Knope 2012!

This is a post I’ve wanted to write for some time now, but I've been waiting to do it until we were closer to the big City Council election that this entire season of Parks & Rec has been leading up to.  Now that we’re just about at the big event, it’s a good time to take a step back and explore what a “Councilwoman Knope” might mean for one of the most consistently funny and all around best shows on TV.  Naturally, we’re all rooting emotionally for Leslie to triumph over the likable but massively unqualified Bobby Newport, portrayed so perfectly by Paul Rudd.  Over the last four years Amy Poehler has won us all over with her well meaning, always optimistic, waffle loving public servant, so of course we want to see her accomplish what she’s worked so hard to achieve.  But, just because a Knope victory is clearly the best thing for the town of Pawnee, Indiana, does that necessary mean that it will it be the best thing for Parks & Rec, in season 5 and beyond?

Change is a dangerous thing for any TV show, especially a half an hour sitcom.  Even the name itself, “situational comedy”, implies that the humor comes from the situation, which is why we don’t often see that situation drastically altered.  On occasion, when a comedy’s been on the air forever and starting to get stale, shaking things up can be preferable to more of the same, but for a show like Parks & Rec, which is in its prime and consistently firing on all cylinders, it’s easy to wonder why even consider changing anything at all.  And yet, stagnancy just isn’t in Parks & Rec’s DNA.  Hell, anyone who has ever recommended Parks & Rec to a friend has had this exact conversation: “the show is great, but its first season kinda sucks, so either just skip it, or don’t judge it until you get into the second season.”  The show could have stuck to its guns after that first season, and continued along the same mediocre or sucky path, which probably would have lead to cancellation after another season or so.  But, Parks & Rec recognized what worked and what didn’t, and made the changes it needed to, mixing up the cast, tweaking the characters, and developing the relationships that worked best.  Even when things have been going well for the show, Parks & Rec has been no stranger to change.  We’ve seen characters, like April and Andy, who were perfectly funny as as they were, if not somewhat one dimensional, begin to grow into more fully developed human beings, and the show has been better for it. We’ve seen Ben go from Leslie’s uptight boss, to nerdy co-worker, to now supportive boyfriend and campaign manager.  Rob Lowe’s eternally optimistic Chris Traiger has always very carefully toed the line between hilarious and grating, without ever stepping over it.  His character works, and the show could have easily had him continue to play that one-note until that line was finally one day crossed, but instead has challenged that eternal optimism with a series of disappointments that have helped keep the character fresh and interesting.

Even with all that, removing Leslie, even on a part time basis, from the Parks & Rec department, would be by far the biggest change that this show has taken on.  The Parks & Rec department is the center of this show.  It's the common thread that weaves all the characters together, and it's generally been our window through which we view the rest of Pawnee.  Sure, this season, for the most part, has successfully taken the focus away from the department and put it on the campaign, but it’s only for one season, and by having the Parks & Rec employees also serve as Leslie's campaign staff, it's seamlessly been able to incorporate the rest of the cast.  In contrast, the implications of a long term shift away from the Parks and Rec department, and more towards the operations of elected local government, threaten the very nature of the show itself.  Or you know what, maybe it doesn’t.  Despite what Ron Swanson would have you believe, the show is not as much about the Parks and Rec department as it is about the good things that government can accomplish when good people set out with good intentions.  If the show can find a way to keep the rest of the cast engaged in interesting and funny ways, a shift to Leslie Knope’s trials and tribulations as a member of the Pawnee City Council may be the perfect way to raise this theme to the next level, and to continue to explore it in ways that don’t involve parks and public drinking fountains.  I’m certainly not sold, but considering this show’s track record, if Leslie comes out victorious, I’m prepared to go into season 5 optimistic and with an open mind.

Knope 2012!

The Inevitable Game of Thrones Post

There has been a ton written about Game of Thrones over the last few weeks, and I mean a TON. TV critics way smarter than I am have been exploring all sorts of interesting things about the show itself and how it reflects the current TV landscape. You probably won’t find a bigger advocate for the show than me, but I wasn’t really planning on writing anything about it because I didn’t have anything unique to bring to the conversation…and then all of a sudden, I did.

XKCD had a brilliant comic a few weeks ago titled Umwelt. http://www.xkcd.com/1037/. Umwelt is a pretty cool theory that I hadn’t heard of before. According to XKCD:

“umwelt is the idea that because their senses pick up different things, different animals living in the same ecosystem actually live in very different worlds. Everything about you shapes the world you inhabit—from your ideology to glasses prescription, to your web brower.”

