Couldn't Streaming Find More Room For Jeopardy?

 

I have mentioned in numerous articles how much I love Jeopardy. And, given that it’s one of the most popular game shows in history, one would think that this new world of streaming television could find room for it in its seemingly endless archives. But it’s always been tricky finding the series on line – which presents an interesting problem.

Given how quickly everything seems to end up on YouTube these days, one would’ve thought there would be a record of Jeopardy going back at least twenty years. And while you can find a lot of recordings of old episodes and more recent tournaments, it’s a lot less than you’d think. Like almost everything else on that server, what you find is piecemeal and with few complete games. I realize that’s perhaps inevitable for so many of the shows back in the twentieth century, but in this millennium where everything seems to end up online; you’d expect to see more.

Other streaming services, like Netflix and Hulu, have not exactly stepped up to meet the demand. Hulu has had only a handful of episodes in the course of a career, and Netflix only started to pick up Jeopardy games in the past three years. Even here, there’s little continuity. For a few months, you could get the season premiere of the last twenty years, along with the odd tournament. Then a few months later, you’d get some championship runs of some local competitors along with some more recent tournaments.

Now, I realize Netflix’s appeal has always been, in part, due to its ability to keep its run of the TV and movies relatively fresh. And I know that there might not be enough space or demand for every single episode of Jeopardy.  (Considering how much room they have for all of their original programming makes me seriously doubt that statement, but I’ll let it go for now.)

So I’ll propose a compromise. Why not put online every Tournament of Champions from the series inception til the current day? That would come to roughly 7000 minutes of playing time, or about 116 and a half hours. While that might seem like a lot, it’s slightly less time than the entire run of Law and Order: SVU or Criminal Minds, never mind all the episodes of Doctor Who they’ve got lying around. I have a feeling there might be more interest in that than seeing some of the more depraved serial killers on record, and its definitely more family friendly.  Plus in a world where so much of our energy is messed in reality TV with people who have the celebrity lifespan of a fruit fly, it would be nice to have somewhere people who had accomplished something by having knowledge. I’d rather as many people knew of Eddie Timanus’ accomplishments than of the non-accomplishments of any Kardashian.

And perhaps we could also have a record of all of the special tournaments that Jeopardy has had over its run. I listed most of the ones in a previous article, but perhaps we could put online Super Jeopardy, the show’s first prime time big tournament way back in 1990 as well the 10^th Anniversary Tournament of 1993. Knowing our history is nice, and knowing Jeopardy’s history would be even nicer. It would be another 75 hours, which is just a little less than half the amount of time you would spend on Blue Bloods, which has been on Netflix for a lot longer. (Hell, you could compare Tom Selleck’s mustache to Alex Trebek’s just for fun.)

I make this argument not so much as a Jeopardy fan – though I am one, no question – but as a fan of preserving TV heritage in general. I argue for the release on DVD of Classic TV many years ago, and now that streaming services have been willing to carry the ball, I think it is in the interest of the medium as a whole to carry the torch. Jeopardy is one of the great accomplishments in TV history, and now that Alex is gone, there should be some kind of record of his – and of the great champions that he so enjoyed sharing the stage with. If we can spare all that bandwidth for every incarnation of The Walking Dead, surely we can do it for Jeopardy.

.

It's Not Spoilers If They're Retelling the Same Story

 

Last night, I accidentally saw the last few minutes of Riverdale. I was a fan of the show early on, but halfway through the third season, I got sick of the series, mainly because it was just way too dark even for my taste, and I was starting to find the storytelling repetitive. I accidentally tuned in to the last few minutes of what was probably going to be the premiere of Season 5 in a pre-pandemic world, and this was what I saw.

The story had jumped ahead seven years. No doubt this was to handle the departure of cast members Skeet Ulrich and Marisol Nichols along with having to avoid the problem of whatever happens when a series set with it’s main cast in high school graduates.  Most of the cast was back in Riverdale, which was now a ghost town more or less under the thumb of Veronica’s father, crime boss Hiram Lodge. If this sounds familiar, you’re not alone: this was the basic storyline of Season 3 of the show – which was the result of most of Season 2. And it ended with another murder, which no doubt be the start of another string of serial killings, which started the show in the first place.

