American Idol's reign of terror may finally be over

Photo courtesy of billboard.com.

The unstoppable juggernaut that is American Idol may be coming to a close. After the departure of Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul, competition from shows like NBC's The Voice and FOX's The X Factor and the much talked-about resurgence of comedies in the 2011-2012 season, last night's audition episode was bested by that other ratings monster The Big Bang Theory

Leonard, Sheldon et al, after last week managing a threadbare win over Idol in the coveted 18-49 demo, this time scored a 5.4 rating versus the 4.8 of Idol's first half-hour. What's more, in head-to-head competition Big Bang outdrew Idol in total viewers as well, 15.96 million to 15.46 million. (The CBS sitcom also notched wins in the 18-34 and 25-54 demos).

via TVLine.

If this kind of performance continues, this could be the first TV season since 2004-2005 where Idol wasn't the most-watched show on television, which is good news for those of us who are tired of formulaic reality competition shows. Of course, in comparison to the most recent 30 Rock (1.6), Community (1.5) and Fringe (1.1) episodes, Idol's 4.8 is still looking pretty good, which is just more proof that the world hates everything I love.

You say "absurdly self-referential," and I say "conceptual artist"

Danny Pudi and Gillian Jacobs in Community. Photo courtesy of fanforums.com.

This fall, many media outlets are trumpeting the resurgence of comedy on TV, based on the enormous ratings pulled in by The Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men, Modern Family and New Girl and seeming fatigue with reality shows and heavily serialized dramas. Reality shows like The X Factor and expensive sci-fi dramas like Terra Nova have been pulling in solid numbers, but they're a far cry from their smash predecessors American Idol and Lost, while a number of underwhelming dramas (The Playboy Club, Charlie's Angels) came and went with barely a whisper. Compared to the enormous buzz surrounding comedy offerings like New Girl and 2 Broke Girls, dramas and reality shows are looking weak indeed.

It was a little shocking, then, to read a recent headline on Splitsider.com that asks if the 2011-2012 season is the worst season for sitcoms in a decade. (For the record, the author ultimately concludes that it's only the third-worst season for new comedies since 2000; apparently the sitcoms of 2002-2003, 2000-2001 and 2007-2008 were worse). After completing the list, it becomes clear why the author chooses to bash himself against the impenetrable wall of the TV pundit elite. The top three TV seasons for comedies are, in order: 2009-2010 (the premiere year of Community, Cougartown and Modern Family); 2001-2002 (Andy Richter Controls the Universe, Scrubs, The Tick and Undeclared); and 2008-2009 (Better Off Ted and Parks and Recreation). In other words, the "best" years for sitcoms were the years that spawned low-rated critical darlings like Parks and Rec, Community, Scrubs and all the short-lived, too-edgy-for-primetime series that premiered in 2001. The 2003-2004 season, meanwhile, falls midway down the list, because apparently the reviled Two and a Half Men cancels out the genius of Arrested Development.

This piece brings into sharp relief the divide between critical adoration and popularity. Modern Family and The Big Bang Theory aside, almost all the shows the author categorizes as "good" spent most of their existence with the fear of cancellation hanging over their heads (if they even made it far enough to worry about being cancelled). If you were to look at The A.V. Club's TV page on a Friday morning, you could be forgiven for thinking that Community was the most popular show in the history of television. Meanwhile, out in the real world, The Big Bang Theory pulled in four times the viewership of Community, while Rules of Engagement (which is apparently a show that appears on television) had triple the viewership of Parks and Recreation.

There is a really fascinating dynamic at play here between the opinions of critics and what's popular with the masses. Unfortunately, this dynamic is often reduced to a simplistic game of childish name-calling, with the fans of quirky, low-rated shows maintaining that only old racists and uneducated, NASCAR-loving hicks could ever stomach Two and a Half Men, while those who chuckle at Jon Cryer's antics on those shows are bewildered by the fact that anyone could find the absurd, self-referential antics of the Greendale study group funny. It's oddly reminiscent of the "dialogue" (read: angry shouting) between the pansy-assed, liberal, Obama-supporting commie bastards and the prejudiced, out-of-touch, heartless capitalist pigs. (In the immortal words of Liz Lemon, "Yeah, suck it, I do read the paper!")

