It's actually so great. I just went through it all and it's awesome. Go through it. Some of it will send shivers down your spine, and some of it will make you tear up, and some of it will make you smile and laugh. Just go through it. You won't regret it.
Favourite things so far:
A disabled fourteen year old amateur stand-up comedian with a great sense of humour.
New Zealand legalized gay marriage this week. There was a standing ovation, and then they spontaneously began to sing a traditional New Zealand-ish love song.
And there are so many things on there that are just beautiful.
It's easy to forget that people have the capacity and sentiency to be good and caring and thoughtful creatures. I try not to, but it's really easy to. Which is what makes this so beautiful and fantastic. Seriously. Check it out, and watch as your faith in humanity becomes restored.
And while I adore that I can find communities of Whosers on the Internets, and I even have a Whoser friend in real life, the thing is, a lot of people are never going to understand the appeal of all this stuff. My best friends know and accept me for my Whoserdom even though they themselves don't understand it, the same way I accept my Directioner friend even though I will never understand THAT.
And it's painful, and I think people in any fandom get this, but Whosers are a really easy target, it's painful to be mocked for something that you love. It's painful to be thought of as inferior simply because you have a passionate love for something that other people don't. It's painful to be ridiculed because I happen to strongly enjoy something that happens to be slightly outdated, that isn't something pretty to look at (by most people's judgement), that isn't all about an image.
This whole thing started.... well, my crush on Colin happened last spring, around May. I told my friends that after watching as much Whose Line as I had, they started to be pretty good looking. I didn't say I had a crush on them, I just said it in passing.
"Cute..... like, in an old man way?" one of them asked.
"Well, no. They're not that old." What I failed to mention was that what it really was was cute in a puppy kind of way, but it was too late, because Courtney had stood up and began shouting around the classroom that I liked old men.
Thus began my insecurity on the subject.
The thing is, it has always been a purely personality-related crush. I loved the way they made me laugh, and it made me love them. But when I begin to mention it, everyone seems to think I am sexually attracted to a few fifty year old men. I don't even think about sex that much. Never have. I never paid attention to looks, and I'm not just saying that to seem unshallow. I honestly don't notice things like that, unless it whacks me in the face.
But apparently, in people's minds, one can't really love something like I do unless they have physical attraction to it. I don't know if that's just our sex-driven society of today or if it's always been like that, but either way it's wrong. I tend to love things for its flaws, not for being perfect. When it can be real and still be great, that's when I love it.
A wonderful man once said:
"There's something, um... when there's a 'flaw', it, I think it makes things, something more interesting, more sexy, more beautiful."
You know who said that? Colin Mochrie.
But the problem with Whoserdom is that I am considered relatively normal, you know, until they find out about it. When they look on my iPod and see the numerous pictures of Ryan and Colin laughing, or hugging (or kissing) or being awesome, or I show them a video of Whose Line with that look of pure delight on my face that those that know me will know so well. When I show them that video of forty year old men being hilarious with that look of pure delight on my face, they start to get weirded out.
I showed my friends Courtney and Aileen an episode of Whose Line this weekend. I clicked the random button and it came up, purely by chance, the episode containing the ever-famous Party Quirks where Colin "suspects that people are not the sex they claim to be and is trying to find out for sure". Also known as the one where Colin gropes everyone.
I figured "Oh, this will be perfect!" Because it's well known as one of the most hilarious episodes, and I wanted to give them a positive introduction. So without hesitation I clicked on it and let the fun begin. The first few games were a little hit-and-miss with my friends, but when Drew announced Party Quirks, I prepared for laughter. I was excited to see their reactions.
And I sat there giggling like a maniac while Courtney and Aileen watched the screen with perplexed looks on their faces. I wanted to scream at them "GUYS! DON'T FREAKING OVERTHINK IT, OKAY?! THIS ISN'T FREAKING MODERN ART! IT'S COMEDY! LEARN TO HAVE A LAUGH!"
But I didn't, and no matter how far Colin went, and no matter how much I giggled and no matter how amazed everyone onset was at his commitment ("That was amazing!" "Let's hear it for Colin Mochrie!") neither of them even cracked a smile.
Finally, Courtney turned to me and said "You wish he would do that to you, don't you?"
