As reviews of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World come in, inevitable hating has begun. Paste magazine called it like a video game adaptation in that it was “more akin to watching a videogame than actually playing one.” So far, though, the film is ranking around 80 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and having read the first in the comic book series, I’m feeling cautiously optimistic about the film. It promises to be an over-the-top, not-too-deep late summer blockbuster.

But the premise of the film: that Scott (Michael Cera) must defeat Ramona Flowers’ seven evil ex-boyfriends before he can date her. Greg Rozan on Facebook ponders the premise:

From book one alone, he is a hapless, lovable loser whose primary interest in life is… get the girl. So what, right? What else in life could possibly be worth pursuing? I mean if you think about it, it’s a miracle we’ve been able to construct all this technology and social artifice when us guys are so consumed with the desire to f*ck and be f*cked. Why do we even bother with education and literacy and all that garbage? We have all the tools we need to propagate the species by the time we hit puberty! Scott Pilgrim is just another manifestation of an apparently ubiquitous male obsession.

To be honest, when I first heard about the Scott Pilgrim series, I resisted reading it for a long time precisely for that reason. Even expanding on the male obsession theme, Scott’s quest to defeat evil exes sounded a little too close to chivalry (something feminists have often decried as sexist). Furthermore, the plot suggests that Ramona has baggage that must be dealt with and Scott does not.

Why should Scott have to defeat Ramona’s evil exes but not have to fight his own? Ultimately in relationships we’re each fighting our own demons and our own pasts even if our current partners must also deal with that baggage along the way. If anything I would have loved to see Ramona and Scott take on the exes together.

The AV Club’s discussion of TV couples who will probably end up making it work hits a lot of the usual suspects (Nick & Norah, Henry and Casey from Party Down, Eric and Tami Taylor on Friday Night Lights) but I think this section, from Kyle Ryan on Pam and Jim from The Office, gets it a bit wrong:

Anyone who watches the show knows the characters were made for each other in the writers’ room, and every episode made it clear that they belonged together, even when it looked like it wasn’t going to happen. Their personalities, their senses of humor, their interests, their values, etc., all aligned, to the point where it was goddamn frustrating when they didn’t just hook up—and beyond that, get married already. When they finally did, it felt more rewarding to me than other will-they-or-won’t-they couples on TV, because Jim and Pam felt more relatable and realistic than, say, your Ross and Rachel.

I don’t disagree with this, but it seems to define “success” as “not breaking up” — which is obviously part of it, and the specific question being discussed, but I think the more interesting question is whether the couples in question will last and be good for each other. Henry and Casey on Party Down, who owe a lot of their characterization to Jim and Pam (and Dawn and Tim from the British Office), clearly believe in each other’s goals, and actively, at times selflessly, try to help them along. They start ready to give up. Henry’s ditched acting, and Casey’s debating moving to Vermont with her husband and giving up on stand-up comedy. But the show ends (spoiler, I guess, though it’s not a show that’s easily spoiled) with Henry in a waiting room for an audition, not just for himself, but to prove to Casey he thinks she can make it too. They pull each other off the brink, and keep each other pushing.

Jim and Pam, however, concede defeat. Jim’s whole appeal for Pam is that, unlike her fiancé Roy, he believes she can escape. He wants her to go to art school, and not just be stuck as a receptionist her whole life. And yet now, they’re both still at Dunder Mifflin, and with a baby and a house, they’re not going anywhere. The saddest moments of the show are the ones that drive home how they’ve given up things that once meant the world to them in order to be together. For Jim, the most notable scene was in “Local Ad”, when Pam discovers his Second Life account, wherein he’s a guitar-playing sports writer in Philadelphia. For Pam, it was in “Business Trip”, after she dropped out of art school, drove back to the Dunder Mifflin parking lot, and tried, half-heartedly, to convince Jim that she didn’t even like graphic design:

Now, maybe this isn’t just a problem with the two of them. Maybe nothing would have gotten Jim writing a column on the Phillies for the Inquirer, or Pam working as an artist. But the end result is fairly tragic, and their love for each other, by this point in the series, is the only thing they have left. It’s something, but it’s hard for me to view that as those crazy kids having made it.

P.S. Just to clarify, obviously not getting everything you want professionally is not tragic, nor is making sacrifices for the people you love. But the show is premised on Jim and Pam hating their jobs, and bonding largely over that hatred and their desire to escape, and now they’re more entrenched than ever. Particularly for a sitcom, that’s a pretty bleak ending.

There are plenty of new shows starting in September, and the list can get overwhelming. Here are five that might be worth a look. (Note: I would have included The Event, but BabylonSista already wrote about it.)

1. Lone Star (FOX, Mondays at 9)
This Texas-set soapy drama is about big oil and a con man living with a double life – until he decides that he’s in love with both of his “fake” families. It looks ambitious and stylish, and bonus: Adrianne Palicki from Friday Night Lights stars.

2. Hawaii Five-0 (CBS, Mondays at 10)
I’ll admit that I’ve never seen the original, and I don’t think the world necessarily needs more cop shows. But the cast here looks great – Scott Caan, Alex O’Loughlin, Grace Park, Daniel Dae Kim. And James Marsters is in the first episode!

3. Undercovers (NBC, Wednesdays at 8)
Who doesn’t love a nice spy show? But what particularly interests me about this one is that the main characters are married when the show starts. It should be a refreshing change from the “Will they or won’t they?” that’s standard on so many shows. (They could get rid of the word “sexpionage” any time now, though.)

4. Blue Bloods (CBS, Fridays at 10)
I love me some Donnie-Wahlberg-as-cop (see also: Rizzoli & Isles), and Tom Selleck and Bridget Moynahan don’t hurt either. This is supposed to be less of a procedural and more of a family drama about people who happen to be cops, so I’m looking forward to seeing what they do with that. The only drawback: because of Wahlberg, I keep thinking it’s set in Boston, but it’s actually New York.

5. Outlaw (NBC, Fridays at 10)
Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Smits resigns to go back into practicing law on behalf of the little guy. Or to change the way the Court works. Or something. I’m not entirely sold on the premise, but I love Jimmy Smits, and the supporting cast seems to have good chemistry, so I’ll give it a try.