This has been a continuous flaw of so many broadcast television shows these days. The ones that aren’t procedurals or remakes/reboots of old series are literally replaying the same storylines over and over again. This, sadly, has become a real problem with the lion’s share of the series under Greg Berlanti’s purview the last several years. Not so much that the characters will face the same villain over repeated seasons (though that has happened more than a few times) but that the characters, whether they be Oliver Queen or Kara Danvers, will follow the exact same matter of fighting them. And far too many other network shows (I’m thinking mainly of series such as Blindspot or The Resident) follow much the same pattern.

The networks still don’t seem to have learned the lesson that, paradoxically, helped lead the Golden Age of Television. The main reason geniuses like David Chase, David Milch and Shawn Ryan left network television for pay and basic cable wasn’t so much that they were sick and tired of not being able to use profanity and violence but because they were sick of having to stick within the boundaries of formulaic television, that nothing fundamentally could change from week to week. We may be starting to get sick of antiheroes, but one can’t accuse Mad Men or The Americans of having the same kind of story from week to week or even season to season.

The model that network television seems to be going for is, sadly, Shonda Rhimes’ approach: the best way to deal with binging an entire series at once is to pile on the twists so fast you never have time to think. What no one seems to have learned from her approach is that, when you cut down the bone, Rhimes’ series are just as formulaic as CSI or Law & Order: SVU.

Every year on Scandal, Rhimes would have Olivia Pope and her gladiators fight against B613 and usually Chief of Staff Cyrus Beene. The struggle would take all season, many lives would be lost, and when it was over, they would defeat them – and by early the following season at the absolute latest, both of them would be back where they were before. She didn’t even have the guts to try and destroy the former in the finale; she had Rowan testify before Congress about what he’s done, and the implication was, he wouldn’t pay for it. It just seemed to make the entire series a waste of time.

But maybe we shouldn’t have been that surprised. Even before B613 appeared on the scene, in the first season, Olivia had to deal with a murder that could bring down the republic that was orchestrated by ‘Charlie’ and Billy Chambers, the vice president’s chief of staff. Chambers and Charlie were both revealed and presumed dead. The next season, the major story of the back half involved a mole who was revealing government secrets. Near the end of the season, we learned Charlie was the go-between and Billy Chambers was the mole. Maybe it was supposed to be the ultimate twist, but how it played out was that nothing that happened in the first season mattered. And that’s the approach that Rhimes and her acolytes have carried out, and that most of network television seems to have modeled itself after.

Much as I’d like to blame all of this on Rhimes, however, I don’t think its entirely her fault. I think a fair amount of the blame can be traced back to one of the greatest series of all times: The X-Files.  Now don’t get me wrong, I still consider it a masterpiece. But there was a fundamental flaw in how its mythology worked: no matter how great the revelations were every mytharc episode, by the two or three part episode, nothing would change. You’d think discovering a man who had the power to heal with the touch of a hand or a chess prodigy who could read people’s minds or a frigging UFO off the coast of Africa with religious texts inscribed in it would have some effect on the world. But when it was over, the only people who seemed to have any knowledge of it were Mulder and Scully, and they would just move on to the next monster of the week.

To be fair, many of the writers of this series learned their lesson. Howard Gordon and Vince Gilligan would learn their lessons and create several of the greatest serialized dramas of all time. (Gordon would eventually write for 24, a broadcast show that didn’t rely on the same kind of formula). A few others would collaborate on Fringe, another broadcast show that took its mythology completely seriously. But what network executives seemed to take away was creating series that would follow the same formula with the same villains in the shadows never to be defeated or ‘brought into the light’ as Rhimes’ Olivia Pope would say over and over without actually doing it.

Network television has been undergoing major drops in its ratings throughout the last decade. There hasn’t entirely been a drop in quality; there have been a series of brilliant comedies and even a few great dramas, such as The Good Wife and Parenthood that learned how to operate without a formula or to change it when things started getting stale. But if broadcast television is to have any hope of reversing the drop that keeps happening year in and year out, they have to start breaking the formulas rather than rebooting them. Another Equalizer will not save TV. Another American Crime might.