I didn't respond, deciding to ignore the comment. Obviously not. I love him, I don't lust after him. It irritated me and continues to as I type this that people seem to think the two must go hand in hand. They don't always. So, irritated with the comment, I ignored it and watched the screen intently, thinking she'd take the hint.
She didn't. "She's not responding because it's true," she deduced clumsily, apparently mistaking my silent irritation for shame or guilt or something of that nature. Which made Aileen turn to me with a shocked look on her face, yelling, "Ew, Megan! That's gross!"
I don't know what made Courtney think she could read my mind, and I don't know what made Aileen automatically believe that she was right, but what I do know is that in their minds, I was now a lesser person. A weirdo. An outcast. A freak, even.
And all because I giggled at the antics of an improv comedian, who just happened to be forty years older than myself. Let's face it - it's not as if I'm always reminding myself how old they are, and I don't know how anyone who watches Whose Line can be doing that. It's hard to enjoy something with the constant fear of being judged for liking it TOO much, because the actors are TOO old. I've never understood that complaint. Does their age make it any less funny? It's not as if I'm watching it for, what, Ryan's biceps, or Colin's haircut (haha see what I did there?). I'm watching it for a laugh, and because I value laughter more than gold, I'm a Whoser.
Let me repeat that.
I love this show, I love Colin Mochrie and I am a Whoser SIMPLY because I value laughter more than the average person, and no other reason. They make me laugh, and therefore I value them and love them. Let's not try to put implications into this that don't belong. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. Okay?
I will say this much:
A sense of humour
is VERY sexy.
Try to think about that for what it is, not for what it implies.
Alright, so we all know that I'm practically in love with Colin Mochrie, yes? Good? Okay then.
But the thing is that even though I personally favour Colin over the other Whose Line boys for unknown reasons probably buried in my psychology, I am willing to see and even agree with an argument that says that Colin is not the most VALUABLE cast member, in terms of the quality of the show.
This whole line of thought got started when I was reading an article somewhere where someone speculated the most valuable cast member on Whose Line.
And it was more or less a well-thought out article, and I enjoyed reading it and it certainly made me think. Of course the person had narrowed down the options to three: Ryan, Colin or Wayne. What it talked about for each person was that Ryan could commit to anything, he literally does anything for a laugh, which is completely true. Colin is able to turn a mistake/ineptitude into laugh-out-loud comedy, which is also true (though it wouldn't be my first remark about him). And Wayne has the incredible talent of being able to think on his feet in such a way so that he can sing lyrics that he's making up as he sings, sound good, and still be funny. The article ended by crowning Wayne the most valuable member on Whose Line. It did invite people to debate it, of course, because you can't just say things like that like it's fact, but that was the conclusion in the article.
A summed up version of that that I read is that Ryan had the most consistent laughs, Colin had the biggest laughs, and Wayne had the most raw talent. Which I agree with.
But there are serious problems with this article and I just need to address it.
First off, it didn't read into nearly all of what each person brought to the show. All it talked about with Ryan was that he had an advantage when it came to physical comedy, due to his height and "elasticity", that he would do anything for a laugh (of course referencing the Carol Channing incident, not breaking character after SMASHING HIS HEAD INTO A FREAKING LIGHT BULB) and that he can pun. All of this is true, but it doesn't nearly cover all of what he contributes. The first thing and last thing he mentions I wouldn't even think of when first thinking of Ryan. Anything for a laugh? Well, they don't call him Ryan Anything-For-A-Laugh-Stiles for nothing. But the others wouldn't be the first thing I think of. The first thing I think of would be his sarcasm. His ability to know what the audience likes, what they won't be expecting. And, what I would consider his most valuable trait, his ability to create chemistry with anyone who cares to be onstage with him. I mean, with Colin it's super obvious, but when you see him with people like.... like Jerry Springer or David Hasselhoff (who were unfortunately on the show for rating's sakes) and even in his first episode on U.K Whose Line, he has the ability to sort of connect with anyone onstage. Which is an EXTREMELY valuable talent when it comes to improv.
