Blogcritics

The WGA Strike, Television, and Me

Josh Lasser — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:40:16 EST

Talk may be cheap, and that's exactly why AMPTP and the WGA can afford to do it.
I'm not going to lie to you. I'm unhappy. I've been out of the country and/or away from home for three out of the past four weeks. I thought, I hoped, I prayed that at some point during my travels I would hear that the WGA (Writers Guild of America) and AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) had worked out their...

Second Annual National Forget Your Family, Love Your Television Day

Josh Lasser — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:58:20 EST

The most wonderful day of the year is back!
It's hard to imagine that a year has passed already, but, December 16 marks the second annual National Forget Your Family, Love Your Television Day. That's right, the holiday I created last year is back for its second go-round and boy, am I excited. As you may recall, National Forget Your Family, Love Your Television Day is the day of the...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Damages Is Broken, But Not Beyond Repair

Josh Lasser — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:25:34 EDT

In watching this week's episode of Damages, I can't help but think that the producers are trying to be too clever. By adding in so many different mysteries they find themselves this week with a twist that is no twist at all, a surprise that fails to in any way be a surprise. The entire plot this week revolves around Katie Connor (Anastasia Griffith) and her "one-night stand" in Florida on the weekend of Arthur Frobisher's (Ted Danson) trip down there. The other basic problem with Damages should now be apparent. If you are a regular watcher of the show you know exactly what weekend I am talking about, and if you are not it would take me an incredibly long time to explain it. It is a basic problem with serialized dramas - a serialized drama needs to generate a high enough interest level on the part of the viewer that they tune in every single week, because missing even one episode can leave the viewer hopelessly behind. I am not against serialized dramas as such, long-time readers will know that I'm a fan of Lost as well as other serialized shows, but the serialized legal thriller Damages does not generate the same enthusiasm for me. To be sure, I think Damages is often well-written and well-acted, but I'm just not that enthralled. To help me explain why I need to, in detail, discuss this week's episode and Katie's boyfriend, so, be warned: HERE BE SPOILERS…Was there ever any doubt in anyone's mind that Greg, Katie's not-so-married guy was lying about who they saw with Frobisher in the parking lot? Was it not clear that he was the link? Frankly, from the moment he first appeared it was clear that he was involved in the whole Frobisher thing, the way he was introduced, when he was introduced, and the secrecy around him made any other conclusion untenable. I did not know that he was lying about being married, but his being involved in Frobisher's nefarious doings was clear. Why the producers would try to convince us otherwise I can't fathom. Then, this week's writing was actually a huge let down. When Katie was practicing being deposed she has flashbacks of how she got to this point. We're only four episodes in and the whole case at this point hinges on Katie. I think that we probably could have figured out without flashbacks what exactly is going on in her mind. It got worse from there though, didn't it? When she is actually being deposed she goes off about sex and drugs to Ray Fiske (Zeljko Ivanek). That was just plain silly. It was explained to her that the goal was to make her likable to the jury. Her going off on her sexual and drug escapades does not make her likable. There is a difference between telling the truth about what happened, which is what she was supposed to do, and flaunting her problems, which is what she did. Thank God Patty Hewes (Glenn Close) doesn't need her for the trial, because she would now be a worthless witness. There are only two possible reasons Patty did not bite her head off at the end of the deposition: 1) the writer's didn't realize the mistake they made in having her rant as she did, and 2) Patty didn't need her anyway and didn't care, and the writers failed to realize that to be true to Patty's character she would've bitten Katie's head off anyway in order to keep up appearances. And, speaking of Patty, she's just plain mean. There is absolutely no reason that she could not have still recommended Tom's kid for the music school. She could absolutely have said to her contact "he doesn't work for me any more, we had some professional differences, but Tom is a great person and his daughter cares more for music…" yada, yada, yada. Her meanness is meant to be excused by the troubles she is having with her son, but it is not. The way she is treated by others indicates that her attitude goes back way farther than the length of her son's problems. It's a foolish excuse to be pawned off onto the viewer. I should say that I think Damages to be a perfectly fun legal thriller. I watch on a weekly basis not because I'm obligated but because it is fun enough, it's just not spectacular. I think that with some changes here and there it really could be outstanding, and I hope that by the end of the season they achieve that level, but it isn't there yet. Maybe next week.