I Have Measured Out My Life in Jeopardy Tournaments: A Rare Personal Reflection

 

Throughout the years I have often referred to my great love of Jeopardy. Every year or so, I mention that the series has been a constant in my life since childhood, that the champions were at one time more familiar to me than actual friends, and how much the late Alex Trebek has meant to me. What I have not really gone into is how much certain elements of the show have always appealed to me and have, in their own way, been a calendar.

I have mentioned on occasion how special I find the Tournaments Jeopardy seems to have every few years to commemorate champions of years past.  What I’ve left out is how I measure them. Ever since the Million Dollar Masters in 2002, I have gone through the process of recording almost every celebration of Jeopardy over the years and making a schedule to rewatch them. These include the Ultimate Tournament of Champions in 2005, The Battle of the Decades in 2014, The Jeopardy All Star Tournament in 2019 and last years Prime Time: Jeopardy: Greatest of all Time.

And over the years, I have set up schedules to watch them. I start with the Million Dollar Masters in early January. Then in February, I begin watching the Ultimate Tournament of Champions. (It was the most complex and involved 76 games played over the better part of four months.) In the summer, usually after the series goes on hiatus, I watch the Battle of The Decades, which took place over five weeks. And I close out the year by rewatching the All Star Tournament.

I have never in all the years of recording considering binge watching any of these tournaments. That has always gone against what seemed to be the rules of the show. You got one episode a day; why should I change it now that I have it all on tape? (I’ve never been much for binge watching in the first place, so why should I violate my code now). Besides, it’s never been about playing along. It’s about appreciate the skill of truly talented players. Not just those who have become famous over the past few years, like Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, but the pioneers who made the series what it was over the years. Men and women like Frank Spangenberg, Eddie Tumanus (the first blind five day champion) and Robin Carroll, to later sensations like Austin Rogers and James Holzhauer. It also is fun to see the categories that have made the series what it is, and which you’d never find on any other show. I don’t know where else you’d see categories like THOSE DARN ETRUSCANS, GRANDSON OF WOOD, GHASTLY OPERATIC DEMISES and one of those perennial favorites, BEFORE & AFTER. Does anyone even remember that this was originally a Wheel of Fortune category before Jeopardy perfected it?

In a way, this series has helped measure the seasons of my life, more than the actual calendars. There are two ways in which I view the passage of the year: award shows and Jeopardy tournaments. And both have gotten me through some difficult periods, particularly in the last four years. Indeed, during the past year, I measured the scope of the pandemic and when I hoped it would be over based on when I watched my tournaments. Way back last March, I really hoped the lockdown would be over when I finished the Ultimate Tournament of Champions in late May. Oh, how naïve I was.

And of course, as I watch it this year, my thoughts will turn to Alex. I think, as much as anything else, these tournaments brought out the very best in Alex Trebek. He didn’t really associate with champions outside of Jeopardy (or so he said) so I can’t help but think that these tournaments served as a reunion with old friends with him. His ability to interview contestants was one of his greatest strengths, and in every tournament (including the annual Tournaments Of Champions) he always seemed to be interested in the good ways winning had affected these contestant lives. He would make comments about things that they had done in the years they’d been gone – jobs that they gotten, books that they written, how their lives had changed. More than anything else, he made sure that the show was all about the champions, though he really seemed to be having as much as fun as they were. It will be hard watching these tournaments knowing Alex is no longer there, but it will also serve as a reminder as to how great he was.

Today, as I begin to rewatch the Ultimate Tournament of Champions, many thoughts will cross my mind. What will the world be like when I finish it in three months? What will Jeopardy be like in the future? And more than anything, how much of an icon Alex Trebek is, was and always will be. He may be gone, but as long as these tournaments and his shows are replayed, we always have a record of legacy. (Of course, I have thoughts on how streaming services choose to show, but I’ll save that for another article.)

 

Can This Nice Guy Finish First: Better late Than Never Ted Lasso

 

Lawrence’s biggest fans. I truly believe that show was the best comedy series of the 2000s – I’d  compare it favorably over Everybody Loves Raymond and Will & Grace without blinking. He’s had some inspired shows in the past ten years – the very funny, if admittedly poorly titled Cougar Town, and the undervalued and underwatched Ground Floor and Life Sentence. It took me awhile to sign on to watching Ted Lasso his latest venture (I’ll explain why in a moment) but after a plethora of nominations from the Golden Globes and Broadcast Critics I signed on. I’m so glad I did.

