853fisher

I did not enjoy this finale, or the season, as much as many others. Actually, I’ve found that I look forward to these discussions more than to the show, so thank you all very much for them over the years. I have found the show less funny when I needed its humor more than ever, and the way the timeline has been turn about changed the ratio of showing to telling in a way that made it hard for the episodes to keep my focus, even as I remained invested in the characters. It felt to me like too much payoff for events we did not see, and I never minded because the exposition never felt heavy-handed, but now I feel a little disappointed by the finale’s relative lack of impact on me. I think things could have been approached differently there. In fact, I think this also has some bearing on perceptions other than “contentment” regarding how Chidi and Jason seemed to be feeling before going through the door. I think there were more stories to tell in the new neighborhoods, during which we could have seen “contentment” arcs build. It didn’t work for me, basically, just to be told they had occurred offscreen somewhere. Especially not, as many have pointed out, when so much time was spent on the test subjects who then mostly disappeared. I did think about suicide in the context of the door, but not in the sense that I believed the show was trying to make those analogies. We all bring our own baggage to these shows, and some of mine is long-term struggles with mental and physical health. I do not want to end my life, in part because in the depths of my despair I find that I am always able to imagine something other than failure and pain, but I feel this is a choice I make daily. Ultimately, I save myself with a bit of stubbornness and a bit of ego, among other things. I do find it comforting to think of achieving rest, but not before my time. I was very interested to read different perspectives on what the episode conveyed about walking through that door. A sort of active rest, having been contented to enter that plane, maybe? I imagined, in the context of the show, that there was supposed to be some sort of self-determination in where the fireflies go, and assumed based on what I generally believe that they continue beyond one task. I wanted to believe that the characters were ready too, but I can't quite conceive of being ready to move on from this plane right now, so I wanted to see more to understand how they achieved that. After years of buildup to the real Good Place, they rushed out almost as soon as they rushed in, from our point of view. I can of course fill in those gaps, but I feel cheated somehow. I did like the little aftershow, which I can’t recall any other show getting at the end. I imagine it served as a bit of a cooldown for those who found themselves deeply touched by the episode. I don’t think I’d ever seen a few of the cast members “as themselves,” so that was fun. I do wish the discussion had been a bit meatier and a bit less of a predictable lovefest, but it’s network primetime so I know better than to expect an academic talkback. Actually, I wonder if that affected a few of the responses in the thread along the lines of “I don’t care for these self-congratulatory Hollywood types telling em what I think.” I think I would like to see that sort of aftershow in the future, just with less sizzle and more steak. However incompletely the show has worked for me lately, I am sorry to see it go. There's not much else around like it.

Hmmmm, I can see that. 🙂 I think the execution of it just came off silly and over-the-top for me. I mean, within seconds of starting the Q&A, it was off to the races. It just didn't scan for me somehow. On the spectrum between "cool as a cucumber" and "off the rails," things maybe went a bit far to the latter side for me too quickly, for someone who'd certainly pitched before. But you bring up a great point about the pressure of keeping a secret from Frankie.

I’m willing to ignore that the logical reply to “Cuban once did something terrible to me” would be “what did he do?” I’m able to handwave Grace’s failure to set a failsafe, like the clever “if Cuban is the last one, I’ll decline, but then you fund the product, Nick” suggested above. She seemed to really believe it was such a sure thing that she’d have no problem getting others on the hook. But it didn’t ring true that highly image-conscious Grace would’ve acted like such a jerk on national TV. There are plenty of ways she could’ve iced Cuban out without behaving the way she did. She was being ridiculous within seconds of entering the room, before it was clear that he would be the last man standing. I don’t watch this show for gritty realism, and maybe I’m overthinking it because I really enjoy the British “Shark Tank” and was really looking forward to this plot, but it just didn’t make any sense. I can think of several other ways to handle this scenario, with equally high stakes and even the same result. This was just too cartoonish for me, and it undercut what we know about Grace. She has always been her own woman at heart, and I think receiving an investment on a national stage would have been as much for her about reputation as money. I can buy that she would decline to do business with Cuban at Nick's request, but not that she'd leave both the investment and her dignity behind by acting so irrationally.

