Tantalizing TV

New year's television resolutions

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:53:00 +0000

Although the new year occurs in the middle of the television season, there are still opportunities for change to occur. Here are some of my hopes for 2012 television:

SPOILER ALERT: Do not read if you have not seen the season six finale of "Dexter" that aired Dec. 18 or "Parks and Recreation" as of Dec. 1.

* The last time "Dexter" ended a season with a major narrative shift, Rita died at the end of the mind-blowing fourth season. It was a gusty move that would surely impact the future of the show and after that stellar season, it seemed like the show knew what it was doing. However, they wasted that opportunity by creating an awkward and inappropriate rebound romance for Dexter in season five, and this year's season wasn't much of an improvement, minus the shocking last-second moment where Dexter's sister, Deb catches her brother killing Travis Marshall, the Doomsday Killer. The writers have once again created a game-changing scenario on the show. My hope is that they use this change to better the show, instead of using Deb's knowledge as another plot point that continues the show's downward spiral.

* Here's hoping that "Parks and Recreation" follows the lead of "Up All Night" when it comes to the roles of men in relationships. On "Up All Night," Will Arnett's Chris quits his job as a lawyer to be a stay-at-home dad with little argument. Minus the occasional moments where he misses his job, he is happy with his daughter and that his wife, Reagan is working to support the family without guilt-tripping her. On "Parks and Rec," Ben gave up his job in the Pawnee government to save Leslie's job and political aspirations. While nothing is keeping Ben from getting another job, it would be a shame to have Ben develop remorse toward Leslie for making him leave his previous one. It was hinted at in the Dec. 8 episode, where he kept saying he "resigned in disgrace." Hopefully that was just an immediate, knee-jerk reaction and won't turn into lasting problems for the wonderful couple.

* I'm looking for a "30 Rock" revival. Jack became nearly isolated from 30 Rock and Liz Lemon's band of merry misfits, which is a shame, as the show-within-a-show gave "30 Rock" its charm. Last season, things got too muddled with romance (both Matt Damon and Elizabeth Banks' characters added little) and downright malaise from the writers and actors. "30 Rock" should not be a downer show; let's hope that its sixth season (beginning Jan. 12) will bring it back to the early seasons' glory.

* Although I'm not watching the show, I hope that "American Horror Story" won't disappoint its audience as Ryan Murphy shows did in the past. I'm still bitter about the major decline in quality on "Nip/Tuck" and "Glee." Murphy's a known show-killer, and for the sake of AHS fans, I don't want to see them burned.

* Finally, at least for the time being: The world cannot end in 2012. "Arrested Development" isn't set to return until 2013.

Grammy nomination concert cheapens awards

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 03:45:00 +0000

The Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences' decision to air a nomination special and concert for the Grammy Awards is slightly baffling. The Grammys have had ratings struggles (as have most award shows) and are looking to gain viewers. In the last few years, they've expanded upon the nomination announcement, adding an over-stuffed concert to the announcement of only a few nominees. Wednesday's special was another awkward show, in which contractually obligated CBS stars stuffed as much music and bombast into one hour, with little emphasis on the nominations. The nomination reveals were strange, between the odd delay in the song playing and the artists' image on the big screen and the presenters' reading of the song (don't forget missteps like Nicki Minaj's inability to pronounce Bon Iver). I'm disappointed with myself for wasting time on them (especially since it made me forget The Soup, which is now, inexplicably and annoyingly, on Wednesdays now).

When other award shows present their nominees, the announcements are short, sweet and to the point. Here, the award presentations are second to the performers during the concert; I'm sure we'll see many of the same performers at the Feb. 12 ceremony anyway. They aren't going to be as fun come February, because we've already seen the show. A tribute to a song going into the Grammy Hall of Fame (Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five's "The Message")? How special is this tribute if it's not even during the real Grammy Awards? Wouldn't it make more sense to profile the song come February, instead of here? How special is an in Memoriam? And does Lady Gaga really deserve to perform multiple times (I say this as someone who saw her in concert in 2010 and enjoyed it, by the way, so Little Monsters need not attack)?

This concert existed solely to further clutter the TV with concerts that masquerade as award shows. Come on, how many ACMs, AMAs, WMAs, VMAs, etc., do we really need? The way the Grammys present themselves now, the awards are secondary and losing meaning year after year.

CBS, the Academy: If you want to distinguish your awards from others and keep the Grammys' reputation for being the ultimate prize in music, keep the awards fair and a one-time only event. Note: fair does not necessarily mean "outside of the mainstream." But, really, the screech-fest that is Katy Perry's "Firework" is one of the best recordings of the year? Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's good, but that's another matter. The way it is now, it's just another way to fill multiple holes in the schedule.

To cancel or not to cancel: do networks jump the gun when deciding a show's fate?

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:25:00 +0000

Conventional wisdom holds that sweeps periods, especially those in November and May, are the final shot for struggling new shows to show that they've got what it takes to keep viewers and advertisers.

These days, arguably, making it to sweeps is quite the achievement for shows, as the beginning of the 2011-12 season has already seen many casualties before the Halloween pumpkins begin to rot. Perpetual also-ran NBC made "The Playboy Club" the first canceled show of the season after only three episodes, while its "Free Agents" managed to stay on the air for four weeks. "Charlie's Angels" (ABC), "How to be a Gentleman" (CBS) and "H8R" (the CW) also faced early demises.

Early cancellations of shows are nothing new, and there are plenty of shows that get weak ratings still on the air. However, it seems as though there are more vocal critics of networks canceling shows before they find their footing. After "The Playboy Club" was canceled, star David Krumholtz fired off a rant on Twitter, ultimately tweeting (before deleting) "NBC fucked up. Retweeet that shit." Many viewers of the show, based on comments I've seen online, said that after a weak pilot, the show was beginning to find its footing.

So, here's the ultimate question: Are networks jumping the gun by not giving under-performing shows a chance? Or, are they acting smart by making room for shows that may fare better?

One could argue that both the Nielsen ratings system and the traditional network scheduling format are now out-of-date. Nielsen skews heavily toward older audiences (as it doesn't record college residence hall TVs), which likely hurts new, creatively risky shows that older or conservative audiences may shy away from (such as "Arrested Development"), and with TiVo, smartphones and VOD services, it's much easier for people to watch shows at their own leisure. With "The Playboy Club," the show was canceled within 24 hours of its third airing, which doesn't give a lot of opportunities for people to catch up, or a lot of buzz to build. In the not-so-recent-past, networks allowed shows like "The Office" to grow into cash cows after being dismissed in the onset. Could these canceled shows have grown to become hits? Audiences will never know (let's be honest ... we can probably say "no" to "H8R"). Additionally, canceling show after show reflects badly upon a network. Fox and NBC in particular seem to have a reputation for this, which means that viewers may be less likely to try new shows until they're safe bets for renewal, which doesn't bode well for shows from the get-go. Being less antsy on the big red cancellation button shows stability. Maybe a weak show won't make six seasons and a movie, but it may make it past episode three.

When looking at new media, networks may have a different perspective. DVR viewings may help the long-run ratings, but it won't help get advertisers to stick around or gain immediate buzz. How many times have you taken a "wait and see" approach to shows? Waited to see if the reviews would be good, waited to see if the show would be canceled, waited until it was on DVD? It's easier to watch shows on one's own schedule now, but in a culture where it's important to have the newest, shiniest products, networks really can't let shows languish in ratings and ad revenue limbo to see if they catch on, especially if the show is currently an expensive and high-profile risk (as "The Playboy Club" was). Let's not forget that new media makes it easier for bad press to spread. I don't know how many times I've read advanced reviews or watched leaked pilot episodes that helped me to think negatively of a show. How is a show supposed to move on from that?

