tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post6475560265990282279..comments2023-11-03T06:02:02.128-07:00Comments on By Ken Levine: The sitcom Pepsi ChallengeBy Ken Levinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17305293821975250420noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-82794122077255408592010-09-21T20:02:09.460-07:002010-09-21T20:02:09.460-07:00The first sitcom I can recall regularly watching, ...The first sitcom I can recall regularly watching, "Dobie Gillis," moved absurdly fast -- something William Schallert told me was the intent of the show's producers. It certainly gave the series a youthful feel, no doubt pleasing its target audience of the early sixties.<br /><br />WV: "graph" -- yup, a real word.VP81955https://www.blogger.com/profile/11792390726196611188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-80259217373683098972010-09-15T21:00:57.953-07:002010-09-15T21:00:57.953-07:00I guess I think this is a stupid argument. A slowe...I guess I think this is a stupid argument. A slower, gentler pace can work for an audience, and so does a faster pace. Arguing about what show is better, Mary Tyler Moore or MASH, is like arguing about whether cherries or bananas are the "better" fruit. If you like cherries and dislike bananas, you can't help but give the nod to cherries -- and vice versa. There are also people who hate both fruits, and people who love both. There's no ultimate right or wrong answer to the question of what's the best fruit. <br /><br />I LOVE rapid, dense dialog and lots of activity on a show. (Yes, I loved all of Aaron Sorkin's shows.) For me, shows that have a lot going on in them are a feast for the mind and the eye, and bear up well over repeated viewings. However, at some point, things can easily become frenetic and no longer entertaining. <br /><br />Paradoxically, I also appreciate a slower and deliberately paced comedy. I enjoyed Frasier, but I also enjoyed Tim "Tool Time" Taylor on Home Improvement. The latter was rather formulaic, and every episode seemed to be variations of the same plot, but the charm of the characters and the skill of the actors still made me laugh. (And, to be sure, the clever writing behind it all.) Both shows aired the same night in the same timeslot and I spent YEARS being torn over which show to watch. You could argue that Frasier was a more sophisticated show with a lot more subtlety and variety, but the final arbiter is how popular a show is with audiences, and IIRC, both shows ran successfully for years despite being up against each other. <br /><br />If I really had to pick, for me I guess the single-camera show is what I like better. The 3-camera show ultimately always feels slightly claustrophobic, because the action revolves around an obviously limited number of settings. But I've certainly enjoyed lots and lots of 3-camera shows, and some 1-camera shows left me lukewarm. Barney Miller, which mostly took place in a single setting, is one of my very favorite shows. I recently re-watched the famous Turkey episode of WKRP In Cincinnatti, and was stunned to realize that most of the famous dialog is all done by verbal description by actors sitting in the sound booth of the station, with only an occasioinal cut-away to Les. It could practically be just a radio show, that's how bare-bones that episode is. And yet almost everyone who remembers that episode seems to remember actually seeing the turkeys. That's what good writing and good acting give you, and whether it's in a 1-camera or 3-camera show is irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-89651129141928344392010-09-15T11:18:46.691-07:002010-09-15T11:18:46.691-07:00When you wrote: too much importance is placed on p...When you wrote: <i>too much importance is placed on pace today. The audience is used to it, they have unlimited other choices, and in general we’ve become a society that can no longer tolerate being bored even for a minute. Where as story telling used to be the master we served, now it’s speed. So showrunners will employ visual techniques, rapid-fire scenes, and a barrage of jokes. Sometimes it’s at the expense of story, character, or genuine emotion.