The Big Bang Theory: the 4th season - more problems.

I guess what can be said about The Big Bang Theory is that it has gone steadily downhill for the last season and a half. The third season was a big (and a rather unexpected) disappointment. The fourth season, unfortunately, has been even worse.

There are of course numerous reasons for the decline in quality, but I'll concentrate on the five big ones. These are:

1) Amy Farrah Fowler's character.

2) Sheldon degenerates even more.

3) The characters aren't underdogs anymore.

4) Lack of antagonists.

5) Writers don't know how to write Penny and female characters.

1) Amy Farrah Fowler's character: I don't know what the writers were thinking when they decided to create another Sheldon in Amy Farrah Fowler's character. She doesn't work at all.

I have nothing against Mayim Bialik as an actress. I liked her in Macgyver and as Blossom when I was a kid. It's just that on TBBT her character creates a black hole that sucks everyone else inside with her.

But why is AFF's character is so bad? Well, The Big Bang Theory is (or was) supposed to be about men vs women and geeks vs normal people. Every character should be an outcome of these four character attributes.

Mayim Bialik's character unfortunately doesn't follow these guidelines. In fact, her character isn't defined at all. We don't know if she's a geek or a normal person. And to be honest, do we even know if she's a man or a woman? She's just sitting there doing absolutely nothing.

2) Sheldon degenerates even more: I wouldn't have believed after the third season that Sheldon's character could get any worse. But that's what happened. Sheldon doesn't have any personality anymore. He only shouts out caricaturish lines that don't have anything to do with his twisted idealism.

If the writers did happen to get an idea where Sheldon has idealistic thoughts (like becoming a robot) the whole thing turns into a very ugly and lazy slapstick. Sheldon is supposed to become more human as people with asperger's tend to do. He's not supposed to regress.

3) The characters aren't underdogs anymore: Everyone roots for the underdogs so there's no good reason not to have them on the show. However, the writers went to silly lengths to make sure that none of the characters were in a 'down' situation.

Howard having a girlfriend is ok, since Bernadette is a funny character. But Leonard's conquests this season have been awful and have come out of nowhere. The most unfortunate instance of 'no underdogs'-theme has been Raj having a deaf girlfriend - off-screen. That's simply wrong.

4) Lack of antagonists: let's count the best antagonists so far on the show: Leslie Winkle, Dr. Gablehouser, Stuart, Wil Wheaton, and Leonard's mom. How many are left? Well, none basically. Wil Wheaton had a quick but unnecessary cameo in the Indy episode. Others have been missing in action.

When you take strong antagonists out of the equation, you're not left with much. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with story ideas where someone stands up to the guys. I myself managed to write a spec where Dr. Gablehouser shows Sheldon who's the boss, so it obviously can be done.

5) Finally: Writers don't know how to write female characters: This wasn't really a problem during the first two seasons. The characters were new so in certain ways Penny's character wrote itself. Now that we know the characters, we should get more insight into her.

Too bad that this doesn't happen. Instead she gets dumber and meaner as the seasons go further. She doesn't seem to have any ambitions whatsoever. Someone pointed out it might have something to do with those pesky middle aged divorced men on the staff...

Speaking of women. Nicole Lorre (presumably Chuck's daughter) has come up with the funniest storylines up to date: Barbarian Sublimation and Vegas Renormalization. I wonder what's she's doing on the show nowadays.

In conclusion: 11 episodes behind: 1 that was funny. No wonder I have become more and more afraid of watching the next episode. It might be funny, however the chances unfortunately are that it isn't.

V (2009) and V (1983).

Hmm, what should I say here? Okay, I was a big fan of the original series. It's one of my favorites and also likely the best scifi miniseries of all time.

So when I got the long-awaited news that there would be a remake, I had some relatively high expectations for the show. Surely these new guys in charge would know how to pull off a moderately good show, close to the the original from the 80s.

But that's not exactly what happened. We didn't get a good show. Unfortunately, we didn't even get an okay show. So what went wrong then?

