It may be cliché, but New Year’s Eve is typically a day for thinking about the future. After all, tomorrow will be a brand new year, and the next 365 days are just waiting to be filled with good things.
What’s on my mind today is the future of comedy. More specifically, what the comedy writers of tomorrow will think of the comedy series of today. And the reason I’m pondering this, of all subjects, is because the most successful comedies of the day are drenched to the skin in parody.
The TV parody trend really started gaining momentum around the time The Brady Bunch Movie came out in 1995. Sure, spoofs and satires had been around for centuries before then, but The Brady Bunch Movie, despite being a film, was a significant milestone in TV history.
(The movie takes the Brady family out of the ‘70s and places them in the ‘90s, where they are exceptionally out of touch with reality. Their heartfelt cheesiness and utter ignorance of the ways of the world tend to bewilder the people around them, but the Bradys are oblivious. They just keep on movin’ and keep on groovin’ to their own rhythm, their over-the-top smiles never leaving their faces.)
The film was more than just a playful spoof—it completely redefined the TV show. These characters that Sherwood Schwartz had created with utmost sincerity were so out of place in the “real world,” it made you wonder if the Bradys ever were hip, even in their own time. It gave the audience this idea to consider: Wasn’t The Brady Bunch kind of stupid?
And thus started the craze of mocking old TV shows. A slew of movies followed.
Will the next generation make fun of The Office?
Fifteen years later, mockery and television had formed a different kind of relationship. In light of movies spoofing old shows for taking themselves too seriously, networks started coming out with new shows that spoofed themselves by pretending to take themselves seriously. Confused? I’m talking about mockumentaries—The Office, Modern Family, Parks and Recreation, that sort of thing. I’m also talking about satires like 30 Rock. These programs are all cut from the same dry-humored cloth. They’re written to be spoofs of real life, and none of them takes itself seriously. At all.
So my question is: Where will comedy go from here? The sitcom genre has evolved from cutesy slices of life into sarcastic jabs at life spoken with mock seriousness. And yes, it’s hilarious. There’s no doubt about that. But… where can we go from here?
And what will we be mocking in 25 years? Can we expect a How I Met Your Mother movie making fun of Barney’s catchphrases and Robin’s pop star past… which are somewhat spoofs of themselves already? How do you spoof a spoof?
Will the next generation make fun of Grey's Anatomy?
My conjecture is that in a few decades' time, the butt of the joke will be police and medical dramas such as CSI and Grey’s Anatomy. Sure, people take these shows very seriously now, but I assure you the emotional attachment will have worn off by 2036.Today’s comedies, on the other hand, have already covered their tracks. They’re immune to future ridicule because they’re already making fun of themselves now. And perhaps that will render them—dare I say it?—timeless.
Overall, with this offbeat brand of comedy in the air, it’ll be interesting to see what kind of sitcoms come later.My gut tells me, however, that regardless of what other trends come along, the classic three-camera sitcom will live on forever, sincerity and all, no matter how cheesy it may look to us in a quarter of a century.
With the Christmas season already here and Christmas day approaching fast, most everybody has already commenced the festive holiday traditions that get them into a yuletide spirit this time of year. Typical activities include: keeping the radio at nonstop Christmas music starting December 1st, spending your Christmas bonus at Walmart so none of the relatives will feel left out of the gift exchange, getting sick of Christmas music by the 12th, and of course, hauling an evergreen tree into the middle of your living room, which you adorn with lights, strips of foil, and little glass balls.
Legend has it that holidays of yore also included caroling, roasting chestnuts, and sending Christmas cards, which in this day and age seems to have been replaced by mass texts and Facebook statuses along the lines of “Merry Xmas! #yule.”
But there’s another tradition I uphold that somehow never quite caught on. I’m not sure why—it’s fun, festive, and funny. You guessed it! Every December I watch the Christmas episodes of my favorite TV shows.
Most people bring out holiday movies to get in a merry mood, but not me. This time of year, I always rely on the sitcoms. While they may not be as deep and thought-provoking as the likes of It’s a Wonderful Life, they still achieve their ultimate goal—putting a smile on the viewers’ faces.
