Six seasons? That's some real dedication to a single "Cleveland is purgatory" joke.

And that was an especially strange mistake for them to make given that they had already squandered the potential of the move in season 4 so badly that season 6 became necessary.

"I forget, are they going to be internally or externally hypocritical assholes in this one?"

The parts where the show temporarily seemed interested in examining the consequences of Nancy's actions and what a terrible idea it was for her to start selling drugs instead of getting a job and a smaller house were good, and the season finale would have worked as a much better series finale than the real one. There…

I thought Archer Vice was a real boost at first, but they really had nowhere interesting to go with it beyond the initial excitement of the concept - even that last multi-episode stretch was basically just back to business as usual.

Season 6 sort of worked, a little.

If you haven't seen A Young Doctor's Notebook yet, I highly suggest you rectify that. Hamm and Daniel Radcliffe as a Russian doctor at different ages, somehow interacting with each other as the older version reminisces.

Well, they did the Michael Scott Paper Company arc during season 5, which was a big revitalization for the show, but then they undid it to get the show back in place for the long decline. I see mentions of Archer below, and expect that that's exactly what the conclusion of the Archer Vice arc that was a bit of a shot…

I kind of wish they had to produce the show in a vacuum, because the knowledge that they were a critical and popular success absolutely destroyed every element of that show almost immediately.

I think the worst thing about this episode is the fact that the great vacation episode in the first season originated from the show creator wanting to prove their sitcom mentor wrong about the theory that it was impossible to do a good vacation episode of a sitcom. They succeeded with flying colours in that strong…

What do you think that landmine on his desk is for?

Indeed, though now they have to change the podcast theme song, obviously.

I'm half convinced both shows used the exact same ultrasound footage of triplets, because the second it popped on screen in Parks I thought "oh, triplets"

Yeah, I'm not invested in it (haven't bothered watching Into Darkness yet), but the idea that a certifiable nutjob can be given full control of a film without anyone to temper his influence is still pretty concerning.

I don't really want to watch a movie about how the Federation did 9/11 and blamed it on the Klingons, thanks.

This is the first episode where I understood the effusive praise he was getting in advance reviews, good as he was in the first two. Has anyone said how much of the season he appears in?

Fake rock? Nice try, Kallison.

This was pretty crap, but I did laugh at the "Father, what am I?" line. It's a huge disappointment compared to the prior futuristic episodes, but at least the largely random and stupid filler is more varied due to the concept than the general quality we've seen this season.

Part of it is the mandate for most of the show to be aired live, part is a reliance on celebrity hosts over talented performers, part is that the sketches are written to fill blocks of time instead of ending when they naturally should, but most of it is actually the fact that aiming at a broad audience while trying…

Well put. I've come to feel the same way about adaptations that aren't faithful to the source material. I used to feel like that was some kind of betrayal instead of a creative act that may or may not work out that has no ramifications on the original unless you want it to.