Pages

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Where's My Happy Ending?

Yesterday marked the return to television of a show that I have come to enjoy quite a bit. It's not one of my favorites by any means, I won't be rushing out to buy the first season DVD set anytime soon, but if I happened to win them as a prize in some sort of contest, I wouldn't try to sell them on ebay either. I'm talking about ABC's second season comedy, Happy Endings.

Some of you may have missed the first season of Happy Endings entirely, since it sneaked in at the end of ABC's spring season. If you're one of those people, I'd highly recommend you give the show a try. It was kind of slow to start out, and I even described it once as a show that I kind of hated myself for liking. However, by the end of the season, I was looking forward to each new episode popping up in my Hulu queue. It's basically a Friends clone, about six friends hanging out, and how their relationships are changed forever when one of the group walks out on another at the altar. Interesting premise right? And it automatically killed any of the will-they-won't-they that made Ross and Rachel so annoying.

So anyway, back to season 2, which premiered last night. I have to say, I wasn't too impressed. There were some really great jokes thrown into the middle of the episode, like when Penny's random Neighbor #3 announced matter of factly that he had trained his cats to crawl through vents and open windows, but overall the episode didn't make me smile very much, let alone laugh. Also, it felt really out of place as both a season premiere, and even just as part of the second season at all. The first season of Happy Endings was aired out of order by ABC, and this second season premiere kind of felt like it belonged midway through season one as far as plot points and character development (such as it is in a 30 minute comedy).

I'm not too worried about the show as a whole though, because the first season, at the beginning, didn't really impress me either, but it grew on me. I'll let season 2 grow on me a bit as well, and we'll see where that takes us.

On a side note, television tells me that attractive twenty-somethings group together in evenly gendered packs of six. Where are my two awesome male friends and three super cool female friends?

Anyone in Seattle want a new friend?.... Anyone want to move to Seattle?

Be forewarned, I spend a lot of time watching TV.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Fall 2011

It will forever be known as the season of Background Noise.

Here are the new shows that have come out so far this season that I have seen:
The Playboy Club
2 Broke Girls
New Girl
Up All Night
Free Agents
Suburgatory
Charlie's Angels
and Whitney

Here are the new shows that have come out so far this season that I have seen that I would qualify as Background Noise:
The Playboy Club
2 Broke Girls
New Girl
Up All Night
Free Agents
Suburgatory
and Whitney

Here are the new shows that have come out so far this season that I have seen  that I would qualify as Bad:
Charlie's Angels

Here are the new shows that have come out so far this season that I have seen that I would qualify as new favorites:






Yeah.... Ya see what I mean?

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Sell the Damn Horse

To appreciate a good story, you have to buy into the premise. It's a difficult reality of television as a story telling medium because it can be so easy to buy out. Maybe it's a particular actor who you can't see in any other role than her first, which is a problem I have on White Collar fairly regularly every time Elizabeth Burke shows up on the screen. Or maybe it's a particularly ridiculous plot point, like when the characters on Glee complain about being poor but then have three different sets of synchronized outfits in an episode.

Whatever the reason, buying into the basic premise of a story is key to getting the most out of it. I can continue to watch White Collar despite Kelly Kapowski's regular appearances because I can believe that Peter and Neal have a similar moral code even though on the surface they are so different. I continue to watch Glee because I can ignore the fact that the actors playing the supposed outcasts are all immensely popular celebrities. Buy the premise, buy the bit.

I have never had so much trouble buying the premise of shows as I am having with some of the new fall comedies this season.

CBS's Two Broke Girls centers around... well, two broke girls. One, the former socialite daughter of a Bernie Madoff esque corporate type who just lost all his money, the other the street savvy loner type with a biting wit, both living together in a tiny one bedroom apartment and trying to make it in New York while waitressing at a crappy diner in Brooklyn. On the distant horizon is the girls' loose plan of starting up their own cupcake business to make their big break in the world.Also, they have a horse in the back yard... First of all, it's a cupcake business, it's not going to make anyone filthy rich, but if they're so broke, why don't they just sell the damn horse for start up cash?

