Philly Cinephile starts us off.
In your opinion, which sitcoms improved the most during their runs, and which declined the most during their runs?
Let me start by saying most sitcoms improve over time as they discover what works and find their groove. That said…
Probably PARKS AND REC was the most improved. THE ODD COUPLE improved considerably when it went from single-camera to multi-camera. NEWHART got better as it went along. So did THE OFFICE, MOM, and FAMILY TIES. I'm sure there are 40 others I can't just think of at the moment.
SEINFELD is an interesting case because it both improved and then (when Larry David left) got worse. (More about SEINFELD next Monday.)
BIG BANG THEORY got progressively worse. Early episodes were hilarious. You could always count on four or five solid laughs. The stories were never great. But by the end the jokes were forced and the lazy storytelling drove me nuts. In almost every later episode you could remove two or three scenes and nothing would change.
Here’s a pretty accurate tell: If a sitcom totally changes its sets, cast, or premise it’s a good bet it’s not long for this world. B POSITIVE is just the latest example.
Milton the Momzer asks:
Every TV drama, almost, ends every season with its version of Who Shot JR. Why do most TV dramas, especially renewed shows, have to end on a cliffhanger? Do they think fans won't return in the fall? Is it against the writers code to end a season with a satisfying episode?
It’s a time-honored tradition to end on a cliffhanger to entice audiences to return. They would do these in Saturday morning serials in movie theaters as far back as a hundred years ago.
The thing is: the audience has to really care. Especially now that practically every show does a cliffhanger. Writers of these shows naturally are really invested in them. And it’s hard to think that audiences don’t share the same zeal for your show and characters as you do. But in 90% of cases they don’t.
Serialized shows are now the trend, but some shows, mostly on broadcast networks, are self-contained. And there’s something satisfying about that.
I say there’s room for both, but cliffhangers lose their punch when a show’s been on hiatus for so long you don’t even remember what the cliffhanger is.
Mike Bloodworth queries:
Considering your drawing ability, have you ever considered combining your playwriting and illustrations in to sort of a "graphic novel " or comic book format? I'd read that.
Thanks. I used to draw comic books when I was 13 (that no one read) and had a comic strip briefly in a local Woodland Hills newspaper when I was in High School. But I’m not really a graphic novel fan, and the type of rendering is a very different style from mine. So I’ll stick to single-panel cartoons and stage plays.
And finally, from Bronson:
Hi Ken. Many people don't like to hear the sound of their own voice. Was that a problem for you as you developed your "on air voice?”
Good, bad, or indifferent, I don’t believe in developing an “on air” voice. I wish I had a voice like James Earl Jones, but I believe a listener cares more about someone sounding genuine and is also more interested in the content rather than the voice itself. Still, I wouldn’t mind having Morgan Freeman’s voice.
What’s your Friday Question?
51 comments :
I agree with you about "The Big Bang Theory". I enjoyed the early seasons and a lot of those episodes made me laugh very much. Over time, some of the characters I came to loathe and wished they'd go away. The later seasons did feel like they were more laughing at the audience (rather than the early ones which seemed more the opposite, to me). I was basically watching it out of inertia, towards the end.
I notice that AMERICA’S SEXIEST COUPLE is starring Karen Ziemba. She is great. She followed Ann Reinking as ‘Roxie Hart’ in the still running Broadway revival of CHICAGO, opposite Bebe Neuwirth’s ‘Velma Kelly’. I saw the revival numerous times with many combinations of Roxie’s and Velma’s. They were remarkable together. . There is video of them ,from a PBS special, doing the closing number from the show. She and Reinking were the two best Roxie Hart’s that I saw. If I can figure out how to get down to Cape May I certainly want to see this.
