This week's episode of Brooklyn Nine-Nine saw it carry on it's recent trend of focusing on the characters' personal lives rather than cops chasing criminals. However, 'Fancy Brugdom' (based on the name of a Danish magazine but remember the game 'Bugdom'? Ah, memories) faired a great deal better than last week's 'Tactical Village'.

Due to Charles' wedding fast approaching (it's totally the season finale, isn't it?), Charles' and his new best man Jake go shopping for the wedding. Jake learns, while tasting cake, that Charles is planning to retire and move to Canada with Vivian. Charles quickly learns after that this is not something he wants to do. The rest of the episode features Jake helping Charles muster up the courage to tell Vivian that he doesn't want to go.

Charles' has a much funnier rapport with Jake than the rest of the cast. His tendency to say embarrassing mixes well with Jake, a straightman who's also sort of a smartarse. For example, Charles talking about his sex life would simply not have been funny without Peralta's repeat attempts to change the topic. “I don't wanna pry.” Charles asking Jake to be his best man by putting a bow-tie in his drink was adorable and hilarious and Jake telling the paper saleswoman that Amy (who wasn't even in the scene) would pay for the paper was a hilarious extension on the Jake-blames-Amy running joke.

Rosa was surprisingly enjoyable this episode. Her storyline involved Captain Holt wanting her to write an apology to an officer after mocking him for bagging evidence “like a five year old” on her crime scene. Her mocking of Officer Deepmore by treating him like a child was much funnier than her usual “I'm going to hurt you” shtick. The final scene where Diaz apologises for an off-camera drawing she did of Deepmore is made fantastic by the contrast of Deepmore's shock and Rosa's nonchalance. Diaz and Holt were an enjoyable new pairing. Their very serious demeanours played off very well of each other and Rosa's behaviour set Andre Braugher up for some killer one liners that you never see coming due to his monotonous voice.

With Jake and Holt absent, the C story line was left with two often funny secondary characters (Terry and Amy) and Gina (fuckin' Gina). The story focuses on an extreme diet the three characters are on and their struggle to stay on it. The funniest part is in the cold open with Terry cheerfully saying “Hey, guys! Pro tip: Lick The Baggie. There's food molecules in there!” before the three characters grotesquely licking the inside of the sandwich bags. The storyline is mediocre but has it's moments. The scene near the end where Terry soils himself after trying to lift a car is the most childish thing I've laughed at for a while and inspired a brilliant line from Gina. “Go back in.” Terry says lifting a car though a very audible bowel movement. “Are you talking to us or the fart?” (Good work, Gina. Maybe I was wrong about you.) Unfortunately, the episode does feature Amy making up for Rosa by trying the “I'm going to hurt you” shtick for herself.

Overall, 'Fancy Brugdom' was a very fun episode. There wasn't a lot of the Jake and Amy romance as recent weeks but with the finale coming up, I'm sure we'll have plenty of that in the next few episodes. As usual, the shows best storylines featured Peralta and Holt, however, it was nice to see Rosa and Charles get some of the episodes larger laughs.

Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a fun show but it's quite never lived up to creators and executive producers Dan Goor and Michael Schur's other effort, Parks and Recreation. While Andy Samberg's childish yet competent Detective Jake Peralta is one of the better comedic performances on TV just now (evidenced by Samberg's Golden Globe win), other characters do not seem as fleshed out.

With the series nearing its end, Brooklyn Nine-Nine is starting to build up drama for its finale. For example, Boyle is getting married while Peralta and Santiago are hinting heavily at the old classic will-they-won't-they romance.

Unlike most of ‘Brooklyn Nine-Nine’s episodes. ‘Tactical Village’ did not focus on any police cases and instead saw the detectives go to Tactical Village Training Day with the day concluding with a police simulation using paintball guns. The interesting twists and turns that come with each case the Nine-Nine solve were instead substituted for cliché end-of-season plotlines.