</i><br /><br />I immediately thought of "Cougar Town". I feel like I am running a race when I watch that show...I am in the state of trying to figure out if anything from the scene they just cut away from, was funny...not paying any attention to the beginning of the next not-funny scene.Pat Quinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06078125270417015970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-9644260390571867312010-09-14T12:02:52.300-07:002010-09-14T12:02:52.300-07:00It never occurred to me to look at my watch during...It never occurred to me to look at my watch during a half-hour show. I've never lost my bearings in that short a time. I think for me there are shows I wish were longer and shows that I don't watch. <br /><br />I prefer the MTM and Frasier style of character based humor. When Mary walked into Lou's office, you knew there was going to be some insanely funny dialogue. Same with Frasier and Niles in the coffee shop. The anticipation alone brought more than one laugh. If they had been walking through talking with 100 other things going on there would not have been the same sense of anticipation. <br /><br />But I think that slower pace depends a lot on performers that can carry on a scene non verbally between the dialog.DawnMarienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-53214744521539751842010-09-14T11:45:50.192-07:002010-09-14T11:45:50.192-07:00I don't see see a heck of lot of difference be...I don't see see a heck of lot of difference between<br />say Two and Half Men, and the classic sitcoms<br />of the seventies, of which I measure all sitcoms<br />against.<br /><br />The Cosby's - Sienfeld, quality retains the<br />same pace, the same techniques, the office<br />is not a show that gets any real mumbers,<br />and its up against a crappy line up - the<br />office woundn't get the numbers to survive<br />in a fair world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-34977659227222706662010-09-14T08:19:03.508-07:002010-09-14T08:19:03.508-07:00On the Marxes, their first two movies, the Cocoanu...On the Marxes, their first two movies, the Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers were Broadway plays filmed in the early days of sound. For three of the movies they later filmed for MGM (Night at the Opera, Day at the Races, Go West) they sent the brothers on the road to perform selected scenes from the upcoming movies in movie theatres to judge audience reaction and determine how they should be filmed. This is why when you watch the contract scene in Opera or the Tootsie Frootsie scene in Races there are pauses between lines. This is where the live audiences were laughing.DwWashburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03057278992504418291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-18145226802301548332010-09-14T04:18:28.473-07:002010-09-14T04:18:28.473-07:00Slightly off topic, as it doesn't relate to nu...Slightly off topic, as it doesn't relate to number of cameras, but a good point nonetheless:<br /><br />Critic John Leonard wrote the TV column for the original LIFE magazine in its last few years (under the name "Cyclops"). This put him in place just as two major new strains of sitcom development were getting underway.<br /><br />Leonard emphatically favored the MTM concept of what a sitcom should be, and despised the Norman Lear take on the same subject--raving over MARY TYLER MOORE and BOB NEWHART, loathing ALL IN THE FAMILY and MAUDE.Paul Ducanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-37474767010194021202010-09-14T03:27:07.207-07:002010-09-14T03:27:07.207-07:00I have to agree that Cheers seems incredibly slow-...I have to agree that Cheers seems incredibly slow-paced today, it plods in my opinion and I saw it the first time that way as well. Cheers felt, and was, a theater-play, complete with waiting for audience reactions in the old Norman Lear style... compared to Seinfeld which was having the audience-reactions (Kramer's entrances) but factored it in with the pace (During the moment Kramer works the material further in character, not stands waiting before finding the space to deliver a line). Seinfeld relied on different sets, interiors and exteriors, and the editing to make cut-aways between seperate storylines. The important part there in my opinion was the trademark Seinfeld way that often converged these storylines to hilarious effect. That introduced another effect - an anticiaption of the end, to see just how will the authors put it together. And before we say too much about time for commercials shrinking the show, Seinfeld got rid of the theme song (thank GOD) which was just a waste of so much time. That must have balanced out in relation to the growing amount of space lost to commercials. <br /><br />The Simpsons were incredible when they were at their peak years. In terms of how the tempo factor felt, I think it felt fast because they dared to have a world where non-sequitors operated and it worked, which meant they could introduce something in the beginning that had no cause-and-direct effect on the second half. That felt liberating because watching, I had no idea just where is that storyline going to go - but there was a logic, it wasn't just gags like Family Guy. <br />In the case of Seinfeld or the Simpsons, the point was the pacing was modern and improved by the sense of anticipation to watch just WHERE is this going - not being able to anticipate, either because of the way the knot is made in the end of Seinfeld, or the nature of the non-sequitor, or