I'm confused, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I also am sure that somebody out there knows the answer to my question, so I'm going to ask it here, despite the fact that the likelihood that anyone who will see this post falls into that second category is very slim. What is the deal with hulu and their rights to air episodes? I'm going to ignore hulu+ for now, since that is an entirely different ball game.
Most of NBC's shows are available the day after they air for about a five week period, during which they cycle through. This is probably the most reasonable airing schedule that hulu offers, which makes sense since hulu is an NBC Universal-run website. But USA, which is a subsidiary of NBC Universal, only airs the first two episodes of a season and then requires a month long wait before the rest of the episodes start cycling through. FOX and ABC shows vary somewhere between these two methods, and CBS doesn't host their shows on hulu at all. Obviously contracts vary from show to show, and there are exceptions to all of the general guidelines I just described.
I'm choosing to ignore the possibility that these restrictions are in place as a result of hulu's side of the negotiations for two reasons. One, in the "availablitly" section of the hulu pages I have often seen the box read something to the effect of "we are currently allowed to offer..." which seems to imply that the restrictions are not of their own making. Also, episodes available on the networks own websites tend to follow similar, if not exactly the same, posting schedules, a schedule hulu has zero influence over. Therefore, we'll assume that it's the networks.
So here's my question. What benefit do the networks get from these limited contracts?
In the modern age of internet streaming technology, where convenience is everything, illegal websites are cropping up left and right that offer these shows unrestricted, without commercials, free of charge. The networks that develop and produce these shows don't see a dime for episodes that people watch in this way. At least with hulu they get a contract and payment.
I know that there have been countless shows that I have wanted to watch (Modern Family for example) but didn't have access to the pilot or early episodes because I had, unfortunately, heard about the series too late and the older episodes had already cycled through. In such cases, without additional payment for video on demand from amazon or netflix, I am unable to pick up the series and start watching halfway through. The direct result of which, is that I don't end up watching the show until at least a full year later when friends offer to lend me the DVDs. Sometimes that means that it's too late for me to get on board with a great show until after it has cancelled from lack of viewership.
Obviously I do not make enough of a difference to overall viewership for the networks to care about whether or not I watch their show, but I also know that there are other people like me who prefer to watch a show in its entirety from pilot to current episode in the order aired, and don't like to pick up shows in the middle of the season. They also probably are like me in that they prefer a free viewing experience, or at least one that doesn't cost them more than the cable they are already paying for. Add us all up, and I'm sure we'd make a sizable dent to the ratings if we could catch up and start watching episodes live. Plus, if those "like-me" people are truly like me, then as soon as they've started watching, they'll start talking to all of their friends, even the ones who don't mind watching episodes out of order, and spread the word. Therefore, it seems to me that networks would get more benefit out of providing their content on hulu to provide a legal viewing method whose commercials and contracts would provide them with some revenue as opposed to the multitude of online piracy sites where their shows end up anyway, despite their best efforts.
The desire to control their content is only natural, and I completely understand it. Networks can't get paid for stolen property, and they can't make new shows without some source of revenue. The more control the networks can maintain over their content, the more control they will have over its price, which in turn leads to more episodes, series, etc. That's just supply and demand. The demand is high for quality programming. The problem for the networks? So is the supply. Placing arbitrary restrictions on episodes posted on hulu only serves to potentially drive viewers to illegal sites that provide the restricted content.
Now I'm sure that none of this is news to the people at the television networks establishing contracts with hulu. This isn't exactly rocket science, and executives and administrators tend to be fairly intelligent people. Which means that there is some benefit to these restrictions that I'm not seeing. Right? If you know what that invisible benefit is, please let me know.
Because it seems to me that the networks are mistaking restrictions for control.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
White Collar Theories: What About Mozzie?
Some of you may have noticed that in my last White Collar entry I mentioned five theories. I pretty heavily addressed the first three and touched on the fourth, but pretty much ignored the fifth point, the one about Mozzie. It's time I finally addressed it. For those of you who would like refreshing, I mentioned that Mozzie was not a part of the conspiracy against Neal, but that the writers were certainly making it difficult for me to maintain that belief.
So for today, let me flash back to last week's flashback episode and point out what why Mozzie could be a part of Adler's con every bit as much as Kate or Alex. Also, I'll mention why if Mozzie is involved, he'll be working with/for Adler, not above him as was suggested in the comments on my earlier post. Finally, I'll address why Mozzie actually won't be involved, once the final curtain has been pulled back (if it ever is).
Why Mozzie Is In On It
Neal says it right at the beginning of the first flash back sequence. "If you want to know about Adler, we've got to start with Mozzie."
When Neal first meets Mozzie, the toupee'd goatee sporting fellow is running a street con, and Neal is his first mark. Of course, Neal outsmarts the sneaky duo and goes off with an extra $500 of Mozzie's money in his pockets. Now, one of Moz's greatest features is his unwavering loyalty to Neal. Only once have we ever seen him betray Neal, ratting him out to "the suit," and that only results in an emotional break down for the little man. You'd think he'd extend this loyalty to his other friends and partners as well, but he abandons his card spinning cohort almost in the blink of an eye to track down Neal. When Neal questions him on that very fact, Mozzie just shrugs and says that he "wanted an upgrade." Well maybe Adler was the upgrade now that Mozzie could bring him a mark like Neal. Caffrey even suspects him at first, asking him, "What's your angle?" before letting him into the apartment.
