Every Time I Die have been one of my favorite bands for quite a few years now. I heard their party anthem "The New Black" in the latter years of junior high, and began listening to them quite frequently. I loved that they embraced their party side in fun songs such as "The New Black" and "We'rewolf" and also showed their muscle in such hardcore staples "We've Been Gone A Long Time" and "Kill The Music." They are certainly a band that has their own style, and they embrace it, which should be an inspiration for other bands.
Here is a track-by-track review, followed by a album review as a whole at the end:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) "Underwater Bimbos From Outer Space"
Count on ETID to name their first song something so outrageous that you assume it's going to be goofy. Unfortunately, you're dead wrong in assuming that. "Underwater Bimbos From Outer Space" is a hardcore song through-and-through, from the opening screaming vocals "I want to be dead with my friends" to the killer riffs that end the song. This song really sets a precedent for the rest of the album, which is that it'll be fast, punky, and cutthroat: everything I've ever wanted from them.
2.) "Holy Book Of Dilemma"
This track continues the punk attitude, and delivers it with a swinging hardcore vibrato that only ETID can do. This song definitely brings the ferocity, and I'm fairly certain that I heard a double kick part or two in there. This track definitely brings back memories of ETID's first two albums, "Burial Plot Bidding War" and "Hot Damn!" which were hardcore classics. This song only weighs in at about 1:49, so it's short and to-the-point, but definitely worth checking out.
3.) "A Wild, Shameless Plain"
This song is another short one, clocking in at about 1:49 as well, but it has a hardcore swagger that refuses to be ignored. ETID brought their abstract element to certain parts of this song, such as a small guitar track here or there, but this is another hardcore rager.
4.) "Typical Miracle"
This song has a punk-inspired intro, which quickly transforms into one of vocalist Keith Buckley's best screaming efforts. This song sounds something similar to something you would have heard off of the most recent Bronx album, in terms of punk-fused-hardcore, but it's definitely another one worth listening to. Guitarists Jordan Buckley and Andy Williams have a field day on this one in terms of tempo-change, but it's yet another short one at only 2:25.
5.) "I Suck {Blood}"
The first noticeable thing about this song is the drumming, which is fast and to-the-point, and it's definitely new drummer Ryan Leger's coming out party, featuring several double-bass moments and fast-paced tempos previously unheard of in ETID's history. It follows in the same veins as the original songs in term of structure, but is a little longer (nearly 3 minutes) but features a very sing-along-worthy chorus and a breakdown that almost dares you to headbang or air drum along.
6.) "Partying Is Such Sweet Sorrow"
This is the ETID I fell in love with. Fueled by a banjo intro, the song quickly develops into a Southern-inspired party anthem, very similar to something that would have been heard on their most accessible album to date, "The Big Dirty." However, this song is anything from being "soft." Several hardcore-inspired breakdowns mark the middle and the end of the song, but it's definitely a beer-swilling song if I've heard one.
7.) "The Low Road Has No Exits"
Jordan Buckley and Andy Williams have yet another field day, and this song is probably the most intense song, guitar-wise, ETID have ever written. The speed in the tremolo picking is something that quickly grabs your attention, as it's something this band have never been known for. This is yet another rager of a song, noticeable for the creepy near-silence of the end, which sounds something similar to a musical version of the aliens from the movie "Signs."
8.) "Revival Mode"
This song sounds like something that would have been on Keith Buckley's side project, The Damned Things, as it's more similar to that band it's not as intense as anything else on this album. However, this does not mean it's a bad song, at all. It's slightly less-tempo, but has a creepy swagger to it that ETID hasn't ever embraced. This is my pick for stripper anthem of the year.
9.) "Drag King"
I was anticipating this song more than any of the others, simply because previous reviews I had read hyped it to no end. Did it live up to the hype? YES. The first half is noticeable for having the muscle that ETID showed on their last album, "New Junk Aesthetic," fueled by shearing vocals and cutthroat tempo changes; while the second half is melodic as all get-go, with soaring background vocals and the soothe crooning of Keith Buckley.
10.) "Touch Yourself"
Quite a provocative song title, no? Unfortunately, the song isn't as sexy as you'd think. It's instead the most "punk-ish" song on the album, and sounds like a song from "Hot Damn!" wrapped up in the great production of "New Junk Aesthetic." Keith Buckley seemingly doesn't breathe throughout this entire track, and his voice sounds as vicious as ever.
