So Future Islands Are Very...Interesting in Concert

I was listening to Spotify over the past few weeks as I want to do every single day of the week when I am work. There's been a really good song I've heard and even took the time to download. It was called Seasons (Waiting On You) by a band called Future Islands. It's very synth-heavy and definitely has a sort of melancholy mood about it. Anyway, I have enjoyed the song and now own it. Here it is. Ignore the weird country video that doesn't seem to match the song too well. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it grew on me after a while and I really like the song. Long story short, I listened to the rest of their "Singles" album (the album the song is off of) and wasn't quite as impressed. It's not bad and it's the type of music that could grow on me if given the chance. I did stumble on their bio on Spotify and it mentioned they had a performance on "The Late Show with David Letterman" that left him impressed and speechless. I like bands that are good live, so I checked out the video. The live version is very interesting. Now before you watch the video, please listen to the studio version above and then listen to the live version with the vocals. You'll know what I'm talking about when you hear the live version compared to the studio version.

So first off, the dancing. It's not bad. It's not entirely distracting. It's just dancing. It's one of those dances that someone would do in private, but just politely say, "I don't dance" if there ever was a time it had to be used in public. It goes from "Dances your dad does" to "Wow, he has some rhythm" to "These are some sincere vocals" to "That's an easy way to tear an ACL" to "He can't be entirely serious." Again, it's not bad, but I ran the gamut of emotions watching it.

At 1:48 he pounds on his chest so hard you can hear it through the mic. Holy crap, he's serious.

At 2:43 he gives the "Eddie Vedder intense stare into space" look that makes me worry somebody in the front row might get either kissed or murdered. Possibly both. But not neither. Then more chest-beating.

So the vocals, they aren't bad and you can tell he is really singing and does not care if you know he misses notes. In an era where no musician wants to miss a note live, it's refreshing.

But then...3:08 the Cookie Monster voice comes out. Holy shit. That's Cookie Monster or some weird gothic-metal voice. I can't explain it. I thought the studio vocals were fine, but apparently the producer worked hard to talk the lead singer (his name is Sam) out of using that voice, but when the producer is away the voice comes out. I don't know if I don't like it more than I am wondering why he changed the vocals around.

So of course being the inquisitive person I wanted to know if this was a "Late Show" thing or something Sam, the lead singer, does during most live performances. It turns out he does this voice during live performances. As seen in this entire concert video below.

There's more chest-pounding and Cookie Monster vocals. I will check out more of this band's music, simply because I'm really interested now. Maybe that's the point. Either way, wow, I didn't expect much of this live performance to work this way. Still, Seasons (Waiting for You) is a good song.

The Slow, Steady, Painfully Obvious Decline of "Dexter" and the Awful Series Finale

I could make this post 20,000 words long. There are so many low points of "Dexter" over the past---well, pretty much the entire run of the show except for the first season (which not coincidentally was the only season based nearly entirely on the source material in the books). I think most "Dexter" fans (if fans is even a word to use) would call this the low point of the series. What Tom Hanks has in acting chops, Colin Hanks lacked in that scene. "Dexter" has declined over the past eight seasons in nearly every aspect a television show can decline. The writing, creativity of the storylines, ability to surprise the audience, acting, and plot developments all declined dramatically. What's inexplicable to me is the audience did not decline dramatically. "Dexter" kept picking up new viewers even as the show continues to grow shittier and shittier. I say this, but week after week I watched the show and comment on just how much the show is declining, so I guess I am partially to blame. If you don't watch the show, Dexter is a serial killer who kills serial killers and is also a forensic tech for Miami Metro Police Department. If you didn't watch the show, just know that and move on with your life. I tend to get the seasons of "Dexter" confused since they all pretty much have the exact same formula of (spoilers to follow through the rest of the column), which I attribute to lazy writing:

1. We are introduced to someone who is a serial killer.

2. Dexter kills a person(s) who meet his "code" while investigating the serial killer. The "code" doesn't matter really other than to allow Dexter's dead father to show up periodically and ask idiotic questions and narrate what the viewer can already see is happening on-screen. Apparently if you die and come back as a ghost, you come back as a really stupid ghost that only communicates through exposition and serves only the purpose of stating the obvious.

3. The serial killer starts to slowly focus on Dexter and Dexter begins to wonder what intellectually and morality-wise separates him from the serial killer.

4. Someone at Miami Metro may possibly, sort of, but not really suspect Dexter of being a serial killer. Alas, the writers find a way for this person to not suspect him. More than likely, this person will be killed.

5. Dexter meets someone who likes to kill people or has a super-dark secret. He finds companionship in this person and this person is totally cool with Dexter being a serial killer because he only kills bad guys...except that one time Dexter didn't kill a bad guy...well and the two policeman that Dexter directly or indirectly killed who dared to out Dexter as a serial killer. 

6. A lot of boring shit happens that delays the inevitable showdown between Dexter and the big bad serial killer which results in the season being wrapped up in a nice little neat bow with none of the guest stars on that season coming back for the next season, except in very rare situations like when Hannah McKay was brought back since the writers were totally out of creative ideas for Season 8.

I don't know of a better way of detailing "Dexter's" decline other than to go season-by-season and rehash the plot and point out where the writing has declined and where the writing went horribly wrong. If I get the details about a season wrong, I'm sorry, but the seasons really start to run together for me. The very bottom line is this was a show about a serial killer who only kills bad people. Viewers love an anti-hero and a "good" serial killer is ripe for a good anti-hero where the writers and viewers can explore ethical nuances of being a "good" serial killer.

