Castle Season 5 Finale: Yes or No

SPOILERS FOR SEASON 5 FINALE!

In the past 'Castle' has had dramatic finales. Who could forget the season when Beckett got shot mere moments before the end credits? Still, this season's finale offered a blow of a different sort. For a season that focused on the emotional development of its main characters it makes sense that the finale would deal with just that.

Season five wasn't as edge of your seat high stakes as the seasons before it, but it definitely allowed us to watch Castle and Beckett's relationship develop while still providing us with some tricky cases.

In tonight's episode we all knew what was coming; as had been pretty clearly established last week, Beckett was going to interview for a job in DC and she was going to get it. What was most surprising about this week's episode was the fact that it was half way done before Castle even discovered she'd interviewed which left scant time to focus on their argument after her secret had been revealed. In a way that made the finale all the more powerful. 

Stana Katic delivered a surprisingly subdued yet authentic portrayal of Beckett in turmoil over her decision. One of my favorite scenes in the entire episode was when Castle jokingly mentioned (prior to knowing about Kate's job interview) that she needed him in her life to help her solve crimes. The camera cut to Katic and the look of turmoil in her face was for once perfect. 

Even before watching this episode I felt the writers had two decisions: make Beckett pregnant or have Castle propose. Interestingly Ryan brings up the potential Caskett baby early in the episode, but turns out babies are just on his brain because (you guessed it!) Jenny's pregnant. I'm glad the writers didn't go the pregnancy route because it would have made the following season far too angst-ridden. A Kate who feels trapped into making a decision is not a happy Beckett (you know what I mean).

The finale ended with Castle and Beckett meeting at the swings, a location which has come to be somewhat of an emotional impetus for them. It's where Beckett apologized to Castle for disappearing for a whole summer after she got shot--and gave him hope that when she healed they'd be together. And it's where Beckett sat in the rain at the end of last season's finale right before she went to Castle's loft to declare her love.

And in tonight's episode it was where Richard Castle proposed.

Unsurprisingly the proposal is the cliffhanger. Still, let's reflect on what might happen next...

Seconds before the proposal Beckett thought that they were breaking up. Did her teary eyes mean that she was devastated about this or resigned? 

Castle has been married twice before and they've never had an in depth conversation about the failure of those two marriages...will Kate see this proposal as a last ditch effort by Castle to keep her by his side in NY? Will she take it as a declaration of love or manipulation?

Castle made a speech about how he had been thinking a lot about their relationship and that they both deserved more (hence Kate's assumption that he was breaking up with her). He then seemed to say that regardless of her decision he wanted to be with her--but he didn't say outright that he would follow her if she took the DC job. How will we interpret the proposal? And what was he really saying?

And finally, he's an author--a rich author--and his daughter's no longer living at home. Why couldn't he move to DC with Kate? He could keep the loft and fly back to NY at an hour's notice. Of course their relationship would change in that they'd no longer be working together but it could happen.

Of course, we know it won't. Why? Well because the show's set in NY. And the whole supporting cast works at the precinct. This isn't 'Dawson's Creek'; they can't all magically move to a new city together.

Where do you think season six will pick up? There are a few options. It would mimic the beginning of this season and begin almost where it left off. Or it could follow the route of other seasons and start after the summer. Perhaps Kate (with or without Castle) lived in DC for the summer? Or maybe she turned down the job and is a) happy or b) angst-ridden with regret.

Guess we'll just have to wait 3 months to find out.

It's Time for a Parks & Rec Family Hug...

...Because the show was just renewed for a sixth season!

That's right, Parks and Recreation will be back on NBC for Season Six this Fall (2013). Get ready America.

Castle: How Much Hitchcock is Too Much Hitchcock?

 "How Much Hitchcock is Too Much Hitchcock?" is clearly a ridiculous question--the answer is obvious. There is no such thing as too much Hitchcock.

I don't think it's plausible to not get something out of a Hitchcock film, regardless of whether you're watching it for the first time or the 22nd.

However, it is definitely possible to overuse Hitchcock allusions. Case in point? The current season of 'Castle'.

I love when television writers choose to reference other facets of popular culture and referencing old-timey popular culture is the best. But there's always a danger that the reference will distract from the plot or detract from the quality of the show because the writers are too worried about doing justice to said reference.

