Up All Night going multi-camera, live audience

"This was an idea we and Lorne came to in order to infuse the show with more energy," NBC entertainment chairman Bob Greenblatt said in a statement. "We know what the multi-camera audience does for the live episodes of 30 Rock, plus after seeing both Maya [Rudolph] and Christina [Applegate] do SNL within the past few months, we knew we had the kind of performers — Will Arnett included — who love the reaction from a live audience. We think we can make a seamless tradition to the new format."

Read the full article at TVGuide.com.

[Sigh.]

It seems as if the network is doing anything and everything it can to try to save Up All Night-  and I don't blame them! Christina Applegate, Will Arnett, Maya Rudolph - this show should be gold, right? Yet despite the stellar cast, the show struggled last year and already has gone through big changes this year, eliminating 'The Ava Show' storyline altogether.

All these changes worry me because I really, really love this show. And I've talked to friends of mine with kids (ie twentysomethings) and they love it, too.

Do I think this new format is the answer? Eh..... I don't know. Will they have to redo the sets to accommodate an audience? Will there be a laugh track?

Community, airing Oct 19th - er, someday.

Hi. Let's talk for a minute about how absolutely brilliant Community is. Take this video, for example -


Community was supposed to premiere last night, Friday, October 19th. But NBC pushed back its premiere date. Which is lame. (And, also smart, because I was watching the Cardinals game anyway.) But Community isn't just going to sit back and not say anything about it. And they're not just going to be polite about it. Oh, and they are going to be not quiet and not polite about it on NBC's own website. BRILLIANT, I say.

Best digs-
"We don't for it for them, we do it for the fans."
"Even though the powers that be agreed to out the premiere on October 19th, they couldn't decide where to put October 19th."
"Annie's Boobs wanted her own show!" Referring to the monkey named 'Annie's Boobs', which, in turn, is referring to the ridiculous show with a better time slot and more network support, Animal Practice.

And Best YouTube comment goes to 'NBC Britta'ed October 19th!' ha.

The New 'Up All Night'

Inspired by reading this post on TVGuide.com....

TVguide thinks Up All Night sans 'Ava Show' cuts back on all the over-the-top antics and scenarios and brings the characters back down to earth. But honestly, as much as I agree with that - I also miss the workplace drama.

The reality in being a new parent - and in life in general - is that it isn't JUST your homelife with your friends and family. We spend 40+ hours at work every week. And when we get home from work, we're either stressed out from it or spend time talking about it with our significant others, friends, family, roommates, etc. Work is a HUGE part of life. And most TV shows ignore it.

They have one 'work drama' episode each season. Or they show characters in suits to imply that they are employed. Or they have a mention of work here and there. The only show I can think of that offers balance between working and living is 2 Broke Girls or a drama like Justified. (Can you think of others?)

I'm not saying Up All Night's first season was perfect. But yes, I miss Reagan having a part of her life that is NOT Chris and Amy. This season, it seems like the couple has infinite time to spend together and with their kid. When are they working?

I'm hoping to see...
- more of Chris and Reagan's brother's business (LOVE him by the way! Great addition to the cast!)
- Reagan have more conflicts as to how to be a stay-at-home mom, and feel the urge to get back to work. Maybe she starts blogging or opens an Etsy shop or something. She seems too ansty and ambitious to not channel that somehow.
- Ava get some direction in her life. Forget Missy, Ava is the real casualty here from the show's cancellation. I don't like her living episode to episode, hoarding and then dating and then finding old friends.

666 Park Avenue: Is Gavin the devil?

In arguing with a friend over whether or not Gavin was 'the devil,' I stumbled upon a couple possibilities I hadn't thought of before...

(1) What if Olivia is really the evil one and he's just doing her bidding. The last episode sort of put my mind at ease on that one, but still, it would be a good twist.

(2) What if Gavin is working for someone else. The guy in charge rarely does his own dirty work, after all. Does Gavin have a boss?

And speaking of Gavin.... how much do you think of John Locke when watching this show? Or rather, the Smoke Monster, I guess. But when he starred down that elevator shaft and a light shot out? Um, hello. It's the hatch!!

666 Park Avenue = Lost

'Revolution' should focus on the past; better acting

Yes, I've been watching Revolution. I feel like all my other weird-TV-show friends have hoped off the bandwagon, but I'm not ready to yet. (And let's face it, I probably won't. I watched Flashforward and The Event til the end, didn't I?)

Revolution isn't so bad, but there are some major fixes that need to occur for me to keep watching to enjoy watching more. 

1. Let's focus on those flashbacks. The past few episodes, I've been most intrigued by how this world, and these characters came to be. Monroe was 'family' to Miles, willing to trek across the country with him? It was Miles that realized they could be the law in a lawless land.... but to help people, not hurt them? Capt Neville told his son (his son!!) never to punch people... until the blackout when he went at it with a thieving neighbor, unleashing his inner badass? That stuff is awesome. I want more about the evolution (see what I did there?!). I want to know how this world came to be and what happened to our government and these families and the cities. I want to know it all. 

2. My least favorite people on the show are Miles and Charley - the two main characters. Uh.... that's a problem. I'm bored with them. And they are bad actors. (Which, by the way, was blatantly clear when Miles had to interact with Neville, the amazing Giancarlo Esposito.) I'm okay with Neville/Danny, the Google guy, heck even Elizabeth Mitchell (I think she's a bad actress too, but her storyline is intriguing at least). But the two main characters annoy the hell out of me. 