Josh Lasser, formerly known as "TV and Film Guy," and complete with a Masters Degree in Critical Studies in said areas, gives his opinions on TV, Film, and Entertainment in general. All of which he does in a shameless attempt to try to get paid to do the exact same thing. He's also quite proud to say that he's the editor of the Blogcritics Magazine Television Section.

The Worst TV Series Finale... Ever

Josh Lasser — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:04:16 EDT

Oh boy.A week and a half after the finale of HBO's The Sopranos, it seems like the perfect time to take a step back and have a look at television finales, specifically bad ones. I didn't think that The Sopranos did deliver a disappointing final episode, I thought that the ending to the series faced the same sort of uncertainty that was exhibited throughout every season. However I seem to be in the minority here, so I wanted to take a moment and remind people of what a truly dreadful finale is like.Not every show, of course, delivers a bad finale. Something like St. Elsewhere, with its famous snow globe final show caused viewers to stop and think about what they witnessed. It caused a complete reassessment of everything that came before it, a new prism through which to view all the interactions that had taken place in the series. Then there was Babylon 5, which ended its run with a deadly virus getting unleashed that would destroy all humanity (there was a spin-off in which a group went off to find the cure). There have also been distinctly disappointing show endings, like Seinfeld's trial and jail finale. Some would actually call that a bad show finale, but it pales in comparison to the worst of them all. No doubt, hands down, unquestionably, the worst finale ever to air on television belongs to Donald P. Bellisario's Quantum Leap. The show starred Scott Bakula as Dr. Sam Beckett and the basic premise was that in the near-future, Beckett created a machine, the Quantum Leap Accelerator, that would allow him to travel in time. Upon its first use, Sam is sent into the past and into someone else’s body. The brains back in the near-future decide that Sam has been placed in this body by something or someone greater than them all in order to correct a mistake, to fix something. Once Sam does this, he moves on to another time and another body, and correcting a mistake there into another, then another, and so on and so forth. Thus, as the viewer is told at the beginning of most episodes, the premise of the show is that "trapped in the past, Dr. Beckett finds himself leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home."That’s it, the basic premise -- Sam is time-traveling in the past and only wants to go back home, to his body and his life. The show, though sci-fi in premise, focused far more on human interactions. Sam traveled in time and gave everything he had in order to make the world a better place, to help the lives of individuals and humanity. He struggled, but never shirked his duty, always doing his best to help correct mistakes, and always wanting to somehow get back home.Well, the finale is all about him getting one last chance to go home, and he fails. The series ends with the postscript that “Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home.” It is true that in its original conception, the episode was only intended to be a season finale, and that upon not getting renewed it was re-edited and turned into a series finale. That, however, is no excuse. The ending proffered, that “Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home,” destroys all hope for Sam. Sam is still traveling, still striving to put right what once went wrong, and forever hoping that his next leap will be the leap home. For a show that was entirely about optimism, self-sacrifice, and doing the right thing, for a show that was entirely about changing the world, making a difference, and helping humanity, to have the final message be that those that help the world are doomed to lose themselves and their lives in their work is horrific. The notion that by doing good we lose who we are is not one that fits the rest of the series. While Sam never intended to help save the world with his project, once he started down that road he continued, unswervingly, and all he ever wanted was to one day, somehow, go back home to his wife. What a bleak, wretched ending, having this man who gave everything, lose everything. The show may have ended 13 years ago, but I’m still waiting for a retraction. It is unacceptable that Sam Beckett never returned home. I wait for the day when Beckett travels into Bellisario and corrects this grievous error.And you thought the ending to The Sopranos was bad.