As someone who often watches shows that met what may be seen as an untimely demise, I tend to side with the first theory, but the second certainly has its merits, especially as the networks try to adapt to new media. Is there a blanket "yes" or "no" answer, or is it circumstantial? Leave a comment with your thoughts.

Inexplicably, shows not named Parks and Recreation win at 2011 Emmys

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:27:00 +0000

Above: Emmy loser Stephen Colbert (likely drunkenly) tweets about the similarly snubbed "Parks and Recreation." I wonder what those after parties are like ...

To put it simply, the 2011 Emmy Awards paled in comparison to the strong 2010 broadcast. Host Jane Lynch was likable enough, but the stereotypical jokes fell flat (A woman hates men so much, specifically, the "Entourage" cast, that she became a lesbian!) and the opening number wasn't funny or engaging. it was like the writers were actively trying make us dislike the very likable "Glee" star.

Once again, "Modern Family" took home many of the top prizes during the night, including their second consecutive Outstanding Comedy Series prize, during a season many fans and critics considered to be a step down from their freshman season (like "Glee," which, appropriately, didn't win any of the broadcast awards. Oddly, Fox, the show's broadcaster, couldn't claim any awards Sunday.). The Outstanding Comedy Series trophy belonged to "Parks and Recreation," which many critics agree found a perfect groove this year.

Supporting Actress Julie Bowen (who had the best line of the night, "I don't know what I'm going to talk about in therapy now. I won something!") and Supporting Actor Ty Burrell deserved their wins (if Nick Offerman would have been nominated for "Parks and Recreation," that would have been another story), but it was disheartening seeing "Louie" lose to "Family" in the Outstanding Writing category.

And then there was the Outstanding Actor and Actress. I knew these categories would be complete messes, and they were (granted, I expected the voters to pick Laura Linney for a show featuring characters with awful personalities that was considered edgy only due to its morose subject matter and placement on pay cable). As "Office" star Rainn Wilson said (maybe a little unprofessionally, albeit accurately):

"Big Bang Theory" star Jim Parsons once again won an award for playing himself over Steve Carell's final "Office" season, while Melissa McCarthy beat Amy Poehler, the heart of the genius that is "Parks and Recreation."

This night taught me one thing: Chuck Lorre must bribe Emmy voters. Lorre's shows are often derided by critics (and television snobs) for playing to the lowest common denominator and yet the Emmys award the actors from the shows. Stop giving Lorre's ego fuel with these awards and award good actors from good shows. It seems like Emmy voters forgot they weren't voting for the very likable McCarthy's performance in "Bridesmaids," but for yet another formulaic Lorre show ("Mike and Molly"). The same goes for Lorre's "the Big Bang Theory" and Parsons. You don't deserve an award for playing yourself, which is why, even though Louis C.K. is wonderful, I don't know if would have he deserved the award for acting (Writing? Yes. He was robbed.). Just as Jon Cryer inexplicably won for "Two and a Half Men" in 2009, Chuck Lorre gets praise, and good comedy suffers.

At least the presentation for Outstanding Actress was amusing and sweet, thanks to Poehler (also see 2009's Outstanding Supporting Actress nominees), who organized a pageant-style presentation to McCarthy. Even though these women (McCarthy, Poehler, Linney, Tina Fey and Martha Plimpton), all talented (even if the quality of their shows differ), were competing against each other, they still came together in a good-humored fashion. The classiness of these ladies as McCarthy won helps offset my anger:

Oh, and the Emmys continued their almost complete snub of "the Colbert Report." Lord knows I love "the Daily Show," but lately, Stephen Colbert has just taken with his show and ran; the show's single win in 2008 is not enough.

On a lighter note: the Lonely Island delivered with a medley of their songs, including Maya Rudolph doing a dead-on impression of Lady Gaga's role in "3 Way (The Golden Rule)." Also, I commend the person(s) who came up with the "Office" segment featuring so many stars (among them, Cee-Lo Green and his spinning "Voice" chair). I was nearly doubled over laughing at this wonderful cameo:

As for the miniseries categories, "Downton Abbey (Masterpiece)" was the big winner (writer Julian Fellowes, director Brian Percival), while "Mildred Pierce"'s Guy Pearce and Kate Winslet (now possessing the EGO portion of the EGOT) took home acting awards (along with "the Kennedys"' Barry Pepper). Also, it's a shame Dame Maggie Smith wasn't at the show, for I'm sure she would have appreciated accepting her Outstanding Supporting Actress award from the cast of the incredibly classy "Entourage."

While the comedy portion of the evening was largely devoted to "Modern Family," the drama and miniseries categories showed a little more variety. Amazingly, "Friday Night Lights," the critically-adored, previously shunned show, won two awards, Outstanding Writing (Jason Katims) and Outstanding Lead Actor (a very shocked Kyle Chandler). The ecstatic atmosphere at the Nokia Theatre could be felt at home. Chandler's costar, Connie Britton, was absolutely adorable, giddy over Katims and Chandler's wins, as was presenter Minka Kelly, who presented the award to her former costar.

Otherwise, it was a single-award night for "the Good Wife" (Lead Actress Julianna Margulies), "Boardwalk Empire" (Director Martin Scorsese), "Game of Thrones" (Supporting Actor Peter Dinklage), "Justified" (Supporting Actress Margo Martindale) and "Mad Men" (Outstanding Drama). It seemed AMC purposefully delayed "Breaking Bad" this year (it aired too late this year to be eligible), so that Jon Hamm could beat Bryan Cranston for once, but it wasn't to be. Hamm and fellow also-ran Hugh Laurie probably shouldn't hold their breaths on ever receiving a swan song Emmy, either, as Carell saw this evening.

As ThinkProgress' Alyssa Rosenberg wrote during the broadcast, "Much of this [opening montage, featuring many shunned shows] makes me sad, because, oh hey, look at all those awesome shows that didn't get the recognition they deserved and that I could be having a much better time watching on DVD instead of something as POINTLESS AND FRIGHTENING AS THE EMMYTONES!" She's right about those awkward Emmytones singers - Joel McHale looked like he was losing more of his soul as each second passed. The show lacked the comedic touches of years past, with only a few bright moments. A couple surprises here and there couldn't hide the mess the broadcast became.

What are your thoughts on the Emmys? Who was shunned, wrongly awarded? Who deserved their awards? Was the show funnier than I'm making it out to be? Are you an angry Chuck Lorre fan out for my blood? Leave a comment!

A complete list of winners can be found on Emmys.com.

2011 Video Music Awards, in a word, awkward

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:10:00 +0000

Pictured: Adele, one of the few redeeming stars of the 2011 VMAs.

For some reason, I had high hopes for this year's MTV Video Music Awards. I thought between the stellar performance lineup, Britney Spears receiving the Video Vanguard Award and tribute to one of my favorites, Amy Winehouse, would help boost the show beyond its usual train wreck status.

I was wrong. MTV is so desperate for their show "Awkward." to be a bigger hit, they crafted the entire VMAs around the concept of being "Awkward." Minus a few bright moments, it was a dud.

The awkward began on the pre-show, where co-host Selena Gomez asked boyfriend Justin Bieber (whose haircut, upon certain angles, made his head look like Megamind) what the name of his snake was, to which he replied, "Johnson." Who wants to join me in line for the brain bleach? It then continued with Lady Gaga's weird show opener. Dressed as male alter ego Jo Calderone, she began with a monologue about Gaga that tried to prove she was desperately self-aware of her own hype. Her voice sounded strong during "Yoü and I," especially when she was only playing the piano (I don't care much for the studio version, with instruments that make noise not unlike chewing on ice. Her stripped-down performance was one of the highlights when I saw her in concert in 2010). However, it soon got too cluttered, with unnecessary dancing and more musicians (no offense to the legendary Brian May, any guitarist would have been too much). The biggest letdown? Not seeing Gaga fall down - MTV, why did you cut away from that glorious moment?