11.) "Indian Giver"
Easily the most abstract song on the album, which I guess is good for an album closer. This song is noticeable for differentiating between their hardcore punch and a eerie, spacy rub. The chorus, mid-section, and finale all carry forth a David Bowie-inspired sound, which is really what sets this song apart from the rest. I'd have to say it's their most epic song, in terms of branching out, and ends things on an unsettling note, which is a good thing in my book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocals:
Keith Buckley has never sounded better, if you ask me. The production on his last release, The Damned Things, didn't do his voice justice in terms of the mix, and this album puts his voice front and center (where it should be),without alienating the other instruments. His screams have never sounded more cutthroat and vicious, while his singing voice has never been in more of a hardcore-inspired Frank Sinatra croon.
Guitars:
While this album features very little in terms of flashy solos, the guitarists Andy Williams and Jordan Buckley definitely get their due. Songs such as "The Low Road Has No Exit" and "Partying Is Such Sweet Sorrow" feature things they've never shown off before, such as fast tremolo-picking and banjo playing (for crying out loud). The cuts between tempos in a song has never sounded better than on this album, and the two play not only well off of each other, but also off of the given song. Also, the groove in the riffs on this album is something that they haven't experienced (in my book) since "Gutter Phenomenon."
Bass:
Since bassist Josh Newton left a few months ago, it doesn't surprise me that the bass is turned down in the album mix. I can't remember hearing a second of uninterrupted bass, which isn't disappointing in the slightest: ETID has always been about big guitars and soaring vocals, and the bass has never played an important part on any of the albums.
Drums:
Although I loved former drummer Michael "Ratboy" Novak, and was sad to see him go, new drummer Ryan Leger definitely earned the ETID Seal Of Approval. He brought an intensity to the skins that hasn't been seen in the band (ever), and added much to their hardcore sound. Major props to the new guy for stepping up and adding something new to the band!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Album:
I loved this album. It seems to be a direct follow-up to "New Junk Aesthetic," and honestly sounds like a mixture of that album and "Hot Damn!" Besides a few songs, this album is nothing but beer and whiskey-inspired hardcore, suitable for a drunken night either in or out. My only complaint is that it's too short, as I tend to like my albums at about an hour long. This album clocks in at somewhere between half an hour and 45 minutes, which several of you readers may actually prefer.
I'm glad that ETID are a band that knows where they come from, and it shows on this album. They show a brevity of respect for their fans in doing so, while also pushing the envelope in terms of how they write songs and forcing the listener to embrace it. It's truly rare that a band has their own unique sound nowadays, and ETID I do it with a smile on their face and a beer in their hand. If you like anything that ETID have done before, or are interesting in a hardcore album that's light-hearted enough to listen to at a barbecue, then check this one out when it drops on May 6th.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The "War" On Religion
One of the major plot points of the upcoming presidential election has been this perceived "war on religion." According to three of the four candidates running for the Republican nomination (Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum), there is a bias against Christians rising up in this country that is making it harder for them to live.
First of all, let me just say that if you're a Christian, what follows from this point is not aimed at you, but at the Christian fundamentalists who think that their way of life is falling apart. If that includes you, know that it isn't personal, but something you need to hear.
This "war on religion" is complete and utter bullshit meant to direct hostilities at liberal-minded people who think this country needs to get out of its dark age-mentality. I'm nowhere being a liberal, atheistic democrat; in fact, I'm a conservative-minded person who attended Christian school throughout the first third of my life, and have been raised in a very conservative family with Christian values.
This "war on religion" is utter crap, and you and everyone you know needs to realize it.
Many of these religious fundamentalists who are spreading the word of this "war on religion" do so based on some issues: that gay people are now getting the right to get married across the country, and that their religious way of life is no longer the gold standard that is forced upon others.
This isn't a "war" in any way whatsoever. This country was founded not on Christian values, but on the ideal that you can believe (or disbelieve) in any God(s) that you so choose to, and not be forced to be prejudiced because you chose not to believe in a fairy tale.