My warning sign that a show (comedy or drama) is in stagnant waters heading for the rocks is when there are "dream episodes". When some trigger happens in the opening scene and then a main character dreams (or reasonable facsimile) the rest of the show. Instead of being in a New York law office as usual, all the characters are in the wild west, hamming it up with spurs and ten-gallon hats. Musical episodes are more current example, clearly screaming "we're out of ideas!"
I watched the You Tube video for America's Sexiest Couple and found it very enjoyable!
A prime example of a sitcom that got weaker as time went on was THE COSBY SHOW. The pilot was hilarious. Every episode after that got progressively worse.
Ken, you should do a podcast about this topic (if you haven't already), on when and how sitcoms finally find their footing and become great shows. For example, you mention Seinfeld. It didn't become the show we know and love, and the characters didn't become the characters they are, until it's fourth season. In fact, the first couple of seasons are actually rather awful and feel "off." (The first season of Friends is the same.)
You're spot-on about Parks and Rec and The Odd Couple. The latter is like a completely different show (a better one) after that first season. I even think The Dick Van Dyke Show got better as it went along, though I'll add the first season is fine and it's my favorite show of all-time.
A lot of shows took time to find their way with how the actors portrayed the characters, the writing, even the sets, like Everybody Loves Raymond. You can actually mark the exact moment that show became great: when Brad Garrett started to make his voice deeper.
Ken, have you ever adapted (our wanted to adapt) any literary works ? I'm thinking of something like A Confederacy of Dunces, which should make for an interesting film, but the multiple attempts at bringing the novel to the screen have stalled.
FQ: I’m now watching Loot starring Maya Rudolph.
In one episode, there’s a pretty hilarious scene, however, it didn’t really fit with the story. It involved her character going on a YouTube show and being interviewed while eating hot wings, which were ridiculously hot. Hijinks ensue.
I’ve since learned that the scene was an adapted SNL sketch.
Is this normal for writers to shoehorn in funny bits that an actor has done before? It worked in the moment but rendered the character more of a muddle.
I disagree with you on The Big Bang Theory. I personally think the show got better with the additions of Melissa Rauch and Mayim Bialik. Adding those characters (again, in my opinion), gave the characters of Howard and Sheldon a little more depth and made me care about them more. I thought the first few seasons were good, but fairly one-note. BYDHTTMWFI
PARKS & REC and THE OFFICE were sitcoms? Since when? They were never funny. Then again, neither was THE BIG DANG THEORY.
I know I'm in a minority here, but I don't believe SEINFELD got worse without Larry David at all, if anything, I believe a lot of the show's more memorable and stand-out moments came from the final two seasons: George recreating the Frogger game in real life? Kramer turning his apartment into THE MERV GRIFFIN SHOW set? Elaine's Little Kicks dance? The Bizarro Jerry world? Just to name a few? All after Larry David's departure.
I am in the minority that I enjoyed TBBT from beginning to end.
As for B Positive, it had to be retooled because CBS finally figured out that Thomas Middleditch is too creepy to star in a network sitcom. Annaleigh Ashford will work again soon.
Please delete my A Confederacy of Dunces question. I should have done a search first.
The Mary Tyler Moore show changed one set (Mary's apartment) and changed cast (goodbye, Rhoda; goodbye, Phyllis - hello, Sue Ann and Georgette) but seemed to chug along nicely for another couple of seasons.
On the other hand, in its last season it had a) a 'fantasy' episode (each of the men fantasize what it would be like to be married to Mary) and b) a 'talent show' episode; so Laurent does have a point there.
Karen Ziemba also won a Tony for Contact in 2000, and has two more noms. Shame Ken can't get anybody talented....
You mentioned that Seinfeld got worse after Larry David left. Totally agree. Although even the "worse" seasons of Seinfeld were better than any other sitcom out there. This is the way I saw it. When Larry David was on the show, each episode would generally have 4 story lines. Three stories universal in nature we could all relate to. And the fourth story being something absurd. After David left, it became just the opposite, 1 ordinary story line with 3 absurd ones. Plus Jerry who had been more the straight man in the David years began trying to be more comedic, which was very different from the character we were used to.
