HBO's Girls is a victim of its own hype

Jemima Kirke, Lena Dunham and Allison Williams in Girls, the HBO series created by Dunham.

Given the hype that preceded Sunday's premiere of HBO's Girls, it was probably inevitable that the show itself was a bit of a let-down. After all, the series - which was created by Lena Dunham and counts Judd Apatow among its producers - was lauded by New York magazine, The New Yorker and The New York Times (I'm sensing a trend here) way back in March. The Daily Beast called it "the best new show of 2012," and Salon applauded the show's portrayal of female friendship. The acclaim was so immense that the inevitable backlash began a week and half before the pilot episode even aired. (And it just keeps going; as Alexandra Petri put it, "Now I think we're in the backlash to the backlash - or possible the backlash to the backlash to the backlash.")There was no way that any TV show was going to completely deliver on that kind of hype.

The fact is, everyone who tuned in to Girls on Sunday had probably already made up their mind about the series. Which, really, is quite unfair to Dunham, because it puts her show in the awkward position of being judged not on its own merit, but on its ability to perfectly, subtly, realistically portray an entire generation.

Girls doesn't manage to do that. Despite my status as a member of the series' target audience (young, urban, female, recent graduate of a liberal-arts college), I didn't feel that the series was an accurate reflection of me or my life. I certainly didn't identify particularly with any of the women at the center of the narrative; not with Hannah (Dunham), who throws a tantrum in a restaurant when her parents refuse to keep supporting her; not with Jessa (Jemima Kirke), a European free-spirit who romanticizes dying of tuberculosis in a garrett, like Flaubert, and whose sexual liberation has no place for birth control; not with the barely-glimpsed Shoshanna (Zosia Mamet), whose character is, at least in the pilot episode, reduced to a flurry of breathless femininity and a love of Sex and the City.

A brief history of the New York Times' hatred of Game of Thrones

Daenerys' dragons might have something to say to the New York Times.

After Ginia Bellafante's incredibly sexist (not to mention poorly written) original review of Game of Thrones sparked backlash and controversy from the many women who resented being told that they were supposed to like Sex and the City and dislike Tolkien, you would think that maybe the New York Times would have taken a moment to rethink its editorial stance on the show. At the very least, you might think that the Old Gray Lady would allow a critic who doesn't have such an obvious dislike of fantasy to review the show.

You would, sadly, be wrong.

Bellafante, who wrote the paper's official review of HBO's fantasy epic (and who has replaced The New Yorker's Nancy Franklin at the top of my list of most-hated TV critics), somewhat infamously said that Game of Thrones was "boy fiction," and implied that, weirdly enough, instances of incestuous sex and violent rape had been added to the series to appeal to women, because apparently we as a gender are into that sort of thing. More than that, however, Bellafante refers to the show's setting as "the universe of dwarfs, armor, wenches, braids, loincloth," a remark that is just plain wrong (There are not "dwarfs" in the sense of Tolkien's separate race, since Tyrion Lannister is a dwarf in the scientific sense of the words, and I wasn't aware that braids were reserved for unreal worlds) and that demonstrates a deep-rooted dismissal of and disdain for fantasy as a lesser genre.

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 Nielsen system obviously isn't working, but can it be fixed?

Fringe is generally considered a ratings failure for FOX, despite garnering the same number of viewers as The Walking Dead, which was considered a smash hit for cable network AMC. Photos courtesy of tvfanatic.com and eonline.com.

The Huffington Post recently published an article decrying the current Nielsen rating system. "TV Ratings: Are We Looking At Them All Wrong?" is an interesting read that nicely details the problems with the Nielsen rating system and ways in which it may or may not be evolving to suit the needs of the digital age. It's also, however, a painfully obvious rehash of things that bloggers, critics and creators have been pointing out for years. Yes, the Nielsen rating system is obviously becoming obsolete in an era where many viewers watch TV on their laptops and cell phones, and yes, network executives and advertisers need to completely rethink the way in which they look at a given series' popularity. Anyone who knows anything about television knows that. The problem is that reworking the system to suit an increasingly digital, fragmented landscape is going to be massively complicated and full of holes.