Gay people are exactly what their name implies: people. They are deserving of every single right you or I, as Americans, are born into. The right to be free of prejudice and discrimination, and not have religious belief shoved down their throat. For the entirety of this country, gay people have been unable to get married across the board, because of religious belief. Many people raise the issue "Well, it's not natural." Actually, on the contrary, it is very normal for other animals to practice homosexual beliefs, making it a very normal thing to happen in nature. In fact, if you believe it is not "natural," I recommend you this link to read at your pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals.
Another argument against gay marriage is that it violates the "sanctity" of marriage, and has nothing to do with religion. Need I remind you what the definition of "sanctity" is: the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly. By this very definition, "sanctity" is completely religious. To deprive millions of people of basic human rights because you feel that gay marriage violates some sort of undefined religious law is absurd, and something that should have been outdated when Enlightenment started 500 years ago and we transcended the Dark Ages. Also, to those that claim that gay marriage isn't the "traditional" form of marriage, need I remind you that it was a "tradition" for black people to be sold as slaves for centuries, and it was a "tradition" for women to be oppressed for even longer? Tradition should mean shit in this country when countered with equal rights.
Gay people are people, and deserve every single right given to you or me. Them being able to marry doesn't affect me or you in the slightest: it doesn't change our rent payments, it doesn't put more or less money in my pocket, and it most certainly doesn't mean that young children will start "becoming gay" because of it. It's already been proven that homosexuality is an unchangeable trait, as much as heterosexuality is, and I'd rather know that my child, if gay, was living a happy life out in the open, rather than having to suppress those urges and live a half-life.
Onto the next issue, I need to point out that, in no point in American history, have white Christians been hunted down and targeted, beaten, murdered, or raped because of their beliefs (individual instances notwithstanding). This has happened multiple times to not only gay people, but Muslims, Jews, and people of different races and colors, including others. White Christians have, and will (for the foreseeable future), be safe from widespread discrimination.
So stop whining about this "war on religion."
John Stewart from The Daily Show put it best, in that there's a difference between a "war on religion" and not always getting what you want. This is something that applies directly to Christian fundamentalists, who view the fact that people are sick of the centuries of prejudice and religion being shoved down their throats as a "war."
Not being able to force other people to stick by your ancient book's stereotypes and gender roles doesn't mean that you're being hunted down and murdered, as Fox News would have you believe. It just means that other people would like to live with religious freedom in this country, as it explicitly states in our Bill of Rights, such as the religious folk do. We, as a large majority, would like to be able to marry who we want without someone's religious intolerance holding us down. I'm not gay, but I can understand many homosexual's anger with being told that they can't get married because someone miles away thinks it's "wrong" in some way.
There is no "war on religion." It is a war cry being used by many on the Conservative side of the coin to start a frenzy and gain support for their fundamentalist theories and beliefs. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would have you believe that Christians were being lined up and shot by gay atheists, simply because those people want the same rights given to them. When you really think about it, doesn't that sound ridiculous? Take whatever religious beliefs you have and set them aside (if any), and just consider how ironic and ass-backwards that sounds.
First of all, let me just say that if you're a Christian, what follows from this point is not aimed at you, but at the Christian fundamentalists who think that their way of life is falling apart. If that includes you, know that it isn't personal, but something you need to hear.
This "war on religion" is complete and utter bullshit meant to direct hostilities at liberal-minded people who think this country needs to get out of its dark age-mentality. I'm nowhere being a liberal, atheistic democrat; in fact, I'm a conservative-minded person who attended Christian school throughout the first third of my life, and have been raised in a very conservative family with Christian values.
This "war on religion" is utter crap, and you and everyone you know needs to realize it.
Many of these religious fundamentalists who are spreading the word of this "war on religion" do so based on some issues: that gay people are now getting the right to get married across the country, and that their religious way of life is no longer the gold standard that is forced upon others.
This isn't a "war" in any way whatsoever. This country was founded not on Christian values, but on the ideal that you can believe (or disbelieve) in any God(s) that you so choose to, and not be forced to be prejudiced because you chose not to believe in a fairy tale.
Gay people are exactly what their name implies: people. They are deserving of every single right you or I, as Americans, are born into. The right to be free of prejudice and discrimination, and not have religious belief shoved down their throat. For the entirety of this country, gay people have been unable to get married across the board, because of religious belief. Many people raise the issue "Well, it's not natural." Actually, on the contrary, it is very normal for other animals to practice homosexual beliefs, making it a very normal thing to happen in nature. In fact, if you believe it is not "natural," I recommend you this link to read at your pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals.