"But fuck that," said the creative team, "let's not raise and ethical nuances and just make Dexter an outright hero and always try to redeem him while treating all the normal people around him, whose lives he ruins like they are the scum of the Earth they are, in a shitty fashion. In fact, let's not even flesh out the supporting characters over 8 seasons. Good deal? Break! (claps hands together)"

The writers worship the character of Dexter and it ruined the show. He does no wrong, even when he is doing wrong. You can't take an anti-hero who kills people for pleasure and turn him into an outright hero. It just doesn't work. Every season the writers take pleasure in eliminating anyone who suspects Dexter of being a serial killer, whether by giving them amnesia (but not really giving them amnesia, they just sort of forget they suspected Dexter of being a serial killer) or killing them off. It reaches a point where the stakes aren't high because I know the writing team won't do anything negative to Dexter's character. If a show isn't going to be strong in terms of plot, it should at least be fun to watch. Unfortunately "Dexter" became neither.

Season 1:

This is without a doubt the best season of "Dexter." I remember first watching the show and really enjoying the mystery of who the Ice Truck Killer was (it was Dexter's brother), while also trying to figure out how I could cheer for a serial killer to save the day. The writing is tight, it makes sense as much as writing on television makes sense, and the mystery is compelling. The idea of a serial killer trying to make a life with a completely normal woman, Rita Bennett, while also being a completely abnormal person devoid of any humanity or ability to have human feelings for another person (outside of his sister Debra) was interesting to watch. Dexter Morgan is a really weird guy trying to navigate his way through the world. We learn more about Dexter and the code that was created by his father (and we later learn someone else contributed too, but this was one of many plot points on this show that just didn't matter) as to who Dexter should kill and avoid getting caught. This is a season where many of the supporting characters are actually given something to do that doesn't revolve around Dexter. For seemingly the rest of the series the characters have no important plot line that doesn't directly involve Dexter, which is one of the weaknesses of the series. So good job Season 1! You were a season that started with a universe around the main character and then that universe was severely reduced down to a universe of one character with a bunch of orbiting characters who only exist to further the one character's need.

Season 2:

This season focuses on Dexter's relationship with Rita, his affair with a lunatic (which will be the first of four times I am counting over the 8 seasons when Dexter has an affair with a lunatic...gotta keep going to that well if you are the writers) named Lila, and how Miami Metro was searching for the Bay Harbor Butcher who is none other than Dexter himself. Bodies were found in the ocean where Dexter dumped his victims (and then he continued to dump his victims in the ocean for the rest of the series despite the fact it was clear that was the Bay Harbor Butcher's m.o.---it doesn't fucking matter I guess, but it would just make sense that Dexter changed his method in disposing of bodies to avoid getting caught...which is something that would never happen because the writers can't accept Dexter being seen as wrong in his actions and therefore wouldn't dare have him get caught) and Miami Metro was searching for the person doing these killings.

At the time, I was a little disappointed in Season 2 of Dexter, but in retrospect it was one of the better seasons in the series. It does have a lot of the hallmarks that would later plague the series, mainly leaving supporting characters with very little to do. The exception to this rule was Debra, who always ended up traumatized by something Dexter had done, and basically just had to get over it because the writing team certainly didn't have time to look into any moral ambiguities about how Dexter lives his life. Sergeant Doakes suspected Dexter of being the Bay Harbor Butcher.  Frank Lundy was an FBI agent who specialized in serial killers and he was brought in. I liked his character, but of course much like any other character with an IQ above 94 he had the chance to eventually suspect Dexter of being a serial killer so he had to eventually die. I'm not asking for realism. It's a television show and isn't realistic simply because of that. I simply get frustrated when any character who gets in the way of Dexter's ultimate goal or would present an obstacle to Dexter never changing as a person is eliminated by the writing staff.

So Season 2 wasn't bad, though the ending still feels like a clusterfuck to me. Sergeant Doakes is killed while investigating Dexter, though not by Dexter because that would make Dexter a bad person and that can not happen. He is killed by Dexter's lover, Lila, who is killed by Dexter after serving her purpose to the plot of killing Doakes. LaGuerta (ANOTHER character who is killed in the process of showing the world Dexter is a serial killer) vows that Doakes is not the Bay Harbor Butcher as he was framed to be and vows she will get to the bottom of this...which she does five seasons later.

Season 3:

This is where the series started to go downhill and the "Villain of the Season" arc started to show some wear. This year "The Skinner" was the main antagonist and he was fairly forgettable. What I remember best about him is that he skinned people (there's a shock) and he attacked Debra's jazz boyfriend. Also, Dexter got married and found out he will be a father, both of which sound like really exciting premises the show could explore until the writing staff decided it's no fun to ground Dexter to the real world and seeing the effect of his actions on his family might make the audience not like Dexter, which meant Rita (Dexter's wife) had to die eventually and Dexter's son (Harrison) would essentially become an orphan, passed around to whoever was willing to take care of him so Dexter could continue murdering people.

Oh, and Jimmy Smits was on this season and became the annual "Person who finds out Dexter is a serial killer and doesn't give a shit and doesn't let it slip because then Dexter would have to account for his actions." Needless to say, to keep Dexter's secret Jimmy Smits' character had to die at Dexter's hand. But it's okay, because Smits' character liked killing which made him a bad person and it was all right for him to die. This is not to be confused with Dexter, who likes killing, but he's not a bad person because the writers don't want him to be. 

Season 4:

This is a redeemable season with a pretty generic bad guy played by the excellent John Lithgow. This is one of the few instances where excellent acting has overcome the increasingly horrendous writing on the show. Lithgow played "The Trinity Killer" who Dexter originally befriended (in a rare attempt by the writers to maintain tension throughout a season...what a concept!) and then Trinity figured out who Dexter was and that Dexter was a killer too, which of course meant despite the fact Trinity was an excellent character who could provide an antagonist popping up every once in a while to torment Dexter, he had to die. Plus, there is a rule in the writing room of "Dexter" that no antagonist can survive from one season to the next. The "Dexter" writers are so dedicated to keeping Dexter a character who is redeemable and wonderful, they even forsake pursing exciting and entertaining plot points so they don't ruin their hero main character. Of course, Dexter is an anti-hero to everyone who watches the show, but who cares about the viewers of "Dexter" and fuck them.