All it talked about with Colin was that.... well, honestly, I was extremely disappointed with the page it had about Colin. It basically said that he can make everyone laugh out loud, as in everyone onstage, to the point where the game more or less stops because they're laughing too hard. Which, again, is true, and probably would have been the first thing I thought of about a year ago, but now...... what bugged me about the article was that it talked about him in a real backhanded compliment sort of way, saying he "kills the flow of a sketch or even simple banter, but in the best way possible" or that there are times of "Mochrie ruining jokes and making them better" or that "his greatest moments come from his inability to improv quickly enough" and finally that "Mochrie's ability to f*ck everything up actually made it all much more enjoyable". So basically, his page circled around one point, and while it's clear that the author of this article laughed out loud at Colin's antics, I sort of got the feeling that he wasn't at all actually impressed with him. And I do associate Colin with a masterful straight face, and the ability to kill people with laughter, because who doesn't, but it's not his most valuable trait. I would say that Colin's most valuable trait is the ability to be what he is not. Because the thing is, Ryan can commit to any role, but he's always sort of winking at you, you know? "You and I both know this is ridiculous." He's always doing it kind of dryly. Colin doesn't do that. That's probably one of the reasons they always get him to play a woman. *exaggerated hair flip* It's certainly one of the reasons they're getting him to be angry all the time. For a short period of time, he's not Colin-pretending-to-be-a-temperamental-Hollywood-director. He's a temperamental Hollywood director. He's not Colin-having-to-kiss-everyone-because-he's-a-temperamental-actor-in-a-passionate-kissing-scene-with-Ryan-and-Wayne. He's a temperamental actor who has a passionate kissing scene with Ryan and Wayne. The utter lack of a wink at the audience is what makes it so totally enjoyable.
It seemed to me that the author only took note from Greatest Hits when it came to Colin. And, I mean, his most memorable moments are from there because those are the moments that make you laugh until you cry (quite literally with my mother), so it's understandable, but it doesn't nearly take into account all the other things that Colin brought to the show. The thing with Greatest Hits was that it was such an EASY game for Ryan and Colin, who basically just talked until they decided to cue Wayne, who did all the real work. So I think those were the times when Colin decided that he COULD do that, when he decided he could AFFORD to be so, sort of, random, on a different wave-length, because they're both just being goofballs anyways. So it's really not a totally accurate representation of all that they could do.
Finally, Wayne. Of course it talked about his incredible talent with the songs, doing an impression of an artist, rhyming and being funny while making it still sound like a song. Not an easy task. And, of course, Wayne was the most physically able of the three, since Ryan had a bad back and neither Colin nor Ryan were particularly young (though Colin could follow Wayne in Action Replay surprisingly well). So with that, Wayne was dubbed the most valuable cast member on Whose Line. And I agree with him on this, that Wayne certainly brought a much more hyper kind of energy, since he could do all that physical stuff with such ease, and even though I myself don't rank the singing bits as my favourite part of the show, it certainly takes an insane amount of skill and talent to do all that he did. So I see his reasoning, for sure. And while his singing was an EXTREMELY valuable contribution to the show, I wouldn't rank it as his MOST valuable contribution to the overall humour, if that makes sense. I respect the amount of talent it takes and all that, but the show didn't really NEED it. I would say that Wayne's most valuable trait is that he is not afraid to go that extra mile. With any character given him, he will physically reincarnate even his facial features just to add to it. I can't count the number of times he's impressed everyone with any style of dance he cares to do in Greatest Hits or whatever. It's easy to go the route that takes the least amount of effort, but Wayne looks at that, goes "screw that" and then goes as far as he can. Because he knows it's funnier, because he knows he can, and because it's great. THAT'S what I love about Wayne.
But the fact that the author of this article didn't decide to really look into all that and think about it with all that analysis doesn't bother me too too much. It's to be expected, really. Who in their right mind thinks about this stuff with all that care? What does bother me about the article is this:
Most. Valuable. Cast member.
Because..... no.
The problem with that is this:
This is improv. There is no individual star in improv. Making a scene work is a TEAM. EFFORT. Even if Colin really shines in a particular playing of Improbable Mission, it wasn't only Colin that made that happen. It was Ryan being generous with the spotlight, it was Ryan setting him up. Improv is completely made up of give and take, and they're all improvisers and they're all good at that give and take kind of play. So ranking one cast member as most valuable is an ultimately ridiculous idea. Because, as improvisers, they're not valuable individually. They're valuable as a team. They each cater to different senses of humour, but most importantly..... the thing about it is that they're not..... running a race competing against each other. They're running a relay, passing the baton to one another and working together. One person running a relay by himself couldn't do it, (or he could, but he'd fail). You need a team. That's what improv is. That's what Whose Line is. So there is no cast member more valuable than the others, in my opinion. They work solely BECAUSE they're a team.
