Marvel Is the King Of All the Universes: Guardians of the Galaxy Review

I am Groot.

Those are the best and really the only words to describe my reaction to last night's debut of Guardians of the Galaxy, the latest of Marvel's ventures into the unknown and mysterious. I realize that if you have no knowledge of the movie or the characters, that the words may not be the best way to describe it. Basically there is a talking tree in the movie who communicates, Chewbacca-style, using only the words "I am Groot" and his companion, Rocket Raccoon, (yes, a real raccoon who can speak) can decipher the meaning each time, again Han Solo-style. So what I'm saying, Groot-style, is that was AWESOME.

Before you click off of this review because of the ridiculousness of the last sentence just wait. The movie, the best reviewed Marvel and perhaps best reviewed movie this year, is a ridiculous riot of fun and you need to see it. Yes, you. Even if you've never seen a Marvel movie before this. Which you should be shot for but that's a different story all together. I sit here even now listening to the best soundtrack since Footloose to write this review. Which is ironic if you've already seen the movie. You'll thank me once you do for that unintentionally hilarious joke.

By now you've seen at least one promo for the movie, it would be impossible for you not to. The movie is a space opera, thrusting you into their world and doesn't really take a lot of time explaining to you what you are seeing. And that's awesome. It's visually one of the coolest movies I've ever seen, please spare me all the glorious praise of Avatar; I have never seen it and honestly I have no desire to watch a hybrid Pocahontas/Ferngully. Maybe someday. The real story isn't the worlds these characters inhabit, it's how 5 unlikely foes become friends, and of course a family. ::Cue the moan::

"Kate, we've seen this movie 15 times over." "Who cares?" "Isn't this just The Avengers in space?" Yes, you should, and no. First of all, every single movie  you've ever seen can be traced back to one of the original seven movies. So nothing is original anymore. (That may be taking the point to the extreme but it's true. A Bug's Life is just The Magnificent Seven in animation and with bugs. Is your mind blown?!) You should care because this movie is one of the funniest and irreverent pieces of film to ever grace the screen and you'll be thanking me afterwards. And finally, no this isn't the Avengers. That movie is one of the greatest works of art ever (and I say that with no bias just because I worship at Joss Whedon's altar daily.) If The Avengers can be compared to Shakespeare, than the Guardians of the Galaxy is like Funny or Die; it shouldn't work but it does and it does it so much better than you'd ever expect.

I had the highest of hopes for this movie since I heard about the casting of Chris Pratt as Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord. Did I even know who that was? Not a chance. I have just always loved Pratt and knew this was his moment to shine. Then my mind was blown when the first trailer came out and for the next week I had "Hooked on a Feeling" stuck in my head and I was definitely not complaining. This week brought all of the reviews and I read just about all of them; not a single one had more than a passing negative comment to say. Could it really be that good of a movie?? ::Minor spoilers ahead::

The opening scene is probably the most emotional one of a Marvel movie and that is probably because it just comes right out of the gate and slaps you with the hardest blow a young child could be dealt with, the loss of a parent. After you've taken in that fact the movie switches gears and suddenly you are laughing harder than you though possible after such a shock. And the movie doesn't ever stop. Led by the brilliant Pratt, whose abs girls might be going to see only get a brief 15 second window and that is honestly not his biggest appeal (ok just kidding, its awesome), he gathers together his motley crew. Dave Bautista is the straight man Drax the Destroyer, not to hard to figure that one out. Zoe Saldana of course plays his potential love interest Gamora and you guessed it!, has ulterior motives for helping. The only characters who could steal the show from Pratt are Rocket Raccoon and Groot, the aforementioned creatures who are voiced by Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel. And they are AWESOME.

The supporting cast is well-rounded but not necessarily fleshed out. If you want to know more about Ronan or Thanos, go watch all the other Marvel movies or just hit up Wikipedia. The supporting good guys are just there to say what most people think about our main characters, primarily that they are A-holes and do we really trust them to save us? Well spoiler-alert: you do. Look for Easter Eggs in The Collectors lair and in the prison scene. There is also a hint as to the already ordered sequel and the post-credit scene, in my opinion, is less than lack luster.