Gaga never stepped out of the Calderone character during her multiple appearances that night, which was annoying. I won't lie, I loved her outfits (yes, even the meat dress) at the 2009 and 2010 awards, thought she gave great speeches and a good performance and she was anything but subtle. But this year? Sadly, it was too much on an artist we're accustomed to getting too much from. Adding to the awkward was the will-they-won't-they kiss (that ultimately didn't happen) with Spears. The whole segment was a mess: a random crew of dancers dressed up as Spears, and Gaga's introduction of Spears was crude and rambling.

Then, when Spears finally got the chance to accept her award, rather than let her give a speech thanking people, she was forced into the awkward banter with Calderone (not at the fault of Gaga - it was clearly scripted) and the two introduced (a pregnant) Beyonce's performance. MTV hyped the Video Vanguard Award going to Spears, and then she was barely on stage. I doubt Spears was all that heartbroken about not giving a long speech (as her acceptance speeches are usually pretty rote), but it was still a bit rude on MTV's part. They helped turn Spears' award into the Beyonce show.

Speaking of performances, why were most of them so weak? Gaga's became too cluttered, Kanye West and Jay-Z's was disappointingly lacking charisma and Lil' Wayne's was downright painful.

Young the Giant gave a good performance, but the band isn't big enough and the performance wasn't memorable enough, given their status as rock's sole representation in the performances this evening (although this is more a problem with MTV than the band). The evening's house singer Jessie J can carry a tune, it's simply a shame that her original music is so boring; it's what will keep her from hitting it big in the United States.

The best performance of the evening easily belonged to Adele, who gave us a break from the overplayed "Rolling in the Deep" to deliver a beautiful rendition of "Someone Like You." While Beyonce sounded wonderful, too, her song choice ("Love on Top") was lacking, which is why Adele gets the upper hand.

Bruno Mars also helped to bring down the house during the tribute to Amy Winehouse. Singing "Valerie," a Zutons song Winehouse and producer Mark Ronson covered. Mars gets a lot of flack, especially from rapper Tyler the Creator (winner of the evening's Best New Artist award), but he delivered a vocally strong performance that stayed true to Winehouse's style. Let's hope he's learned from his 2010 cocaine arrest and Winehouse's struggles with drugs, and he can continue to perform well in the future.

Regardless, all in all, it was mostly a waste of two-and-a-half hours. As usual, who won the awards was irrelevant to the spectacle that was the show itself. Katy Perry won the top award, Video of the Year, for the video where she shoots stuff out of her boobs. No, not that one. The other one.

If you missed any of the awards, MTV.com has them on demand as well as plenty of coverage. Am I being too hard on MTV? Were there other highlights or awkward moments that should be addressed? Do you know why Cloris Leachman was there? Leave a comment, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

And now, one last nice moment: Kanye West's sweet, happy moment with daddy-to-be Jay-Z as his wife showed off her growing belly onstage:

2011 Emmy nominations announced

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:18:00 +0000

The nominations for the 63rd Primetime Emmys were released Thursday morning, so crazy television fans got up early (or stayed up late) to see them unfold.

A few stray observations:

*There were a couple underdogs that made their way in: Louis C.K., Johnny Galecki and Matt LeBlanc were nominated in the Lead Actor in a Comedy Series category. Kathy Bates was nominated for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. Idris Elba scored two nominations (as did Tina Fey), outstanding actor in a miniseries ("Luther") and outstanding guest actor in a comedy series ("The Big C") ... yet he was never nominated for playing Stringer Bell. "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" got nominations for Outstanding Variety Series and Writing for a Variety Series (God, I cannot wait for Stephen Colbert's reaction, since the BFFs for six months will be competing against each other). Oh, and Lady Gaga was nominated (for Variety Music Special).

*"Glee" lost its bids for lead actor and actress nominations, as did Toni Collette, and Neil Patrick Harris. "Big Love" was completely shunned in its final season. Also, I just want to remind everyone that Steve Carell has never won an Emmy. Although "the Office" is pretty lackluster now, I think it would be fitting to honor Carell for his seven years of work. Besides, the Emmys are notorious for not honoring people in the year that they should be (as Carell deserved the Emmy in 2006).

*I blame Rob Lowe submitting himself for Outstanding Lead Actor for splitting the votes between him and the truly deserving nominee, Nick Offerman. Lowe's role on the show is not that of a lead actor and his character is nowhere near as funny as Offerman's Ron Swanson, although Lowe's massive ego likely tells him otherwise. I strongly believe that if he hadn't submitted his name, any nominee voters that wanted "Parks and Recreation" to get a lead actor nomination would have had no choice but to vote for Offerman and not Lowe simply because he's a bigger name, and Offerman could have gotten a nod. Plus, no love for Chris Pratt, or any of the high-caliber writers? It's a disgrace.

*While "Community" has been a mixed bag (when it's good, it's astounding, but when it's not up to form, it's painful), Danny Pudi deserved a nomination for his equally hilarious and heartbreaking Abed. I will admit to a certain amount of bias, as Abed does remind me of a more socially awkward version of myself (although not much more awkward). The fact that the show didn't even garner one nomination is sad.

*The nomination for Laura Linney don't surprise me, but they frustrate me. A comedy doesn't always have to be laugh-out-loud to be outstanding, which is an argument that a lot of people make in support of shows like "the Big C." However, is a show really outstanding when the tone is incredibly insulting? Most of the characters, including Laura Linney's Cathy, are very unlikeable, and not in an endearing way (see "Arrested Development").

*I enjoy the way that the great pilot for "the Killing" was nominated, since, clearly, voters were not biased by seeing the rest of the show, which turned into a complete train wreck that even Outstanding Drama Actress Mireille Enos could save. This spot should have gone to "The Walking Dead."

*The good news? Even if the show is weak (as it was the last time it was on Fox, with Ryan Seacrest hosting), the Outstanding Writing for a Comedy or Variety Series category, featuring the often-hilarious videos introducing the nominees, should be back this year.

*What's up with the Emmys picking nominated females to present the awards (Melissa McCarthy was nominated), but the males are awkwardly shunned? Joshua Jackson this year, Joel McHale last year.

I could go on and on, but I've already rambled enough, my apologies ... to quote Kenneth Parcell, I just love television so much.

The full list of nominees and categories can be found here.

What do you think are the major upsets and surprises this year? Any outrageous inclusions or exclusions?

Syndicated How I Met Your Mother episodes feature digitally-added advertisement

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:39:00 +0000

The video below is a Internet advertisement for season four of "the Office," describing what the Dunder Mifflin staff did in the summer of 2007.

This always made me laugh, because in a way, it broke the space-time continuum. I can't help but wonder if, when Michael took the staff to see "Knocked Up," they thought to themselves: gee, Darryl looks a lot like the club doorman, Ryan looks an awful lot like that skeevy doctor and Steve Carell looks a lot like our boss!

Well, that continuum is becoming even more useless, and advertising is become a lot more shameless. As Entertainment Weekly and Slashfilm reported, syndicated reruns of shows like "How I Met Your Mother" now have advertisements digitally superimposed in the background.