FOX's New Girl centers around Jess, played by Zoe Deschanel, a lovable dork of a girl who moves in with three new male roommates she met on the internet. There is nothing about this show that is believable. The boys live in a deluxe four bedroom apartment complete with a college dorm style in house bathroom, urinals, shower stalls and all. Jess moves in with these boys because she dumped her cheating tool of an ex-boyfriend, but let's be honest, nobody could ever cheat on the wonder that is Zoe Deschanel. The real kicker though is Jess' character. She's one of those mildly humorous but way over the top socially awkward stereotypes. It is impossible to believe that someone so beautiful has any trouble fitting in with the world around her. Just look at me, I'm only mildly attractive, and I've assimilated just fine.

Don't get me wrong though, I am actually quite enjoying both of these shows, and I'm working hard to really dig in, bite down (and any other metaphor for trying hard) and just believe the basic premises so that I can invest myself a little bit in the story going forward. I'm pretty sure that they will both be worth the effort.

And I hope 2 Broke Girls doesn't sell off the horse, because Chesnut (the horse) is probably my third favorite character on the show.

Maybe I should write my own show about a post-college theatre major living in Seattle and trying to make it on his own in the world of entertainment but spending his nights sitting on his couch writing a not-so-up-and-coming blog about serialized television. The show would probably be pretty boring, but at least it would have one thing going for it:

Premise bought.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Fluke or Follow Through?

For background on this post, you should read two of my previous blog posts entitled, "A Theory" and "The Exception that Proves the Rule." This will make a lot more sense if you have, as I intend to analyze this week's episode of Castle, the second of its fourth season, as it relates to my theory. Is this second episode part of a truly great fourth season that makes it an exception to my rule, or was the premiere a brilliant fluke that will only serve to heighten viewer disappointment as the rest of the season starts its rule-required post-third-season decline. 

Let's start keeping score. 

The worst part of tonight's Castle was having to watch the last three minutes of Dancing with the Stars while I waited for the episode to start. That said, there were a lot of groaner puns, plot "twists" not worth the name, and idiotic character choices made for the sake of drawing out the plot. In fact, the only turn of events I personally didn't see coming in this episode was the one Castle himself admits, "I did not see... coming." I was convinced it that the 2nd to final mislead would be the comic book store owner. We'll call the score 1 in favor of an ongoing strong fourth season to 1 against (in favor of a downward spiraling fourth season with a fluke of a good premiere). 

Starting at the beginning, I'd like to mention a moment that I liked: the opening Castle family interchange. Not the whole thing, just the part with Martha in Shakespearean attire. As a theatre professional, I could really relate to the idea of an old actress, far too aged to get away with playing the young ingenue, trying to play Desdemona. Pretty hilarious, and far too accurate. The rest of the Castle family back and forth was awkwardly forced and unnecessary family drama dug up from the grave to give Alexis some screen time. When I say "dug up from the grave" I mean that in an all but literal sense. The idea of Alexis going to college early, and Castle freaking out about it was a plot point late in season 3 that was laid to rest when our writer protagonist came to terms with her departure. We'll call it 1.5 for to 2 against, because the B plot of this episode was terrible, but it referenced Shakespeare, so I had to give it something. 

When the episode first started and I realized we were dealing with a superhero-esque vigilante, I decided I would start keeping track of nicknames that they gave the masked swordsman. Unfortunately, they only came up with a couple before they learned the character's real name, and started calling him by it instead. What I should have been tracking were awkward sword related puns. After the initial "that is so Game of Thrones" comment, an intelligent reference to another book related popular television series, nothing said about the sword or it's owner DIDN'T make me roll my eyes. It wouldn't have been so bad if they came from the goofy Fillion character, but most of them came from Beckett. We'll call the score 2 for to 3 against, because the Game of Thrones reference earned the positive column another half a point, but the terrible one liners were a truly large step in the wrong direction. 

In case you were wondering... Vigilante Nicknames: Conan the Barbarian, Sword of Justice, Captain Permafrost. Ok, that was the Captain, but still...

Playing Ryan and Esposito off of each other to get both sides of the classic "is a masked vigilante a hero or a nuisance" argument was pretty inspired. The two already have a natural brotherly back and forth, and with both of them swapping sides of the argument regularly throughout the episode, it made the tired premise seem fresh and interesting. We'll give it 3 to 3. 