detours that are the rule in the Simpsons. It wasn't about fast changes welded together by image/logo titles (like with Third Rock), there was this writerly and film/television sense to them, which I enjoyed to watch. NOT theater-stage sense, where the best example is Frasier, which was in the end like a Noel Coward farce on speed, thanks to the caliber of the actors too.A_Homernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-60694953307768636212010-09-13T22:19:17.719-07:002010-09-13T22:19:17.719-07:00For people complaining about multiple plotlines, I...For people complaining about multiple plotlines, I say look at The Simpsons. It has lowered in quality because the network took away a few minutes for ads, and they cannot develop the multiple plotlines like they used to.<br />Do you remember the episode with Roger Clemens, Ken Griffey, Don Mattingly, etc?<br /><br />Well those guys were in the SECOND HALF of the episode. The first part was The Natural, with Homer's special Wonderbat taking his team to the finals.MikeNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-27268486658376806932010-09-13T22:15:11.646-07:002010-09-13T22:15:11.646-07:00Forget about comparing Cheers with modern shows, j...Forget about comparing Cheers with modern shows, just compare First Season vs last season of 24.MikeNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-87336528661440524372010-09-13T22:10:13.148-07:002010-09-13T22:10:13.148-07:00David Lee said...
""My Coffee With Nile...David Lee said...<br /><br /><i>""My Coffee With Niles" and "The Dinner Party" come to mind."</i>...<br /><br />Not to turn away from the main them of Ken's blog today, but David, I just had to comment: I thought that "My Coffee With Niles" was an excellent way to end FRASIER's first season. The final exchange between Frasier and the waitress essentially summed up the season perfectly...<br /><br />And speaking of lines from another Grub Street program, for some strange reason earlier today, the image of Antonio sitting in the airport lobby, strumming his guitar and singing "My goat knows the baseball score" popped into my head... I'm giggling even as I write this...Tom Quigleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12959628996361620134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-43044133852140513872010-09-13T19:24:36.180-07:002010-09-13T19:24:36.180-07:00I'm not sure if this is apocryphal (sp?) or no...I'm not sure if this is apocryphal (sp?) or not, but didn't the Marx Bors. perform most of their movies as stage shows first? They would then have someone time how long the audience laughted at each joke so they knew just how long to pause after each joke when they made the filmed version?<br /><br />That said, the bottom line to me is that funny is funny regardless of speed. I appreciate the dense packing of Arrested Development and the deliberate pace of Cheers and Frazier. I also appreciate the ultra-rapid fire style of Family Guy.<br /><br />For anyone who appreciates great pacing and timing, I will recommend checking out Phineas and Ferb on the Disney Channel. Most episodes feature two disconnected 11-minute segments. Not only does each segment have an A-story (P&F build something), a B-story (P&F's sister Candace tries to bust them) and a C-story (Perry the Platypus, aka Agent P, battles his nemesis, Heinz Doofenshmirtz.) Plus plactically every episode features a catchy song. That's all in 11 minutes, yet all the characters are richly drawn and the plots exceptionally intricate. However, a six year old can appreciate practiclaly all of it. Some jokes go ever youngster's heads, but worry not as there'll be another joke up very shortly. Overall it has some of the cleverest writing going on today. (Really, check out the scene in the episode 'Comet Kermillion' regarding having found the cure for antidisestablishmentarianism. Truly and brilliantly absurd.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-48253389445191462032010-09-13T19:09:05.036-07:002010-09-13T19:09:05.036-07:00I think The Simpsons deserves a lot of the credit/...I think The Simpsons deserves a lot of the credit/blame for ramping up the pace of sitcoms. I don't know a single comedy writer under 50 who hasn't watched close to a hundred episodes of the show, and it's clearly an influence on shows like 30 Rock. Of course, you can move a hell of a lot faster in a cartoon than you can in live action, but they managed to make those jokes around the big punchlines great as well.