the blechelor.

so.

i watched the finale of the bachelor last nite.
this is not something that i make a habit of. in fact, up until this season, i'm fairly certain i hadn't ever seen an entire episode. this season, based solely on the hotness of andy (the officer/gentleman/puppet), i've tuned in almost every week to watch the last 10 minutes of each episode. why? well. it's not particularly entertaining. moreso, it's fascinating. my complaint about the bachelor has been, and will continue to be this: have these women never seen an episode of this show? it's been on for, what, 9 seasons? do they NOT know that the whole point of the show is for the bachelor to date many, many women in the hopes of finding a (blech) mate? ok, wait. i'll back up. let's assume that they have not seen an episode of the show. so. we assume that they live under a rock. or in a hole. or have been kept locked away in a closet in some remote russian town. somehow, they crawl out from under the rock, climb up from the hole, or break out of said closet. the make it onto the show. are you telling me that no one (no one?!) says to them, "just so you know...there are 25 of you, duking it out or this guy." that must be the case, because WITHOUT FAIL, at least once an episode someone says, "i just don't understand...i thought he liked me. i thought we had a connection. i feel betrayed." cue tears and dejected walk to the limo-of-rejection. i swear to jesus.

annoying. and, frankly, depressing.

note: yes. i know it's only a television show. and no, i shouldn't watch if i'm going to get this worked up.

we came to the conclusion last nite that bachelor andy, in spite of his honest-to-goodness HOT factor, must have some major character flaw. he seemed a little vacant behind the eyes. and, also? he told two women, in the span of a day, that he loved them. on national television. and then had to recant to one of them. on national television. idiocy. (for real. that's just dumb.) also, his teeth were too perfect. they sort of screamed 'deranged dentist.' i mean, clearly he's not unintelligent (i think i read that he's a surgeon? i'm not kidding when i say i only watch the last 15 minutes.) but he's not the brightest bulb in the lamp of common sense.

funny: my mom commented that he didn't look like he was kissing with very much passion. quite possibly my favorite comment on anything. ever. she also hates the bachelor but was oddly riveted last nite.

[note: tv just told me that clooney, pitt and damon are going to be live from cannes on gma tomorrow morning. i think tv just exploded from glee.]

i always think i should feel bad for the girls on the bachelor. but, really? NO. you weren't forced into this (if you were, well. get yourself out of THAT situation.) you know exactly what you're getting yourself into. and yes: you think you're going to be the one. but, you have to know that the odds of that happening are not great. even if you live in a tiny town with very few men of note: stay there. your odds of finding a (blech) mate are greater.

what are you doing? looking for my talent.

i like tv. i've always liked tv. i like reruns. i love tv on dvd -- it combines two of my favorite things: staying home & sitting on the couch for hours and tv. i think there are a lot of excellent shows on tv right now: friday night lights, heroes, lost, the office, house.

studio 60 on the sunset strip is not one of these shows.

here's the thing: i have deep-seated love for aaron sorkin. i'm actually watching sports night as i type this. i'm watching sports night because prior to this i watched an episode of studio 60... and it made me so upset at the state of sorkin's misguided intentions that i had to watch something that reminded me of a time when he was smart and witty and not quite so sorkin-centric. s60 is painful. absolutely painful. and the thing is, the parts are clearly superior to the whole. matthew perry? good. bradley whitford? good. nathan corrdry? good. aaron sorkin? good. there have been a lot of theories floating around as to why the show is less than watchable (too much focus on the poorly written sketches; too many sorkin self-referential plotlines) and i can't pinpoint the exact reason, but i know one thing: it. is. painful. all of the men are idiots (why is bradley whitford stalking amanda peet?) and the women are either painfully self-righteous or painfully bland/underwritten. obviously, sorkin's shows have always left some sort of morality tale in their wake, but never this poorly organized or executed. sports night and west wing both tackled race, politics, drugs, etc. -- often quite heavy handed. but it was always contextual; you rarely felt that it was thrown in to make you feel inferior or to "ponder."

maybe it's the hype that is sinking s60. clearly sports night was pre-hype (it was eventually the buzz-builder for ww and s60) and west wing lived up to the hype (for the majority of its run. so what's the problem here? mini-list of reasons why studio 60 is ridiculously bad:

• it's only been 2 hours since the show ended and i can barely remember what happened
• not nearly enough timothy busfield -- he handles the sorkinian dialogue like a champ
• sports night was brilliant because it showed why the characters -- not the fake show -- were worth investing in. it's about the people. no one cares about the s60 characters. they're annoying.
• d.l. hughley is hilarious. and they never give him an opportunity to do anything remotely funny. it's like having a bmw and using it as a planter.
• the character of harriet is horr-i-ble. HORRIBLE. nothing against sarah paulson, but her character is terribly written, terribly positioned in the plot. she's not a likable character, but the plot makes you feel guilty for hating her. not fair, plot. if you want me to like your characters, then DON'T WRITE THEM CRAPPILY. hugh laurie's character on house is a wretched man, but he's written so damn well that you can't help feeling enhanced while watching. s60 has no such characters.
• is it a comedy? is it a drama? is it a romance? i'm not saying it can't be a combination, but it needs to have some semblance of self to begin with.
• how did amanda peet become the least annoying person on the show? i started out hightly suspect of her 'jordan mcdeere', certain she would be the show's downfall, but she's become the only character with any sort of relatable traits.
• finally: the background noise is too loud. but maybe i'm just getting old.

distractavision.

george stephanopoulos just popped up on my screen following this. his head pretty much takes up the whole television screen. and he's very tan. now barack is on! love him. his blue tie is very smart and slyly political. some caption under his name contained an exclamation point. heh. am fairly certain whoever is in charge of graphics is going to get canned. charlie gibson looks cold, but obama looks like he could stand there all night and then some, making brilliant point after brilliant point. he's also going to be on gma tomorrow morning. my good intentions are telling me to get up and watch but my body is just laughing at the notion. also, diane sawyer? she's got to be the most fascinating woman on tv. and she's married to mike nichols, who has an oscar, a dga, emmys, golden globes, and SEVEN tony awards. seven. tony awards. unreal. i'm fascinated. their collective brilliance is astounding.

anyway.

oh, also: i'd like to buy ryan phillippe some new facial expressions. and a haircut. or maybe a wig.

i started out ready to write about something, but i've been completely distracted by the television. they also just showed d. cheney, posited behind the president during the speech, and looking eerily like this guy. i really can't remember why i'm typing... as my mom would say, 'must have been a lie.'