The recurring "we're a little short of detectives right now, as you will have noticed" is starting to wear thin. I think the show thinks it's winking at us, but I'm eyerolling back. On the subject of trashing longtime characters, Judge Barth's about-face is still so odd. Did the actress want a change? I just don't get it. Not that this was ever a show about universe-building, but I appreciated those consistent touches and think they made a difference. On the plus side, I enjoyed seeing Tonya Glanz as Monica. I wish I were still seeing her on "Timeless," such as it was, but them's the breaks.

I wasn't sure when I would see Louis van Amstel's name again, but I certainly didn't expect it to be in a story about his son being lectured by a substitute teacher about the sinfulness of his gay fathers.

As much as it pains me to say so, I’m not sure I think the judges should consider how many times a couple has been in the bottom two. I feel that, once the public has spoken and contributed to who is subject to the judges’ choice, that’s their input and then it’s back out of their hands from then on. If the show must go out of its way to have this twist, I think it should be as “pure” as possible, if that makes sense. Of course, this means I think the “there are no rules, just consider the whole season and tell us how you feel” approach falls down as it is. I like the way the British version handles it. The bottom two reprise their dance, and the judges have a specific mandate: to consider that performance only and decide which was better. It's apples to oranges sometimes, and in the early phases it can be a pit of a pain to see two of the worst dances again, but I think it is a fair system and compelling TV. Sometimes the same dancer appears there several times before leaving, but that can result in a sort of "wow, he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat!" for me, even as others say "damn, it's clear we want him gone, they should get rid of him." Opinion seems divided there. To be fair, they also have that system because they want to fill a results show on a separate night, which we no longer have. It usually is about 10min from the start of the dance-off to the farewell speech to the closing credits, so I think it could be adapted for our show. But maybe it's all more trouble than it's worth and they should just go back to revealing the bottom two and eliminating the bottom one. IF the show gets another season, etc etc.

Oh, definitely. While I've thought in the past that some of the "Kym's partner dropped her right on her neck, and wouldn't you like to see it in slomo 17 times while we discuss the impact this injury could have on her career, just kidding she's fine" was pretty tacky, I understood it comes with the territory a bit. Maybe it's just an intangible, or maybe I'm sensitive for personal reasons. But I think there's a difference between milking the hell out of a sprained ankle, say, or showing an argument between a couple, and "there's a real tragedy coming up, stay with us!" And, as I'm sure is apparent, I'm not neutral on the show overall, so that could affect my perception too.

There is no love lost between me and what used to be one of my favorite shows. But aside from the result, I find the way the way James’ tragedy was handled so cynical and manipulative, the worst of reality TV. They tease “a complicating factor,” after the judges have torn his first dance to pieces, and still don’t allow James to address Kimberly’s miscarriage for nearly another hour? Thanks, I hate it. It’s hard to describe exactly what bugged me about it all so much, except that after he stood up to do it for her, the least they could’ve done was avoided using him for cheap drama like “to be revealed later.” I'm devastated for them. This show is so joyless and terrible. I miss what it was.

Baby was a contestant on British DWTS and made it to third place with the highest average score of her season. But I agree, Scary would've been a more natural choice. And of course in the end, we got neither! I thought something like this, and I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist. I understand that some families are very tight-knit, especially in the Mormon culture. Good for Lindsay for taking the time to support her husband and mourn the loss of his mother, and for the producers for giving her the time she asked for. At the same time, I've never known anyone to take two weeks off work to grieve a spouse's parent. Something seemed odd to me about that. Maybe I'm just more a grin-and-bear-it type. Best wishes to them both, at any rate.

How very strange. It seemed that she was only recently announced. A disappointment too, as I really liked her on Britain's "Dancing with the Stars" and wondered what she'd bring to the panel.