I would sum up what happens with the supporting characters, but they don't matter on "Dexter" and are only there to be increasingly stupid and ignore the fact everyone around Dexter dies a violent death. One exception is the writers brought back Frank Lundy from Season 2. Lundy was played by Keith Carradine and was a smart, interesting character. Naturally, because he is smart, he would have figured out Dexter was a serial killer so he had to die. See how these writers work? Smart people die because otherwise they would figure out Dexter for who he is and THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN. Nothing bad can ever happen to Dexter. Everyone around him has to suffer, but at no point should Dexter be forced to look on his own actions and how they hurt those around him.

(Just as a note, I enjoyed "Dexter" until Season 6, at which point I kept watching because I had already invested so much time in the show. Many of these revelations and comments I am making are a result of taking in the series as a whole, so I didn't have these feelings at the original time I watched the show...though I did notice a drop in quality)

Season 5:

Now that Dexter has been freed from the chains of having a wife (though he still has those pesky step-children and Harrison, his child with Rita), the show doesn't have to worry about character development for Dexter anymore. This is the season where Quinn, Debra's sometimes boyfriend when the plot called for it, suspected Dexter of Rita's death. Then, of course, Quinn drops it and never suspects Dexter again of being a killer. By the way, Quinn is a detective. Like he works for the police as a detective. He finds evidence, follows the evidence, and then is supposed to find out who is responsible for a crime. Quinn thinks Dexter knew the Trinity Killer and then drops it despite the fact the Trinity Killer is never found and a witness says a guy who looks a lot like Dexter was hanging out with the Trinity Killer. So yeah, a serial killer was on the loose, and Miami Metro Homicide lets it drop because no other killings match the Trinity Killer's m.o. and then one of the detectives suspects Dexter, then doesn't suspect Dexter because that's how the writers wrote the script. Damn logic.

Oh, in this season Julia Stiles was raped by a group of guys and Dexter helps her get revenge. She finds out who Dexter really is and then has to leave town in the finale because that's what the script called for. It's pretty forgettable. I am skipping parts for the supporting cast because there's very rarely anything notable to discuss. The "Dexter" writers are like parents who have a favorite child and they will not allow their other children to get in the way of their favorite.

Season 6:

This was the worst season of "Dexter." The only notable things to come out of this season, other than plot twists everyone saw coming, is the following:

1. Colin Hanks is not as good of a dramatic actor as his father.

2. Debra gets promoted to lieutenant and LaGuerta isn't happy about this, because LaGuerta's role on the show is to not be happy about things and then die once she finds out Dexter is a serial killer.

3. Debra sees Dexter kill the main antagonist of this season and finds out her brother (Dexter) is a serial killer.

4. Mos Def appeared. He was an interesting character that could have played a role in the series as an angel on Dexter's shoulder or caused him to question his life where he commits murders at a rapid pace. Needless to say the writers were not happy with a moral character who would in any way question Dexter, so Mos Def had to die, which made Dexter really, really sad until he was no longer sad and moved on with his life.

5. A forensics tech who is obsessed with serial killers starts working at Miami Metro. He could be the main villain for Dexter the next season since he seems to know Dexter's brother was the Ice Truck Killer in Season 1. He's smart and always one step ahead of Dexter. Then Dexter kills the tech in the first episode of Season 7 because fuck dramatic tension. 

Season 7:

This season started off promising after Debra found out that Dexter was a serial killer. She struggled to accept it, but eventually the writers got tired of Dexter not being the hero they wanted him to be and decided they would get back to their "Villain of the season" arc. This season the villain was a Ukrainian mob boss and Hannah McKay, a female serial killer who Dexter falls in love with. This is the season where LaGuerta decided she wanted to avenge Doakes death in Season 2 because she found a blood slide at a crime scene similar to a blood slide the Bay Harbor Butcher used (it was found near to where Dexter had killed Colin Hanks' character) and this reminded her to avenge Doakes' death.

Anyway, Dexter becomes friends (more like they were brief frienemies) with the Ukrainian mob boss and Hannah McKay eventually skips town. Then LaGuerta figures out Dexter is a serial killer and the Bay Harbor Butcher, which means she has to die. She is killed because Debra shoots her. One would think the next season (which was the final season) would be a season of soul-searching for Dexter about how his actions have caused his sister to kill a policewoman in cold blood, while Miami Metro desperately searches for who really killed LaGuerta. One would be wrong. Miami Metro builds a bench to honor LaGuerta and then forgets about her completely because if they remembered LaGuerta and investigated her death then they could figure out Dexter is a serial killer, and again, THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN. Not even in the final season. It's a tough position for the writers to be in. How to create dramatic tension when they have no interest in creating dramatic tension that could negatively affect Dexter.