Eagle-eyed viewers saw ads for films such as "Zookeeper" and "Bad Teacher" in episodes, ads that were not in the original or DVD versions. How could they be? These HIMYM episodes originally aired years ago (and were set in the years in which they aired, based on the show's narrative structure), long before these movies were likely in development. It's a simple, if shameless way to get the word out without airing a commercial spot (which would likely be skipped when viewed on DVR ... or VCR, if you're cheap like me and still live in the '90s), but it also seems a little tacky.

As with the above example with "the Office," I find the "Bad Teacher" ads amusing. If Marshall Eriksen exists in the HIMYM world, can Jason Segel also exist? After all, Segel became famous largely for playing Marshall, which is likely how he got a role in "Bad Teacher." How can Segel become famous for playing a "real" character? I realize this is probably far too analytic of a mindless viewing of a TV rerun, but I guess that's how I deal with my annoyance at the shamelessness of this.

Do you feel like you're more likely to see a film when it's integrated into shows like this? For me, I already know I'm never going to watch "Zookeeper," whether Marshall and Barney walk by an ad for it or not. But, could it subliminally work for lesser-known media products, or ones that inspire cravings (I'll admit to getting a hankering for T.G.I. Fridays breadsticks when I see that stupid "Zookeeper" ad)? I've always been fascinated by product placement and I'm curious where others stand on it.

Misfits arrives on Hulu

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:44:00 +0000

Now, for everyone's public service announcement of the day:

The BAFTA-winning British series "Misfits" is now available for (legal, high-quality) viewing for Americans on Hulu.

I blogged about "Misfits" not once, but two times last year, and while it developed a cult following online, it was up to viewers to find their own links to the episodes (often in low-quality) on websites that hosted the videos illegally. I think this prevented a lot of American television viewers who weren't too savvy about streaming television from occasionally risky websites from discovering this show.

Now Americans can have the show at their fingertips. Currently, episodes one and two are on the site, with a new episode premiering each Monday. This is one TV series that is worth that weekly wait.

There are a few silly moments in the show, especially in the second series (which is wonderfully fascinating overall), and I imagine that some may have trouble understanding Lauren Socha's accent:

However, it's worth it. "Misfits" is a fun (albeit NSFW) ride.

Here's a preview of the series:

The show's been getting some press in the US. "Entertainment Tonight" aired a feature on the series' Hulu debut, and rumors persist that American television networks want to remake the series for an American audience, much like "Skins," which "Misfits" is often compared to. (How did that work out?) Hopefully, that will never happen.

Chuck renewed for fifth and final season

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sun, 15 May 2011 12:25:00 +0000

"Big Love" did it, and now "Chuck" is set to follow their lead in announcing that its fifth season will be its last.

After passionate fan campaigns (much to Subway's joy), the show's managed to hang on year after year, which is impressive. Of course, a lot of its continuance likely stems from NBC's chronic failures and lack of good replacement programming, but that's another matter.

I'll admit that I haven't been following "Chuck" this season due to my work schedule, so I'm not going to pass too much judgment on season four. However, I also found myself bored with the first few episodes I did catch online, so it's not high on my television priority list. And, from what I hear from devoted fans, this season's been dull, and signs of strain are showing. It's inevitable with a show like this - there's only so many times Chuck can save Sarah (or vice versa), there's only so many back-and-forth, good-guy-or-bad-guy mysteries that can go on.

So, I'm glad the show will have its fifth season, but I'm also glad that it has an end date. This gives writers the opportunity to tie up loose ends and create and endgame for its characters. "Big Love" had the opportunity to do this, and while its final season wasn't perfect, it was a vast improvement over the previous season. Instead of loosely connected mysteries of the week that don't lead anywhere (entertaining as they may be), the writers can create a narrative like that of the engrossing season two, that leaves viewers satisfied and the show fulfilling its potential.

In other television news, if you're looking for other cancellations or renewals, TV Overmind offers guides to the current state of shows at ABC and NBC. At the network upfronts this week, we'll likely find out more about what shows are picked up at CBS and Fox.

ABC cancels All My Children and One Life To Live, women weep

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:06:00 +0000

Soon, this legendary character, an icon of American television, will become part of television's past.

Yesterday, ABC announced that it canceled the legendary soap operas "All My Children" and "One Life to Live." Weak ratings and rising production costs prevented the shows from making a profit, and therefore, they decided to replace the shows with new, "View"-style lifestyle shows that will deliver better ratings at much cheaper rates. As a writer, I'm sad to see that shows with original writing (yes, the quality is debated, but it's writing nonetheless) being replaced with simplistic lifestyle shows.

Fans of the shows and soap operas as a whole are devastated by this announcement. The shows have been standards of ABC's schedules for over 40 years. However, when they premiered in 1970 and 1968, respectively, American culture was far different than it was today. The housewife was more common decades ago than it is today; as more and more women became working women, soap operas by and large went by the wayside.

Yet, even though fewer and fewer people watched the shows, many young and middle-aged women still have fond memories of the shows. Lord knows my mom and I spend many hours watching the two shows (and "General Hospital," before it got incredibly awful). I remember watching the shows in the mid 1990s, when characters like Hayley and Mateo (Kelly Ripa and husband Mark Consuelos) ruled "All My Children," along with the legendary Erica Kane (Susan Lucci). I remember getting a little emotional when Lucci's 19-year Daytime Emmy losing streak was broken in 1999. Many young women were essentially grandmothered into soaps, and it's a shame that by and large, they will not be around for future generations.

Sure, soaps were campy and outrageous - but that's how they were supposed to be. They were very self-aware, knowingly doing actor transformations mid-scene:

If soaps die, people can't keep coming back from the dead or inventing new twins. They're often silly, but they really did offer entertainment for years and years.

It just feels weird knowing that these standards of American television will no longer be on the air. Soon, the "ABC vs. CBS" soap wars will be non-existent. Soap opera magazines will be obsolete. I may not have watched the shows religiously, but it was oddly comforting knowing they were always there. My mom could (and would) update me on the show's plots - letting me know what shows were in creative slumps and upswings. I guess I always thought they could not be canceled, which was pretty naive.

Soaps have come and gone over the years. But now, they're just going, and not being replaced. It's a dying breed, and they'll be missed. Many actors and actresses' careers began on soaps like AMC and OLTL, and they've no doubt drastically changed the television landscape.

Are you going to miss AMC and OLTL? How are your mothers reacting to this news? What are some of your favorite, outrageous moments on any soaps?

Bid farewell to Big Love

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:29:00 +0000

It seemed like yesterday I wrote about how Big Love was ending after its fifth season, and now, the time has come. Tonight, HBO will air the final episode of the polygamist drama. And, surprisingly, I'm excited about it - excited for the right reasons.

I'm not excited for the reason I thought I would be - putting a formerly good show out of its misery. No, I'm actually excited because this season has been fairly good. The show has gotten back to its roots (the family and its drama), and there has been plenty of family drama to keep the show going. Without spoiling too much, the usual suspects at Juniper Creek are proving to be a great threat to the Henrickson family, which is facing self-implosion due to drama from a straying Barb, an emotional Nicki and a conflicted Margene. Oh, and Bill may go to jail. And Rhonda, quite possibly one of the most abhorrent characters in television (the one you love to hate) is back, which has yielded plenty of rage and emotion from me.

Sure, there are a lot of plot lines on the show right now that will need to be tied up tonight, and this season wasn't perfect because of them. Yet, last week's episode, Exorcism, was fascinating and kept me interested. I think the show did a good job of using a self-imposed ending to return to its roots and make a strong final season.