Mind you, this is not the Avengers. The humor is crude and definitely not for young kids who missed most of Tony Stark's hilarious one-liners. These are not people you take home to your parents. Ever. And honestly? I would never want to. The movie is filled with hilarious one-liners that would not fly with other Marvel vehicles. The violence is there but to me wasn't any worse than the abominable destruction displayed in Man of Steel. (Obviously, I am still not over that wreck.) So perhaps go out on an adult date night before taking the impressionable kiddos. Seeing it twice won't hurt anything but your wallet and it's more than worth a second viewing.

Multiple friends have said that this is their new favorite Marvel movie. I have been asked the same question. I honestly can't say yet because of my deep love for The Avengers. I guess I'll be one of those people whose wallet hurts.

But it'll hurt soooo good.

Breaking My Rule

I generally don't like to comment on topics that could be considered... controversial. My opinion on religion, politics, and other hot button issues are no one's business but my own. Plenty of people like to discuss, debate, create hostility, and just generally post that their opinion is the correct opinion and if you don't agree, well... insert nasty comment here and I refuse to spread that negativity around. And I'm breaking my one rule. But it's worth it.

It's the holiday season and in my mind, everyone should be friendly and cheerful and just being good human beings. It's the time of year where even your most hated enemy gives you a smile and wishes you a Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Whatever Holiday Well-Wishes That You Don't Find Offensive. (Not in my case; my enemy has decided to just straight up ignore me. In the immortal words of RENT's Tom Collins, "Merry Christmas, b*tches!") But to my dismay and honestly distress, there is a cloud hanging above me on the eve my favorite holiday.

There have been many disturbing and unfortunate examples of intolerance and just general nastiness this whole year and in recent years. People have been brought under fire for numerous reasons, whether they be justified or not, and the reactions, or lack of a reaction, of those individuals above said people are also brought under fire. It's a never-ending cycle of hate and finger pointing.

In a world where we've seen great acts of humanity, awareness, and generosity, it's hard to believe there is still so much hate out there but we can't pretend that it's not present. With social marking making it an option for millions of people to express their opinions, opinions are just that; a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. But what happens to the world when you can't see past your own opinion to at least acknowledge another person's view?

I do not condone any negative comments said toward any faction of society. A person is allowed to have their own viewpoint but in today's world your viewpoint is instantly labeled right or wrong with no room for discussion. Instead I wonder what happened to people's general niceness and why we must all be so mean to each other. Who are we to condemn people for their lifestyle, religion, political affiliations, and any other subject that I've missed. The world is too bleak as it is to focus on the negative and yet that is a favorite past time for most of the world.

The recent comments by a certain reality star are disturbing for multiple reasons and there are many people to blame. It's also not the first time in the history of the entertainment industry that a person has made derogatory remarks and gotten punished for it. Regardless if you support the comments, you can't say them to a national magazine and not expect to get a reaction. I don't watch the personality's TV show nor am I included in a group of people that he offended in the article, yet I was offended on a human level. Why do we have to tear each other down?

When I see all the fighting that is directly or indirectly caused by these remarks I think of Pope Francis' recent words on the subject and I am filled with hope for our future. "If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?" The most important man in the Catholic Church has expressed what I've always said, 'Who am I to judge?'. We aren't God, or whatever other religious figure that you believe in. I don't believe that God will punish people for who they love and for wanting to be treated equally. And that's about all I have to say on the matter.

So during the final days of the Christmas season, can we please remember why it's supposed to be 'the most wonderful time of year'? As Linus famously quotes the Bible during A Charlie Brown Christmas, "And the angel said unto them, 'Fear not: for behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people."