I guess the biggest problem with the new show is that it doesn't have any themes or characters that are interesting.

The original was about transformation and people rising up to the challenge. It was about the visitors coming after us and slowly getting rid of our precious rights. It was about human condition and the way we act in a crisis.

The new one isn't unfortunately about any of these things. At all.

The original had interesting and memorable characters: the gung-ho journalist who wanted to get to the bottom of it, a holocaust survivor and his family, a mother willing to sell his only son to the visitors, a kid willing to betray his precious family and a heroine doctor who would become the unexpected resistance leader.

The new version doesn't have any characters like that. The FBI agent is more or less only doing her job, the priest doesn't have any clue, the kid only wants to have sex, the journalist doesn't know who the bad guys are and the rest of them are basically nobodies.

There simply aren't any transformative characters on the show. The characters in the new version serve mainly to create shortcuts to the visitors - which makes the show as lazy and unimaginable as you could ever imagine.

Furthermore, it doesn't feel like there's any kind of threat going on at all. Nobody seems to be in trouble. And if nobody's in trouble, you don't have a story.

It didn't help the new show that they spilled all the beans in the 42 minute pilot. It's mind boggling how many of those crucial plot points they spent - that the visitors aren't here for benevolent reasons and that they are lizards. (the original by the way spent half its length to get to the shocking revelation about the visitors)

The producers of the new version told it was done because most of us had already seen the original, so we knew who the visitors were and what they were up to. The logical question to that is that since we knew who they were and what they were up to, why did they even make the new series in the first place?

I personally don't think there's anything wrong about making a new series. It's just that these new guys had no idea what they were doing. All the good parts from the original are missing. None of the allegories to Nazi Germany are there. There are no themes, no values, no substance, no nothing.

I don't care what happens to the characters in the new version. I'm almost rooting for the V's to kick the crap out of the resistance. Well, almost.

Nevertheless, the original was and still is an amazing achievement in storytelling. For example, take at look at this clip. (it's really that good)

How to (and how not to) pay tribute to ABBA.

Here's how you do it right:



And here's how you do it wrong:



The Simpsons has maybe like five seconds of ABBA's Waterloo that serves as a joke. Great episode by the way. (Mother Simpson S7E08)

The Community on the other hand shamelessly plays numerous ABBA songs throughout the episode and the songs have no connection to the episode whatsoever.

You might say that "so what, those songs made the episode better".

Yes, I agree. But it's still über lame.

The important thing here is that ABBA is perhaps the best band of all time and (coming from an artistic viewpoint) you are not supposed pay tributes to the band unless you have earned it. (by writing superb comedy in this case)

The Simpsons writers thought that they were good enough to play five seconds of ABBA. The Community writers however decided that they had earned to play full ten minutes of the band in one single episode.

I don't know if you can find a better example of Hubris than that.

What we got here is pretty much the difference between talented, humble writers and writers who don't seem to be aware of their unfortunately very limited abilities.

Does it really come as a surprise that The Simpsons is the best sitcom of all times and that Community is a pretty pointless and awful series?

I don't think Community was even paying a tribute here. Instead they were riding someone else's coattails. Which is something they do all the time.

And by the way, this same Community episode also had a random "I love you - I know" reference. Can it get any more lame than that?

Comedy isn't about making empty, pointless references. Comedy is about meaning, purpose and significance. Like that Simpsons clip above.

Best sitcom of the last ten years.

I understand that people say how comedy is subjective, but nevertheless, if I had to pick the single best sitcom in the last ten years, it would be The IT Crowd.

The IT Crowd? Yeah, you probably haven't seen it. It's a British sitcom that has been running on Channel 4 for the past four years.

It's about three IT support team members, Roy, Moss, Jen and their boss Douglas working in the basement of a fictional company Reynholm Industries.

Or should I say, "working" because none of them seem to be interested in their work. Some seem to be even wildly incompetent (especially the head honcho Douglas).