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06686350869833778696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-8779238481456818392010-09-13T16:41:06.726-07:002010-09-13T16:41:06.726-07:00If it bores me, it moves slow. If it entertains me...If it bores me, it moves slow. If it entertains me, it moves fast. The number of camera don't matterKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155991693956178030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-28911622306589859892010-09-13T13:41:08.305-07:002010-09-13T13:41:08.305-07:00The MTV generation and its 20-second attention spa...The MTV generation and its 20-second attention span is to blame, IMHO.Cap'n Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11783977137812876489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-4206753384525088952010-09-13T12:54:59.565-07:002010-09-13T12:54:59.565-07:00One camera, three camera, ten camera. Makes no di...One camera, three camera, ten camera. Makes no difference if the script sucks. The only "camera" effect I despise is that hand held jerky camera that is used in a lot of "one camera" shows now. I guess they're trying to show us how life was seen through Katherine Hepburn's eyes.DwWashburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03057278992504418291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-31807119266220438292010-09-13T12:34:52.692-07:002010-09-13T12:34:52.692-07:00Pace is definitely a lot faster today. I think tha...Pace is definitely a lot faster today. I think that has it's pluses and minuses. It's obviously not just television. I think movies sometimes are focused too much on pace and less so on character development and story.<br /><br />I went to see The American when it came out and thought it was very good, but most people I talked to who had seen it didn't like because they felt it was boring. It certainly wasn't fast, but the deliberate pace increased the tension. And then you've got Transformers...Tim W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16860726607106078491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-63670202094628596612010-09-13T12:28:24.169-07:002010-09-13T12:28:24.169-07:00To be honest - I don't care at all. As long as...To be honest - I don't care at all. As long as the jokes are funny and the writing is good I don't mind looking at my watch because usually that means I notice that so much happened already and there's still episode left. I often notice that on shows that are very good like Modern Family. About halfway in I notice that the third act still hasn't started and they already covered a gazillion things, while on Big Bang Theory the show is over in a heartbeat because it jumps from one joke to the next. I love both shows equally and every comedy in general that is good.<br /><br />Nothing is more excruciating long than an episode of "Hank".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01936042470523695383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-55512813029033115102010-09-13T11:45:04.401-07:002010-09-13T11:45:04.401-07:00Ben K: I think in the case of those films, they si...Ben K: I think in the case of those films, they simply work better in theatres -- they're timed for audience reaction, and the pauses don't seem like pauses when a theatre audience is there. (It's like Spielberg lengthened the pause after Indiana Jones shoots the swordsman because the test audience was laughing so hard.)<br /><br />One thing I'll add is that we all say movies used to be slower-paced, but in some ways that's factually untrue: movies today tend to be much longer, on average, than they used to be, taking longer to tell their stories and delivering much more exposition. I think many of us use "slow" as a synonym for "old" -- if the storytelling style seems old-fashioned or dull, it may strike us as slow-moving even if it isn't.Jaime J. Weinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15128500411119962998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-57204979770805353022010-09-13T11:31:14.422-07:002010-09-13T11:31:14.422-07:00You know, I feel incredibly grateful to have grown...You know, I feel incredibly grateful to have grown up in the 60's.<br /><br />Not because 60's TV shows were so great (on the contrary - I hold that the 60's were the worst decade - thus far - for TV shows). but because in those days, local TV stations filled up programming time with older TV shows and films. As a little kid I and my friends didn't distinguish between The Little Rascals, Laurel and Hardy, I Love Lucy, Leave it to Beaver, Star Trek, Flash Gorden, Johnny Quest, Creature Feature, Man From Uncle.<br /><br />So I feel like we grew up without prejudices. i mean, what comedy pacing is SLOWER than Leave it to Beaver (a charming, very unappreciated show IMHO) or The Little Rascals? "Faster" comedy was represented by The 3 Stooges, Soupy Sales, Abbot and Costello, Laugh In.<br /><br />So I guess I find it strange that Eric's students found Cheers 'too slow'. I don't find any shows too fast or too slow - if they are FUNNY or clever. Cheers is great, MASH is great, Frasier is great, The Office is great, Modern Family is great. The Simpsons - one of the fastest paced shows ever was consistently great until it kind of lost it's soul (after about 10-12 years, not bad). But I could only take about 2 minutes of "3's Company" or "The Lucy Show" or "2 1/2 Men" before having to turn off the TV.