Archive for category: TV/Film

3 Reasons (Not) to Watch…Whitney

3 Reasons (Not) to Watch…Whitney

I would say that this is a turn from the usual way of the things if I was as regular with the articles as I should but nevertheless here it is, the first negative review, and it’s over my favorite show to hate, Whitney. God must truly love me after all.

I first heard about this show when it was on Thursday nights, taking up space with better comedies deserving of attention. It was then that I realized there was nothing to gain and now on the waning episodes, I can tell you that having watched all the series to the 19 episode, this show is not worth your time.

But why, you ask? Whitney seems like a sensible and interesting enough of a persona on stage, maybe that’s why she has her own show. Oh you tiny fool! I have seen Ms. Cummings on stage and watched the other shows her name is attached to and nothing of value can be gained from any of it. You see, in three short moves, I will not only show how un-connected Kevin Bacon and Whitney are, but also why this should be the show’s first and last season.

Acting\Characters

Whitney’s character may be likable on stage (someone out there’s gotta like it), but this doesn’t always translate well into a weekly, on screen persona. Roseanne, Jerry Seinfeld, and Tim Allen are the three that come to mind when I think of successful translations and Whitney is far out classed when compared to these comedy juggernauts. However unfair the rubric seems, the fact is when considering to option off a persona to a studio for production, the faults of many, many dead sitcoms (mostly on Fox) that have come and failed before, like Common Law.

Her shrill voice, lack of acting experience, and absence of creditable comedy pedigree really work against the rookie performer and she often times brings the rest of the actors in the scene down because of it. Of course, this is not to say that she isn’t given a hand in the destruction of modern day sitcoms. A full cast of unbelievable, uninteresting characters assist Whitney in her demise.

Her boyfriend, Alex (Chris D’Elia) is one of the shining jewels in this desert of lost comedy dreams. D’Elia’s performance is worthwhile and funny despite the lines he has to work with but the character is flaccid, one dimensional, and unbelievable, especially with interactions with Whitney…his girlfriend. Their lack of on-screen chemistry and fights that look a little too real, drag the scenes they’re in down to grinding halt and honestly, I found myself asking “Why would he put up with that?” far too much.

Then there are the friends of varying age, importance, and stages in their life just crazy enough to be friends with someone as unlikable as Whitney. There is the standard opposite couple, made of Lily and Neal (Zoe Lister-Jones, Maulik Pancholy) whose problems are always the sub plot and could have been figured out by any reasonable person inside of five minutes. The drunk and quickly aging female on the side, Roxanne (Rhea Seehorn), who aside from her predictably poor choices with men, really give Whitney a run for the most uninteresting character in the show. And finally, the “Dude” of the show Mark (Dan O’Brien), possibly the most poorly written character on the show, which is understandable considering his typed should have died in the 90’s. It’s as if they torn him from the pages of Sexist Guy magazine and equipped him with forgetful one-liners, stock penis jokes, and an array of dude-isms so stereotypical, I half-expected Stiffler from American Pie to make an appearance. Though none of this could be possible without the poorly executed scripts they have to work with.

Writing

I will give it to the writers on the show, they know how to write a telescript but they seem to have forgotten how to write well. I’m thinking it fell somewhere between graduating a Liberal Arts school with an emphasis in feelings and getting a job at a network notorious for poor decisions, but that’s just a guess.

Occasionally there will a laugh produced, usually by physical comedy, but otherwise the character’s lines leave something to be desired. Routinely they will have a plot that mimics those of hundreds of other shows, such as: “The flashback to show how we all became friends”, “The explanation of personal idiosyncrasies that I’m not ready to move past” and, who could forget, “The failed attempt to escape our families this Christmas”.

Wholly and truly unoriginal written is part of the problem and I’m not naïve enough to think that there aren’t studio pressures and all sorts of minutia to getting a show on the air that I couldn’t possibly understand without being there. My point is that there are plenty of other shows, some on the same network on the same night, that have great character development and interesting plots that affect the entire season. Whereas, you can pop on any episode of Whitney, at any point in the season, and know exactly what’s going on.

That kind of pandering to an infrequent possible viewer is a terribly archaic way of writing scripts. And considering the movement toward personalized, purposeful watching like that done on the internet, the show might actually be doing damage to a potential audience largely ignored by network television. Not all of the blame can fall on Whitney, but contributing to the problem and assuming that we are too stupid to want something more is shameful and stifles growth.

Production

Multicam sitcoms have been around since the 70’s, in the incarnation that we know at least, and I love them. From Happy Days to Roseanne to How I Met Your Mother, I have watched multi-cam sitcoms dominate and become the go to perspective for new shows. They’re cheaper and easier to produce than their single-cam brothers. They get tons of shots and angles that would take too long and too much time to figure out with just one camera but they are horribly outdated.

This is not to say that Whitney isn’t done well. The set designs and quality of the production are of the same caliber that similar shows have, i.e. Big Bang Theory, but a similar stagnation occurs for both shows. In a multi-cam show, only so much character development can happen because the demand is high to use punchy dialogue and witty one-liners to get the consistent (easy) laugh.

However, with a single camera, you can really craft the story into an engrossing storyline that people laugh and care about. When Jim and Pam finally got together from The Office, I was overjoyed. The tension had been building for two seasons and at the end of the third one, it happened. There is no tension in Whitney. I don’t think about Wednesday night being “Whitney Night” but Thursday is “Office Thursdays” and has been for years.