A disconnect between what is considered "good" by the critical establishment and what is popular is nothing new. There's a reason that the most critically acclaimed movies of 2010 (ranked by Rotten Tomatoes) were Waste Land, a documentary about a Brazilian artist photographing garbage pickers, and Into Eternity, a "meditation on human folly, punctuated by philosophical and historical references" by conceptual artist Michael Madsen. They may have gotten 100% good reviews, but the words "conceptual artist" make me want nothing more than to watch robots smash each other in Transformers 5: Planet of the Earth (once again, with much thanks to Liz Lemon). And it's not just The New Yorker passing out these reviews; the Philadelphia Enquirer and The Washington Post were among the publications that endorsed these films.

To be fair, Waste Land and Into Eternity are probably great films. They're just not appealing to a large demographic of people. And, as much as it pains me to say it, the self-referential absurdity of Community and the inside-showbiz jokes of 30 Rock might not interest a lot of people either. I like to think that if more people tuned in to these shows they'd find the following they deserve, and I could certainly be right about that. Of course, the three people who saw Into Eternity probably think the same thing, and they could be right too. So let's not be too mean to the people who choose to watch Two and a Half Men; they might just be turned off by descriptions of the show as "absurdist" and "experimental" in the same way hearing "conceptual artist" makes me want to curl up on my couch and watch reruns of Saturday Night Live until my brain rots. And even if I love Community and you love Rules of Engagement, we can probably agree on one thing: a half-hour comedy, no matter which comedy it is, is still more consequential than Jersey Shore can ever hope to be. Oh, wait...

"Parents" just don't understand*

Blythe Danner and Richard Schiff as Reagan's parents in "Parents."

Up All Night started out promising, but a little rough. The show hadn't quite figured out what tone it wanted to strike, veering between the realism of Reagan (Christina Applegate) and Chris (Will Arnett) learning how to cope with parenthood and the zany, 30 Rock-esque antics of Maya Rudolph's Ava. Last night's "Parents" still suffered a bit from sudden shifts in tone but, despite a few flat moments in the Ava storyline, the episode was a great example of how the series is coming into its own.

"Parents" was excellent in large part because the episode dealt with a relatable subject: the tense, regressive relationships that often spring up between parents and their adult children. Tension between parents and children is hardly something new on TV - I talked recently about the toxic parents of The Big Bang Theory - but Up All Night, as usual, presented a lovely, nuanced portrayal of Reagan's relationship with her mother Angie (Blythe Danner). Watching Reagan act like a teenager whenever her mother appeared was not only funny, but an honest depiction recognizable by anyone who has been held to a curfew when home from college. Reagan diving behind the couch and sobbing into a pillow that no one understands her were hilarious, but they were also instantly identifiable to anyone who has been in a similar situation.

It helped that Danner's portrayal of Angie showed that she was a problematic woman without being unsympathetic. The character could have been Dr. Beverly Hofstadter, but rather than playing her as an ice queen Danner chose to play her as a somewhat selfish and pompous, but still caring, mother. It helped that her relationship with her husband, Richard Schiff's Dean, was warm and relatable. Dean's gentle ribbing of his wife's continued insistence that the party thrown for her book release was "embarassing" was a beautiful example of the way this show understands the interaction between long-term couples. This understanding comes up in Chris and Reagan's relationship as well. The moment when Chris points out to Reagan that the reason no one understands her is because she's talking into a pillow is both funny and comforting, showing the ease of the couple's relationship and the way they rely on each other.