One of the major problems with the current ratings system - as any critic will tell you - is the way in which the Nielsen rating of a given show has become the major indicator of whether or not that show will get picked up for another season. The way the Nielsen ratings of a given show are constantly hyped, distributed and analyzed by critics and viewers alike has led to a perception that a show's Nielsen number is the be-all and end-all of that show's future. As an ardent Fringe fan, I experienced this first-hand over the last year. Every Friday morning (Saturday morning after the show was moved) I would check the previous night's ratings, desperate to know whether they had fallen or risen, hoping that my show would be saved even as I watched the numbers slowly decline.

But then something wonderful happened: the show was renewed! Fringe will be coming back for a fourth season after a fantastic, action-packed, emotional, shocking finale that was seen by less than 4 million viewers. And I have to attribute this to the FOX network executives - who I don't want to let off the hook completely, as they often make some head-scratchingly bad decisions - understanding a new reality of television: that maybe having a niche show with four or five million devoted, engaged viewers is just as good as having a monster hit.

The thing is, there aren't a lot of monster hits anymore. Any network exec aiming for a new Seinfeld or M*A*S*H or even a Lost is going to be disappointed, because that's not the way the market works anymore. Cable programming has turned TV into a niche viewing experience where people can choose from hundreds of options rather than three or four. This has resulted in an increasingly fragmented - and, in my view, increasingly diverse and high-quality - viewing experience. The explosion of well-made, artistically important television in the last ten years has been unprecedented. The upside is that there is more choice than ever out there for viewers, and more high-quality programming than ever before. The downside is that the sheer number of options drives down the numbers for any single program, and the current rating system has no way to account for that.

As choices increase, the very idea of a "major" network is becoming obsolete. Many of the most buzzed-about shows on the major networks - ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX - are drawing in audiences comparable to those of cable series. In particular, shows whose demographics skew younger, such as Community, 30 Rock, Fringe and Parks and Recreation have low Nielsen numbers. These shows also happen to be the ones that advertisers covet, as they draw in the all-important 18-34 demographic.

These shows draw lower ratings for a number of reasons, but one that proves a major problem for the current system is the fact that this demographic is more likely to watch TV on their laptops or phones, as opposed to their TVs. As a 22-year-old student who doesn't own a television, I can tell you that most of my viewing happens on Hulu.com. Unfortunately for the shows I love, online numbers are only taken into account several days after an episode has aired; the number that gets publicized the morning after is the number of people who belong to Nielsen families and who watch the shows on TV. The fact that Nielsen boxes generally go to families also skews the ratings, because anyone who has ever watched TV with their parents can tell you that it often isn't their first choice of programming.

The obvious way to fix this problem would be to count Internet viewers right along with TV viewers. Watching TV on the internet, however, is an entirely different beast than watching it live, and it one that advertisers don't like as much. One of the great benefits of Hulu is the fact that, rather than having to watch twenty minutes of commercials interspersed with your show, you only have to see four or five thirty-second ads. The problem here is that advertisers want you to watch their ads on TV, all twenty minutes of them, rather than just seeing a few per episode online. And yes, the ads online can theoretically be more targeted than ads on TV, which is good for advertisers, but tell that to the damn Geico ads that plague my viewing experience despite the fact that I don't own a car.

The solution to this problem could be to offer a subscription service. Hulu is doing this with Hulu Plus, which costs eight dollars a month but offers more episodes, classic TV shows, and movies, all free of commercials. There have also been a lot of rumors going around that eventually Hulu will become a subscribers-only service. The major problem here, however, is that people are used to getting at least some TV for free, and while about half the households in the US are paying for some variety of cable, it's going to be hard to get people to forget about the fifty-plus years they spent getting their television for free. (I know some of you are going to draw a parallel here with the way that people were getting their music for free until iTunes came along, and now they're perfectly happy paying, but it's not the same thing. I came of age during the Napster era, but I still spent most of my life buying CDs, so it wasn't a huge shock to me to pay for music on iTunes. In fact, it saved me a lot of money on music.)