I'm glad that I'm excited for the series finale of a show I liked - I'm glad they were able to make audiences care enough to watch the finale (unlike shows like Nip/Tuck). Amanda Seyfried and Aaron Paul are expected to return in this episode, and I'm glad we'll get to see them one more time. I'm looking forward to the prospect of something bad happening to Bill and Rhonda. As a whole, I'm looking to see if they end the show on an optimistic note (where Alby goes down, Bill avoids jail and the family stays together) or a dim one (the family splits, Bill goes to jail, people die). It could go either way this evening, and I'm interested to see what they do. As ONTD user "arrogant_sage" said perfectly, this is a "great little train wreck of a show," and I'm glad that it's going out on a fairly strong note.

HBO posted a few clips of the finale:

What are your expectations for the finale?

Charlie Sheen's crazy quotes offer plenty of joy

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:31:00 +0000

I love award shows. So, you'd figure this update would relate to the Academy Awards. However, that's not true, first of all, because I was at work, and I missed most of the show. Second, from what I hear, the show was a dud, and much of the blame is placed upon co-host James Franco. I can't help but love Franco, so instead of focusing on his Oscar performance, I'll instead think about his brilliant Twitter account and photos, like this:

Anyway, the Academy Awards are not my main form of entertainment. No, my great joy this week comes from Charlie Sheen. Always a powder keg, the Franz Ferdinand moment came in January when he was sent to the hospital (and rehab) and production on his show "Two and a Half Men" was shut down due to Sheen's absence. In this last week, Sheen and "Men" creator Chuck Lorre have gotten into a war of words that turned anti-Semitic when Sheen mocked Lorre changing his name to sound less Jewish (which is rich, seeing as how "Carlos Estevez" wasn't Hollywood enough, and "Charlie Sheen" was better).

It turns out, those shocking comments were just the tip of the iceberg. In the past couple of days, Sheen has appeared on "the Today Show," "Piers Morgan Tonight," "20/20" and more, delivering mind-bogglingly scary/crazy/awesome/perfect (they're a little of all of these adjectives) phrases. To list them all would take forever, but, among the highlights:

*Frequent references to the word "winning," as well as "bi-winning: "I’m not bi-polar, I’m bi-winning. I win here and I win there."
*"I'm tired of pretending like I'm not bitchin', a total rock star from Mars, and people can't figure me out; they can't process me. I don't expect them to. You can't process me with a normal brain."
*"Clearly I have defeated this earthworm [Lorre] with my words, imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists."
*Frequent references to having "tiger blood and Adonis DNA," and being a warlock.

And, my personal favorite: "I am on a drug, it's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body." That's right, everyone, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have lied to you for 30 years, the Nazis were brought down by Sheen, not the Ark of the Covenant.

Debate continues over Sheen's mental condition - is he bipolar, having a manic episode? Is he high now, or is he now sober and crashing?

I'm not going to say that Sheen doesn't have some sort of mental anguish, but I honestly get the sense that the majority of his issues have to do with his massive ego. He's desperate to remain in the spotlight and truly believes he deserves more money for his work on "Two and a Half Men." Compared to someone like Gary Busey, a celebrity who has obvious mental issues/brain injuries, I see Sheen's meltdown as a different kind of breakdown. It's largely ego-driven.

This man has been pushing the limits for years, between the Heidi Fleiss scandal, the cocaine overdose(s), charges of domestic violence against his wives, and more. He knows he can get away with it - "Two and a Half Men" still became and remains a hit regardless of the stunts he pulls. So, he's going to pull out all the stops, all the egocentric thoughts in his head to get what he wants. This isn't a mental breakdown, it's an ego-driven one. Or, at least, that's what I'm going to tell myself so I don't feel bad about laughing endlessly at his "Sheenanigans."

If you haven't seen any of Sheen's recent interviews, here's a small clip of his "Today Show" interview.

Also worth checking out: Cats Quote Charlie Sheen and Sheen's new Twitter account.

What do you think? Are people being insensitive to a public mental breakdown, or is this just desserts for years of celebrity entitlement?

Four Weddings and an angry viewer

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:08:00 +0000

Let me start by asking: Does anyone remember when TLC branded itself as "the Learning Channel"? These days, it's impossible to actually learn anything from the network, as most of their shows are pointless at best (I maintain that "Cake Boss" is a poor man's "Ace of Cakes"), exploitative at worst (anything involving the Gosselins or Duggars).

Somehow, on Friday nights, even though the show annoys me, I find myself sucked in by the network's "Say Yes to the Dress," which chronicles bridal shops in New York and Atlanta. My mom makes a habit out of watching these shows, so any time I go out in the living room, I inexplicably end up watching the entire episode to see what dress the woman picks.

However, I can't say the same for "Four Weddings," the network's competition show where four brides grade each others' weddings, with the winner receiving a honeymoon trip for her and her husband. This show bothers me on many levels, the most notable being the unnecessary competition and jealousy it creates among women during what should be an incredibly happy time in their lives. Sure, brides have certain desires for their weddings and they're allowed to spend a certain amount of money on their special day to celebrate marrying the person they love.

I feel a wedding should be special for each couple; it shouldn't be about competing with other couples to see who has a "better" wedding. There's already a gross stereotype about brides that exists (and is rehashed through shows such as "Bridezillas" and movies like "Bride Wars"), portraying them as vicious, picky monsters, who, as shown in "Bride Wars," compete against other women for a ridiculous notion of bride supremacy. Every woman can have the wedding they want, why does it have to be a competition with other women?

Shows like "Four Weddings" take away the romance and importance of a wedding and instead turn it into an unnecessary competition that elicits the worst in women. On the few episodes of "Four Weddings" I've seen, I've been amazed at some of the awful comments women make about the other contestants' weddings, likely so they can improve their chances at winning a honeymoon. I vastly preferred the network's "A Wedding Story" (even though it usually was a too saccharin for my tastes), because it just focused on one couple and the devotion they had for one another. It showed them preparing for the wedding they wanted to have, not the one that was going to be better than fellow brides.

I realize I may be reading too much into a guilty pleasure show. Yet, I'm still really bothered by "Four Weddings." Anyone else?

Parks and Recreation returns as 30 Rock shines

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 05:04:00 +0000

This semester is killing me, much like the cold, possibly flu I currently have. So, I haven't had the time to update this blog, sadly.

However, this week for the BG News, I reviewed episode one of what is currently the funniest show on television, "Parks and Recreation." Words cannot adequately express my happiness now that the show is back on the air.

So, check out my review of "Parks and Rec" at BGNews.com.

Not only was last week's season premiere funny, but "the Flu," last night's episode, also delivered, largely thanks to Aubrey Plaza's April and Rashida Jones' Ann's hilarious hospital beside exchanges. Everyone, do yourselves a favor, please watch this show. If you watched season one and didn't find it funny, forget about that opinoin you formed and come in with an open mind, becasuse the show has become amazing.

Also, "30 Rock" was quite hilarious last night, mainly for making fun of the Jack/Liz shippers, even if this hilarious scene got the annoying OneRepublic song in my head.

My personal favorite joke? Upon the success of the NBC telethon for Mel Gibson and Jon Gosselin's private island, according to Jack, "It was our highest rating since that episode of 'SVU' when the detectives watched 'American Idol,'" which I took to be a blatant jab at the "Office" episode from November which revolved around a viewing party for "Glee."

This network. I think the Jan. 14 episode of "SNL" summarized it best:

James Van Der Beek, Joshua Jackson use Dawson's Creek fame for humor

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:30:00 +0000

I like seeing people in the public eye becoming Internet savvy, realizing they can use it to help their careers, poke fun at themselves and connect with fans.

