and we're back!

it's that time of year again. football's in the air, life's just getting stressful with a new round of school staring up, new series and seasons of television burst forth from the womb, and the aggrocrag staff reunites in an epic ceremony of the first simultaneous comatose sunday of the TV year.

first, a moment of silence for tom brady.




just a note--i'm predicting the pats finish 11-5, plus or minus two.

weeds is back; the show continues to reinvent itself--this time with a full-blown reboot. it's got good stuff going on, though. it's regressed into the same shell that entourage is in when it's at its best: serious, engaging overarching plots, silly side stories, and characters you care about on occasion.
interestingly enough, after a year-plus of horrendous consecutive episodes, entourage put out one of its best as last season's finale.
this season's premiere outdid it.
entourage and weeds are two shows that are easy to equate with one another if you've never seen them, but up until now they've been vastly different shows on the intangible paradigm of structure (think: mise en scene, but for plot instead of visual structure. and then think of all of the two-dimensional spectra that go into that. and then think of those making up a multi-dimensional graph). it's just now, in their fith and fourth seasons respectively, that they've met somewhere at a really similar middle.
does the fact that they've both arrived at the almost exact same arbitrary point on a large, incomprehensible, strictly-metaphorical graph say something about where we are as an audience in 2008? or just something about what happens when a not-serious show which deals with serious fascets of life reaches this level in its maturity? are they each others' inverses?--is weeds entourage's benjamin button (jay kay, j/k, jk...lololololol). ...or do i just miss media studies?