Arrested Re-revisited

I don't object to your previous post being a comment on my post; in fact, I think I'll do the very same in this post. I find the blog more interesting when it fuctions more of as a dialogue and less as a series of isolated, unrelated posts. Though, of course, our posts will often necessarily be unrelated; while we used to see a lot of movies together when I lived in Portland, now I frequently see movies you haven't seen, and vice versa. So don't hesitate to use your posts just to react to what I've written, even when it isn't a big philosophical-analytical treatise.

Let me clarify myself about Sit Down, Shut Up. I really liked it, especially in the areas where it was similar to Arrested Development, but it wasn't as good as Arrested Development. (Writing this, I just thought of Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle during the 1988 vice-presidential debate, "I knew Arrested Development, and you're no Arrested Development.") The writing has the same tone, there's a big cast of colorful characters, and the plotting is similarly complex (for example—SPOILER ALERT!—the seemingly minor gag about Helen hiding in the locker sets up the "steroid" pills, which leads to her touchdown during the football game, Stuart's growing breasts, and the discovery of Willard's porn—SPOILERS OVER—). I agree that it doesn't rise to AD's level, though I may have found it funnier than you did. (I rewatched the first episode today and found myself catching, and laughing at, jokes I'd missed the first time, like the canned laughs that play whenever Stuart delivers his non-catchphrase.) On the other hand, AD's pilot didn't rise to AD's level in my opinion; the show quickly got its comedic groove, but the first episode was good, not great. So I think that anyone who wasn't that into Sit Down, Shut Up the first time should at least give it a few more weeks (assuming it lasts that long) and give it a chance to blossom the way AD did. That said, my prior post was as enthusiastic as it was because (1) it was the first new Mitch Hurwitz I'd seen since AD ended in 2006, and (2) it was funnier than at least 95% of the comedies on TV right now.

And about the movie, no one would like it to be great more than I do. It's just that sometimes reuniting the crew for another go doesn't work the way we thought it would. After all, look at the example I mentioned a while ago, The X-Files. The show was great, the first movie was great, and the second movie reunited Duchovny and Anderson with Carter directing, so it should've been great too, right? I didn't see it, but from what I heard, it was sub-"monster-of-the-week," just a lame excuse for a TV episode, much less a feature-length, theatrical-release movie. All the ingredients for the recipe were there, but this time it just didn't taste right. I'm worried something similar might happen with the AD movie, not that it'll be outright bad, but that it won't live up to the show. Not only that, but AD was a genuinely plot-driven show, with major and minor threads carrying across episodes and even seasons. The plot seemed to wrap itself up pretty definitively at the end of the third season, mirroring the pilot except that this time Michael and George Michael escape their family's shenanigans. (In that sense, it's almost like two parallel universes branched off from each other at the yacht party, based on Michael's choice to stick with the family; on the other hand, maybe it's just a comedy show and I've been watching too much Lost lately—"You got Lost in my Arrested Development!" "You got Arrested Development in my Lost!") Plot-wise, I just don't think the show needs a two-hour appendix or addendum. That said, though, if it ends up happening I wish and hope for the best.

P.S. — I just saw Mean Creek (trailers and clips) for the first time via Netflix, and not only was it a very good movie and a little taste of home, but I saw the familiar face—but not so familiar body—of the pre-Slimfast Josh Peck, whose film from last year, The Wackness, we discussed earlier.