesitate to watch the pilot of if they were cast in a new series. I'm including TV shows on their filmography that I've personally seen them in (not their entire filmographies):
AJ Langer: It’s Like You Know, Three Sisters-The vet of My So Called Life is very charming and has a good free-spirited ditzy vibe to her. She is also beautiful in a very Earthy way.
Alan Ruck-Going Places/Mad About You/Spin City-If anything, Spin City was not the right role for this guy. He's a lot gentler (think "Cheaper by the Dozen") than his Stuart character and there's a good role for that somewhere.
Andreas Anders-Joey, The Class, Better off Ted-The perky girl next door type is rediculously easy on the eyes and can play a love interest or foil to the protagonist like no one else. She's adept at playing those situations in sitcoms where the characters find themselves over their heads and on verge of panic.
Anna Belknap-Deadline/Handler/CSI: New York-Not particularly well-known, I was drawn to her in The Handler because of the way she conveyed a lot of emotion without ever taking over a scene. Like Mary McCormack or Amy Brenneman, she's capable of being bigger if the right part every suits her but she might got stuck in supporting roles for a while.
Amber Tamblyn-Joan of Arcadia-She was good in Joan of Arcadia and that TV show earned great reviews. There's no reason why she can't give TV a second try and play a character a little older.
Amy Peitz-Caroline in the City, Aliens in America, The Office-Her sexy Midwestern mom on Aliens in America was Emmy-worthy. There aren't many actresses at her age who could pull off grounded sex appeal so well.
Cheri Oteri-Saturday Night Live/Just Shoot Me/Sit Down Shut Up/Life and Times of Tim-This woman is simply nuts. Her characters are high energy and wonderfully absurd.
Chris Parnell-Saturday Night Live/30 Rock/Miss Guided-I see him as the perfect off-kilter straight man. With Leo Spaceman, he's the straight man to Tracy Morgan's character but he himself is a little bit off as well. He serves scenes well.
Christina Applegate-Married with Children, Jesse, Samantha Who-Has rebounded nicely from projects which didn't work out and her performance in Anchorman shows she can mold herself to whatever comic situation a script needs her to be.
Faith Ford-Murphy Brown/Maggie Winters/Hope and Faith-A competent lead who's worked in a number of shows.
Fred Willard-Roseanne/Maybe It’s Me/Everybody Loves Raymond/A Minute with Stan Hooper/Back to You/Modern Family-The man from Christopher Guest films is a witty improviser and digs his teeth into absurdity. If the show centers too much around him in a highly-anticipated way like "Back to You," it doesn't work as well.
George Takei-Star Trek/Heroes-He's like Betty White or David Hasselhoff in being a guy who gets a lot of random love later in life. He's a cult hero of sorts. I'd like to see him take that energy to a TV show. Besides if Shatner's on the air, why not Takei?
Harriet Sansom Harris-It’s All Relative/Frasier-She has a wonderful provincial accent that generates half the laughs you need alone.
Heather Page Kent-Life with Roger/Jenny/Stark Raving Mad/That’s Life-She was on four shows between 1996 and 2000 and then I have no idea what happened to her. In That's Life, the show that centered around her, she was a vulnerable spunky semi-independent woman in the mold of Ally McBeal and all the female heroines going back to Mary Tyler Moore.
Jamie Pressley-Jack and Jill/Happy Family/My Name is Earl-My Name is Earl deservedly won her an Emmy but she's played more dialed-down roles pretty well in the other shows I've listed.
Jennifer Esposito-Spin City, Samantha Who-With her Jersey accent, she has a little bit of an acerbic Chelsea Handler vibe to her and can play vulnerable just as easily as she can play condescending.
Joe Pantolillio-Handler/Sopranos/Dr. Vegas-In Handler and Dr. Vegas, he was less of a ham than James Caan is in Las Vegas as the tough guy in charge. I think he can depict more shades of grey in the kinds of cop procedurals and dramas that require someone to look serious and act as if they're doing something of grave importance.
John Stamos-Full House/Jake in Progress-Like the Hasselhoff, Stamos is turning into somewhat of a novelty item on TV. Seeing him appear on screen is an event in and of itself. He earns my fondness because he's self-conscious of his negative association with the schlock of "Full House" and the fact that the last time he was the epitome of cool was 15 years ago.
Jacinda Barrett-Real World/D.C./Citizen Baines-Like A.J. Langer, I've seen her play the ditzy, free-spirited girl to great effect but she also can do more, I'm sure. Another one of those cases of a personal crush as well.
Jessalyn Ginsing-Boston Public/Prison Break/Heroes/Glee-Ginsing is great at grey areas. She was the sort-of-heroine of Boston Public and can play dramatic in Heroes or melodramatic as in Glee. She was the "hot"-but-tepid teacher on Boston Public and hasn't faded.
John Michael Higgins-Arrested Development/Raising the Bar/Kath and Kim/Community-Many actors from Christopher Guest's list of actors can be plugged into a sitcom with good results (fun fact: Jane Lynch was primarily known for her association with Guest before Glee). John Michael Higgins is one of those guys that is great in a lot of things. He's particularly good as dumb boorish figures who don't second guess themselves.
Judy Greer-Arrested Development/Miss Guided/Archer-Miss Guided convinced me that she can play a very likable lead in a Mary Tyler Moore mold. Come to think of it, a great great number of female TV leads are in the mold of Mary Tyler Moore.
Julia Sweeny-Saturday Night Live/Maybe It's Me/Frasier-Most famous for her androgynous character Pat on SNL, Julia Sweeny was actually one of the more underused actresses on SNL and one who tended to enhance a sketch more often then detract from it. She can be a good side character and I have no doubt she can make that character funny and/or interesting. Interesting tidbit: She beat out Friend's Lisa Kudrow for her Saturday Night Live spot.
Lori Loughlin-Full House/Hudson Street/Spin City/90210-In retrospect, I've discovered Full House was an awful show if you're over 12 years old. Tanner, Coulier and Stamos were all pretty corny but Lori Loughlin's acting still holds up suprisingly well.
Mark McKinney-Kids in the Hall/Saturday Night Live/Wanda at Large/Studio 60-Nostalgia for the 95-96 season of SNL will go a long way with me. McKinney is a funny guy who can also play a good straight man and blends in on comedies pretty easily.
Paula Marshall-Cupid, Snoops, Webber Show, Gary Unmarried-She's bounced around on more pilots and guest spots that I have room to list here and she's had a few roles that have given me somewhat of a crush on her. She's versatile and has some degree of sex appeal.
Rachel Bilson-The O.C./Chuck-How often is the rich and shallow girl who's been cruel to the hero his whole life been the girl you root for in a love triangle? That's what Rachel pulled off on the first season of The O.C. She's sassy, smart, can play young and she can convincingly be a vehicle for Juno-esque dialogue.
Rena Sofer-Saved by the Bell/Just Shoot Me/Coupling/Heroes/24-Her New York accent might have been much in Just Shoot Me, but for the most part, she's an actress who always seems to be the best part of the show she's in.
Rene Auberjonois-Star Trek DS9/Frasier/Boston Legal-I loved him in the Rob Altman movies as well as Star Trek and his penchant for good material is as good as his ability to make characters more complex than they look on paper.
Robyn Tuney-The Prisoner/The Mentalist-I'd be equally happy seeing her in movies. I think she might be more of a movie person, but there's no reason that I wouldn't be happy to see her on a TV show. She's shined even in small roles (i.e. Hollywoodland, The Mentalist)
Taylor Howard-Boston Common/Two Guys a Girl a Pizza Place/Monk-Howard played the Mary Tyler Moore-type in Boston Common and played one of the guys in Two Guys a Girl and a Pizza Place. In Monk, she generated a lot more chemistry with Tony Shaloub than Betty Schram in my opinion. Very competent
Terry Farrell-Star Trek: DS9/Becker-Perhaps the best and strongest female character of all the Star Treks (when two of the three females before her were a glorified secretary and a glorified school guidance counselor, there's not too much competition) in playing Dax on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Farrell comes across as self-assured and interesting.
Thomas Haden Church-Wings/Ned and Stacey-He's played the boor and the dumby pretty well. Since Sideways, I think he can return to TV and be more than that
Wendy Malick-Just Shoot Me/Frasier/Jake In Progress/Hot in Cleveland (short-lived)-It wasn't the lines on Just Shoot Me. It was her: She was a riot. Her melodramatic brand of desperate egotism made her one of the best characters on TV and she's been able to repeat that magic elsewhere. I can see her as an authoritative figure in charge as well.
Tony Shaloub-Wings/Stark Raving Mad/Monk-We've seen him as a scene stealer in one sitcom as well as a guy who can carry a show on his back.
Thomas McCarthy-Boston Public/The Wire-Most high school football coaches are supposed to be macho so I'm glad that McCarthy played the part against type on Boston Public.
Vanessa Marcil-General Hospital/Las Vegas-Playful and sexy, she delivers lines with tremendous assurence.
Vicki Lewis-News Radio/3 Sisters-In Newsradio's Beth, Lewis can lay claim to being the queen of all ditzy characters to ever appear on TV.
Will Forte-Clone High/Saturday Night Live/Sit Down Shut Up-The star of the McGruber movie, by now, has his own screen persona down. He's the confident yet clueless schlub. In voiceover work in Clone High and Sit Down Shut Up, he's been a riot.
Read my column: www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
-Keri Russell, previously of Felicity comes back in the form of Running Wilde
-Will Sasso, previously of Mad TV and Less than Perfect, now comes back on Shit my Dad Says
-Will Arnett, previously of Arrested Development comes back on Running Wilde
-Maura Tierny of ER and Newsradio comes back to TV in The Whole Truth
-William Shatner, previously on Star Trek and Boston Legal comes back in Shit my Dad Says
-Skeet Ulrich of Jericho comes back in Law and Order: Los Angeles
This inspired me to make a long somewhat frivolous list of TV actors and actresses currently not working in TV as a series regular, who I wouldn't hesitate to watch the pilot of if they were cast in a new series. I'm including TV shows on their filmography that I've personally seen them in (not their entire filmographies):
AJ Langer: It’s Like You Know, Three Sisters-The vet of My So Called Life is very charming and has a good free-spirited ditzy vibe to her. She is also beautiful in a very Earthy way.
Alan Ruck-Going Places/Mad About You/Spin City-If anything, Spin City was not the right role for this guy. He's a lot gentler (think "Cheaper by the Dozen") than his Stuart character and there's a good role for that somewhere.
Andreas Anders-Joey, The Class, Better off Ted-The perky girl next door type is rediculously easy on the eyes and can play a love interest or foil to the protagonist like no one else. She's adept at playing those situations in sitcoms where the characters find themselves over their heads and on verge of panic.
Anna Belknap-Deadline/Handler/CSI: New York-Not particularly well-known, I was drawn to her in The Handler because of the way she conveyed a lot of emotion without ever taking over a scene. Like Mary McCormack or Amy Brenneman, she's capable of being bigger if the right part every suits her but she might got stuck in supporting roles for a while.
Amber Tamblyn-Joan of Arcadia-She was good in Joan of Arcadia and that TV show earned great reviews. There's no reason why she can't give TV a second try and play a character a little older.
Amy Peitz-Caroline in the City, Aliens in America, The Office-Her sexy Midwestern mom on Aliens in America was Emmy-worthy. There aren't many actresses at her age who could pull off grounded sex appeal so well.
Cheri Oteri-Saturday Night Live/Just Shoot Me/Sit Down Shut Up/Life and Times of Tim-This woman is simply nuts. Her characters are high energy and wonderfully absurd.
Chris Parnell-Saturday Night Live/30 Rock/Miss Guided-I see him as the perfect off-kilter straight man. With Leo Spaceman, he's the straight man to Tracy Morgan's character but he himself is a little bit off as well. He serves scenes well.
Christina Applegate-Married with Children, Jesse, Samantha Who-Has rebounded nicely from projects which didn't work out and her performance in Anchorman shows she can mold herself to whatever comic situation a script needs her to be.
Faith Ford-Murphy Brown/Maggie Winters/Hope and Faith-A competent lead who's worked in a number of shows.
Fred Willard-Roseanne/Maybe It’s Me/Everybody Loves Raymond/A Minute with Stan Hooper/Back to You/Modern Family-The man from Christopher Guest films is a witty improviser and digs his teeth into absurdity. If the show centers too much around him in a highly-anticipated way like "Back to You," it doesn't work as well.
George Takei-Star Trek/Heroes-He's like Betty White or David Hasselhoff in being a guy who gets a lot of random love later in life. He's a cult hero of sorts. I'd like to see him take that energy to a TV show. Besides if Shatner's on the air, why not Takei?
Harriet Sansom Harris-It’s All Relative/Frasier-She has a wonderful provincial accent that generates half the laughs you need alone.