Season 8:

Debra is sad about killing LaGuerta. She has quit as a policeman and is now a private investigator. Batista (have I even mentioned him yet? He's a character who spent 8 seasons on the show and didn't really do much of importance) quit to open a restaurant and has magically sold his restaurant and is back on the police force. It all doesn't matter because this season could have been wrapped up in a two hour finale and covered as much material as the twelve episodes did. Let me talk about the series finale, which was the worst season finale I have ever seen. Easily the worst. The writing was just so unbelievably bad and somehow the finale made me feel stupid for watching the rest of the series. In fact, the entire last season which moved slow, had no dramatic tension, no developments that entice viewers to keep watching, just sort of rambled to an end. Season 8 was a "fuck you" to the fans of "Dexter" for watching the show. A series finale is supposed to be one last chance to see the characters you have been watching for a few seasons and to see what happens to them. A good series finale leaves you satisfied and sad the show is over with hints about the world of the show once the viewer leaves it ("The Wire"), a great series finale does that by ratcheting up the tension and making the show thrilling to the end ("The Sopranos," "The Shield," and "Breaking Bad") and a great series finale that doesn't require tension still causes you to miss the characters and gives you a reason to keep watching because you care so much about the characters and rewards you for caring ("Six Feet Under"). The series finale should leave a viewer saying, "I'm really, really glad I watched that show." "Dexter" did the exact opposite of that for me. The viewer didn't get to see what happened to the supporting cast after the series ended. I mean, the writers gave supporting characters season-long arcs and then just dropped them in the finale because that's how bad the writing was. So who knows what happened to Masuka and his newfound daughter? Why would the viewers care about a character they have watched for eight seasons when that character's arc is simply dropped in the finale?

(As a note, the last six minutes of "Six Feet Under" absolutely nailed how that series should have ended. If you have seen the show, go back and watch the last six minutes again. That last six minutes messed me up for a while, but in a good way. At the two minute mark I realized "Oh fuck, they are doing this aren't they?" It was brutal, but again, in a good way. I mean, Nate running to catch up with the car...that was a pretty strong small part in itself but only led to a stronger set of scenes, like David seeing Keith again...you know, I'm going to move on now...)

So Hannah McKay has come back to town in the finale and she and Dexter are leaving with Harrison to move to Argentina. Except Dexter won't leave until he has killed "The Brain Surgeon," (he was the big bad for Season 8) despite the fact "The Brain Surgeon" confronted Dexter and said, "Leave me alone and I will leave you alone." This sounds like a great idea considering Dexter was moving to fucking Argentina, but because the plot required it, Dexter stayed in town (and a hurricane is coming because weather is scary) to kill him. Dexter is ready to kill "The Brain Surgeon" when he realizes he doesn't want to kill anymore. So he leaves "The Brain Surgeon" on the table, doesn't kill him, and then has Debra arrest him (oh, she's back on the force because she is back on the force). Except a US Marshall looking for Hannah McKay lets "The Brain Surgeon" loose in the two minutes since Dexter left the room and "The Brain Surgeon" kills the Marshall and shoots Debra. That's where we are at the beginning of the finale.

Debra is okay and says it isn't Dexter's fault she got shot. Mind you, she killed a co-worker in cold blood because Dexter is a serial killer and she just got shot in the gut because her brother who has killed hundreds of people decides on a whim he is done killing, while leaving a serial killer strapped up alone in a room for Debra to arrest alone. What's the harm in killing one more person so you don't leave your sister alone with a serial killer? These are questions I would have asked Dexter if I were Debra, but she says it's not his fault she got shot, despite the fact it clearly is. The writers need us to know that Dexter is not a bad person, so his sister (who hated Dexter and tried to kill Dexter six episodes early) forgives him for getting her shot. Long story short, Debra dies eventually, but not before telling Dexter to go follow Hannah to Argentina, which Dexter doesn't do because he has decided he wants to kill "The Brain Surgeon" again. So Dexter sends Hannah and Harrison to Argentina without him so he can kill "The Brain Surgeon (TBS from now on)." At no point does Hannah say,

"Wait, so you had me stay in Miami for two extra days, while running the risk of getting caught by a US Marshall, so that you could come with us to Argentina after killing TBS? Then after spending extra days with me in hiding you decide you DON'T want to kill TBS and your sister gets shot and dies because of this. You endangered the two of the three people you claim to love to kill a guy that you decide you really don't want to kill after all? Then, as we are leaving to move to Argentina you decide you want to kill this guy again and leave me alone to go to Argentina with your son?"

Hannah doesn't ask this because it would show the shoddy writing and logic used, as well as reflect negatively on Dexter. Anyway, Dexter kills TBS in front of a camera, which Miami Metro covers up for him because they are shitty at their job already and may as well just start becoming corrupt, and then sneaks his sister's body out of the hospital. Because sneaking bodies out of a hospital is really easy when you can park your boat at the exit. Yes, Dexter parked his boat the hospital exit and then carried a dead body out of the hospital without anyone noticing. Dexter then dumps his sister's body in the ocean at the same spot he dumped the bodies of hundreds of criminals after he killed them and then drives into the storm because he realizes he has caused so many problems for people he loves and it would be better to saddle Hannah with Harrison and make Harrison an actual orphan than to continue being around them. Yes, he is self-aware he hurts others and corrects this by continuing to hurt others.

So Dexter is dead, Hannah is sad, except it turns out Dexter faked his death and we see in the final scene he became a lumberjack. Yes, Dexter became a fucking lumberjack. So the need to kill is still there presumably, he just has caused the woman he claims to love to believe he is dead while orphaning his son. This was after Dexter got his sister killed by not killing the same kind of serial killer he had killed without remorse for eight seasons. Dexter is the hero of the story by the way.

It was the worst series finale ever and made me regret watching the show. The final scene was basically the writers taking a shit all over the audience and laughing. "Dexter" is a great example of a television show whose writers fell in love with the main character and continued to coast on the ratings while providing a continuously inferior product to the viewer. The writers ignored dramatic tension and served up a rambling, mediocre last season simply because they could. Maybe the viewers are stupid for watching the show. I know I sure feel dumb for sticking through it and wish I had never watched the show from the beginning. Let's just say I am worried about Season Three of "Homeland" now. Season 2 had a dip in quality and it could very well take the same track that "Dexter" ended up taking. It takes a super-shitty show to cause a viewer to worry about the writing and content of other shows on that same network.