So I don't usually just spam my blog with Youtube videos without, like, a rant to go with it or something.
But I found this scene from British Whose Line last night and no matter how many times I watch it I can't help but just love it, and it's my new favourite thing.
I think this video has a few games in it, but if its what I think it is then the scene I'm talking about is the last one, the Courtroom one.
And if you don't laugh at at least one part of that scene then you're insane.
So I was thinking - as usual....... and I started thinking about all the villains in my favourite stories. Now I've known for a long time now that one of the most appealing things in a story is a strong VILLAIN. For me, the villain should be just as strong if not stronger than the hero. And usually when talking about a story I go on and on about how much I loved the villain of the piece. And I was thinking, well, why do I like the villains?
And I came to the conclusion that there are only two main types of villains that people can really get into and like.
1) Classically, the villain you're allowed to just simply HATE. I mean, they have to be EVIL, nothing nice about them. You WANT them to be brought down.You ever hear of when you love to hate something? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
2) The villain you're allowed to love. That's been a sort of trend happening with the villains of the pieces being "good on the inside" or whatever. That's a harder thing, because a sob story will often just seem sappy. These villains don't need to necessarily endear themselves to you, but they need to delight you. The kind of thing where everytime they appear on screen or in the book you go "YES!"
A good example of the latter is Spike, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He's a villain. But he's a softhearted villain who simply refuses to admit it. He would kill Buffy and Co. right as soon as he could, but he can't. So you know that whenever he appears he's going to bring laughs. You don't necessarily think you'd hang out with him real life - it's not that kind of love for a character I'm talking about.
The main difference between these two kinds of villains is that the ones you're love to hate, you just HATE. You just want them to be brought DOWN. But the ones you love are relatable, in a way that no one would openly admit, but they are. Like when Spike gets so frustrated with his situation. The thing with Spike is he actually brings a sort of humanity to what would traditionally be a cold and heartless villain, a classic good guy/bad guy scenario (nothing against the classic good guy/bad guy scenario.... that was basically my entire childhood.) And THAT'S the point, is when the villains start becoming HUMAN, that's when you start to be allowed to love them. That's what makes Spike awesome, that's what makes Hannibal Lectar awesome, that's what makes Artemis Fowl awesome. Spike, ironically unhuman, has such utter humanity about him - frustration and emotion and all this. He was even in love with Drusilla. Though Angel might be the one with a soul, Spike is the one with the most humanity. In this case, it makes him great because Joss Whedon takes it lightheartedly. Finding the humour in this is what makes Spike so damn lovable.
What makes Hannibal Lectar so epic is that he has such understanding for the human condition, for how fragile it can be, for the wonder of the human mind. He may not be as emotional as Spike, but where classically cold villains may take the human condition for granted, Hannibal Lectar simply doesn't. You know that not everything he thinks about is just killing and eating people. You know, for instance, that he used to visit a lovely little beach that he used to draw, before he was locked up. He's RELATABLE and HUMAN. That's also what makes him so frightening. Where Spike is great because it's taken lightheartedly, Hannibal Lectar shines because he's taken so seriously. We like the idea that everyone who's ever done something despicable is coldhearted and inhuman, that no one with a heart could relate to them, and what makes Hannibal Lectar so frightening is that he proves that that is just so untrue. What makes it so frightening is he's relatable..... and shows us that we all have a level of insanity in us. And he succeeds in this fear because he's just so damn reasonable sounding when he talks to Starling. Not to mention that we can be so delighted when he comes onscreen because in spite of our fear of him, he's undoubtedly a GENIUS. And even though no one would be best friends with him, we're allowed, and in fact encouraged to appreciate the fact that this is one incredibly intelligent and formidable individual.