Heather Page Kent-Life with Roger/Jenny/Stark Raving Mad/That’s Life-She was on four shows between 1996 and 2000 and then I have no idea what happened to her. In That's Life, the show that centered around her, she was a vulnerable spunky semi-independent woman in the mold of Ally McBeal and all the female heroines going back to Mary Tyler Moore.
Jamie Pressley-Jack and Jill/Happy Family/My Name is Earl-My Name is Earl deservedly won her an Emmy but she's played more dialed-down roles pretty well in the other shows I've listed.
Jennifer Esposito-Spin City, Samantha Who-With her Jersey accent, she has a little bit of an acerbic Chelsea Handler vibe to her and can play vulnerable just as easily as she can play condescending.
Joe Pantolillio-Handler/Sopranos/Dr. Vegas-In Handler and Dr. Vegas, he was less of a ham than James Caan is in Las Vegas as the tough guy in charge. I think he can depict more shades of grey in the kinds of cop procedurals and dramas that require someone to look serious and act as if they're doing something of grave importance.
John Stamos-Full House/Jake in Progress-Like the Hasselhoff, Stamos is turning into somewhat of a novelty item on TV. Seeing him appear on screen is an event in and of itself. He earns my fondness because he's self-conscious of his negative association with the schlock of "Full House" and the fact that the last time he was the epitome of cool was 15 years ago.
Jacinda Barrett-Real World/D.C./Citizen Baines-Like A.J. Langer, I've seen her play the ditzy, free-spirited girl to great effect but she also can do more, I'm sure. Another one of those cases of a personal crush as well.
Jessalyn Ginsing-Boston Public/Prison Break/Heroes/Glee-Ginsing is great at grey areas. She was the sort-of-heroine of Boston Public and can play dramatic in Heroes or melodramatic as in Glee. She was the "hot"-but-tepid teacher on Boston Public and hasn't faded.
John Michael Higgins-Arrested Development/Raising the Bar/Kath and Kim/Community-Many actors from Christopher Guest's list of actors can be plugged into a sitcom with good results (fun fact: Jane Lynch was primarily known for her association with Guest before Glee). John Michael Higgins is one of those guys that is great in a lot of things. He's particularly good as dumb boorish figures who don't second guess themselves.
Judy Greer-Arrested Development/Miss Guided/Archer-Miss Guided convinced me that she can play a very likable lead in a Mary Tyler Moore mold. Come to think of it, a great great number of female TV leads are in the mold of Mary Tyler Moore.
Julia Sweeny-Saturday Night Live/Maybe It's Me/Frasier-Most famous for her androgynous character Pat on SNL, Julia Sweeny was actually one of the more underused actresses on SNL and one who tended to enhance a sketch more often then detract from it. She can be a good side character and I have no doubt she can make that character funny and/or interesting. Interesting tidbit: She beat out Friend's Lisa Kudrow for her Saturday Night Live spot.
Lori Loughlin-Full House/Hudson Street/Spin City/90210-In retrospect, I've discovered Full House was an awful show if you're over 12 years old. Tanner, Coulier and Stamos were all pretty corny but Lori Loughlin's acting still holds up suprisingly well.
Mark McKinney-Kids in the Hall/Saturday Night Live/Wanda at Large/Studio 60-Nostalgia for the 95-96 season of SNL will go a long way with me. McKinney is a funny guy who can also play a good straight man and blends in on comedies pretty easily.
Paula Marshall-Cupid, Snoops, Webber Show, Gary Unmarried-She's bounced around on more pilots and guest spots that I have room to list here and she's had a few roles that have given me somewhat of a crush on her. She's versatile and has some degree of sex appeal.
Rachel Bilson-The O.C./Chuck-How often is the rich and shallow girl who's been cruel to the hero his whole life been the girl you root for in a love triangle? That's what Rachel pulled off on the first season of The O.C. She's sassy, smart, can play young and she can convincingly be a vehicle for Juno-esque dialogue.
Rena Sofer-Saved by the Bell/Just Shoot Me/Coupling/Heroes/24-Her New York accent might have been much in Just Shoot Me, but for the most part, she's an actress who always seems to be the best part of the show she's in.
Rene Auberjonois-Star Trek DS9/Frasier/Boston Legal-I loved him in the Rob Altman movies as well as Star Trek and his penchant for good material is as good as his ability to make characters more complex than they look on paper.
Robyn Tuney-The Prisoner/The Mentalist-I'd be equally happy seeing her in movies. I think she might be more of a movie person, but there's no reason that I wouldn't be happy to see her on a TV show. She's shined even in small roles (i.e. Hollywoodland, The Mentalist)
Taylor Howard-Boston Common/Two Guys a Girl a Pizza Place/Monk-Howard played the Mary Tyler Moore-type in Boston Common and played one of the guys in Two Guys a Girl and a Pizza Place. In Monk, she generated a lot more chemistry with Tony Shaloub than Betty Schram in my opinion. Very competent
Terry Farrell-Star Trek: DS9/Becker-Perhaps the best and strongest female character of all the Star Treks (when two of the three females before her were a glorified secretary and a glorified school guidance counselor, there's not too much competition) in playing Dax on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Farrell comes across as self-assured and interesting.
Thomas Haden Church-Wings/Ned and Stacey-He's played the boor and the dumby pretty well. Since Sideways, I think he can return to TV and be more than that
Wendy Malick-Just Shoot Me/Frasier/Jake In Progress/Hot in Cleveland (short-lived)-It wasn't the lines on Just Shoot Me. It was her: She was a riot. Her melodramatic brand of desperate egotism made her one of the best characters on TV and she's been able to repeat that magic elsewhere. I can see her as an authoritative figure in charge as well.
Tony Shaloub-Wings/Stark Raving Mad/Monk-We've seen him as a scene stealer in one sitcom as well as a guy who can carry a show on his back.
Thomas McCarthy-Boston Public/The Wire-Most high school football coaches are supposed to be macho so I'm glad that McCarthy played the part against type on Boston Public.
Vanessa Marcil-General Hospital/Las Vegas-Playful and sexy, she delivers lines with tremendous assurence.
Vicki Lewis-News Radio/3 Sisters-In Newsradio's Beth, Lewis can lay claim to being the queen of all ditzy characters to ever appear on TV.
Will Forte-Clone High/Saturday Night Live/Sit Down Shut Up-The star of the McGruber movie, by now, has his own screen persona down. He's the confident yet clueless schlub. In voiceover work in Clone High and Sit Down Shut Up, he's been a riot.
Read my column: www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Thursday Night TV Review Part III: Office/30 Rock
Don't forget to check out my article on how relevant SNL alumni still are these days.
The Office:
While Jim and Pam are on their honeymoon, Michael gets entangled with the mafia (I think?) while the B-plot can best be described as a bunch of people want to bother Jim and Pam on their honeymoon in Puerto Rico.
I honestly was writing too much about Community while The Office was going on to be able to entirely absorb the plot but in the A-plot but here’s what I got: Michael gets the idea to write his own book and starts narrating (this would have been a better plot than what we were presented with); a large Italian man tries to sell Michael something, there’s some ambiguity over whether he’s in the mafia; Andy and Dwight attend a meeting in a restaurant with a large Italian guy; Andy is wearing a mechanic’s uniform and volunteers to repair the car of a woman and her son who mistakenly treat him as such; and the staff launches into a discussion over whether this guy is mafia or not based on his last name. At the end of the episode, Michael “stands up to the mob” although we don’t know if he’s in the mob or not.
The B-plot might have centered around Pam and Jim but it was made all the better by the fact that they were physically absent from the episode. For someone who thinks JAM is overused, it’s nice to get a much-needed break from Jim’s smirk for a week. On the downside, we have an overdose of Kevin who has often been criticized in going from adorably dense to full-on retarded in recent seasons. In a show that’s going for realism, Kevin sticks out like a sore thumb. In any case, Kevin commandeers Jim’s office while he’s on his honeymoon for reasons that definitely seem retarded to me. Things take a twist when Kevin accidentally causes Jim’s credit card to be voided (best scene in the episode). In the meantime, Jim is bothered by Michael because he needs bailing out when the whole mafia thing blows up and Oscar calls up Jim because he feels like the office is going to Hell without Jim’s presence. This all leads up to a fairly rewarding punch line. One major concern was that Jim has only been in charge for one week? Wasn’t he the office slacker a week ago? This characterization is getting a little rushed here.
My review of this week’s The Office doesn’t hold much water because of my distraction, but it seemed like this episode took rather unpromising ideas to run with.
B-
30 Rock started and ended off with a cute meta-awareness and in between a definite sense of improvement over a lackluster 3rd season. I agree with the AV Club’s review that the show got caught up in too many “Liz finds love” plots and too heavy of a reliance on guest stars. The Office had a comeback year last season by taking the relatively safe premise (of a regional manager who would always keep his job no matter how eccentric his ideas are) and turning it upside down.
Maybe what was wrong was that 30 Rock was getting too safe. We knew every one of Liz and Jack’s celebrity love interests wouldn’t last because we read in the Hollywood Reporter that Jon Hamm and Selma Hayek had limited episode contracts. Similarly, we know that Kenneth the Page will continue to be dumb but loyal. Jack teased us a couple times into thinking that someday Kenneth was going to amount to more than the sum of his parts and eventually take over Jack’s job. In this episode, Kenneth finally lives up to that billing as a capable foil to Jack Donaughy and that made him interesting for the first time since the poker game in Season 1.
Jack cuts overtime pay for his pages and gives himself a bonus instead. When Kenneth accidentally takes a peek at Jack’s paycheck, he becomes furious and stages a strike with the demand that Jack put down in writing that he lied. It’s a battle of wits between Jack’s hard line business savvy and Kenneth’s naïveté affability. The exact opposite ends of the human spectrum that these two characters inhabit has been capitalized upon a little (the episode where Jack puts Kenneth in an elevator with a literal reenactment of lifeboat ethics comes to mind) but the show has never literally pit the two characters against each other. It felt like this episode seemed like something that the show’s been leading up to forever. Things even get topical with a pseudo-debate between the two about the extremes of capitalism.
In the B-plot, Josh is leaving the cast and Jack orders Pete and Tina to find a replacement that reflects middle American values more. This raises the question of where the hell Josh has been for the past two seasons. He sort of disappeared and I don’t know if it does the show any good to call attention to how thin the show’s cast is anyway (it seems like there are only three characters on the show). This prompts Tracy and Jenna to get in touch with the common man more. The show gets plenty meta but it’s almost as if Tracy and Jenna are used almost entirely as a single meta-joke and it feels a little bit cheap. Still, there’s an inspired bit of lunacy that feels almost improvised as Tracy goes out into the middle of the striking crowd and tries not to act plebian.
There’s also a C-plot in which Liz and Pete have to keep the show’s new hire a secret so they do a really lame job of keeping their scouting trips to the comedy clubs a secret and the staff starts to suspect that they’ve had an affair. It all basically leads to a punchline that’s moderately worthwhile.
On the strength of the A-plot, I’m hoping that 30 Rock is en route to a better season.
A-
The Office:
While Jim and Pam are on their honeymoon, Michael gets entangled with the mafia (I think?) while the B-plot can best be described as a bunch of people want to bother Jim and Pam on their honeymoon in Puerto Rico.
I honestly was writing too much about Community while The Office was going on to be able to entirely absorb the plot but in the A-plot but here’s what I got: Michael gets the idea to write his own book and starts narrating (this would have been a better plot than what we were presented with); a large Italian man tries to sell Michael something, there’s some ambiguity over whether he’s in the mafia; Andy and Dwight attend a meeting in a restaurant with a large Italian guy; Andy is wearing a mechanic’s uniform and volunteers to repair the car of a woman and her son who mistakenly treat him as such; and the staff launches into a discussion over whether this guy is mafia or not based on his last name. At the end of the episode, Michael “stands up to the mob” although we don’t know if he’s in the mob or not.
The B-plot might have centered around Pam and Jim but it was made all the better by the fact that they were physically absent from the episode. For someone who thinks JAM is overused, it’s nice to get a much-needed break from Jim’s smirk for a week. On the downside, we have an overdose of Kevin who has often been criticized in going from adorably dense to full-on retarded in recent seasons. In a show that’s going for realism, Kevin sticks out like a sore thumb. In any case, Kevin commandeers Jim’s office while he’s on his honeymoon for reasons that definitely seem retarded to me. Things take a twist when Kevin accidentally causes Jim’s credit card to be voided (best scene in the episode). In the meantime, Jim is bothered by Michael because he needs bailing out when the whole mafia thing blows up and Oscar calls up Jim because he feels like the office is going to Hell without Jim’s presence. This all leads up to a fairly rewarding punch line. One major concern was that Jim has only been in charge for one week? Wasn’t he the office slacker a week ago? This characterization is getting a little rushed here.
My review of this week’s The Office doesn’t hold much water because of my distraction, but it seemed like this episode took rather unpromising ideas to run with.