I should probably address the issue of the most stereotypical character in the episode, who also turns out (big surprise) to be the murderer. Seriously? The Mob? And Tony the Butcher? .... that's even more cliche than the word choice in my blog entries. It was nice, though, having a final murderer that the viewers, even those supporting the vigilante lifestyle, could get behind getting behind bars. That makes the final score an even 4 to 4. 

The tie breaker will have to go to Beckett's secret comic book fetish. It seems like the kind of thing that the writers would throw in just to get the laugh, but with Beckett's own comic-book-like back story and her already established secret obsession with Castle's 'Derek Storm' repertoire, it actually made sense for her character. So we'll call it 4.5 to 4. 

All that means is I'm going to withhold judgement until next week, but I have to say Castle, I'm disappointed. Episode three will have to be pretty great to make me believe you've got a chance to justify your fourth season.

Of course, I'll be watching until the day the show is cancelled anyway, even if it runs for another 4 seasons, so I really shouldn't judge. 


Sunday, September 25, 2011

Seattle Preview Screening

The benefits of using Twitter are pretty constant if you follow the right people. You get to read news as it's happening, from anywhere in the world. You get to share opinions on your favorite topics, like television or theatrical arts. And you get to hear about events in your area that you would never have known where happening.

Like this one:
http://suburgatory.eventbrite.com/

I just saw one of the television critics I follow tweet a link to this event with a simple description of "Seattle Preview Screening." In that tiny description were three words that interested me greatly. Now, I'll be going tomorrow to watch a show I have barely heard anything about with other fans of television. Hopefully some of them will be fans of tv with a level of obsession that mirrors my own. It would be nice to meet some people in my city with my same passion for the screen. The show might be awful, or brilliant, I'm really not sure, but I'm looking forward to watching it all the same. That's the beauty of fall premieres. You  never know what you're going to get!

If you're in the Seattle area, sign up for a ticket, and let me know that you're coming. I'd love to see/meet you there!

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Netflix

There's a lot of people on the internet talking about Netflix right now, so I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon. Most people are talking about Netflix because of CEO Reed Hastings' colossal blunder separating both services of Netflix's business, the online streaming from the DVD by mail, based on an arbitrary and ancient business model. I'm not going to say anything about that though, other than what my choice of adjectives and nouns in that last sentence may or may not relay.

Instead, I want to mention that I'm late to this Netflix ball game. I never subscribed myself, didn't think I could afford it. Or rather, I didn't think that the service provided was worth the constant outgoing cash flow. It wasn't until I moved in with my current roommate, and current Netflix subscriber, that I realized just how stupid I've been.

In the past four months of living here I have watched full series runs of several old shows that I've never heard of before, or shows from my childhood that I'd nearly forgotten. Right now, as we speak, I am watching Star Trek: Enterprise a show that I used to watch with my mother as a kid. I've watched full seasons of shows currently on the air, that I'd never seen but had meant to start watching. It's kind of nice to have this library of television shows at my fingertips. Every once in a while I'll find a new show and add it to my instant queue, which is filling up fast. It's like having a fully stocked DVR waiting for me every time I come home, with new shows added fairly often. I don't know if I'll ever get through half of the stuff I want to watch.

Best part? Since I only use Netflix instant anyways, I'm not affected by the sweeping changes Netflix is making to their business model. Those of us us on this half of the divide even get to keep the name. A household name. One of perhaps 100 company names that everyone in the country knows. It's stupid to think that Netflix is going to fall apart as a company just because they have no faith in the DVD by mail half of their company and want to disassociate their brand from it, for when it goes bust in five years.

So why is everyone else complaining? I kinda feel like buying some stock in Netflix, because I don't feel like it's going anywhere anytime soon.

Facebook though, now there's a company we should all be worried about...

Wait, what?

Friday, September 23, 2011

Background Noise

Everyone know that there are good television shows and bad television shows. Which shows fall into which list is a matter for popular discussion, and some would even argue that the shows in the former are only marginally better than the latter, but it would be difficult to deny that both categories exist. 

I'd like to break it down again, and say that there are two types of good television shows.