And now we come to Artemis Fowl. I've spent far too much time thinking about this series of books (aimed at twelve year olds) but it's only because the characters in it are so freaking great, the plot is so freaking imaginative, the dialogue is so freaking hilarious and the series in general is just so freaking AWESOME. But the thing about it is that one of the main characters, Artemis Fowl, is, especially in the first book, undeniably the villain of the thing. And this is one of those rare villains where one of those "he's good on the inside" things is portrayed by a sad backstory, without making it sound like a sappy sob story. And Eoin Colfer (pronounced "Owen") succeeds in this because Artemis doesn't look for sympathy. He doesn't want it. In fact, he pushes that story away, because it distracts him from his current project (kidnapping a fairy and taking its gold for ransom). He's running the household and trying to regain financial footing that all went downhill after his father reportedly died in the Arctic Circle (attacked by the Russian mafia) and his mother went insane from grief and occasionally doesn't even recognize him anymore. Did I mention Artemis is twelve years old? That's important. Also, like Hannibal Lectar, Artemis is a genius. There are many references to this in the book that are both creative and humourous, (like how he checkmated the world chess champion in six moves) but he outsmarts fairies, basically, who in this series are extremely tough and ready to roll, and about fifty years ahead of humans in the field of technological advancement. He also both learns to speak their language fluently without ever being taught, and also learns to read it (they speak the language of Gnommish and their alphabet is the ancestor of heiroglyphics). And even though Artemis does some extremely despicable things in this series, we're allowed to and probably supposed to appreciate his intelligence and forgive him for the things he does and as a result, we sort of love him. The thing with Artemis is that he's very flawed, that's what makes him relatable as a character. He's essentially a boy looking to find his identity without any sort of guide, besides Butler, who is his bodyguard and also guess what, his butler. I strongly suggest everyone read this series by the way. It's frackin' amazing.
And as much as I adore these characters, and I get why I love them and they're great villains, my favourite thing has always been the villain that you're allowed to just HATE.
The first one that comes to mind is Capricorn, of Inkheart. He's not relatable, he's barely even human. More than once the author describes him as being made of stone. But that's what makes him so intriguing, is that he's just so cold and emotionless. He only does things if they benefit him. He doesn't mind killing people, it's just that he's not particularly motivated to.... unless he becomes motivated to. If you cross Capricorn, or if you have something he wants, then he will do whatever it takes to get vengeance or get what he wants. But it's not what he does for fun, if that makes sense. But he has no empathy, he has no thoughts for others and he doesn't care about others, but uses them when he so needs to. But he's not stupid. He's not a genius, like Hannibal or Artemis, but he's certainly not stupid. But what makes him so intriguing as a villain is his utter disregard for anything that doesn't serve him. You're allowed to just hate him, but you reread the book over again because he's a great villain.
And there it is. There's the answer to this type of villain. Where the other type was based on humanity and relatability, this type is the complete opposite. These villains are supposed to intrigue you. They're supposed to be foreign and strange and jarring to your mind. Because people are intrigued by things outside their realm of consciousness, and so to have something so utterly without feeling, without empathy, without a drop of care in their body for anyone besides themselves, one could even describe them as a little bit sadistic depending on the character.... it's just so alien to us, and that's why we love to read about them and to watch them in movies.
I'd just like to mention that in this same book we have Basta, who is just as evil and clever as Capricorn with none of the restraint. Capricorn would only kill someone if they crossed him. Basta would set the world on fire just to watch it burn. (Basta was always my favourite by the way. I liked how cold and heartless Capricorn was, but I was always simply enthralled by Basta's unabashed glee at seeing others terrified and/or in pain.) They're two very different kinds of villains, Capricorn and Basta, but they both inspire eager hatred from the audience and they're both incredibly intriguing. They're probably one of the main reasons I've read Inkheart so many times. That's another book series I strongly recommend, by the way. The movie was awful, but the books were fantastic so you should all check it out.
Another villain is Mr. Curtain, from the Mysterious Benedict Society. Undoubtedly intelligent, his main goal was to take over the world, his one weakness his narcolepsy that gets worked up when he's angry. Also his love for the adorably and hilariously stupid S.Q Pedalian. I wouldn't mention this one, except to point out the extent of how intriguing I find downright evil characters. He has kidnapped four children and locked them in a rundown prison where he repairs his invention. Mr. Curtain has invented these gloves. When he wears them he feels nothing, but if he touches a person they are electrocuted. He has threatened the use of these gloves on them if they try any "funny business". Kate, the most physically capable of the four children, attempts an escape by climbing out the window and finding the exit, but is captured by the "Ten Men" (the henchmen Mr. Curtain hires). Mr. Curtain enters the room, pulling on his gloves. Kate says "Fine! I did it, I'll deal with it! Just do it already!" Curtain says something like "With pleasure" and then electrocutes Reynie (one of the other three kids). You have no idea how many times I've read that scene over and over and over again, just wondering, why Reynie? Kate was the one that escaped. Just - the utter....... evil conveyed in that scene just gets me everytime, and no matter how many times I read that scene (and I do flip through the book months later just to find it) I always get a chill up my spine. The Mysterious Benedict Society is another great series by the way. Everyone should read it.