The Killers of Hell's Kitchen

Josh Lasser — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:43:34 EDT

What in the name of all that is good and holy are those women on Hell's Kitchen thinking? No, seriously, it's time for a good old fashioned rant...Last night, three of the women -- yes, three of them -- tried to serve food that may actually have made people ill had it gotten out of the kitchen. It was almost enough to make me worry about going out to eat. So many of the people on the show are actual chefs at restaurants. Are the people that cook in restaurants really more concerned about getting food out fast than not making their customers ill? First on the list last night you have Joanna, who wanted to serve rancid crab. She claims never to have smelled the crab so, the claim goes, she didn't know that it was bad. She did however, as the cameras pointed out, taste it, so she should have had some idea. Good old Gordon Ramsay, however, was on his game -- he smelled it and tore Joanna, deservedly, a new one.Next up, Bonnie. It was Bonnie's job to cook the scallops. Upon being called to the pass by Ramsay, Bonnie, in her inimitably blond fashion, queried Ramsay about what was wrong, quickly following the first question with one about whether the scallops were raw. Now, a smarter person who was trying to pass off raw fish as being cooked wouldn't immediately jump to "is the fish raw" -- they'd allow the person judging them to state the problem up front. The issue could have been any number of things, and she, by jumping the gun, made it clear she knew exactly what she did. Dumb. Just dumb.Lastly, there was Jen. Jen, thinking that they were done with the spaghetti for the night, tossed it. Sadly, they weren't. She was made aware of her error and then went to the garbage to get the spaghetti back. Her claim? Well, it was on the top of the garbage and I only took some of it. Now, a couple of things immediately spring to mind. Additionally, she argued, she was going to cook it again, which would have killed any and all germs. First, as George Costanza learned: adjacent to refuse is refuse. Then, and this only struck me later, but that better have been a different garbage can than the one that the rancid crab ended up in. I believe it was, but wouldn't swear to it. The insanity continued later, though in a less directly dangerous to customers way, as the women were assigned to choose two of their own for nomination. Obvious to everyone was Joanna. Her wanting to serve the rancid crab was the most insane of all the problems. Melissa, in a move that certainly felt weird, led the charge for Joanna to be nominated and then wanted to add Julia to the list instead of Bonnie or Jen. Julia, Melissa argued, didn't know as much as the other chefs. Personally, I couldn't help but look at her pushing these nominations as her pushing the nominations of the two African-American women on their team. Julia had saved the day during the challenge earlier in the episode, running both the women's and the men's kitchens. Melissa had two other teammates who could have made customers ill that she could have nominated, but she went for Julia instead. Despite whatever she argued, it wasn't a matter of Julia knowing less, as Melissa argued, or even that she is an exceptionally strong competitor and Melissa wanted to eliminate Julia for that reason (she's really a pretty poor competitor and I would be shocked if she won). There was something else at work in Melissa's decision-making process. The whole thing is oh-so-incredibly disturbing. Seriously, is this what happens in restaurants all the time? Because, if so, I’m going on a serious diet.

