Kaoteek

Also, it helps that on those subjects, suddenly, Larry (& the entire show around him) seems more involved, more focused, more serious than usual, & TNS seems to have more bite.

I liked the fact that they seem to be fine-tuning McIver's make-up to make it less cadaveric, and slightly more half-alive, which works better as far as believably interacting with normal humans goes.

Credit where credit is due, the Baltimore Riots episode was pretty good.

But most people invested in a character or a 'ship are still watching (whether hope-watching or hate-watching), and will probably do so until the show ends, or the character/ship dies. So catering to them won't do a thing to bring in new viewers. Worst, catering to established characters might turn away casuals, if they can't stand the regular characters anymore, or feel they haven't watched enough of the show to understand how regular A or regular B is where he's at right now. Early on, when OUAT started, casuals didn't tune in to see "their favorites", they tuned in for the fresh spin that writers were putting on old fairytales & characters, whether they were the Charmings, or other characters like Cinderella. The OUAT world felt huge, with tons of possible interactions & new characters. If anything, if all the casuals I know are to be believed, it's the pandering to certain ships & the overexposure of Emma/Snow/Charming/Rumple that led to their departure, and to some audience erosion. Heck, the Frozen storyline managed to get some of my casual friends back in (fresh characters & storylines ! Recognizable franchise !) before chasing them off by having everything, once again, revolve around Emma, her past, and so on. That said, whether the writers decide to go with new characters (I liked the self-contained Cruella story, for instance, despite some annoying tropes) or to milk the "core" characters til they're the unescapable center of everything OUAT, it all comes down to the writing... and that's the weakest point of OUAT.

Actually, even that is not so clear-cut. From where I stand (not in any part of the OUAT fandom per se, but rather part of a more casual tv fandom that happens to watch OUAT amongst other things), some would rather have the show stop focusing everything on the Charmings, and have them in the background while other characters take the center stage. For instance, I didn't start watching OUAT for Snow White, Charming and Emma, but rather because the show felt fresh on a weekly basis by introducing new characters, and new takes on fairy tales & Disney characters. Sure, the Charmings were always a recurring part of the eps (not always the most captivating part, to boot), but stories were often more self-contained, with their own flashbacks, and so on. Now we're four seasons in, and everything is still about the Charmings, every new character is related to the Charming whether by blood of flashbacks, it's all about characters who've completed their original story-arcs eons ago, and should now be supporting characters instead of hogging the spotlight. In fact, I'd argue OUAT went full Heroes about it, and made their Sylar & Petrellis (Regina & Charming) the center of their universe, thus making it constantly smaller instead of expanding on it. And just like Heroes, it bit them in the arse.

So the whole reason for that dumb, flat Affleck ghost segment was to make an extended "Ben Affleck does bad movies & is an untalented hack" joke. Face, meet palm.

It's weird seeing the lead writer of the show laughing her ass off and clapping at the "70s Larry" segment, which a) wasn't particularly funny (and was way too predictable, like a lot of Nightly Show jokes) and b) she probably helped write & shoot. But then again, she seemed to be trying way too hard during the entire panel, so I guess she was just that into it. Aside from that, yeah, pointless panel, and let's not forget that earlier on in the season, the show had a disastrous Travel to Mars panel that NDT could have saved, which makes this conspiracy panel even more frustrating. (on a related note, over at the AV Club, they have an editorial talking about the Daily Show/Noah situation, and arguing that the problem isn't Noah's presence, but Larry Wilmore's absence ; unsurprisingly, the overall reaction to that is pretty negative, with most commenters complaining about the same Nightly Show issues we've been talking about here)

"Let's kill him !" "Nah, let's have him change sex and get raped every day !" "Nah, let's kill him, cos putting him in solitary is torture, and torture is worse than killing !" "Okay, let's kill him, then !" "But guys, it's more complicat---" "Awesome, then we all agree that he should die !" Man, that panel really was a nexus of... hmm... can't find a word to express how much I facepalmed. I really should stop watching the show, cos each time Larry decides to play the self-appointed judge in his "common sense"-driven people's court, I end up disliking him a bit more.