My favorite moment in the episode, however, had nothing to do with either Reagan or Angie. That's not because I didn't love their character arc, but because Arnett and Schiff did such a beautiful job with the scene where Chris confides in Dean about his newfound fear of death (the result of an expiration date on a lifetime subscription to Sports Illustrated). Dean, a therapist, doesn't try to counsel Chris or talk him out of his fear. Instead, he opens up and, in a lovely moment of catharsis for both characters, confesses that death terrifies him, and reveals his solution: alcohol. The scene is played for laughs, but neither Arnett nor Schiff goes over-the-top with their performances, imbuing the moment with a real poignancy.

As usual, the rough spots in the episode were centered around Ava. Her scenes weren't all bad - in particular, her reminder to Reagan that her mother could be a lot worse was great, and Rudolph's delivery sold the line about her mother's partner, a jazz drummer called the Captain - but her complete inability to remember anything about her crew seemed overly detached, even for Ava. Dale's death montage was certainly funny, with its repetition of the one picture of the dearly departed sound technician and shots of his W-4 form, but Ava's insistence on singing over the montage seemed oddly tone-deaf (figuratively, not literally). "Parents" showcased how well the show can mix humor with realism; if only it could figure out how to mix Chris and Reagan with Ava.

*I apologize for the forced Will Smith reference. It's late, and it just happened that way.

Why "The Big Bang Theory" distrusts parents

Christine Baranski as Beverly Hofstadter and Johnny Galecki as Leonard in The Big Bang Theory. Photo courtesy of hollywood.com

The first four episodes of The Big Bang Theory's fifth season have exemplified the show's recent unevenness. "The Skank Reflex Analysis" was solid, "The Pulled Groin Extrapolation" was wildly entertaining, and "The Infestation Hypothesis" and "The Wiggly Finger Catalyst" were mediocre at best. However, these four episodes shared one common attribute: each explored the twisted, traumatic relationships the major characters have with their parents, making The Big Bang Theory a show about the many, many ways that our parents screw us up. I haven't seen this many dysfunctional parent/child relationships on a TV show since Lost.


The trope of overbearing parents and the children who rebel against them is hardly a new phenomenon, and sitcoms in particular have been mining those relationships for comedy for decades. The real difference between other shows that explore these relationships - like Everybody Loves Raymond and Seinfeld - and The Big Bang Theory is that the former always assumed a relationship that, at bottom, wasn't so bad. Ray Barone's parents may have driven both he and his wife absolutely crazy, but there was no doubt that everything they did came out of love for their son. Seinfeld showed a dysfunctional relationship between George Costanza and his parents, but it was balanced out by the fairly normal (by sitcom standards) Seinfeld family.

The Big Bang Theory, however, has never shied away from linking the characters' present-day difficulties to their twisted relationships with their parents. The first four seasons showed us that Leonard's desperate need for affection - a need that manifests itself in his constant desire to be part of a couple - is the direct result of a mother who was so cold and detached that the boy had to build a robot in order to ger a hug. Sheldon, on the other hand, rejected the affection of a mother who didn't understand him along with her evangelical beliefs. Penny clearly has a problematic history with her father, as she remains convinced that he wanted her to be a boy, and it has been heavily implied that her string of hookups and failed relationships is an attempt to validate herself to a replacement father-figure. And in case that last one wasn't Freudian enough for you, Howard has a stereotypical, unseen Jewish mother on whom he is completely dependent, and who he is currently trying to replace with Bernadette.

The current season, however, has taken the parent-bashing to new heights. The last four episodes have nodded at the strained relationships that six of the seven major characters have with their parents. (As of yet, Bernadette's family has been unexplored, as her character exists mostly as a way for Howard to explore his own maternal issues.) In these episodes, we've found out the following facts about the character's relationships with their parents:

• Penny doesn't just have issues with her father. Her facial expression when Sheldon fires off a comment about her mother's weight after she takes the last pot sticker tells you all you need to know.
• Dr. Beverly Hofstadter has not softened. Her instruction to Leonard to buy one of her parenting books from Amazon if he needs more relationship advice is cold, to put it mildly.
• Howard, in attempting to marry the opposite of his mother, is now preparing to marry his mother. Also, his dependence goes further than we thought, since he can't even cut his own food.
• Raj's parents will take away his money if he dates a non-Indian girl. (Odd that they don't care about Priya and Leonard, but that's inconsistent writing for you.) I feel like fear of parental disapproval has to be at the bottom of his inability to talk to women.
• Amy is trapped in a state of perpetual adolescence by her repressive upbringing, in much the same way Sheldon and Wolowitz are. Her friendship with Penny is an attempt to escape from the mother who signed her yearbook, "Self respect and a hymen are better than friends and fun."
• We don't get into specifics about Sheldon's upbringing here, but the man spends an entire episode playing with trains and another episode being unable to understand that "It's not what it looks like" isn't some kind of riddle, but rather Penny's attempt to cover up her one-night stand with Raj.

When you look at that list, you get a picture of a group of emotionally stunted people, trapped at different points in their development by terrible parenting choices. Raj is still in a "girls have cooties" phase, Howard can't wean himself from his mother (figuratively... we hope), Sheldon has no understanding of adult sexual relationships, Penny acts out in order to get attention, Amy just wants to be one of the popular girls, and Leonard enters relationships in a desperate quest for affection. This is some seriously dark stuff. Honestly, if it weren't for the laugh track, there would be moments here that would rival the darkest moments in Community episodes like "Mixology Certification," "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas," and "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons." These characters have moments that make George and Lucille Bluth look like good parents and Lindsay, Buster and G.O.B. look like well-adjusted people.

I'm not saying that I have a problem with this, or at least with the specific material presented here. And I'm not saying that family dysfunction and bad parenting can't be funny, because I love Arrested Development and Archer. I'm just a little queasy about the uniformly bad portrayals of parents that Chuck Lorre is giving us here. There is not a single parental figure on the show who appears to have effectively raised a child: the most normal person here is probably Leonard, and he was raised by Beverly Hofstadter (who, for the record, is one of my favorite characters on the show). If you can get past the easy jokes that these relationships provide, and get right down to the show's core, it's about a group of broken people trying to work out their parental issues with each other, a fact that might make The Big Bang Theory, of all things, one of the most depressing shows on network TV. Who would have ever expected that?

Are single-camera and multi-camera shows really in conflict?

Jane Krakowski and Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock's live episode. Photo courtesy of tvgeekarmy.com.

Ever since the resurgence of single-camera sitcoms that began in the early 00's with shows like The Office, Scrubs and the late, great Arrested Development, a lot of the discussion of comedy on television has centered on the merits of a single-camera setup versus a multi-camera one. When the aforementioned shows premiered, the landscape of TV comedy was dominated by shows filmed using a multi-camera setup - a TV show staged like a play, filmed in front of a live audience with limited sets - including such giants as Seinfeld, Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond. These days, the landscape of TV comedy is much more divided between the two formats, with single-camera shows like 30 Rock, Community and Modern Family squaring off against multi-camera competitors The Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men and How I Met Your Mother.

If you look at those lists of shows, you can probably guess what a lot of the dialogue surrounding the issue is going to look like. These days, single-camera shows have an aura of youth, cleverness and intelligence that multi-camera sitcoms just don't. When a single-camera sitcom falters in the ratings, viewers and internet commentators tend to react with cries of, "It's just too smart for most people," while multi-camera failures are greeted as a sign that the format is too "old-fashioned" or "dumbed-down." I have definitely been guilty of this; as a huge fan of Community's rapid-fire dialogue, willingness to venture into the absurd and sharply-drawn characterizations, I tend to explain the show's (painfully) low ratings by dismissing those who don't love it as unintelligent and old fashioned, viewers who wouldn't know originality if it bashed them over the head.

I should probably stop doing that. Because the thing is, a sitcom's use of the single-camera format doesn't mean it's automatically smart and funny, and the presence of a live audience and multiple cameras doesn't indicate the opposite qualities. I started to rethink my position after watching new fall offerings New Girl and 2 Broke Girls. Those who read my review of those shows will probably remember that I found New Girl to be grating and reliant on cliches, while 2 Broke Girls had a fresher perspective. (The second episode of 2 Broke Girls was less promising, but I think the kinks can probably be worked out.) 2 Broke Girls also happens to be a multi-camera sitcom.