Another problem with asking people to subscribe to a streaming video service is that there are plenty of ways to watch TV online for free. They may not be strictly legal, and they may not always be the best quality, but they give those of us without TVs an opportunity to watch not only major network shows, but basic cable and premium channel shows as well. As long as those alternatives are out there, a sizable percentage of the young population (most of my friends included) is not going to pay to watch TV. Particularly if the cable companies keep jacking up their prices - cable costs rise on average 5% a year in the US, and they're not going to stop any time soon.

The point I'm trying to make in this incredibly roundabout way is that there is no way to really fix the Nielsen ratings so that they account for all the people who watch any given show. I haven't even gotten to the people who watch past TV seasons on DVD, or who buy the episodes from iTunes or Amazon. There is some talk of using a vague metric of "engagement" - according to the HuffPost article, Nielsen is also tracking "online discussions, Twitter feeds, Facebook shares and all the other ways that TV fans are interacting with their favorite shows online" - but this concept is nebulous at best and, given the TV shows that are most covered online, would probably lead you to believe that True Blood and Mad Men are the most popular shows on television. The real trick to figuring out a show's popularity in the digital age is going to be combining the traditional viewer count with online numbers and popularity metrics like discussion boards and Facebook and trying to plug the holes as they come up. It's not an easy task, but it could help little shows like Fringe survive as long as they deserve.

Is Too Much Freedom on TV Ever Bad?

The cast of Seinfeld shakes on it in "The Contest." Photo courtesy of joyhog.com.

With all the talk about "sexposition" on Game of Thrones recently, as well as the return of the often-gratuitous True Blood last weekend, I've been thinking about the role of censorship in television. Not censorship of ideas or political views - I'm completely against that - but censorship of things like sex, violence and foul language. Now, I'm not for censorship in any way, as I was raised by parents who realized I was smart enough to figure things out for myself and therefore chose not to censor things; however, I do think that the inability to show sex or violence onscreen can often lead to increased creativity.

I started thinking about this issue while reading Nerd Do Well, a memoir by the incredibly funny and talented Simon Pegg. In the book, Pegg describes his early comedic leanings by describing a joke he told to a friend's mother. The punchline of the joke relied on a mildly dirty work that Pegg, who was in primary school at the time, didn't want to say in front of an adult. Instead, he just paused and allowed the mother to guess the word based on rhyme and context. According to Pegg, the fun of guessing the dirty word for oneself made the joke much funnier than it would have been had Pegg said it aloud.

Pegg's point - that something implied is often funnier, sexier or scarier than something that is actually seen - is one that has been backed up by many TV shows. With the exception of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime, television is a medium that has to abide by certain guidelines as to how much sex, violence and profanity is allowed. While this can be incredibly frustrating - "nipplegate," anyone? - it can also lead to increased creativity on the part of showrunners and writers, who are forced to come up with alternative way to get their point across.

One of the best - and best-known - examples of this is the classic Seinfeld episode "The Contest." The episode, which was ranked as the single best television episode of all time by TV Guide, revolves around a contest between the four main characters to determine who can go the longest without masturbating. However, due to strict television guidelines, the word "masturbate" is never used in the episode, isntead being referred to by euphemisms such as the now-classic catchphrase "master of my domain." The episode would probably still be funny if the word could be used, but the heavy implication of the subject matter and the many amusing euphemisms used by the group make the whole thing much funnier, because it makes the audience feel like we're in on the joke.

Another example that I've always been fond of is the inclusion of marijuana in That 70s Show. The characters smoke pot in almost every episode, but it is never referred to by name and no joints or bongs ever appear on-screen. Instead, the audience sees the camera pan over the characters while puffs of smoke hang in the air around them, allowing viewers to pick up on the cues and laugh with the characters, while once again including the audience in the joke.