I will forever contend that Barney Miller [a show discussed often on here by Ken] is the only sitcom that got better after the departure of its most popular character [Fish/Abe Vigoda] along with the death of another favorite [Yemana/Jack Soo]. The first few seasons it was a very very good sitcom, but there was nothing particularly special about it. By the third season, it started catching fire, and it was all uphill from there. There may have been a SLIGHT half-step backwards in the eighth and final season, but I think only a fanatic like me might notice [and it took me decades of watching to form that opinion].
Ever since Ken Burns's Civil War documentary, when I read something Frederick Douglass has written, I hear Morgan Freeman. I thought, if there's a God, that's how God sounds. Then Freeman played God. He also was a pleasantly droll chief justice on Madam Secretary.
Apropos of changing sets and casts, it will be interesting to see what happens with the Frasier reboot. So, maybe a Friday question: Are there any shows for which you would like to see a reboot along those lines or One Day at a Time?
"Barney Miller" improved with age and was still good when it wrapped up in 1982.
The 1977-78 season of "All in the Family" was one of the best of the show's run, and Norman Lear thought the departures of Rob Reiner and Sally Struthers in the finale made for a perfect, natural way to end a spectacular run...and it would've been had CBS and Carroll O'Connor not fought to keep the show going. Things were never the same, and fans would've been spared Edith's death, although that episode, aired after the transition to "Archie Bunker's Place," was exceptionally good.
Thursday's news brought to mind this moment from "Taxi," which also sustained quality during its five seasons. In one episode, Louie (Danny DeVito) was gloating that most would-be actors who quit cab driving to pursue their careers eventually wound up at the garage again asking to have their old jobs back. Only one actor made it out of the garage, according to Louie, and that was James Caan.
"...and he'll be back," Louie said.
In your upcoming blog post about SEINFELD, please tell us something about Tom Cherones, the person credited with directing 95% (yes, 95%) of the show's total episodes.
I think that cliffhangers come across generally as contrived, and don't really do much to enhance a show, or to keep viewers, which is apparently supposed to be the the point. I would go so far as to say that they usually backfire, because they are often a letdown.
Shows should stick to a narrative of character and plot development. Gimmicks designed to bring in viewers don't attain anything more than short-term publicity, if even that.
I agree, if I rewatch episodes I usually choose favorites from seasons 7, 8, and 9. Zanier and more enjoyable than earlier seasons, though there are some great ones like "The Pony Remark."
I agree with TBBT's defenders; I think the show definitely improved in a lot of ways. It had its characters actually grow in interesting and logical ways. My complaints about the last few seasons was the show was so big that in order to maximize ad revenue, the episodes were actually UNDER twenty minutes. That drove me nuts.
Jeremiah:
"I was basically watching it out of inertia, towards the end."
That immortal quote should be carved on a titanium cube and installed in the lobby at 30 Rock to spur on The Suits.
echoing what others said about Barney Miller, I think Steve Landesberg's deadpan added a lot to the show, and every once in a while I'll hear James Gregory's voice in my head delivering a line out of context ("I saw Pal Joey once!" "You got stuff in there that would gag a maggot!") and I'll laugh out loud.
MTM had some good later years and great episodes, but Rhoda was a huge loss to the chemistry of the show
"...and he'll be back," Louie said.
thank you for that!
Thank you, Ken. I really didn't expect you to answer this one. But I'm happy you did.
Most series resemble your standard bell-curve. They start out slow, build in the middle seasons and decline as they run out of ideas and/or start rehashing plots. Another sign a show is desperate is when they add a "shoehorn kid." An alternate version of that is when a show has a new baby and then magically it's five years old.
I've said this before about the "Big Bang Theory." I loved it throughout most of its run until the final few seasons. The storylines became so fragmented that it was almost as if you were watching three or four different shows at the same time.