In the 100th episode of 'Castle' ["The Lives of Others", 5x19*] the writers chose to base the storyline around that of perhaps the best known Hitchcock movie, 'Rear Window'. The storyline was imaginative because although it followed the twists and turns of the original movie it ended with its own twist: the characters were purposefully reenacting 'Rear Window' to play a trick on Castle. It was the writers way of paying homage to Hitchcock; recognizing his influence on film (and consequently television) to the point that it existed within the world of 'Castle'.

Unfortunately it would seem that the writers got too attached to the Master of Suspense. Having one episode that joked about Hitchcock was great, but having a second one air only a few weeks later seemed a little stale.

In 5x23 "The Human Experience" Castle and Beckett solve a murder that involves free media and government drones. It also involves a scene right out of a Hitchcock movie. Beckett and Castle are in an empty field when they hear an engine in the distance. They look up and see that a drone is heading right for them and, just like Cary Grant before them, they dive into the ground at the last moment as it whizzes past their heads.




It was as though the writers had either:

a) come up with a Hitchcock trope that they wanted to include in the 100th episode but couldn't squeeze in (and/or it didn't make sense with the plot) so they decided to recycle it in "The Human Factor" or

b) they were forced to watch so much Hitchcock while prepping for the 100th episode that they just couldn't get the guy out of their heads.

Regardless, I was so distracted by the intrusion of a scene that was a clear copycat of the classic 'plane in a field' scene from 'North by Northwest' that I actually yelped, "North by Northwest" at the television, much to the enjoyment of my roommates. They laughed even harder when seconds later Castle stated the same thing on screen.

Unlike in "The Lives of Others", where I appreciated the recognition of Hitchcock as the impetus of the plot, I found myself irritated by Castle's comment. Perhaps I would have found another Hitchcock reference less jarring if it had been included more subtly, instead of being pointed out explicitly.

What was the point of making another Hitchcock reference only three weeks after a whole episode was devoted to him? Is Castle suddenly, after four years, a Hitchcock aficionado?

Also, if you want to make references to Hitchcock why not make them subtle ones? Choosing two of the most iconic parts of Hitchcock seems a tad ridiculous. What's next? Castle falling down a winding staircase while bright colors flash?

Still from Hitchock's 1958 film 'Vertigo'

Then again, Castle does have that twisted staircase behind his desk in his office. I take it back, his love of Hitchcock has always been clearly expressed onscreen.

*You don't even want to get me started on the fact that this was a reference to 'The Lives of Others', a 2006 German film that dealt with espionage in East Berlin.

Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing (Trailers & Release Date)

I'm not the biggest fan of Joss Whedon out there*, but I definitely appreciate most of his work.

'Buffy'?

'Firefly'?

'The Avengers'?

Like, like, and like.

So I'm obviously excited about his newest movie that's coming out (not 'Arrested Development' excited, but pretty close).

Joss Whedon's latest film, 'Much Ado About Nothing', is a re-imagining of the classic Shakespeare play. It premiered at Boston's Independent Film Festival last week, but if you weren't lucky enough to get tickets (or aren't lucky enough to live in Boston) don't worry...it will definitely be coming to a theater near you!

It stars many of Whedon's recurring actors, including Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Nathan Fillion and Ricki Lindhome who all appeared in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' or its spin-off 'Angel'. Fillion and Sean Maher appeared in Whedon's short-lived but much beloved 'Firefly'. Clark Gregg appeared in 'The Avengers'.

Whedon's 'Much Ado' also introduces viewers to Brian McElhaney and Nick Kocher, which is pretty spectacular since I've been obsessed with their web skits forever (watch them at http://www.britanick.com/)

Get excited about 'Much Ado' coming to theaters on June 7th, 2013! In the meantime, enjoy the newest trailer:



And the original trailer:



*I could say that I am, but I have no doubt some anonymous commenter would instantaneously prove me wrong by repeating every line from every episode of every Whedon show ever (a feat I have not mastered).

HIMYM & Castle Give Us the Same Episode: Bro Mitvah vs. Lives of Others

Barney’s bachelorette party and Castle’s birthday party were basically the same event...

.

‘How I Met Your Mother’ is known for often over the top comedy, while ‘Castle’ is a mix of crime, drama and comedy. Apart from the comedic link, the shows normally couldn’t be more different.