Rebecca Welton (Hannah Waddingham) has just divorced a billionaire British media mogul. Among the many things she has won in his divorce is his beloved soccer team. She sacked the legendary coach, and in its place hires Ted Lasso (Jason Sudekis) the head of a very minor Kansas American football champion more known for his viral celebration dance than his success. Ted really isn’t sure why he’s been hired as he knows nothing about British football. But what he lacks for her understanding of the game, he more than makes up for in enthusiasm and pure cheerfulness. There is nothing that can mute his optimism and spirit, and considering how hostile the press, the fans, and his own players bear him, that’s perhaps his greatest asset.  What Ted doesn’t know is that Rebecca for the express purpose of failing spectacularly and destroying the team that her cheating husband loved more than life.

It is easy to think Ted, with his southern accent and apparent foolishness as just another idiot. But the key word is ‘apparent’. Ted is smarter than anybody (with the possible exception of his loyal assistant Coach Beard, wonderfully played by Brendan Hunt) would give him credit for. He has a good understanding of how people think, and I don’t know any sport coach who  has knowledge of Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography, which he uses to gently to put down a pesky reporter. He loves everybody and everything. He is nice when he know it might hurt him, and doesn’t care even when his own players like superstar Jamie Start and veteran Roy Kent treat him like dirt. And he’s great at winning people over; he instantly makes friends with a local gaffer Nathan, who is amazed that anybody is paying attention to him and tries his best to set up a good report with Jamie’s supermodel wife (Juno Temple is remarkable). Even though Rebecca wants so desperately to keep him at arms length, she can’t help but be impressed when he brings her ‘biscuits’ every morning. She tries to get her assistant to find out where he gets them from, not knowing Ted bakes them himself every night before he goes to best. There are hints that Ted is still suffering a bit – his wife and son have not come overseas with him, and the implication is great that their marriage is in trouble.

You don’t need to know about football or soccer or, heck sports at all, to love Ted Lasso. In typical Lawrence fashion, there are so many quick fire jokes going back and forth that the replay value is immense – some of them, like Ted’s reaction when he learns how many countries are in the United Kingdom, is one of the most brilliant political jokes I’ve heard in a very long time. The entire cast is superb, but full credit must be given to the impressive Jason Sudeikis. His work has always been below my radar, even when he was at his peak on Saturday Night Live, but this is one of the very lead performances I’ve seen in a comedy in a very long time. I didn’t know how long I’d have to wait to see a performance that was so centered around a truly nice person since Kidding was cancelled last year, but Sudeikis is more than up to the challenged. The series and the man are already on my short list for this year’s Emmys.

I have been very reluctant to watch anything on Apple TV, perhaps because of my own failures in ability to access it. But when I finally found myself available to do so and watch this exceptional comedy, they won me over. I’m so glad this show was renewed for two more seasons (Lawrence has always had to struggle for every new season of every other show he’s had on TV) and maybe I’ll be willing give some of their other shows a chance. Hell, maybe I’ll even like The Morning Show.

My score: 4.75 stars.

The SAG Nominations Came Out Yesterday...And I'm Actually Good With Them

 

It’s rare that I choose to comment on the Screen Actors Guild Nominations for Television. This is partially because they are not as extensive as the Critics Choice or even the Golden Globes, but its also because they have a nasty habit of giving the awards to the same people and series over and over again. Alec Baldwin won the prize for Best Actor five consecutive years and they were nearly as excessive for Orange is the New Black.

That said, they’ve been doing a much better job the last few years – recognizing just exceptional series as Stranger Things, This is Us and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. And when I saw the listed nominees, in a rarity, I was a little happier with them than I was with the Golden Globes this year.

Ensemble in a Drama again featured four of last year’s best – The Crown, Ozark, Lovecraft County and Better Call Saul. I’m slightly more judgmental about Bridgerton, but you can’t have everything. Four of the nominees for Best Actor in a Drama were also good choices – Jason Bateman, Bob Odenkirk, Josh O’Connor and Sterling K. Brown. I‘m a little doubtful about Rege-Jean Page, but what can you can say? Is it wrong that all five nominees for Best Actress are from two series?  It’s hard to make that argument when you consider the work of the three women in The Crown and Laura Linney and Julia Garner in Ozark.