What made the XKCD comic so clever was that it was actually a completely different comic depending on which web browser you are using to view the page. Jump to a couple of Sundays ago, I’m watching the Game of Thrones second season premiere with a friend of mine. We’re both big fans of the show, but I’m also a big fan of the books, and my friend has never read them. As much as I’m trying to enjoy just watching the show, I can’t help but focusing on how successfully it’s adapting the books. I wish I could just turn off that particular critical part of my brain and enjoy the show for what it is, but my brain just doesn’t work that way. When I say I’m worried about how successfully the show is adapting the books, it’s not that I particularly care about little details being the same. Rather, because it’s such a complex story, I’m constantly concerned about how well the adaption allows the part of the audience who’s never read the books, specifically my friend sitting next to me, to follow all the intricate plot points and relationships between characters.

It’s no revelation to point out that fans of the books are watching the show differently from those who have never read the books. In fact, a lot of what has been written about the show in the last few weeks has touched on the different expectations and different levels of enjoyment between the two fan bases. But, it all of a sudden occurred to me, is it more than just watching the show from a different perspective? Because our perspectives are so very different, are my friend and I effectively watching two very different shows…is this umwelt?

My friend is coming at Game of Thrones entirely fresh, with no expectations and no preconceived notions about where the story is going. Whereas I, no matter how hard I try not to, will always be comparing it to the books and will always be worried about how well its adapting the source material. I will never be able to divorce my knowledge of how the story has originally been told from the way I perceive the television adaption. It fascinates me to think that my friend and I could be sitting just feet away from each other, literally watching the same exact thing, but because of our different perspectives, be experiencing it in ways that are so completely alien that we are essentially watching two different shows. Unfortunately, there’s no way to really ever know, but it certainly is fun to think about.

Dissecting The Walking Dead

One of the things that I enjoyed the most about The Walking Dead when it first aired was the way that it never failed to creep me out. I had my own ritual for the show every week. I would make sure I was all alone; turn off all the lights in the house, and then watch; just me and the eerie glow of the television. As much as I enjoyed following the survivors, the real stars of those early episodes were the zombies. The show had created some truly gruesome and scary zombies. The makeup and special effects were everything a zombie fan could have asked for. They crept the hell out of me every single time they were on screen, whether it was just a sole walker, or a much more menacing herd.

As I sat down to watch the second season finale last week, it occurred to me that although my ritual hadn’t changed one iota, I wasn’t really all that crept out by the zombies anymore; that particular enjoyment for me had lessened significantly. The show itself hadn’t done anything different to cause this; the makeup and effects were just as good and the zombies were as authentic as they’d ever been. Rather, I’d simply grown accustomed to seeing the zombies every week and a lot of the shock value was gone, In a way, I felt like I’d been robbed of the experience.

There’s an interesting parallel between my experience watching the show and the experience of the survivors living it. Just as I’d become desensitized to seeing zombies on my TV screen, the survivors of this zombie apocalypse have begun to become desensitized to death. Living with death as a constant companion, experiencing it so often amongst themselves, has taken its toll. Death, while still tragic, has become common place for this group of survivors. It was evident in Karl’s reaction to Shane’s death. The near witness of Shane’s death (and zombie resurrection), should have been paralyzing for a boy of Karl’s age. Yet, after a brief moment of shock, we see him quickly act on the danger it presented and then appear to emotionally move past the loss. Can this show really succeed on an emotional level going forward if the zombies are no longer as scary to the audience and death has such a diminished meaning to those experiencing it?

There’s an easy answer to both of these issues. While The Walking Dead is the best horror on TV, and horror will always remain an important element, the gruesomeness of the zombies can no longer carry the show by itself. For season three, the show needs to focus less on creating horror and more on creating suspense. The first and most important step that The Walking Dead needs to take to ensure real suspense is to create stakes, for both the survivors and the audience, by focusing on creating characters and relationships that are worth rooting for. I completely understand the idea of using this show to explore the human condition in an apocalyptic world where there is so little chance of survival. But, giving us characters we want to root for to survive in such a world is more important than the philosophical or artistic value associated with merely creating a group of survivors who are always so bleak and sad. There was no suspense in that final scene between Rick and Shane, because I knew Rick would survive it, and I frankly didn’t care if Shane did or not. In contrast, look at the scene between Glen and Maggie in the car shortly after they escaped the slaughter at the farm. The way the camera shot went back and forth between the two characters, each time focusing on the window behind each of them, just as much as it did on the character in the shot, had me involuntarily holding my breath, just waiting for something awful to happen. This was the tensest scene in the entire episode because I had a real emotional investment, not just in the two characters, but in their relationship as well…and it did it without including a single zombie. I’m looking forward to a lot more like it next fall.

Pilot Season

It’s that time of year again…pilot season!! Ok fine, very few people geek out over pilot season the way I do, but I enjoy getting in on the ground floor for whatever it is the networks will be delivering us this fall. Over the past 2-3 months, the broadcast nets have been green lighting and casting dozens of pilots for the 2012-2013 season. Thankfully, the Hollywood Reporter has put together a great comprehensive guide for all of the projects in development, which can be found here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-pilots-2012-complete-guide-287221.