B-
30 Rock started and ended off with a cute meta-awareness and in between a definite sense of improvement over a lackluster 3rd season. I agree with the AV Club’s review that the show got caught up in too many “Liz finds love” plots and too heavy of a reliance on guest stars. The Office had a comeback year last season by taking the relatively safe premise (of a regional manager who would always keep his job no matter how eccentric his ideas are) and turning it upside down.
Maybe what was wrong was that 30 Rock was getting too safe. We knew every one of Liz and Jack’s celebrity love interests wouldn’t last because we read in the Hollywood Reporter that Jon Hamm and Selma Hayek had limited episode contracts. Similarly, we know that Kenneth the Page will continue to be dumb but loyal. Jack teased us a couple times into thinking that someday Kenneth was going to amount to more than the sum of his parts and eventually take over Jack’s job. In this episode, Kenneth finally lives up to that billing as a capable foil to Jack Donaughy and that made him interesting for the first time since the poker game in Season 1.
Jack cuts overtime pay for his pages and gives himself a bonus instead. When Kenneth accidentally takes a peek at Jack’s paycheck, he becomes furious and stages a strike with the demand that Jack put down in writing that he lied. It’s a battle of wits between Jack’s hard line business savvy and Kenneth’s naïveté affability. The exact opposite ends of the human spectrum that these two characters inhabit has been capitalized upon a little (the episode where Jack puts Kenneth in an elevator with a literal reenactment of lifeboat ethics comes to mind) but the show has never literally pit the two characters against each other. It felt like this episode seemed like something that the show’s been leading up to forever. Things even get topical with a pseudo-debate between the two about the extremes of capitalism.
In the B-plot, Josh is leaving the cast and Jack orders Pete and Tina to find a replacement that reflects middle American values more. This raises the question of where the hell Josh has been for the past two seasons. He sort of disappeared and I don’t know if it does the show any good to call attention to how thin the show’s cast is anyway (it seems like there are only three characters on the show). This prompts Tracy and Jenna to get in touch with the common man more. The show gets plenty meta but it’s almost as if Tracy and Jenna are used almost entirely as a single meta-joke and it feels a little bit cheap. Still, there’s an inspired bit of lunacy that feels almost improvised as Tracy goes out into the middle of the striking crowd and tries not to act plebian.
There’s also a C-plot in which Liz and Pete have to keep the show’s new hire a secret so they do a really lame job of keeping their scouting trips to the comedy clubs a secret and the staff starts to suspect that they’ve had an affair. It all basically leads to a punchline that’s moderately worthwhile.
On the strength of the A-plot, I’m hoping that 30 Rock is en route to a better season.
A-
Thursday Night TV Review Part II: Parks and Recreation
An article: Borat is satire, Bruno is social harm
Parks and Rcereation:
This was the best episode of Parks and Recreation to date. Fred Armisen guest stars as a the head of the delegation of Pawnee’s Venezuelan sister city and he turns out to be surprisingly rude. He insults Leslie’s efforts to welcome him at every turn and he even appears so culturally abhorrent as to think that he can take any American women he wants as prostitutes. The episode basically takes his Ferecito character on Saturday Night Live and combines it with a little bit of Borat. Needless to say, I wonder how this will play in Venezuela. It’s not very original but it was innovative and it was funny and that alone makes this the best episode of Parks and Recreation to date.
Among the other pluses of this episode were:
1) The absence of the Anne-Mark romance as that has been the most chemistry-laden pairing I have ever seen in the history of television
2) A hilarious B-plot involving a Venezuelan intern being enamored with April who alternates between giving him flirtatious signals and acting bored to death of him. Aubrey Plaza takes the art of deadpan to new levels with her stoic emotional monotone and as far as strong supporting characters go, it’s hard to top her.
3) The show having a few key twists involving the brash Venezuelans apologizing and willing to make it up to Leslie with a major gift before it is revealed that they have ulterior motives. Both the show’s twists surprised me and neither took the easy way out.
The show was great and even approached levels of simultaneous humor and tension that The Office achieves. At the same time, I have to wonder if the show’s characters can produce this much wonderful humor on their own without the benefit of a guest star. Fred Armisen’s character highlighted the inherent humor in Leslie and, on a larger scale, the city of Pawnee’s situation because he serves as such a perfect foil to her inept sense of pride. Leslie is pretty abnormal and that’s where the humor is supposed to come from but
that humor is lost because there’s no contrast: Her ideas and mannerisms are largely accepted by those around her.
Bottom line: A great episode but doesn’t necessarily make me confident that the show will be equally as good next week.
Grade: A
Parks and Rcereation:
This was the best episode of Parks and Recreation to date. Fred Armisen guest stars as a the head of the delegation of Pawnee’s Venezuelan sister city and he turns out to be surprisingly rude. He insults Leslie’s efforts to welcome him at every turn and he even appears so culturally abhorrent as to think that he can take any American women he wants as prostitutes. The episode basically takes his Ferecito character on Saturday Night Live and combines it with a little bit of Borat. Needless to say, I wonder how this will play in Venezuela. It’s not very original but it was innovative and it was funny and that alone makes this the best episode of Parks and Recreation to date.
Among the other pluses of this episode were:
1) The absence of the Anne-Mark romance as that has been the most chemistry-laden pairing I have ever seen in the history of television
2) A hilarious B-plot involving a Venezuelan intern being enamored with April who alternates between giving him flirtatious signals and acting bored to death of him. Aubrey Plaza takes the art of deadpan to new levels with her stoic emotional monotone and as far as strong supporting characters go, it’s hard to top her.
3) The show having a few key twists involving the brash Venezuelans apologizing and willing to make it up to Leslie with a major gift before it is revealed that they have ulterior motives. Both the show’s twists surprised me and neither took the easy way out.
The show was great and even approached levels of simultaneous humor and tension that The Office achieves. At the same time, I have to wonder if the show’s characters can produce this much wonderful humor on their own without the benefit of a guest star. Fred Armisen’s character highlighted the inherent humor in Leslie and, on a larger scale, the city of Pawnee’s situation because he serves as such a perfect foil to her inept sense of pride. Leslie is pretty abnormal and that’s where the humor is supposed to come from but
that humor is lost because there’s no contrast: Her ideas and mannerisms are largely accepted by those around her.
Bottom line: A great episode but doesn’t necessarily make me confident that the show will be equally as good next week.
Grade: A
Thursday Night TV Review-Part I: Community
About 3 years ago, I reviewed NBC's Thursday night block in its entirety. Recently inspired by the AV Club's reviews of single TV episodes, I thought I'd do the same thing:
I have no idea if the AV club is hiring, but note to you guys, consider this my application:
Community:
This week, Britta cheats on a Spanish test and Jeff continues his quest to win her favor by defending her before the honor council. Despite Jeff being an a—hole (or maybe because of it), his romantic pairing with Britta is one of the most endearing romances on television simply because of the very reason he stated so succinctly towards the end of the episode: His motivation with her is about more than just sex, because if it was just about sex he wouldn’t be going through all this crap to be friends with her. In an effort to develop the outer edges of their ensemble instead of hiring more guest stars, Community uses the three faculty members on the show (Tony Jeung, Jim Rash, and Jon Oliver) as the honor council and they provide some of the episode’s best moments.
The two b-plots are pretty much throwaways: Annie relies on Pierce to write the school song and he lets her down while Abed tries a little too hard to play a prank on Troy. The last two Abed subplots remind me of those plots on Star Trek where Data tries to answer the question of what it means to be human. That’s how disconnected from the world around him Abed is.
I’m somewhat tough on this show because while it has some characters with potential and moments of humor, its attempts at combining the cynical musings of smart-aleck Joel McHale with genuine heartfelt moments of togetherness fall short. Joel McHale’s rambling diatribe in the pilot about pencils, sharks, and Ben Affleck made me cringe and both attempts to infuse the show with the broken-souls-in-need-of-a-second-chance theme fell equally flat: Annie’s pep talk to Pierce to keep him from giving up on writing a song and Jeff’s ludicrous appeal that while Britta violated the honor code, it’s in the school’s interest to keep her.
Fortunately, both those corny moments were redeemed by comedic mishaps: The song Pierce ends up writing was stolen from Bruce Hornsby and Jeff’s speech allows Jon Oliver’s Dean to make a power play on Britta (under her punishment she must undergo counseling with him once a week).
Grade: B+
Also, check out this latest article I wrote at the Examiner (17 Actors overdue for a nomination)
I have no idea if the AV club is hiring, but note to you guys, consider this my application:
Community:
This week, Britta cheats on a Spanish test and Jeff continues his quest to win her favor by defending her before the honor council. Despite Jeff being an a—hole (or maybe because of it), his romantic pairing with Britta is one of the most endearing romances on television simply because of the very reason he stated so succinctly towards the end of the episode: His motivation with her is about more than just sex, because if it was just about sex he wouldn’t be going through all this crap to be friends with her. In an effort to develop the outer edges of their ensemble instead of hiring more guest stars, Community uses the three faculty members on the show (Tony Jeung, Jim Rash, and Jon Oliver) as the honor council and they provide some of the episode’s best moments.
The two b-plots are pretty much throwaways: Annie relies on Pierce to write the school song and he lets her down while Abed tries a little too hard to play a prank on Troy. The last two Abed subplots remind me of those plots on Star Trek where Data tries to answer the question of what it means to be human. That’s how disconnected from the world around him Abed is.
I’m somewhat tough on this show because while it has some characters with potential and moments of humor, its attempts at combining the cynical musings of smart-aleck Joel McHale with genuine heartfelt moments of togetherness fall short. Joel McHale’s rambling diatribe in the pilot about pencils, sharks, and Ben Affleck made me cringe and both attempts to infuse the show with the broken-souls-in-need-of-a-second-chance theme fell equally flat: Annie’s pep talk to Pierce to keep him from giving up on writing a song and Jeff’s ludicrous appeal that while Britta violated the honor code, it’s in the school’s interest to keep her.
Fortunately, both those corny moments were redeemed by comedic mishaps: The song Pierce ends up writing was stolen from Bruce Hornsby and Jeff’s speech allows Jon Oliver’s Dean to make a power play on Britta (under her punishment she must undergo counseling with him once a week).
Grade: B+
Also, check out this latest article I wrote at the Examiner (17 Actors overdue for a nomination)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
My take on the season's new shows
My take on various TV shows presented through Helium
Cougartown, ABC-The show is clearly oriented towards a female audience in the same way Desperate Housewives or Grey's Anatomy is, but it's surprisingly watchable to both genders. It's more about a woman going through a midlife crisis than it is "Sex and the City" with a teenage son. Courtney Cox does imbue the character with a sort of sincere desperation that puts her on just the right side of endearing.
My verdict: I'll watch it if I catch it on TV
Community, NBC-The idea of a setting of community college is a winner and the cast as pretty amicable. I like the characters of Annie, Abed, the Spanish teacher and Britta already. That being said, some are hailing this as a show that is a genuinely finished product when the show still needs a lot of fine tuning to find its groove. Attempts at sedimentality have been cringe-inducingly akward so far.
My verdict: I watch it weekly but am willing to unceremoniously drop the show if it doesn't iron out its kinks
Glee, FOX-I love this show. I had an attraction to Popular as well ten years ago which was created by the same guy so I had an expectation that we'd be taken into a world of strange extremes: rigidly defined high school stereotypes contrasted with very relatable relationships between people. The show certainly has a unique style and the musical numbers are fun. I don't buy that it's a parody so much as just a tonally different version of High School Musical. The show takes its musical numbers too seriously to be called a parody.
My verdict: Watch it weekly
Castle, ABC-Nathan Fillion just strikes me as a poor man's Jason Bateman. He looks matine-idol-like enough that if you put him on the bridge of a spaceship like in Firefly, then he's pleasant enough, but I'm not that big of a fan of him. In Castle, he's a bit smarmy. There are a number of shows featuring some duo of detectives, thieves (the show with Melissa George and John Stamos), or hostage negotiatiors (that show with Ron Livingston) with sexual chemistry but I give this show credit for not jamming these two people together in circumstances that are hard to buy. It seems that the two are genuinely stuck with each other and only one of them likes it, which is a good formula for keeping the dynamic interesting.
My verdict: Arguably worth watching. Deserves a couple more episodes
Modern Family, ABC-Some are hailing this as the great new comedy of the season and like Community, it's not fully formed enough for anyone to really make that call yet. It's use of the single camera mockumentary format detracts from the show, as far as I'm concerned. Just because the Office uses a mockumentary style and it's a great show doesn't mean that it works for everything. In this case, the humor isn't effective enough for us to laugh without some kind of cue (Malcolm in the Middle, Arrested Development, Srubs, My Name is Earl and 30 Rock, for example have musical cues which cue us in). The combination of a gay couple, a traditional 3-children household, and a patriarch who married a Columbian half his age and takes on her son from another marriage (I'm sure that was a run-on sentence) is still a pretty good set-up and that's what makes the show work well. Some people are saying that Ty Burrell is the breakout character as the dad who tries too hard to be cool, but my favorite Sofia Vergara as the saucy Latina.