Dig That Funky Binary Solo And Cable's Other Great Offerings

Josh Lasser — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:55:04 EDT

With the ever-expanding set of original programming choices that are offered by cable networks over the summer, I think that the months between the end of one traditional season (May) and the beginning of the next (September), are rapidly becoming the best time to watch television. To be sure, there isn’t as much original programming as there is in the fall, and one would be hard-pressed to try and fill all the primetime TV hours in the summer (a far easier task in the fall), but there is still tons of good stuff out there. Last night, two shows had their season premieres and another its series premiere, and all are definitely worth checking out.Up first was The 4400, that odd, slightly disturbing sci-fi show that more recent programs, like Heroes, certainly owe a debt. The name from the show comes from the fact that within its world, 4400 people were taken from Earth over the course of 60 (or so) years. They were all then returned to the same place in Washington State at the same time. Some have developed special abilities (superpowers). The show follows some of the 4400 and the government agency, NTAC (the National Threat Assessment Command), that watches over them.I’ll admit that I have a hard time in this show remembering the specifics of what went on from one season to the next. From the first to the second season it didn’t seem that important, we were mainly dealing with “freak of the week” episodes (single, standalone episodes exploring one never before and never again seen character that didn’t really tie in to a larger picture). Over the last few seasons however, there has been a far larger story arc in play, mostly recently with The 4400 Center and Jordan Collie (Billy Campbell) trying to convince everyone in the world to take a drug that would help them all unleash their “4400” ability. The authorities (mainly in the form of Joel Gretsch) don’t appreciate the fact that many 4400 abilities are dangerous, and the drug he pushes, deadly.It’s a show that occasionally is a little too obvious in its message (anytime anyone has the initials J.C. I get nervous), but still poses interesting questions about our society and where we’re headed. If sci-fi isn’t your thing, there are still a number of strong family-based stories to follow, though joining the series at this point in its storyline may prove difficult (there are of course DVDs available of the first three seasons).Next up, the ever-funny Entourage. They had a slightly different episode last night, quite reminiscent of several M*A*S*H episodes, though they may have been pushing more for a Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse thing (the documentary made by Francis Ford Coppola’s wife about the making of Apocalypse Now. The cast and crew of Medellin, a film being made by Vince Chase and his buddies about Pablo Escobar, are followed by a documentary filmmaker through their trials and tribulations of making a movie. It was a great way to show what happened on set during the filmmaking, and it advanced the main story three months without skipping over anything. I always find Entourage a great diversion, and am interested in what happens with the main characters, even if I never really see anything laugh-out-loud wonderful.What did make me laugh out loud last night was the new show that followed Entourage, Flight of the Conchords. Any show that talks about, even in passing, gulab jamuns that are “off the hook” is unquestionably worth checking out. The show follows a couple of boys from New Zealand trying to breakthrough with their odd, folksy band in New York City. It’s a little bit Extras, quite a bit weird, and filled with funny, funny songs. Last night’s premiere focused on one-half of the duo (Jemaine) trying to date the other-half’s (Bret) ex-girlfriend. Needless to say, it was an idea doomed from the start.Normally, I would find a show like this a little too quirky and a little too far out there; weird for weird’s sake, rather than weird for funny’s sake. However, there were enough truly hysterical moments to stop that from being the case. Outside of the “off the hook gulab jamuns” which, I’ll give you, you need to know Indian food to appreciate it, during the credits there was an extended portion of a music video that the duo filmed earlier in the episode. In short, in the video they’re robots talking about how they now run the world and all the humans are dead. The extended portion features a brilliant “binary solo” which solely consists of a (I hope) random string of “0” and “1”s, which, if you think about it, is exactly what a binary solo should be. It’s a funny notion, made utterly hysterical by the deadpan portrayals of the main characters. These guys act perfectly serious, even with the dumbest things, and that’s what makes them funny.See, cable is good. TV is good. And tonight, I’m hoping Hell’s Kitchen will be good too.