Key word: All people.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

The Best TV You Aren't Watching: Part 1 of 3

Readers, it's been said that this year we've witnessed some of television's finest and I would have to agree. Not with the collective choices of shows (Dexter, Breaking Bad, Mad Men) but with some shows that are newer but have all collectively hit their own creative hot streak.

The first show that I'd like to bring to your attention is sure to get no attention because it currently resides on a network generally dismissed as a weak channel that regularly exploits the marketing ploy of having gorgeous males shirtless, all the time. That's right, you guessed it: The CW. While some of these accusations are true that doesn't stop the network executives from getting solid shows on the air. Who are we to overlook quality television, story, and acting because actors are hot? Shame on you.

(I'm looking at you Hart of Dixie. But please don't ever ever EVER stop.)

 

I may have gotten a little zealous on that last point, but it's a stigma that The CW has been fighting for the last couple of years. With The Vampire Diaries success came a new kind of entertainment to the network that had been lacking since the days of ... well I can't honestly say that One Tree Hill was a "great" show nor will I ever speak badly about it. With the critical and (for The CW) ratings hit of The Vampire Diaries, the network was able to create one of the best shows in recent years, and it's only in Season Two currently so that's saying something.

I'm talking about Arrow. For those of you unfamiliar with the show here's a brief synopsis: a wealthy playboy named Oliver Queen (played brilliantly by Stephen Amell) gets shipwrecked on an island that holds unspeakable dangers for five years. His father sacrificed himself while drifting in the sea so that Oliver had a chance to survive but not before telling his son about a seedy and corrupt underworld back home in fictional Starling City where his mother, sister Thea, and now ex-girlfriend Laurel Lance believe him to be dead. After he is rescued, Oliver decides to devote his life to bringing those corrupt to justice as the vigilante The Hood with the help of his "body guard" John Diggle and the world's best updated "Girl Friday", Felicity Smoak.

Phew. But come on, doesn't that sound amazing??? That's what I thought... and then it was December and I was on vacation and I realized I had 9 episodes sitting on my DVR gathering dust. I was at the "must watch now or delete and give up" stage that I occasionally find myself. I know, a real Sophie's Choice. Luckily for me the day after Christmas I was bed ridden with a cold and migraine. What to do? I decided to give the show a chance and I thank the TV Gods for that migraine because I can't imagine my TV world without Arrow.

Now I know that none of that really means anything to you unless you take my word on TV and movies ver batim. In case you don't, which you should, I'm prepared to give you evidence:

The Acting:
There are few shows that I can say consistently get better with age and Arrow is definitely one of them. The show operates between the current day where Oliver is now working under the name "Arrow" to his life on the island. Initially the creators said they had a set time and ending in mind which gives each episode a definitive feeling. Stephen Amell has to play so many variations of his characters and he does so seamlessly. I can not say enough good things about his acting. He's displayed so many emotions you wonder how he's able to specifically channel each one when they change so fast in the script. And the rest of the cast isn't exactly chopped liver either. Perhaps the best example of this would be Emily Bett Rickards who plays Felicity Smoak. Initially supposed to be a quick one-off character in one script, she was almost immediately moved up to recurring status before finally (much to the joy of Arrow fans everywhere) given full series regular status. Rickards' Felicity has grown from a tech-savvy geek expressing inappropriate comments about Oliver's hotness to his own Girl Friday and in her own right an active part in his crime fighting. While still dropping inappropriate comments about his body.

The Writing:
The only other show successfully blowing through plot lines as fast as Arrow is the Shonda Rhimes hit Scandal. The writers on Arrow leave you breathless episode after episode and rarely do you have a slow hour of television. The dialogue is generally on point but it's really Amell, David Ramsey's Diggle, and Rickards who deliver the best interactions. The show also knows how to create fully dimensional characters and it doesn't feel the need to express lane those plots either. One of last season's more grating characters, Paul Blackthorne's Detective Lance aka Laurel's disapproving father, was just a bit too gruff and grumpy. But with a demotion this season forcing him into the field, he is one of the more fully fleshed out characters that I look forward to seeing on my screen. Other minor characters who have benefited from this slow and steady character development are Thea, played with a softness that her portrayer Willa Holland hasn't been able to use before, and her thug-turned-wannabe hero boyfriend Roy, played with perfect intensity by Colton Haynes. The show knows where to pack a punch, literally and metaphorically.