First, there are the Favorite television shows. These are the shows that you sit down to watch. You invest yourself in the characters, or the plot, or even just the excitement and suspense, but you tune in as often as possible, even if it isn't possible to watch every week, to see the story unfold. This list tends to be pretty small for anyone, and for the casual television viewer, this list might only have one show on it. For me, they are the shows that I try to make an effort to watch live, partially out of a knowingly false sense of helping the shows ratings, and partially because I don't want to wait to watch them later. On my list of favorite television shows currently on the air are White CollarCommunityRaising Hope, Falling Skies, and Castle. I watch dozens of television shows regularly, all of which I would consider "good," but that's the extent of my Favorites. 

The other type of good television show is the one I call Background Noise. Other good names for them would be distractions, time wasters, or channel-flippers. These are the shows you watch if it happens to be on the television as you're holding the channel up button on your remote. This list can be much more sizable. On my list of Background Noise would be How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory, Suits, Modern Family, and even Glee among many others. For me, these are the shows I subscribe to on my DVR and on Hulu, that I watch every week because they pop up in my queue, or because they are taking up space on my DVR hard drive. They're the shows you put on in the background while you're surfing facebook, or writing your blog. In fact, I'm watching Lie to Me on Netflix right now as I'm writing this. I'm still following the story, I'm just not particularly invested in it, and if I miss a line or two of the dialogue along the way, that's not the end of the world. I'll still enjoy the episode. 

The way I'm describing them, it would be easy to mistake this second subcategory for bad television shows, but they aren't. I watch them week after week because I enjoy them (or in the case of Glee, can't stand that I enjoy them). They are still good television shows in my mind. I know, because I still watch them, and I certainly don't watch everything. Most people don't watch their Background Noise list quite as religiously as I do, but that doesn't make them bad shows either. 

Bad shows would be Two and a Half Men, before or after Ashton Kutcher. Bad shows would be True Blood, even if you claim you watch it for the mythology. These are the shows that make you change the channel when you see them on the screen. To make the distinction clear, I mock fans of Glee and True Blood with equal passion, but at the end of the night I go home and I watch Glee. Glee will never be on my list of favorite shows, and I'll probably never watch another live episode again after the post-superbowl catastrophe last year, but that doesn't make it a bad show. If it was, I'd be able to avoid it a little better than I do now. 

That said, I still haven't watched the Season 3 premiere yet, so we'll see what happens.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Exception that Proves the Rule*

Yesterday I wrote a piece about a theory of mine, that basically declares that a television show, no matter how good it may be, should be cut off after 3 seasons to avoid ruining the story.

Today I'd like to talk for a minute about a show whose third season finale and fourth season premiere have left me with the impression that I might have found the exception to my wide sweeping rule, ABC's cop procedural romance Castle.

Most shows have a central storyline with an arc that can only be sustained for 2 or 3 seasons before the plot line either has to draw to a close, or be given up on completely. In a romance, this central arc is usually the building and forming of a relationship between the male and female leads. Castle is no exception. It's a fairly simple premise though, and you'd be correct in thinking that if the conclusion of a series' core plot is dependent only on two attractive people sleeping together, a series shouldn't last more than a few days in TV time, or maybe two or three episodes in ours.

Most romantic television shows try to draw out this simple storyline with what is colloquially known as "will they won't they" drama. It's a lot like watching middle school children try to form a real, lasting, meaningful relationship, and it's every bit as obnoxious and annoying. I'll point to another of my regular shows, NBC's Chuck, to illustrate this point. In the very first episode, it becomes obvious that the title character, lovable nerd Chuck Bartowski, has fallen in love with his female CIA handler, Sarah Walker. Within three episodes of the series premiere, it becomes obvious to the viewers that Sarah has also fallen in love with Chuck. So by episode four, they should be sleeping together, right? Well we all know that isn't how this game is played on television. Instead, it takes Chuck and Sarah all of three seasons before they finally acknowledge their love for each other and sleep together. By the end of the first season, all but the most die hard Chuck fans had grown tired of the "will they won't they" and those who still watched the show only did so because of the quirky spy capers that were the bulk of individual episodes and basically served as a backdrop to throw Chuck and Sarah into awkward situations that would make Chuck realize once again just how much he loved Sarah.

Back to Castle, whose show runner has publicly stated that his comedic crime procedural is, at its heart, a love story. What's amazing though, is that there is none of the "will they won't they" tension we see in Chuck. I've already written about this aspect of Castle though, and if you're interested, you should check out February's post entitled "Castle's Couple."