‘How I Met Your Mother’ focuses on the lives of five friends living in New York, while ‘Castle’ remains focused primarily on its two main characters (with occasional forays into the lives of the supporting ones).

However, in two of these shows recent episodes the similarity was hard to ignore.

In “The Bro Mitzvah” (S8Ep22) Barney insists that the gang will never be able to give him a bachelor party that will meet his expectations. For the first half of the episode we think he’s right—we witness the worst bachelor party possible. The guys rent Barney a horrible hotel room, they invite a birthday party clown to make balloon creations, and they invite the “wrong” Karate Kid (fans of the show will know that Barney always interpreted that movie a little different from the average ten-year-old). Then, to make matters worse, the stripper turns out to be Barney’s ex-fiancé Quinn. Finally, Barney’s had enough and insists on a ride home, but not before the Karate Kid taunts him into gambling. When Barney finally arrives back in New York (after having lost $85,000), Robin sees him with Quinn and throws her engagement ring in his face.

BUT (and here’s the twist) we’re quickly informed via flashback that all of this misery was planned. The gang decided to give Barney a bachelor party he would never forget by giving him the worst night ever.

Cruel? Ted ponders that at one point, but they all laugh it off.

Luckily, despite a momentary awkward pause when Barney discovers the truth and his face goes blank, he actually does love the fact that they tricked him. He proclaims it the best bachelor party ever and eagerly hugs Robin.

Now, you’re probably wondering what this has to do with ‘Castle’; it turns out a hell of a lot.

Just a few weeks before “The Bro Mitvah” aired, ‘Castle’ aired its 100^th episode. In “The Lives of Others” (S5Ep19) ‘Castle’ takes a Hitchcockian turn. Castle is injured, so while Beckett and the guys are off solving a murder he’s stuck at home. He takes to staring out his window with binoculars that Alexis has given him as a joke—and he sees the plot of ‘Rear Window’ unfold before his eyes. Beckett refuses to accept that he’s seen a murder, despite the fact that Castle keeps on seeing more and more hints to the contrary. Finally he persuades Beckett to go over to the neighbor’s house. The husband—who supposedly murdered his wife—catches her and Castle thinks (for a horrifying moment) that Beckett is going to be killed while he watches through the window.

However, as soon as Castle reaches the neighbors’ apartment he discovers all of his friends standing there and yelling “surprise”! It turns out it’s a birthday party, planned by Beckett. As she explains it Castle’s face looks very much like Barney’s—blank with disbelief. Everyone pauses awkwardly for a moment but then—again like Barney—Castle eagerly exclaims that it’s the best party ever. Beckett breathes a sigh of relief and they hug.

I can’t even explain to you how bizarre it was to watch these two episodes back-to-back. It is interesting to see very similar plot devices used in a half-hour comedy and an hour long procedural.

Which show did it better? I’m honestly not sure. In a way, ‘Castle’ seemed a little crueler, and even after it was revealed that it was all a trick I wasn’t sure how comfortable I was with the group leading Castle astray. I was particularly uncomfortable because Beckett almost did die last season and we watched Castle go through the agony of having to watch her bleed out in front of him. Tricking him into believing (even if only for a moment) that Beckett was being killed again seems unconscionably cruel.

Meanwhile, Barney getting tricked was also cruel, but considering how much pleasure he takes in tricking other people it felt more justified. He even proposed to Robin with an elaborate hoax, so why not give him a bachelor party in the same vein?

Dear Arrested Development, Please Hurry the F*** Up.

Dear Arrested Development,

I've been obsessed with you since 2003. Many would say that's borderline pathological, but I say it's just good taste. For the most part my friends agree with me, so either we're all in some sort of weird symbiotic relationship (not out of the question), or my obsession is just good commonsense (let's go with that, shall we?).

When I found out that an Arrested Development movie might be happening I was as excited as the next fan. I was also as patient as the next fan, which is to say--not at all. When your creator Ron Howard repeatedly assured us that a movie was happening and nothing happened I began to lose faith with the rest of America.

But then in November of 2011 something magical happened. Netflix officially announced that Arrested Development was coming back. Nope, not back on our TVs, but back to our eyes in a way that was (to be frank) even better: a 13 episode order that would be released all at once directly on Netflix instant.