Apparently Mozzie's angle is that he wants Neal to pull off the perfect con on Adler. That's what we're led to believe anyway. Here's a fun little memory game for you, though. When Neal and Mozzie are discussing the new con, Caffrey asks his new friend, "who's the mark?" What happens next? Mozzie replies, "Vincent Adler." Right? Wrong! As soon as Caffrey poses the question, the shot cuts to Peter answering, not Mozzie. It's the con man's greatest trick, getting the mark to supply the needed information. Mozzie didn't have to speak the lie because Peter did it for him. Now I realize that these two events were happening 8 years apart in completely different time lines, and I'll even concede that Mozzie almost assuredly uttered the same words to Neal in the past scenario that we just don't get to see. The fact that we don't see it happen though, that's important. The writers, the Adlers to our Burke in this game of FBI vs ConMan that they're playing with the viewers, show us what they want us to see.
If you want a little less "meta" justification for Mozzie's involvement, I'll point you to the fact that Mozzie brought Neal to Adler in the first place. Adler would never have been able to start his long con on Caffrey if Mozzie hadn't pushed the two into each others' lives. Neal practically says so himself, explaining to Peter, "that was the first time I heard Adler's name," referring to Mozzie's plan to retrieve the password.
The final argument on this topic is the one I made earlier for Kate. Adler, wanting to get close to Neal, uses his cohorts to do it for him. And who is closer to Neal than Mozzie? Burke's getting up there, but still, Mozzie has him beat. Mozzie even makes significant effort to get closer to Neal throughout the "Forging Bonds" episode, going so far as to persistently try to pull Neal away from Kate, his other friend, in order to remind him of their mutual crime and bond. "Don't kid yourself, Kate doesn't even know your real name!" He insists, one time, trying to keep Neal on track to steal Adler's cash. But then again, why would two people who are working for the same man with the same basic goal try to keep their mark away from the other? If professional jealousy isn't enough, (ie they both want the glory of being the one to break him) then you have to consider that one of the two isn't working for Adler. Which brings us to segment number 2.
Why Mozzie Isn't, or If He Is, Why He's Not the Mastermind
One very simple reason. We see him get shot.
If you would like me to explain that a little better, I'll break it down into parts. One, he gets shot by Adler's hit man. Why would Adler kill his own man. But the same hit man supposedly killed Kate, and it is my theory that Kate is still alive, so why not Mozzie too? Part two, we saw his shooting occur. We watch the hit man shoot Mozzie. It's an offhanded side shot as the man is walking by. It's not a carefully aimed shot calculated to miss vital organs so that Mozzie can live through the shooting and survive to continue working on Neal. We don't see Kate's death. There could very easily have been a complicated (or not so complicated) escape plan that had her off the plane well before it blows up. Just sayin' there's a difference.
For this same reason, Mozzie can not be behind Adler. The argument could be made that Adler decided to have Mozzie killed off once he had learned too much. If Adler is working for Mozzie though, then there is no way Mozzie gets shot casually on the park bench.
Why Mozzie's Isn't In On It: Meta Reasoning
Mozzie is one of the key three characters.
(I distinguish him as one of the key characters by the fact that he had an episode devoted to him. Remember that one where we got to meet his lady friend earlier this summer?)
It is the style of White Collar thus far to follow Neal and Peter, our heroes, and ignore the plot lines of the villains, except in the snippets that Neal and Peter witness them as they cross paths. If Mozzie were to turn out to be working for Adler, or even if Mozzie were the mastermind behind Adler, then he would cease to be a character whose antics the audience is privy too. Either that or the nature of White Collar would have to so drastically change to accommodate the villain's story that it wouldn't really be White Collar anymore.
So for today, let me flash back to last week's flashback episode and point out what why Mozzie could be a part of Adler's con every bit as much as Kate or Alex. Also, I'll mention why if Mozzie is involved, he'll be working with/for Adler, not above him as was suggested in the comments on my earlier post. Finally, I'll address why Mozzie actually won't be involved, once the final curtain has been pulled back (if it ever is).
Why Mozzie Is In On It
Neal says it right at the beginning of the first flash back sequence. "If you want to know about Adler, we've got to start with Mozzie."
When Neal first meets Mozzie, the toupee'd goatee sporting fellow is running a street con, and Neal is his first mark. Of course, Neal outsmarts the sneaky duo and goes off with an extra $500 of Mozzie's money in his pockets. Now, one of Moz's greatest features is his unwavering loyalty to Neal. Only once have we ever seen him betray Neal, ratting him out to "the suit," and that only results in an emotional break down for the little man. You'd think he'd extend this loyalty to his other friends and partners as well, but he abandons his card spinning cohort almost in the blink of an eye to track down Neal. When Neal questions him on that very fact, Mozzie just shrugs and says that he "wanted an upgrade." Well maybe Adler was the upgrade now that Mozzie could bring him a mark like Neal. Caffrey even suspects him at first, asking him, "What's your angle?" before letting him into the apartment.
Apparently Mozzie's angle is that he wants Neal to pull off the perfect con on Adler. That's what we're led to believe anyway. Here's a fun little memory game for you, though. When Neal and Mozzie are discussing the new con, Caffrey asks his new friend, "who's the mark?" What happens next? Mozzie replies, "Vincent Adler." Right? Wrong! As soon as Caffrey poses the question, the shot cuts to Peter answering, not Mozzie. It's the con man's greatest trick, getting the mark to supply the needed information. Mozzie didn't have to speak the lie because Peter did it for him. Now I realize that these two events were happening 8 years apart in completely different time lines, and I'll even concede that Mozzie almost assuredly uttered the same words to Neal in the past scenario that we just don't get to see. The fact that we don't see it happen though, that's important. The writers, the Adlers to our Burke in this game of FBI vs ConMan that they're playing with the viewers, show us what they want us to see.