Meh. That's about all I have to say about that finale, and, really, about the entire "team" concept this entire season has revolved around. It ended up rewarding the least memorable and impressive contestant, just because she had great teammates with great imput & solid work, & the best mentor around to alter her so-so ideas. And speaking of ideas : "My characters are gonna be a team of humanoid animals à la Rocket Racoon escaping from a lab and fighting evil", fine, could be fun, and there's a cohesive idea & look to the team ; "Errr.... I'm gonna do Wizard of Oz-inspired post-apocalyptic mutants".... nope. Weak concept, and no real visual identity to the make-ups. "I'm gonna do the four elements fighting evil after Adam & Eve left Paradise", uh... okay... not sure it really makes sense story-wise, but why not... however, aside from the Wind spirit (not necessarily particularly original, design-wise, since fauns & other similar draeneis are quite the rage, these days), and the Wood spirits to an extant, those weren't really inspired or technically astounding (I honestly disliked the Fire spirit, the colors just clashed and didn't read fire). TL;DR : not impressed, and hoping for better things next season.

I haven't watched the show (I don't particularly care for Daredevil as a character, and dark & gritty annoys me), but a huge bunch of comic-book fans/Daredevil fans around me have, and your 14yo should be fine, from what I've gathered. However, he'll have to deal with serious pacing issues, to the point some of my friends who were pretty much extatic when watching the first episodes ended up strongly disappointed towards the end, once they had to get through multiple bland & flat episodes during the second half of the season. If your teen is fine with lotsa talking & stalling, then that should be no problem.

Honestly, I didn't like any of the four concepts, nor their executions, and especially not that undertaker that didn't read as an undertaker to me. But then again, all those characters almost looked more like uninspired steampunk zombies than steam-tech-enhanced half-man half-robot characters. A big miss, as far as i'm concerned.

To be fair with all of them, it's easier to be "good at comedy" when you're working on a comedy, and you're not stuck in the weird non-funny bubble they're stuck in. When was the last time that the writers of LMS have used Kristin/Ryan as anything other than strawman targets for Tim Allen's political one-liners & rants ? I mean, the way he's written, I'm not sure even a young Tom Hanks would be able to make Ryan funny or likeable... And as far as Kristin goes, not only has she devolved, but even when she's supposed to be the focus of a storyline, such as this week's episode, she's still has to play the straight woman, with nary a joke written for her. That doesn't help.

Would've given the win to Emily. Not only was Darla's porcelain make-up very been there, seen that, but it never convincingly read porcelain doll to me, partly due to its proportions, and partly to the eyes & their electric blue contacts, which made it too alive & make-upy rather than dead, cold and scary. It was a competent make-up, but Emily's was much stronger, as far as i'm concerned. As for this week's loser, well, no surprise there.

Funny thing is, I liked that zombie b-boy. Way more than the mermaid, the diamond face, or that awful, awful rabbit girl. Now, what's killing me is that for some weird reason that i can't explain, no sir, i can't, the bottom two ended up being the two concepts least easy to work with given the parameters of the challenge : the three girls basically wanted princesses, easy enough to do. The three boys ? Monsters. And among those three, one was a hideous non-human three-headed monstrosity, one was exactly the antithesis of the challenge's "whimsical" parameter, and the third one was a big humanoid thing, aka guy in a suit (which totally deserved to win, even though the head was strangely bland and underpainted, compared to the rainbow-colored body). Sorry, but even if Ben clearly botched his 3-headed beast, or could have turned it into something more manageable at the concept stage I clearly would have been harsher on princess diamond-face or rabbit-girl rather than on the guys facing the biggest, hardest challenge. Or at the very least, that was the perfect moment to use the good ole "Ben & Julian, you're the bottom 2, but considering what the kids wanted, and the fact that they all seemed happy with it (except rabbit-girl's kid), this week, there will be no elimination."

So far, I don't hate it. It probably won't become must-see tv for me, far from it (the skits/remotes do nothing for me, the monologues aren't particularly memorable, the interviews are so-so, I'm not too fond of the crowd-awkwardly-high-fiving-the-guests concept, and as much as i like Reggie Watts, the band doesn't bring anything to the show, so far), but it's tolerable. Which is always a good thing, I guess.

The pacing of the entire show is off, from the opening to the jokes, the segment, the panel, and it boils down to one single thing : the Nightly show doesn't have anything resembling transitions & graphics. Just compare Colbert opening his show to Larry opening his : on one hand, you've got an enthusiastic Colbert, camera changes punctuating each joke, on screen graphics, rhythm, and energy, energy, energy !!! And on the other, you've got nonchalant Larry standing awkwardy in front of a single cam, in front of a widescreen tv, reading his prompter without much energy, and waiting for each joke to land before going on, all the while some flat, rhythm-less music plays on. And then Larry walks off screen before the opening credits are launched. And the entire show is the same : cuts & transitions are non-existant, and there's just no momentum built, there's no energy, there's nothing to help sell the jokes... and when there are transitions & cuts, they're just as lifeless & flat as the rest of the show (eg : the "Knowledge College" bit, last night : it had no punch, no energy to it, the editing was rough, and it just killed Larry's point, which wasn't too strong to begin with). Maybe they should hire a new director & a new graphics guy, or something, along with a couple new writers.