How To Destroy A Good Television Reveal

Josh Lasser — Wed, 23 May 2007 16:02:14 EDT

Here’s the deal this morning, folks: I am not going to come out the box swinging (at least not at what you think). Sure, I’m upset that Veronica Mars is no more (but seriously, Kristen, if you need consoling, tell me, I’m here), but sadly it is old news. The numbers were not there for a fourth season and as much as I like good TV, I can absolutely accept a network canceling a show that isn’t financially viable. What really, really bothers me are the “previously on” snippets that shows air (I know, EW did a back page thing on it a couple of weeks ago, and this was neither inspired by that nor really connected). For some silly reason, for the first time in a long-time I watched a “previously on” last night (just so happened that it was for our Veronica Mars). In this “previously on,” there was a clip from far earlier in the season in which Weevil says that it’s hard to go straight and that he has considered going back to his illegal ways. Not five minutes into the actual episode, we are treated to students looking at a police lineup in which we’re not shown who exactly is lining up. Both students, separately, state that number 4 is the guy. Because I’d watched the “previously on” there was neither awe, nor shock, nor surprise when the camera finally revealed, at the end of the scene, that Weevil was number 4. But, it was filmed so as to be a surprise, so clearly someone thought it should be a surprise. You creative-types and network-folks, do you understand the problem here? The scene is filmed so as to try and make it a surprise, or shock, that Weevil is the guy people are fingering. The audience knows that Veronica will get him off, that he didn’t do it, but we’re still so supposed to be surprised by this “reveal.” The problem is that because someone thought that the audience was stupid and would need to be reminded that Weevil has been tempted to going back into the life, the reveal is foolish. We all know that Weevil’s the guy already, making not showing him immediately in the lineup just plain annoying. Why are you trying to surprise us with something you told us five minutes ago?Let’s look at it another way: TV and Film Guy is going to have some delicious barbecue for lunch, only TV and Film Guy doesn’t know that he is going to have delicious barbecue for lunch. TV and Film Guy only knows that lunch will be good today and that its exact makeup is a surprise. Then, the individual who ordered the lunch for TV and Film Guy and the whole staff looks at TV and Film Guy and says “man we haven’t had some delicious barbecue in a while, have we? Isn’t barbecue delicious? Wow, some delicious barbecue would really hit the spot today, wouldn’t it?” TV and Film Guy will now not be surprised when lunch is in fact delicious barbecue. Five minutes later however, the food ordering individual keeps talking about the “surprise lunch” and trying to convince TV and Film Guy that the lunch is in fact a surprise. Sure, TV and Film Guy won’t be disappointed with delicious barbecue, but it’s no longer a surprise. The story is no less interesting for it not being a surprise that Weevil is the guy in the lineup, just as the delicious barbecue is no less delicious. However, it’s not a surprise and consequently shouldn’t be shown as such.Astute folks out there will realize that the show was shot first and the “previously on” edited later, so I shouldn’t rail against the show, but more the “previously on” people. I disagree, I blame everyone involved, mostly my TiVo for being foolish enough to record the “previously on” to begin with and my wife for serving me a dinner that required me to eat with my hands, not a fork, thereby forcing my remote control hand to be otherwise occupied (and quite dirty) during the crucial moments (one doesn’t touch the remote with sticky fingers). Seriously though, it is both the “previously on” creator and the episode writers’ fault. There ought to be an open line of communication between these groups of people. A nice simple “hey, Weevil being in the lineup is a surprise, so don’t give it away in your ‘previously on’ please,” would be enough on the writers part. And, as for the “previously on” people, they must’ve seen the episode or read a script to know that the Weevil thing was going to come up, so why would they knowingly screw up a potential surprise? All I ask is for a little consideration for the audience -- we may be smarter than you give us credit for being.I think it goes without saying, and thus I don’t feel like I’m ruining the biggest surprise of all, I’ll be having some delicious barbecue for lunch.