The Relationships:
Arrow boasts some of the best couplings/bromances/teams on television right now. There are almost too many to count. As mentioned above the core three (Olive/Diggle/Felicity) is the real treat and they share the screen 65% of the time and rightly so. From her first appearance, sparks flew between Oliver and Felicity and the writers knowing just how to torture fangirls everywhere, put their romance on slow burn. I mean, slowwwwwwwww burn. And boy, I wouldn't have it any other way. It's been so satisfying watching the two of them actually get to know each other and the flaws that they hide from the world. His looks at her inappropriate comments are almost better than a full on kiss. Almost. Thea and Roy's relationship is also a fun addition to the show as well as Felicity's new alliance with Detective Lance.

Somehow I've managed to only allude to Oliver's hotness without listing it as a "reason" to watch the show. Well... the man is ripped. The show doesn't deny nor shy away from blatantly promoting his.. um... assets. And why not? Plus, he's not the only one. Diggle and Roy are definitely impressive and the ladies get to show off their attributes with killer dresses and heels. The great part is: it may be the reason you give the show a chance but it won't be the reason you come back. That credit is all the shows.

 

It's A Marvel World After All

I'm sensing a disturbance in the force, readers. After watching Thor: The Dark World last night, I am left with a nagging feeling. Where do we, as movie goers and film executives go from here?

The movie itself rates an A-/B+ in my grading scale purely based on the entertainment factor. In this installment in the franchise, Thor, aka Chris Hemsworth, knows who he is supposed to be and wants nothing more than to be that for his realm and his father. Of course there is one problem: his true love Jane, Natalie Portman,  is a human and he hasn't seen her (minus some creepy/uber-romantic, depending on your point of view, watching over her by using the Guardian to keep an eye out) in two years since he first saved Earth. Some shady plot devices get thrown in and he can return to Jane and bring her back to his home of Asgard. Tragedy strikes and Thor must go to the one person we all love and know will be his doom, Loki. Here is where the movie really shines: during the scenes shared between Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston is the chemistry that is reminiscent of The Avengers;  not that the movie is bland in the human world. No, thankfully Darby, portrayed once again by Kat Dennings, is back and speaking from the minds of the viewers exactly what we would be saying were we in this position. Ladies interested in seeing Hemsworth with his shirt off will have to make do with one teasing scene in the beginning because while the movie doesn't drop the humor it does do away with gratuitous scenes like that. With twists that I could see coming, the movie was more than entertaining but lacked significant movement in the Marvel universe, at least in my opinion. Side Note: Stay for two closing credits scenes. One in the middle and one at the very end. It's not until the closing credit scene (that Marvel has perfected to an art) that we really get a sense of why this whole battle was important in the grand scheme of things.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

The closing credit scene takes two of Thor's mates to "The Collector" (played by an almost unrecognizable Benecio Del Toro) to hold the Aether which nearly destroyed the Nine Realms in the movie. This is the first time movie goers are getting a glimpse into the next big phase of Marvel's (World Domination) Plan: Guardians of the Galaxy (8/14) which is currently slated to come out after this spring's Captain America: The Winter Soldier( 4/14).  The final movie in Phase 2 of this plan will end with the next Avengers collab, Age of Ultron in 2015.

Phew. I'm exhausted just writing that. And herein lies the problem: in a world where superhero movies are so popular and already have a built in fan base, why stop? Phase 3 is already in pre-production with Ant-Man coming out two months after Age of Ultron in July of 2015. The next logical movie would be another Iron Man/Thor/Captain America stand alone but... Robert Downey Jr. is only signed on to play Tony Stark for the next two Avengers movies. Chris Hemsworth is locked in as well as Chris Evans but you have to wonder, how long do they want to be playing these characters? They aren't as old as RDJ; Hemsworth is 30 and Evans is 32 to RDJ's 48. Clearly these have at least another 10 years of screen time as they characters.