Dramas can also use implication and creativity to increase the impact of a scene without actually showing it. I'm not normally a big fan of Mad Men, but Joan's rape in the second season of that show was beautifully played, and all the more powerful because of how little was shown. It was far from gratuitous, showing no nudity and cutting away before the deed was actually done, focusing instead on Joan's glassy-eyed, resigned stare. Not showing the scene allowed the audience to imagine what is happening and project our horror onto the situation, while avoiding the fetishization of sexual violence that often comes with portrayals of such behavior onscreen.

It's not that showing sex, violence, drugs or profanity on TV is always badly done: The Wire showed characters doing drugs in order to illuminate the societal problems that plagued Baltimore, Tell Me You Love Me used explicit sex scenes in order to delve deeper into couples' relationships, and Deadwood elevated cursing to an art form. However, portraying these subjects on television is always dangerous, and difficult to do well. For every Tell Me You Love Me there are several True Bloods, a show that uses gratuitous sex to cover plot holes and that is often guilty of fetishizing violence against women. Shows like Seinfeld and Mad Men have shown viewers that censorship is not necessarily a bad thing; now, if only shows like True Blood would take that lesson to heart, and realize that ability to show something onscreen doesn't imply necessity.

Alison Brie Talks "Community," "Mad Men" and Paintball

Brie as Annie Edison in Part 1 of the upcoming Community finale, "A Fistful of Paintballs"

It’s always a little risky to talk to an artist you truly admire. They could be just as kind, gracious and funny as you thought, or they could turn out to be uncooperative or narcissistic. Recently, I had the opportunity to talk to Community’s Annie Edison herself, Alison Brie, and I’m happy to report that this charming, funny and talented young actress falls into the former category; she’s just as sweet and bubbly as you would expect from the actress who brings Annie to life. She covered a wide range of topics, including her work on both Community and Mad Men, sharing a scene with Josh Holloway, and her desire for a mermaid-themed episode of Community.

If all of you are excited as I am about the upcoming, sure to be epic Community finale, you’ll be excited to hear Brie’s thoughts on the two-part sequel to last year’s beloved paintball episode. Brie said that getting the script for the second part of the paintball episode contained some of the most shocking twists she had seen in a Community script. “The second part of the finale, there just are twists and turns that I didn’t see coming at all,” said Brie. “There are moments when you’ll read something and look at the writers and say, ‘really? Is this just a joke for the table read?’” Brie even compares the twists in this episode to Jeff and Annie’s unexpected kiss at the very end of last year’s finale, saying “This is two years in a row now that my biggest shock of the season has been the very last episode.”

Brie also teased Annie’s role in the paintball battle, which promises to be much greater than her role in last year’s episode. “Annie got taken out pretty early when we did the original paintball episode, and this time I really have a lot more to do,” said Brie, adding, “She’s practiced since she got taken out so early last year. She doesn’t like to lose.” 

Brie was especially excited about the scenes that Annie shares with Josh Holloway’s mysterious stranger. “He plays a bit of a mysterious character, and I got to do some action scenes with him.” She also got to flirt a bit with the man best known as Lost’s heartthrob Sawyer, and apparently shared quite a bit of chemistry with the guest star. “As we were doing the scene, our writer and director said ‘We’ve got to milk this chemistry’… and I was like, ‘Yes, chemistry with Josh Holloway, nailed it!’” An episode of Community wouldn’t be complete without a few pop-culture references, and having Sawyer himself on the set provided the writers with some opportunities for the meta. “There’s going to be a Sawyer line,” she promised, “so we’ll see if the Lost fan’s pick up on it. I’m sure they will.”