I'm disappointed in you, 'Dexter.'

Why did you kill Louis?! 

You've had this storyline that's gone under the radar, threading itself into Dexter's path since last season. A guy who maybe knows more about Dexter than meets the eye. A guy that Dexter can't/shouldn't just get rid of by killing because he hasn't killed anyone (we assume), and thus, doesn't fit the code.

As much as you want to try and claim that he was just a petty kid who was mad that Dex didn't like how video game, I don't believe it. Let's look at the timeline here....

S6:E4 is when Masuka learns that the hand is being sold online.
S6:E5 is when Louis is hired and tells Masuka that he cannot find who bought the hand (which, as we will learn later, is him).
S6:E7: Louis shows Jamie the video game.
S6:E9: Louis has Jamie over to his apartment and we see the arm in his possession.
S6:E10: Louis shows Dexter his video game and Dex tells him it's terrible.
S6:E11 Louis mails the hand.

So, sure, maybe Louis mailed the hand to Dexter because he was legitimately mad that Dex hated on his video game. But WHY did he buy the hand to begin with? WHY did he create a video game about serial killers, putting emphasis on the Bay Harbor Butcher and seek approval from Dexter? And WHY was he so obsessed with Dexter from the get-go (asking Jamie if Dexter was as cool at home as he was at work)?

The guy was creepily obsessed with Dexter from the beginning, and now, BAM, with a shot to the head from some thug, he's dead.

I remember when Louis' story first started to develop, I thought, "Oh man, this is it. This is going to be the guy that takes down Dexter Morgan. It won't be a ruthless killer, or the law. It will be someone smart. And someone Dex can't just get rid of because he doesn't fit his code."

And now? Now you've killed off this smart antagonist in favor of one that dresses up like a bull and kills women in a maze. Seriously?


PS. This blog post would not have been possible without the help of the extensive Dexter Wiki. Fellow TV addicts, I salute you.

Also, check out this post on Louis from CliqueClack. It's awesome.

"When is it okay to reveal a spoiler?"

This issue is getting increasingly contentious because more and more TV viewing is happening later and later after a show first airs. Between DVRs, DVDs, OnDemand and streaming services, it’s not unusual to find somebody who’s really excited because they just started watching the first season of AMC’s Breaking Bad, which debuted four years ago (spoiler alert: Walt and Jesse are still alive!).

Read the EW article.

This is something I've struggled with. (yes, 'struggled'. You know you take TV watching seriously when you legit worry about shit like this in your free time.)

In the old days, it was easy to decide spoiler or no-spoiler. If I was writing a recap of a show that aired the night before, it was not a spoiler. It already happened. If I was writing about an article or message board or theory or rumor or something, it was most likely in spoiler territory.

I even put up this nice little warning-

But these days, everyone is DVRing (including myself) or waiting until the DVDs come out or catching on to brilliant series long after they've started (I don't hate on this... I've participated in a fair share of MegaVideo benders for Dexter, Mad Men, etc.). It is making it harder and harder to figure out what's a spoiler and what's not. 

For example (WARNING! SPOILER's AHEAD!!!!), Was Lexi dying on Grey's a secret? What about who wins DWTS or American Idol or whatever? What about who goes home on The Challenge? The fact that Deb saw Dexter kill someone? In general, I believe that if it already aired, it's fair game. It's your responsibility as a viewer to avoid so called 'spoilers' for events that already happened. Would you get pissed at ESPN for talking about how won the World Series because you haven't checked the score yet? (Spoiler Alert: It's going to be the Cardinals. #12in12)

There are some BIG spoilers for some BIG shows that I refuse the reveal. They concern Game of Thrones' first season, Boardwalk's finale last season and Dexter's Trinity season. All of those episodes are long past. So, why not share? Because they were so big. And so shocking. And blew my mind. And I want others to share in that experience. I want my friends to get hooked on these shows and see those episodes and be all like 'OMG Danielle. When _____ does _____ to ______?! That was fucking insane."

This is what it means to be a TV enthusiast like myself. 

Are New Girl's Nick and Jess the New Ross and Rachel?

Yes.

"I don't think the show is built on the will-they-or-won't-they aspect of their relationship," Meriwether tells TVGuide.com. "I think that we can go where we want with it because it's just a show about this group of people and these friendships. What are the obstacles of them actually getting together? At a certain point, it just feels like you're throwing fake obstacles in their path. So I just feel like we're trying to be honest with their story more than thinking about the Moonlightingcurse or anything like that." 

Read the TV Guide Article.

"Why ABC's 666 Park Avenue Is Not American Horror Story Lite"

Read the full TV Guide article. 

I saw this article on TVGuide.com and just had to stop. As I was watching the second episode of 666 Park Avenue last night, that was exactly what I was thinking.

It was the scene where Jane is in the basement, looking at the wall and asking the exterminator (may he RIP) to demo the wall. Something about it just screamed Connie Britton and family at that big, mysterious house. As the episode goes on, you start to realize the Drake is a character in itself (think The Island, The House, etc.).

I just couldn't get AHS out of my head.