NBC's Comedies Go Below The Belt

Josh Lasser — Fri, 4 May 2007 13:23:45 EDT

Maybe it’s because I’m a father that I notice these things more than I used to, but I was shocked, shocked I tell you, by the incredible number of sexual references last night on NBC’s two-hour comedy block. I mean, wow, it was actually unbelievable. My Name is Earl had a sex doll, The Office was about a flasher and had a plotline about Michael’s sexual activities with Jan, and Scrubs focused virtually all its energy on the notion of elderly folks having sex and JD trying to get with Melody (Keri Russell). Thankfully, my child is not yet at the age where I have to worry about her being awake at that hour or her watching television in general, but I would have been distinctly uncomfortable watching the shows with her. Trying to explain the sex doll Joy got for Darnell on Earl would have been difficult, particularly when Joy explains to Darnell that it’ll be more lifelike if he puts it in a hot tub for 20 minutes or that the head is detachable. And, that’s the 8 PM show. The Office was less explicit, but continued the theme. The numerous jokes about the flasher and the flashed bits, and Michael’s issues in bed with Jan (she insists on taping them and then playing it back with her therapist), while more serious than Earl’s doll (except for the bit where Michael pretended to be a flasher, putting his hand in his pants, lowering the zipper, and then sticking a finger out of the fly), continued the whole theme long enough for Scrubs to take the ball and run with it. And, run with the ball Scrubs did. Carla and Elliot spent much of their time trying to figure out what was wrong with their elderly patients while JD did his best to get his hands (literally) on Melody, Elliot’s sorority sister. It eventually became clear that due to sexual enhancement drugs, the elderly folks had been successfully sleeping around and both contracted syphilis. Numerous jokes were made by and about Bob Kelso and his abilities in this area due to drugs as well. The vast majority of the humor mined last night was sexually based, and that’s not usually the case on these shows. However, as the saying goes, “sex sells” and this is currently the May Sweeps period, so perhaps the producers of the programs were trying to cash in. It all reminds me of the days when NBC used to run stunts during comedy blocks that revolved around stuff like blackouts. All the comedies would focus on the same theme, like suffering from the same power outage across all the shows. It was an idea put forth to enhance the flow from one show to the next and keep viewers tuned in. Now, rather than calling this the “sex jokes” night, NBC “super-sized” their comedies in funny ways. Watching it on TiVo, I noticed that a lot of the extra time on My Name is Earl and Scrubs were actually commercials and promos, or that’s certainly how it seemed. I don’t know if NBC asked the shows to develop their shows around the sexual jokes, and I'm not saying that they did. The episodes were unquestionably funny, subject matter and all, I’m just thankful that I didn’t have to sit there with my child and watch them.

I'm Going To Need To Request A Do-Over

Josh Lasser — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:33:59 EDT

Damn Danny and Oswald, damn them! Who exactly am I supposed to be rooting for on The Amazing Race this season now that the team I had been pulling for (once Rob and Amber left, of course) is now no more? The Blondes? Should I root for the Blondes, the team where both members are so interchangeable that it usually isn’t necessary to differentiate which is which? They seem to be the front runners -- they’re by far the least obnoxious team, which is saying something, because I wanted to murder them when they were on last season. Charla and Mirna? I would say horribly wretched things about them if someone wouldn’t slam me for saying bad things about a vertically challenged individual and her teammate who, despite being a lawyer, can barely speak in full sentences. To be sure, I would in no way make for fun of the shorter member of the team due to her height; rather I would focus entirely on the demeaning way in which her partner speaks to people from other countries whose first language isn’t English. But rather than take any abuse for abusing someone that may, depending on to whom you’re speaking, be at a disadvantage over others, I will avoid badmouthing them. I will, however, state that they were the first team I wanted to see leave the race at the beginning of the season and it pains me every second they get airtime. Then there’s Eric and Danielle. The way the show is cut together, I’m moderately surprised the two of them are able to get dressed on their own each morning, at least without getting into a knockdown, drag out, brutally violent fight. Eric, I imagine, curses his way through the getting dressed process, and blames other teams for the necessity that he put on shorts, while Danielle seems to be unable to find anything the will cover her cleavage, but at least she tries.I loved Oswald and Danny. The two of them seemed like genuinely nice and good people. Why can’t they follow a map? If they could’ve done that either last week or this week they might actually still be in the race. And - and after this I’ll stop - why would they want Charla and Mirna to win? Are they, like me, trying to make the best of a bad situation? I really wouldn’t have a problem if good old Phil disqualified everyone and made them play again.Speaking of trying things again from the beginning, must we suffer through Mike and Susan trying to get back together… again on Desperate Housewives? It’s actually insane. They would both have to be completely and utterly crazy to try this for the twelfth time, and if the producers make us sit through another half-dozen episodes were they try and fail and try again to get back together, I may have to remove the show from my TiVo. We’ve dealt with this story for about 50 or 60 episodes already. I’m over it and I can’t imagine the rest of the audience isn’t, too. It shows an utter lack of creativity on the part of the producers.Elsewhere on Housewives, there certainly is creativity. The producers have completely rewritten history, and act as though Susan and Edie would be, could be, and are friends. Susan and Edie, friends. Must I recount the umpteen episodes when Susan complained about, fought with, and generally maligned her nemesis? Yet, Susan apparently felt badly last night about siding with Gaby about the woman that repeatedly tried to steal Mike (and who did in fact end up leading Susan into the predicament with Mike she currently has). Now, that’s true creativity. The producers were able to completely unburden themselves of the reality of the world that they have created and wrote up a new storyline that completely reimagines the whole thing. At this point, and I’m just sorry to have to do this, I need to ask for a do-over on all of Sunday night television for the past few weeks. Except, of course, for The Simpsons, from whom I’ve shamelessly stolen this idea (see people, you can still be creative after nearly 400 episodes). Good for Marge, forcing a whole stadium of people to relive a little league baseball game over, and over, and over, and over...