A great example is the Family Ties episode “A Keaton Christmas Carol,” where Alex’s Scrooge-like behavior provokes a visit from the ghosts of Christmas Past and Christmas Future, who bear striking resemblances to his sisters, Jennifer and Mallory. This clip includes my favorite scene, starting at 3:15: in the future, Alex is rich, fat, and bald, and his impoverished family ecstatically grovels at his feet.
Another classic is the one and only Dick Van Dyke Show Christmas episode. Written as a holiday-themed Alan Brady Show, it features the cast doing what they do best—singing, dancing, and being funny, all with a holiday twist. Here’s a small taste of the merriment, featuring actress Rose Marie singing her wish list to Santa. What do you think the perpetually single Sally Rogers wants for Christmas? A husband, of course! This song features one of the best holiday puns I’ve ever heard: “Give me an Adam on Christmas Eve.”
But the sitcom whose holiday episodes really take the fruitcake is Family Matters. In its nine-season run, the series had seven shows for Christmas and five for Halloween, plus the occasional Valentine’s Day. And the stories always fit the spirit of the holiday. The yuletide episodes, for instance, customarily included the singing of a hymn and even occasional allusions to the real Christmas story—the birth of Jesus Christ. I’ve seen a lot of Christmas shows, and Family Matters’ just always seem a cut above the rest. Here’s the full episode of “Christmas is Where the Heart Is,” complete with Dutch subtitles, where Carl and Steve get stuck on the El on their way back from Christmas shopping.
So, perhaps this tradition of watching festive sitcoms won’t catch on with the general public anytime soon, but I’ve been doing it for about ten years now and will probably continue for another ten, if not longer. It just doesn’t feel like Christmas without them.
And since you made it to the end of the post, here’s my gift to you—Jo and Natalie from The Facts of Life singing “We Need a Little Christmas” to entertain some inmates. Unfortunately the intro is cut off, but it’s still gobs of fun. Merry Christmas!
Oompa Loompa doo-ba-dee-doo, I’ve got another blog here for you…
“Don’t watch so much TV,” your parents might have told you. “You’ll lower your IQ.”
Manystudies confirm television can have a negative effect on child development. Kids become more violent; their IQ scores are generally lower; their reading skills diminish. I may love sitcoms, but even I have to admit it’s smart to turn off the tube and get outside once in a while. Spending time with a friend, for instance, is far more stimulating to me than a Friends rerun.
But if the little green-haired, orange-faced men from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory taught us anything, it’s that children aren’t perfect. They can have a slew of problems even before they hit their teens. So sang the Oompa Loompas, “If you’re not greedy, you will go far,” and you would “live in happiness” if you took their advice.
Assuming you’re familiar with the 1971 musical, you’ll remember the unfortunate demises of Augustus, Violet, Veruca, and Mike, the four bratty kids who found Golden Tickets along with Charlie. Augustus was too fat, Violet too rude, and Veruca too spoiled. And then there was Mike Teevee, who was so glued to his set that, according to his proud mother, he never once came to the table for dinner. After Mike got himself shrunk and was carried off in his mom's purse, the Oompa Loompas sang:
What do you get from a glut of TV?
A pain in the neck and an IQ of three
Why don’t you try simply reading a book?
Or could you just not bear to look?
You’ll get no commercials
These lyrics reflect a common idea in our society: Books are better for your brain than television is. Now, I’m no psychologist, so I can’t be the one to judge if the claim is absolute truth (my personal belief, supported by these twoarticles, is that it depends on the content and how you choose to respond to it). But it is widely accepted that novels inherently trump sitcoms. The attitude is if your child is a reader, do not discourage him because nothing bad can come of incessant reading. TV, on the other hand, strains their eyes and inhibits brain development.
However, if the characters in Anne of Green Gables are any indication, the fears we have today about TV-watching are the same fears people at the turn of the century once held about book-reading. Consider this excerpt:
“This is my little girl Diana,” said Mrs. Barry. “Diana, you might take Anne out into the garden and show her your flowers. It will be better for you than straining your eyes over that book. She reads entirely too much—” this to Marilla as the little girls went out—“and I can't prevent her, for her father aids and abets her. She's always poring over a book. I'm glad she has the prospect of a playmate— perhaps it will take her more out-of-doors.”
Mrs. Barry didn’t want her daughter straining her eyes over a novel, and preferred that she go outside and play with a friend. Here is another example, spoken after Anne announced she had started a writing club:
“I think this story-writing business is the foolishest yet,” scoffed Marilla. “You'll get a pack of nonsense into your heads and waste time that should be put on your lessons. Reading stories is bad enough but writing them is worse.”