Another villain of this kind is Howard Payne. Name sound familiar? No? I doubted it. He was the bomber in the movie Speed. Remember that movie, with Keanu Reaves and Sandra Bullock? That movie was awesome. Anyways, the thing with him in that movie, the thing that makes him so easy to hate, is that he just has no motivation (this is the bomber, by the way, not Keanu Reaves). He literally only does it for the money, and he's put so much time and effort into this when he could have, I dunno, gotten a job, maybe? And when he kidnaps Sandra Bullock at the end? I mean, sure, some of it is just flimsy plot structure probably - critically analyzed that movie is as flimsy as a rubber pylon holding up St Mark's Basilica - but the thing is, he had the money (or what he thought was the money) but strapped a bomb to Sandra Bullock anyways, and why? Well, maybe to make Jack suffer for getting the people off the bus, but mostly he's just plain crazy (my favourite quote from that movie, by the way, is "No no no! Poor people are crazy. I'm eccentric.") But, again, he's also a genius. He was one step ahead of Jack the entire time and only started to falter when he got cocky. He was a strategic genius. Which brings me to my next point.
We want our villains to be strong. We want them to have at least one strong trait that make them hard to beat. Essentially, we want our villains to be impossible to defeat. That's what makes the story fun, is to see how the hero of the tale can go up against such a formidable foe and come out of it victorious. We want to be thinking "He's impossible to defeat" because what comes from that is "So how are they going to do it?" That's what makes the story interesting.
And going from that, that's what makes the heroes...... heroes. Basically, we want them to accomplish something that we don't think we could ever accomplish. If we think "Well I would just do that, that's easy......." then we don't end up liking the story as much, do we?
Reverting back to my point about the two kinds of villains (I'm sorry my rant is very disorganized) there are a few examples of villains where the writer of the book/movie didn't just choose one, or tried to have both. And that doesn't work. You need to choose one, because otherwise it just makes the villain wishy-washy and therefore less strong and less difficult to defeat. Like the Dark Knight movie. The Joker was just.... I didn't feel anything about him. Sure, he's a bad guy, I get that. But I wasn't delighted when he came onscreen - he simply wasn't humanized and interesting enough, but I wasn't looking forward to his defeat either because he didn't give Batman a particularly difficult challenge in the first place. Also, "Ooh, someone knifed my face now I'm going to murder a bunch of people". Yeah, well, so? Clearly you don't have a conscience (a trait of the hated villain) and yet why would you tell us that story if you didn't want us to sympathize with you (a trait of the loved villain). It was as if the writers wanted to have it both ways, and that simply doesn't work with villains.
Anyway, that's what I've been thinking about for the past little while.
Well, this week Community's long anticipated fourth season premiered. But before I review that, I need to put it into some context for you -
Community was created by a man called Dan Harmon. Now Dan Harmon is very intelligent, and in Community at least, he is always pushing the boundaries of what he can do with it. He is very very smart and he seems like a generally good hearted, if a little distant and a little introverted person. But because he's so smart, and because Community was his project, he was a little bit difficult to work with. I think Dan Harmon was a perfectionist, and the way he arranged things were a little bit.... unorthodox. That is to say, he was constantly changing things and adding things - like it could be happening a minute before they shot the scene. He also had an arrogant streak if someone crossed him, and sometimes did things that were not... totally.... appropriate. And I think for these reasons, and also because the show he was making wasn't getting very high ratings at all, he was fired as the showrunner.
This is a disastrous move. Dan Harmon was the primary creative force behind the show, he's what made the show what it was. He's what made it so self-reflective and spoofy and awesome, and almost everything unique about the show that the fanbase had grown to love was conducted by him. And now he's fired, and NBC wanted a show with higher ratings. So here was the question hanging in the air for us Human Beings that didn't want anything about the show's tone to change - are they going to try to make this mainstream? Are they going to add a laugh track and make it based around sex, make the characters stereotypical and flat and start to talk down to its audience about the pop culture references and just try to ungeekify it? Every Human Being knew that would be disastrous and idiotic - why cater to an audience that hasn't shown interest after three years, instead of catering to an extremely dedicated fanbase that loves everything about the show just the way it is?