That's not to say that the two formats are interchangeable. There are a lot of things that you can do with a single-camera show that just aren't possible with a multi-camera setup. The latter, by definition, features limited options in terms of sets - it's why Seinfeld almost always took place in either Jerry's apartment or Monk's Cafe. The difference in scope is nicely illustrated by comparing scenes featuring paintball from The Big Bang Theory and Community:

The BBT scene is certainly funny, and even features a nice moment of film parody in Sheldon's dramatic death scene. However, the scene is basically limited to the guys talking in a shed, and Sheldon being shot from offscreen, since the sets are presumably open to the audience. Now watch the Community clip:

Even ignoring the hopped-up opening credits, there is a lot going on in this scene. From the fact that the scene takes place in a hallway (something you rarely see in a multi-camera setup) to the way the camera angles are used to create suspense (is Annie going to catch Neil before he shoots her?) to the dramatic close-ups on both characters' faces, this is not a scene that could take place on a multi-camera show. Like almost everything that happens on Community, it wouldn't be possible. (Just think about the fact that most study group scenes take place with all the characters sitting around a table. Not going to work when you have a live audience to contend with.)

Another difference between the two formats is the comedic rhythm. Multi-camera shows shot in front of an audience rely heavily on a setup-punchline rhythm; the point is to make a joke, let the audience laugh, and then get started on setting up the next joke. Single-camera shows don't work like that. The jokes can come thick and fast, forcing the audience to break out of a particular rhythm and try to catch as much funny as they can. It's the reason you can watch any given episode of Arrested Development for the tenth time, and still pick up on new jokes and references. You can see the way the comedic rhythm alters if you watch 30 Rock's live episode. The episode was aired live, so it's considerably rougher than your average multi-camera sitcom, but it follows the same format, and the pacing differences are apparent. This isn't a time for a rapid-fire string of impressions or gollum-esque multiple personalities; instead, the episode sets up punchlines (Jack wearing a hand-knit poncho, Liz's continually dashed hopes that someone remembers her birthday), knocks them out of the way, and gets started on the next joke.

The thing is, a more polished version of the 30 Rock live episode would probably be a pretty great show, at least as long as Tina Fey was behind it. It just wouldn't be 30 Rock. That's the thing about debating the merits of the two formats; one isn't inherently better than the other, they're just different. It seems a little ridiculous to mock the multi-camera format as old-fashioned when it gave us a show like Seinfeld, which was not only groundbreaking in its time, but which holds up just as well today. Conversely, it seems disingenuous to argue that single-camera shows are smart and modern when that format gave us Outsourced. A show shouldn't be judged by its format, it should be judged by how the format is used to capture the spirit of a particular episode. One of New Girl's biggest problems (in addition to the shallow characterizations, lazy stereotyping and painful attempts to be cute) is that the writers are using a multi-camera, setup-punchline rhythm in a format built for rapid-fire jokes and sophisticated visual gags.

If a single-camera show is going to be worth the extra money (shooting in this format is much more expensive and time-consuming, because you have to shoot multiple takes of each scene and built much more elaborate sets), you have to know how to use the format to your advantage. Right now, Community is the best example of the sheer potential inherent in the format; the over-the-top movie parodies wouldn't be possible in a multi-camera setup, and the quieter, more emotional moments have more punch because the actors can play them more naturally, rather than having to perform them for a crowd. On the other hand, The Big Bang Theory takes advantage of the format by having long takes that focus on the interaction between the different characters and that feel organic in a different way; since everyone's coverage is filmed simultaneously, the scene can just be about the actors playing off each other and establishing a great give-and-take. BBT excels at this type of scene, and these interactions between the main characters are one of the reasons I keep coming back to the show.