I’m also fully on board with four of the five nominees in the Best Comedy Ensemble- The Flight Attendant, Schitt’s Creek and Ted Lasso are superb, and I’m very gratified to see Dead to Me recognized. At this point, I may have to reevaluate my opinion on The Great. I have no problem at all with any of the five nominees for Best Actress in a Comedy – indeed, I’m overjoyed that both Christina Applegate and Linda Cardellini were recognized for their superlative to work on Dead to Me. Best Actor is a little more problematic, but I’m fine with four of the five nominees and its becoming increasingly clear that I now have to give more latitude to Nicholas Hoult.

And if anything, the nominees in Best TV Movie and Limited Series are better choices than the Golden Globes. Hugh Grant, Ethan Hawke and Mark Ruffalo are extraordinary in their work, and I’m glad to see Bill Camp acknowledged for his subtle work in The Queen’s Gambit. Would I have rather seen Daveed Diggs nominated for his work as Frederick Douglass in The Good Lord Bird than in Hamilton? Sure, but at least he’s been acknowledged for something. No Chris Rock, but Fargo never had much luck in the SAGs. All five choices for Best Actress are just as good and I’m over the moon that they recognized Kerry Washington for Little Fires Everywhere and made up for the Globes snub of Michaela Coel in I May Destroy You.. This list truly has five of the best performances of the past year.

I’ve even fine with the nominations in Stunt Ensemble in a Comedy or Drama. This is where The Mandalorian should be getting recognition as well as Westworld. Personally though, I’m rooting for Lovecraft Country.

After years of being stuck doing repeats, it finally seems the SAG awards may finally be getting a grip on how to give awards. Even it does duplicate last year’s winner of The Crown and give a lot of to Schitt’s Creek, it will be showing a range that the Hollywood Foreign Press doesn’t have this year. Hell, maybe next year we can talk about expanding to Best Ensemble in a Limited Series or Movie. It wouldn’t add that much time to an award shows that usually clocks in at two hours.

My Reactions To This Year's Golden Globe Nominations: Part 2, Limited Series/Supporting Awards

 

 

BEST TV LIMITED SERIES OR MOVIE

 It was inevitable, given the vast array of Limited Series that were brilliant this year, that there were going to be disappointments.  Rarely, however, have I felt more let down. I’m glad to see The Undoing and The Queen’s Gambit nominated, and I can understand the logic behind Normal People and Unorthodox. But I wished they make up their minds about whether Small Axe is a movie or TV.

And now I’ll vent. Nothing for Fargo or Little Fires Everywhere or even I May Destroy You?. Almost nothing for The Good Lord Bird or Miss America?  The Globes usually does much better for Limited Series than the Emmys does. But then again, they completely ignored Watchmen last year, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES, ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR TV MOVIE

I have fewer qualms with this category. Hugh Grant and Mark Ruffalo fully deserve to be here, as does Ethan Hawke. I basically have no problem with Bryan Cranston or even Jeff Daniels, But couldn’t they have found room for Chris Rock’s incredible work in Fargo. Or Hugh Jackman’s superb performance in Bad Education?

 

BEST ACTRESS IN LIMITED SERIES, ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR TV MOVIE

Again mostly okay. Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman and Anya Taylor-Joy more than deserve to be here, and an argument can be made for Shira Haas and Daisy Edgar-Jones.

I’m disappointed by the continued shut out of Reese Witherspoon and Kerry Washington’s work on Little Fires Everywhere, and Michaela Coel searing work on I May Destroy You may be the most egregious snub of the entire Golden Globes. I think that will generate the most outrage.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

No problem with Daniel Levy or Donald Sutherland. I can see the argument for Brendan Gleeson for The Comey Rule, though I real thought Trump fatigue would’ve set in by now. Jim Parsons makes a certain amount of sense for Hollywood, though it is odd he’s the only nominee.

