Shit, the Bible itself tells you that: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others." Matthew 6:5-15.

That makes me sad…but not as sad as Chad Lowe.

I'm surprised there's no reference to Otto Preminger's Advise and Consent. It's not exactly uplifting, since it sort of plays homosexuality as deeply tragic, but it's a huge part of the plot.

People you know in real life must hate you.

It would be really hard for any director, David Lynch especially, to take Dougie and make it really pay off. Why I think this stuff (I'm really talking about Dougie and Andy and Lucy, who don't even seem like the same characters) won't get redeemed in the long run is that it isn't Lynch's style to do so. He's bold and…

Not if it's a shitty artistic premise. If your artistic process of "experimentation" leads to something on the intellectual and entertainment value of "Nutty Professor II: the Klumps," it's garbage, no matter how your process got you there. Dougie sucks and will be really hard to justify. Andy and Lucy, the Return…

#notawlicepicks

Calling it a deliberate artistic choice isn't a defense of the choice. It's actually an opening for criticism (in the academic, rather than complainy sense). Most of Dougie's storyline and revealing Diane as an actual character seem like poor artistic choices (though having Laura Dern play Diane is kind of fun). Why…

That's not helping.

The man publicly strong-armed Showtime into paying him more money lest he should withdraw from the production entirely. Couple the time spent on Dougie with the general inanity of Dougie's storyline (it plays like a comedy aimed at people who use cough syrup recreationally), and I can't help but wonder whether he's…

It feels like padding, which I'm beginning to resent (I know that there's no basis upon which it is rational to resent a show that I could just stop watching).

Pun?

Even so, Kirk is pretty effing iconic. Not like that wiener, Capt. Pike.

Maybe you missed my point. I can't think of a great show that doesn't have a strong central character (I think that could apply to the Wire, but that's a long conversation). If they fade too far into the background, they're not a central character.

A show where the main character isn't good isn't good itself because it's structurally unsound. Take Seinfeld as an example. If you edited Jerry out, it would be unbearable. It would be a bunch of dysfunctional people having terrible lives. It would be Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Did I miss something in the article or are they missing the point that the main character is almost always there as a lens through which the audience experiences the work? In a good work, of course the main character is going to be the best. If the main character is no good, the show kind of falls apart for lack of a…

Goddammit, that was well-played.

Hey, it's gotta be luridly fascinating to people with a sane, functional gov…oh, never mind.

We just heard some the flicker of flames and the screams of the damned.

"Rock" that is "indie."