<br /><br />So I dunno, I think this distinction between 1 and multiple comedy shows is a false one, really. Both formats have their place.-beenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-29064518404806728032010-09-13T11:24:23.910-07:002010-09-13T11:24:23.910-07:00When I was a kid, there was a big Marx Brothers re...When I was a kid, there was a big Marx Brothers revival, and that's also when the later "Pink Panther" movies and some of the classic Mel Brooks flicks came out. My friends and I thought they were all hilarious -- I can't remember ever laughing so hard.<br /><br />Now, I watch these movies and they all seem surprisingly slow, with long pauses between the jokes that seem to drag things down. It may be partly my age or the lack of an eager movie-theater audience to laugh with, but I really do think that I've learned to expect (and need) a much faster pace in comedy.Ben K.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-71822891187102320642010-09-13T10:50:34.055-07:002010-09-13T10:50:34.055-07:00Ken,
You posted an observation a little while bac...Ken,<br /><br />You posted an observation a little while back about MASH that left me astonished. It was something I'd never picked up on. You said ( and I'm paraphrasing) the pace of MASH scenes still hold up in today's world of faster paced shows. <br /><br />That was amazing insight. <br /><br />MASH, when compared to other shows of its era, moves incredibly fast and manages to pack in a lot of story. I think this is why MASH, today, still feels so timeless. <br /><br />But to your point about shows moving fast: SEINFELD lead the way, as David Lee points out. In this regard, SEINFELD was groundbreaking. Most of their scripts run between 70 - 80 pages. 30 ROCK is another great example. COUGAR TOWN almost feels frenetic, as does THE MIDDLE. It's like being around someone who is wolfing down their food. You notice that you're eating faster too. When a show is too fast paced, it has a negative reaction (to me at least). I start to feel .. almost anxious. <br /><br />Interestingly, I was watching HAZEL the other day (off DVD) and the tempo felt right. Not too slow. Not too fast. This from a show from 1961.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00107309396839340695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-14333998779660504822010-09-13T10:26:00.285-07:002010-09-13T10:26:00.285-07:00I think you're both alluding to the same pheno...I think you're both alluding to the same phenomenon but coming to the wrong conclusion. The Office and Arrested Development both have more going on per episode. Neither show can be distilled down to a one sentence plot line but their really isn't a show on TV now, outside of maybe the police procedurals, where a member of the audience is expected to handle just one storyline. <br /><br />MTM:The Office::Dallas:The Sopranoes. Not in terms of any precritical greatness level, but in terms of storytelling technique. MASH is a fantastic transition between the two eras, where there are multiple story lines happening but the A storyline can be descibed in a sentence that doesn't need a lot of "because" and "well on last episode"<br /><br />The expectations for the viewer, with multiple reviewing options, is that if they think they missed something to rewatch it, and in turn that sells thing like DVRs, DVDs, and increased Hulu's relevance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541258693969077875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-19889013161817918722010-09-13T10:23:24.646-07:002010-09-13T10:23:24.646-07:00I really agree with this. Writers don't care ...I really agree with this. Writers don't care about storyline. Just being quirky and getting a laugh here and there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763782219563184933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-81963854913815404912010-09-13T09:46:01.062-07:002010-09-13T09:46:01.062-07:00Bowing to the twin gods of Pace and Punchlines has...Bowing to the twin gods of Pace and Punchlines has a cost: Character.<br /><br />It's difficult to build a relationship with characters that are inhabiting a cartoon, e.g., "30 ROCK".<br /><br />I call it the "NIGHT COURT" phenomenon. Here was a broad sitcom if ever there was one. Yet they would often try to pull audience heartstrings with some overly earnest moral monologue by Judge Harry Stone.<br /><br />It's hard, however, to be emotionally engaged when there's been a 2-D circus freak show taking place in your courtroom.<br /><br />Tone, tone, tone.<br /><br />The very first question to answer when formulating a comedy.Toddnoreply@blogger.com