There's also the old joke that a show is doomed when Ted McGinley joins the cast. However, that's really not true and unfair to Ted.
I don't ever remember a show's season ending in a cliffhanger until "Who Shot J.R.?" You never saw that with "Gomer Pyle" or "The Dick Van Dyke Show" or "Mannix." (Two part episodes excluded.) Ironically, I never watched "Dallas," so I didn't give a damn and never got caught up in all the hype.
I hated listening to myself on tape. That's why it was such torture to listen to my airchecks.
I hope they love your play.
M.B.
P.S. Not an official F.Q., but do you have to pay your own expenses when you travel out of state to attend the opening of one of your plays?
They made a gazillion dollars after Happy Days was retooled after season two to a multi-cam, live audience format. But I really enjoyed the initial format and couldn't stand the audience "wooing" at the running gags and stupid catchphrases. Ugh. Unwatchable.
Shows you what I know.
The cliffhanger for BOSCH: LEGACY annoyed me.
I thought Big Bang Theory just got better and better. The early episodes have too much Leonard mooning over Penny. The show improved when additional female characters were added which opened up the story possibilities. The final season had problem episodes like when Sheldon stole bitcoin which years later was worth $30 thousand and there were no repercussions from that. Also in the last season there was a woman Raj was briefly engaged to who gave me the creeps. Most of the seasons I like to rewatch are from the last 5 years.
I'm also curious about Andy Ackerman. I don't know what percent of Seinfeld episodes he directed but when I listened to Seinfeld DVD commentaries a cast member called him "Mr. Cool" and he seemed well respected. His directing credit appears on a lot of good comedy series.
Wasn't the 'Who Shot J.R.' cliffhanger from Dallas ripped off from the 'Who Shot Peter Campbell?' cliffhanger from 'Soap?'
Watching my favorite old sitcoms, I noticed that some, like Maude, started out strong, peaked after a few years, then rapidly declined, i.e., they became silly and stopped being funny by year four or five. Shows like Bewitched and The Beverly Hillbillies had a very different tone (better, funnier, trying less hard) during their first few seasons in black and white, but with color the shows turned goofy. Also, many sitcoms tend to drift away over time from their original "situations." Archie Bunker was a lot less fun to watch when he became a lovable teddy bear instead of a snarling bigot. Once the Clampetts learned what the "fancy eatin' table was really for, their situation was ended. Seinfeld got silly, but it was still enjoyable. I think the show's guiding principle of "no hugging, no learning" served them well. 30 Rock is one that was consistent and consistently excellent from the first episode to the last.
The first two seasons of the Mary Tyler Moore Show are largely unwatchable to me. Ted Baxter a pompous bore trying to find his comedy voice. The writing (and directing) wasn't nearly as sharp as it would later become. Murray was exaggerated and more on the nose than his later cooler persona. Same with Ed Asner's Mr. Grant. Valerie Harper was terrific with what was given her as was Cloris Leachman. And with what relatively little John Amos was handed, he too was commendable & a naturally funny actor, a refreshing case of diversity that also, refreshingly, wasn't hammered. Ironically in this show as well as The Dick Van Dyke Show, Mary started out less funny than what she eventually grew into. The eager to please sweetheart Mary Richards with the fake hair early on gave way to a more mature and subtly funny performer. And Georgette's later addition was a big boon to the show.
As for Seinfeld, except for the first few nearly unwatchable episodes, the early years seemed to replicate living and breathing believably funny characters for me I could still root for and empathize with. The surreal later years, although interesting, seemed more about the Rube Goldberg connecting of offbeat disparate elements. Elaine's character became less likable and almost bored toward the end. George too became more strident. If early Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer had been in that dreadful courtroom finale scene, I think they would have exhibited more relatable humanity/humor insofar as seeing their figurative lives flash before them and fighting for vindication, vs. the callous creatures they ultimately became -- and this was in the hands, once again, of Larry.