Another argument against gay marriage is that it violates the "sanctity" of marriage, and has nothing to do with religion. Need I remind you what the definition of "sanctity" is: the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly. By this very definition, "sanctity" is completely religious. To deprive millions of people of basic human rights because you feel that gay marriage violates some sort of undefined religious law is absurd, and something that should have been outdated when Enlightenment started 500 years ago and we transcended the Dark Ages. Also, to those that claim that gay marriage isn't the "traditional" form of marriage, need I remind you that it was a "tradition" for black people to be sold as slaves for centuries, and it was a "tradition" for women to be oppressed for even longer? Tradition should mean shit in this country when countered with equal rights.
Gay people are people, and deserve every single right given to you or me. Them being able to marry doesn't affect me or you in the slightest: it doesn't change our rent payments, it doesn't put more or less money in my pocket, and it most certainly doesn't mean that young children will start "becoming gay" because of it. It's already been proven that homosexuality is an unchangeable trait, as much as heterosexuality is, and I'd rather know that my child, if gay, was living a happy life out in the open, rather than having to suppress those urges and live a half-life.
Onto the next issue, I need to point out that, in no point in American history, have white Christians been hunted down and targeted, beaten, murdered, or raped because of their beliefs (individual instances notwithstanding). This has happened multiple times to not only gay people, but Muslims, Jews, and people of different races and colors, including others. White Christians have, and will (for the foreseeable future), be safe from widespread discrimination.
So stop whining about this "war on religion."
John Stewart from The Daily Show put it best, in that there's a difference between a "war on religion" and not always getting what you want. This is something that applies directly to Christian fundamentalists, who view the fact that people are sick of the centuries of prejudice and religion being shoved down their throats as a "war."
Not being able to force other people to stick by your ancient book's stereotypes and gender roles doesn't mean that you're being hunted down and murdered, as Fox News would have you believe. It just means that other people would like to live with religious freedom in this country, as it explicitly states in our Bill of Rights, such as the religious folk do. We, as a large majority, would like to be able to marry who we want without someone's religious intolerance holding us down. I'm not gay, but I can understand many homosexual's anger with being told that they can't get married because someone miles away thinks it's "wrong" in some way.
There is no "war on religion." It is a war cry being used by many on the Conservative side of the coin to start a frenzy and gain support for their fundamentalist theories and beliefs. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would have you believe that Christians were being lined up and shot by gay atheists, simply because those people want the same rights given to them. When you really think about it, doesn't that sound ridiculous? Take whatever religious beliefs you have and set them aside (if any), and just consider how ironic and ass-backwards that sounds.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Why "The Office" Now Sucks
I've always wondered to myself, "how did The Office transform from an Emmy-winning, great comedic show to what it is today?" The other people I watch the show with have also wondered the same thing, and have felt that the past seasons of the show have lacked.
I believe I have actually figured it out.
Also, I'm not looking at the fact that the behind-the-scenes people completely changed between seasons 4 and 5. I think it's pretty common knowledge to most "Office" fans that showrunners/creators Greg Daniels and Michael Schur, the genius hivemind behind much of the show, left after Season 4 to begin developing their own show, "Parks & Recreation," which has taken the similar format of "The Office" and used it in a better way over the past 3-4 years. After their departure, the quality of the show has dropped, and "Parks & Recreation" has become not only one of the best shows on television, but one of my personal favorites and a show that doesn't have a bad episode, just varying degrees of good.
I've loved "The Office" for years, owning seasons 1 through 5 on DVD, and it is my belief that seasons 6 and 7 and not worthy of being bought. They're that bad. I hate that a show I used to love has become such a chore to watch every week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me begin:
1. ) The first problem with "The Office" is that the show hasn't challenged itself.
Seasons 2-4 each had plotlines that progressed: we were able to watch the relationship between Jim and Pam grow to what it is today, through much difficulty and hardship; we were able to witness Michael Scott struggle his way through being manager along with the sexual tension of his superior, Jan Levinson-Gould, as well as gain the respect of his employees; we also got to see the relationship between Michael's complete subordinate, Dwight, and his secret lover, Angela, grow and fall; also, we got to rise Ryan Howard's meteoric rise as temp to salesman to executive to convict to bowling alley employee to salesman to whatever he does today (which I'm really unsure of).