For those of us who grew up in the late '90s, even if we didn't watch the show, we were all familiar with "Dawson's Creek" and Katie Holmes' Joey Potter and her love triangle with Pacey Whitter (Joshua Jackson) and Dawson Leery (James Van Der Beek). One season three episode of the show yielded an emotional reaction from Dawson that lived in infamy on the Internet, "crying Dawson." For years, Internet users have been using the awkward cry to feign sadness and express sarcasm.

This week Van Der Beek partnered with FunnyOrDie.com to create James Van Der Memes, a website which recognizes the permeation of "crying Dawson" online by allowing Van Der Beek to create a series of new emotion-filled animated gifs. My personal favorite, "No You Didn't":

Similarly, at last year's ComiCon, Jackson took a break from promoting his Fox show "Fringe" to hold his own "Pacey-Con" to celebrate his character, complete with Pacey fan fiction Jackson wrote:

Pacey-Con with Joshua Jackson from Joshua Jackson

Sure, these acts could be seen as pandering to the Internet and past fans in order to resurrect popularity (especially in Van Der Beek's case, since his last show, "Mercy," did not make it past season one). But I think it's funny that these two former co-stars are using their breakout roles and dumb Internet jokes to acknowledge their fans. With Van Der Beek, he's laughing at his own awkward acting moment, and as someone who collects gifs, his myriad of new expressions are quite nice additions to my collection.

Fall in love with Misfits this holiday season

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:59:00 +0000

You can watch Misfits here on YouTube, no fuss. Or via SideReel links. There. You have absolutely no excuse not to watch this show.

A couple weeks ago, I blogged about the brilliance that is Misfits, the British dramedy about a group of kids in a community service program who are suddenly given supernatural powers. The synopsis of the show sadly underscores how entertaining and fascinating the show is, so please do not judge the show based on the synopsis alone.

Well, since I blogged about it, the show only became more brilliant. I don't want to give too much away, but the second season of the show made the show even more addicting. New characters and character pairings were created and embraced by the show's fans. Episodes that are filler are still jarringly gut-wrenching (literally - I warn you now, while season 2, episode 6 is great, don't eat or drink anything while watching it) and emotionally affect the viewer. I don't like to waste time when I'm watching TV - I like plot forwarding episodes. But if an episode that doesn't really forward the plot can still be good, that's the sign of a great TV show in my eyes.

I realize I'm being really obtuse in my descriptions, but I don't want to inadvertently give anything away. Being surprised is half of the fun.

I liked to places to watch the episodes above. There's only six episodes in season one and seven in season two, so it's not a major time commitment. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I have never heard of someone who watched the show and didn't like it. It's charming, fascinating and addicting.

TV addicts, make a wise decision during the holidays and watch Misfits. Plus, when it's inevitably poorly remade for American television in a few years, you can say you knew about it before anyone else.

Do yourself a favor, stay 'streets ahead' and watch Community

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:11:00 +0000

Back during season premiere time, I wrote about how Community started the season off on a high note. While this season has been far from perfect, I still find myself enjoying the show, and Thursday's Christmas episode was genius.

As shown above, the entire episode was filmed as stop-motion animation, which could have been a cheap gag, but instead, established a high point for the show. Now, for the most part, I kind of hate Christmas. I'm not saying that in an attempt to be an ironic grinch, I just find other times of the year more enjoyable, and in recent years, I've become jaded by it. So, I was awfully surprised by how moved I was by this episode.

Abed, everyone's favorite television obsessed oddball, wakes up one day with his entire world in stop motion, and the study group tries to get him out of his funk. What follows is an episode that both satirizes and embodies holiday television traditions in a funny and sweet way. I'm not entirely sure how much of the episode's dialogue and events were real, or figments of Abed's imagination and worldview, but it was a fun ride that also put me into the Christmas spirit, which is a pretty remarkable feat. Plus, I have to love any show that manages to work the phrase "wash your dupa" into the plot (as a Polish person who hears her grandma, excuse me, Busia, say the word "dupa" all too often, I was cracking up).

Please, do yourself a favor and watch "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas." Community is one of those shows where it's fairly episodic, and you can watch any episode and understand what's going on. I'd like to also recommend 4 other episodes that showcase the show at its finest:

Modern Warfare (season one): As the title suggests, this episode involves war. A paintball game, more specifically, a campus-wide game for early class registration. It turns into an all-out blood bath straight out of a video game, complete with jabs at Glee.

Contemporary American Poultry (season one): The Godfather (and other mob movies), revolving around chicken nuggets. Need I say more?

Anthropology 101 (season two): Here's how good this episode is: Betty White is the weakest link.

Basic Rocket Science (season two): This was another episode that was so outrageous it was funny. I think what sold me on the episode was the KFC product placement. I can't help but laugh and smile at a great Colonel Sanders joke/reference:

Why am I here? Why do I watch shows like SNL?

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:49:00 +0000

Those of us who watch TV on a regular basis have probably found themselves asking why they are watching something that is terrible.

I'm not talking about "guilty pleasure" terrible, where something is enjoyable, even though it is lowbrow. I'm talking about deliberately sitting down to watch a show week after week, even though it consistently disappoints, out of sheer loyalty, a desire to not miss a potential great moment, or some other reason. While this semester has left me unable to follow as many television shows as I'd like, I still have this relationship with Saturday Night Live.

Rarely can I say that I enjoy a full episode of SNL, where I can recall sketches, recall laughing at them and find more hits than misses. Most weeks, SNL is filled with painfully unfunny skits that drag on far too long with only the occasional chuckle, which is how this season has been for me. Last night's episode, hosted by Anne Hathaway, was probably tied with the Amy Poehler-hosted season premiere for the best episode of this season, but sadly, that's not saying much.

Yet, every single week, I sit down, put aside whatever I'm doing, open up the ONTD discussion posts for the episode, and sit complaining (or occasionally expressing amusement) at the episode with fellow commenters. I usually don't enjoy the episodes enough to warrant spending 90 minutes watching them in real time.

So why do I do it? Well, the aforementioned discussion posts are a big reason. They help me get excited about the episodes, even though I'm eventually disappointed by them. As ONTD user "whop__dedooo" (that's a perfect username given the discussion) said, "the formula for our snl posts is pretty much: soo excitied --> ehh this skit is boring --> the writers dont know what to do with them ---> why did i watch again." I'd like to add a fifth step: "Oh yeah, I watch because it's better than homework."

For me, even the most painfully unfunny episode is better than toiling away on a Word document for hours and hours on a paper I care little about. It's a chance to complain about something other than my procrastination and my schoolwork. It can also assure I don't miss a potentially funny moment (I still remember watching "Dick In A Box" live, thinking it would be a hit, and going online immediately after the episode to be proven correct). But mainly, it's a chance to procrastinate, quality or not.

Does anyone else have similar relationships with shows?

Misfits is one of British television's finest

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:05:00 +0000

The above image explains exactly why Misfits, a sci-fi dramedy airing on Channel 4 in the UK, is so engaging and addicting.

The show centers around a group of young delinquents who are performing community service in London. During an electrical storm, the group is given superhuman powers and must deal with the outrageous fallout that results (it sounds familiar, yes, but unlike Heroes, it doesn't take itself too seriously). I would give the rundown of their powers, but I think it's more fun to discover them as the episodes unfold, because it creates a sense of suspense and intrigue. These characters are not the only ones who are affected by the storm, and, without giving too much away, as the above gif hints at, at least one of their probation workers ends up dead, and the gang has to work to cover up the death.

The fist six-episode season aired last fall/winter in the UK, and season two began on Thursday, and it came back with a solid episode that reminded me exactly why I enjoyed the first season. I'm not normally a fan of sci-fi shows, but I love this. I think my love partially stems from the fact that it's not simply a sci-fi show. The mythology of why the characters got their powers is fairly secondary to their subsequent dealings with them.

