TVSquad

Well, no one here can make you review it, but someone at TVS really should pick it up. It's hard to be a real blog without a show as important as Boston Legal.

I'll have to take my RSS feed elsewhere. Too bad.

Reply

I certainly can understand. A lot of David E. Kelley's shows implode like this. Really for me, the show is beginning to blow...

Reply

You know, I don't think I want to do that TPS report tomorrow. It doesn't interest me... my heart's not in it anymore. It's not fair to the firm. What a great way to get out of work! I'll have to save this one for a rainy day. J/k

I'll have to agree with you. This show has three interesting and fully utilized characters: Schmidt, Crane, and Shore. Anyone else is boring and usually never lasts for a whole season. That is sort of annoying. I think they've hit the same rut with Julie Bowen's character... but since she's Julie Bowen they can't just throw her character away as easily as those interns, or Lake Bell, or Betty White. I guess my biggest problem is how Alan Shore went from exciting, hair-raising,morally ambiguous jerk to horny parody. That's the real crime.

Despite all this though, the subjects covered in the show still hold my interest. But it's a shame because it could be a lot better than it is right now if the characters. like you said, weren't guilty of sameness.

Reply

To me, the problem with this show has always been that it always appears to be screaming "Look how outrageous we are!" This forced wackiness is in every element of the program: the woo-woo theme music that underscores each plot point, the well-acted but nuttier-than-the-next supporting characters (look -- a little person! look -- a transvestite! look -- a serial killer!), and of course the constant sex talk and sexual shenanigans that are supposed to be cutting-edge but seem more like a child's idea of what adult sexuality is like. Meanwhile, I don't know when they last had a trial that was interesting to watch and wasn't just preaching about a given political point.

The show has a great cast -- I don't think Shatner and Spader could have better roles at this point in their careers -- as well as some funny moments that keep it worth watching. But I think it would be a lot better if Kelley toned down the self-conscious kookiness, instead concentrating on telling better stories and making the characters more like people and less like caricatures.

Reply

Hire me. I will review it!

Reply

Did you quit after tonights show because todays episode was the best one in months. I like the cross dresser and his girlfriend, they are on the side. The dumb baby storyline makes me sick, but at least it's not overdone like BSG. Plus there is the gay minister they make fun of during Alen's closing that just came out of "rehab' today! Great episode.

But the point of this show is to be over the top, that's why it's so great. You see all these people you know from elsewhere being crazy, it's great. You want realism watch one of the 10 Law and Orders out there or the 1,000 "different" lawyer shows.

Reply

Richard, don't get me wrong. I love your reviews and completely understand. However,

"You have to schedule for it, watch it in a different manner then you would if you were a normal viewer, and then cull the highlights of the show into a 10-15 paragraph review. When the show you're reviewing is getting a bit dull, writing a post on it can become a chore."

Does not Anna do that exact thing 4x a week with the daily show?

Reply

Here's why I'm dropping TVSquad


The lack of professionalism from its writers and editors honestly disgust me. You reflect a bad image of AOL especially after the new makeover that was going well. What's the point of being a site about TV when you invent excuses and rationales that has no basis for the readers? TVGuide.com does a lot of shows and there are usually 500-700 word reviews (not recaps). Is it so hard to have a freakin' opinion?

Get some professional writers in. Or least people who like TV and aren't willing to get jaded fast.

Reply

Agree 100% with #8. Probably more than 100 of us readers would be willing and able to write Boston Legal recaps, and that's without even talking about payment. I believe TV squad bloggers do get paid, and none of us can just stop going to work tomorrow because we don't feel it's as interesting as it once was. Perhaps you should consider yourself lucky that not only is this a job, but it's a job hundreds of us would love to do.

TV squad has failed me once again, dropping yet another show I like. If I wanted to see mostly articles about just 5 or 6 shows day-in-day-out-week-in-week-out, I would subscribe to TV guide magazine, not read a blog. This blog was a good thing for me for awhile, but the holier-than-thou attitude adopted by some of the writers has me pointing my RSS and web page views elsewhere. Dearest readers and/or Boston Legal Fans: I suggest you join me, no place in particular, just somewhere that isn't here.

Reply

Bitter much, Mel?

Honestly, reviewing a show can get very tedious when things start to get so unbelievably formulaic and boring you can't enjoy it because you *have* to watch it just so that you can review it. It can't happen.

Besides, I didn't subscribe to the TVS RSS feed for show reviews. I'm going to continue coming back so I can keep informed on what's happening in the world of TV.

This whole "lack of professionalism" that Mel wants to believe is there really isn't because you're at least telling the TVS readers you can't continue to review a show and why, even if it is out of sheer boredom. Nobody should be forced into doing something they don't like, regardless of what they get paid.

Besides, this is a BLOG. Paid or not, it's up to the bloggers what they will put in here. If you look up the definition of blog (as a noun), you'll see that there is absolutely no requisite to being professional in there.

Reply

Dave,
"Nobody should be forced into doing something they don't like, regardless of what they get paid." - - So, has "Richard Keller" quit TV Squad then? When most of us get jobs we can't selectively choose which duties in said job we feel good about performing and then only get those.