So we waited with bated breath, hoping that the show would live up to everything we've built it up to be without Dan Harmon. The amazing makers of Community, who already had such an open dialogue with the fans (did you notice they added #sixseasonsandamovie as the final few seconds of Introduction to Finality? That's amazing) even gave us a bit of a teaser, something to keep the fans occupied for a while, about the plan for postponing the premiere of the show to October 19th, and then moving it again to February 7th - it also added in a little tidbit about the famous Community flashmob orchestrated by the fans, and another about the incomprehensible minds behind NBC.
But I digress.
The point I'm trying to get across is after this long long wait for the show to come back on, the fans were anticipating it like crazy, with a bit of doubt but hoping a lot. Everyone who follows Community knows the name Dan Harmon, and they know the impact he had on the show, and we could only guess at the what the new people were going to do - I think we were all sort of pulling an Abed, running scenarios in our own little Dreamatoriums to see all the different ways this could turn out.
And then along came October 19th.
Here comes the review part of my post.
Overall the show was actually not too bad - again with the dialogue to its fanbase, and it was certainly wacky and zany as ever. It stayed true to what had been set up at the end of last season, for the most part. Overall, I actually expected worse.
That being said.....
The rhythm of it seemed off somehow. Don't ask me to explain that, because I don't know. It just seemed like they fell back a little too hard on old habits from older seasons. Like Pierce's "I know this has a joke", for instance, was a gag that lasted the duration of the episode and with little pay off, and was basically the same gag as Troy's "Don't eat the crab dip!" from season 1 - except that one lasted the duration of a scene, and was pulled off brilliantly by the way Donald Glover played it out. No disrespect to Chevy Chase, he's great at what he does, I just don't think the writers really gave him a lot to work with for the one thing he had.
But what really bugged me were a few tiny things about the characters that really just weren't consistent with what had already been set up.
This was a little moment in the episode that lasted probably two seconds, but it stuck with me because it was... weird. Annie's talking about being a senior now, and pullin' pranks, skippin' classes, not pronouncin' her Gs, etcetera. That's Annie enough - it's normal for Annie to try to be a little bit outside her own comfort zone. Then Shirley says "Ooh! I'll pull pranks with you!" Which again, is Shirley enough - mischeivous when she can be, responsible when she should be. And Annie says uncomfortably, "Yeah, or, you know, Jeff, whoever's around, whatever."
That bugged me. Sure, Annie may have had a crushy type thing on Jeff for a while there, and they certainly had chemistry. But Annie's fascination with Jeff ended around season 2 - she didn't always feel the need to be around him all the time after that, or to try to earn his approval all the time. She likes Jeff, and yeah, would probably go out with him if he asked, but it's weird for her to start doing things while looking over her shoulder for any approving smile or something from Jeff when she stopped doing that quite a while back.
Which brings me to Jeff.
Jeff's character was possibly the least consistent with what had already been established. It was startling, "jarring" is a word I read in a review already. Maybe he would get to the point where he would save seats for his friends in class - MAYBE. He already gave up his career for Shirley's business, so anything's possible. But calling himself "The New Jeff" didn't sit well with me. Yes, he obviously had an evolution through the seasons. That almost goes without saying. But that wasn't by Jeff's CHOICE. He was changed by becoming part of a family, which is an experience Jeff had been deprived of for most of his life. He didn't make a decision one day to stop being so superficial and selfish and to think for more people than himself. That never happened. It was a gradual, natural change that happened to Jeff unconsciously, until he finally looked at himself from a different angle and went "whoa". (See Pillows and Blankets, Introduction to Finality).
But he never made some sort of new year's resolution saying "I'm gonna not be a douchebag now. I'm going to be pleasant and friendly and sincere." Because that would just be ridiculously out of character. Jeff hates change, he likes knowing he can predict what will happen, and manipulate the situation to his will. So deciding one day to change himself? I'm sorry. I don't see it.
Also, he's going to graduate early because he took online courses over the summer? That's completely out of character. It wouldn't bother Jeff to spend the few months more at Greendale, because he'd already devoted so much to the group and the school. And he's mentioned a few times, in a few different ways, that "doing more work than what he has to is his definition of failing".