Thus, Marilla disliked Anne’s reading because it filled her head with “nonsense,” as did creative writing, apparently. To Marilla, fiction had no educational value, and Anne’s time was better spent on schoolwork where she would really be learning something. Books, it might be said, inhibited her brain development.
Isn’t that interesting? These days we tell kids, “Turn off the TV and go read.” But back in 1908, parents were saying, “Put down the book and go play,” or “go study.” What we think of as a stimulating activity today, back then was a waste of time.
But if we had to choose between them, are books better than TV, inherently?
Sorry, I don't have the answer, and I'm not sure it's even a testable question.
But what I do believe is that whether you're reading a novel, watching a sitcom, riding a bike, or talking to a friend, in many ways the constructiveness of the activity is up to you. It can be a waste of time, or it can be beneficial to your growth. It's your call.
That's what I think, anyway, and I certainly invite dissenting opinions.
If not, let me boil it down for you. It’s the idea that God created the world, then kicked his feet up on the coffee table and left it alone. His work is done; now he watches us like a TV show, silently, never intervening to change the storyline.
He’s a couch potato.
Sure, there’s a little more to deism than that, but those are the implications. God doesn’t get involved; he just watches.
What kind of a God is that? If the ups and downs of our lives can’t motivate him to interact with us, he must find us terribly boring. Think about fans of real TV shows. Think about how engrossed we get in the stories, the characters, the world they live in. What Gilmore Girls fan wouldn’t love to vacation in Stars Hollow? What LOST fan doesn’t wish they could go exploring on that treasure-filled island? If we could step through the screen and walk around inside their universe, we would. In a heartbeat.
And then there’s unscripted shows. Shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. Their fans are thrilled to get involved because they know their votes make a difference in how the plot unfolds. It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure that the whole country can participate in. And judging by these series’ consistent spots in the top 10, most of the country does join in.
What about God? He’s got even more of a reason to want to be involved in our lives, because he didn’t just flip to the Earth channel and discover our world—he made it himself. What artist is apathetic toward his art? What parent is apathetic toward his children?
Well, it happened. The cares of life got in the way, and I've been too distracted and busy to blog for well over a month. How sad! It's been so long since I last blogged that when I started typing the Active Viewing web address into my browser today, Internet Explorer didn't offer to finish it for me.
But I'm here to tell you that starting in November, the dry spell will be over. More posts are on the way, and I'm kicking off the new month with a real doozy, so stay tuned (and put your philosophical thinking caps on). Can't wait!
In other news, Free Agents, the awful new series I predicted wouldn't last 14 episodes, hasn't even lasted five. It was canceled the first week of October after its fourth episode, and I can't say I'm surprised. May it rest in peace. Likewise, How to be a Gentleman performed so abysmally (compared to its lead-in, The Big Bang Theory) during its Thursday-night premiere that it was immediately moved to Saturdays, where it was effectively canceled after the airing of its second episode. CBS tried to make use of the seven remaining episodes by continuing to air them on Saturdays, but even that idea was nixed after one week. So goodbye, crappy comedies! I anxiously await the premiere and sudden cancellation of the other new show I dubbed as "going nowhere" -- I Hate My Teenage Daughter. It starts at the end of November.
On the flip side, the two biggest hit comedies of the pilot season are 2 Broke Girls and New Girl. Looks like funny females are “in” this year. Zooey Deschanel’s personality is even more magnetic than I anticipated in New Girl, and I’m on the edge of my seat waiting for the one-month hiatus to be over already. Come on, FOX! You snatch away this little gem after whetting our appetites with only three episodes?? Bring it back!
2 Broke Girls, on the other hand, would be exactly as I pictured if only it would tone down the crudeness. Raunchy jokes are completely unnecessary when you’ve got great characters like Max and Caroline to work with. These girls are terrific together! At first I was concerned their friendship would be a carbon copy of Blair Warner and Jo Polniaczek’s in The Facts of Life, but it isn’t. It’s completely original. Max and Caroline go places Blair and Jo never did, like bargain-hunting at Goodwill and scraping money together for a cupcake business. And Max isn’t resentful of Caroline for having been rich—in fact, she’d love to be rich herself—and that’s a breath of fresh air after watching Jo get angry about Blair’s money in episode after episode of Facts of Life. All in all, 2 Broke Girls has consistently ranked first in its timeslot, and despite the crude humor, I think it’ll be around for a while.