Instead, "The Office" began taking it easy in season 5. Gone were the overarching storylines that created conflict with not only humor, but drama that pulled your heartstrings (Jim/Pam's relationship through season 4/Michael and Jan/Ryan's rise and fall). Instead, the only thing that's been left up in the air and forced us to stay tuned is the departure of Michael Scott in season 7 (which I'll address later) and the growing relationship of Andy and Erin, which has been in limbo for the past 2 seasons. Not the same at all.
The show has instead created small storylines that last a few weeks, or are single-episode. The dramatic tension that makes viewers clock in every week has disappeared, as we know what's going to happen: there's going to be a boss that makes a mistake and has to deal with it. Everything is neatly dealt with by the end of episode, and we know this. For some shows, like "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia," this format works. However, after what "The Office" created in its formative years, this is just a bad idea. Imagine if "Lost" suddenly began to abandon arching stories and began to create single episode mysteries on the island... viewers would lose focus and begin not caring. This is what "The Office" has done and the viewers have stopped watching (there are far less viewers now than there were in it's Emmy-winning days).
2.) The characters have become complete caricatures of themselves.
People enjoyed watching "The Office" because it's a show set in a workplace environment that strikes a chord with the people watching. We all see people on the show that remind us of someone we know, and not only because of the way the character portrays themselves, but because of the little quirks that seasons 1-4 (and possibly 5) showed us. For example: Kevin, at the start of the show, was the guy who talked and processed things a little slowly, but also had an addictive gambling problem. One of the early episodes was the entire Office continuously betting on small things, such as how many M&Ms were in a jar.
However, those small character quirks have all but disappeared. Kevin no longer has a bad gambling problem, except for when the show needs to remind us that it happened. They don't show us these quirks anymore, but rather explain them to us in "talking head" segments where the characters speak directly to the camera. This same problem occurred in the Star Wars prequels, when the characters Obi-Wan and Anakin are supposed to be best friends and confidantes, yet we only ever see them bitch at each other. How do we know they're best friends? Because we're told, and not shown. There's no direct-correlation when the viewer is told something, as opposed to being able to watch something happen.
Kevin, as my current example, started off as the guy who talked slowly. Now he's become full-on mentally retarded. Stanley, once the cranky crosswords puzzle guy, has instead become the quirky black guy. Andy, the colorful salesman with a anger management issues and a creepy streak, has become Michael Scott 2.0. Angela, the stuck-up Christian accountant, has become outgoing and happy, a character trait that she was never associated with years ago. Pam, for crying out loud, used to be timid and her hilarious came out of breaking out of that passiveness; now, she's constantly outgoing, which makes her character growth null, and frankly, makes us care about her character less.
3.) The show refuses to move on.
The show has become stuck in a rut. The show seemingly addresses one plot point a year, and refuses to move from it. Meanwhile, this isn't a season-arching plot point, but something that happens suddenly and doesn't create changes for the show, but promises it. Season 5 brought us the Michael Scott Paper Company, which could have changed the show for the better and for always, but instead created drama and resolved it within a few episodes. Season 6 brought us not only Jim and Pam's wedding, but also the birth of their child. Were these plots strung out to create tension? No, each was presented and solved within an episode each.
However, season 7 brought something interesting: the departure of the star of the show, Michael Scott. Finally, "The Office" would have to change! Michael Scott left, and the show spent a majority of the season building up Michael leaving, which actually brought some change to the dynamic of the show, and a plethora of guest stars (Will Arnett, Jim Carrey, James Spader, Ray Ramano, etc.) lined up in the season finale to take a crack at heading the show themselves. But instead of resolving it in that episode, and giving us a summer to guesstimate how the show would fare with a new boss, they left it hanging and gave us the dramatic promotion of...
Andy Bernard? That guy? Really? They promoted the least-productive member of the actual office to the manager position, and not based on job performance. On the show, Andy Bernard is the most similar to Michael Scott's, but easily the worst salesman, which, you'd think, would automatically disqualify him. However, with the growing star of Ed Helms, the actor who plays him, they made him the head of the show, and created Michael Scott 2.0. This completely eliminated all of Andy Bernard's previous quirks, including his anger management issues, which haven't been addressed in seasons, and made him the exact clone of Michael Scott.