My verdict: Not the centerpiece of my TV viewing schedule, but I'll watch it. Deserves time to see where it goes, at least.
Flashfoward, ABC-This sounded like an intriguing show but too many cop cliches kept me from getting too interested in it. After seeing so many cop shows, seeing anyone act remotely like Dennis Franz is enough to get you to tune out. This isn't a cop show, but an example of breaking cliches to make a show interesting would be Dennis Leary's Rescue Me where the firemen are heroic but also pretty vulgar.
My verdict: Didn't even make it to end of episode 1
The Jay Leno Show, NBC-As many others have pointed out, putting Jay Leno on at 10 pm pretty much strips NBC of any integrity that they believe that they can deliver us a good product. It was pretty much a cost-cutting movie and it's like watching monkeys in a cage to see the network execs try to pass this off as a bold creative move that they can be proud of. The only thing to mildly be excited about is that D.L. Hughley and a couple other intriguing personalities are added as correspondents, but NBC is basically throwing in the towel at this point.
My verdict: Depending on who's the guest and if nothing else is on TV, I probably still wouldn't watch it, but maybe if I really have to watch TV
The Good Wife, CBS-I'm trying to figure out as I watch this if lawyer shows are intended only for a certain subset of the population (i.e. people who've been to law school) or if the drama is captivating enough for everyone. There's a lot of dark music to indicate this is supposed to be gripping, but I'm not feeling it. The other angle about the disgraced politician's wife, however, is plenty juicy. The show is basically about Elizabeth Edwards, Silda Spitzer or Jenny Sanford and appropriately starts off with a press conference where the political figure is apologizing while the wife "stands" by his side. As they're walking down the hall on the way out, she slaps him. Now we're talking! A little bit later the daughter asks mommy, "I just read that daddy slept with a prostitute my age. Is this true?" This is the juicy stuff but the show doesn't seem as interested in all that as it does about being a generic lawyer show about a tough woman. I can see how a weekly series that takes the tone of a Douglas Sirk melodrama might really become a drag, but that's the show's most relevant and pressing angle.
Final verdict: Don't see promise
Cleveland Show, FOX-(a bit of a longer review than I originally intended on)
On Family Guy, Cleveland Brown has never served much purpose besides being a token black character as far as I've been concerned. Obviously, Mike Henry disagrees. Henry is the white actor who voices Cleveland and when he talks about his excitement for centering a spinoff around the Cleveland character, it seems apparent how proud he is of his own creation. What exactly Cleveland's unique mannerisms are, beyond being a little timid, that make him worth watching, I'm not sure. He's certainly never been a great source of humor.
Fortunately, there are some unique characters in the background: Cleveland's son, Cleveland Jr. is an incredibly sympathetic figure because he's probably one of the most hopeless characters on television (chubby, little ambition, so eager to please that he's willing to find his niche as a bathroom attendant), his biological son Rollando is someone I could see myself liking more than Stewie (he's a smack-talking kindergartener who might be described as street-smart in the same way Stewie's book-smart), and a rebellious teenage daughter who's more assertive than Lisa Simpson or Meg (might not be up there with American Dad's Hailey). The wife, Donna, is the heart of the show. The show advertises itself as the sappier and more heartwarming spinoff of Family Guy and there's just a little bit of that gooey feeling to be found within the story of Cleveland and Donna being reunited as a married couple.
Cleveland and his three neighbors (two white guys of various socio-economic levels and an animatronic bear) form a social group that's almost a virtual clone of the quartet that drinks at Quahog's Drunken Clam which wasn't a good idea if the show wanted to set itself apart. The bear is nowhere near as funny as Roger the alien, Klauss the fish or Brian, the dog.
The setting and the fact that this will be a fairly faithful take on the black sitcom (as faithful as white writers can be) might also be seen as a plus or a minus
Final verdict: Worth watching to see where it goes. Watching 3 Seth MacFarlane shows in one night is a bit overkill, but if I'm not feeling the American Dad or Family Guy episodes, I'll tune into this
Cougartown, ABC-The show is clearly oriented towards a female audience in the same way Desperate Housewives or Grey's Anatomy is, but it's surprisingly watchable to both genders. It's more about a woman going through a midlife crisis than it is "Sex and the City" with a teenage son. Courtney Cox does imbue the character with a sort of sincere desperation that puts her on just the right side of endearing.
My verdict: I'll watch it if I catch it on TV
Community, NBC-The idea of a setting of community college is a winner and the cast as pretty amicable. I like the characters of Annie, Abed, the Spanish teacher and Britta already. That being said, some are hailing this as a show that is a genuinely finished product when the show still needs a lot of fine tuning to find its groove. Attempts at sedimentality have been cringe-inducingly akward so far.
My verdict: I watch it weekly but am willing to unceremoniously drop the show if it doesn't iron out its kinks
Glee, FOX-I love this show. I had an attraction to Popular as well ten years ago which was created by the same guy so I had an expectation that we'd be taken into a world of strange extremes: rigidly defined high school stereotypes contrasted with very relatable relationships between people. The show certainly has a unique style and the musical numbers are fun. I don't buy that it's a parody so much as just a tonally different version of High School Musical. The show takes its musical numbers too seriously to be called a parody.
My verdict: Watch it weekly
Castle, ABC-Nathan Fillion just strikes me as a poor man's Jason Bateman. He looks matine-idol-like enough that if you put him on the bridge of a spaceship like in Firefly, then he's pleasant enough, but I'm not that big of a fan of him. In Castle, he's a bit smarmy. There are a number of shows featuring some duo of detectives, thieves (the show with Melissa George and John Stamos), or hostage negotiatiors (that show with Ron Livingston) with sexual chemistry but I give this show credit for not jamming these two people together in circumstances that are hard to buy. It seems that the two are genuinely stuck with each other and only one of them likes it, which is a good formula for keeping the dynamic interesting.
My verdict: Arguably worth watching. Deserves a couple more episodes
Modern Family, ABC-Some are hailing this as the great new comedy of the season and like Community, it's not fully formed enough for anyone to really make that call yet. It's use of the single camera mockumentary format detracts from the show, as far as I'm concerned. Just because the Office uses a mockumentary style and it's a great show doesn't mean that it works for everything. In this case, the humor isn't effective enough for us to laugh without some kind of cue (Malcolm in the Middle, Arrested Development, Srubs, My Name is Earl and 30 Rock, for example have musical cues which cue us in). The combination of a gay couple, a traditional 3-children household, and a patriarch who married a Columbian half his age and takes on her son from another marriage (I'm sure that was a run-on sentence) is still a pretty good set-up and that's what makes the show work well. Some people are saying that Ty Burrell is the breakout character as the dad who tries too hard to be cool, but my favorite Sofia Vergara as the saucy Latina.
My verdict: Not the centerpiece of my TV viewing schedule, but I'll watch it. Deserves time to see where it goes, at least.
Flashfoward, ABC-This sounded like an intriguing show but too many cop cliches kept me from getting too interested in it. After seeing so many cop shows, seeing anyone act remotely like Dennis Franz is enough to get you to tune out. This isn't a cop show, but an example of breaking cliches to make a show interesting would be Dennis Leary's Rescue Me where the firemen are heroic but also pretty vulgar.
My verdict: Didn't even make it to end of episode 1
The Jay Leno Show, NBC-As many others have pointed out, putting Jay Leno on at 10 pm pretty much strips NBC of any integrity that they believe that they can deliver us a good product. It was pretty much a cost-cutting movie and it's like watching monkeys in a cage to see the network execs try to pass this off as a bold creative move that they can be proud of. The only thing to mildly be excited about is that D.L. Hughley and a couple other intriguing personalities are added as correspondents, but NBC is basically throwing in the towel at this point.
My verdict: Depending on who's the guest and if nothing else is on TV, I probably still wouldn't watch it, but maybe if I really have to watch TV
The Good Wife, CBS-I'm trying to figure out as I watch this if lawyer shows are intended only for a certain subset of the population (i.e. people who've been to law school) or if the drama is captivating enough for everyone. There's a lot of dark music to indicate this is supposed to be gripping, but I'm not feeling it. The other angle about the disgraced politician's wife, however, is plenty juicy. The show is basically about Elizabeth Edwards, Silda Spitzer or Jenny Sanford and appropriately starts off with a press conference where the political figure is apologizing while the wife "stands" by his side. As they're walking down the hall on the way out, she slaps him. Now we're talking! A little bit later the daughter asks mommy, "I just read that daddy slept with a prostitute my age. Is this true?" This is the juicy stuff but the show doesn't seem as interested in all that as it does about being a generic lawyer show about a tough woman. I can see how a weekly series that takes the tone of a Douglas Sirk melodrama might really become a drag, but that's the show's most relevant and pressing angle.
Final verdict: Don't see promise
Cleveland Show, FOX-(a bit of a longer review than I originally intended on)
On Family Guy, Cleveland Brown has never served much purpose besides being a token black character as far as I've been concerned. Obviously, Mike Henry disagrees. Henry is the white actor who voices Cleveland and when he talks about his excitement for centering a spinoff around the Cleveland character, it seems apparent how proud he is of his own creation. What exactly Cleveland's unique mannerisms are, beyond being a little timid, that make him worth watching, I'm not sure. He's certainly never been a great source of humor.
Fortunately, there are some unique characters in the background: Cleveland's son, Cleveland Jr. is an incredibly sympathetic figure because he's probably one of the most hopeless characters on television (chubby, little ambition, so eager to please that he's willing to find his niche as a bathroom attendant), his biological son Rollando is someone I could see myself liking more than Stewie (he's a smack-talking kindergartener who might be described as street-smart in the same way Stewie's book-smart), and a rebellious teenage daughter who's more assertive than Lisa Simpson or Meg (might not be up there with American Dad's Hailey). The wife, Donna, is the heart of the show. The show advertises itself as the sappier and more heartwarming spinoff of Family Guy and there's just a little bit of that gooey feeling to be found within the story of Cleveland and Donna being reunited as a married couple.
Cleveland and his three neighbors (two white guys of various socio-economic levels and an animatronic bear) form a social group that's almost a virtual clone of the quartet that drinks at Quahog's Drunken Clam which wasn't a good idea if the show wanted to set itself apart. The bear is nowhere near as funny as Roger the alien, Klauss the fish or Brian, the dog.
The setting and the fact that this will be a fairly faithful take on the black sitcom (as faithful as white writers can be) might also be seen as a plus or a minus
Final verdict: Worth watching to see where it goes. Watching 3 Seth MacFarlane shows in one night is a bit overkill, but if I'm not feeling the American Dad or Family Guy episodes, I'll tune into this
SNL has been mismanaging comedic talent for a while now
As usual, here's an article from helium to click on about the Roman Polanski scandal:
http://www.helium.com/items/1606694-samantha-geiner-should-roman-polanski-be-extradited-sex-crimes-roman-polanski-victims-rights
Except Will Ferrell, Lorne Michaels hasn't actually been doing that well with SNL talent post-1996 except for 3 women: Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey. Amy would never have gotten off the ground as a comedic star if she didn't have the chance to get her name out there for 8 seasons.
It seems like the big movie stars of comedy are coming up through being friends with Ben Stiller/being in frat pack movies, comedy central (daily show, stand-up specials, comedy central original shows), arrested development and The Office. SNL alum since the bad boys age of SNL have been largely unsuccessful in films (i.e. Colin Quinn, Norm McDonald, Chris Kattan, Tim Meadows, Molly Shannon, Cheri Oteri, Ana Gastayer, Jim Bruer, Horatio Sanz, Chris Parnell, even Jimmy Fallon is bombing in Conan's old slot).
Look at who's populating comedies these days:
-Zach Galinfakas (was in a Comedy Central show: Dog Bites Man)
-Rob Riggle was in Kicking and Screaming, Step Brothers, etc. (went from being fired on SNL to the Daily Show)
-From the Office: Mindy Kailing (License to Wed, Night at the Museum), Craig Robinson (Knocked Up, Zach and Miri, Pineapple Express), BJ Novak (Knocked Up), Jim Krasinski (Leatherheads, License to Wed, that Sam Mendes film), Jenna Fischer (Blades of Glory), Rainn Wilson (Juno, My Super Ex Girlfriend, Last Mimsy)
-From Freaks and Geeks: Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, James Franco
-From Arrested Development: Portsia de Rossi (Better off Ted), Jason Bateman (The Break-Up, Mr Magoo, Smoking Aces, Hancock, Juno, etc etc etc), Will Arnett (Blades of Glory, Brothers Solomon, 30 Rock), Tony Hale (Andy Richter's sitcom, Control, Stranger than Fiction)
-Demitri Martin-Comedy Central stand-up mainstray to Daily Show to own show to Ang Lee film
-Jack McBrayer from 30 Rock (Talladega Nights, Walking Hard)
I think they talk about SNL is a show of strong women but it's really only a show of women. The men on the show are second rate, perhaps. Also, with regard to the Casey Wilson/Michaela firing, Lorne does realize that Amy is only popular today because she shined on SNL for like a million years. There's no way that Michaela is gonna acheive any fame like that in half a season. It's harder for women to get noticed anyways in comedy.
http://www.helium.com/items/1606694-samantha-geiner-should-roman-polanski-be-extradited-sex-crimes-roman-polanski-victims-rights
Except Will Ferrell, Lorne Michaels hasn't actually been doing that well with SNL talent post-1996 except for 3 women: Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey. Amy would never have gotten off the ground as a comedic star if she didn't have the chance to get her name out there for 8 seasons.