If you want a little less "meta" justification for Mozzie's involvement, I'll point you to the fact that Mozzie brought Neal to Adler in the first place. Adler would never have been able to start his long con on Caffrey if Mozzie hadn't pushed the two into each others' lives. Neal practically says so himself, explaining to Peter, "that was the first time I heard Adler's name," referring to Mozzie's plan to retrieve the password.
The final argument on this topic is the one I made earlier for Kate. Adler, wanting to get close to Neal, uses his cohorts to do it for him. And who is closer to Neal than Mozzie? Burke's getting up there, but still, Mozzie has him beat. Mozzie even makes significant effort to get closer to Neal throughout the "Forging Bonds" episode, going so far as to persistently try to pull Neal away from Kate, his other friend, in order to remind him of their mutual crime and bond. "Don't kid yourself, Kate doesn't even know your real name!" He insists, one time, trying to keep Neal on track to steal Adler's cash. But then again, why would two people who are working for the same man with the same basic goal try to keep their mark away from the other? If professional jealousy isn't enough, (ie they both want the glory of being the one to break him) then you have to consider that one of the two isn't working for Adler. Which brings us to segment number 2.
Why Mozzie Isn't, or If He Is, Why He's Not the Mastermind
One very simple reason. We see him get shot.
If you would like me to explain that a little better, I'll break it down into parts. One, he gets shot by Adler's hit man. Why would Adler kill his own man. But the same hit man supposedly killed Kate, and it is my theory that Kate is still alive, so why not Mozzie too? Part two, we saw his shooting occur. We watch the hit man shoot Mozzie. It's an offhanded side shot as the man is walking by. It's not a carefully aimed shot calculated to miss vital organs so that Mozzie can live through the shooting and survive to continue working on Neal. We don't see Kate's death. There could very easily have been a complicated (or not so complicated) escape plan that had her off the plane well before it blows up. Just sayin' there's a difference.
For this same reason, Mozzie can not be behind Adler. The argument could be made that Adler decided to have Mozzie killed off once he had learned too much. If Adler is working for Mozzie though, then there is no way Mozzie gets shot casually on the park bench.
Why Mozzie's Isn't In On It: Meta Reasoning
Mozzie is one of the key three characters.
(I distinguish him as one of the key characters by the fact that he had an episode devoted to him. Remember that one where we got to meet his lady friend earlier this summer?)
It is the style of White Collar thus far to follow Neal and Peter, our heroes, and ignore the plot lines of the villains, except in the snippets that Neal and Peter witness them as they cross paths. If Mozzie were to turn out to be working for Adler, or even if Mozzie were the mastermind behind Adler, then he would cease to be a character whose antics the audience is privy too. Either that or the nature of White Collar would have to so drastically change to accommodate the villain's story that it wouldn't really be White Collar anymore.
Monday, January 31, 2011
I've Got a New Wednesday Show!
I think that the day I have dreaded may have come. I think I may have to finally admit that I might possibly have been a teeny tiny bit wrong. You see, for the better part of the last two years I have made an absolute declaration that NBC's Community is the best comedy currently on the air. Up until now, I made this statement because I believed it to be true.
Let that one sink in for a minute. Allow me to explain. I still think that Community is one of the two best comedy's on the air. It might even still hold the number one slot, but it's harder to claim with absolute certainty anymore. I suddenly have realized what all of my friends who have had the gall to argue with my opinion were talking about the last two years when they told me I had to watch ABC's Modern Family.
I remember being six or seven weeks into Season 1 of Community and starting to make my proclamation to all of my friends. Several times I was challenged by people who claimed that Modern Family might be able to make a stake to that claim as well. However, I have an obsession with watching shows from start to finish in the order the writers intended them to be viewed (or at the very least, in the order the network aired them) and by that point, it was more than five episodes in and "Hulu Plus" wasn't a thing yet, so I decided I would wait and catch up on Season 1 of Modern Family later, when the episodes came out on DVD.
Well guess what I finally finished catching up on today?
Looking back now, I wonder what sort of hubris led me to dismiss ABC's comedy front-runner without watching it first. I'm pretty sure it wasn't network bias, but my justification of that statement sounds like a racist's favorite retort: "Several of my favorite shows belong to ABC!" Although, come to think of it, that's not even entirely true. Of all of ABC's line up, I really only like Castle...... but I really like Castle, so it feels like I enjoy more of their shows by association. And it's not like Modern Family was on the CW or something. I just couldn't believe that what I thought of as an Arrested Development rip-off could possibly live up to the hype. It is time to admit that I was dead wrong.
From now on, I have two favorite comedies, and ABC has earned an apology. So I'm sorry ABC, you guys can be funny sometimes too, and I'm not too proud to admit that I made a mistake (I've done it at least four times in this blog alone!).
Add one more show to my weekly roster. And honestly, what else was I going to be watching at 9:00pm on a Wednesday, Minute to Win It?
Before I go making any more inaccurate declarations, are there any other shows I should be sure to catch, to help me form a complete opinion?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Update: Harry's Law
So I just caught up on Harry's Law by watching the second episode. I found myself laughing internally pretty much throughout.
Whether it was Adam's instant love affair with the girl from the Chinese Laundromat or when he spontaneously switched defenses from private business rights to the legitimacy of China's one child policy as an overpopulation control, I couldn't say.