Man, that "nerd" edition of the Nightly Show was such a drag... no points made, indeed, strawman arguments everywhere, nerd clichés at every corner, pointless panel... ugh. Also, the Michelle Rodriguez thing ? She was friggin drunk when TMZ got her at night, outside of a club/bar/whatever. Did anyone really expect words of wisdom from drunk, tired Michelle Rodriguez !?

Yeah, that last show just never worked for me. The whole "Wu Tang record/88 years later" segment just fell flat, for recurring reasons I've mentioned in an earlier comment (timing was off, crowd reactions were hesitant, and both the writing & the delivery were on the weak side... and then, the boxing panel. Opening the show with a "are combat sports a thing of the past ?" when MMA is thriving (heck, even Tyson is advising young fighters to go into MMA rather than boxing), and when big time boxing matches still draw big, was already some ill-advised choice, on (to be honest) a pointless subject, at least as far as "the Nightly Show" goes... and then there was the fawning over Tyson. I get it, he's done (part of) his time, he's (supposedly) a changed man, he's been making amends, and he's become a very affable, funny guy... but really ? Double standards much (re Cosby) ?

Aside from the content and the uneven writing, there's something that really bothers me in the show's format : it lacks energy. And by that, I mean that every night, you'll get something like that : Larry makes a joke, Larry waits for the crowd to laugh, Larry chuckles to himself self-satisfiedly, Larry waits a couple seconds, Larry ad-libs, Larry waits for the crowd to react to his ad-lib, and then, after another chuckle, Larry goes on to the next joke/part of his monologue. That just doesn't work for me. It gives a slow, sloppy vibe to the entire show, which could and should be fixed by better direction/editing/writing... just give the show some energy, some punch, instead of having the Nightly Show meander from one joke to the other, from one segment to the other, with weak, half-assed transitions that make it look like the show is semi-improv'd, and its format has just been decided upon ten minutes before taping.

Quite enjoyed this week, even though I like that winning look as much as others do. It felt too bland & simplistic. As for the bottom looks, no surprise there, and the fact that Ben won last week's challenge (and went for something wild) probably sealed Kelly's fate.

Well, the next day was "Julius Caesar the greek dictator" day, so... yay.

Yeah, aside from Ben's make-up, which felt complete, cohesive, and had a great look, at the same time pretty, fashion-y & weird, none of the other convinced me in the slightest. The bottom two need no explanation, Kelly's was just a gory mess (btw, I'm sure Kelly's nice and fun IRL and everything, but she must also be exhausting, cos her talking heads segments alone kinda exhaust me already... always so hyper & enthusiastic...), Darla was... I'm not sure of what it was (certainly not "good" or "safe"), Emily's feathery-dark-First-Form-Cell was nice (better with the strings, though) but not Barker, and Julian's was a great, expressive demon... but Barker ? Eh. Also, distinct shortage of chains, meathooks, fishhooks, latex, bdsm, and all that jazz (except in Jamie's creation, but the less said about it, the better)

Thing is, the subject of that panel was interesting, to me, and I too would have liked for it to dig deeper... but you can't make me believe that for such a subject, there was nobody better to cast as a panelist than a comedian, a director, and an actor, none of them had anything particularly interesting, funny or relevant to say about the panel's theme. Sure, they cracked jokes about the Mars woman, and they all, unanimously, declared that they wouldn't take part in such a journey... but aside from that, that's it, a big ball of nothingness. And the Larry the Martian gimmick was possibly an even bigger waste of time, given the bland "answers" given by the panelists to Larry's questions. (that said, it's funny that most previous panels, even the most controversial ones like the anti-vaxxer one, didn't annoy me as much as this one did)

Man, that "Mars" panel was a huge waste of time. And Larry the Martian was just... well... pointless.

That ew.com piece was nice, indeed. Even though I don't totally agree with the "and noone's plugging anything" part of it. Speaking of "pluggin something", Lennon's run was... okay. I didn't care much for his sidekick character, and it was mostly "Odd Couple" promotion, but Lennon is likeable & dynamic enough that it wasn't too annoying. Contrary to some of the past guest hosts, I probably wouldn't watch "The Late Late Show w/ Tom Lennon" on a regular basis, though. Intrigued by Lauren's show tonight.