...gimmick-laden Frankenstein: "Get me gorgeous lead characters with troubled pasts, procedural-like episodic plots, Smoking Man curveballs, and a season-long riddle to keep it all afloat!" network execs could almost be heard shouting to their underlings.

That sums it up so perfectly.

Paint-by-numbers plots, premises and casting.

Even when they try to cast "ugly" people in TV shows (such as Ugly Betty) they still can't help themselves....and cast a beautiful girl but put glasses on her to make her "ugly."

They simply cannot get away from the tired old formula.

Fringe is a perfect example of people being bored to death with show simply ebcause it's the exact same recycled shit we've seen for the past 20 years!

What would progamming against formula look like?

Mix it up just a little! Have the blonde be the "mad" scientist!

Have the angry, but brilliant son weigh 500 pounds like Hurly on Lost.

MIX IT UP!

Paint by numbers.

1) Both characters are incredibly good looking....like every single other blockbuster/epic ever made (yawn! Where are all the UGLY people in movies? God forbid they ever become main characters in a epic romance!)

2) No one works in accounts payable (yawn! Once again no one in a "epic" movie every holds a boring jobs. Of course they travel the world! God forbid they sit at a desk --- because that wouldn't be "epic" would it?)

3) Main characters MUST relive all the cultural epochs of the last century. They must fight in WWII, must march for civil rights and must be shown enjoying the Beatles on TV (yawn! Once again it's impossible to write an "epic" in 2008. This actually makes sense because how could you show "drama" in 2008? Film the characters shopping at Wal-mart and sitting at home watching Survivor? I guess a talented writer/director team could write an "epic" that didn't include WWII or the civil rights movement...but none have tried yet!)

All in all....can we really say that TCCOBB isn't just the same-old-recycled cliched shit that Hollywood has been pumping out nonstop for the past 20 years?

I think movie critics like movies just because they feel like they are supposed to like them!

Or maybe there is a weird movie critic formula that the rest of us weren't given?

The crappier, duller and more nonsensical the plot....the more they love it! Movies got a suicide in it? Automatically gets a positive review.

If a character in the movie has a drug problem or if the movie involves a "dysfunctional family" getting together over the holidays where (gasp!) "secrets are revealed!" than it's an instant hit as far as critics go...even though we've all seen that exact same plot (and near verbatum dialogue) appoximately 100 times before in other films.

But I gotta agree with everyone else:

Happy-Go-Lucky was just blah and Steph's bizaare inclusion of "Don't Mess With the Zohan" is just, er, well, bizzare.

I see a LOT of crap movies and my standards are really, really, low when it comes to entertainment.

I was actually watching "Don't Mess With The Zohan" for free online (God bless those Chinese pirates uploading illegal copies) and I couldn't finish it!

Even by Adam Sandler standards this was just not interesting ot funny.

But it got a Honorable Mention?

Huh!?!

I can’t help but wonder if the people who insist that making close, personal friends is “easy” really have any close, personal friends?

Nodding hello to someone at work is NOT a deep, personal friendship. Is that what these people seem to think it is?

Chit chatting about the latest episode of Survivor with co-workers or casual acquaintances is not the same thing as a serious heart-to-heart with someone you truly trust and respect. Is this where the holier-than-thous are getting confused? Do they think it is the same thing?

I chit chat and bullshit with tons of people….but I am fairly lonely because those are not emotionally significant relationships.

This is what is meant by being alone in a crowd. You surrounded by people and you’re interacting with them on a superficial level...but it is not an emotionally significant relationship!

I don’t know. It’s starting to seem like the subtle difference between making a casual acquaintance and having an emotional significant emotional connection with someone is a distinction that is hopelessly beyond the ability of many on this thread to understand.

Bullshitting about the weather or the latest episode of Prison Break? Easy. We all do it.

Actually have a serious friend that you can truly count on for emotional support? Much, much rarer and much harder to find.

Do they understand the difference between the two types of relationships?

If you admit to loneliness....there is a small army of people waiting to pounce on you to attack the you for being lonely.

In other words, the lonely are self-absored jerks and that must be why they are lonely.

Sheesh!

No wonder lonliness is on the rise.

America has really devolved into just a culture of holier-than-thou assholes.

Finding people to really and truly connect with is very, very difficult.

The premise (amongs the holier-than-thous) is that deep, intimate friendships are easy! Just introduce yourself to someone on the street and -- bingo! -- you've got a best buddy that not only understands your deepests thoughts but will stand by you for think and thin!

Riiiiiigth.

If only it were that easy.

But try explaining that to the holier-than-thous lecturing the lonely on how "easy" it is to create deep, intimate lifelong friendships.