To recap your own history for you (because seriously its been so long it's doubtful even you remember), there will be a six year gap between the last time you aired on TV (2006) and your release date on Netflix (2013).

But don't worry. We'll be watching.

May 26th, 2013 please hurry the f*** up.

-A Fan

‘Once Upon a Time’ Foster Care and Adoption Were Horrible

An Accompaniment to My Tension Filled Relationship with 'Once Upon a Time'

No doubt about it, ‘Once Upon a Time’ portrays both adoption and foster care in a very negative light.

Much of the show's tension is derived from the triangle of Henry, his biological mother (Emma) and his adoptive mother (Regina). Regina is portrayed as evil throughout most of the first season, and regardless of whether she is or not, the worst thing is that she—and the viewers—are constantly reminded that she is not Henry's "real mother".

Regina is the only character who points out that she chose to adopt Henry, and continued to look after him during sickness and growing pains. She loves him as her child because he is her child, biology be damned. No other character seems to understand her perspective. Even Henry’s therapist neglects to recognize that Regina is an as important (if not a more important) part of Henry’s life than his biological mother who has suddenly reappeared.

In fact, the most "helpful" thing the therapist does is threaten Regina. He tells her that if she doesn't treat Henry the way that he sees fit then he'll side with Emma if there's ever a custody case. This is completely ridiculous because presumably Emma signed away her custodial rights and Regina is legally his mother. The whole point of adoption paperwork is that it provides stability for the child, and security for both the adoptive and birth parents. You can't just swoop in ten years after an adoption has been finalized and declare that you're taking back custody of the child.

Henry is torn between his biological and adoptive mothers

Despite this, Regina does see Emma as a threat. Instead of recognizing that it’s understandable that Henry might be interested in his biological mother, she declares that Emma chose to throw Henry away and that she is a bad person. While it might be helpful (particularly for Henry) for Regina to support Emma’s statement that she did what was best for Henry because she couldn’t look after him properly, Regina immediately goes on the defensive. Emma quickly fights back. Of course, the show is right…it’s highly unlikely that the two women would immediately come to terms with each other, particularly since this was a closed adoption and there has been no contact in the last ten years. In fact, although it is portrayed as an "evil" thing to do, and I assume we are supposed to side with Emma, Regina is within her full legal rights to refuse Emma access to Henry. This is perhaps the only “good” aspect of the portrayal of adoption on the show insofar as it is more realistic than the sugarcoated version of adoption that is sometimes portrayed in mainstream media.

The foster care system is also portrayed negatively. Emma grew up in the foster care system and repeatedly references the bad experiences she had. She even states that the families only do it for the money. While I recognize that the writers can say this was her character's experience, it still made me feel bad for the thousands of American families who welcome foster children into their homes and honestly do the best they can to look after those children.

In “The Stranger” (S1Ep20) we see a brief interaction between a foster father and Pinocchio; he is yelling at the child and doesn’t seem to care that he is scaring the boy. Pinocchio is clearly in some sort of a group home since we see him in a bedroom filled with beds and a crib. The crib contains the sleeping Emma; forget the fact that even twenty-eight years ago group homes were rare. Forget about the fact that a newborn infant would almost never have been sent to a group home. Forget about the fact that it’s highly unlikely that a group of little boys would successfully run away from a foster home and no one would go looking for them. Oh I’m sorry, it’s kind of hard to forget all of that, isn’t it?

“The Stranger” isn’t the only episode of ‘Once Upon a Time’ that portrays the foster system in a negative light. One of the worst episodes of the show focuses on Emma trying to "save" two children from being placed in foster care (S1Ep9, "True North"). When Emma discovers a pair of nine-year-old twins who have been living alone since their mother died she decides to intervene. Emma refuses to listen to Regina and call social services (remind me again why Regina—the “evil” one—always seems to be on the right side of the adoption/foster care debate?).

Emma is anti-foster care because of her own bad experiences within the system. She was bounced around from home to home (largely, by the sound of it, group homes) until she was eighteen. She then turned to a life of petty crime. While this is not unheard of, it frustrates me that the show focuses so exclusively on the negative aspects of foster care.

When Mary-Margaret points out that not all foster care experiences are that bad, Emma merely scoffs and says that hers was. Because one experience so clearly makes the sum of the whole. Emma then goes so far as to explain that foster parents only see the children as meal tickets and an easy payday. Great ‘Once Upon a Time’, let’s perpetuate that and forget about the thousands of families trying to genuinely help the 400,000+ children in foster care in the United States.