Tactical Village introduce that oh so familiar ingredient to Jake and Amy’s unrequited love trope, an another man. Teddy, an officer from Queens also attends Tactical Village Training Day with his unit and spends the majority of the episode flirting with Amy, with whom he used to date. Seeing Amy get along with another guy helps Jake realise his true feelings for her. Jake ends the episode by asking Amy if he can ask her something. Predictably, this does not get asked as Amy tells him that she is going on a date with Teddy (who will probably stick around till the finale).

The B storyline is no less predictable. Back at the station, Captain Holt gets addicted to mobile phone game named ‘Kwazy Cupcakes’. Once Gina showed Holt the game, the entire storyline could be guessed.

What makes up for the lack of interesting plot, is the witty dialogue and great comedic performances. Jake’s jealousy of Teddy inspired the episodes best one-lines such as “I thought he was talking to me... and he clearly was.” after Teddy invited Amy to look at the new handguns with him and a childish 69 joke (as opposed to a non-childish 69 joke) ending with Peralta simply saying 69 to make sure his audience got it. Likewise, Andre Braugher’s reactions to getting caught playing the mobile game along with a particularly funny scene where he plays ‘Kwazy Cupcakes’ with bald members of a police line-up elevate his storyline.

While Rosa and Charles’ relationship, has never been as charming as Jake and Amy’s, their storyline was marginally the most imaginative this week. ‘Tactical Village’ saw Charles distribute STDs (Save The Dates) to everyone in the office bar Rosa. By the end of the episode, Charles invited Rosa and told her that not inviting Rosa was Vivian’s idea due to the detectives’ history, only for her to find out that Charles hadn’t even told Vivian that he used to be in love with her. Although Boyle and Diaz are the two most underwritten characters of the show (she’s angry, he’s naïve), it will be intriguing to see whether or not Charles will go through with the wedding (which will surely be the season finale).

As well as an interesting case, the episode also underutilised Terry Crews who only popped into Rosa and Boyle’s storyline. He did, however, have one of the episode's best non-Peralta exchanges:
“Scully, just stand next to me and say 'yes, Serge'.”
“Okay, Serge.”
“Come on, man.”

This episode perfectly demonstrated Brooklyn Nine-Nine's status in the modern American comedy pantheon. While it does provide enjoyable viewing, it is yet to provide the laughs and character empathy other sitcoms, such as New Girl, Modern Family and the aforementioned Parks and Recreation do. The difference in quality between the Peralta story line and the two non-Peralta storyline also demonstrates Brooklyn Nine-Nine's imbalance in characters.

The place of the spoiler has taken on an emphatic yet relatively recent infamy in modern culture that has changed the way we digest film and television.

The rise of spoof and parody films demonstrate how distinct a template the majority of the genres in the medium are now run by, whether it be the Western's lassoing of the runaway bad guy or horror's scary murderer turning out to be the seemingly friendly neighbour all along.

It’s this kind of genre convention that has lead to the rise of our hatred for spoilers and those who carry them. We all know these templates and what we expect to see in a certain genre, and because of this, the biggest thrills available come not just when a scriptwriter disobeys the rulebook, but when he rams a couple of rulebooks together, chucks out the bits he doesn't like and is left with a mongrel the world has never seen before but is dying to meet.

We're not talking about the villain not being the guy you first expected here. We're talking about a film or a series being flipped on its head, ala The Red Wedding in Game of Thrones or the dramatic ending to Christopher Nolan’s The Prestige.  

Before the Naughties, the world of film and television had still been growing, still shifting through a pile of untouched material, but the sequalitis now engrossing Hollywood shows us that the days of original content are coming to a close. Look at recent popular television programming: The BBC’s The Musketeers and Atlantis, Game of Thrones, House of Cards. There is an array of adaptations on offer – not that they are all bad – that have become the favourite shows of the nation.

