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.

Contest Update

So I wrote this great script and made a shit-ton of images for it and then I recorded it and started editing out things like where I stammered and where I was breathing and saw that it was in no way going to be short enough.

That was an awful sentence, and I apologize for it.

Point is, I edited out two hundred fifty words, and I hope it shall be short enough now. If not I'm going to stick my head in a bucket of fire and then try again. Maybe it won't seem like such a difficulty if I'm coming off of the bucket of fire, you see.

BUT! I just have an hour and a half of work left to put into this (providing the time continuum works to my benefit. It may not), and then I shall be done! And when I'm done I can work on my costume for the Halloween event, and I still have a build list to make, and get my tools from Kansas (don't ask. It's not pretty).

I know this is a really boring post and everything, but sadly I have other things to do than watch television and write about it. Things like.... a totally awesome Munchkin party on Halloween that anyone who's in the Portland area should totally come to because my pastry chef is baking for it. Things like... pumpkin whoopie pies. And chocolate cake balls.

Next time: Why a single great thing in a television show can't possible save it, no matter how awesome that thing is.

Burn Notice

There's something about That Show that's been bothering me since I learned it. It really doesn't have a whole lot to do with the actual quality of the show, but it's been bugging me.

Apparently the producers let Gabrielle Anwar choose most of her own costumes.

That may not sound like such a bad thing, I mean, the actress should know her character better than anyone else right? Well yes, but that doesn't make it okay.

There's a lot that goes into costuming that I, with eight years of experience in technical theatre, had no notion of until I took a class devoted to costumes. It's not ever just about "what the character would wear." In fact, "what the character would wear" is generally considered after fabric choice, color, style, scenography, and whether she can fight in those shoes. Once everything has been hashed out, then they look at "what the character would wear" from what's left.

The result of Anwar picking her wardrobe? An insufferable amount of short, ugly-ass dresses in a limited color palette that's totally inappropriate for her coloring, and no bras. I can't stress enough how much I'm bothered by the lack of bra. For someone who might have to get into a fist fight on moment's notice, bras are awesomely practical.

And the wedge heels. Good Gods. First off, high heels in combat is downright stupid. Breaking an ankle fighting, or at the very least twisting one, is shockingly easy. Heels throw off your posture and balance and make combat almost impossible unless you already outweigh and outreach your opponent by a significant margin, which is unlikely if only because there's not a whole lot of men or orangutans who wear heels. Then there's wedge heels, which are actually more awkward than ordinary spike heels. They're worse for balance and leverage.

So then why does Fiona wear them? Because the actress who picked them out likes them.

What a bullshit reason. Actors act. Costumers dress. Seems like a pretty straightforward division of labor to me, but then here I go again, expecting people to do their jobs competently. The actress stepped out of bounds, the producers allowed it, and the costumer didn't fight back.

I'm having some serious trouble expressing just how much I'm bothered by this, so discuss among yourselves: Does an actor have the right to choose their own costumes in a show where physical limits must be observed for safety reasons? Or indeed, should an actor be able to say anything to a costumer other than, "Excuse me, but I tore out the underarm tossing the baddie into a wall, can you do something about that please?" in the politest and most obsequious of tones?

Edit to add: Also, the store is opening on December first, and the lease starts of November first, so I will in no way be attempting to keep up with my review schedule. I'll still work on them, but slower. Especially as Burn Notice must be submitted by October twenty-ninth, so it's a priority.

Also, one week until Monthly Munchkin!

Burn Notice

Not a shit-ton of time before I either die or watch Skins (whichever comes first), but I finished writing Burn Notice, and I know for a fact that there's something that won't make it in to the video. So here you go.

Things Discussed Rather Than Watch Burn Notice
Fruit (just the names of fruit, not the fruit itself)
Teleportation
The Greek Pantheon
Pope Jokes
Snails
Shoes
Innuendo
Shellfish
Tim Curry
Demotivational Posters
Halloween Decorations
Rum
MMOs
Yogurt

'Nother Quickie

I'm bout's'ta go pass out for a bit, but here's the review on White Collar.

More when I'm capable of cogent thought.

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.