Instead of creating a new dynamic with the show, and hiring a boss that could change the show for the better, they used a character to fill the hole their star had left... and he became the EXACT SAME CHARACTER in the process. Gone are Andy's quirks and character flaws, instead replaced by the same single episode drama that plagued Michael Scott over the past 3 years. This brings me to my next point.
4.) All of the character flaws are gone.
Almost every flaw the characters had in season 1-5 has all but disappeared, instead replaced by one-liners and situational comedy that fills up the half hour of the show. Instead of showing Pam as a timid receptionist who struggles with her self-identity and confidence, we're shown her as a perfect person who can do no wrong. Ryan, who seemingly should have had to deal with the aftermath of his abuse of power as an executive for the company, instead tinkers away in an office doing God-knows-what. Dwight, who was once a stickler for power and obedience, instead embraces his macho-tough-guy (which was shown only in glimpses in seasons 1-5) ALL of the time, and forgets that he once was a character with some pretty glaring flaws that made his character human.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do need to say, that I have hope that "The Office" will return to its former glory. But with the current plotlines, stories, and characters being thrown out, I seriously doubt it. I'll double my efforts in watching "Parks & Recreation," a show which really does deserve it, and stay hopeful that "The Office" can make me laugh for an entire episode again (something that hasn't happened since season 4).
I believe I have actually figured it out.
Also, I'm not looking at the fact that the behind-the-scenes people completely changed between seasons 4 and 5. I think it's pretty common knowledge to most "Office" fans that showrunners/creators Greg Daniels and Michael Schur, the genius hivemind behind much of the show, left after Season 4 to begin developing their own show, "Parks & Recreation," which has taken the similar format of "The Office" and used it in a better way over the past 3-4 years. After their departure, the quality of the show has dropped, and "Parks & Recreation" has become not only one of the best shows on television, but one of my personal favorites and a show that doesn't have a bad episode, just varying degrees of good.
I've loved "The Office" for years, owning seasons 1 through 5 on DVD, and it is my belief that seasons 6 and 7 and not worthy of being bought. They're that bad. I hate that a show I used to love has become such a chore to watch every week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me begin:
1. ) The first problem with "The Office" is that the show hasn't challenged itself.
Seasons 2-4 each had plotlines that progressed: we were able to watch the relationship between Jim and Pam grow to what it is today, through much difficulty and hardship; we were able to witness Michael Scott struggle his way through being manager along with the sexual tension of his superior, Jan Levinson-Gould, as well as gain the respect of his employees; we also got to see the relationship between Michael's complete subordinate, Dwight, and his secret lover, Angela, grow and fall; also, we got to rise Ryan Howard's meteoric rise as temp to salesman to executive to convict to bowling alley employee to salesman to whatever he does today (which I'm really unsure of).
Instead, "The Office" began taking it easy in season 5. Gone were the overarching storylines that created conflict with not only humor, but drama that pulled your heartstrings (Jim/Pam's relationship through season 4/Michael and Jan/Ryan's rise and fall). Instead, the only thing that's been left up in the air and forced us to stay tuned is the departure of Michael Scott in season 7 (which I'll address later) and the growing relationship of Andy and Erin, which has been in limbo for the past 2 seasons. Not the same at all.
The show has instead created small storylines that last a few weeks, or are single-episode. The dramatic tension that makes viewers clock in every week has disappeared, as we know what's going to happen: there's going to be a boss that makes a mistake and has to deal with it. Everything is neatly dealt with by the end of episode, and we know this. For some shows, like "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia," this format works. However, after what "The Office" created in its formative years, this is just a bad idea. Imagine if "Lost" suddenly began to abandon arching stories and began to create single episode mysteries on the island... viewers would lose focus and begin not caring. This is what "The Office" has done and the viewers have stopped watching (there are far less viewers now than there were in it's Emmy-winning days).
2.) The characters have become complete caricatures of themselves.