Instead of focusing on the central romance, Castle focuses on the crime stories in the individual episodes, and uses the mystery of Beckett's mothers death as the seasonal through-line. Rick Castle's love for Kate Beckett drives a lot of his actions and decisions, but his affections are rarely highlighted and even more rarely spoken of aloud. With that in mind, it stands to reason that this mystery would replace the romance as the central plot device, and therefore have played itself out after three seasons. What's interesting though is that Kate's mother's death in Season 1 was not necessarily a plot point, but rather, simply a character device. It was a little piece of background for Detective Beckett's character, not anything that motivated anyone to move from plot point to plot point. It wasn't until season 2 that her mothers' death became an actual storyline.

Castle survived its first season by relying on Nathan Fillion (who plays the title character, Richard Castle) and his quirky charm and considerable fan base. Essentially, season one was a gimme, and the show really started in season two. So here we are at the start of Season 4, but plot wise, it's really the start of Season 3. The mystery of Kate's mother's death has led Beckett and Castle to a conspiracy that extended right into their daily lives with the season finale reveal that Captain Montgomery was partially responsible. It even felt like a second season finale. The main story comes to a head, and we've got one more season to wind it down and tie up the loose ends. I'd put money on the fact that by the end of the fourth season, Beckett's mother's murder will have been resolved, or if it hasn't it will have started to feel unnecessarily drawn out. And Beckett herself has stated that the internal walls she put up after her mother's death are the only thing keeping her from a true and lasting relationship, which means once the mystery resolves, so should the romance.

By keeping the romance at the heart of the show, but never in focus, Castle's writers have managed to extend the life of their show beyond my law of diminishing quality. It's fourth season premiere was darker than what Castle fans are used to seeing, but it eased nicely out of the high drama that the third season cliffhanger left us with. Now we've got another season of goofy Nathan Fillion and stoic Stana Katic crime solving to tide us over while little pieces of the major mystery pop in at the end of each episode to tie them all together into a season. The question is, what happens at the end of Season 4? Will it prove my rule, assuming we ignore the misplaced first season?

Here's hoping that Castle's writers either know when to quit, or know how to prove me wrong.



*I feel it is worth mentioning that there are some exceptions to my rule that don't prove it, they are actually true exceptions. Any chapter of the Star Trek franchise is a good example, as is BBC's Doctor Who, both of which survive beyond the three season limit by not trying to be anything more than what they are, a niche market guilty pleasure, and I say that as a huge fan of both. What do you think? Are there other exceptions?

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

A Theory

I have a theory.

Middle school English tells us that every story must have three things: a beginning, a middle and an end. The thing about television that makes it a challenging story telling medium is that the ending is always uncertain. The writers rarely have any idea how long their show will be on the air. Sometimes this causes problems when a show gets cancelled before the writers were expecting resulting in unresolved cliffhangers and unfinished characters. This is the common complaint of television viewers whose favorite show gets "cancelled before its time." Sometimes, though, television's lack of a certain end point causes problems when a show goes on far beyond the limits of the story and its premise. Lost is a perfect example of a show that fits this mold.

It is this second category that leads to my theory: Good television show should be given three seasons, no more. If, at the end of a third season, a television show truly feels strong enough to deserve something more, they should be given a movie deal to give the series one last, but finite, story. The ideal Arrested Development deal, if you will.

Before everyone tells me that networks would never go for this model, that it doesn't result in maximum profitability, let me assure you that I understand this. I'm not suggesting this as a realistic idea, but really as a quality based-ideal. Although, as Jordan McDeere says in Studio 60, "quality is not anathema of profit," so maybe it's more logical than I give it credit for.

By giving the writers of popular television shows a finite end point, it solves two problems.

First, it provides a sense of focus by limiting the stories that a series has time to tell. Writers can focus on the heart of their show without worrying about having to fill time with extraneous characters or subplots that exist solely to provide a later plot twist or cliffhanger. Any ABC Family show tends to have this kind of problem, but if you want a more mainstream example, just look at Glee. Just speaking in general terms, it's a show with characters and stories that exist purely as a device to move from song to big dramatic moment to song. More specifically though, looking back at all of Season 2, Mercedes and Santana's plot lines were perfect examples of this kind of waste of air time.  Now that the show runners have announced that Season 3 will have fewer guest stars and less singing to focus on the quality of the plot and characters, I feel justified criticizing them for their... well, their plot and characters.