There are numerous moments of hilarity from the sharp-tongue characters, especially Kelly and Nathan. There is high drama from start to finish. Simon (otherwise known as Barry) is a character that is just so down on his luck, you can't help but feel sympathy for him. There's plenty of violence and sex, suspense twists and turns. And the second episode is incredibly heartbreaking. The show does a fantastic job of running its audience through the emotional gamut.

I realize my synopsis may be vague, but I have a feeling that the majority of regular readers have never even heard of the show, and I don't want to give much away. I began watching the show fairly blindly, and I'm glad I did. It made the experience so much more rewarding.

With Dexter falling short of its previous season, my own schedule preventing me from watching Chuck and Breaking Bad off the air until July (yes, I know AMC's Walking Dead is supposed to be great; I have not had time to watch it yet), Misfits is providing me with my drama fix. It won the prestigious 2010 BAFTA Television Award for Best Drama Series for a reason.

For those of you who are in the UK, or have an IP proxy, Channel 4 has each episode on their website. How I wish I could recommend NinjaVideo to everyone as a means to watch the episodes in high-quality. Since that's no longer possible, I'll recommend Sidereel to get the links (MegaVideo is my source now, but zshare and wisevid are good, too, if possible).

Anyone else familiar with Misfits?

Conan O'Brien returns to television

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:32:00 +0000

Once I see a few more episodes of Conan O'Brien's new show, I'll be able to critically evaluate it, with more coherent language and maybe a little criticism (hopefully, not much). In the meantime, I am giddy knowing that I cracked up many times during his show tonight. Of course, if my brain explodes due to the amazing pairing of Tom Hanks and Jack McBrayer, it'll be a bit difficult to update.

Anyway, it's just so nice to see Conan back on television. I missed his interactions with Andy, I missed his rapport with guests, and I miss him singing! His performance tonight with Jack White had me dancing in my seat like a crazy person (in other words, thank God I was watching it alone in my room, because that would have been too embarrassing for anyone to see). I remember the euphoric high I had in May after seeing Conan at Michigan State University; just being reminded of how amazingly funny and how big of a smile he brought to my face. I have that same high again, and it's nice to know that my exposure to him won't be limited to that one tour date, but now, he'll be on my TV four nights a week.

I think the highlight was, no doubt, the Halloween mask, even if it will likely haunt my dreams:

(via jenpero on LiveJournal)

I think David Sims of the AV Club gave a really well-stated review of the episode. I would highly recommend reading it.

So, what did everyone else think? Overall, I think his "Tonight Show" opener was more entertaining, but that show was so good, it would be difficult to top it. This was certainly a fun show. List your likes/dislikes in the comments!

Big Love set to end in 2011 ... good riddance?

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:39:00 +0000

Thursday, HBO announced that the fifth season of Big Love, beginning Sunday, Jan. 16, will be its last.

I used to be a fan of Big Love in its first and second season (I'm one of the only people who did not really enjoy season three, minus the amazing "Come Ye Saints" episode), in which the Henrickson/Grant/Heffman family faced the extensive issues that come along with hiding their polygamist family from society, and attempting to deal with a traditional polygamist compound.

And then, suddenly, I found myself reacting like this when watching it:

It became just so complicated; too many characters were in play, and Bill Paxton's character, Bill Henrickson, became more unlikable than Michael Scott. Big Love was good at making us love to hate characters (Daveigh Chase's Rhonda still makes my blood boil when I think about her), but with Bill, they simply ruined him.

In terms of increasing the show's quality, ending the show may be the best option. Hopefully, they'll use their remaining episodes to leave the show with a good legacy. Actually, I hope Bill dies or the wives leave him.

Anyway, Big Love, along with Entourage (also ending next year), needed to end. I'll add the Office to that list as well. Anyone else have shows that they only watch out of habit, because they're still on TV? Ones that you don't really enjoy? Leave a comment.

30 Rock listens to Bill O'Reilly and does it live, Will Arnett remains a god

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:48:00 +0000

(Context for this is below.)

I have been neglecting this blog, but not by choice. School and the "real world" have completely taken over my life, sadly.

So, here's a quick update:

30 Rock took a cue from their fellow Rainbow Room tenants and performed a live show Thursday, one version for the Eastern and one for the Pacific time zone. While it was not their funniest episode, it was a nice change of pace for the show. In recent seasons, the fact that 30 Rock is about a "show within a show," TGS with Tracy Jordan, is often overlooked for Liz and company's personal issues.

This episode was a fun reminder that TGS exists, that people have to worry about Tracy's antics, and that the Robot and Bear Talk Show should have happened. Now, if only Josh Girard could still be on the show ... oh well, at least Rachel Dratch was back. Her crazy characters are always welcome, especially when they have a Fonzie fetish like this one did (God, if only Henry Winkler could have made an appearance, that would have been fantastic). Chris Parnell's Dr. Leo Spaceman serenaded the audience in only a way Dr. Spaceman could. Both of these former SNL stars are incredibly underutilized in the world of comedy.

The episode also featured guest spots from Julia Louis-Dreyfus, playing Liz Lemon in "flashback" scenes that were impossible to stage life, along with Matt Damon (and Bill Hader as his co-pilot). And then there was Jon Hamm (pictured above), who complimented his hook hand with an executed inmate's hand or a horny middle-aged Josh Groban fan's hand, depending on which coast you live on. It was silly, but it was still worth a laugh.

For what it's worth, the biggest laughs, for me, came when TGS' Fox News sketch introduced Jenna's character simply as "Blonde," and, upon speaking about her birthday party in a disjointed way, Jack asking Liz, "Why are you speaking like a Persian immigrant?" Differences between the two episodes are here, and both versions of the episode can be found on Hulu.

In other news that no one will really care about, but I will share anyway, this happened:

Will Arnett replied to me on Twitter. I realize this isn't that big of a deal, it's not like we had a deep conversation or anything. But I like seeing "arnettwill @MacysDayMar" and not the other way around. I just think it's cool that someone I adore so much even took a second to acknowledge fans, especially when that fan is me. Anyone else have similar exciting Twitter moments?

It feels like 2006 all over - The Office is hilarious again

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:52:00 +0000

We have a shocking development:

It is so nice to be able to say that Thursday's episode of "the Office" was quite funny. I rarely say that these days, but there were some great moments throughout the episode.

The vocal inflection Steve Carell would put into Michael's voice when talking to Toby was genius, as were some of his facial expressions, such as when he rested his head on his folded fists and told Toby to "take two of these and call me in the morning" ... and by "these," he means two quick and hilarious flips of the bird. His saccharine smiles were killer. Plus, his "confessions," such as "I was sitting the other night, eating my penis. I mean, peas ... I was probed," were just pure Michael.

Dwight "was taking Mose to get his blood pressure taken at the Rite Aid." I don't really know why I found this line so funny, but I do. Only because I can't see Mose and Dwight going into a drugstore for ANYTHING. They probably create their own homemade Vicodin. Actually, Dwight's entire description of his so-called discrimination was hilarious (even if that scenario wasn't so great, it didn't bring the episode down).

The best moment? Dwight hiring Mose to make a day-care center in the Scranton Business Park. His decoration? AN INSANE CLOWN POSSE POSTER. For those of you who know me, I am amused and horrified by Juggalos, so this was just brilliant. I rarely laugh very loud, but I was cackling at that moment. That moment alone was better than anything in season six for me.