People enjoyed watching "The Office" because it's a show set in a workplace environment that strikes a chord with the people watching. We all see people on the show that remind us of someone we know, and not only because of the way the character portrays themselves, but because of the little quirks that seasons 1-4 (and possibly 5) showed us. For example: Kevin, at the start of the show, was the guy who talked and processed things a little slowly, but also had an addictive gambling problem. One of the early episodes was the entire Office continuously betting on small things, such as how many M&Ms were in a jar.
However, those small character quirks have all but disappeared. Kevin no longer has a bad gambling problem, except for when the show needs to remind us that it happened. They don't show us these quirks anymore, but rather explain them to us in "talking head" segments where the characters speak directly to the camera. This same problem occurred in the Star Wars prequels, when the characters Obi-Wan and Anakin are supposed to be best friends and confidantes, yet we only ever see them bitch at each other. How do we know they're best friends? Because we're told, and not shown. There's no direct-correlation when the viewer is told something, as opposed to being able to watch something happen.
Kevin, as my current example, started off as the guy who talked slowly. Now he's become full-on mentally retarded. Stanley, once the cranky crosswords puzzle guy, has instead become the quirky black guy. Andy, the colorful salesman with a anger management issues and a creepy streak, has become Michael Scott 2.0. Angela, the stuck-up Christian accountant, has become outgoing and happy, a character trait that she was never associated with years ago. Pam, for crying out loud, used to be timid and her hilarious came out of breaking out of that passiveness; now, she's constantly outgoing, which makes her character growth null, and frankly, makes us care about her character less.
3.) The show refuses to move on.
The show has become stuck in a rut. The show seemingly addresses one plot point a year, and refuses to move from it. Meanwhile, this isn't a season-arching plot point, but something that happens suddenly and doesn't create changes for the show, but promises it. Season 5 brought us the Michael Scott Paper Company, which could have changed the show for the better and for always, but instead created drama and resolved it within a few episodes. Season 6 brought us not only Jim and Pam's wedding, but also the birth of their child. Were these plots strung out to create tension? No, each was presented and solved within an episode each.
However, season 7 brought something interesting: the departure of the star of the show, Michael Scott. Finally, "The Office" would have to change! Michael Scott left, and the show spent a majority of the season building up Michael leaving, which actually brought some change to the dynamic of the show, and a plethora of guest stars (Will Arnett, Jim Carrey, James Spader, Ray Ramano, etc.) lined up in the season finale to take a crack at heading the show themselves. But instead of resolving it in that episode, and giving us a summer to guesstimate how the show would fare with a new boss, they left it hanging and gave us the dramatic promotion of...
Andy Bernard? That guy? Really? They promoted the least-productive member of the actual office to the manager position, and not based on job performance. On the show, Andy Bernard is the most similar to Michael Scott's, but easily the worst salesman, which, you'd think, would automatically disqualify him. However, with the growing star of Ed Helms, the actor who plays him, they made him the head of the show, and created Michael Scott 2.0. This completely eliminated all of Andy Bernard's previous quirks, including his anger management issues, which haven't been addressed in seasons, and made him the exact clone of Michael Scott.
Instead of creating a new dynamic with the show, and hiring a boss that could change the show for the better, they used a character to fill the hole their star had left... and he became the EXACT SAME CHARACTER in the process. Gone are Andy's quirks and character flaws, instead replaced by the same single episode drama that plagued Michael Scott over the past 3 years. This brings me to my next point.
4.) All of the character flaws are gone.
Almost every flaw the characters had in season 1-5 has all but disappeared, instead replaced by one-liners and situational comedy that fills up the half hour of the show. Instead of showing Pam as a timid receptionist who struggles with her self-identity and confidence, we're shown her as a perfect person who can do no wrong. Ryan, who seemingly should have had to deal with the aftermath of his abuse of power as an executive for the company, instead tinkers away in an office doing God-knows-what. Dwight, who was once a stickler for power and obedience, instead embraces his macho-tough-guy (which was shown only in glimpses in seasons 1-5) ALL of the time, and forgets that he once was a character with some pretty glaring flaws that made his character human.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do need to say, that I have hope that "The Office" will return to its former glory. But with the current plotlines, stories, and characters being thrown out, I seriously doubt it. I'll double my efforts in watching "Parks & Recreation," a show which really does deserve it, and stay hopeful that "The Office" can make me laugh for an entire episode again (something that hasn't happened since season 4).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)