Or maybe it was the fact that we got to see the prosecuting attorney with the speech problem (speech problem) suddenly without a single repeat in his dialogue. There were even some good opportunities for it. The "are you kidding me!?" when he loses at the end especially would have lent itself to his comedic repetition.
Instead, I guess they transferred it to the overly boisterous lawyer defending the pregnant lady. This is the United States of America you know, and here we choose baby's over China. Baby. China. Baby. China. *Camera Flash!* I mean, come on! The guy even called himself a cartoonish buffoon.
Character Analysis Thus Far:
The 2 Dimensional character choices are easy to spot. Let's see if they hold up for the rest of the spring.
Harriet: Dull and Droll but Never Emotionless
Adam: Idealistic and Dramatic. A Chronic Over Reacter.
Jenna: The Shoe Obsessed Girly Girl Secretary.
Malcolm: The Naive Innocent in Over His Head, but Trying Hard
Did the writers decide to just do away with the drama part of "dramedy" all together or is the satire just becoming more pronounced?
Whether it was Adam's instant love affair with the girl from the Chinese Laundromat or when he spontaneously switched defenses from private business rights to the legitimacy of China's one child policy as an overpopulation control, I couldn't say.
Or maybe it was the fact that we got to see the prosecuting attorney with the speech problem (speech problem) suddenly without a single repeat in his dialogue. There were even some good opportunities for it. The "are you kidding me!?" when he loses at the end especially would have lent itself to his comedic repetition.
Instead, I guess they transferred it to the overly boisterous lawyer defending the pregnant lady. This is the United States of America you know, and here we choose baby's over China. Baby. China. Baby. China. *Camera Flash!* I mean, come on! The guy even called himself a cartoonish buffoon.
Character Analysis Thus Far:
The 2 Dimensional character choices are easy to spot. Let's see if they hold up for the rest of the spring.
Harriet: Dull and Droll but Never Emotionless
Adam: Idealistic and Dramatic. A Chronic Over Reacter.
Jenna: The Shoe Obsessed Girly Girl Secretary.
Malcolm: The Naive Innocent in Over His Head, but Trying Hard
Did the writers decide to just do away with the drama part of "dramedy" all together or is the satire just becoming more pronounced?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Why White Collar Could Be Brilliant!
Brace yourselves. This one is long.
I'll admit it. When I first tuned in to the pilot ofUSA
I'll admit it. When I first tuned in to the pilot of
Since the pilot aired, I've only watched two episodes on Hulu. The rest I've seen live when they aired.
I say this to demonstrate the depth of my awe and devotion to this show, as a busy college student fully aware of, and at ease with, the new media markets that are available to young tech savvy viewers like me.
The show plays itself out like a masterfully executed con. An overarching through-line pulls the audience along with Neal from episode to episode, all the while slipping in new players and new information for viewers to sort out. The brilliance of White Collar comes from its subtlety. The writers have mastered the art of the mislead and foreshadowing. They’re the con man and we’re the FBI agent.
To Jeff Eastin and the writers at White Collar, I have only this to say. “It’s my job to catch you. It’s your job to not get caught.”
This week's episode was brilliant. From almost the moment Burke walked in Neal’s door, I started chanting “It’s a flashback episode, it’s a flashback episode!” over and over again at my TV, much to the annoyance of my younger brother, who is also a fan. You see, I wasn’t excited because I would get to learn how Neal and Mozzie met, or how Neal and Kate fell in love. I was excited because finally we, as the audience, would get to uncover the missing pieces in the through-arch fractal puzzle that our main characters have possessed all along. This episode would give us the chance to figure out if we were smarter than Neal and Peter by pitting us against one another on a relatively even playing field.
So here’s what this episode told me.
One, Adler is the top of the Music Box food chain. He’s not working for someone else or being held against his will. Whether or not the fractal is his final goal or just another piece of a larger puzzle remains to be seen.
Two, Adler has been (and still is) working a “long-con” on Neal from the moment they met.
Three, Alex is in on it, working for Adler, and has been all along.
Four, so is Kate, but she’s conflicted about it. And she’s not dead.
Five, Mozzie isn’t working for Adler. But the writers have set it up so that he could be.
Here’s why.
The nature of the long con is simple. “You ingratiate yourself, become a trusted friend, and then convince him [The Mark] to tell you.” Mozzie’s words. Assume for a moment that I’m right, that Adler is conning Neal, trying to use him to find the music box. How would he go about doing it? He’d ingratiate himself, become a trusted friend and convince him. But he can’t get close to his mark, because it would mean Neal would be getting close to him too, and as Alex points out later in the episode, grifters tend to know their own. So how would he do it? He’d use his pretty assistant.
Vincent Adler barely seems to notice Neal except as a fly buzzing around his ear. He’s casually and politely interested in what Neal has to say, but eager to move on. I’ll point out that this is very similar to how Neal acts towards Peter when he passes off the Unfinished Business to help make the point. Instead, he passes Neal off to Kate and walks away. Almost immediately, Kate “guesses” Neal’s true motives (upon seeing the bottle of Bordeaux
All the romantic viewers are now screaming. “But Kate loves Neal! She wouldn’t con him!” Well, as Mozzie points out so eloquently, “Every con man gets his heart broken. Once.” Kate’s motivations come shining through in her first conversation with Neal, standing before a piece of art. When Neal tells her he’s dabbled in art, Kate reveals, “I tried, but the romance of being a starving artist wore off very fast.” When Adler disappears, and she and Neal are left unemployed, she complains to Neal saying, “No money! No Jobs! It’s all gone!” Kate is a person who enjoys the finer things in life, just like our good buddy Neal, and she has realized that romantic notions of artistry are not enough to get them for her. She needs money. So let’s assume that this means that she can be bought, even if it doesn’t mean that she was.