The point that I'm trying to make (and that I may have lost for a while in the middle there) is that neither format is inherently better. The format of The Big Bang Theory plays to its strengths - a strong ensemble, a relaxed rhythm, and the kind of energy that results from performing in front of an audience - just as the format of Community allows both the grandiose parodies and the sweet, quiet moments to really pop. It's not about the format you use, its about what you do with it, and really understanding the merits and drawbacks of either format is the only way to end up with a genuinely good product. So let's stop calling multi-camera shows "stupid" and single-camera shows "weird," and just let them both be as funny as they can be. If we can put aside our differences, we can focus on our real enemy: reality television. Seriously, that stuff just sucks.

Emmy Awards 2011: Who should win

Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones. Photo courtesy of mamapop.com.

The Emmy's are almost here, which means it's time to start prognosticating about the winners. The nominations this year were not as all-out terrible as they generally are (although I certainly had some complaints), and I feel like throwing in my two cents. So, here are my picks for the shows and actors who should go home with statues on Sunday night, as well as those who should have gotten a nomination. (I'm not going to pick the likely winners; if you want someone to help you place your bets, there are plenty of other options out there for you.)

Best Drama Series


Should win: Game of Thrones
Should have been nominated: Fringe


I know that there are plenty of people out there who turn away in disgust at the sight of fantasy, preferring instead the gorgeous, ponderous stillness of Mad Men or the fine-grained realism of Friday Night Lights. I'm not trying to belittle those people. I just happen to think that Thrones' first season was a triumph of writing, acting and directing that managed to sate both fans of the books and newbies who didn't know the difference between a Lannister and a Stark. Not to mention that the show killed off the central character in episode nine, which means they should get an award for biggest balls on television. As for Fringe, the excellent third season provided viewers with a desperately needed dose of trippy yet emotionally grounded sci-fi, as well as a showcase for the excellent cast. How many other shows have you seen where every actor had to play two roles, and managed to play them convincingly?

Best Comedy Series


Should win: Modern Family
Should have been nominated: Community


Community is the single funniest show on television right now, and the fact that the folks at Greendale lost the nomination to the wildly uneven, offensively bad second season of Glee is a travesty. Of the nominated shows, however, I give the edge to Modern Family, which takes what could be a cliched, sentimental drama and makes it fresh and slyly funny without losing its heart.

Best Actor in a Drama


Should win: Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Should have been nominated: Sean Bean, Game of Thrones


Buscemi is probably going to be a controversial choice, but the spin this non-leading man put on his leading-man role of Nucky Thompson kept the character from being just another mob boss. Buscemi embodied the contradictions inherent in the honorable yet criminal Nucky in a way that made him seem genuine and, despite his many terrible actions, sympathetic. Bean gave a solid performance that may not have stood out among his flashier costars, but which provided a moral center that helped anchor Thrones many, many plot threads. Plus, the man got beheaded on camera!

Best Actress in a Drama


Should win: Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men
Should have been nominated: Nina Dobrev, The Vampire Diaries


I, unlike so many other TV connoisseurs, am not a huge fan of Mad Men, but Moss' performance as Peggy Olsen has always been one that drew me in on a show that kept me at a distance. Peggy's journey may represent the struggles of all women in the 1960s, but Moss ensures that the audience never loses sight of the very real girl at the heart of the character. As you know if you read this blog regularly, my love for Dobrev knows no bounds, and she really upped her game in the second season with dual portrayals of the tough, determined, kind Elena and the devious-with-a-heart Katharine.

Best Actor in a Comedy


Should win: Johnny Galecki, The Big Bang Theory
Should have been nominated: Joel McHale, Community


I love Jim Parsons' Sheldon as much as anyone, but when it comes down to it Galecki's Leonard is the most identifiable character on the show. Galecki makes the character nerdy without being incomprehensible, awkward without being pathetic, and just cool enough that you believe he could really attract a girl like Penny. As for McHale, he uses his coolness to his advantage while making sure the audience doesn't get so sucked in by Jeff's sardonic charm that we forget what a jerk he can be. At the same time, he manages the occasional moment of sweetness that makes all the snark seem worth it.

