Articles of Quality

Okay, first of all, go read this. Seriously, go. This whole post is centered on that article, it's not that long, so I'll wait.

You done? Good.

I have some basic complaints about this article (aside from the pretentiously proprietary, "Hey that's my thing"). First of all, it's terribly written, with a thesis statement that isn't supported by the body of the article. Secondly, if LOST is the only example of deep, thought-provoking television that the author could come up with, perhaps she's not anything close the the authority she writes like she is. I mean, what about Studio 60? Babylon 5? Soap?

Deeper than that, though:

Sure, there are some astounding clunkers, but television is getting better and better. Writing is more compelling, better actors are becoming attached to televised projects.

What? Tell me, do you watch anything that's actually on, or do you only Netflix dead shows? Writing is not getting better in television. It's exactly the same as in any other medium: Primarily competent but bland with a few sparkling gems that stand out from the mire. And since Aaron Sorkin has departed from television for awhile with no return in sight, JMS is doing Superman (correct me if I'm wrong on that one), Joss Whedon's busy with the Avengers and Cap,  Andrew Marlowe's doing Castle (one of the aforementioned gems), and... no other great TV writers spring to mind.

Which means that we're left with Glee and (shudder) CSI.

What about that "better actors" comment?

Anyone who doesn't know who Richard Mulligan is should be ashamed of themselves. And from the same show, Robert Guillaume. From other great shows: Andreas Katsulos, Peter Jurasik, Alan Tudyk, Ed Wasser, Jewel Staite, Katheryn Helmond, Bradley Whitford, Matthew Perry (I'm forgiving him for Friends), Timothy Busfield, Thomas Gibson, Stana Katic, Emily Proctor (I don't forgive her for CSI: Miami, though), Richard Schiff, Dule Hill, Kathryn Joosten, Paul Gross, Nathan Fillion, Kelsey Grammer, Neil Patrick Harris, John Larroquette, John Lithgow, French Stewart, Robert Carlyle, Michael C. Hall. I'm sure there are more that I missed, but I think my point has been made.

The acting is as good now as it ever has been, the writing is the same. The trick is that most of everything is crap. Sturgeon's Law. It's not that the television is getting better, it's that there's so much more of it that it's easier to find the good stuff.

Television won't just "get better." Sorry, but it won't. As with any other medium, it's only as good as the people in it, and the people who pay attention to it. I can agree that television has been sidelined as an entertainment medium. I can't agree with... anything else in that article.

How will TV get better? Simple. We need to have higher expectations. There should be no "good enough," no "well, it's only a sitcom," no acceptance of the mediocre.

It can be better. But it always starts with the audience, and that, kids, is you.

-Gets off soapbox-

Not Like the Rest

What is it that makes a show good?

This is a question that I've spent some time thinking on, partly because I get into extended debates with my brother about my reviews, and partly because ultimately I need to decide whether or not to recommend a show.

Nothing kills a show faster than bad writing. Even great actors can't save bad writing (after all, there's only so many ways to deliver a campy line, and most of them are equally campy), and, in dialogue-heavy shows, the writing is key to pacing and character development. There is an incredible difference between shows that are "people talking" (The West Wing), and shows that are "just people talking" (Law and Order, and anything that aspires to be a Sorkin show).

There's also a delicate balance between Good Writing Technique, and Writing How People Actually Talk. And that is how Joss Whedon manages to pass as a great writer: He writes really well, even though he has no technique, because he understands the way people speak. This is something the Coen brothers do really well, too, they remember that, though a script is written, it isn't meant to be read. It's meant to be listened to.

Patchy writing is actually worse than writing that is out-and-out bad. It happens pretty frequently in Burn Notice in particular. The writing would be competent and competent, and competent, and then horrific, and that awful line is the worse for having come directly after something passable. Similarly, the writing would be competent and then there'd be a single shining moment of greatness that I couldn't believe had actually happened because the rest of the show had been nowhere near that caliber. It wasn't a relief that something good had happened, on the contrary, it was disappointing that the rest of the show couldn't be that good.

Even if the rest of the show is hands-down fantastic, bad, or at least, not as good, writing can kill it quick. It's the contrast that does it in this case: When most of the show is fine, bad writing sticks out. Glee is the one that stands out in my mind for this one; most of the show isn't really that bad (concept, insensitivity, and rampant misogyny aside), but the writing brings it way down.

It doesn't work the other way, too, though. Great writing in a terrible show will always be memorable. The line is always, "Well the show sucked, but the writing was good." This is also the reason I didn't like The Big Lebowski, but I didn't hate it either. What I said, precisely, was, "I don't know what that was, but it was well-done." Had the writing been terrible (or, "Had the Coen brothers not been the ones to make it."), I have no doubt that I would have despised it like I hate... well.... most movies.

So writing is key to making a show good. Everything else can be highly annoying, but forgiven (unless we're talking about the level of Stoopid Camera Trix of Burn Notice, that's unforgivable) eventually. Cinematography, if truly terrible, can be detrimental, but isn't usually egregious. Really, the other major part of What Makes a Good Show is the experience.