I'd say the vastly underrated Wings got better with every season. It was like Newhart, surreal and silly yet hilarious. Even the last episode was funny, which is usually not the case (I'm looking at you, Seinfeld show).
the Canadian comedy, Corner Gas, is another one.
I'd also add Malcolm In The Middle.
Happy Days gets my nod for the show that got worse with every season. Those first two seasons are among some of the best television ever made, imho, and then it went before a live audience. Ughh.
A Friday Question - I seem to recall that once upon a time there were no special series ending episodes. A show ended and that was it. An exception would be something like The Fugitive. Now it seems every series has to have one, for better or worse and, let's face it, it's usually the latter. Do you prefer the show to just end or do you feel the need for closure or have we been conditioned to expect/want this by modern television?
The comment by DAZ reminded me that Karen Ziemba appeared in the musical CURTAINS, which earned David Hyde Pierce a Tony Award. Also, it appears that to get to Cape May from New York City you have to change buses in Atlantic City.
Friday q: I have a theory about the mockumentary comedy format, which as you've noted is still around even though it seems pretty stale by now -- Abbott Elementary uses it, for instance. My theory is that it's related to the drastically shortened runtime of the half-hour TV comedy -- 21 minutes is about all you get. It seems to me that this format might make it much quicker to set up plot points and motivations; instead of having to spend 2 minutes in a scene establishing that Joe wants pie and why, Joe now tells the camera "I want pie. Here's why. [add one joke]". Done in 20 seconds! Not ideal from a craftsmanship standpoint, but done. Does this sound plausible to you?
Curiously, I like the early seasons of Seinfeld much more than the later ones. I like the earlier humor, but as the characters became caricatures in the middle to later seasons, I found their traits much more annoying than their jokes were funny.
M*A*S*H consistently got better with age up until Season 8, then it all went downhill from there: Radar went home, Klinger stopped wearing dresses and became a regular guy, Margaret drastically changed her looks a couple of times a season, and of course, the shift in tone from a sophisticated comedy with dramatic undertones to a dark and sombre melodrama with miniscule attempts at comedy.
Having said that, however, each season was better than the one before, especially when Gene Reynolds and later Burt Metcalfe turned it more into a character-driven show, because that brought about some much growth, development, and evolution for almost all of the characters, which kept the show fresh and interesting, and made the characters more dimensional and layered so that you could really invest in them. Frank Burns being one of the only exceptions to that, sadly.
Season 7, while still a good season though, has a feel all its own . . . it's not quite as comedic as 1-6, but it's definitely nowhere near as dark and depressing as 8-11 . . . I guess because that was more of an experimental season, as Ken has noted many times before, with episodes like "Point of View," "A Night at Rosie's," and the like.
On the one hand, BBT improved with the addition of Bernadette and Amy (although I think Amy had at least three distinct personalities, depending on which season it was). On the other hand, Sheldon was the core charactthem. And while a great character when written correctly, it was very easy to write him superficially as an unjustifiedly egotistical horrible person.
To me, the core of his character was that no matter how strange, everything he did made sense to him and it should be trackable as to how (without the reason solely being "I am smarter than you"). For example, one cold open had the four of them trying to work out which movie to see given all their individual constraints. It was finally pointed out that if they just didn't take Sheldon, an answer fell out. So they leave him. Sheldon, alone in the apartment, then nudes that it did solve the problem. So he was satisfied. Which was writing him correctly. Bad writing would've had him pitching an egotistical tantrum over not going.
When done right, dream episodes can score in comedy. A good example is Married with Children season 2 episode "All in the Family." Basically Peggy tells Al that members of her family are coming to visit and Al has what amounts to a daymare with two of Peggy's brothers and a set of triplet aunts visiting. The thing is that the viewer doesn't realize that Al was dreaming until the final moments.