Despite the show's premise, most of the time the show really isn't about their work. I guess it's more a show about the absurdities of life.

For example, a running joke on the show is the question about what the "IT" stands for. We haven't gotten an answer so far.

The show is filmed both in front of a live audience and also on location. The creator and the writer of the show Graham Linehan is also known for the comedy series "Father Ted".

Now, what makes the show perhaps the best live-action comedy on tv? Probably the best way to answer that is by providing you actual material from the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vbzoJHqf5Y&feature=related

This clip from "The Work Outing" (S2E01) doesn't unfortunately include the whole episode, but in any case the story goes here that Jen, Roy and Moss go to a theater to see a "Gay musical, Gay".

Watch what happens here. After failing to use the bathroom for customers, Roy decides to use a restroom for the disabled while Moss uses the restroom reserved for the staff.

















The scene where Jen finds Roy in a wheelchair and Moss as a bartender is not only totally absurd but also one of the funniest I'll ever see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGzeC9IaGLc

Or how about this other clip from the very same episode? Jen's date seems to be a bit gayish and in the end she can't resist anymore and asks the inevitable question. I bet you didn't see that twist coming.

That is what comedy should be but unfortunately most of the time really isn't.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Graham Linehan both wrote and directed "The Work Outing". In fact, he has written every episode of the series from scratch and has also a co-director credit on each one of those.

It has been said that the quality of the show is because of Linehan's clear vision and because the show isn't group written, like for example Two and a Half Men. (some call that "comedy by committee" writing)

I myself believe that Graham Linehan is a comedy auteur and that the guy is obviously a genius. (I guess David Kelley who wrote basically every episode of Ally Mcbeal qualifies too)

In any case, writers like these make the rest look like complete amateurs. It's like pack your bags and go home.

Now, it shouldn't also come as a surprise that a couple of years ago NBC tried to remake show in the U.S, like it did with The Office. The pilot wasn't picked up. I've seen it and it was pretty awful to be honest.

The original show is such an unique combination of deadpan writing, acting and directing that I believe it's impossible to transfer it for the needs of the U.S audience. I just don't think it can be done.

But I've heard that there's another remake coming up later next year...

What's wrong with those new sitcom pilots?

Okay, so I think have seen the new comedy pilots. Those are "Running Wilde", "Raising Hope", Better With You" (picture), "Shit My Dad Says", "Outsourced" and "Mike & Molly".

Unfortunately, when it comes to the quality of these new pilots, all were pretty bad. Not one was even decent.

Makes you wonder how bad the other two dozen pilots were that didn't make the cut.

Okay, I'll give you that Billy Gardell's and Melissa McCarthy's acting was pretty solid in Mike & Molly. Too bad the other parts on the show aren't working.

So why are these new pilot shows so bad?

Well, if you watched any of these shows, did you find a single one of them actually going somewhere?

Probably not and that's mostly because these shows didn't have good premises.

If you don't have a good, interesting setup, your show has nowhere to go.

The problem with these new six shows is that none of them have any potential to say anything even remotely meaningful about the way we live our lives.

None of the characters are interesting. Just because the synopsis of the show describes the characters as "funny, charming, ambitious etc" doesn't mean that you're in for a treat. You need more than that.

Besides, characters itself don't get your show anywhere. What defines your show is how the characters interact with each other.

That is what helps to create conflict, tension, wants, needs, success, failure, humor, drama and meaning in general. The essential stuff.

That's why a show like Frasier was so successful. The characters were relatively well developed, but what made the show was the quality of the relationships - the brothers being competitive snobs and the rest of the cast being the voice of reason.

The same way Everybody Loves Raymond was successful because it perfected the family dynamics. Every character had strengths and weaknesses compared to the others. That's why they were able to milk it for so many years.

And then there was Friends. You know why it was so successful? Because of the relationships. Somehow all the characters managed to find a way to be genuinely friends with each other. That's a lot harder to do than it sounds. No wonder its success is yet to be repeated.

In the end all these shows were successful because they figured out the premise. They figured out the characters. And then they figured out the character relationships.

