mtv lifer writing a Joss Whedon biography to come out in 2014.
i watch a lot of television. a lot.
and i talk about fandom and television in general a lot.
when not slacking off, i'm rambling at
(not as much lately)


Parks and Recreation + Avengers AU!! All credit to Alycia for showing me this post and giving me ideas! (my apologies for the length of this post - i wasn’t sure how to arrange it so it’d be readable!)


prequel trilogy in one photo


prequel trilogy in one photo


Somehow NBC fucking over Parks one last time makes perfect sense. And it brings up the chicken and egg question: did Parks do poorly in the ratings because of the constant time slot moves, hiatuses, and lack of promotion, or did NBC not bother promoting Parks properly and take it off the air for months at a time because the ratings weren’t good enough to treat it better?

hi! since i have other things to do, my brain has decided it’s far more important to answer your somewhat rhetorical question about promotion!

i preface this with the fact that i do not work for NBC, so this is just an educated guess: 

In general, TV ratings are down year to year - a lot of which is due to DVRs and time-shifted viewing. Parks has held its own, but it’s a show that’s going into its 7th season, and despite all the hype it’s had from critics and industry folks in the past three years, the audience hasn’t grown. That being said, its ratings have been pretty stable week to week, no matter when it airs or how much promotion it gets. Which means that the fan base, while small, is dedicated and dependable to tune-in whenever/wherever it airs, no matter how many promos NBC runs. 

As a fan, it’s ridiculous to have to hunt down when a show is airing, or when it’s coming back from hiatus. But as a network, NBC has 10-20 series that it needs to promote weekly, in addition to the local series that each affiliate has to promote. So the (minimal) time available for series promotion is of a very high premium and a network is going to put more time and money into promoting a new show because it needs to create audience, or a show in it’s 2-4th year because they have a financial investment in the series that’s doing well enough to be renewed and young enough to keep building an audience. Add to that the big event episodes (“George Clooney as Olivia’s new gentleman caller — or will he be her murderer? ON THE NEXT SVU!”), and the promo time available will be cut down for a solid series that does the same with or without promotion, without a huge narrative to hook new viewers in. 

Sometimes it’s not the lack of promotion, it’s just the fact that the show doesn’t have as broad of appeal. That’s not a comment on Parks — it’s just the frustrating state of affairs.

Just realized that I lost a follower, most likely due to my unhappiness with the Parks finale and the show in general. Which I understand — I was never a huge TWOP recap fan because it all felt so negative, and I’ve stopped following people on here because all they did was complain constantly about a show every week. I’d rather spend my time doing other things than hate-watching.

That being said, I’ve always said that being a fan doesn’t mean that you have love everything that someone/something does unconditionally. Usually it’s because you love a show so much that you can look at it critically, and seeing the flaws is just as important as seeing the beauty. 

I said a couple of weeks ago that I’m a big believer in “trust the tale, not the teller,” but I don’t trust the show at all. And the whole tone of the Parks and Rec time jump is what put me off. It looked different and it felt different, but nothing about those differences felt earned. I have no problem with resets in a TV show (I loved the Felicity spell plot line that created an AU by rescripting the final season of the show), but I find it hard to jump on board when they drastically change the tone and idea of a show without leading their audience into it with a plausible path.

(and not that anyone needs my permission, but just wanted to say to feel free to drop me if you’re bothered by my lack of Parks love. i don’t see my feelings changing any time soon.)



Leslie works for the Feds and she’s a fixer in her spare time.

At this point, I can see them taking this tack — Ben’s the mayor, Ben’s the president, Ben’s the leader of the free world. 

But everything’s great because Leslie realized that she didn’t REALLY want to be president because her Mommy title is far more important.  AND because the show will now look like Brooklyn 99. 

partyscientist replied to your post “watched last 3 min of Parks finale… so, they’re changing the entire…”

It was kind of insane and didn’t make a lot of sense.

