From the Audience

You know what? Even if I don't win the contest, I've gotten some great exposure from this. I've gotten more comments and emails in the past week than I've gotten from the last three months before that. Most of them aren't worth sifting through, but let's pick out some relevant ones, shall we?

These revives share a few points with Zero Punctuation and works as well even thou the visuals could defiantly be experimented with a bit.

--The66Monkey 

 Just modify the visual style; it's too similar to Bob's or Yahtzee's.

 --DrEmo

Good points made but need to change animation style. 

--nashty13 

I'm not going to get into the ZPish style either, but you may want to mix it up if they hire you.

--Mcoffey

Perhaps a little change in the presentation. 

--Mr. Omega 

How to put this politely... No. I will not change my presentation. I will not change the way I make these videos. Perhaps if Burn Notice had been my first review, I would, but three months in my style is pretty well established and changing it would not only be difficult, it would create a buffer period of crappy videos while I get my feet under me again. Sorry kids, but I ain't changing now.

And here's something that my harshest critics don't seem to take into account: How very difficult is it for someone to consistently rip off someone else? For those of you that don't know: Very. Once you become comfortable with a style, your own starts to leak in. It happens to everyone who imitates someone else. Hell, it happens to actors on TV shows all the time! On the long-running ones, there might be an episode with a less-strong-than-usual director, and a character or two might inflect or react minorly out of character. It's usually not the actors fault, it's just that there's only so long you can keep something compartmentalized.

And the point of that story was that even if I had started out as a Yahtzee rip-off, the fact that I've consistently produce Yahtzee-like work just means that our styles are similar anyway. So I won't change it. And if you ask again, I'll probably smirk at you.

Which you totally can't see, but trust me, I shall.

While overall I was impressed, my only concern is with regards to doing something like a weekly episode.  Currently, it's easy for both Bob Chipman and Ben Croshaw to review their respective media because there is always new content coming out during the year.  The question I pose is whether or not you would review new shows only, shows that have a couple seasons under their belt, or a mix up of both.  Typically the Escapist reviews "what's hot", so my personal curiosity begs me to ask you.

--Cody D.

I gotta say, I loved getting this email. It was polite and grammatically correct, and something about the formal tone just tickled me. Like those times I look at my life and say "I'm really happy that I've cleaned carpets today... I must be an adult." The idea that people can treat me and my work so seriously is massively entertaining and flattering at the same time.

To answer the actual question, though: I want to do primarily current shows, though I have, and will continue to do so, done dead shows. Most of the time these are relevant reviews, which means giving an opinion on something current, however sometimes I need to illustrate a point, or demonstrate some quality in TV, or there's something in the show that I've spoken on before and wanted to critique in a different environment.

Plus, according to my rules, I can review web serieses and miniseries, so I shouldn't lack for material. And shows that have been running for a while would need to be broken up according to how much I can watch in a given week, and, if I can manage it, by internal segmentation of the show.

And then there's the things that'd be marathons. Like if I ever have to review CSI. And someone's requested Law and Order. Things that have spin-offs will be done next to each other, hopefully in the order in which they were started so as to trace the evolution better.

So yeah. Run out of stuff to review? Probably not.

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.