There’s nothing that I’m crazy excited about this year, but, basing my opinion on the one sentence logline, the creative team behind the show, and the announced cast, here are the seven shows I’m most intrigued to see get picked up for series.

(Editor’s note: My wife would kill me if I were to actually pick up seven new shows this fall!)

Last Resort, ABC – About a U.S. nuclear submarine which, after ignoring an order to fire nuclear missiles, winds up being hunted and escapes to a NATO outpost where the crew declares itself to be the world's smallest nuclear nation, this is easily the premise that draws me in the most. Speculative fiction can be a lot of fun, and this one has the potential to blend action with the exploration of interesting issues concerning morality, the armed forces and geopolitical concerns. It also gives me a lot of confidence that one of the creators behind it is Shawn Ryan, who is responsible for The Shield and The Chicago Code. I’ve been looking forward to his next project, and I’m excited he’s chosen such an ambitious one.

Nashville, ABC – Three words: Connie freaking Britton. If I haven’t mentioned it before, I LOVED Friday Night Lights. If it’s not my favorite show of all time, it’s certainly in the conversation, and I will follow Connie Britton, Kyle Chandler, and a few others from that cast almost anywhere they choose to go in TV land. Thankfully, Britton has been able to detach herself from the train wreck that was American Horror Story, and I’m hopeful we’ll find her on our televisions again this fall. Described as a family soap, Britton plays a country music star at her peak, who has to contend with another star (Hero’s Hayden Panettiere) on the rise. Whatever. As long as I get to hear Britton say “ya’ll” as much as possible!

The Selection, CW – I so want to like a show on the CW. I was hoping Ringer would be it this year, but alas, that was not to be. Set 300 years in the future, The Selection is about a poor young woman who is chosen by lottery to participate in a competition to become the next queen of a war-torn nation. The Hunger Games comparisons are unavoidable, and as much as I enjoyed those books, I’m hoping this is something completely different in both tone and story. Could be pretty cool if done well. I know nothing about the creative team behind the show, but the central character is being played by Aimee Teegarden, another FNL vet, who, while not my favorite actress on the show, I’m interested to watch again if in the right project.

County, NBC – Have I mentioned I liked Friday Night Lights? This is the latest from FNL creator Jason Katims, who also created Parenthood, another surprisingly good show on NBC. Katims seems to have a knack for taking premises that I’d normally have no interest in (I didn’t start watching FNL or Parenthood until late into their first seasons when the positive buzz was becoming unavoidable), and creating the type of heartfelt character driven dramas that I love the most. So, while County, about a group of young doctors, nurses and administrators in a frenetic underfunded and morally compromising L.A. County hospital, is something I’d normally never think twice about watching, this time I plan on getting in on the ground floor.

1600 Penn, NBC – Forget all the potential, of which I think there is plenty, that comes with a traditional family comedy with a White House twist. The real draw here is what child of the 90’s isn’t “pee your pants” excited to see Bill Pullman once again taking on the role of President of the United States! I really really hope the show’s first episode opens with a narrative voiceover by Pullman – “Mankind, that word should have new meaning for us all today…”

Mindy Kaling Comedy, Fox – No title for this one yet, but Mindy Kaling is funny. Giving her her own show as an OB/GYN? Sounds good to me, I’m in. Frankly, if I’m being honest, she’s one of the few bright spots left on The Office. If this pilot is picked up for series, she will be sorely missed there.

Revolution, NBC – There was a time, probably in that short cross-over period when both Alias and Lost were airing at the same time, that I was fully on board with anything and everything brought to us by J.J. Abrams. Since then, though, it seems he more or less only lends his name to shows or has only a small role in a show’s conception, and enough of those have been either average or duds, where I no longer blindly adore everything with his name on it. Nevertheless, his name still piques my interest, and his latest, Revolution, about a post-apocalyptic world where all forms of energy cease to exist, looks like it has some potential. What can I say, I’m a sucka for post-apocalyptic.

Why Don't I Love Once Upon a Time?

I don’t want the title of this post to give the wrong impression. I like Once Upon a Time, I’m fully rooting for it to succeed, I enjoy watching it, and I plan on continuing to watch for the foreseeable future. However, for some reason that I can’t quite pin down, I just don’t LOVE Once Upon a Time. Normally, this wouldn’t be all that unusual, except for the fact that this really is a show that I should absolutely freaking love. I am literally the target audience for this type of premise. I’m drawn to nearly anything on TV in the fantasy or science fiction genres. I’m certainly not all forgiving, but I tend to give a show a lot more leeway when it contains a strong genre element to it. In particular to Once Upon a Time, I’m a big fan of Fables, a fantastic graphic novel with a similar premise of fairytale characters living in the real world. I really enjoy this type of creative reimagining of fairytales, and I think the show has done a good job creating a fun mythology that mixes the familiar in with the new. I’ve also generally liked the things that the cast has done in the past, and I have nothing bad to say about them in this. And yet, when it comes to the finished product, it’s as if the whole of this show fails to add up to the sum of its parts.