It seems like the big movie stars of comedy are coming up through being friends with Ben Stiller/being in frat pack movies, comedy central (daily show, stand-up specials, comedy central original shows), arrested development and The Office. SNL alum since the bad boys age of SNL have been largely unsuccessful in films (i.e. Colin Quinn, Norm McDonald, Chris Kattan, Tim Meadows, Molly Shannon, Cheri Oteri, Ana Gastayer, Jim Bruer, Horatio Sanz, Chris Parnell, even Jimmy Fallon is bombing in Conan's old slot).
Look at who's populating comedies these days:
-Zach Galinfakas (was in a Comedy Central show: Dog Bites Man)
-Rob Riggle was in Kicking and Screaming, Step Brothers, etc. (went from being fired on SNL to the Daily Show)
-From the Office: Mindy Kailing (License to Wed, Night at the Museum), Craig Robinson (Knocked Up, Zach and Miri, Pineapple Express), BJ Novak (Knocked Up), Jim Krasinski (Leatherheads, License to Wed, that Sam Mendes film), Jenna Fischer (Blades of Glory), Rainn Wilson (Juno, My Super Ex Girlfriend, Last Mimsy)
-From Freaks and Geeks: Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, James Franco
-From Arrested Development: Portsia de Rossi (Better off Ted), Jason Bateman (The Break-Up, Mr Magoo, Smoking Aces, Hancock, Juno, etc etc etc), Will Arnett (Blades of Glory, Brothers Solomon, 30 Rock), Tony Hale (Andy Richter's sitcom, Control, Stranger than Fiction)
-Demitri Martin-Comedy Central stand-up mainstray to Daily Show to own show to Ang Lee film
-Jack McBrayer from 30 Rock (Talladega Nights, Walking Hard)
I think they talk about SNL is a show of strong women but it's really only a show of women. The men on the show are second rate, perhaps. Also, with regard to the Casey Wilson/Michaela firing, Lorne does realize that Amy is only popular today because she shined on SNL for like a million years. There's no way that Michaela is gonna acheive any fame like that in half a season. It's harder for women to get noticed anyways in comedy.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
More thoughts on My Name is Earl damaging NBC
Again, please click on this link, because articles written for helium is where I get my revenue:
http://www.helium.com/items/1318751-the-hollywood-summer-blockbuster-formula
Click on the name and move around a little bit.
I’m not sure what NBC was thinking when they scrapped My Name is Earl in favor of having a line-up of Community, Parks and Rereation, The Office and 30 Rock.
The Office, 30 Rock, and My Name is Earl are all successes with built-in audiences. The My Name is Earl numbers might have been less strong but the show still had an audience. The president at NBC reportedly had difficult calls to make on Chuck and My Name is Earl and Chuck won him over because fans had a strong write-in campaign. They apparently mailed him Subway sandwiches. That’s the way to run a network?!
My first complaint is why are TV networks so oblivious to everything but Nielsen ratings? Just look up TV guide or Entertainment Weekly and see how often people are writing praises for My Name is Earl as opposed to a show like Yes, Dear or Two and a Half Men. Go to tv.com and imdb.com and see how many people have posted votes or reviews on a series like My Name is Earl. See how active the message boards are. Talk to people. See how many fans of these shows exist on facebook. Look at Q ratings. Look at the volume of My Name is Earl-related twitter messages. Look at traffic on your site. Look at itunes sales and hulu sales. There are so many ready-made substitutes to Nielsen that a network can sell advertisers on. The fact that the network presidents are only looking at Nielsen ratings makes me annoyed at how oblivious to culture they are. It's also worth noting that Nielsen ratings have been thought to be statistically insignificant and are even more faulty in the digital age as people have more options for skipping commercials.
The NBC President’s decision only shows that Chuck has fans were more successful at mobilizing themselves. Chuck fans were a niche group who were strongly devoted to that show, but steady My Name is Earl watchers are more numerous I believe. Judging by the angry responses, I believe they existed as well.
Lastly, My Name is Earl was more important than Chuck because just think how good it would be for NBC to have a solid Thursday night line-up. Remember the days of Must See TV? How many years has NBC actually had 4 good sitcoms in a row and how excited were we as sitcom viewers to stay glued to our TV screens for two whole hours during those years? Remember those disastrous 8:30 shows like Union Station, Single Guy, Jesse, and that animated one King of the Pride? The brief My Name is Earl, Scrubs, Office and 30 Rock was one of the only years in my memory where that two hour block was solid. Scrubs moved networks and Parks and Recreation was worth a shot so the 2 hours were still pretty intact but most people agree that Parks and Recreation has a lot of kinks to rough out for the second season to be watchable.
Community is pretty promising but it could easily not live up to expectations either.
My bet? One of these two shows will bomb and the end result is that you’re only gonna have one and a half hours of comic gold to work with. Then My Name is Earl is going to be sitting there looking like a pretty attractive option. But, oh wait, you cancelled My Name is Earl and the actors have signed contracts for other things. Won’t you be kicking yourself when that happens?
The annoying thing: I’m not running a TV network but I can easily run it better than someone running a TV network because I see the same thing happening every year. In the meantime, I have to live with the decisions made by incompetent TV network execs.
http://www.helium.com/items/1318751-the-hollywood-summer-blockbuster-formula
Click on the name and move around a little bit.
I’m not sure what NBC was thinking when they scrapped My Name is Earl in favor of having a line-up of Community, Parks and Rereation, The Office and 30 Rock.
The Office, 30 Rock, and My Name is Earl are all successes with built-in audiences. The My Name is Earl numbers might have been less strong but the show still had an audience. The president at NBC reportedly had difficult calls to make on Chuck and My Name is Earl and Chuck won him over because fans had a strong write-in campaign. They apparently mailed him Subway sandwiches. That’s the way to run a network?!
My first complaint is why are TV networks so oblivious to everything but Nielsen ratings? Just look up TV guide or Entertainment Weekly and see how often people are writing praises for My Name is Earl as opposed to a show like Yes, Dear or Two and a Half Men. Go to tv.com and imdb.com and see how many people have posted votes or reviews on a series like My Name is Earl. See how active the message boards are. Talk to people. See how many fans of these shows exist on facebook. Look at Q ratings. Look at the volume of My Name is Earl-related twitter messages. Look at traffic on your site. Look at itunes sales and hulu sales. There are so many ready-made substitutes to Nielsen that a network can sell advertisers on. The fact that the network presidents are only looking at Nielsen ratings makes me annoyed at how oblivious to culture they are. It's also worth noting that Nielsen ratings have been thought to be statistically insignificant and are even more faulty in the digital age as people have more options for skipping commercials.
The NBC President’s decision only shows that Chuck has fans were more successful at mobilizing themselves. Chuck fans were a niche group who were strongly devoted to that show, but steady My Name is Earl watchers are more numerous I believe. Judging by the angry responses, I believe they existed as well.
Lastly, My Name is Earl was more important than Chuck because just think how good it would be for NBC to have a solid Thursday night line-up. Remember the days of Must See TV? How many years has NBC actually had 4 good sitcoms in a row and how excited were we as sitcom viewers to stay glued to our TV screens for two whole hours during those years? Remember those disastrous 8:30 shows like Union Station, Single Guy, Jesse, and that animated one King of the Pride? The brief My Name is Earl, Scrubs, Office and 30 Rock was one of the only years in my memory where that two hour block was solid. Scrubs moved networks and Parks and Recreation was worth a shot so the 2 hours were still pretty intact but most people agree that Parks and Recreation has a lot of kinks to rough out for the second season to be watchable.
Community is pretty promising but it could easily not live up to expectations either.
My bet? One of these two shows will bomb and the end result is that you’re only gonna have one and a half hours of comic gold to work with. Then My Name is Earl is going to be sitting there looking like a pretty attractive option. But, oh wait, you cancelled My Name is Earl and the actors have signed contracts for other things. Won’t you be kicking yourself when that happens?
The annoying thing: I’m not running a TV network but I can easily run it better than someone running a TV network because I see the same thing happening every year. In the meantime, I have to live with the decisions made by incompetent TV network execs.
Friday, August 21, 2009
With TV, you are not the customer and art is math
I love TV but the people who are running TV stations really annoy me.
A very high proportion of the shows that I like get canceled too early. Rather than being angry at what gets canceled too early, we can try to appreciate the fact that some shows lasted as long as they did. The fact that relative to other shows, Arrested Development, My Name is Earl, News Radio, Boston Public, 8 Simple Rules, Joan of Arcadia and Pushing Daisies lasted multiple seasons is great news to me. That shows like Aliens in America and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip got full season pickups is good as well. In absolute best-case scenarios, Family Guy and Futurama returning gives me hope for a better tomorrow (Futurama, in particular).
The problem is I have to look at the downside here. These shows get canceled too early. It's not something I think I can let slide until I realize that there's virtually nothing I can do, so I begrudgingly find new shows to get and just hope that they don't suffer the same fate.
Why do I feel so powerless? Is the same case as in the movies? No, it’s actually not.
In movies, the consumer pays directly for the content and the value of that content is measured very accurately. Studios and the Hollywood industry on the whole can very easily trace how many people are viewing the content through box office receipts.
In TV, they are beholden to advertisers who look at one thing only: ratings. Since the number of people watching the show is only affected through Nielsen ratings, there's nothing that I can do about it if I don't have a box. I feel powerless in that regard. At the same time, the advertisers miss a lot of things by only looking at ratings:
1) Cultural appeal/Name Recognition: Star Trek was cancelled after only three seasons but it became a cultural phenomenon and a recognizable name brand. After it became popular enough, Star Trek standed to benefit on merchandise sales, tickets to conventions, the potential for more movies. If you're show is well-known and loved by people and it's not showing in the ratings, there are other ways to make money off the show.
2) Syndication potential: My Name is Earl got cancelled just before the 100 episode mark. At two seasons, a show like Sports Night really has very little to offer in terms of syndication even though fans could grow to appreciate it. Syndications is where shows would make the most money and if the show is quality television, there is no reason for a network to pass up on the show's syndication potential and no reason for people not to watch it.
3) An enthusiastic fan base-Josh Wheedon's Firefly and Bryan Fuller's Pushing Daisies both were low in the ratings but had a group of hardcore fans who would follow the show enthusiastically. In the digital age and in Web 2.0, the ad revenue to be made off of online networking alone should have been significant enough for the network to realize the potential in connecting to that core fan base (especially in the latter case since Firefly predates Web 2.0). Instead, the networks alienated them by cancelling the show. Another good thing about an enthusiastic fan base is that they'll keep spreading the word about the show to others, so odds are the ratings will go up.
4) Critical Success-Arrested Development got cancelled even though it won the Emmy for best comedy. Movie studios are willing to go in the red on Oscar-winning films because it gives them more positive attention and helps give a boost to all their other shows. Why don't TV studios work the same way? I believe this is because everybody knows where NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox are on the dial so they don't need more attention. Upon closer examination, it seems like cable networks work hard to get their shows shows critical recognition and stick with them when they do so. Cable, in fact, is a better creative breeding ground these days.
Why doesn't it work for TV shows if it works for networks with the Oscars?
critical success, name recognition, fan base.
A very high proportion of the shows that I like get canceled too early. Rather than being angry at what gets canceled too early, we can try to appreciate the fact that some shows lasted as long as they did. The fact that relative to other shows, Arrested Development, My Name is Earl, News Radio, Boston Public, 8 Simple Rules, Joan of Arcadia and Pushing Daisies lasted multiple seasons is great news to me. That shows like Aliens in America and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip got full season pickups is good as well. In absolute best-case scenarios, Family Guy and Futurama returning gives me hope for a better tomorrow (Futurama, in particular).
The problem is I have to look at the downside here. These shows get canceled too early. It's not something I think I can let slide until I realize that there's virtually nothing I can do, so I begrudgingly find new shows to get and just hope that they don't suffer the same fate.
Why do I feel so powerless? Is the same case as in the movies? No, it’s actually not.