Four Reasons Some People May Be Disappointed in the Season 4 "Arrested Development" Episodes

I have been reading some complaints about Season 4 of "Arrested Development" in comments online. I was responsible for a few of these complaints myself on Twitter after watching the first two episodes. I didn't think they were up to the previous standard set by Seasons 1-3 of "Arrested Development." I haven't changed my mind completely, but now that I have watched the majority of Season 4 I can see why some people are disappointed in a way by Season 4. I think there are four reasons some people have been disappointed and it isn't entirely the show's fault, but some reasons for the public's disappointment are the fault of the show. Don't get me wrong, I have really enjoyed the majority of the episodes, and comparing Season 4 to Seasons 1-3 is probably going to be a losing battle. Seasons 1-3 were superior television and it isn't easy to duplicate these seasons. It's probably near impossible. I think there are four reasons the new season of "Arrested Development" could not measure up to Seasons 1-3 and these could be a few of the reasons some fans have been disappointed. 

1. These episodes are only intended to be a prologue to a movie

The reason Mitchell Hurwitz did Season 4 of "Arrested Development" is because he is intent on doing an "Arrested Development" movie. He found it too difficult to catch viewers up with what each of the major characters had been doing in a short span of time when writing the movie, so he decided it made sense to do an entire season to catch the viewers up on the Bluth family's adventures since we last saw them at the end of Season 3. So a lot of Season 4 consists of catching up with the characters and furthering the plot at the same time. It sounds easy to do, but 5-6 years time for each character must be covered in a 30-something minute episode. It can be quite difficult to cover a lot of time plot-wise and still maintain the situational comedy. Granted, "Arrested Development" isn't entirely a situational comedy, but a lot of the comedy comes from situations and dialogue that exists between two or more characters. The show has to speed up to catch up with the characters while also slowing down enough to maintain the humor of an ostrich running around loose in a room or a swarm of bees stinging a group of people. Therein lies a lot of the reason why I think Hurwitz chose to do each character's plot separate from each other. It allows time to fill in the narrative, but also jokes that don't seem like much in the first place can turn into a punchline down the road. The jokes begin to accumulate and make more sense as the season wore on. Basically Hurwitz has his cake and eats it too, but potentially at the expense of the audience being lost initially. Of course with a dedicated audience like "Arrested Development" seems to have, Hurwitz knows they will wait a couple of episodes for the punchline to come.

So these Season 4 episodes serve as the beginning to what (hopefully) will be a movie. The purpose of these episodes seem to be to catch the audience up on what the Bluth family has been up to. I'm not a writer, but I imagine it is hard to further the narrative over a few years while still giving enough time for running jokes and situational comedy.

2. The production schedule

One of the issues with getting all of the actors back for Season 4 of "Arrested Development" is none of the actors are essentially committed to the series anymore. They have other acting jobs that are more permanent, so they weren't all available at the same time to shoot the episodes. So the actors each ended up having their own episodes that almost feel too character-specific heavy to be "Arrested Development." We get 37 minutes of Lindsay Bluth in one episode, partly because Portia de Rossi's schedule did not necessarily allow for her to shoot scenes with the other principal actors. It's sort of like if Led Zeppelin promised a reunion album, but first we had to listen to each band member (minus John Bonham of course) do a solo album. Obviously this isn't the best analogy, but we have to learn about each principal character on their own before we get to see them shoot a movie where they will (hopefully) interact with each other more. The production schedule and the actor's availability prevented the episodes from featuring all of the principal cast members in all 15 episodes. So what we have are essentially 15 episodes which feature one specific actor/actress in each episode with cameo drop-ins from the other principal cast members. It's sort of not fulfilling to watch at times because I don't personally care to watch 37 minutes of Lindsay Bluth and then 34 minutes of Tobias in back-to-back episodes. It's what the production schedule called for though and so that's what we got. This leads me to my next point. 

3. The strength of the series is the characters can't carry an entire episode

The strength of "Arrested Development" isn't in the single characters of the show. Each character has attributes many people find to be funny. Michael is sarcastic, G.O.B. is an idiot who makes bad decisions, and so it goes. These attributes work very well together when the family interacts with each other. The problem lies in Season 4 of "Arrested Development" when you take these characters away from interacting with each other and make them single characters in a 30 minute long story. Yes, as I said above, the production schedule necessitated this, but the strength of "Arrested Development" lies in each of the characters interacting and playing off of each other and that wasn't able to happen as much during Season 4. Tobias' character works well when he is the comedy to Michael Bluth's straight man (no pun intended). Tobias can feel like just another closeted homosexual actor wannabe when his story isn't combined in some part with Lindsay or his latest adventure takes up a good portion of the screen time. His antics don't get old, but they tend to wear on the viewer and aren't quite as funny when put on screen in a 30-plus minute episode. Don't get me wrong, his story is still somewhat enjoyable, but it's more fun to have members of the Bluth family pop up and play off of each other rather than have to carry their own storylines for a full episode.

Isn't that what makes an ensemble comedy so great? It's not the individual characters, but how the parts of the characters as individuals don't add up to as much as the parts of the ensemble as a whole. Unfortunately, "Arrested Development" isn't the Avengers. They all aren't strong characters on their own who come together for one great purpose or carry an entire movie or episode. Their great purpose is for each of these characters together and being together while playing off each other makes them exciting and funny to watch. One of the major issues I had with Season 4 (and again, it was really good to have them back) was these characters I really enjoyed weren't always in the same room or plot line as each other. Lucille and George Bluth are funny characters, but they also need grounded characters like Michael Bluth to play off of each other. So I think a lot of the problems that some had with the show had to do with the characters of "Arrested Development" not always being in the same room as each other. The so-called "magic" during Seasons 1-3 had to do with these characters being around and interacting with each other and Season 4 didn't always allow for that to happen. So that could be disappointing for some fans watching the new episodes.

