Oh, fucking shit.

I want one thing out of the way. Season Four has destroyed Kalinda Sharma. She's asking for 5% of the profits, an ask that, if answered for twenty people, would leave an entire firm with no budget. What's worse is that it did not make sense to me that she was insulted by and lost her temper at Cary's negotiation…

There's a difference between having a discussion, and "bitching" and "screaming", none of which apply to my stance in this matter, but do seem to apply to yours.

Case in point, today, the Big Bang Theory got an A.

Personally, I do disapprove of creatives with money asking for money. It's not a "class issue", or whatever people might make it. The issue is that people such as Zach Braff or Kristen Bell - and I have nothing against them, I like Kristen Bell and loved Veronica Mars - do not only have the funds to do this on their…

I sure would love it if Parks and Recreation weren't reviewed as some sort of concept, but as a show. Seriously, if there is one more mention of "stakes" in context with this comedy - well, frankly, I don't know what I'll do ("I'll stop reading!" sounds like the stakes are too low, you know?). Sitcom 2.0, really?

My main issue was that her salary negotiations are a plot that is brought up again and again, and whereas previous instances made sense (as said, when she compared her salary to the wasteful spending on other outside counsel), this year, Kalinda's been detrimental, her husband's interference making her drop the ball…

First of all, I'm not shipping Will and Alicia, necessarily. I liked Veronica going to Will, because I'm fine with it, if that's what it takes.

So this week, we had the hook that Peter asks for a vow renewal, and a case that tied into Lockhart/Gardner corporate policy.

This show causes me to be deeply conflicted: On the one hand, I want Donna to have her own spin-off, on the other, I know that it's the timing and scarcity of her use that makes her so amazing.

"I hate you."
"No, you don't."

Haven't caught up with the comments yet, so sorry if I echo sentiments, or stuff.

Definitely interesting, and, honestly, this is what the show does. It doesn't pull away the curtain with flourish and a "tadaa!", it simply steps to the side, and you can take from it what you want.

Since the episode's theme, as much as this show does themes, was "idealism", I think it's fair to say that fiscal difficulties weren't as important to the Justice than anything pertaining to proper legal practice. I mean, he basically brushed off McVeigh as unimportant, by reason of him not being a lawyer. Like, that…

I really enjoyed the review in its initial three or so paragraphs, and then it went too much into recap territory and off the road and missed things I felt were very important to the episode.

Just browsed this, and am not particularly invested in the Late Night thing, but, yes, Aisha Tyler might be a truly great suggestion. She should satisfy VanDerWerff's white guy complaint, and her Girl on Guy podcast can be insightful, funny, empathetic and engaging for up to two hours.
Only complaint would be that…

Seems to be as though these reviews grow more and more indifferent.

Never seen Battlestar (too much good stuff out there to've consumed everything).

[This comment contains spoilers.]

This show must go on.