John Boyega was nominated as a lead by the Broadcast Critics for Small Axe, so I’m not sure why he’s listed as Supporting here. More to the point, I question his presence at all with the superb number of supporting performances in Fargo or The Good Lord Bird that were entirely ignored in this category. Hell, Mahershala Ali deserves it more. This is a really weird call.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

For a change, all of the nominees in this category are from series, Drama or Comedy.. I have no problem with Gillian Anderson or Helena Bonham Carter’s nominations for The Crown or Annie Murphy’s for Schitt’s Creek.  Considering she’s won the last two Supporting Actress in a Drama Emmys, it seems fitting that Julia Garner is here for Ozark.

Cynthia Nixon’s presence for Ratched  really doesn’t satisfy at all. I would much rather have seen Rhea Seehorn for Better Call Saul or Cynthia Erivo for The Outsider would’ve been a better choice. Hell, any of the fine actresses in Mrs. America would’ve been a better call. What does the Golden Globes have for Ryan Murphy?

 

I’ll be back in a few weeks to discuss who deserves to win and who will.

My Reactions To This Year's Golden Globe Nominations, Part 1

 

The Golden Globes nominations for television are always hard to figure out. More often than not, they tend to recognize what is a current sensation rather than seasoned performers. And often if they recognize you in your first season, they may never acknowledge you again. Even when they do, there rarely seems to be a consensus between the acting and the series.

You got a certain feeling with this year's nominations as well. There were a lot of good choices, don’t get me wrong. But the scattershot nature of the process really seemed to be in affect today, particularly in stark contrast to the nominations of the Broadcast Critics two weeks ago.

I’ll elaborate as we go through the choices.

 

BEST TV SERIES – DRAMA

It’s hard to argue that The Crown, Ozark and Lovecraft Country don’t belong here. But the remaining two nominations make less sense. The Mandalorian was a big deal… last year. And considering the lion’s share of its work is technical, I don’t think it deserves to be recognized in this category.

And I really don’t understand why Ratched, Netflix’s prequel to One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest is being recognized instead of Better Call Saul, This is Us or Perry Mason, all of which were superior programs. We’ll get to the other flaws in the nominations as we go.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A TV DRAMA

This is better by a bit. Bob Odenkirk, Matthew Rhys and Jason Bateman more than deserved to be considered for their work, and I actually don’t have a problem with Al Pacino being recognized for Hunters.

I’m still of two minds about Josh O’Connor’s nomination. His work on The Crow is superb, no question. But I still believe it falls more in the supporting category than a lead. Why couldn’t they have nomination Jonathan Majors for Lovecraft Countyr or Sterling Brown for This is Us instead?

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

I have no problem with Olivia Colman or Emma Corrin’s nominations for The Crown. Laura Linney more than deserved to be recognized for Ozark.  I can see the logic in nominating Jodie Comer, though I really feel the moment for Killing Eve has passed.

Again, I don’t see why Sarah Paulson deserved to get nominated for Ratched. I’d much rather have seen Jormee Smollett for Lovecraft Country or Sandra Oh or Claire Danes. This seems one of the Golden Globes weirder choices.

 

BEST COMEDY SERIES

Now we’re getting even more off track. I have no problem with Schitt’s Creek or Ted Lasso getting nominated, and there’s been enough buzz for The Flight Attendant.

But Emily in Paris? That’s not even the best comedy on Netflix. Dead to Me was shutout, and they didn’t acknowledge Insecure or Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist.  And they considered The Great better than the second season of Ramy? That’s almost offensive. And that does seem weird that What We Do in the Shadows was completely ignored

 

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Eugene Levy, Ramy Youseff and Jason Sudeikis I have no problem with. I still don’t understand why Don Cheadle keeps getting nominated for Showtime series that aren’t really that good, but I’ll let it go.

And I’m not at all thrilled with the recognition given to Nicholas Hoult for The Great. Where the hell is Anthony Anderson or Jim Carrey? This is ridiculous.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

A little better. Catherine O’Hara more than deserves to be here, and I’m glad to see Kaley Cuoco nominated. And Jane Levy being recognized for her work is, well, extraordinary.

But Lily Collins over Christina Applegate and Linda Cardellini? What the hell? And Elle Fanning doesn’t even deserve to be considered in the same sentence as Issa Rae or Pamela Adlon. This is not great at all.

 

Be back tomorrow when I deal with Limited Series and Supporting Awards.