Not that this is the most important part of the episode, but has Gabriel's hair always been styled like a third-tier Playmobil character and I just didn't notice?

If there is one. Their ratings are lower than they've ever been. I know it's cheap to make, and broadcast numbers are generally lower these days, but I half want the show to be taken out back and shot already. And by "half" I mean "very much, actually."

To those asking who Emma Bunton is from next week's judging panel, not only is she from the Spice Girls, but she was on British DWTS and did well. She finished in third place in 2006. Enjoy her favorite dance reprised from their finale. As to the rest: I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, say they actually enjoy watching Sean dance (and I have looked outside my usual sphere). I am no stranger to voting for someone whose moves make me smile, even when I know the technique is not brilliant. I’ve even occasionally voted for for off-the-floor reasons: I threw Chaz Bono a few, for instance, because even though his performance didn’t amaze me, I admired his chutzpah as an out trans man on national primetime in 2011. In other words, it was a positive about Chaz, not a negative about anyone else. Anyway, while I do usually prefer higher scorers, I won’t be precious and claim I’d only ever support anyone for “purity of dance” or whatever. But genuinely, I think very few people are actually tuning in and finding what Sean does appealing. Even allowing for the way some folks are just blown over when an older straight guy comes within ten feet of arts or culture, I cannot imagine anyone thinking Sean is actively doing anything worth supporting. It’s all Huckabee telling his Twitter followers that Sean’s doing it on behalf of all the Christians who are having so much taken away from them, the promises to thumb some collective nose at “Hollyweird," etc. As others have said, it’s not like this show had been casting Tarana Burke or theming sambas to Medicare for All until Sean broke through the ranks to speak for conservatives anyway. All this is what bothers me, beyond his being called up at all. I’m sure it’s obvious I don’t politically align with Sean, which I know is also generally off-topic here. I bring it up to say that I didn’t politically align with Bristol Palin either, but I clearly understood why people found her disposition and effort appealing, and even allowed myself to be a bit impressed by her. There is none of that in Sean. If I just want to be “sent a message,” as Sean has directly promised his followers that he’ll do, I can come to know that message during the time I spend on politics. I don’t need it via my tacky escapist reality shows. I think I would feel differently if I believed that virtually anyone actually liked what he was doing on its own, but I just don’t. Tom’s said it, many other posters have said it, and I’ve said it. I’ll say it again. The producers, with their promised “reboot,” should have focused on escapism in these trying times. They should’ve doubled down on sitcom actors and pop singers from a decade or two ago, sports figures from the last few Olympics or retiring professional “classes,” maybe even a few noncontroversial figures from outside showbiz or sports like a Jane Goodall. Do something for everyone to enjoy and bring up around the water cooler, and promote it as such. I think that could’ve been a winner. But I guess we’ll never know. I read ratings were down another 5-10 points, so I wonder whether we’ll even get to find out whether they can redeem this season with the next one.

I understand why Cheryl couldn't/wouldn't say "I think he's the scum of the earth, I can't believe the producers gave him a platform, and I'm so put off that these cretins are keeping him in to stick one to 'Hollyweird'" even if she thought it, and I have no idea where she stands politically, but she didn't need to give him quite so enthusiastic a tongue bath, did she?

I'm watching and enjoying it. I appreciate that they make episodes available on YouTube: I often can't watch daytime syndicated games as I don't have TV anymore. I've gotten through maybe the first ten shows so far and been impressed by the mix of guests, enjoyed the gameplay, and found the quality of contestants and celebrities to be a big improvement on the other current word game I've been watching, "$100K Pyramid." Meredith is great as always. The only change I would make is speeding up the bidding process. Maybe a few moments to look at the words and make faces at one another, then a very short timer between bids or withdrawal. It's usually not too overdone and has even struck me funny a few times, but in general I'm not interested in the good-spirited "trash talk" and long pauses in these sections. Tightening this up could yield just a bit more gameplay, I think, even just a few more words.