Friday Question: This ties into maxdebryn's question about adaptions. How would you go about adapting Super Mario Brothers into a movie, and who would play the main characters?
Re: Developing a "radio voice." I'm often told that I have a good voice, and I always tried to just be myself when I was on the air. But people in the industry kept telling me that I needed a deeper, "voice of God" sound if I wanted to be big time. This led to the worst advice that I, or anyone, ever received:
A major market morning show host with whom I worked advised me that to make my voice deeper and more resonant, I should take up smoking. I guess that's why Darth Vader sounded like James Earl Jones instead of Hayden Christensen: he was speaking through an iron lung.
For the record: No, I did not take that advice. Having a voice like God's would be cool, but I wasn't ready to meet Him.
I hate cliffhangers. There was a show that I liked a lot and at the end of the third season the main character is shot and left for dead--------------then they canceled the show!
The first show that had an actual ending was Leave it to Beaver.
The final episode was quite touching.
Thank you, Ken, for answering my question.
I agree with Ken's characterization of the writing on TBBT as lazy. I often found that the writers would include a scene or joke that seemed to have a lot of comic potential, but they wouldn't explore the idea beyond the initial joke. That said, I don't think the show was ever as bad as some people claimed, and there were inspired moments along the way. I'm thinking of an extended visual joke involving all of the cast members walking down the four flights of steps in the apartment building, during which they managed to come between Sheldon and the lab assistant who had fallen for him. It was choreographed quite well, and I was impressed that they took the time for an extended sequence without dialogue.
The Big Bang Theory was a great show until they tried to make it more like Friends. That's not what the show was initially supposed to be. And as for the Odd Couple, although I love the whole show and it's one of my favorites, I do prefer the first season single cam episodes. Same with Happy Days and its first 2 seasons.
I think BBT had two very interesting and original characters in Sheldon and (especially early on) Amy, two solid sitcom actors to play their foils in Galecki and Cuoco, and then Raj and Howard to indulge in all the worst habits of Lorre-world.
Laurie Metcalfe and Christine Baranski are great examples of great recurring characters. I've missed Kathy Bates as Amy's mother, but I hope to catch that in the syndicated reruns that run at near Lucy frequency.
Hi Ken, A dissenting note on voices: There have been individuals who on radio, television, or podcasts had voices that I found so off-putting that I didn't continue with them. Maybe their content wasn't compelling enough, but the voice discouraged my sticking with it. I've also given up on a couple of podcasts where the co-hosts had voices that were so similar that I couldn't tell who was saying what. People don't have to have classic voices for me to enjoy them, but if the voice isn't there, the material needs to be.
I love the show the Good Doctor. This season ended with a cliff-hanger and all all I could think was that I couldn't care less and what a way to spoil what could have been a good season ender.
I find Parks and Recreation to be “precious” but not terribly unfunny. I also CAN’T STAND Amy Poehler. I thought she was mediocre at best on SNL, and she has this smug, self-satisfied delivery of her lines that makes me want to yell at the TV.
I have a FQ that relates to the question today about sitcoms improving and declining. Are there any sitcoms (probably the shortest-lived ones) that you thought would have the basic premise and story arc told better as a play or a movie (wrap it up in about 90 minutes, or about 4 episodes of TV, and move on with your life) than being used as a sitcom?
I remember, probably about 20 years ago, there was a season finale of EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND that wasn't a cliffhanger, and I honestly wasn't sure if that was the last episode of the season or not. I had to check in TV guide to be sure. Nothing left hanging for the summer, which is just how life works. Even their series finale wasn't a setup of people moving on. It was just an episode.
I must admit that MASH is one of my favorite sitcoms. Also one of my least favorite. I find seasons 8 through 11 to be almost completely unwatchable. As for voices, I have trouble with the usual annoying things. For instance, one of my formerly favorite podcasts has lost me because the host is constantly smacking his lips.
Post a Comment