wknt3

Ir's not always clear cut in show business, especially SNL, and even when it is they will often let you announce it as your choice if you've had some success and they think they might want to work with you again. I wouldn't be surprised if they explicitly cut Farley lose given his behind the scenes issues. The rest was probably a routine retooling since ratings were down and the critics were really killing them at the time.

I can understand your POV. I largely checked out a few seasons ago as I had little interest in Rollins and less in Amaro and the whole grimdark era of SVU. I watched the occasional espisode because I loved what the show used to be and I still liked the cast. I will watch the occasional episode of anything Donal Logue appears in no matter what a mess it is. But enough about Gotham. I came back aboard because of Carisi and an uptick in quality over the last couple seasons, especially the first half of last season. To borrow your metaphor I think it's been weaned off the ventilator and is eating for itself again, and is back home out of the ICU looking pretty good for it's age. The new showrunner hasn't made much of an improvement, but there has been a lot of improvement in the last couple seasons. To me it's gone from a bad show with some good holdovers from the past to a good show with some annoying bad habits from the past. If they can keep it up and give us more great RFTH eps like last season I'll FF through Noah and Rollins' personal life and stick around until the end. And I'm willing to give the new guy a bit of time to convince Dick Wolf and Mariska that they've only got a few years left no matter what they do so why not go all the way with the back to basics approach that has gotten good results so far?

Sheldon is a native Texan. Even the genius ones talk funny.

Michael Imperioli is probably best known for the Sopranos, but has been on the right side of the law plenty of times including Law & Order and starring in the short lived Detroit 1-8-7. It seems to me he's been in just about everything that films in NYC. I don't think he'll be recurring since he just got a regular role on Lucifer. I actually think he would have been better as the victim in Danny's case since he has the natural likeability to make you feel for him as the guy on the edge of some shady activity who got in over his head.

Welcome to Screenwriting 101. Today we're going to be reviewing one of the submissions from last week's assignment to write an episode for a procedural. I must say I found it very disappointing. Let's start with the basics. We know the Tom Selleck character is never going to agree to force out the cadet. But you can still make it interesting to the viewer. Make it feel like a real possibility. Perhaps the son technically lied on his application or somebody waived a requirement because his dad was killed in the line. Or during the conversation in his office the son admits part of his decision to join the force is a sense of obligation and he would drop out if he got the Commissioner's permission to. Combine that with an explicit promise to the mother in the past to do anything she asks of him and you could sell it as a genuine moral dilemma with some doubts about the outcome. Next there's this whole plot with the detective being questioned by the sniveling bureaucrat lawyer and the mob investigation It's an interesting stab at how a CBS procedural would handle the issue of police accountability, but it's very clunky and illogical. His wife is supposed to be a nurse with a history of trauma and doesn't notice anything is wrong? Why not go all the way with this serial killer villain and make him an evil mastermind who made sure the shooting was caught on video so there's grounds for an investigation? And why do we even need him to be working a case? It's time away from the more interesting plots that would be better spent having conversations with his underused relatives who are set up as uniquely well positioned to know something about these issues. Then there's the C plot. It's pretty standard white knight fantasy. The romantic tension thing is half assed and needs a rewrite. And you have some plausibility issues. Why are beat cops doing investigations? And arresting a congressman at a public event is really over the top. Not to mention that there's no way this doesn't get to the brass. If you didn't waste so much time with the useless Albanian mob plot you might have the time to do this right. Those are the major points. I know that CBS procedurals aren't the most prestigious artistic achievement but they expect basic competence when it comes to plot and character. You have to make an effort and good basic storytelling is actually more important on this kind of show. This is an unprofessional mess that would get you fired ... A transcript you say? This was actually aired on network television? Are you sure? Really? This isn't one of those edgy "comedies" is it? I could almost see it working as a deadpan parody ... They really meant it? Someone got paid for this?

This show really has become your annoying conservative relative on Facebook. There's the obnoxious message about how everything is going to hell and cops are persecuted if we dare to ever question their actions. Said rant is poorly written and illogically constructed. And I still kind of like the show anyway I just wish it would shut up about current events before I lose all respect.