But what about superhero fatigue? Will it ever happen to the main movie going audience? You never really know. Marvel, along with Disney, is threatening to have one of the biggest movie monopolies I've ever even heard of and they are showing no signs of slowing down. But what happens when they want to reboot a series? DC Comics is known for doing that (see Batman and Superman) to mixed success. With the news of Ben Affleck taking over the Cowled Cape from Christian Bale (arguably people's defining Batman) there was outrage and the scales tipped a little bit in DC's favor. Once the dominant superhero blockbuster, they have been forced to make bold moves to stay in the public's awareness. Marvel is everywhere you look these day: your TV has a struggling in the ratings but still steady enough to warrant a full season pick up show focused on the day to day missions of it's erstwhile S.H.I.E.L.D. and soon to be coming to a Netflix near you will be 4 13 episode mini-season of smaller characters from the Marvel universe.

I'm not saying that Marvel should stop everything immediately and only produce one movie every 3 years. I just wonder how these movies will hold up against the test of time. Will they be redone in 15, 20 years? I for one will not be OK with that. Just as Hugh Jackman will always be Wolverine, these other men will always be The Avengers. I can't imagine any other hot, phenomenal actors taking over the roles.

But why stop there with the remakes, it's  all Hollywood can do these days it seems. Star Wars isn't getting a remake necessarily but it's certainly a reboot much like the great Star Trek franchise just received, and I'm not saying that that movie doesn't add something to our pop culture but besides that one movie, when was the last time a decent remake was done? I'm sure I could come up with one, but why must Hollywood take gems from it's crown and grind it down into paper currency to make it's money? Why make new movies when adaptations and remakes already have a built-in fan base of people who will pay to ridicule the movie? That means that perhaps the most influential series in recent pop culture history, Harry Potter, could one day be in the line of fire. I can't imagine anyone else in the world filling those shoes and I would never want it to be done. The only way I can even conceive of it being "redone" would be to make the books into a mini-series so that more content from the books that got left out in the movies could get to be seen. And that's a big if.

For now all we can do is wait and see how this grand (world domination) plan plays out. Will Marvel end up on top? At the end of the first two movies in Phase 2, the only string that holds our Avengers together is that they are alive and essentially giving up their "super" life to lead normal lives with the women they love. We will see if this holds true when Cap gets his due in what is sure to be much better than his first solo movie outing. If it is, then we can all piece together what Joss Whedon has in mind to get our favorite band of super hero misfits back together...

Date night with shawarma of course.

The Case of the Single Girl

When things don't work out in your life, you always look back and start examining where it could have gone wrong. So when I had to deal with a break up this past week, my crazy brain went into overdrive, (over) analyzing what I could have done differently. I feel that I am qualified to be the lead investigator in this matter because it's my life but more importantly because I've been watching a lot of "Sherlock Holmes" themed television/movies lately. Clearly the erstwhile detective and I could crack The Case of the Single Girl. ( I know, super clever.)

I have always been a fan of Sherlock Holmes and his many variations. I read the books as a child, fell in love with Robert Downey Jr. in the recent revival, and watch Elementary on CBS which had the neat idea to twist Holmes' relationship with his companion Dr. Watson by making the character a female foil. Until recently I had not given in to the British retelling, Sherlock, but one day I found myself interested enough and was hooked shortly after. This influx of Holmesian thinking makes me more than qualified to solve the aforementioned mystery.

My imaginary Holmes' and I must start the investigation at the beginning. Single Girl is a mid-twenties, fairly attractive female who has not been in a serious relationship. Her story begins when she decides on her birthday to join an online dating site on a whim purely based on a "oh why the hell not" attitude. From sources, we have gathered that she was not a quiet girl, rather multiple reports detail her being social, outgoing, and quite popular. The first month of activity on the site proved fruitless and in an effort to be more proactive about her situation, she set about to find the "one".