Those are the building blocks of good sitcoms. Those are all that we need but unfortunately not what we got this season.

A scene that didn't make any sense. (Grey's Anatomy)

I hadn't watched Grey's Anatomy but some people kept saying how it's good. (Oprah among others)

Well, since I noticed last night that a re-run of an episode was on tv, I decided to watch the last fifteen minutes.

As you might know (from the picture), we were in a situation where a woman dies in a surgery, his husband blames the doctors and eventually goes on a killing spree at the hospital.

Anyway, somehow the shooter gets wounded. And isolated. (this was when I started watching the episode)

Then one of the doctors apparently gets an idea to go talk to him. Even though the doctor (as far as I know) could and should have just walked away.

This doctor's behavior is really dumb, unless he 1) wants to die or 2) wants to save the shooter. I think both are somewhat plausible and acceptable scenarios when it comes to drama.

But that's not what happens. Instead we get to hear dialogue where 1) the doctor doesn't want to die but 2) he doesn't seem to care about saving the shooter's life either.

Oh man. This doesn't look good. What is going on in here?

Then the shooter reveals that he's got only one bullet left.

Now this doctor suddenly "wakes up".

We get a really long (and not well written) speech about how he's had a good but painful life and that he's actually willing to die - OR that the shooter could kill himself and that he might this way see his wife in heaven.

What the...?

First, what is the doctor doing there?

Second, his willingness to die doesn't match his behavior five minutes ago. Third, this other 'choice', "see your wife", comes totally out of nowhere and is pretty ridiculous too.

Finally, it's against hippocratic oath for a doctor to suggest committing suicide. In case someone forgot.

The doctor's rationale for what he's doing is a total mystery to me...

Anyway, the resolution is that the doctor walks away (I don't know why, if he wants to die) as the swat team is about to arrive. Off screen we hear a single shot and assume that the shooter committed suicide.

Honestly, I had no clue what was going on in here. The scene didn't make any sense to me.

Now, would the whole thing have made more sense if I had watched the complete episode? I doubt it but I sure as hell hope so.

Appreciating Louis Theroux.

I just watched the latest documentary by Louis Theroux. It was about kids on medication in the United States. A well spent hour, if you ask me.

Anyway, you might remember him from Michael Moore's Tv Nation that ran in the mid nineties on NBC.

More than that he's known for his documentary series on the British BBC. Especially for his "Weird Weekends" series.

We have seen Louis for example with Neo-Nazis, with Fred Phelps, in jail, having a liposuction, as a WCW wrestler, in adult entertainment, trying to figure out women's bodybuilding, in Harlem...

Interesting stuff. Theroux has been willing to put himself in challenging and sometimes even funny situations.

But the reason I like him is because of his approach towards his subjects. That is that Louis is an exceptionally non-threatening, friendly and polite interviewer.

That's right. Non-threatening, friendly and polite.

I also like him because he's open-minded. He seems to be genuinely interested in different people and different phenomena. He likes to learn new things, and he doesn't come off as a judgemental person.

I think those qualities are rather rare in today's world coming from an entertainer. (he calls himself a presenter though)

What passes today as entertainment is basically opposite of what Theroux stands for.

Today's entertainment is mostly uninsightful and empty, not really interested in characters and real human beings, not interested in finding out anything new and not interested in being decent and dignified.

Worst of all, today's entertainment tends to be all about hype and zero about substance.

Theroux's shows are so refreshing because they don't have anything to do with hype. There's no unnecessary drama, there's nothing forced. Everything unfolds naturally. That's why his documentaries are usually compelling tv.

He doesn't know everything. But he wants to learn. He doesn't always understand. But he wants to try.

And more often than not, it pays off. One way or the other.

I just wish we could have more stuff like that on tv. More writers like him. Writers who'd be interested in learning new stuff. Writers who'd know that they don't know everything. Writers who knew that they have to respect us, human beings.

Well, at least we've got Louis Theroux.