That’s what i gathered from watching the liveblogging. do you think it’s worth watching the entire thing?

breakthecitysky replied to your post “watched last 3 min of Parks finale… so, they’re changing the entire…”

:( I only get it on Netflix so I am way behind but thinking I should stop where I am now.

i’ve been super disappointed with this season, so i can’t really recommend it. it just lost the spark of the show i loved so much. what season are you on?

watched last 3 min of Parks finale… so, they’re changing the entire show? 

glad i didn’t watch the last five eps then.

parks spoilers

Read More

princessgeorge replied to your post “ugh, yesterday kicked my ass. actually, the whole week kicked my ass….”

They’re sort of adjacent to a lot of interesting questions about family/career but aren’t taking them on and don’t seem likely to. Which is a missed opportunity.

That’s a fantastic point. Plotwise, this is the second “oops” pregnancy — not just in the series, but in this season. They did “my life is empty/worthless with a baby” with Ann. Considering how much of the series is about Leslie and her career and ambitions, I would have much preferred them asking those questions instead of it just being a repeat of “oops” and “our lives are worthless without babies!” 

ugh, yesterday kicked my ass. actually, the whole week kicked my ass. yesterday just pushed me over. i’ll catch up on life… eventually.

princessgeorge replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

I’m about the same - I’ll watch but I’ll let it pile up, and it’s just nowhere near as good as it used to be. Which still makes it an OK show. But I’m not really invested. (Aside: I need to talk to you abt Fleuvogs, will msg you!)

I feel the way I did about HIMYM — i kept watching although i didn’t really care about anyone anymore. It wasn’t until Barney’s manipulation of Robin, where he broke her down again and again, was brushed away with “oh, but it’s okay because he proposed and isn’t that the most romantic thing ever?!?” that i was so angry that I gave it up. 

I’m not angry with Parks, just disappointed. I just checked my TIVO and realized that i missed even more than I thought, and I have very little interest in checking them out. That makes me sad — I miss the excited anticipation, the ache I had for everything to come in those 30 minutes. I’m sad that at 10pm on a Thursday, i realize that I’d forgotten that Parks was even on that night.

slackmistress replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

I feel like it’s become about the situations and not about the characters. (I feel the same way about Community, too) That always ruins it for me.

From the Parks season premiere, I was disappointed in how the writers seemed to forget who their characters were — well, aside from RON BEING ALL-KNOWING SAGE. And with forgetting who their characters are, their character arcs and paths feel patched together rather than the deliberate and lovely arcs they’d had in seasons earlier. I agree, we don’t need wacky situations — the show handled wacky in the most entertaining and engaging way when it was placed in relatable situations. 

(Aside from the premiere, I haven’t seen Community this season, but i can see that happening.)

rikyl replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

That’s too bad but understandable. I don’t really trust this show like I used to, in regards to how they’re going to handle this.

I’m a big believer in “trust the tale, not the teller,” but I don’t trust the show at all. I honestly feel like the endgame is now “hey, wasn’t it funny that i wanted to be President? That was so dumb of me — HAVING BABIES IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT!” We’ve already seen them spend two seasons explaining why Ann and Chris were a bad match only to turn around and say “HEY! BABIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN A COMPATIBLE RELATIONSHIP! EVERYONE NEEDS TO HAVE BABIES!”

And with Diane getting pregnant, that’s three pregnancies in one season. Is it lazy storytelling or a deliberate message that the only important thing in life is to have babies? I’m just not interested in following the Ann and Leslie sharing their pregnancy/labor/child-rearing adventures. 

Part of why I’m so disappointed in that is because the show did such a wonderful job of illustrating the idea of making a family out of your friends, and now it seems to be saying that kind of family is nothing and worthless compared to the one you procreate. 

diaphenia replied to your post “my not surprising unpopular parks & rec opinion [[MOR] i haven’t…”

Fair point

I was so excited to have an awesome lady who loved her life, her husband, her relationships and was unapologetically ambitious in her career. Even if they don’t decide to make Leslie give up on her grand-scale political ambitions, they will inevitably be weighed against the “can she have it all?” question that is never, ever posed to men. 

I completely respect that Schur, Poehler et al have the right to guide their series the way they want, but I don’t know if it’s something that interested in joining along anymore.