Best Actress in a Comedy


Should win: Melissa McCarthy, Mike and Molly
Should have been nominated: Aisha Tyler, Archer


McCarthy's natural comedy chops were put to great use in this summer's Bridesmaids, and her sharp, likable performance elevates Mike and Molly above its mediocre premise. Tyler may not physically appear as sexy, sassy secret agent Lana Kane, but without her magnificently funny line readings the character would be only a shadow of herself.

Best Supporting Actor in a Drama


Should win: Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Should have been nominated: John Noble, Fringe


Dinklage is a standout among a superb cast. His Tyrion is funny and charming even when he's scheming - especially when he's scheming - without sacrificing the pain that Tyrion constantly carries. He's a freak and a disappointment to his father, and Dinklage, even in his lightest moments, never lets us forget that. Noble is another standout in a great cast, and his performances as the harebrained Walter Bishop and the desperate, icy Walternate are some of the best work happening on television right now. Hell, they're some of the best work happening anywhere.

Best Supporting Actress in a Drama


Should win: Kelly MacDonald, Boardwalk Empire
Should have been nominated: Emilia Clarke, Game of Thrones


MacDonald helped to humanize Boardwalk Empire with her character, the kind, conflicted Margaret Schroeder. Margaret was a woman in a difficult position, and her character's moral dilemma over becoming Nucky's kept woman in order to provide for her family was beautifully acted by MacDonald. Clarke - who barely had a screen credit to her name before Thrones - was superb in showing Daenerys' journey from frightened girl to badass dragon. Plus, she was nude. A lot.

Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy


Should win: Ed O'Neill, Modern Family
Should have been nominated: Donald Glover, Community


O'Neill's costars Eric Stonestreet and Ty Burrell may have the flashier parts, but gruff, loving dad Jay is the real heart of this family. Glover's case is similar; his costar Danny Pudi may steal the attention, but Troy is just as funny while still managing the occasional mature, heartfelt moment. Glover's performance in Mixology Certification - one of my favorite episodes - was subtle and nuanced in a way that few sitcom actors ever manage. Then, several episodes later, he spent most of the runtime paralyzed (literally) in the presence of LeVar Burton.

Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy


Should win: Sofia Vergara, Modern Family
Should have been nominated: Alison Brie, Community


Vergara is a very funny woman who makes sure that Gloria Delgado-Pritchett is a fully realized character, rather than letting her slip into the hot-younger-foreign-wife caricature. As for Brie... I love Alison Brie. Annie is often the most vulnerable, least comedic member of the study group, and Brie gave some excellent, vulnerable performances in Mixology Certification and Cooperative Calligraphy. And the she turned around and anchored what may be the single funniest scene in the history of television.

"The Big Bang Theory" Finale: And Then There Was Raj

Kaley Cuoco, Jim Parsons and Kunal Nayyar in "The Roomate Transmogrification." Photo courtesy of toomuchtotivo.com.

I have to admit, for most of this season I felt that The Big Bang Theory was in a serious slump. The premise was growing stale, Jim Parson's Sheldon, while still entertaining, was even more one-note than before, and Kunal Nayyar's Raj was too often sidelined as a result of a new focus on Howard (Simon Helberg) and his girlfriend, Bernadette (Melissa Rauch). I don't know if the season finale necessarily turned the show around - after all, there is every chance that these problems will come back full force next season - but tonight's episode was a return to form. Tightly plotted and full of laughs, the episode had its flaws, but overall it was an entertaining throwback to the first or second season. (Warning: SPOILERS ahead for those who haven't yet seen "The Roommate Transmogrification.")

There were a few moments in the episode that didn't click for me, and I want to get them out of the way so I can get to the good stuff. The biggest problem I had with the episode - and a problem I've had with the season in general - is the way that Sheldon's character has somehow become even more neurotic and socially inept than he was originally. While there were moments in the episode that featured typical Sheldon humor without going over the top, like his jokes about Leonard's flatulence in the opening Cheesecake Factory scene, much of the story reduced him to the one-note awkward scientist who hasn't changed since the first season. The roommate paperwork he gave to Raj in particular was a joke that has been repeated ad nauseam, and while Parson's delivery still earned a few chuckles, the joke has worn a little thin.