4. Nostalgia hurts the new episodes

My wife and I used G.O.B.'s theme for his magic act, "The Final Countdown" by the band Europe as the entrance song at our wedding reception. I love the show. I still say "Arrested Development" quotes at times and it's one of my favorite shows of all-time. So to an extent, the new episodes just simply weren't going to match up with my memories of the show. I don't want to project my feelings onto other people, but I have a feeling this goes for others as well. A lot of really good comedies aren't entirely funny until they have been re-watched a few times and the jokes start to sink in a little bit more. That was the case for Seasons 1-3 and could be the case sooner or later for Season 4. I do like "Arrested Development" and Mitchell Hurwitz didn't try to replicate the past or continuously use old jokes in the new episodes. There were callbacks, but not as many callbacks as could have been forced into the episodes. This was a good and bad thing. It was good because I have a feeling time may be more kind to the show when the new jokes start to take hold on the fans. It's a bad thing because fans could see Season 4 as a new show with new jokes, where the characters don't interact with each other, and the episode format doesn't feel as connected to the Seasons 1-3. But again, "Arrested Development" has pretty dedicated fans who probably won't mind giving the show the time necessary over the 15 episodes. It's not like these new episodes were made for casual fans of the show anyway.

I think the nostalgia for the earlier episodes (me included) hurts Season 4 a bit. It's almost like nothing was going to live up to the memories I have of the original three seasons. It's not fair, but it's also not very good writing to simply tell the same jokes that have already been told. I'm glad the writers didn't go in that direction, but Season 4 probably wasn't going to live up to my memories. I think if I am patient with Season 4 I could learn to like it as much as I have loved Seasons 1-3. Well maybe, but I think I will end up enjoying Season 4 of "Arrested Development" the most when some enterprising person edits all 15 episodes into 22 shorter episodes with each character's story mixed in together so that each episode doesn't focus on just one character. I'm betting it happens and it's probably not a terrible idea to give it a try. Of course, having any "Arrested Development" to watch beats the alternative.

"Chasing It": Where Good Writers and Directors Go Bad

"The Sopranos" is probably one of my favorite television shows of all-time. The worst episode during the "The Sopranos" run was undoubtedly "Chasing It." That's my opinion of course, but if this were the first episode of the show I watched then I probably would not have watched the rest of the series. It's not that it is bad, plot-wise, but it is bad in that the writing is just so terribly inconsistent, lazy, and completely different from anything other episodes in the series. I remember watching this episode and wondering how I happened to watch a "Sopranos" episode that was so disconnected from the rest of the series. I didn't recognize some of the characters and their motives didn't make sense. Mostly, I am talking about the detour of Tony Soprano into a hardcore gambler, which I feel was contrary to the Tony Soprano we had come to know over the previous/following 80+ episodes. Major spoilers ahead, naturally.

What's even more interesting to me is this episode was directed by Tim Van Patten who has directed every really, really good HBO show at some point (Game of Thrones, Deadwood, Sex and the City---I know...women liked it and the show was well-made, The Wire, The Pacific, Boardwalk Empire) and he helped write the script for my favorite "Sopranos" episode ever, "Pine Barrens." The guy knows how to direct. Then to make matters worse Matthew Weiner wrote this episode. He executive produced, and is the head-writer and show-runner for "Mad Men," a show that is known for being very well-written. He wrote for "The Sopranos" and he's always seemed like an excellent writer to me. Yet, he is responsible for the worst sack-of-shit script in the history of "The Sopranos." How can that be? I can't answer that. What I can do is point out the inconsistencies and why this is the worst episode in the history of the "Sopranos" series.

Some background on this episode for those who don't recall "The Sopranos" episodes by heart, and really, only losers like me probably do. "Chasing It" was the fourth episode of Season 6 Part 2 (the reason this wasn't Season 7 makes sense only to only HBO and possibly some accountants, since I am assuming there was a financial reason of sorts to not call the last nine episodes of the series Season 7 instead of Season 6 Part 2). The previous episode was "Remember When" where Tony realized he hates Paulie, but keeps him around because Paulie showers him with great gifts like a new cappuccino maker. Tony was becoming more and more narcissistic and separated from his captains and the rest of his New Jersey crew. Through the entire previous episode it appears Tony wants to kill Paulie and there are flashbacks and callbacks to previous hits Tony and his crew had performed through the series as if Paulie is destined for death by Tony's hand. Tony doesn't kill Paulie, but Tony is still only out for himself. That's always clear. The turn Tony takes in "Chasing It" still doesn't make sense in the context of this previous episode. Here are my issues with this episode:

1. Tony becomes a degenerate gambler in "Chasing It." Tony has always hated degenerate gamblers and he has never shown that he could somehow have a gambling addiction or problems with money as it relates to gambling. Part of Tony's business is to take advantage of others who need money and then weasel his way into their business by becoming a "partner" in the business and eventually sucking the life out of that business. There is even a storyline in Season 2 where Tony allows a sporting goods owner with a gambling problem play a high-roller game of poker until he is severely in debt (the sporting goods owner is played by Robert Patrick). Then Tony destroys his business, ruins his professional and personal life, and the guy eventually completely moves to the other side of the country. The point is that Tony is a huge hypocrite, but he never showed the propensity for becoming addicted to gambling or chasing after gambling wins during the entire run of the show, except for this episode. Season 4 finds him getting very involved in horse racing, but only because he thinks he is good at picking horses, he wants to fuck with Ralphie's cash flow (if you haven't watched the show I won't explain this because you are probably already really lost), and because he is infatuated with animals. Tony never has a gambling problem before or after "Chasing It."