The big thrill of film from previous generations came in the originality of the story; Ridley Scott’s Alien, Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather, Dennis Potter’s The Singing Detective. Now there have been more sci-fi monster and gangster movies than you can shake a stick at, and the demise of the writer in favour of commercial success – another article for another time – has ensured that the likes of The Singing Detective are no longer commissioned. Where they once were aired, adaptations now live. Whereas they once thrilled through escapism and discovery, modern work is now only able to truly engross the viewer through radical plot twists. 

What this all means is that when something original comes along, a truly innovative and brilliant piece of scriptwriting that shocks the audience, those who are watching it receive a wonderful euphoria where they experience something very rare – a moment of media that is an utterly erratic surprise. It is this kind of shock that has seen the rise of unpredictable programming to award status, the likes of Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones; programmes which install through their plotlines the same sort of wonder that was previously achieved through grandeur and fantasy before these two factors became taken for granted by the viewer.

These are the twists that fans pine for, that they’ll use torrents to get a hold of and sneak into cinemas to see, and if the people are denied their chance to experience these twists first hand, they turn into a right old bloodthirsty mob. 

CONTINUED > Click here to read more.

 Surely Mark Wahlberg is doing well enough that he wouldn't have to star in a reality show. I mean, he's an Academy Award nominee and is set to appear in one of the biggest films of the year, Transformers: Age of Extinction. However, this is unbelievably an actual thing. The brilliantly named 'Wahlburgers' is set to air on Lifetime in April and will feature Marky Mark, his mother and brothers, Alma, chef Paul and New Kid on the Block Donnie as they open and run the Boston restaurant of the same name.

What would you say if I told you that Scottish Dance Producing Superstar, Calvin Harris, is developing a half hour comedy program based on his career thus far? You'd probably say “that's pretty weird”. Well, what if I told you two of the shows producers are Jay-Z and Will Smith? Trust me, it gets even weirder. I sh*t you not, the show will be written by Trainspotting and Filth author, Irvine Welsh. Now I bet you're all like “Say whaaaaaa-”.
 
A pilot has been ordered by HBO and considering the names behind it, I can't imagine it not getting picked up. Even though this isn't as unusual as Will Smith funding a sitcom written by Irvine Welsh based on the life of Calvin Harris, it does seem odd that it is being developed for American television rather than Scottish or British. If picked up, I imagine Sky Atlantic's exclusive deal with HBO will have the Welsh penned sitcom airing in the UK soon after. Also, did you know Calvin Harris isn't his real name? The whole thing's given me a headache but I'm very intrigued to see how the show turns out.

Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee is a Youtube series featuring US comedian Jerry Seinfeld supported by Crackle. Each episode features Seinfeld and a friend (past guests have included Ricky Gervais, Mel Brooks and Alec Baldwin) driving to get a cup of coffee and sharing some light-hearted banter.

This week a trailer surfaced for a porn parody of Seinfeld's interview with Sarah Silverman. Even with being one of the few who saw the original video (which has under 100,000 views on Youtube), I did not once think while watching it “This would make great porn.” The sort of SFW trailer Comedians In Cars Getting Sex! (not as clever as 'Wahlbergers', is it?) trailer can be found on Youtube and is arguably worth a watch just for the mediocre impressions and cringeworthy dialogue. I don't know how many people watch these porn parodies but this may be one of the only ones to be seen by more people than the source material. After this and the 30 Rock parody by the same director, the Tina Fey Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee parody is surely on the cards.

With the release of The Day of the Doctor – the 50th anniversary episode of Doctor Who – the time seemed ripe to revitalize the question of the place of the author within television drama.

Long considered to be a writer’s medium, the nature of authorship in television drama has become particularly problematic in modern times. To begin the exploration of this idea then, a reasonable place to start seemed to be to take a much hyped television event, in this case the recent Doctor Who special, and gauge the public opinion of who was responsible for its creation. In other words, to simply ask.

After a quick quizzing of certain student companions, the general consensus seemed to be that Steven Moffat, current head writer and showrunner of Doctor Who, should be considered the author of The Day of the Doctor, but how acceptable is this assumption?