In movies, the consumer pays directly for the content and the value of that content is measured very accurately. Studios and the Hollywood industry on the whole can very easily trace how many people are viewing the content through box office receipts.
In TV, they are beholden to advertisers who look at one thing only: ratings. Since the number of people watching the show is only affected through Nielsen ratings, there's nothing that I can do about it if I don't have a box. I feel powerless in that regard. At the same time, the advertisers miss a lot of things by only looking at ratings:
1) Cultural appeal/Name Recognition: Star Trek was cancelled after only three seasons but it became a cultural phenomenon and a recognizable name brand. After it became popular enough, Star Trek standed to benefit on merchandise sales, tickets to conventions, the potential for more movies. If you're show is well-known and loved by people and it's not showing in the ratings, there are other ways to make money off the show.
2) Syndication potential: My Name is Earl got cancelled just before the 100 episode mark. At two seasons, a show like Sports Night really has very little to offer in terms of syndication even though fans could grow to appreciate it. Syndications is where shows would make the most money and if the show is quality television, there is no reason for a network to pass up on the show's syndication potential and no reason for people not to watch it.
3) An enthusiastic fan base-Josh Wheedon's Firefly and Bryan Fuller's Pushing Daisies both were low in the ratings but had a group of hardcore fans who would follow the show enthusiastically. In the digital age and in Web 2.0, the ad revenue to be made off of online networking alone should have been significant enough for the network to realize the potential in connecting to that core fan base (especially in the latter case since Firefly predates Web 2.0). Instead, the networks alienated them by cancelling the show. Another good thing about an enthusiastic fan base is that they'll keep spreading the word about the show to others, so odds are the ratings will go up.
4) Critical Success-Arrested Development got cancelled even though it won the Emmy for best comedy. Movie studios are willing to go in the red on Oscar-winning films because it gives them more positive attention and helps give a boost to all their other shows. Why don't TV studios work the same way? I believe this is because everybody knows where NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox are on the dial so they don't need more attention. Upon closer examination, it seems like cable networks work hard to get their shows shows critical recognition and stick with them when they do so. Cable, in fact, is a better creative breeding ground these days.
Why doesn't it work for TV shows if it works for networks with the Oscars?
critical success, name recognition, fan base.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Review of the TV year:Part 1
It's mid-summer and it's now time to review the year that was in TV. The two greatest tragedies were the cancellation of My Name is Earl and Pushing Daisies. I am greatly disturbed by the state of TV when I think of how powerless I am to change these things. Here is a list of some of the shows I followed this past year (more will be covered soon):
Sit Down, Shut Up- An animated comedy about incompetent teachers at a flailing school that really has very little to do about teaching at all. It’s made by the Arrested Development guy and stars such big names as Will Arnett, Jason Bateman, Kristen Chenowith, Keenan Thompson, Will Forte, Cheri Oteri, Henry Winkler and Nick Kroll. The expectations were high to live up to and that brought a lot of disappointment and I can see both sides of it. The show got a little bit too meta too early in its run. In the 4th episode and last before leaving the remaining 9 episodes of the season (and most likely the series) in limbo, there were no less than three or four self-referential gags going on: characters kept trying to consciously match themselves to 80’s archetypes, characters alluded to how they had few adventures before episode one, and Miracle was self-conscious about being nothing more than a plot device fueling the rivalry between Ennis and Larry.
On the other hand, I really like most of the characters (the sexually confused Andrew is definitely an exception) and there is a sense that the writing is witty and sharp and will be even better once a coherent tone is found. Most of the running gags the show has works: I think there is a good amount of running gags they have: The assistant principal is really really incompetent and was a prison clown before he was a principal, Happy's ethnic mumblings superimposed with proper-soundng British, Willard always having a different way to get to school, the fact that no one cares the least bit about actually teaching and we know very little of the students, etc..
Burn Notice, USA: In the world of TV, it is generally not a bad thing to have a gimmick that hooks you in. The show is about an exiled spy in Miami who is Bond-like in his ability to outwit his foes. The gimmick? Imagine if James Bond was letting you pick his brain while he was kicking ass. In Burn Notice, Michael Weston is an exiled CIA operative who takes freelance jobs (usually involving dealing with dangerous people) in his hometown of Miami while he attempts to figure out who ratted him out and compromised his identity to the CIA. As he’s slipping into and out of trouble, Weston provides voiceovers about how a spy should handle this or that situation that really makes things interesting. Also in the show are Weston’s mother (the only person who will take him in), an old male associate, and an ex-girlfriend (played by the dainty-looking Gabriel Anwar)
Important Things with Demitri Martin, Comedy Central-Demitri Martin is, by far, one of the best comics out there. He can be creative on so many mediums and he has such an uncanny ability to pull hilarious observational humor where no one ever looked before. He’s the ideal star for his own show, because it doesn’t just include 30 minutes of stand-up and he can mix it up, through different mediums and interlace some great sketches: For example, he has one in which a high school student gets his wish granted of meeting three great minds for dinner- Ben Franklin, Galileo, and William Shakespeare- and all they want to do is hit on the waitress.
30 Rock, NBC: I am not one who demands excellence from a TV show or demands it be cancelled. 30 Rock is good and provides humor better than a high percentage of shows still out there and by no means do I want that to go away. That being said, 30 Rock didn’t really raise the bar this season. In fact, the comedy that was previously limitless in the ways it could surprise the viewer with a limit, became somewhat formulaic as of late. Every plot would include three plots:
1) Liz looking for love or trying to convince herself that she hasn’t lost her plebian roots because she’s now part of Jack’s inner circle.
2) Jack dealing with his love life or family problems
3) A C plot with either Jenna trying to come to terms with her snobbishness or someone doing damage control for Tracy’s latest escapade
The Root of All Evil, Comedy Central: A novel idea that might not have legs to last several seasons, but good enough to allow those talented under-the-radar humorists like Andrew Daly, Patton Oswalt, Greg Giraldo, Andy Kindler and Paul F Tompkins to riff on various topics in what sort of plays as a comedic sport. Lewis Black could stand to play a larger role in the show. Every comic has their own unique style and everyone has their own preferences. I get a kick out of Tomkins and Daly who take themselves as seriously as lawyers because they’re suddenly dressed in suits. You can also never get enough of the debate over which is worse: Beer or Weed, American Idol or High School, Donald Trump vs Tila Tequila, etc.
More to come....
Sit Down, Shut Up- An animated comedy about incompetent teachers at a flailing school that really has very little to do about teaching at all. It’s made by the Arrested Development guy and stars such big names as Will Arnett, Jason Bateman, Kristen Chenowith, Keenan Thompson, Will Forte, Cheri Oteri, Henry Winkler and Nick Kroll. The expectations were high to live up to and that brought a lot of disappointment and I can see both sides of it. The show got a little bit too meta too early in its run. In the 4th episode and last before leaving the remaining 9 episodes of the season (and most likely the series) in limbo, there were no less than three or four self-referential gags going on: characters kept trying to consciously match themselves to 80’s archetypes, characters alluded to how they had few adventures before episode one, and Miracle was self-conscious about being nothing more than a plot device fueling the rivalry between Ennis and Larry.
On the other hand, I really like most of the characters (the sexually confused Andrew is definitely an exception) and there is a sense that the writing is witty and sharp and will be even better once a coherent tone is found. Most of the running gags the show has works: I think there is a good amount of running gags they have: The assistant principal is really really incompetent and was a prison clown before he was a principal, Happy's ethnic mumblings superimposed with proper-soundng British, Willard always having a different way to get to school, the fact that no one cares the least bit about actually teaching and we know very little of the students, etc..
Burn Notice, USA: In the world of TV, it is generally not a bad thing to have a gimmick that hooks you in. The show is about an exiled spy in Miami who is Bond-like in his ability to outwit his foes. The gimmick? Imagine if James Bond was letting you pick his brain while he was kicking ass. In Burn Notice, Michael Weston is an exiled CIA operative who takes freelance jobs (usually involving dealing with dangerous people) in his hometown of Miami while he attempts to figure out who ratted him out and compromised his identity to the CIA. As he’s slipping into and out of trouble, Weston provides voiceovers about how a spy should handle this or that situation that really makes things interesting. Also in the show are Weston’s mother (the only person who will take him in), an old male associate, and an ex-girlfriend (played by the dainty-looking Gabriel Anwar)
Important Things with Demitri Martin, Comedy Central-Demitri Martin is, by far, one of the best comics out there. He can be creative on so many mediums and he has such an uncanny ability to pull hilarious observational humor where no one ever looked before. He’s the ideal star for his own show, because it doesn’t just include 30 minutes of stand-up and he can mix it up, through different mediums and interlace some great sketches: For example, he has one in which a high school student gets his wish granted of meeting three great minds for dinner- Ben Franklin, Galileo, and William Shakespeare- and all they want to do is hit on the waitress.
30 Rock, NBC: I am not one who demands excellence from a TV show or demands it be cancelled. 30 Rock is good and provides humor better than a high percentage of shows still out there and by no means do I want that to go away. That being said, 30 Rock didn’t really raise the bar this season. In fact, the comedy that was previously limitless in the ways it could surprise the viewer with a limit, became somewhat formulaic as of late. Every plot would include three plots:
1) Liz looking for love or trying to convince herself that she hasn’t lost her plebian roots because she’s now part of Jack’s inner circle.
2) Jack dealing with his love life or family problems
3) A C plot with either Jenna trying to come to terms with her snobbishness or someone doing damage control for Tracy’s latest escapade
The Root of All Evil, Comedy Central: A novel idea that might not have legs to last several seasons, but good enough to allow those talented under-the-radar humorists like Andrew Daly, Patton Oswalt, Greg Giraldo, Andy Kindler and Paul F Tompkins to riff on various topics in what sort of plays as a comedic sport. Lewis Black could stand to play a larger role in the show. Every comic has their own unique style and everyone has their own preferences. I get a kick out of Tomkins and Daly who take themselves as seriously as lawyers because they’re suddenly dressed in suits. You can also never get enough of the debate over which is worse: Beer or Weed, American Idol or High School, Donald Trump vs Tila Tequila, etc.
More to come....
Saturday, October 11, 2008
"Big Bang Theory" great show but could have been written a little differently
Big Bang Theory is a great show about the unlikely mix between geeks and beauties. A beautiful young girl, Penny (Kaley Cuoco) moves in next door to a pair of advanced theoretical physicists (Johnny Galecki and Jim Parsons), who are textbook examples of geekiness. With their two friends (Simon Helberg and Kunal Nayyar), they spend much of their time playing Halo, going on second life, watching sci-fi shows and collecting comic books. One of the two roommates (Johnny Galecki from Roseanne) is in love with the girl across the hall and a great deal of the show centers around this tension between this very shy and socially-akward guy and this girl who is out of her league.
The show is very entertaining for two reasons. The first is the hilarity that results from watching these nerdy geniuses and their two friends (Simon Helberg in fish-out-of-water situations where they are forced to interact with normal people (mainly in the form of Penny). Second, is the endearing and unlikely nature of the budding chemistry that develops between Penny and Sheldon. It might be a lost cause for him, but we're happy just to see sparks fly in the meantime.
One problem with the show, however, is that Penny spends an awful lot of time hanging around with Sheldon and his three friends when she has little in common with them in the first place. I understand that Sheldon is such a nice guy underneath with a desire to be sociable that she might form a friendship with them, but of the remaining three characters: Raj is too shy to speak when he's around her, Leonard is hostile and Wolfowitz is creepy. The writers construct situations where Penny is interacting with the "gang" instead of just Sheldon because that way she's not dating him yet and it keeps the sexual tension flowing, but how many situations can the writers construct before the "they're neighbors" excuse doesn't cut it anymore. This is especially true when she's actively annoyed with some of them (an example is when Leonard actively snuck into her apartment and cleaned her room). Sometimes, there are valid excuses that can make the interactions seem more plausible, like she's dropping off their mail or there's an episode where they're invited to her party.
Essentially what many unlikely storybook romances need, in both the movies and in real life, is for characters who wouldn't normally associate with each other to be stuck in some sort of confined situation where they have to do so. This reminds me of a film theory called the "Grand Hotel" or "Ship of Fools" theory that says when characters from different societal classes are forced to spend time in a confined space, they become a microcosm of society. If Leonard and Sheldon and Penny had daily schedules that forced them to unknowingly spend a lot of time with each other, step outside of their comfort spheres, and realize that the other wasn't so bad, I think that would be a great concept for a show.
What if the show was set in the physics lab where Sheldon and Leonard work?
If the show took place at their university and Penny was hired as a seceretary or clerk, all of their physics jokes would seem more natural since they'd be forced to talk more physics around her anyway. All the interactions would still be there but they'd also be more natural if she was spending what I currently see as excessive time with the gang of four.