And sure, if we wanted to be lazy about it, we could credit this change of heart to his evolution through the seasons. But I'm not going to back down for that, because that is a weak argument. Consistently throughout the series, Jeff spends his time passing with the bare minimum and looking for "blow-off" classes - classes in which he doesn't have to do any work, he can just sit and goof off. Jeff starts a riot in one relatively recent episode upon finding out that he'd have to take summer classes - the riot that makes him and the study group known as "The Greendale Seven" and gets them expelled.
And suddenly Jeff decides that that's okay and takes a bunch of online courses in summer? I'm sorry, that doesn't fit in this puzzle. It really just doesn't make sense.
It was lazy writing, in all honesty, and that is one of the first times that I've seen Community be lazy at all. It was weird. And I didn't like it.
Abed was too..... normal. Now Abed is an extremely difficult character to get right, but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't. They got close, and if I weren't analyzing this episode the way I do everything else, I probably wouldn't notice. But I am, and I do. In spite of the fact that they had his "happy place" going for the duration of the episode, (which was good, and totally fit with Abed) he wasn't being himself. Abed is a fly on the wall, an observer. To have him zoned out for just about the entire episode really just didn't fit.
I know what your arguments are going to be. "But it was like the Dreamatorium. He was running scenarios in his head." And sure, that's true. But rarely does Abed EVER bury himself so deep that he can't come back. You'll notice that even in the Dreamatorium he was learning. He listened carefully to everything Annie said, and filed the "new data", if you will, in his head. The only time Abed ever went close to going that deep in was Introduction to Finality, when he became Evil Abed and tried to make the current timeline the darkest timeline.
So here's what's wrong with what they did. While Abed's "happy place" was very well done, and stayed true to character, Abed even HAVING a happy place isn't true to character at all. Abed doesn't use fiction as others do, to take himself away from reality - he uses fiction to help him UNDERSTAND reality. When he's unhappy, he doesn't ignore it and push it away, as others might - he deals with it in his incredible mind and THINKS about it, running scenarios, maybe, and figuring out what to do. So, even though Britta told him to go to a happy place, he would NEVER be able to bury himself like that, because if there's one thing about this fly on the wall, it's that this fly is too awesome for the wall. Abed almost ALWAYS takes action for his emotions. There's never been an episode where Abed simply doesn't DO anything, because that's not how he's learned to deal with things. It's not that Abed wouldn't listen to Britta - I'm almost certain he would. It's just that beneath his happy place his mind would be whirling about what to do, and it wouldn't take twenty two minutes for him to figure it out.
Those were my main problems with the show - since the show is character-driven by nature, of course all the problems were with how the characters were written. But Annie, in general, was well in character and funny, as was Shirley and Britta and Troy - I think Pierce as well, though he didn't actually do much - like I said, his whole thing during the episode was "I know this has a joke", until finally at the end he came up with "Gay balls!" Which, while in character, was a little disappointing.
On the bright side, there were some good things about the episode.
Britta and Troy's fountain scene was very..... Troy and Britta. Which was good. Except for the fact that Troy wouldn't let Britta do that at all, for fear that she'd Britta it, and that Abed didn't join them even though it was his and Troy's thing in the first place. Set-up didn't make sense, but the scene itself was good enough.
I very much enjoyed Jeff's scene with the dean, while they were dancing. The dynamic there was perfect, so good on them for that.
Abed's happy place was quite well done, and worked well with Abed's character (except for the issues that I've mentioned, but never mind).
At the end, when Abed tells Annie to maybe go into Forensics? THAT was a good moment. Reminded me of the moment in the ever-famous Remedial Chaos Theory, when Abed tells Annie she should move in with them. One of those incredible moments that prove that Abed sometimes knows them better than they know themselves.
At the end when it turns out the dean now lives next to Jeff? Good moment, that one, and in character for both of them. "Please tell me you're breaking into that condo." Well done.
So, there were a FEW good moments in the episode, but overall it was just... off. It wasn't as obvious as I've made it sound, I've just broken it down. But it was clear, to me at least, that there was something wrong about it. Some inconsistensies and things, that really shouldn't have happened.
I realize I'm reading way too much into it. Totally. But that's what I do, and usually Community has been able to fulfill that with satisfaction.