After a series of awful dates (one suitor had rotted teeth reports confirm), Single Girl met a nice gentleman. Based on her past experiences, Single Girl kept the man and the news quiet for fear of getting too excited. Things were good but hard, their work schedules were not conducive to a regular dating relationship. Not one to bite a gift horse in the mouth, Single Girl made her peace with that and decided it was worth it. Alas, the gentleman couldn't maintain those same feelings and ended the relationship after a couple months.

Single Girl was understandably a bit down in the dumps but after a couple days of being sad, she decided to hire our crack team of investigators to see if we can solve her case of singledom. Let's dig deeper, shall we readers???

Potential Flaws:

-She likes too many movies. After several meetings with Single Girl, one will notice that she often drops movie and TV quotes into normal conversation and not realize what she is doing. This could be a deterrent for potential mates.

- Her beauty is too girl next door. She isn't drop dead gorgeous, nor does she have that natural beauty that some people are gifted with. She works at her good looks. Although she has been known to make a few jaws drop when she wants to. There is photographic evidence.

- She is loud. She has a loud voice. And a loud laugh.

- Her love of sports could intimidate men. She is not afraid of voicing her opinions at the TV screen in public or at an actual game.

- An avid eater, she could one day get fat. It happens to the best of people.

After examining the evidence... we are stumped. Her "flaws" are more like quirks and could be seen as quite endearing to the right person. She is clearly popular as she has many friends and is beloved by all, or so we assume. There must be something else a foot. A villain that she and we are not aware of...

I Need A Hero... Or Do I?

As the great Bonnie Tyler once said, "Where have all the good men gone and where are all the Gods? Where's the street-wise Hercules to fight the rising odds?" She really needed a hero you guys. (Excuse me while I Footloose dance for a minute.) This song is currently playing in my head as I contemplate a couple of articles I read this week. The topic of the articles is the rise and demise of the "antihero".  An antihero is a character who seemingly has no redeeming qualities, does and says horrible things to those around them, and yet the viewer keeps rooting for or in some case rooting against them.

The reason for this influx interest about the antihero can be traced to t the recent finales of Dexter and Breaking Bad. I'll be honest with you, I didn't watch these shows. At the time of their start, I didn't have cable and I didn't feel like shelling out money for the seasons. I make no apologies. Both actors, Michael C. Hall as Dexter and Bryan Cranston as Walter White, are phenomenal and I have no problem with them having received awards for these roles. So just know that my expertise on these specific "antiheroes" is coming from a purely observational level. However, I have always been attracted as a viewer to these type of characters.

Why? No, I am not a crazy psychopathic killer or a burgeoning meth queen. It's the portrayal and the layers that these kind of characters have that is so interesting to watch. My main experience with the "antihero" primarily would come from Hugh Laurie's House who just tickled me with his prickliness and rude antics. You loved him too. Two Golden Globes and two Emmy nominations meant that the TV business did too. I first fell in love with him in Season Two when he snarkily responded to his underlings witnessing a fight with the boss, "Don't worry. Mommy and Daddy still love you." My heart was his.

The articles this past week focus on the rise of this charismatic character and his seeming end. Apparently, the antihero has run his course in our pop culture society and we no longer need him or care about his dilemmas. The dramas on network television trying to capture the residual critical and ratings love of the antihero are failing to draw viewers. See: NBC's Ironside which had the lowest rated premiere debut on the network ever this past week. SIDE NOTE: I say "his" mostly because it is always a man playing this role. If a woman were to play the "antihero" she would just be called a frigid rhymes with witch and no one would think anything of it. END SIDE NOTE

So finally let's get to my opinion on the topic of these complicated, unlikeable men. I like them. They intrigue me. As a person, I am always convinced that there is good in someone. Even after they do something horrible. In TV or even the movie world, I relish these characters that embrace their inner evil and don't care about the consequences. They love power and power makes them desirable. They are often hilarious and give amazing speeches. The real world has these people and I clearly don't associate with them. But the more the fictional characters kill or plot, the more I fall under their spell.