2. Nancy Sinatra makes a cameo appearance signing a song that (surprise!) just happened to be on the latest CD she was releasing. Her serenading of Phil Leotardo was disturbing in nearly every sense of the word. It felt tacked-on and a cheap way to promote her new CD. This show needs to be better than this. This was worse than David Lee Roth showing up at a poker game or Eric Mangini happening to be eating at the same restaurant as Tony Soprano.

3. Tony wants to use $300,000 of the profit from Carmela's spec house sale to fund a "sure thing" gamble because the kicker for an NFL team is injured and the backup kicker (more on this in a minute) is starting. She denies this request for Tony to use his half of the money and then they later get in a very heated exchange. Wikipedia says they eventually reconcile, but I don't remember it that way exactly. It seems like their reconciliation takes place off screen and I don't remember them actually having a reconciliation. This further speaks to the bizarre nature of this episode in that I don't recall Tony and Carmela ever making up. What's worse is that for a show that is always doing callbacks and different characters are holding anger or grudges over entire seasons, in the very next episode ("Walk Like a Man") Tony and Carmela are perfectly fine with each other. It's like the incredibly heated exchange just never happened and not in the "it never happened" way that Carmela and Tony usually treat events, but like it really never happened. The first time I watched "Chasing It" I felt like I was dreaming and this wasn't the real "Sopranos" episode for the week. I can't explain the feeling. Then in the next episode A.J. started whining more and in the episode after that Tony kills Christopher. It was a rough three weeks for me. This episode was like being drunk and trying to watch "The Sopranos" for the first time. It didn't make sense to me.

4. It's even more telling the worst part of this episode where Tony is given an addiction he has never had before is the description of the sports games Tony is gambling on. At least get the details right, which Matthew Weiner failed to do. So along with making Tony addicted to gambling, about 10 minutes of research went into detailing the type of gambling Tony was participating in. Here are the errors in this episode in regard to gambling and sports:

-An NFL team was starting its backup kicker. NFL teams don't have a backup kicker unless it is the punter. If an NFL team has an injured kicker they will replace that kicker with a free agent kicker during the week between games and most likely not replace the place kicker with the punter. Also, "a rookie kicker?" It's such a lazy bit of writing. Teams don't have backup kickers and starting a rookie kicker wouldn't change the line as much as Tony claims the line changed. Eventually, the game was a blowout, which means the kicker had nothing to do with the team winning or losing, unless he missed seven field goals in the game.

-Anyone who watched Seinfeld knows the Puerto Rican Day Parade takes place during the summer. A.J. was broken up with (very randomly I might add) at this parade, and yet, the NFL games that Tony was betting on took place during the Fall. How long does it take when writing a script to ensure that two events you are portraying in the show take place at the same time as each other? Apparently this research takes longer than Matthew Weiner had to turn this script in.

-To make matters worse, Tony bets on an NBA game (which one I don't recall), which also takes place during the Fall/Winter/Spring months, so the Puerto Rican Day Parade would not take place during these months. A little research is all I ask.

-When they show Buffalo-Tampa Bay playing on television, neither team has even close to the uniform color the teams have in real life. Again, it's small, but when the entire storyline of Tony becoming addicted to gambling revolves around these bets, shouldn't the bets come off as somewhat realistic? It's bad enough the viewer has to accept that Tony has randomly become a gambling addict.

5. Hesh, who is an advisor to Tony and was also an advisor to Tony's father, has a girlfriend apparently. We've never met her, but they appear to really love each other. Naturally, because we just met her she ends up dying at the end of the episode. Tony then pays Hesh back some money he owed Hesh (you know, because Tony is now the one who has to take out loans rather than playing the role of the loan shark that he had played during the entire series run) and isn't sensitive enough to Hesh's girlfriend dying. Tony is a mean person seems to be the lesson. In defense of Tony and the audience, this girlfriend is just thrust upon us all simply to die. She isn't a character but a plot point. So it's hard for the audience, and therefore Tony, to feel great sympathy for Hesh since we never met this girlfriend of his prior to this episode.

6. Then there is the storyline where A.J.'s girlfriend (Blanca) breaks up with him and this begins a downward spiral where he goes from a useless, annoying character in the background to a useless, annoying character in the forefront. The show always played the "surrogate son" role better with Christopher than it played Tony's relationship with his own son. A.J. went from an example of Tony Soprano having to deal with personal bullshit caused by his family to a character the writers often had no clue what to do with. The same thing went for Meadow's character. She would show up randomly and go to the pool or warn Tony and Carmela that A.J. was depressed and then exit stage-left for the rest of the episode. A.J. eventually tried to kill himself after Blanca breaks up with him, but this storyline is a great example of the show not knowing when to get rid of characters who had outlived their usefulness for plotting purposes (Dr. Melfi is another great example).

I read the AV Club for most reviews of television shows and here is a review of this episode that semi-defends it's presence in the television universe. I can't defend this episode's presence since the main premise, Tony's gambling, runs counter (in my mind) to everything we have learned about him. Here's what a generous "B+" review of the show says about "Chasing It." And yes, I am sort of reviewing a review of a television show. And another yes, I usually really like how Todd VanDerWerff reviews television shows. I just think he graded this one incorrectly.

Of the nine episodes that make up the final batch of The Sopranos, “Chasing It” is the only one that I’ve heard even mild criticism for from the show’s fan base. 

These complaints are based on the fact this episode portrays Tony Soprano in a way the series never had portrayed him until point. I'm not even including the whole "waste of our time" component where the show is six episodes from ending and we get an episode that barely moves the main plot ahead.

Indeed, it’s quite a good episode of The Sopranos.

If "good" is defined as "shoddily researched," "poorly plotted," and "takes the main character and changes his personality for one episode-only" then this is definitely a good episode.

The chief criticism of the episode is that Tony would never have gotten involved this deeply in gambling. (Indeed, at one point earlier in the show’s run, he cautions against how gambling can take over your life and make you do stupid things.)