The most frustrating aspect of this conversation isn’t what Emma says—because it’s easy to believe that her own bad experience has colored her worldview—but rather that Mary-Margaret so quickly acquiesces.

As the episode continues it’s evident that Emma will do whatever it takes to keep the children out of foster care. She believes that foisting the children on their uninterested father is a better idea. He’s a mechanic who probably doesn’t make a great deal of money, was completely unaware that he had nine-year-old twins (because their mother never told him…hmm, I wonder why?), and repeatedly tells Emma he does not want the responsibility. Luckily Emma forces him to feel guilty about his decision, because the children are so clearly better off with him then a trained foster family [sarcasm implied].  

Emma tells the children’s biological father that if he doesn’t take the children home then they will definitely be split up (something which social workers actually try to avoid at all costs) and sent to separate group homes. Bizarrely, it's implied that Emma herself spent most of her childhood in a group home. Since approximately 15% of all foster children live in group homes, and many of these are therapeutic homes for children with special needs, it seems highly unlikely that all three of them would end up in group homes.

On a separate note, it's also ridiculous that the children are being taken from their hometown in Maine to a group home in Boston. I can only assume that the writers of 'Once Upon a Time' were confused about what state Boston is located in, since foster children rarely (if ever) cross state lines.

I am not complaining about the writers’ decision to give Emma a back-story that involves foster care. I am not complaining about the fact that she had a negative experience. There are many children who have bad foster families or bad experiences in the system in general. There are children who are failed by the system. Emma was one of them and it was an understandable choice by the writers in so far as it helps explain her character’s motivation. But to repeatedly portray foster care and adoption in a negative light is not a necessary part of the plot. Someone viewing ‘Once Upon a Time’ who is uneducated about foster care and adoption could easily take its lessons to heart: biological parents are the only “real parents” and foster care is the worst place for a child to be.

We need foster care in the United States because for some children it is not the worst place they could be. For children who are neglected and abused in their homes by their biological parents foster care isn’t a necessary evil, it’s a lifeline. And while many of these children are hoping for reunification with their biological families, thousands are waiting for an adoptive family to come forward. Perpetuating the myth that biology is stronger than love isn’t just a frustration for the millions of viewers of ‘Once Upon a Time’ who are involved in the foster care and adoption communities, it could actually negatively impact the chances that foster children have of being adopted.

If you’re interested in learning more about adopting children from foster care check out: www.adoptuskids.com

My Tension Filled Relationship with 'Once Upon a Time'

Why I'm (Now) Watching 'Once Upon a Time:

Let me preface this by saying that I'm pretty much in love with Jennifer Morrison.

I recently went on a 'House MD' viewing marathon which led to me Googling Jennifer Morrison and lamenting her break-up with Jesse Spencer (because seriously, I learned that they dated/got engaged/broke-up in the span of five minutes). Then I remembered that her personal life was none of my business and decided that IDMB would be more useful and ethical.

Which is the first time I realized she was in 'Once Upon a Time'.

Sure, I'd heard about 'Once Upon a Time'. For one thing, my mother is obsessed with it and has been telling me that I "would like it and should watch it immediately" forever. So obviously I'd never bothered.

I'd always thought of it as "that Ginnifer Goodwin show". Apparently I also don't bother looking at promotional materials.

I don't really watch sci-fi/fantasy (except for the occasional episode of 'Buffy' or 'Firefly'), but I've been known to follow actors/actresses I like from one show to another.

(Segue: I liked Sasha Alexander on 'Dawson's Creek', so when 'NCIS' first started she was legitimately the only reason I watched the show. It was also the first procedural show I ever saw; meaning Sasha Alexander is solely to blame for my procedural obsession). 

Anyway, I decided to watch 'Once Upon a Time' because Jennifer Morrison was in it. I'm glad I did.

 What's 'Once Upon a Time' About?

If you haven't seen 'Once Upon a Time' let me give you some background. The most this will spoil is the premise of the show (aka the first 15 minutes of the pilot). Jennifer Morrison plays a woman named Emma Swan who's startled to discover the child she gave up for adoption ten years ago is standing on her doorstep. The boy drags Emma back to his hometown and explains to her that everyone in the town is a fairy tale character trapped in present day suburbia. No one remembers who they really are because they're under a curse that only Emma can break. Obviously, Emma thinks the kid is crazy...and the show takes off from there.