Yeah I know it's L&O: LIV (featuring Ice T and some other guys) and they will endlessly repeat some plots and scenes because MH's ego demands it. But still... As far as what I'd do differently I'd have dropped the shooting, the huge arms cache, etc. put the SVU case front and center and made the terrorist connection much more debatable. So there would be a lot of interest from the brass, but it would be reasonable for the squad to be front and center while JTTF was investigating in the background. And perhaps the rapist would be offering to provide evidence on radicals if they didn't prosecute and TPTB would be all in favor while Liv is opposed and Barba is conflicted because it's not cut and dried exactly how valuable and accurate the info is. I'd have also had real conflict among the squad about the right way to go. So keep the basic premise, but make it a sexually based offense they're investigating instead of a huge terrorist plot and present an actual debate that explores the shades of gray. There are smaller things too like not making Chief Dodds' resentment explicit in the dialogue, and have Tucker talk about all the potential fallout of his new job ("now I've got the cops and DA's hating me") but those are the big ones. This isn't monkeys in basketballs or crazy killer crime scene techs - there's a good idea here that could have made for a great episode with a few changes.

It was very well done for what it was, and I agree that it was more tolerable this time than some of the previous ones, but it was still an overdone and unbelievable plot. Yes it was tolerable, but as I said before it could have been much better than just acceptable with some fairly minor tweaking. You would think they would have learned their lesson about running recurring plots into the ground by now.

The Good: Good acting all around. Fin! The look on his face after breaking down the door and his line about immigrants. Some good Barba too. The Bad: Too many bad habits of the past carrying over. Noah and the park again (he'd probably be safer playing in a Hudson University dorm)! Liv vs. the evil bosses. SVU fighting all the crime in Manhattan. Liv Taking!It!Personally! Pushing an agenda instead of realism (I'm sure cops just love the Innocence Project). Not enough Rollins. Looks like they're going to ruin Big Dodds. Overall this could have been a great ripped from the headlines season opener if they had just been willing to go a bit smaller. Make them refugees, drop the mass shooting and cop killing, and make the terrorism connection debatable, and give the squad different opinions that they argue about vigorously and you would have a great "issues" show like the beginning of last season or classic SVU. The promo monkeys can still do their thing while we have an actual SVU case.

As I interpreted the piece she isn't so much concerned about Hillary not recognizing it, but about the press spin. Hillary is not a natural at this like Bill or Reagan, and a lot of the press still has a tendency to see funny and witty women as bitchy. So she will be better on policy, but the press response will be all about BS and voters who don't watch or pay attention could see coverage about how it was a tie or a Trump win. "He really stumbled apparently almost calling her a vulgar epithet beginning with the letter C, and seeming to imply that Russia annexing Poland would not be a major concern, but he did have the line of the night Anderson so it's clear that this was not a knockout for Clinton and that may be as good as a win for Trump." "I agree. Her line about Trump's tax returns and foundation in response to the question about the Clinton Foundation seemed canned and a bit mean. Not presidential." Her concern is that the media is so easy to manipulate and obsessed with shiny objects that it doesn't necessarily matter what Hillary does as long Trump can deliver one memorable soundbite.

This NYT op ed is getting some attention online. I guess it helps the show's chances for awards etc. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/campaign-stops/clintons-samantha-bee-problem.html?referer=http://www.google.com/ I hope if Sam responds it's online so it isn't just one long bleep.

Your relative really should have hired better writers. Surely they could have come up with something more realistic and less sitcommy cliched?

I can't agree more about needing an hour or less about Penny's brother. I have no problem buying him as a midwesterner, but he's just not the brother we've heard about and the whole "awe shucks thing" doesn't fit into the rest of the family. And yes it would have been nice to see them try to some more jokes about what he did for a living. More sibling rivalry or use it to bring in the main cast. For example discussing brain chemistry with Amy or using Howard's tools to build equipment (leading to more panic about the government).

There was at least one too many guest stars and not enough time. Personally I would have dropped Jack McBrayer as he didn't add much and they seemed to be writing Jack McBrayer rather than the character they have been referring to over the years. It would've been funnier if he wandered off as soon as they got there and was off screen getting into escalating hijinks. Loved Laurie Metcalf and liked Judd Hirsch, but they really seemed to have nothing new or interesting for Sheldon, Leonard, or Beverly to do. Not much to say about the rest of the cast or the Air Force plot. Good stuff, but not enough time to do it/them justice.

He really should be "just happy to be nominated" this year, but I bet we get some petulant "joke" or snide remark about this proves he isn't really part of the club. Even though being nominated this year proves he is. I've praised him for having the sharpest, most insightful take on the the election of any of the late night hosts from the beginning and for having some good shows, but overall this was not a good season and he was certainly not better than Sam Bee, Seth Meyers, or Stephen Colbert much less his friend Jerry Seinfeld or John Oliver.