Of course, viewers who have invested two years in Community also want to see what the rest of the study group is going through, particularly given the internal tensions that have threatened the group this season. Brie promises that we’ll see plenty of developments in the group’s relationships. Recently, certain people in the group have been having trouble with other people, and “those feuds really come to a head in a major way in these last two episodes … there is a lot of really emotional stuff going on.” We’ll also see some of the recurring characters make an appearance. “There’s a lot of cute nods to the peripheral characters,” said Brie, “these people that you’ve seen every so often on the show.”

The final two episodes, however, are also action-packed, and the actors were worn out from all the paintball fights. “I clean [my ears] every time I shower, and I still had paint coming out of my ears a week later. It grossed me out!” laughed Brie, who had already suffered a paintball-related injury filming last year’s episode. "Last year I got shot in the boob, and it hurt!" said Brie. "I had a bruise."

Brie was also happy to talk about her hopes for the future of Community and Annie Edison. For all the ‘shippers out there wondering who Annie will end up with, Brie says, “I go back and forth between Troy [Donald Glover] and Jeff.” Like so many of us out here who love the chemistry between Brie and Joel McHale, “a lot of the time Jeff and Annie make sense to me, because Annie has a way of being a voice of reason for Jeff.” However, she also thinks that the pairing of Annie and Troy is a possibility: “They went to school together, they grew up together, they’re the same age, and there was really something in that.” Brie also has some ideas for the show’s third season. “A mermaid episode,” said Brie, “a Splash episode where Annie just shows up naked on a beach, and you realize, “Oh god, she’s a mermaid … I’m going to pitch this.”

While Brie is best known for her work on Community, she also plays a recurring character on a very different critically acclaimed show: Mad Men’s Trudy Campbell. Although Brie admits that she identifies with Annie more because of Annie’s “nerdy sense of humor,” and the fact that Annie is contemporary, while Trudy is a period character, she says there are similarities between herself and Trudy. “It’s very easy for me to connect with the ambitious side of Trudy, her striving for perfection. It’s just that what Trudy values are not the things I value.” She also has some insight into Trudy’s relationship with Vincent Kartheiser’s Pete, one of the show’s more unlikeable characters. “What’s fun about playing Trudy is that she doesn’t bear witness to a lot of Pete’s horrible deeds. She just loves him and wants to be an amazing wife to him, which makes her a quirky character,” said Brie.

Brie is currently in Ann Arbor, Michigan filming the movie Five-Year Engagement, which costars Emily Blunt. Brie said that being in a college town like Ann Arbor has put her more in touch with Community’s fan base. “I just adore our fans. They’re amazing,” said Brie. “They pick up on things right away. They’re so intelligent and they get so excited about the show, and it’s been really cool to be here in Ann Arbor and be able to witness them firsthand more than usual.”

I said earlier that it can be risky to talk to an artist you admire, because you never know what they’re really like. It is equally worrisome to hear about the behind-the-scenes dynamics of an ensemble show like Community, because you never want to hear about tension between cast members. “One of the best things about working on the show has been making some of my best friends,” said Brie, adding, “I’m texting them every day, and they’ve been texting … We love each other.”

Despite the cast’s tight bond, Brie was willing to dish on one hot topic – the question of who was the show’s best paintball player. “I feel like I have to say Joel [McHale], so I don’t get in trouble” laughed Brie, but went on to add, “I have to say that Danny Pudi is very agile … He’s like a jungle cat, so he’s a good stealth man, but Joel is, you know, all muscle.”

Even though most of the talk centered on the upcoming finale, Brie was happy to talk about other episodes – in particular “Paradigms of Human Memory,” the recent clip show that showed viewers glimpses of a number of adventures that didn’t make it on screen. I asked Alison what clip she would like to see expanded into a full episode. “It would definitely be the St. Patrick’s Day adventure,” said Brie. “Especially Abed’s line, because Danny’s such a pro, and the way he delivered that line, ‘The mysterious events that surrounded the exciting conclusion of our St. Patrick’s Day adventure.’” However, after thinking for a moment, Brie added that another favorite clip was “our trip to Mexico where Pierce almost gets shot.”