Except that a lot of "shows the network owns a piece of that they're keeping on to get them to syndication" are better than the shows that get the larger audiences.

That's why I said cable. It's difficult to imagine a variety show that could capture 7-8 million viewers, but an interesting show that fosters the right kind of "you don't know what will happen next, but it'll be interesting" spirit could almost definitely be a cult thing. 1-2 million is doable, maybe?

"Greenblatt seems most interested in reviving least-objectionable programming as a strategy"
…which is probably a good idea. Network TV doesn't do well with "objectionable." If anything does well with "objectionable", which is a debatable point to begin with — "objectionable" as a side effect is just fine, but a…

Fair enough — but to me, all of those theoretical strengths Parks has are undercut by the fact that its characterization is about as deep as a puddle. It's all well and good that Leslie Knope is torn between building a home life with Cookie Monster and going to work with Disco Stu, but it's hard to go for realism on…

Fair enough.

Perhaps — I've found some of them amusing, others fairly pointless. But I feel like most of them have been with people who might reasonably be expected to have something interesting to say for one of the above reasons (they know about music, or they have a talent for writing funny things.) This is just setting…

You could Google "rhetorical question."

Exactly. I'm not at all sure a weekly variety show couldn't work out. (Personally, I imagine something based in sketch comedy alongside Other Things, but that's just my comedy background talking. Well, that and the fact that the closest currently viable thing to a weekly variety show is Saturday Night Live.

What "direction"? They just haven't picked up a lot of shows that have worked out, is all. I don't think that was anyone's plan.

I'm not saying it isn't/wasn't good — very good at times — but it's relentlessly low-key and unambitious. Which is fine and all, but to me, "essential" means "this show is doing something nobody else is doing."

Annie has changed majors at least twice.

Which Perrys are sub-Katy, anyway? Gaylord? Oliver Hazard?

Also, who is this person? Someone who is known for music, and as such might be expected to have things to say about music? Someone who is known for having interesting or entertaining opinions?

I like Parks too, but let's face it, it doesn't have "essential" in its DNA.

It's a weird Princess Leia/Bib Fortuna/jazz/dubstep fusion thing.

I know. Jazz samples and everything. Where is Prince Paul when you need him?

Well, you have to make sure to specify Mark. Self-Dan Harmon will probably get you fired.

Maybe it'll win anyway, because the AV Club can't afford to host future Roundtables and has to throw this one?

Yeah — that stuff gets passed down. I grew up a Mets fan because my parents (who lived on Long Island) were Mets fans, because my grandparents (who lived in Brooklyn) were Dodgers fans and there's no way we were rooting for the Yankees.

Yeah… I guess the thing with baseball, though, is that there are plenty of perfectly good prospects who expect to make the majors, and then they don't even get that far. And unlike football players, who can at least be assumed to have completed some college, a lot of baseball players have to start over again. Not that…