So what makes her appear to be Adler’s pawn? The fact that Adler keeps pushing Neal on her. He practically throws them together in the first meeting, he gives Neal his assignments through her so that they will have time to interact. He inquires about their relationship encourages it, telling Neal, “You and Kate have gotten close. You look good together.”
So what happens with Kate after Adler disappears to whatever tropical island or Siberian silo he hides in and stops visibly manipulating Neal and Kate’s relationship? She starts pulling cons with Neal and Mozzie showing a skill that usually comes from practice (granted, there’s a cut scene before we see her in the cop outfit, we didn’t get to see the Neal and Mozzie Train Kate Montage, but it might have existed). She accepts Nick as Neal alarmingly easily (granted, we don’t get to see Neal actually tell her, she might have thrown a fit). She even goes so far as to try to convince Neal she’s more important than his friends. After Caffrey has claimed the false password, he walks with Kate with his new hat. Neal tells her he has to go. “I promised a riend, I can’t back out,” he tells her. What is her response? “I think you should blow off said commitment” (granted, this is all in the context of a flirtatious conversation, and attributing deeper meaning to it might be a bit of a stretch).
Here’s the kicker though. When Kate leaves Neal, what is it that makes her leave? She admits that it’s not Alex. She says that it’s that Caffrey tried to con her. What if she gets upset with Neal because he isn’t including her in the search for the music box, the thing she’s been working towards all along? What if her disappearance is her pulling out of the con when she realizes that Neal, the man she’s grown to love, isn’t going to give her what her boss wants? So when Neal finds her again, Adler starts to use her again. Enter Pilot Episode.
There’s also Alex. Assume for a moment that she’s a plant: hired by Adler to fake an investigative attack on his company to test Neal’s skills. Only after Caffrey catches her does he learn about the music box. She practically tells Neal that he wants it when she says her target is “Something Adler doesn’t have.” Neal counters with, “He has everything.” And she nails the point home with “He doesn’t have this.” There’s also the interesting exchange between Alex and Adler in his office while Neal watches over them. I suggest watching that particular scene again with her potential complicity in mind.
This has all been just surface level analysis of characters and potential motivations. Plus, that would be a ridiculously long con for Adler and Kate to be pulling on Neal. Assuming that the writers are as brilliant as I’ve been giving them credit for, then if I’m right about where the show is heading, the episode should be laden with subtle foreshadowing. Guess what? It is.
Let’s do an SAT style analogy. Neal is to Adler as Kate is to Neal. Do the writers hint at Neal’s upcoming role reversal? You bet they do.
Adler tells Neal, “You’ve got diverse interests.” Neal’s response is, “like you. Art is my passion.”
Later Adler points out their similarities himself starting a conversation with “Nick, men like you and I…”
Caffrey brings the bottle of Bordeaux
About his fake relationship with Kate, Neal says “I feel like I could blink and it would all be gone.”
Additionally there are at least 8 references in the episode to cons taking an extensive amount of time. References to long cons or time clocks and the like. I’ve time stamped them for you based on the Hulu clock I used when I re-watched the episode.
Mozzie – “A long con” 6:24
Mozzie – “Our clock is five months” 10:52
Neal – “The job became my life” 22:34
Mozzie – “Every day with Adler counts” 24:20
Burke – “You and Mozzie were still running the long con” 25:30
Neal – “Every con has an expiration date” 25:37
Neal – “I have to be somewhere by six. It’s a commitment I made a long time ago” 28:51
Neal – “You said it yourself. This is a long con.” 29:53
Finally, for those of you still reading, here are some interesting lines (taken way out of context) that could be potentially hinting towards this version of the rest of the season if you want them to be.
Burke: “And Kate was there the whole time”
Alex: “I don’t work for anyone. Yet.”
Neal: “Trying to make the lie real”
Mozzie: “Don’t kid yourself, Kate doesn’t even know your real name”
Mozzie: “She cares about Nick Haldan and he doesn’t exist”
Adler: “Some people say ‘dress for the job you want.’ I say dress like the man you want to be”
Adler: “Don’t sell yourself short. Kate will love you for who you really are. As will others”
Mozzie: “Neal. This smells like a trap.”
Neal: “He conned us.”
Burke: “He conned everybody.”
And my personal favorite:
Burke: “Nobody saw this coming?”
... I did.
... I did.
Now all that remains is for the writers to take the show in a completely different direction that I didn't see coming at all and blow my mind yet again.
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Set Up...
I realized recently that most of my blog posts have been of the negative variety. "I don't like this show" or "that network should give brilliance a chance rather than flushing them out of hand like a 4 year old's dead gold fish." There's a whole lot of what I don't like on here, and I don't like that.
Pause for comedic effect.
You see, I tend to be an optimistic person, especially when it comes to television, and I like almost everything I see. Almost every show I start to watch, I like. Even the shows like Glee and 30 Rock that I believe are good but extremely over rated, I end up following from the pilot through to the final episode. Even with the shows I really dislike, I still give them at least one full season (assuming the networks give the shows a full season run) to find their footing and turn themselves around, to impress me as it were, before I stop following their progress altogether.