Yes, looking up blog (as a noun) in a dictionary doesn't yield a definition containing the word "professionalism" or any variant thereof. According to Merriam Webster online, neither does the word Journalism, or the word Journalist. Why? Because professionalism isn't required to fill the bare minimum requirement, but it is expected by most readers of media anyway (be it old-media OR new-media).

Oh, also, to cater toward your love of dictionaries: someone who gets paid to perform duties is a professional, whereas someone that does something just for kicks would be an amateur.

While you may not have subscribed to the RSS feed to read reviews, perhaps some of us did. There has been nothing more satifying than seeing the wishy-washy recaps of Studio 60 through this season - not only does it echo what a lot of us feel, but it's also nice to see that not every recap is written by nervous fanboys. Has Mr. Keller stopped watching Boston Legal completely? If not, why not do a recap where you talk about why you feel the way you do regarding what happened in the episode, rather than decide the night the latest episode airs that you suddenly don't want to recap anymore. If Boston Legal keeps getting worse, then keep commenting on it. Or, even better, let's just have 20 writers review Grey's Anatomy each week, and 20 others review Lost. Except Lost is a giant question mark right now, so maybe by the end of the season there will be forty writers doing Grey's Anatomy recaps. But hey, we can't all get paid to write about something we love I guess, only you lucky bloggers.

Reply

Actually it's posts like this that make me like TV Squad. It feels like another viewer telling me their thoughts, rather than a typical 'review'. I'd be surprised if another blogger didn't pick it up.

Reply

The theory for blogs is that we don't pay to be able to read this blog, so we shouldn't really have any right to complain. So I think I'm just going to address my concerns a bit higher on the pay grade.

To the people who sign the cheques that go to the bloggers on this site: Do YOU think you're getting your money's worth?

Reply

I see this as a clever way to write the review. It makes the point that many former fans of the show are losing interest, and fast. I am one of them. Creativity, uniqueness and bite made this show a hit, but there has been such 'sameness' to the show lately to the point of making the show predictable. I used to watch the show because I wondered what would happen next, but now I don't watch it because I feel that I already know what will happen next. It's a shame - this was a very good show.

Reply

You left out the part where you have to get out of your chair.

So, you couldn't decide this LAST WEDNESDAY, giving someone else the chance to step in a write this week's review. You announce this as this week's ep is about to air.

Nice.

Reply

I happen to love Boston Legal. When you live day to day with everything going on in this crazy world, it's a nice change to laugh and "escape" into a not so realistic world.

Reply

I think BL is just as good (great!) as it ever was. This season has had some very good story lines. The offbeat cases are fun and interesting and many times make me laugh as well as THINK.

Not every episode is perfect but what show is??? I look forward to Allen, Denny, and the gang every week and it saddens me the that you're not going to review BL anymore. I hope someone else picks it up...

Oh, and Richard - you're feet stink.

Reply

I like the show and wish you would do your job and review it. From what you wrote above, the problem isn't the show, it's your attitude. When you review the show you should be offering an opinion - good or bad. It seems that you are having problems trying to find positives to write about. If the show is becoming repetitive in some way - write about that, don't use it as an excuse to run away!

And by the way, I agree with you about the "sameness" factor. The pseudo-homosexual undertones between Denny and Alan are beyond boring. Last night Denny asked Alan to take on the homosexual judge case because he was "uncomfortable" with the subject matter. Later in the show he tries to talk Alan into having Clarance dress up as a woman so he can have his way with him/her. Last week Alan dressed up as Shirley and Denny hit on him at the party. The same joke... the same stupid joke. Same people. Same crap week in and week out. It is getting dull, predictable and meaningless. Maybe you can write about that.

Reply

Guess what? The reviewer isn't alone. I had become disappointed with BL and now just dislike it. I keep tuning in once in a while to give it another chance and usually decide I should go get ready for tomorrow, at better use of my time. Not only has BL lot that edgy balance between comedy and drama, but it ha lost its direction. "Quirky" is not enough to hold a 10:00pm network primetime spot, at least not for me. Plus I have become sick-to-death of all the politics that are thrown in everyweek. The show doesn't pass up any opportunity to spout rightousness of the "left" and evil of the "right" whether it plays into the story or not. The show has lost its identity xept to become Kelley's editorials. And I usually like David E. Kelley shows.

Reply

I'm probably the only one that has seen a progression of The Practice going from a version of a legal procedural show to a version of the Drew Carey Show.
(re: Drew Carey - "And the role of flamoyantly clownish Mimi will be played by Gary Anthony Wiliams")
Don't get me wrong - I laugh like the dickens when I see Spader in a dress dancing with Shatner, but the show as it airs today is not what it once was.
The show has morphed into something that puts a shark out there to jump every show. What was a legal procedural with the moral issues is now a comedy show with lawyers in lust. I find the show entertaining, but my spouse gave up on it sometime back.

That said, which TV legal drama gets the first crack at the Attack of the Mooninites?

Reply