I was very happy to see LWT win too as I agree it was the best and one of two acceptable alternatives. This was probably the worst category as far as the quality of the nominations is concerned. I have to wonder how many voted for it because it was unique and an amazing achievement in researching, writing, etc. vs. because it was on HBO, gets great buzz, and has done well monetizing the internet?

It's obvious to me that the the conventions of civility and objectivity as practiced by most mainstream television journalists are being abused by Trump spokespeople to just repeat their talking points until the segment time is up. Sometimes you do have to cut them off repeatedly if you don't want your airtime used to spread disinformation or perpetrate the impression that objective reality is debatable. I do understand not wanting everything to become Fox News ("Bill there is plenty of evidence of human activity leading to climate change and here is some -" "That's it this is the no spin zone! You're out of the box! Let's go to commercial") but "politeness" is not more important than facts and reality. Of course perhaps the best approach might be to just not invite on those who abuse civility and simply examine why false claims are false without any defense since you are going to be accused of bias anyways, but there is simply no way to simultaneously achieve civility, access, and accuracy in today's environment so something has to give.

Unfortunately the Late Night nominations are less dependent on quality than perhaps any other category and have only gotten more arbitrary in recent years as they are now a mix of shows that were great in the past and may or may not be great this season and shows that get a lot of internet hits. So there are a number of shows that are doing good work and getting great reviews that are pretty much waiting for Carpool Karaoke to run its course and Jerry Seinfeld to get bored since Kimmel, Fallon, John Oliver and Maher have pretty much automatic nominations unless they get caught in a Bill Cosby type situation (and of course John Oliver is doing Emmy worthy work most every week and is a lock under any system I can think of).

Why not indeed. It would have been perfection if they could have gotten Arnold Palmer too though. Or Beyonce, but she's probably too expensive...

I would hope it's clear what side Sam is on since the whole point of the show it to express her views, And why wait for somebody else to tell her? She just gave you an address to send your complaints!

I would also guess November to get a little extra attention during the NFL season. The real question isn't when since we all know it will be November or February. It's where will Howard be stuck until the last possible moment before the birth and what stupid juvenile thing will he be doing? And how will they set it up so Sheldon is stuck with Bernadette during the delivery? Will they miss any sitcom childbirth cliches?

I think that's what they were going for. She was supposed to have had some experience as a federal prosecutor (she worked organized crime cases with Rudy) as well as being a distinguished academic. So I don't think she was supposed to be naive or a pure theorist (although sometimes it did come across that way). It was more that she was used to thinking about all sides, was not as interested in the political implications, and hadn't had to go through the process of defining her positions on all the issues during the campaign process. And I agree that I liked her, but did find it annoying when Jack seemed to be the only one who was more interested in putting criminals in jail instead of philosophical debates.

Why would a writer attempt to rise the occasion despite a lack of positive feedback online? Because it's their job, plain and simple. Many of us have jobs where we have to deal with customers/clients/citizens being upset with us for reasons far beyond our control. And we do our best anyways even though those jobs are less renumerative and less personally fulfilling than being a television writer. Personally I don't get why people feel compelled to stick with something that they don't find satisfying when there are other choices available (and I have skipped several CM episodes or deleted them after watching up to a point for just those reasons) and I try to praise the good as well as criticizing the bad. But that doesn't mean I don't try to provide the best possible service for everyone, punishing those who give me good feedback, helpful criticism, and useless bitching and moaning equally. I'm just a fan, but I know that if you join or stay with a long running series you are almost inevitably going to have to deal with unfavorable comparisons to the old days, fans blaming you for things beyond your control, etc. If you stay you have to do your best. Maybe you have to deal with network and external factors (more focus on villains, certain cast members having personal problems, some executive wanting you to make changes in response to a couple hundred people on Tumblr, etc.) but that doesn't excuse you from dealing with it and providing consistent characterization, avoiding constant uses of a deus ex machina plot device, trying to come up with a reason for a character to do something, and everything else. We should absolutely avoid mindless negativity. But not all criticism and comparison is mindless.

Actually it's not in any state. DC stands for District of Columbia it's own separate entity created so no state could claim the capital. As the country and the government has grown the metro area and government area have spread out so there are offices in Virgina, West Virginia, and Maryland and much of those states feel like suburbs of WDC. I imagine it's very confusing to those from other countries as it's confusing to many Americans.

Maryland is another state, but not one of the important ones. ;-) It is mostly a suburb of Washington DC but it does have Baltimore (Homicide:LOTS, The Wire) Although compared to Deleware whose biggest attraction is the place where JCPenney sends their damaged merchandise it does look pretty good...