There is a subset of the "antihero", more commonly romanticized by being called a "bad boy". The "bad boy" isn't bad by nature, it's the upbringing, situation, people, or traumas that have formed him into that lovable rhymes with chick that every girl wants to just cuddle. These are the best dressed, wittiest men on television. The main examples would be Damon from The Vampire Diaries and Ryan Atwood of the late but always timely The O.C., although there are countless others. These characters have redeeming qualities, like their love of a family member or a good woman, and over time you see the pieces that made them the way they are today come together. Sometimes they change for the better and sometimes people just learn to expose the better sides to their advantage.

There is also the "conflicted" man who longs to do the right thing but circumstance can't allow it. The poster child for this kind of character would have to be Fitz on the sudsy ABC show Scandal. He is clearly the male lead who should get the female lead. Only problem is that he's married. Oh, and he's the President of the United States. No big deal. Clearly this will never work out but man, when he looks at her. SWOOOOOON. And then there are his speeches about his love for this other woman that you can physically see take the emotional toll on his body. Le sigh.

So do we really need to lose these men? And more importantly, do we really need a hero? The answer that we should get is that yes, as long as there is solid character development and a solid story to build upon. Being a rhymes with chick for no reason does not good television make. As viewers, we expect to invest in characters and as investors we expect to be entertained while getting the best story possible.

So maybe there aren't any more 'white knights upon a fiery steed' coming to save us. But maybe that's a good thing.

'Twas the Night Before TV Premiere Week...

'Twas the night before TV Premiere week, and all through the house,
Not a television set was buzzing, not even the computer's mouse;
The new television schedule hung with care,
In hopes that Monday night at 8 pm Eastern Time would soon be there.
Kate lay snuggled up tight in her bed
While visions of new and old programming danced in her head;
And Mother in her disapproval, and Dad who didn't give a hoot
Had just settled down to the inevitable dispute
When out of the darkness Cordy created a clatter
I sprang awake to see what was the matter:
It was just a squirrel; and to sleep we all went
Awaiting the following day, sure to be full of argument.

As the day ticked on and on, young Kate was filled with anticipation
For that new season of television, waiting for its appreciation.
Final seasons, sure to be filled with such declarations:
NOOOOO. YESSSSS. WHYYYY. GAHHHHHH.
(Rhyming is hard. Sue me.)
Shows in the middle of their run that can only get better or worse
And some shows trying to fight off the inevitable television curse.
New shows that show so much promise
Only to be on the bubble before they even get a chance to develop a love rhombus.

With a color-coded schedule with no room for taping error
There are always early casualties; despite critic favor.
Blacklist, Hostages, and Dads have already lost their chance,
What shows will lose their spot at my loving glance?
And who could have for seen Sleepy Hollow, a supernatural adventure with romance
being the first new show to get a season pass?
Will Agents of SHIELD  and The Crazy Ones capture my attention
or will they fail in spectacular fashion?*

Entertaining shows are hard to find, let alone with broad appeal,
And looking at the crop of new shows, very few of them seem to seal the deal.
I like to give them an opportunity to impress me
But most of time they depress me.
With so few new shows on the air
It can lead me to wallow in despair.
The state of television is already fickle and diminishing
What with premium cable and high class channels winning;
When will network television get their comeback
Stealing back some of the acclaim it recently lacks?

Those questions are harder ones than I have time to beseech,
Why be sad when such a night is within my reach!?
So I'll put away my questions and ugghs,
Instead I'll settle down, grab some snacks, and my newest wine mug!
So here's to a new season of television filled with laughs and cries
Spoilers and deaths, gasps and whys?
I look forward to new beginnings and dread the ends
And if you try to reach me during a weeknight, you're dead.

(The answer is no, they won't but again it rhymed. Rhyming is hard!!!)