Emma and Henry

Each episode of 'Once Upon a Time' cuts back and forth between two worlds: the "present day" world of the curse and the characters' forgotten fairy tale pasts which occurred in a parallel universe. Personally, perhaps because I'm not a big fan of fantasy-based shows, I enjoy the present day scenes far more than the fairy tale flashbacks.

What's interesting about the show is that the writers are careful to have the fairy tale scenes be relevant to framing of the present day timeline. For instance, one key episode which deals with the present day relationship between a mother and daughter flashes back to moments in fairytale land where their relationship began to fray. The flashbacks from episode to episode are not necessarily sequential, but rather jump around in the past to give us information relevant to the theme of the episode we are watching. If that sounds confusing it's only because you haven't seen the show. It's from the producers of 'Lost', and if you think of the framework of that show you'll have a better understanding of the format of 'Once Upon a Time'.

 

Strength in Female Characters (or What's to Like?)

There's one aspect of the show in particular that I find admirable: the inclusion of strong female characters. And not just emotionally strong, many of them are physically strong as well. In fact, in many cases their physicality overshadows their emotional capabilities, which is a rare thing to see in a female character.

Emma Swan (Jennifer Morrison) is a case in point; she's physically very capable (she works in law enforcement and slays dragons)  but emotionally distant, though much of that is blamed on her upbringing in the foster care system. Even more interesting, many of the classic fairytale princesses are portrayed as warriors. Snow White can handle a crossbow as well as any male character and although Sleeping Beauty is initially shown to be a prissy princess she ultimately chooses to go to the rescue of her prince. I think this is a great improvement over the Disney version of the tales, where the princesses are always waiting for the man to come to their rescue. It's not surprising that Jane Espenson is a writer and consulting producer for the show. Espenson was also a writer and producer for 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', a show that is considered revolutionary because it placed a girl in the superhero role.

What's Not to Like?

Since there's so much good in 'Once Upon a Time', what's not to like? The biggest complaint I've heard about 'Once Upon a Time' is that the quality of the special effects is subpar. It's certainly true that this isn't the CGI that you'd see in a movie theater. Then again, this is a television show and the budget for state of the art special effects just doesn't exist. The quality of the effects don't distract to the point where the episode is unwatchable. You just have to accept that this is a network show and they're doing the best they can.

The biggest complaint I have personally is the show's portrayal of both adoption and foster care. Much of the show's tension is derived from the triangle of Henry, his biological mother (Emma) and his adoptive mother (Regina). Regina is portrayed as evil throughout most of the first season, and regardless of whether she is or not, the worst thing is that she (and consequently the viewers) are constantly reminded that she's not Henry's "real mother". Regina is the only character who points out that she chose to stand by Henry through sickness and growing pains and actually loves the boy, biology be damned. No other character seems to see her point.

The foster care system is also portrayed as horrible. Emma grew up in the foster care system and repeatedly references the bad experiences she had. She even states that the families only do it for the money. While I recognize that the writers can say this was her character's experience, it still made me feel bad for the thousands of American families who welcome foster children into their homes and honestly do the best they can to look after those children. [I have more to say about adoption/foster care and 'Once Upon a Time'].

Personal Feelings

Now that I've caught up with the show I have to admit that I do enjoy watching it. However, it occasionally causes me moments of stress to the point where I purposefully skip an episode. Obviously it's necessary to have conflict so that the audience maintains interest in the show. However, this is a show that never really has a happy ending. The moment you think that a character is finally happy something else horrible happens. Remember, this complaint is coming from someone who enjoys watches crime procedurals, I definitely don't expect my TV shows to play out like a romantic comedy and I still occasionally find this show painful to watch.

Maybe that's why I like procedurals so much: there's some sense of accomplishment and progression at the end of each episode. Ninety-five percent of the time they've at least solved that week's case, even if their personal lives are still in shambles. Here there seems to be very little reward for the suffering that the characters endure. Maybe at the end of the show's run there will be a happy ending. It is, after all, based on fairy tales.

Yeah, I really could have paid better attention to the promotional materials...