The show is very entertaining for two reasons. The first is the hilarity that results from watching these nerdy geniuses and their two friends (Simon Helberg in fish-out-of-water situations where they are forced to interact with normal people (mainly in the form of Penny). Second, is the endearing and unlikely nature of the budding chemistry that develops between Penny and Sheldon. It might be a lost cause for him, but we're happy just to see sparks fly in the meantime.
One problem with the show, however, is that Penny spends an awful lot of time hanging around with Sheldon and his three friends when she has little in common with them in the first place. I understand that Sheldon is such a nice guy underneath with a desire to be sociable that she might form a friendship with them, but of the remaining three characters: Raj is too shy to speak when he's around her, Leonard is hostile and Wolfowitz is creepy. The writers construct situations where Penny is interacting with the "gang" instead of just Sheldon because that way she's not dating him yet and it keeps the sexual tension flowing, but how many situations can the writers construct before the "they're neighbors" excuse doesn't cut it anymore. This is especially true when she's actively annoyed with some of them (an example is when Leonard actively snuck into her apartment and cleaned her room). Sometimes, there are valid excuses that can make the interactions seem more plausible, like she's dropping off their mail or there's an episode where they're invited to her party.
Essentially what many unlikely storybook romances need, in both the movies and in real life, is for characters who wouldn't normally associate with each other to be stuck in some sort of confined situation where they have to do so. This reminds me of a film theory called the "Grand Hotel" or "Ship of Fools" theory that says when characters from different societal classes are forced to spend time in a confined space, they become a microcosm of society. If Leonard and Sheldon and Penny had daily schedules that forced them to unknowingly spend a lot of time with each other, step outside of their comfort spheres, and realize that the other wasn't so bad, I think that would be a great concept for a show.
What if the show was set in the physics lab where Sheldon and Leonard work?
If the show took place at their university and Penny was hired as a seceretary or clerk, all of their physics jokes would seem more natural since they'd be forced to talk more physics around her anyway. All the interactions would still be there but they'd also be more natural if she was spending what I currently see as excessive time with the gang of four.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Really great TV: Fresh Prince of Bel Air
Just as people my age in relation to people ten years older than us, might be completely unaware that Pierce Brosnam was the TV star of a show called Remmington Steele and Tom Hanks was once best known for a TV show called Bossom Buddies, I wonder if today's younger generation primarily knows Will Smith through his status as one of the world's most bankable movie stars, as opposed to the star of "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air."
One would think that Will Smith has matured exponentially since he made Fresh Prince of Bel Air, but in truth, if you go back and watch Fresh Prince of Bel Air, you'll see that it's a pretty good show in fact. There are a couple moments where Will Smith tests himself as an actor, most notably the episode where his dad abandons him and he breaks down emotionally launching into a clearly forced tirade about how he doesn't need his father, before crying "how come he doesn't want me" and embracing his uncle. It's a tear-inducing moment. There's another episode where Will's carelessness in experimenting with speed leads to his cousin Carlton almost getting killed by the drugs. Will's speech where he confesses to his family what he's done is filled with the genuine tear-inducing emotion that TGIF shows like Full House and Step by Step tried and usually failed to induce in the last 2 minutes of every episode.
I also admire how Fresh Prince of Bel Air refuses to dumb down any of its characters to conform to sitcom stereotypes. Well, to be fair, it dumbs down Hillary and Geoffery rather significantly, but the show does a good job at debunking the stereotypes it pigeonholes Carlton in at first. There's the one episode, played for absurdity, where Carlton bets Will that he can't survive a day in the hood. Within a mere matter of hours, Carlton has transformed into someone straight out of a Spike Lee film. Within a more intermediate framework, Carlton is gradually made more likeable as the series progresses and a genuine respect and friendship develops between Will and Carlton that is somewhat at the core of the series.
Most importantly, the portly Uncle Phil, could easily have been portrayed as the stuffy and aloof parent-figure for a couple of laughs but he is virtually never portrayed in an undignified manner. Despite the fact that he's the butt of Will's jokes, there is nothing he does that makes one feel ashamed to have known him or to be his child or nephew. I can't overemphasize how big of a deal that is. Most dads are portrayed as the less competent and less dedicated parent in sitcoms. They are either:
-Obsessed with trying to have sex with mommy (Step by Step),
-They border on being legally retarded (Family Guy, The Simpsons)
-They are bigoted (All in the Family, Sanford and Son),
-They are hopelessly dorky (Full House, Dick Van Dyke Show)
-They are irresponsible monetarily and with everything else and need mommy around to keep her from destroying the house if she leaves for a weekend (Malcolm in the Middle, Home Improvement)
-They can barely remember their kids exist (Everybody Loves Raymond, Just Shoot Me)
One would think that Will Smith has matured exponentially since he made Fresh Prince of Bel Air, but in truth, if you go back and watch Fresh Prince of Bel Air, you'll see that it's a pretty good show in fact. There are a couple moments where Will Smith tests himself as an actor, most notably the episode where his dad abandons him and he breaks down emotionally launching into a clearly forced tirade about how he doesn't need his father, before crying "how come he doesn't want me" and embracing his uncle. It's a tear-inducing moment. There's another episode where Will's carelessness in experimenting with speed leads to his cousin Carlton almost getting killed by the drugs. Will's speech where he confesses to his family what he's done is filled with the genuine tear-inducing emotion that TGIF shows like Full House and Step by Step tried and usually failed to induce in the last 2 minutes of every episode.
I also admire how Fresh Prince of Bel Air refuses to dumb down any of its characters to conform to sitcom stereotypes. Well, to be fair, it dumbs down Hillary and Geoffery rather significantly, but the show does a good job at debunking the stereotypes it pigeonholes Carlton in at first. There's the one episode, played for absurdity, where Carlton bets Will that he can't survive a day in the hood. Within a mere matter of hours, Carlton has transformed into someone straight out of a Spike Lee film. Within a more intermediate framework, Carlton is gradually made more likeable as the series progresses and a genuine respect and friendship develops between Will and Carlton that is somewhat at the core of the series.
Most importantly, the portly Uncle Phil, could easily have been portrayed as the stuffy and aloof parent-figure for a couple of laughs but he is virtually never portrayed in an undignified manner. Despite the fact that he's the butt of Will's jokes, there is nothing he does that makes one feel ashamed to have known him or to be his child or nephew. I can't overemphasize how big of a deal that is. Most dads are portrayed as the less competent and less dedicated parent in sitcoms. They are either:
-Obsessed with trying to have sex with mommy (Step by Step),
-They border on being legally retarded (Family Guy, The Simpsons)
-They are bigoted (All in the Family, Sanford and Son),
-They are hopelessly dorky (Full House, Dick Van Dyke Show)
-They are irresponsible monetarily and with everything else and need mommy around to keep her from destroying the house if she leaves for a weekend (Malcolm in the Middle, Home Improvement)
-They can barely remember their kids exist (Everybody Loves Raymond, Just Shoot Me)
Sunday, May 11, 2008
What the writer's room on SNL might have looked like this past week, based on the end result
A transcript of the show, or at least a summary of it's highlights can be seen at http://snltranscripts.jt.org/:
"Ok, let's start off with you, writer #1" (Kind of stumped)
"That Suze Orman Show skit killed let's do that again."
"Um, ok. How about you, writer #2"
"Well, I was thinking of a skit where everyone stares at a couple of attractive girls at a resturaunt"
"Um, okay, and then what......"
"Oh, that's pretty much it. but they'll have really funny expressions"
"Oh, jesus christ, where did we hire you from?....um (humoring him), yeah we'll get back to you if we don't ahve any better ideas"
"Andy?"
"Oh, well, just another digital short, this time, i was thinking of people walking around with no pants, and here's the added twist, well, pretend that this is an acceptable thing in society" (immature writers in the room laugh...head writer knows that anything that says Digital Short in front of it regardless of how retarded the idea is, will sell, so he jut shrugs and moves along)
"Ok, next" "How about Shia dressed up as a woman"
"Um, hasn't that been done before by Antonio Banderas, Jake Gyllenhall, Justin Timberlake?" "Yeah, but this won't be in the monologue"
"Um, sounds kind of like it's been done before"
"Ok, what if we get Amy Poehler to do a funny voice"
"Ehhh, I don't know"
"You know, we'll try to introduce a catch phrase like "Funky fresh" which Amy Poehler will use to describe her daughters"
"Yeah, but how does it make it any funnier?"
"Well, if Amy Poehler says it funny enough, we'll turn it into a catch phrase like "Making copies" and "That's the ticket" and just keep recycling that skit, and i won't have to come up with any new ideas all year....oops, did i say that out loud?"
"Ohhhhh, i see we're you're coming from. Next"
[Writer presents the one good original idea in the show: A parody of The Match Game intertwined with a murder mystery]
"Nice. What have you got Bruce?"
"Well, guys, me and Bill have been thinking a lot and we all know how Keenan Thomas acts great as a full-of-himself doofus. What if we talk that character he always does and use it as a skit about a guy in the scared straight program...."
"You know, I liked it better when Chris Farley did it. But it seems like a slow week, we'll get back to it if we have no new ideas"
[Head writer goes around the room and no one has any better ideas] "Ok, Bill and Bruce, you guys are in. Let's do that staring thing because it sounds like the easiest thing to pull off, and hmmmm....which recurring skit hasn't appeared in a while, find the script of that Italian TV show host and pretty much retype it word for word....ok, what are we, 5 minutes short...add some MacGruber sketches and..."
"Hey, I was wondering if my MacGruber sketch could involve an ending other than the factory blowing up. Maybe, i can write it for a full five or six minutes"
"Hmmmm....Nah, let's run it into the ground a little more. The audience finds it funny, let's just stick with what works. Tell you what though, try to find a new angle on it. Maybe Shia Le Bouf is his son or something, I don't know. Work with it"
"Ok, let's start off with you, writer #1" (Kind of stumped)
"That Suze Orman Show skit killed let's do that again."
"Um, ok. How about you, writer #2"
"Well, I was thinking of a skit where everyone stares at a couple of attractive girls at a resturaunt"
"Um, okay, and then what......"
"Oh, that's pretty much it. but they'll have really funny expressions"
"Oh, jesus christ, where did we hire you from?....um (humoring him), yeah we'll get back to you if we don't ahve any better ideas"
"Andy?"
"Oh, well, just another digital short, this time, i was thinking of people walking around with no pants, and here's the added twist, well, pretend that this is an acceptable thing in society" (immature writers in the room laugh...head writer knows that anything that says Digital Short in front of it regardless of how retarded the idea is, will sell, so he jut shrugs and moves along)
"Ok, next" "How about Shia dressed up as a woman"
"Um, hasn't that been done before by Antonio Banderas, Jake Gyllenhall, Justin Timberlake?" "Yeah, but this won't be in the monologue"
"Um, sounds kind of like it's been done before"
"Ok, what if we get Amy Poehler to do a funny voice"
"Ehhh, I don't know"
"You know, we'll try to introduce a catch phrase like "Funky fresh" which Amy Poehler will use to describe her daughters"
"Yeah, but how does it make it any funnier?"
"Well, if Amy Poehler says it funny enough, we'll turn it into a catch phrase like "Making copies" and "That's the ticket" and just keep recycling that skit, and i won't have to come up with any new ideas all year....oops, did i say that out loud?"
"Ohhhhh, i see we're you're coming from. Next"
[Writer presents the one good original idea in the show: A parody of The Match Game intertwined with a murder mystery]
"Nice. What have you got Bruce?"
"Well, guys, me and Bill have been thinking a lot and we all know how Keenan Thomas acts great as a full-of-himself doofus. What if we talk that character he always does and use it as a skit about a guy in the scared straight program...."
"You know, I liked it better when Chris Farley did it. But it seems like a slow week, we'll get back to it if we have no new ideas"
[Head writer goes around the room and no one has any better ideas] "Ok, Bill and Bruce, you guys are in. Let's do that staring thing because it sounds like the easiest thing to pull off, and hmmmm....which recurring skit hasn't appeared in a while, find the script of that Italian TV show host and pretty much retype it word for word....ok, what are we, 5 minutes short...add some MacGruber sketches and..."
"Hey, I was wondering if my MacGruber sketch could involve an ending other than the factory blowing up. Maybe, i can write it for a full five or six minutes"
"Hmmmm....Nah, let's run it into the ground a little more. The audience finds it funny, let's just stick with what works. Tell you what though, try to find a new angle on it. Maybe Shia Le Bouf is his son or something, I don't know. Work with it"
Saturday Night Live keeps going
I think that what's interesting about Saturday Night Live is that while it's not as popular as it was in the Rock/Farley/Spade/Hartman days, it still manages to poke its head into pop culture when you're ready to call it down and out.
