Don’t feel bad. I turned to my roommate after the “last act” line and said “Tom’s brother is dead?” 
Yep. That’s exactly what I saw happening.
amarinth Thanks for the clarification. I’ll be the guy sitting in the corner talking to himself for awhile until I figure out when I saw her again after the first season. ('Cause I know I did.)
And Jordan didn’t say she didn’t like kids. She said she didn’t want kids, at 25, with that slimeball she was married too. He’s blowing up what she said (to him) into a moountain to beef up interest in his impending book. I’d like to see her make one statement to the press about this, along the lines of what Danny said at the press conference at the beginning of the second show: “I’ll just say this once and never talk about it again, but that man is slime and lying.”
Then what?
Ridiculous, unmotivated and unexplained dialogue and actions that take me out of the reality that the show is trying to create is what I find wrong with the show. This show is full of such instances. See above. And the other “Studio 60” threads.
If the arrested character in “Studio 60” had jumped into the air and flown back to L.A. from Neveda (ala ‘Heroes’) that would take me out of the dramatic ‘reality’ of the story. The misfiring paintball gun was a contrived moment inserted for a cheap laugh that had me thinking, “Why did he bring it into the diner?” If I’m thinking about the bad writing, the writer has screwed up. Right? I’m less involved in the story. That’s not good. See?
God help me, I expected the “payoff” of the sketch would be:
Credit Card Lady: You go Target, buy socks! Five darra, socky, socky!
I blame it on the “Full Metal Jacket” basic training spoof from Sunday’s Simpsons.
I totally agree with this. S60 creates improbable situations and leaves it up to the viewer to create their own justifications. Every S60 thread gets bogged down as to why someone did something.
The writers need to come up with an explanation as to why he’s in full gear and carrying a paintball gun in the diner. Not only does he have the gun, but he’s still wearing all the protective gear. He didn’t even take that off? So something as simple as having him say “Joe Bob got me down as quick as he could” would help to explain the situation. Instead, we’re all here arguing why he had the stuff in the diner in the first place.
And that bracelet Tom was wearing. Had that ever been mentioned before? Heck, was it even ever visible before in any episode? I don’t recall seeing it, but it sure was convenient for the plot.
Matt and Harriet’s romantic relationship is another. So they had a passionate 4 year affair, but he breaks up with her because she went on the 700 Club? Huh? How could they have had enough in common during that 4 years to stay together, yet her going on that show was bad enough to throw it all away? It’s not like going on the 700 Club would be out of character for Harriet, so how did Matt put up with her during the 4 years? I’m sure she performed at many shows for Christian groups during that time. Why was Pat Robertson’s Christian viewpoint so much worse than all the other Christian groups she’s associated with?
And there’s many more situations just like that. The confusing thing is that the writing can be so good, so why don’t they take a sentence or two to explain the unrealistic stuff? That way we could be in this thread discussing why we like the show so much instead of trying to figure out why the paintball gun was in the diner.
That Asian lady sketch was weird. I thought the material was funny - a minimum wage phone operator being irked by someone they’re talking to with way too much money - but why the Asian accent? What did that bring to it? If the implication was that it was an overseas call center, the WalMart references didn’t fit. But if it was supposed to be an American call center, then it just seemed pointless.
Harriet got all the punchlines on the subject for the first five weeks, with the rest of the characters - especially Matt - being made to look like anti-religious oafs for dissing her. This was the first episode that Matt had something to say back to her.
And there isn’t another side to this subject. Just religious bigotry, which isn’t a side. It should never be held up as an equivalent in an argument. When Harriet ends by saying that “I don’t know” the proper response is “You should know.”
And yes, the Asian guilt phone operator was possibly the worst excuse for a skit in the 21st century. What were they thinking? It has to be some kind of inside joke.
Cool, I was just curious about what you meant.
True, 120 on straight road isn’t nearly so bad. I’m used to the NY roads.
I still think Tom took a bullet for his brother. Otherwise, why would the judge make such a big deal about his risk taking?