There’s something intangibly off to me about the show. If I had to put it into words, it’s almost as if I can feel the effort being put in to making the show and that takes me out of the fantasy just enough to sour my enjoyment. Like I said, I tend to love science fiction and fantasy, so suspending my disbelief has never been a real issue for me.

It’s not one simple thing I can easily sum up, but one example of what I’m trying to get at may stem from the show’s two creators, Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, being veterans of Lost, a show that used a very similar storytelling technique to Once Upon a Time’s fairytale flashbacks. I absolutely adored Lost (still do), and its biggest strength just may have been the way it employed flashbacks to bring its characters to life and give them real depth. The problem isn’t that Once Upon a Time’s use of flashbacks haven’t been successful; in fact I find myself much more interested in the reimagined fairytale flashbacks and the clever way the back story is slowly coming together in a non-linear fashion, than I am in the often dull happenings of Storybrooke. The problem, I think, is that instead of being sucked into a story about these characters, I feel like I’m watching a television show that’s trying to recreate the magic of Lost, and, when a television show reminds me that I’m watching a television show, well that’s a real problem.

All that being said, I do admit, I have found all this to be slightly less of a problem in later episodes than it was in earlier ones, so maybe the show is coming into its own or maybe I’m just becoming more acclimated to its style.

What do you think? Is anyone else out there watching this show and having the same problems? Different problems? Alternative theories about what’s off with the show? Or is this a great show and I’m simply over analyzing it? I’d love to hear from you.

Cold Open

I think television is the best medium for storytelling. That isn’t to say that I have anything against movies, books, comics, plays, or any other such media, all of which I enjoy in their own right. But, I’ve always found television to be in its own league. The television format is intrinsically and uniquely capable of using long term storytelling and character development in a way that appeals to me on both an intellectual and emotional level. Whether it is a comedy, drama, procedural, or serialized, when it’s at its best, television is the ideal vehicle for exploring the human condition; by letting us spend time with characters as they grow, evolve, and react to the world around them.

And yet, inevitably, television always gets a bad rap. I recently asked a coworker who I knew owned horses, if she had watched the premiere of Luck. Her response was “I don’t watch tv.” Granted, I’m probably too sensitive to that kind of comment, but I could swear I heard pride in her voice, as if television was something to be looked down upon. Regardless of whether I was imagining it or not, there are plenty of people out there who dismiss television as the “boob tube” or something with no intrinsic value that will only rot your brain. Those people make my heart frown because nothing could be farther from the truth.

I don’t think anyone will argue that there isn’t a significant amount of mind numbingly stupid programming on television. But that doesn’t justify lumping all of television into one category and then writing it off. In fact, more and more every day, television is becoming the hot spot for quality storytelling. Television used to be a stepping stone for actors to transition into a more prestigious career as a movie star. However, with the rise of the cable drama, it’s become less unusual to see well established movie actors taking on roles in television. More actors today are recognizing that stepping into a character that they can explore and develop over the course of years can be as challenging and satisfying, if not more so, than being a movie star.

Movies have given us some fantastic and memorable characters over the years, but in terms of exploring and developing those characters, there is simply a limitation on what movies can accomplish, even with multiple sequels. On the other hand, an episodic television show can balance plot and character in ways that movies aren’t capable of. Television shows can focus hours upon hours on developing their characters and the relationships between them, while at the same time crafting complex and intelligent stories, which can be contained within single episodes or play out over the course of a season or even an entire series.

Here’s the bottom line and what I suppose I am trying to say: I like TV and I’m looking for an outlet to write about it and discuss it. What I’m not interested in doing is writing weekly reviews of any specific show, or generally even reviewing shows at all. Rather, my goal is to start a discussion, either when something particularly interesting catches my eye, or just when I have something that I want to say. So this is what I propose; for the foreseeable future when I watch something that sparks a reaction in me, I’ll write about it. That may be once a week, it may be more, or it may be less. Hopefully people will comment, and we can create a dialogue that enhances our viewing experience. For a good idea of what I'm talking about, I highly recommend reading this article written recently by someone who's writing has helped inspired me to take this up. http://www.avclub.com/articles/did-the-sopranos-do-more-harm-than-good-hbo-and-th,69596/ If you’re interested, please check in on occasion to see what’s new, and for my part, I’ll do my best to utilize all this social media we got going for us to keep ya’ll appraised.

Until then…