Tony several times cautions against how gambling can take over a person's life. He was prone to hypocrisy, but he was always the loan shark not the other guy taking the loan. That was the entire character of Tony Soprano. He was a shark who ruined people's lives around him and rarely ruined his own life. He would not have gotten this deep into gambling because it goes against his character. In the words of Jason Segel, that's the only argument I need. Tony isn't a degenerate gambler. He makes his money off other degenerate gamblers.

This is a criticism I’ve never bought.

Well, pony up some cash because you gotta buy it. Tony is the one who makes money off gamblers, not the one who gets deep into gambling debt.

The show has so successfully established that at this point, the Tony who survived being shot by Uncle Junior is a rasher, more impulsive Tony that I largely buy his giving in to this particular vice.

True, except for the fact his impulse in the previous episode was to kill Paulie and he didn't act on his impulses. In the very next episode Christopher rails on his own father, Dickie, for being a drunk and drug addict and Tony just lets Christopher criticize his dead father even though Dickie was Tony's hero. Tony loved Dickie Moltisanti and he allows Christopher to call him a druggie and drunk. If Tony were impulsive he wouldn't have let these words stand. In addition, in the same episode Tony sits Christopher down and talks to him about how he needs to stay on top of his crew and stop being frequently absent because people are noticing. There were beefs erupting because Christopher wasn't around enough. Rather than knocking the shit out of Christopher, Tony sits down and talks to him. Tony also doesn't beat the shit out of his son and gives him time to bust out of the funk he is in after Blanca broke up with him. Tony even allows Carmela to convince him that therapy is a good idea for A.J. despite the fact Tony doesn't think much of his own therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi and had a bad experience when Meadow (their daughter) went to therapy during an episode. Meadow's therapist tried to convince her to drop out of college and this pissed Tony off.

So Tony is impulsive and more rash, but he's only more impulsive and more rash when it serves the purposes of the writers. That's part of my problem with "Chasing It" and that's why I never buy Tony would give in to this particular vice of gambling. He's supposedly more impulsive, but he is only impulsive in regard to matters he has always been impulsive on...of which gambling isn't included.

Plus, look at the things he’s wagering: The horse he bets on in the race is named “Meadow’s Gold,” something he considers a lucky omen, even if said horse eventually loses. Tony is betting that he’s built up such a large lead that the universe can never come calling,

While part of this may be true, this one bet isn't what got him in gambling trouble. It was a string of bad gambles that I find outside of his character.

that his survival—and, indeed, his continuing to thrive—is a “sure thing,” as sure as that Chargers quarterback with the hairline fracture in his leg going down.

While I can buy this, Tony has never shown any interest in gambling on football prior to this, other than to find out how much Paulie/Christopher were making per week that could be kicked into his own pocket. Again, gambling was a source of income for Tony, not a vice. It always had been that way until this episode came around.

If those first 12 episodes are about a man who desperately tries to change, who tries to hold off his own worst impulses to become something “better” (whatever that means for Tony Soprano), then these last nine episodes are about how that man, having realized how much less exciting it is to be that responsible adult and to commit himself to his marriage and the prospect of change, cycles into self-destruction.

I perceive these episodes the same way, but it doesn't change the fact Tony's gambling addiction is a one episode addiction. It shows up and disappears in one episode. He isn't cycling into self-destruction, but the writers are randomly assigning him a self-destructive behavior for one episode only and then moving on. A person doesn't cycle into self-destructive gambling and then just magically stop without some major change in attitude or invention, neither of which Tony undergoes.

In that sense, a gambling problem is incredibly appropriate: Tony Soprano is gambling with his life, and he’s building up a bigger and bigger debt to the house. 

It's incredibly not appropriate because it is a temporary cycle of self-destruction motivated by what the writers want and not caused by any character development. I can buy cycles of self-destruction, but the cycles must continue to be believed and not resolved magically in a single episode.

Hesh, more than anyone, understands how deeply Tony could be burying himself with gambling and his lifestyle. (At one point, he rants to his girlfriend, Renata, about the cost of Tony’s boat, which is massive.) Yet Tony doesn’t want to hear it. He’s not interested in the ways he could be dooming himself, not when there’s a great big present to go out and live in.

So where does this Tony that is deeply burying himself in gambling go after this episode? He pays Hesh back and then this deeply indebted Tony disappears and goes back to the Tony Soprano we know from the other 85 episodes.

Throughout, he keeps coming up with new funds, then losing them on bets. What he’s doing here isn’t really addiction, per se, nor is he really desperate to find a way back to solvency. 

So Tony has a gambling problem (as acknowledged above), but not an addiction? I'm sure there is a difference but I fail to understand it. It's still a new Tony Soprano for one episode.

He promised Marie he’d help out where he could, but he bristles at giving her the substantial sum it would cost to go to Maine, both because his gambling losses would make a payout of $100,000 hurt more than usual, and because he just doesn’t care all that much, beyond the theoretical. I really do believe in an earlier season, Tony would have hemmed and hawed and eventually given Marie that money. (Then again, in an earlier season, he wouldn’t have lost so much gambling.)

Because it wasn't in his nature to develop a gambling problem. Tony never had a gambling problem before or after this episode. See the issue? The gambling is just a random character issue the writers lazily threw into one episode. VanDerWerff knows this episode has an inconsistent characterization of Tony Soprano even if he can't admit it. It's such lazy writing on the part of Matthew Weiner.

This is still an okay episode of "The Sopranos" (it's just a great show), but I can't pretend it is well-written or doesn't have major flaws simply because it is probably my favorite show. There's no defending this episode and I have always been surprised critics don't absolutely hate it. I don't hate it (because I love the show), but the characterization and writing is shit. Some would disagree with me I guess.