I agree. I would watch the show within a show, if not for that socks bit.
I feel like we’re kicking a man when he’s down but I noticed another plot hole nobody’s commented on.
Harriet and Dylan both mentioned not wanting to fill “Simon’s chair” on the news segement. Fair enough if his doing the news was a long-standing tradition. But back in the second(?) episode we saw that Simon was just placed in the news segment by Matt and Danny. So not only has Simon only been doing the news for a few weeks - one of the other current cast members must have been reading the news and got bumped to make room for Simon.
Dylan didn’t want to attempt to fill in for someone he admires. The ‘chair’ thing was just an excuse.
In a previous ep - maybe last week? - it was also referred to as Simon’s chair. Not sure who said it, but I really don’t think it was the fat guy.
Yes, last week. Matt said that Harriet would do the news alone because it was Simon’s chair. It was a big deal in the first (maybe second) episode that Matt took Simon away from the crappy imitations bits and put him on the newscast as himself. So just throwing someone in there the first time Simon can’t make it would seem like it wasn’t such a big deal.
Mandy never returned from Mandyville. Not even for Leo’s funeral.
When this is cancelled, one guy will come out as a winner - Matt Perry. People will forget The Whole Nine Yards (and the - even if it seems impossible - more stupid sequel). I like Perry. I liked him as Chandler Bing and I liked his guest spot on WW.
He certainly made enough $ from Friends never having to work again and sending his grand kids through Ivy Legue Colleges and him still wanting to work and try new stuff earns my respects. That he’s actually succeeding makes it even better.
You were right, I had forgotten he worked with Amanda Peet before. Of all the things wrong with the “Yards” movies, he wasn’t one of them.
Besides engaging in unnecessary ethnic stereotyping, the credit card sketch last night wasn’t exactly new material.
There was a sketch on Saturday Night Live a long time ago that had a credit card company representative (I think played by Phil Hartman) calling a customer (played by Julia Sweeney, or Victoria Jackson; not sure which) about “some unusual activity on your card.”
The customer had purchased $80 socks as a Christmas gift for her father. She explained this to the representative, thinking he’d called because the company was concerned her card had been stolen.
Hartman answered that, they weren’t worried about theft; they just thought calling her father and spending some time with him would be a better present than buying expensive socks out of guilt over neglecting him, etc. etc.
Not quite the same as last night’s sketch, but the two elements of buying extravagantly expensive socks and being guilted for it by one’s credit card company were in both.
My Google-fu is strong, but I couldn’t find any more details about the original sketch online. I’d be fascinated to know whether Mark McKinney wrote that original sketch, and if he also wrote the one last night.
I could have sworn Mandy showed up in a later episode once- didn’t Josh show up at her new office at one point when she had partnered up with some other woman to do fundraising for some politician? I can picture him kind of looking around, impressed with her office and then tried to talk her out of it because the politician was a dirtbag or something? Maybe I’m thinking of someone else.
Neither was the shot of a topless Peet.
I don’t buy the argument that Tom’s brother was driving and Tom was covering. Simon said to Tom, “Tell them why you were speeding.” He didn’t say, “Tell them about the speeding ticket.” He said why you were speeding.
And the bit about not wanting his brother’s last act to be bailing him out? That makes no sense at all. Tom was speeding, was supposed to show up in court and didn’t. So not wanting his brother’s (potentially) last interaction to be getting him out of the ticket implies that’s why he didn’t show up for the court date… nothing to do with the speeding.
Speculation runs wild here. There was a big protest on the speeding day at the airforce base nearby, right? Was Tom speeding to get his brother back on the base becasuse he was AWOL? because he’d been called back immediately? The show gives no clue.
And do people wear bracelets saying, “I got a brother in the military who’s in Afghanastan”?
Not only a god from the machine, but a completely unconvincing one. I can buy that the judge recognized Tom’s last name and knew his brother, that’s possible although unclear. In that case, the judge was basically just rewarding Tom for NOT dragging his brother into it?
In short, massive puzzlement.