All of this is basically my way of promising that the next post will be positive rather than negative. Tomorrow's post will be about this week's episode of what I consider to be absolutely, without question, the most cleverly written television drama currently on the air. Here's a hint. It's not Chase. Sorry NBC.
Pause for comedic effect.
You see, I tend to be an optimistic person, especially when it comes to television, and I like almost everything I see. Almost every show I start to watch, I like. Even the shows like Glee and 30 Rock that I believe are good but extremely over rated, I end up following from the pilot through to the final episode. Even with the shows I really dislike, I still give them at least one full season (assuming the networks give the shows a full season run) to find their footing and turn themselves around, to impress me as it were, before I stop following their progress altogether.
All of this is basically my way of promising that the next post will be positive rather than negative. Tomorrow's post will be about this week's episode of what I consider to be absolutely, without question, the most cleverly written television drama currently on the air. Here's a hint. It's not Chase. Sorry NBC.
New Show Review: Harry's Law
The show is being advertised as a dramedy. In other words, it's supposed to be a dramatic show with laughs thrown in. Whether you like the show or not, whether you agree with its "spirit of the law" message or not, watch it again with this in mind: It's not a dramedy. It's a satire.
It's subtly and brilliantly poking fun at the underdog lawyer genre that we as the American viewing public have come to love and accept out of hand. The show is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Harriet gets sent to the hospital twice in one day by pure chance (the "everything happens for a reason" motif, I get it, but still). She spends the first 60 seconds of the episode complaining about how boring patent law is, then almost dismisses her first potential client out of hand because his is a criminal case, not a patent one. The prosecuting attorney in her first case has a comically fast and repetitive speech pattern (repetitive speech pattern) that is not found in nature. Her partner/junior associate views his first client as a deserving criminal, then, in one half-hearted speech by the client accompanied by moving music, he changes his point of view so completely there's no chance the writer's intended it to be realistic. And to top it all off, everyone speaks in an overly scripted dialogue reminiscent of Lorelai Gilmore or any of Aaron Sorkin's characters. (I guess that's the more fitting reference considering lead actor, Nate Corddry's one season stint on Sorkin's Studio 60.) The problem is, that kind of dialogue has always seemed excessively fake and requires quite a bit of "suspension of disbelief" even when it's done well, and this show just doesn't pull it off. Things have to move too quickly for the tone to settle and everything anybody says seems forced (seems forced). Either that's because the Academy Award winning lead and her ensemble just can't handle this style of speech or maybe it's simply that the writers of the new show are still struggling to figure out the natural rhythm of speech.
But here's the catch. It's not awful. None of these issues I've pointed out are glaring mistakes. None of them make me want to change the channel. They're all exactly small enough that a viewer can move past them and keep watching with a little more suspension of disbelief. It was only when I started to notice how consistently these annoying little blips showed up that I came up with my theory that it was intentional.
It has to be a satire, because if it's not a satire, it's just bad. I choose to be optimistic and give the writers the benefit of the doubt.
It's subtly and brilliantly poking fun at the underdog lawyer genre that we as the American viewing public have come to love and accept out of hand. The show is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Harriet gets sent to the hospital twice in one day by pure chance (the "everything happens for a reason" motif, I get it, but still). She spends the first 60 seconds of the episode complaining about how boring patent law is, then almost dismisses her first potential client out of hand because his is a criminal case, not a patent one. The prosecuting attorney in her first case has a comically fast and repetitive speech pattern (repetitive speech pattern) that is not found in nature. Her partner/junior associate views his first client as a deserving criminal, then, in one half-hearted speech by the client accompanied by moving music, he changes his point of view so completely there's no chance the writer's intended it to be realistic. And to top it all off, everyone speaks in an overly scripted dialogue reminiscent of Lorelai Gilmore or any of Aaron Sorkin's characters. (I guess that's the more fitting reference considering lead actor, Nate Corddry's one season stint on Sorkin's Studio 60.) The problem is, that kind of dialogue has always seemed excessively fake and requires quite a bit of "suspension of disbelief" even when it's done well, and this show just doesn't pull it off. Things have to move too quickly for the tone to settle and everything anybody says seems forced (seems forced). Either that's because the Academy Award winning lead and her ensemble just can't handle this style of speech or maybe it's simply that the writers of the new show are still struggling to figure out the natural rhythm of speech.
But here's the catch. It's not awful. None of these issues I've pointed out are glaring mistakes. None of them make me want to change the channel. They're all exactly small enough that a viewer can move past them and keep watching with a little more suspension of disbelief. It was only when I started to notice how consistently these annoying little blips showed up that I came up with my theory that it was intentional.
It has to be a satire, because if it's not a satire, it's just bad. I choose to be optimistic and give the writers the benefit of the doubt.
New Show Review: Perfect Couples
See Review of Better With You.
Add Olivia Munn,
Subtract Humor, Family Dynamic, and Realism...
That's right.Perfect Couples is less realistic than Better With You. And Better With You had a laugh track.
Too harsh? No. Too hackneyed.
Basic Format: Three different couples, rather than varying stages in their relationships, they're just in varying styles of relationships. Trust me, it's as drastically similar as it sounds. They're all good buddies and spend most of their time in a closed off environment without external interference. It's like Friends only they're all coupled off, even Joey and Phoebe. I don't know everyone's names yet, so I'll just refer to them by number. Couple 1 is the happily married, relaxed and realistic couple (in my loose Friends analogy, this is Monica and Chandler). Couple 2 is the over the top, everything has to be perfect, impose their perfection on everyone else, basically exist to add random ridiculousness and chaos, couple (Joey and Phoebe... again, it's a loose analogy). Couple 3 is the angry, fights all the time, can't commit to anything, immature couple (the Ross and Rachel).