Well, to a large extent it is more accurate than any other argument of authorship in regards to the anniversary programme. Moffat’s name is the one that receives the byline when the title credit of the episode appears for a start – as does the name of whatever writer is credited with the latest episode of the show when the conventional series structure is in full flow.

Furthermore, in the run up to The Day of the Doctor there were few interviews featuring Moffat’s fellow executive producer Faith Penhale, yet a mass of coverage focused on Moffat, highlighting everything from his experiences in pre-production to the fact that he was ‘totally bricking it’ about the reception of his work. Hard-hitting coverage indeed.

Nevertheless, an author cannot, of course, be named as such purely because of their recurrence in extensive media coverage, although that fact does hold a certain weight. For example, Matt Smith, the eleventh incarnation of the Doctor – or perhaps the twelfth now, it’s all got very confusing – received just as much interview time in the run up to the event as Moffat, yet he would not be considered as the author of the show in which he stars. We must look into the reasoning behind the public’s attachment of this tag to Moffat therefore to understand exactly why he should be credited as the author of the production.

With authorship being a tag attached to an individual that has contributed remarkably and distinctively to the show on which they work, Moffat certainly can be ascribed as the main creator of The Day of the Doctor, and indeed of recent Doctor Who in general.

During BBC Three’s After Show, aired after the anniversary episode, Smith remarked on the impact of Moffat, commenting: “Steven has changed the mythology of the character, which after 50 years is an achievement.” The showrunner certainly did change the folklore of the iconic Doctor with the revelation that ‘Gallifrey falls no more’, altering previously concrete moments in the history of the programme and setting the show on a different track for the future. Only Moffat had the power to unleash such a change in the series, and the significance of this twist alone shows the magnitude of his impact.

Certainly, after the airing of the programme, Moffat even commented on the complex nature of the numbering of The Doctors briefly touched upon above, stating in a labyrinth-like manner as typical of his speech as it is of his scriptwriting:

“[Matt Smith’s Doctor] is in his 12th body but he’s the 11th Doctor, however there is no such character as the 11th Doctor – he’s just The Doctor, that’s what he calls himself. I’ve given you the option of not counting John Hurt numerically – he’s the War Doctor.”

What this quotation does – aside from causing a headache – is show that not only does Moffat deal with the mythological management of Doctor Who, he also directly controls the manner in which the audience digests the programme both on and off the screen. The intricacy of his plotlines offer fast-flashing details, such as John Hurt’s rejection of his character as the same Doctor as that of Smith and David Tennant, and while these may seem like mere narrative particulars they often hold more influence over an audience’s reading of the series than it seems, on this occasion allowing the spoken chronology of The Doctor’s embodiments to remain less damaged than suggested.

Not only has the writer managed to change the narrative timeline of the Doctor though – although such a phrase feels irresponsibly used in relation to a Time Lord – he has also established a stylistic footprint that is notably his, meaning that whenever the viewer watches a Moffat episode, they can clearly identify it as just that, whether from the clever complexity of the plot or the terrorising nature of the villains.

This is a prominent feature in the narrative of The Day of the Doctor. Moffat’s typically complex plots tend to focus on time-travel rather than simply utilising the TARDIS as a justification for a setting, and the meeting of three Doctors is an obvious example of this, as are the ingenious speeches brought on by the age gap between the protagonists. “The calculations alone would take… hundreds of years,” insists The Gallifreyan General on The Doctor’s plan to freeze his planet. “Don’t worry,” replies Tennant’s Doctor. “I started a very long time ago.”

The use of the uncanny is another of Moffat’s regular ploys, and is here deployed again through the Zygon race, which take the form of a series of seemingly mundane humans yet ooze a frighteningly uncomfortable feel brought on by their true nature.

It is because of these signature points that Moffat simply must be regarded as the author of The Day of the Doctor, and indeed of modern day Doctor Who.

Through signature traits and significant input he has left a distinctive and transforming mark on the project that will define its direction for a long time to come.

Stuart Kenny

As published originally at: www.brignewspaper.com