Pam's "Office Administrator" plot could backfire on her, but due to the messy bureaucracy in an office, it could very well work. Gabe is timid enough to let it go on, so long as he can feign ignorance if Jo were to find out.

It's strange, it was the weird nuances by the actors that made this show. The way Kelly did not hesitate in saying that she talks so much, she no longer listens to herself was genius. Sure, there were some great one-liners, but it was the simple things that made it work. I was worried Steve had "checked out" of being Michael Scott this season since he's leaving, but I think he delivered a great performance.

I sure hope they can keep up the momentum.

SNL under-utilizes former all-stars in season premiere

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:49:00 +0000

The Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Players were back last night, with former cast member and current Parks and Recreation star Amy Poehler serving as host. Her return allowed for some fun cameos and overall joyful moments, even if the episode itself didn't serve up to its full potential.

After a cold open featuring some chuckle worthy if predictable jokes about Delaware Senate candidate and part-time witch Christine O'Donnell, Amy used her monlogue to express her nervousness about hosting and the stress dreams she had about the show. This segment brought out the who's-who of SNL of the last decade: Tina Fey, Jimmy Fallon, Rachel Dratch and Justin Timberlake all taunted Amy during her "dream." It was clear that the cast and guests of the show were incredibly excited for Amy to return to the show, and this helped to create an incredibly supporting atmosphere throughout the episode.

While the episode itself was far from perfect, that supportive nature showed to the home audience, and even if I wasn't laughing at a sketch, I could tell that the cast was having fun just being with everyone. When Maya Rudolph reuninted with Amy for their "Bronx Beat" sketch (featuring Katy Perry's boobs clad in an Elmo T-shirt as a wink and a nod to her recent controversy), you could tell that the women were having great fun bringing them alive.

Seth Meyers seemed to enjoy having Amy at his side during "Weekend Update," and they had fun laughing at the awkward meeting of the real New York Governor David Paterson and Fred Armisen's clueless parody of him. I can't even recall many specific jokes and moments that made me laugh, yet, because of the electricity and chemistry Amy had with the cast and guests and the respect they had for her, it was a joy to watch.

Yet, while these moments were fun, I couldn't help but feel like there were many wasted opportunities in the show. I would have absolutely loved to have seen another installment of "the Barry Gibb Talk Show," the ridiculous and hilarious faux talk show with Jimmy and Justin. How often can you get both of them in the same room ... this should have been the highlight of the evening, but instead, it was woefully missed.

Now, I'm willing to recognize the fact that many, if not all of the special guests last night were last-minute additions, which is why they couldn't participate too much, especially in the pre-recorded Digital Short (which, unfortunately, featured Katy Perry attempting to sing), but it was still a shame they couldn't do more. A lot of talent was wasted.

And then, Katy Perry. I wish I could give her kudos for NOT lip syncing, but she was so terrible, screeching her way through every single note in her overplayed songs that it was unbearable. Listening to her perform truly made me cringe.

So, it wasn't the best SNL premiere, but it wasn't the worst. Let's hope next week's Bryan Cranston-hosted episode can improve on the formula. May I make a suggestion? Could Tracy Morgan make a guest appearance reading tweets from next week's musical guest, Kanye West? I love the SNL writers, but I don't know if they could write anything better than Kanye's genius tweets, and since many of his statements sound like something Tracy (both Morgan and his fictional 30 Rock character) would say, so this would be a wonderful inclusion.

Also, as a side, NBC-related note: in a brilliant act of karma, Jeff Zucker, the man who oversaw the collapse of NBC and played a major part in the Conan O'Brien debacle, has left NBC (before he could be fired by Comcast once they take over NBC ... his words, not mine). He complained how hard of a decision it was to leave the company he has worked for all of his adult life, much like Conan complained how hard it was that he was so mistreated by a company he worked at for much of his adult life. I enjoy schadenfreude.

What was everyone's favorite (or least favorite) moments from SNL? Thrilled about the latest corporate shakeup at NBC?

30 Rock and Community shine, while the Office phones it in

noreply@blogger.com (Marisha Pie) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 03:34:00 +0000

Thursday nights are traditionally the best night for television. It would have been so much better had NBC not pushed Parks and Recreation to midseason (which is something I won't harp on, since I have done that plenty already), but it is what it is.

And what it is is not what it used to be, at least when it comes to "the Office." Tonight's episode just proved that it is a shell of what it used to be and should have been put out to pasture. Keep in mind, this is coming from a die-hard fan of the show.

Last night's episode, "Nepotism," was easily the show's weakest season premiere and did not set the season off on a high note.

Here's a recap: The show left off last season with ... wait a second. The events in "Nepotism" had absolutely nothing to do with the events of the closing of season six. It's not known what came about after the printer recall. They made it such a major deal at the end of last season and it was dropped in this episode.

Anyway, suddenly, Dunder Mifflin hired an assistant, something they hadn't needed before (and where did they get that money to pay him?) and Michael hired his nephew to improve his strained family relations. He's your stereotypical douchebag that everyone else hates, and long story short, Michael ends up spanking (yes, spanking) him in front of the whole office, while his co-workers cheer him on. Really? The same people who would be frustrated by Michael's sexually explicit comments and mindless office pranks would cheer on such an awkward and inappropriate gesture? Sure, he was annoying, but I don't even think that would be an appropriate reaction from anyone - and I'm referring to both Michael's gesture and his subordinates' reactions.

Also, in a throwaway talking head, Jim mentioned that Dwight bought the office building. Wait, what. Why? What use would that have? Another question - what was with Dwight's water-filled backpack? Did it have a purpose? I know, it's Dwight, and very few things Dwight does often make sense, but even that seemed outrageously pointless. Can someone help this confused viewer out?

Overall, this episode had maybe one or two chuckle-worthy moments, but nothing to write home about. It's a shame that such a brilliant show has become so slapstick (no pun intended) and unfunny. I wasn't a fan of the cold opener, either. Why is that they have to constantly reference or parody viral Internet videos? Is this Tosh.0 now?

So, thank God for "Community" and "30 Rock." Both shows returned strong last night, especially "Community's" incredibly meta episode (Donald Glover/Troy campaigned to play Spiderman! So Troy wears Spiderman pajamas!). It followed up on last year's romantic drama by creating truly funny moments between Jeff and Britta, yet it also developed a nice satirical flair by making fun of CBS' latest attempt to seem cool, "$#*! My Dad Says" (look how cool they are ... swear words!). You know this is a fantastic episode when Betty White's role was the weakest part, and I mean nothing bad by saying that. She was brilliant and outrageous, especially performing Toto's "Africa" with Troy and Abed. Way to go, "Community," for utilizing her well.

"30 Rock" had some brilliant one-liners ("The Harry Potter theme park is a hit with both Anglophiles and pedophiles"). Matt Damon's previously one-dimensional character was given a funny backstory and made Ina Garten cool. It wasn't their absolute funniest episode and had some awkward plots (I have trouble believing Jenna would be such a brilliant and ruthless producer, even though she's a sociopath), but they did not let them take away from the enjoyment of the show.

"Outsourced," the show NBC bumped "Parks and Rec" for, was incredibly offense, both on a cultural sensitivity level and a "so unfunny it's 'Two and a Half Men'-bad" level. Sure, "Parks and Rec" was weak when it started and it overcame its pitfalls. But it didn't have the offensive premise and execution to overcome. I don't see it laughing.

To be honest, I think "the Office" is a lost cause and that's why Steve Carell has turned in his notice. I'm only watching out of habit, not hoping for quality. However, I do hope "Community" and "30 Rock" stay on their hot streak.

Agree, disagree? Have opinions about any other shows? Leave a comment!