Episode Formula: Man 3 approaches Man 1 with some crazy relationship based scheme. Man 1 reluctantly agrees to contribute to Man 3's insanity, with Woman 1 either encouraging him or discouraging him, depending on which is funnier given the situation. Meanwhile, couple 2 finds out and decides, unasked, to involve themselves. "Hilarity" ensues as everything devolves into chaos, usually with Woman 3 yelling at her boyfriend. Couple 1 is frustrated because they didn't want to get involved, Couple 2 is oblivious to everything but remains happy throughout, and Couple 3 miraculously finds a balance again just in time for another fight next episode.
In other words Couple 3's "lack of chemistry and sexual tension" drives the show, Couple 1 grounds it, and Couple 2 is supposed to make it funnier than real life relationship drama ever is.
Also, consider points awarded to people who got the Community reference in that last sentence.
Sound like the show to watch this season? Personally, I'm not invested.
Add Olivia Munn,
Subtract Humor, Family Dynamic, and Realism...
That's right.Perfect Couples is less realistic than Better With You. And Better With You had a laugh track.
Too harsh? No. Too hackneyed.
Basic Format: Three different couples, rather than varying stages in their relationships, they're just in varying styles of relationships. Trust me, it's as drastically similar as it sounds. They're all good buddies and spend most of their time in a closed off environment without external interference. It's like Friends only they're all coupled off, even Joey and Phoebe. I don't know everyone's names yet, so I'll just refer to them by number. Couple 1 is the happily married, relaxed and realistic couple (in my loose Friends analogy, this is Monica and Chandler). Couple 2 is the over the top, everything has to be perfect, impose their perfection on everyone else, basically exist to add random ridiculousness and chaos, couple (Joey and Phoebe... again, it's a loose analogy). Couple 3 is the angry, fights all the time, can't commit to anything, immature couple (the Ross and Rachel).
Episode Formula: Man 3 approaches Man 1 with some crazy relationship based scheme. Man 1 reluctantly agrees to contribute to Man 3's insanity, with Woman 1 either encouraging him or discouraging him, depending on which is funnier given the situation. Meanwhile, couple 2 finds out and decides, unasked, to involve themselves. "Hilarity" ensues as everything devolves into chaos, usually with Woman 3 yelling at her boyfriend. Couple 1 is frustrated because they didn't want to get involved, Couple 2 is oblivious to everything but remains happy throughout, and Couple 3 miraculously finds a balance again just in time for another fight next episode.
In other words Couple 3's "lack of chemistry and sexual tension" drives the show, Couple 1 grounds it, and Couple 2 is supposed to make it funnier than real life relationship drama ever is.
Also, consider points awarded to people who got the Community reference in that last sentence.
Sound like the show to watch this season? Personally, I'm not invested.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Time to Catch Up
So. Some of my more devoted non-existent followers may have noticed that there was a gap of almost 4 months between recent postings. There is a two-fold reason for this. The first is that I got a job and became somewhat more busy. The second is that I am lazy. I figured that since I didn't have a rabid fan base begging me for further commentary, I had no reason to write anymore. Of course, that's just stupid, also for a two fold reason. First, I wrote the first post knowing I had no readers, so why should I let it start to bother me now? Second, I've always been an internally motivated individual, so why should I let myself bow to the evils (or so my ND Business classes all seemed to teach me) of external motivation? Answers to both: I shouldn't.
Solution: I have decided that as an exercise for my own sanity, I will try to write a daily addition to this blog, at least until the spring season of television ends. Mostly it will be a personal challenge just to see if I can pull it off. The rough schedule will look something like this, based on the shows I enjoy watching enough to comment on.
Monday: Castle or Chuck, and in extreme rarity, How I Met Your Mother
Tuesday: White Collar, Raising Hope, or if I've got a real bone to pick, Glee
Wednesday: Castle or Chuck, whichever I didn't get around to on Monday
Thursday: Community or Big Bang Theory. Also, let me get this out of the way right now. I don't like 30 Rock. There I said it. Those of you who are going to anyway, you may as well just abandon me now. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Alright, moving on.
Friday: White Collar or Raising Hope, whichever I didn't get around to on Tuesday
Saturday: Nothing happens in television on Saturdays, so I'll have to come up with something interesting to fill this space with. Maybe I'll just post a sudoku puzzle or something.
Sunday: Stuff happens here, but I don't really follow any of it. Maybe I'll go with Family Guy.
OK, yeah I agree, looks like my non-existent readers can pretty much sleep through the weekend without missing anything epic from me. But the weekdays should be interesting at least.
To give you a hint of what's to come, here's a list of upcoming topics I already know I'm going to be writing:
Glee's Genre Gap: Drama or Satire? Choose a Side!
30 Rock in 3D: An examination of character sustainability.
What White Collar Could Do During Eventual Episodes
(This one doesn't get a subtopic, the Alliteration is Awesome enough to Stand Solo... ok now I'm forcing it)
Believing the Big Bang Theory: Why the Laugh Track Works
Castle's Keep: Finding a Comfortable Niche in a Season of Cop Dramas
Oh! Is That a Cat?: Family Guy is Directly Responsible for Rising ADD Diagnoses in America
That last one isn't a topic, I just got distracted by a cutaway flash back to that time I got a job working as Hermione Granger's Image Consultant.
As my good buddy Dan Harmon said: See you all in the ratings, I mean morning.