Secondly, limiting a show to three seasons gives it a guaranteed ending. Sounds obvious, right? It is. Gone would be the days of cliffhangers at the end of shows' final seasons. No longer would shows like The Office be allowed to stumble off into the future desperately trying to find stories to tell after every major character has completed their arc. Jim and Pam are married with a child, Michael has left the office, and even Dwight managed to run the place for a day. The story has ended, even if the show continues to move forward.

Shows like The Office or Lost which are allowed to drag on long after their initial premise has worn out, only serve to dull their brilliance. Viewers look back at both of those shows now, initially praised and cheered for their greatness, and remember them, at best, as just above mediocre.

Of course, there is always an exception that proves the rule... But we'll talk about that tomorrow.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

And We're Back

Today was an excellent day. Let me tell you why.

1) It was the first day of classes. After almost two months of intense preparation, we kicked off our school year program at work today. The students arrived with that air of nervous excitement that kids only get on the first day of school, and I realized just how much fun this year is going to be.

2) It was the kick off day of premiere week, when all the major broadcast networks air season premieres of returning shows and pilots of purchased new ones that they hope will keep viewers' DVRs full to bursting with their company logo. As part of this momentous day, NBC, ABC and FOX kicked it off with two hour blasts of their front runners in "illiterate programming." I'm sorry, I mean "alternative" or "reality" programming. (For those of you who got the Studio 60 reference that I just made, you are the core of my audience, thank you.) CBS, though, did it right and kicked off their week of new shows with an hour long premiere of their half-hour comedy, How I Met Your Mother. The "hour long" premiere was really just two episodes aired back to back, but they were nicely tied together with continuous story, callback jokes, and a self-mockery of the show's style that I found highly amusing. Not to mention that the twist ending of the second episode nearly had me crying with excitement. My own love life all too often mirrors Ted's. Not in the sweeping general sense that all hopeless romantics follow a similar track of love and loss, but in the much more specific "I just lived that plot line point for point 3 days ago" kind of way. The chance for Ted to get a second chance on his 2am disaster is almost too exciting for words. 

CBS then followed up their most beloved comedy with their most controversial one, airing Ashton Kutcher's return to television on the heels of Charlie Sheen's (character's) death - I really hope somebody finds this blog post after google searching "Charlie Sheen Death." I'll be checking the Stats section of this blog religiously for the next few days - and I have to admit, today marked the first day I've watched an entire episode of Two and a Half Men. Even though I know Nielsen wasn't counting my screen, I was happy to contribute to that look-in-audience tonight. I probably won't tune in next week, but it did manage to make me laugh a little more than I thought it would. 

Then it was onto the first new pilot of the week, 2 Broke Girls. After hearing good things about the actresses in the title roles, and the multi-camera approach with an actual live studio audience, I was eager to give this show a try. As a storyteller who chose theatre as his medium because of the live audience interaction, I was intrigued by the network risk taken in returning to true laughs from the canned hysterics affectionately called "the laugh track." The show didn't knock me off of my feet, but I'm happy to say I'll probably be tuning in for that one again next week, especially since it's airing right after How I Met Your Mother, so I won't have to carefully dodge Two and a Half Men in the middle to keep from being part of that statistic again. 

CBS followed 2 Broke Girls with Hawaii 5-0, and I followed by changing the channel over to ABC for the very dark premiere of Castle. I'd go into the writing brilliance that went into the opening episode, but it's 1am, and I would like to do it justice if I do it at all. That's what she said. We'll see if it makes it into tomorrow's post. Which brings me to my third and final reason why it was a good day.

3) It marked the return of my daily blog. I'm excited to challenge myself this year. I want to see if I can do the daily "article," and do it well enough to justify the return of my meager but loyal following, on top of a full time job. I considered making this a five day a week thing, as I don't plan to watch much on the weekends, and I'd like to have a chance to relax every so often, but I know if I give myself that inch, I'll surely take the mile. So instead I'll set the bar as high as I can set it and I'll see you back here every day for the next few months. 

As a good friend of mine once said in response to a complaint of, "you raised the bar a little high." 

"Did I? I raised the bar high? Sorry. Clear it." [elevator doors shut]