Rewinding a bit, Star Tours opened at Disneyland in 1987 and what was then the MGM Studios park at Disney World in 1989. It closed in both places in 2010 for a rework to "Star Tours: The Adventure Continues." Similar simulator (try saying that ten times fast) with new effects and animatronics. 🙂

I am not at all surprised that Karamo is apparently polling relatively badly on the same show where Sean is apparently polling relatively well. But that doesn't mean I enjoy it. The less said about Leah the better, except that making me wish Julianne was still around is a talent greater than I recall being expressed in her dancing when she was a contestant.

Thanks to those who pointed out the intent of the "Gunsmoke" homage. I recognized Miss Kitty but didn't make the connection and was wondering what the pan over that screen in the bar added. I know I'm unusually pedantic, but did anyone notice the location card for "Baynard Rustin Homes"? The man was Bayard. Come on, show.

Or the remarks here. 😉 I take no side as to the veracity of her statements, since I am fortunate to have no personal experience beyond breaking my elbow tumbling down a hill in elementary school (I am no longer to be found outdoors, as a precaution). But it seems clear why she might be on the defensive, when so many people are calling her out.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised based on the last five years or so of results, that Mary is out so soon. I thought she was clearly game and giving it her all, and wished her well. Of course there was no question of her winning, but I expected women above 18-49, who I understand make up a large part of the show's audience, would have been more interested in her. My mother, a conservative lady over 60 (but only just, she'd want you to know), adores the Supremes and was thrilled when I mentioned Mary would be appearing. I really did think she'd make it at least a few weeks. I am of course aware that the Kardashians and their adjacent are objects of curiosity, but if you'd told me Lamar would outlast Mary given the show's demographics, I wouldn't've believed it. And Ray too? Odd. Spicer I get, unfortunately. But color me meh. I'm surprised sometimes that I used to find this show so feel-good and interesting. This judges' save business, along with the live voting, is the cherry on top of the shit sundae. Just more contrivance and draaamaaaaaa. It's exhausting, and so is the show, for me.

Interesting, what he tweeted out from another industry publication reports the same numbers but has the much more favorable headline "Sean Spicer helps DWTS premiere tick up." 😉 I must say, his hopes that "his role as a contestant on the show would help 'move the country forward in a positive way'" are adorable. Who wouldn't want to be a part of the, ahem, crowd size watching?

The version of this tweet currently on on his timeline reads simply "Thank you @GovMikeHuckabee. Really appreciate your support and prayers." My understanding is that tweets cannot be edited, so I wonder whether he thought better of this commentary and chose to delete and replace it, or whether perhaps the screenshot has been edited. (Please understand that I am meaning to call no one a liar, and forgive me if I offend.) Of course, whether this is the real article or not, he's definitely retweeted messages like "Watch liberals cry! Vote for @seanspicer tonight!" and Huckabee's, regardless of what his reply was. I wonder where the people are who screamed that liberals and Tom were "making it political" when Sean is just a really sweet guy who wanted to give it a go, regardless of politics, and had just as much right as everyone else to try and master the dances? I'm not interested in tuning in unless or until he's gone. I know this isn't the first conservative personality to seek to deploy that base as voters, whether they're watching or not, but he's a new low, and these days more than ever, I'm looking to a show like DWTS to be entertained away from the culture wars and political hellscape. I say this as someone very tired of factions on both the right and left. Tom was right. Good luck to everyone else.

Others have said most of what I would say about Spicer very well already. In response to the idea that Tom should shut up and do his job, others have spoken much of my mind too. I would add only that Tom's comments, delivered fairly respectfully, seem to me to serve exactly the same purpose as Spicer's casting in the first place: making a stir. I find Tom pretty authentic and am not suggesting that I think he was put up to it or anything like that. I simply agree with those who believe that a primary reason for casting Spicer was to drum up publicity for a flagging show, and Tom's comments will have increased the reach and magnitude of the story. I doubt the producers are upset.