Thank God You're Here, Now Get Lost

Josh Lasser — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:48:06 EDT

On the same day that I encouraged all of you out there to not be depressed by the television season ending, I watched some shows last night and was depressed that the season hadn’t ended yet. Frankly, what I saw looked awfully tired and made me think that the people behind the scenes need a rest.First up, NBC’s “improvisational” comedy Thank God You’re Here. Allegedly, this show drops an actor into a situation with a comedy troupe, the actor has no idea what’s happening and has to, therefore, do some improv. Well, Jason Alexander walked out onto a starship set last night and started to improvise, and kept being forced in one direction by the troupe. His improv led him to state that the show they were working on had been canceled (making the troupe into actors working on a show rather than the crew of a starship). One of the troupe said something along the lines of “what he means is…” and thereby dismissed the idea of a show within a show that Alexander put forth and put him on a path they wanted him to travel, not the path he was going down. It quickly became clear that Alexander’s idea was dismissed so that the show could introduce an alien on a videoscreen. Eventually the alien boarded Alexander and his crew’s starship, and then proceeded to start a duel with Alexander. Conveniently, the alien’s choice of weapon just happened to have a counterpart next to Alexander’s captain’s chair. Alexander, upon having the weapon pointed out to him, stated “oh, is that what that is.” If it hadn’t been readily apparent before, it was now -- it was going to make no difference what Alexander said or did to that point in the improv sketch, the members of the troupe were going to force this duel to occur, even if that meant gainsaying every remark from Alexander. How is that improv? Isn’t improv rolling with the punches, being fluid, malleable, and going where the scene goes? I don’t get it, I just don’t.And, speaking of not getting it, when Jack asked Sun last night about her pregnancy, why was she so suspicious? Have we forgotten that Jack’s a doctor? Has Sun forgotten that Jack’s a doctor? Why, when Sun asked Jack why he was asking her about how she felt during the pregnancy, did Jack not respond: “I’m asking because I’m a doctor and want to make sure you’re okay.” It is wholly irrelevant that Sun was right in her suspicions. If a doctor you know and that treats you and your friends asks you about a medical condition you have, why would you ever be suspicious of that? The folks at Lost failed to establish any sort of reason for Sun to have her suspicions. Yes, Jack was gone for a week, held by the Others, but having lived in such close proximity with Jack for months, and having received medical attention from him before, why was she suspicious? The only answer is that the producers needed her to be suspicious in order to further the plot. That’s a horrible answer, but it is the only available one.The fact that the rest of the episode was so good and that everything moved on from that incident so well does help mitigate this bit of stupidity, but Lost prides itself on being smart, and this was stupid. Maybe I shouldn’t, but I expect better. Listen, here’s what I’m going to recommend: after tonight (first night of the May Sweep by the way), let’s all take a deep breath, get a full three-day weekend’s worth of sleep, and pretend like some of this stuff never happened. We’ll not mention Thank God You’re Here ever again (until its cancellation anyway).