Solution: I have decided that as an exercise for my own sanity, I will try to write a daily addition to this blog, at least until the spring season of television ends. Mostly it will be a personal challenge just to see if I can pull it off. The rough schedule will look something like this, based on the shows I enjoy watching enough to comment on.
Monday: Castle or Chuck, and in extreme rarity, How I Met Your Mother
Tuesday: White Collar, Raising Hope, or if I've got a real bone to pick, Glee
Wednesday: Castle or Chuck, whichever I didn't get around to on Monday
Thursday: Community or Big Bang Theory. Also, let me get this out of the way right now. I don't like 30 Rock. There I said it. Those of you who are going to anyway, you may as well just abandon me now. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Alright, moving on.
Friday: White Collar or Raising Hope, whichever I didn't get around to on Tuesday
Saturday: Nothing happens in television on Saturdays, so I'll have to come up with something interesting to fill this space with. Maybe I'll just post a sudoku puzzle or something.
Sunday: Stuff happens here, but I don't really follow any of it. Maybe I'll go with Family Guy.
OK, yeah I agree, looks like my non-existent readers can pretty much sleep through the weekend without missing anything epic from me. But the weekdays should be interesting at least.
To give you a hint of what's to come, here's a list of upcoming topics I already know I'm going to be writing:
Glee's Genre Gap: Drama or Satire? Choose a Side!
30 Rock in 3D: An examination of character sustainability.
What White Collar Could Do During Eventual Episodes
(This one doesn't get a subtopic, the Alliteration is Awesome enough to Stand Solo... ok now I'm forcing it)
Believing the Big Bang Theory: Why the Laugh Track Works
Castle's Keep: Finding a Comfortable Niche in a Season of Cop Dramas
Oh! Is That a Cat?: Family Guy is Directly Responsible for Rising ADD Diagnoses in America
That last one isn't a topic, I just got distracted by a cutaway flash back to that time I got a job working as Hermione Granger's Image Consultant.
As my good buddy Dan Harmon said: See you all in the ratings, I mean morning.
Mid Season Score Card
Well it's finally here. That time of year when all our favorite shows get, not rated - no, they've been doing that all along - but evaluated. If you want to see for yourself how all your favorite shows stand, just take a peek here:
http://www.tvline.com/2011/01/renewal-scorecard-whats-coming-back-whats-getting-axed-whats-on-the-bubble/
For the most part, the year looks pretty steady. All the really good stuff is all but guaranteed to come back on most of the major networks. NBC is the only one that's looking like it is having some trouble keeping anything around. Which means that die hard NBC fans like me are once again facing the same question that we faced at this time last year. Will Community and Chuck be back next season?
In all honesty, I'm ready to let Chuck go. It's had a good run, and I'll be the first to admit I'm still greatly enjoying it and would keep watching it for years, but I can also admit that it's going down hill. Seriously, if the show had ended with Casey's famous line, "Oh Chuck me!" I could have been happy. And we got another two full seasons after that! Let it go Chucksters, before it falls apart anymore than it already has. Chuck is impossibly invincible, Linda Hamilton isn't all she was cracked up to be as a spy or as a mother, Timothy Dalton won't be around much longer, and while Yvonne is still gorgeous and Adam Baldwin is still a badass with manly grunts to accent his every line, those aren't enough to keep a show on its feet. I fear (and readily accept) that this year will bring the end for the intersect.
As for Community: I in no way intend to leave the BEST comedy on television to its fate. Facebook/Twitter campaigns, here I come. Now I just need to come up with a catchy fan-rallying slogan. "Save our Study Group" seems too boring to be in keeping with the tone of the show and "Gaggles for Greendale" is a little bit more ridiculous, but I run into the same general problem. Maybe Dan Harmon will help me come up with some good ideas.
Note to self: Befriend Dan Harmon....
It's a work in progress. I'll let you know what I come up with.
http://www.tvline.com/2011/01/renewal-scorecard-whats-coming-back-whats-getting-axed-whats-on-the-bubble/
For the most part, the year looks pretty steady. All the really good stuff is all but guaranteed to come back on most of the major networks. NBC is the only one that's looking like it is having some trouble keeping anything around. Which means that die hard NBC fans like me are once again facing the same question that we faced at this time last year. Will Community and Chuck be back next season?
In all honesty, I'm ready to let Chuck go. It's had a good run, and I'll be the first to admit I'm still greatly enjoying it and would keep watching it for years, but I can also admit that it's going down hill. Seriously, if the show had ended with Casey's famous line, "Oh Chuck me!" I could have been happy. And we got another two full seasons after that! Let it go Chucksters, before it falls apart anymore than it already has. Chuck is impossibly invincible, Linda Hamilton isn't all she was cracked up to be as a spy or as a mother, Timothy Dalton won't be around much longer, and while Yvonne is still gorgeous and Adam Baldwin is still a badass with manly grunts to accent his every line, those aren't enough to keep a show on its feet. I fear (and readily accept) that this year will bring the end for the intersect.
As for Community: I in no way intend to leave the BEST comedy on television to its fate. Facebook/Twitter campaigns, here I come. Now I just need to come up with a catchy fan-rallying slogan. "Save our Study Group" seems too boring to be in keeping with the tone of the show and "Gaggles for Greendale" is a little bit more ridiculous, but I run into the same general problem. Maybe Dan Harmon will help me come up with some good ideas.
Note to self: Befriend Dan Harmon....
It's a work in progress. I'll let you know what I come up with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)