I understand why the show chooses to showcase Parsons - he's an extremely talented comic actor, and Sheldon is the show's breakout character - but I wish they would give the character something more to do than just be neurotic and socially incompetent. Parsons is a great comic talent, but he's also capable of much more range, as the rave reviews he's earning in the Broadway revival of Larry Kramer's The Normal Heart demonstrate. Obviously, The Big Bang Theory is a broad comedy, and there isn't a lot of room in the episodic sitcom format for serious character development; however, Parsons is a talented enough actor that the writers could give him a little more to do without upsetting the balance of the show.

The problems I had with the Sheldon storyline, however, didn't detract from the episode as a whole. There were some great, laugh-out-loud funny moments that were grounded by some good plot threads. One of my favorite scenes the scene where Raj, having taken off his noise-canceling headphones to get a snack, overhears Leonard and Priya (Aarti Mann) having extremely nerdy, Star Trek-themed sex. Hearing Leonard and Priya's banter through the door was hilarious, and Nayyar's reactions completely sold the scene. I've always been a big Kunal Nayyar fan, and one of my favorite things about this episode was his central role.

Of course, a discussion of Raj's role in the finale wouldn't be complete without his surely buzz-inducing hookup with Penny. Kunal Nayyar and Kaley Cuoco are my two favorite actors from the show, and even though I could see their hookup coming from a mile away, they have such great chemistry and comic timing that it didn't matter. I particularly liked the moment when Penny, having woken up in bed with Raj, first sees his hand, then follows his arm with her eyes until she reaches his face. The moment went on for a long time, but not too long, and Cuoco's dawning expression of dismay was priceless.

While one pair hooked up, two other couples were falling apart. Leonard, who was bothered that Priya refused to tell her parents about him, got a shock when he found out that she was planning on moving back to India in a month. Raj was feeling threatened because Bernadette had just received her doctorate and had been offered a high-paying job at a pharmaceutical company, thus making her both the more educated and higher-earning half of the couple. Neither of these plot threads were particularly groundbreaking, but they were played well by Johnny Galecki, Mann, Helberg and Rauch. The Leonard/Priya story in particular was compelling because Leonard is really the audience's stand-in; he may be smart and geeky, but he's the character, even more so than Penny, who really stand back from the group and comments on their social awkwardness. (Of course, it's possible that Penny is the real audience stand-in, and that I identify with Leonard because I'm also a geek, and I have my socially awkward moments.)

The Big Bang Theory will never be a groundbreaking show in the way that Community or 30 Rock can be (although the latter's better days are behind it). It is generally, however, a solid half-hour of laughs that, in episodes like this, is well put-together and streamlined, and it has a cast of excellent comic actors. The show can't attain the insane heights of a "Modern Warfare" or "MILF Island," but when it's good, there isn't a more consistent comedy on TV. Let's hope that the show uses the momentum from this episode to bring season 5 back up to the level of the first two seasons.

A few random notes that didn't come up in the review:

• The moment when Penny confessed to Raj that she made a mistake in dumping Leonard was sweet, and filled with the kind of sentiment that doesn't usually come up on this show. Props to Kaley Cuoco for making the moment seem organic.
• The writers are clearly trying to start season 5 with a clean slate, but I really hope that Leonard's relationship doesn't crash and burn. I don't always like Priya, but Johnny Galecki brings such identifiable sadness to his character that it hurts when he's unhappy.
• Bernadette giving Howard a Rolex was funny; her comment, "I just want my baby to have pretty things" seemed forced.
• Speaking of Howard, any character progress made by his unseen mother in last week's episode was negated by her lewd come-ons to Raj.
• Penny's reaction when she realized that Raj couldn't talk to her even after sleeping with her was great.
• Loved that while Penny and Raj were drinking wine, Sheldon was drinking filtered water.
• The moment when Leonard shuts the computer on Priya's parents was really funny in an understated way.