How I Really Feel About 'The Big Bang Theory'

Or Why Pseudo-Intellectualism and Laugh Tracks Annoy Me

I've been anti-'Big Bang Theory' since...well, pretty much forever.

From the get-go the show just annoyed me. Sheldon's annoying quirks, Leonard's annoying quirks, Kothrappali's annoying quirks...there were a lot of quirks and I couldn't find the humor in it. Or rather, I couldn't deal with the "humor" being pounded over my head with an increasingly grating laugh track.*

Now that we're in the era of single camera shows I suppose one could argue that it's simply the style that frustrated me. However, I can sit through plenty of older (and present day) multi-camera shows without wanting to switch the channel. It wasn't until last night, when I was thinking of writing this post and watching an episode of 'Friends', that I remembered that they utilized a laugh track. It wasn't an irritating part of that show. It was just there.

One of the reasons the laugh track in 'Friends' works so well is because it's mostly true laughter: the show was filmed in front of a live studio audience. Often the laughter was supplemented in editing, but while filming the actors and directors were able to get instant feedback. They could tweak jokes and clarify lines. During the show's ten year run the most irritating laugh track moments occurred during the final two seasons. I don't think it's a coincidence that these seasons were filmed privately, without a studio audience watching.

The bizarre thing about 'The Big Bang Theory' is that it's actually filmed in front of a live studio audience. Why, then, is the laughter so distracting? Since I'm not an editor of the show I obviously can't say how much of the laugh track is manipulated in post production, but I suspect that is at least partly to blame. Other Chuck Lorre productions suffer from the same calamity and I don't see how it can be a coincidence. Of course, it's also highly probable that the studio audience watching 'The Big Bang Theory' are the same people who laugh uproariously at it from the comfort of their own homes.

There are other things about the show that also irritated me. The idea that it is a "smart" show has always been one of those things. Sure, 'The Big Bang Theory' throws around plenty of geek culture references and allows its main characters to work highly intellectual jobs (name another show on the air that has an aerospace engineer, a neuroscientist and three physicists), but that doesn't mean that the comedy is intelligent. While the characters are spouting scientific terminology, most of the jokes revolve around their lack of social skills or even basic bathroom humor. And don't even get me started on the running joke about Howard's mom's weight. 'The Middle', a comedy about a lower-middle class American family, also has jokes that revolve around their characters inadequacies (including the youngest son's lack of social skills à la Sheldon Cooper), but these jokes are based on carefully constructed character backstory rather than catchphrases and general caricatures.

Still, I don't think it's fair to reject a show without having watched a significant portion of it. Although 'The Big Bang Theory' has been on the air for six years, I hadn't watched a full episode until last week. Now that I've watched several episodes from both the past and present seasons I feel comfortable with my former opinions. Everything that I found irritating about the show still holds true.

However**, there were moments when I laughed and there are aspects of the show that I find appealing. Perhaps because I'm someone who thrives on character development my favorite episodes are those where Penny and Leonard's relationship progressed.

I had assumed I would be irritated by Sheldon Cooper, but I actually found the character rather endearing. Maybe it's the fact that I've worked with teens with autism, and regardless of whether or not Sheldon is supposed to be on the spectrum I saw a little bit of "my" kids in his character. Although I don't like the fact that Sheldon's quirks are often used to get a quick laugh, I do appreciate that he is generally portrayed as a sympathetic and likeable character. I know it sounds like I'm gearing up for a rant about autism spectrum disorders, 'The Big Bang Theory, and mainstream media...but I'll leave that for another blog post.

Now that I've watched three seasons of the show I can honestly say that I still have mixed feelings. There are episodes that I thought were hilariously funny (S1Ep10, "The Loobenfield Decay"), but there are just as many where I find myself shaking my head in disgust/annoyance/general frustration. When it's funny it can be hilarious, but when it's not it's just...not.

I used to be firmly in the "I hate 'The Big Bang Theory'" camp. But now when my friends ask me how I feel about 'The Big Bang Theory' I no longer have a succinct answer. I suppose I'll just have to direct them to this rambling blog post where I conclude that this is one of the only shows where my feelings are indescribable.

Now I really want Chinese food.

*Of course, my refusal to watch more than 10 minutes of any given episode may have been part of the problem.
** Yes, that 'however' is so important it's in bold.