Now again, this is not impossible for a multi-cam sitcom to do, I have seen far too many seasons of the aforementioned shows to think that, but I am saying that times have changed. Multi-cam looks cheap and feels inauthentic, like I’m watching a play at home; everyone facing a certain way, making sure to project their voice. No one eats food with their friends sitting in a straight line!

Perhaps the Greg Daniels style of single-cam with intercut talking heads mimicking a faux documentary may not be right for this particular show but as it’s an example of lazy writing, Whitney also serves as an example of outmoded camera techniques.

Conclusion

Final Verdict, if you couldn’t tell: Skip it. Whitney is simply not worth your time. As bad as the episodes were when the show was new, they are nothing compared to what should be written now. Whitney’s writers seem either oblivious or apathetic to the plight of the show and refused to change, but now the show is ending and as of the printing of this article there has been no talk of renewal.

I for one am thankful but not in my usually snarky way, I’m thankful for the chance another show will get because of this one’s cancellation. People seem to forget that part, but there are only so many days and time slots available and when this one gets taken off, hopefully another -better- comedy will take its place.

But until that happens, you can spend your time watching shows of value like the fourth season of Parks and Recreation, the third season of Modern Family, the return of Community, or one of my favorite unknowns, Happy Endings, for your sitcom fix. Those shows are well deserved of your attention and viewership.

Also, if you think this rant style of criticism is unwarranted or too harsh, all you have to do is watch one episode and hopefully you’ll agree. Trust me, when shows come out like this it sets back all the work people are doing to move the television industry into the future and the sooner Whitney stops, the better off we’ll all be.

March 22, 2012 0 comments Read More
Moe Dissertation Part II: The Tsundere Appeal

Moe Dissertation Part II: The Tsundere Appeal

Perhaps the most popular of the archetypes within the moe phenomenon, a tsundere (pronounced something like soon-deh-reh… do not be like me and pronounce it “sun-dree” for years) is a character, almost always female, who initially exhibits a very harsh, even hateful attitude towards another character while often hiding a softer, affectionate side.  This personality can be done a variety of different ways, and much of the time tsundere end up being the “winning girl” in harem anime.  Sometimes the character is just naturally grumpy, and a misunderstanding or pet peeve initially turns them cold towards a person, usually the male lead.  In these cases, the lead has to get to know the girl before she opens up to him.  Other times, only certain things will make the character upset (such as the inevitable, “Oops, did I catch you changing, again?” scene), causing more problems in an already rocky relationship.  Often times it takes the patience of a saint to hold the relationship together, as tsundere can be excessively violent and/or verbally demeaning depending on their tactics.

A classic example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 15, 2012 3 comments Read More
Five Incredible Movie Trailers with Mediocre Payoff

Five Incredible Movie Trailers with Mediocre Payoff

Whether you’re watching a movie at your local cinema or in the safe confines of your basement, yelling at your mother to get you an orange soda refill, one thing is for certain: you’re likely going to watch a trailer.

Trailers are the magical doorway into the wonder that is cinema. They give us something to wet our appetite and entice us into seeing the next big movie every weekend. But there are always those trailers that ruin everything for you, telegraphing the entire plot in it two minute frame time and taking away any interest you might have had in seeing the finished product.

The worst offender to the name of “trailer” are the ones that get you excited, pumped-up high-heaven for seeing a movie. Then you see that movie and you want to find whoever made the trailer and demand your money back from them personally.

Now I give you what I consider to be the five worst offenders in recent memory of amazing trailers….for bad movies.

1. Iron Man 2 (2010)

The third entry in Marvel Studios’ Avengers universe (the second for those who still don’t know The Incredible Hulk (2008) exists). After the surprise hit the original was in 2008, I was excited for this movie and the trailer didn’t help that fact.

When the chords from AC/DC’s “Shoot to Thrill” kick in after the government hearing scene, the trailer is a fun ride, all the way to the end with Iron Man and War Machine fighting back-to-back.

I love trailers that incorporate some sort of popular music and this trailer and the movie itself use AC/DC just right, which was evident from the first scene of the original movie. However, the threads of the movie begin to unravel when one of the biggest parts of the trailer, the scene with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts in the back of the transport plain with Stark quipping “You complete me,” before jumping out the back is missing in the movie. It would have been a lot more effective to me than Iron Man just running out like he does in the movie. Also, Pepper Potts kissing the helmet is kind of hot.

However, just like in the original, Iron Man 2 has all of the right pieces for a great film, but it falls apart with an anticlimactic finale and a terrible villain in Mickey Rourke’s Whiplash.

2. Spider-Man 3 (2007)

How much simpler a time 2007 was. Spider-Man was still respectable, Tobey McGuire still had a job, and people still loved Lost.

Like Iron Man 2, I was eagerly anticipating this movie, and like in 2010, it took until the second viewing to really figure out how I felt about the third installment of Sam Raimi’s Spidey saga.

The trailer works as a really good extended teaser. It doesn’t give too much away while setting up most of what happens during the film. While you see a good portion of Peter’s story with the Symbiote and Eddie Brock, there are no shots of Brock as Venom. You also see a good deal of the soap opera that is Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship, but there’s no sign of Gwen Stacy played by Bryce Dallas Clark.

But the major story element you don’t see is…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 15, 2012 0 comments Read More