I would've actually thought that Saturday Night Live stood a good chance of being killed when youtube started becoming popular since both youtube and saturday night live both cater to the audience who wants their comedy in 5-minute sketches but SNL found a way to jump on board the trend with the digital shorts produced by Andy Samberg, Akiva Schaeffer and Jorma Takome (Andy is the one on camera). "Dick in a Box" and "Lazy Sundae" are two that have gone viral on youtube, but there's also "Iran so Far," Adam Samberg's love song to the President of Iran with Adam Levine providing some of the vocals, and a hillarious one with Tom Hanks singing "Don't Touch my Testicles." The "Iran So Far" is probably the funniest thing Andy Samberg has done in my opinion and it's possibly the best thing Saturday Night Live has done all season.
The other smart thing Saturday Night Live is doing that nothing else on NBC is doing is its not giving away all its content for free on the internet. You can't watch an entire episode of Saturday Night Live online like you can for many shows on hulu or their respective network sites. They usually post about 2 or 3 sketches a week but I recently discovered that the people in charge of posting the sketches online aren't picking the best ones. I think this is smart because SNL isn't like a TV show. It does basically the same stuff as youtube. A lot of the funnier material (the stuff that isn't recycled from past skits) is usually in the show and it's that five-minute stuff that you're dying to see over and over again.
I would have thought that the show would have suffered because about 2 years ago they had some serious budget cuts and had to cut 5 or 6 people, and now their cast is much smaller and less experienced. Then again, an astoundingly high number of the members of the current cast are capable of doing a Christopher Walken impression. Check out this skit where you will see 8 seperate members of the current Saturday Night Live cast impersonate Christopher Walken: http://www.hulu.com/watch/16389/saturday-night-live-meet-the-family#x-4,cClips,1 After watching this, I can reach two conclusions: 1) It's very easy to impersonate Christopher Walken or 2) The cast is, in fact, a talented group of comedic actors All I can say is I tried seeing if I could talk like Christopher Walken for a few minutes by playing this skit and trying to mimic the way they talk. It's harder than it looks.
At the same time, one of the show's weaknesses is that they seem kind of lazy in the writer's room. In my next post I will present what I imagine their pitch meeting went like last week:
I would've actually thought that Saturday Night Live stood a good chance of being killed when youtube started becoming popular since both youtube and saturday night live both cater to the audience who wants their comedy in 5-minute sketches but SNL found a way to jump on board the trend with the digital shorts produced by Andy Samberg, Akiva Schaeffer and Jorma Takome (Andy is the one on camera). "Dick in a Box" and "Lazy Sundae" are two that have gone viral on youtube, but there's also "Iran so Far," Adam Samberg's love song to the President of Iran with Adam Levine providing some of the vocals, and a hillarious one with Tom Hanks singing "Don't Touch my Testicles." The "Iran So Far" is probably the funniest thing Andy Samberg has done in my opinion and it's possibly the best thing Saturday Night Live has done all season.
The other smart thing Saturday Night Live is doing that nothing else on NBC is doing is its not giving away all its content for free on the internet. You can't watch an entire episode of Saturday Night Live online like you can for many shows on hulu or their respective network sites. They usually post about 2 or 3 sketches a week but I recently discovered that the people in charge of posting the sketches online aren't picking the best ones. I think this is smart because SNL isn't like a TV show. It does basically the same stuff as youtube. A lot of the funnier material (the stuff that isn't recycled from past skits) is usually in the show and it's that five-minute stuff that you're dying to see over and over again.
I would have thought that the show would have suffered because about 2 years ago they had some serious budget cuts and had to cut 5 or 6 people, and now their cast is much smaller and less experienced. Then again, an astoundingly high number of the members of the current cast are capable of doing a Christopher Walken impression. Check out this skit where you will see 8 seperate members of the current Saturday Night Live cast impersonate Christopher Walken: http://www.hulu.com/watch/16389/saturday-night-live-meet-the-family#x-4,cClips,1 After watching this, I can reach two conclusions: 1) It's very easy to impersonate Christopher Walken or 2) The cast is, in fact, a talented group of comedic actors All I can say is I tried seeing if I could talk like Christopher Walken for a few minutes by playing this skit and trying to mimic the way they talk. It's harder than it looks.
At the same time, one of the show's weaknesses is that they seem kind of lazy in the writer's room. In my next post I will present what I imagine their pitch meeting went like last week:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
From a consumer's point of view, the writer's strike wasn't so bad
The writer's strike wasn't such a bad thing because I constantly feel attacked by pop culture. Sometimes, I feel like I have to see the latest episode of Heroes or The O.C. or some reality show to catch up with what's going on and I don't have time to do it all. Sorry, Mr. Trump, I wanted to see your Celebrity Apprentice, but I couldn't afford to catch more than half an episode so far. The writer's strike gave me a chance to stop, catch my breath, and catch up on whatever shows I wanted to watch at my own pace. I think the networks feel like they must constantly suffocate us with pop culture so that we don't find other non-TV-related hobbies to take up.
Honestly, the idea that we constantly need new movies and TV shows in the theater is something decided by the entertainment industry, not us.
More specifically, the idea that the general public needs approximately 3-5 large scale releases added into circulation, is one created by the movie theaters, not the general public. Adding 3-5 large scale releases decreases the circulation of 3-5 other pictures and often bumping them out of your local theater. Ordinary moviegoers might go to the movies two times a month. I go about 3 and I'm blogging about films. I saw about 31 pictures from 2007 in a movie theater between March '07 and February '08 (I saw about 4 more on DVD or hotel pay-per-view) and I had the advantage of working in a movie theater where I was often too tired at the end of the shift to do anything but plop down in front of a movie screen.
My point: Keeping up with films is not what drives people to the movie theater. People don't have time in their schedule, usually to see all the films they want to see. Even though you might want to go just because have a friend who's a film buff (and this wouldn't be me, but one of my film friends) who's like "You have to see this! How could you not have seen this?" and you don't want to dissapoint him/her, you usually can't keep up with all the films you want to see in a theater before they run out.
To compound matters, half the films worth seeing usually come out in the same month: December. There were approximately seven or eight films I wanted to see that came out in December. Last week, I worked my way to seeing Charlie Wilson's War and I still have to see Juno and There Will Be Blood. That would be nice if the movie theaters let the Christmas films run for a few months because people still probably want to see all of them. To some degree this is happening: The Christmas season films last longer in movie theaters than films from any other release period of the year, but still, Oscar-quality films are being gradually pushed out by film output from the first couple of months like Underworld: Evolution, Freedom Writers, Are We There Yet?, the Pacifier, Norbit, Epic Movie, Failure to Launch, The Shaggy Dog, Date Movie or Wild Hogs and films this year like Meet the Spartans, 27 Dresses, and Rambo. Occasionally, a film like V for Vendetta, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Erin Brockovitch, and 300 will be a surprise hit, but the movie business doesn't really care about the period from January to April. The movie studios will make most of their money in the summer months and they'll produce the really good films that will be remembered for years to come between October and December (making September another awkward filler month). They only release movies between January and April as filler during this time. These films are the equivalent of the bench for a sports team that takes the court as the stars are resting.
The studios figure they might as well put something out while waiting for the blockbusters or quality films to come out, but they shouldn't be too quick to relegate their proverbial star players to the bench until they're all used up. The average moviegoer did not get a chance to see The Kite Runner, The Great Debaters, No Country for Old Men, Charlie Wilson's War, Juno, There Will Be Blood, Atonement, The Savages, and Persopolis and while the box office numbers are indicating declining performances for all these films each weekend, these films will still have an audience of people who will go out of their way to see them. Studios shouldn't underestimate that
Honestly, the idea that we constantly need new movies and TV shows in the theater is something decided by the entertainment industry, not us.
More specifically, the idea that the general public needs approximately 3-5 large scale releases added into circulation, is one created by the movie theaters, not the general public. Adding 3-5 large scale releases decreases the circulation of 3-5 other pictures and often bumping them out of your local theater. Ordinary moviegoers might go to the movies two times a month. I go about 3 and I'm blogging about films. I saw about 31 pictures from 2007 in a movie theater between March '07 and February '08 (I saw about 4 more on DVD or hotel pay-per-view) and I had the advantage of working in a movie theater where I was often too tired at the end of the shift to do anything but plop down in front of a movie screen.
My point: Keeping up with films is not what drives people to the movie theater. People don't have time in their schedule, usually to see all the films they want to see. Even though you might want to go just because have a friend who's a film buff (and this wouldn't be me, but one of my film friends) who's like "You have to see this! How could you not have seen this?" and you don't want to dissapoint him/her, you usually can't keep up with all the films you want to see in a theater before they run out.
To compound matters, half the films worth seeing usually come out in the same month: December. There were approximately seven or eight films I wanted to see that came out in December. Last week, I worked my way to seeing Charlie Wilson's War and I still have to see Juno and There Will Be Blood. That would be nice if the movie theaters let the Christmas films run for a few months because people still probably want to see all of them. To some degree this is happening: The Christmas season films last longer in movie theaters than films from any other release period of the year, but still, Oscar-quality films are being gradually pushed out by film output from the first couple of months like Underworld: Evolution, Freedom Writers, Are We There Yet?, the Pacifier, Norbit, Epic Movie, Failure to Launch, The Shaggy Dog, Date Movie or Wild Hogs and films this year like Meet the Spartans, 27 Dresses, and Rambo. Occasionally, a film like V for Vendetta, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Erin Brockovitch, and 300 will be a surprise hit, but the movie business doesn't really care about the period from January to April. The movie studios will make most of their money in the summer months and they'll produce the really good films that will be remembered for years to come between October and December (making September another awkward filler month). They only release movies between January and April as filler during this time. These films are the equivalent of the bench for a sports team that takes the court as the stars are resting.
The studios figure they might as well put something out while waiting for the blockbusters or quality films to come out, but they shouldn't be too quick to relegate their proverbial star players to the bench until they're all used up. The average moviegoer did not get a chance to see The Kite Runner, The Great Debaters, No Country for Old Men, Charlie Wilson's War, Juno, There Will Be Blood, Atonement, The Savages, and Persopolis and while the box office numbers are indicating declining performances for all these films each weekend, these films will still have an audience of people who will go out of their way to see them. Studios shouldn't underestimate that
Saturday, November 03, 2007
JAM gone sour on The Office
I think that the Jim-Pam relationship has changed considerably since the end of Season 2 and it's not because they're together, but i think that that's taken down the show a little.
At first, Jim and Pam were these two people who in the midst of everyone were just right for each other.
Now, it's like Jim and Pam are the two most popular and in-demand young people in the Office. Jim isn't this guy who's akward around women and is interested in that one girl because he makes her feel complete. Since his successes with Katie and Karen, Jim's like this guy who can get anyone he wants.
He's no longer the everyman I root for. If Jim got rejected a little more, or proved to have some social kryptonite. I just see Jim as the alpha-male, now. For one, he used to pick on Dwight because Dwight annoyed him but his treatment of Andy is uaully unprovoked. But Jim had an, "I gotta show Andy who's boss," about him when he started messing with Andy by stealing his cell phone. Jim does what he does with Dwight because he works in close proximity to him.
And Pam is like the alpha-female of the office. Now, it's been revealed Ryan seems to have had a crush. Creed has seemed to have a sexual fetish for her. Toby likes her. She's like the most desirable property in the office.
Also Jim is like a big guy in size and he has cool hair. Those guys are usually the ones I see getting girls in bars. Girls generally are physically attracted to bigger guys. Martin Freeman, on the other hand, was small in stature.
Jim used to be the hopeless romantic, but I think he's like the alpha male steaking out the biggest property in the Office. And when you see it that way, then Jim's misguided relationships with Karen and Katie to get to Pam seem a little less noble and kind of wrong.
At first, Jim and Pam were these two people who in the midst of everyone were just right for each other.
Now, it's like Jim and Pam are the two most popular and in-demand young people in the Office. Jim isn't this guy who's akward around women and is interested in that one girl because he makes her feel complete. Since his successes with Katie and Karen, Jim's like this guy who can get anyone he wants.
He's no longer the everyman I root for. If Jim got rejected a little more, or proved to have some social kryptonite. I just see Jim as the alpha-male, now. For one, he used to pick on Dwight because Dwight annoyed him but his treatment of Andy is uaully unprovoked. But Jim had an, "I gotta show Andy who's boss," about him when he started messing with Andy by stealing his cell phone. Jim does what he does with Dwight because he works in close proximity to him.
And Pam is like the alpha-female of the office. Now, it's been revealed Ryan seems to have had a crush. Creed has seemed to have a sexual fetish for her. Toby likes her. She's like the most desirable property in the office.
Also Jim is like a big guy in size and he has cool hair. Those guys are usually the ones I see getting girls in bars. Girls generally are physically attracted to bigger guys. Martin Freeman, on the other hand, was small in stature.
Jim used to be the hopeless romantic, but I think he's like the alpha male steaking out the biggest property in the Office. And when you see it that way, then Jim's misguided relationships with Karen and Katie to get to Pam seem a little less noble and kind of wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)