For I while I had this boiled down to the question, "Is it fun to watch?" but that doesn't really cover it. Some shows aren't meant to be "fun." So that question has been revised to, "Is it an experience?" If a show can elicit a genuine emotion from me every (or even most of the) time it tries, it's a great show. That's something that was great about Studio 60; it could pull an emotion from me every time. I feel the pressure of the deadline, the anticipation of going onstage, the satisfaction of a job well done. Those are much harder to pull from an audience than simple happiness, laughter, or indignation, and Sorkin does it effortlessly. The West Wing was similar, but it was also a real thinker of a show. Studio 60 was %100 emotional involvement from start to finish.

So there you go. How do I decide what to recommend? Is it well written? And if so, does it make me feel something? If I answer "yes" to both, then it's definitely worth watching.

From the Audience

Don't judge me, I've got a Halloween event to plan, so no Philosophy of Entertainment today.

Interesting. It felt like you were mostly nitpicking, but the only thing I really disagree with is the rewatch value. I love Dr Horrible and rewatch it more or less fortnightly.

Also yes a thousand times about the ending.

--Darth IB 

Well, I was nitpicking. There's only so much I can say about a great and entertaining show. There are always problems, but sometime they're big enough that I don't have to nitpick. With Dr. HSAB, I did. I needed to fill out seven minutes, and even then I just barely made it.

One of the things I didn't understand were the complaints about the characterisation...It's a pretty short series and they can't go into every detail of the characters, which is not necessary to get an idea about their personnalities.

--Tiroe 

It's not that they were badly characterized, far from it. In fact, The Girl was the only one that was badly characterized, and she only suffered because she was built to contrast two completely different characters. The problem that I have with the characterization is really a problem with Joss Whedon's characterization. Which is to say, he's terrible at it. He can create these characters with fascinating backgrounds and wonderful motivations, but then once the show starts, they are all the same. Yes, there are informed differences, but that's a case of Told Not Shown.

Before the Whedon fanboys light me on fire, I enjoy most of Whedon's work. The only thing he writes well is banter, but he has a distinct, interesting style. He likes to play with words and sentance structure, and he has great ideas. That said, I find his work to be empty entertainment sprinkled with valid themes and the occasional thought-provoking segment, and that is why I watched it. The whole reason I watched all five seasons of Angel was because once or twice a season, I encountered something that required some thought, and that doesn't happen often enough.

As a side note: If Joss Whedon wrote the banter, Aaron Sorkin wrote the other dialogue and characters, and JMS wrote plots, would that not be the greatest-written show ever? Seriously, y'all, it'd be fan-fucking-tastic.

In other news, White Collar goes up on Sunday (if I finish the slides. It's looking like sleep is optional this week), and after that, Skins. And may I say, I'm totally doing something that looks good after that, because I've been putting off watching Skins with things like sorting rocks, cleaning my room, and lease agreements.

In other, other news, anyone who's in the Portland (Oregon. The only Portland that matters) and wants to come to the Halloween party that my gaming store is totally sponsoring should email me at opinionatedtvATyahooDOTcom, and I will send them an address and specifics. There's going to be a costume contest for a gaming prize pack worth $100 that includes a set of opal dice, Munchkin Bites, and a setting book whose name I've forgotten, but which is totally awesome. My business partner who's a pastry chef is making some pumpkin whoopie pies and chocolate cake balls for concessions (to go with the usual concession-fare), and if you stick around long enough, we're showing some classic horror films!

Dr. Horrible

Got another dislike! I'm not really sure why the hatedom amuses me so much. Perhaps it's because they took the time to hit the dislike, but couldn't be bothered to tell me why they don't like it. Maybe it's because any attention is good attention. Maybe it's because I got an emotional reaction from someone even if that reaction is abhorence. (Oh, right, link. I'm an idiot)

Doesn't matter.

I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I never thought I would say that about a review that didn't show a lick of footage from the item being reviewed, save for still photos and title cards. Joss Wedon is the bane of my existence, along with J.J. Abrams and other auteurs who have one big hit and try to dictate the nature of entertainment with their own sense of pretentiousness. And they smell.

But like I said, I loved this video. ... You really have a lot to say and it's smart. I hope people get to hear it. Keep it up!

--Righteous Brian

Well thank you RB for fully vindicating me. I actually don't hate Joss Whedon, I just think that banter is the only thing he writes well. But he still produces some great stuff (I'm thinking Firefly), so I hold him to a higher standard than I do people I've never heard of. Purely subjective, there, but I'm'a stick to it. And who the Hell is JJ Abrams?


Okay I went and looked him up, and I'm generally not impressed by the filmography... but then that doesn't really mean anything. I don't watch much in the way of movies, and I gave up most television a long time ago as a useless waste of time.


Which then begs the question of why, exactly, I watch television most of my waking hours. But that's a story for another time.


Anyway, spread my videos, send them to your friends; I'm trying to get an intelligent critique of television out there, but I really cannot do it by myself.