Full-season orders are also in for Up All Night, Whitney, and Suburgatory, but it’s still too early to tell what the future holds for Man Up! and Last Man Standing, which have only been on for a few weeks. What we do know is that their ratings drop a little more every week, which doesn’t look hopeful at this point.
But I must conclude by getting something off my chest—I was wrong. (You’re shocked, I know.) Yes, I admit it, I thought Steve Carell’s departure from The Office was a sure sign of its forthcoming demise. But I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of the seriessince Steve Carell left. In fact, this is the first season I’ve watched regularly. Haven’t missed an episode. The ensemble cast sustains the show quite well without Michael Scott, and making Andy Bernard the new boss has given it an interesting twist. So accept my apologies, Office fans. I wish your favorite series a long-lasting future.
Rumors flew last year when Alec Baldwin reportedly said he planned to leave 30 Rock at the end of the 2012 season. Some reports said the show would end if he left; others said Tina Fey was leaving too. The latest reports bring it all back into perspective. As far as executive producer Lorne Michaels knows, Fey’s not going anywhere, Baldwin may or may not leave, and no matter what Baldwin decides to do, the show will go on.
And should that be any surprise to us? That a popular series would carry on without one of its major stars?
After all, this season we have not one, but two successful, long-running series continuing without important members of their casts. Steve Carell’s Michael Scott character will be replaced by Robert California (played by James Spader) in The Office, and Ashton Kutcher will replace Charlie Sheen, whose character will be literally killed off, on Two and a Half Men.
It’s a gimmick as old as Dick Sargent playing Darrin #2 on Bewitched. The new characters are sure to add a splash of novelty to these old shows, but come on, how much longer can they possibly last without their main characters?
Let’s look at TV history, shall we? When Cindy Williams left Laverne & Shirley in 1982, the series only lasted one more season before getting cancelled.
When Gabe Kaplan and John Travolta left Welcome Back, Kotter, appearing as occasional guest stars in the fourth season, the show was canned after one year. (Beau De Labarre a Sweathog? Really?)
When Phil Hartman passed away, NewsRadio brought in a replacement, but ultimately the series only lasted—you guessed it—one more year.
And when Howard Hesseman left Head of the Class… well, you get the picture. Let’s not beat this dead horse—the networks are already taking care of that.
So again I ask, with their stars gone, how many more seasons can we expect from The Office and Two and a Half Men,which are entering into their eighth and ninth years, respectively? If the trends of the past are any indication, one.
I understand the mantra that “winners never quit.” But when applied to a TV show, that philosophy has a tendency to turn winners into losers. It’s a popular trap for sitcoms to fall into: the longer they go, the more outlandish they get. And by the final season they’re hollow shells of what they used to be.
The first example that springs to mind is the ABC sitcom Family Matters. It went through quite the metamorphosis in its nine-year run. Though early on it was fairly realistic—about as realistic as slapstick ever gets—by the end, Steve Urkel had cloned himself, transformed his clone into the cool Stefan Urquelle, gotten engaged to Laura Winslow, and invented dozens of impossible gadgets and gizmos that could easily have made him a billionaire if not for the inevitable kinks they always came with. The show became science fiction and beared little resemblance to its earlier years, when Steve was just the annoying neighbor and Laura wanted nothing to do with him.
Another classic example is 7th Heaven. Come on! That show wouldn’t quit! Our family stopped watching after season six, when Robbie was practically adopted into the Camden family, Mary and Lucy were fighting over him, Matt married a Jewish girl he’d known for one day, and Simon was involved in a televised police chase because his grandpa told him to keep driving. The show was nonsense and we were sure it wouldn’t last much longer. But it kept going. Five more years.
What I’m saying is, too many good shows refuse to pull the plug until they’re already past their prime. They drag on for so long that they become laughingstocks, losing the respect they worked so hard to obtain.
That’s why I admire the few series that keep their integrity and end on a high note. Jerry Seinfeld was reportedly offered $110 million to do a tenth season of Seinfeld, but he declined the offer because he wanted to go out on top. (His show was #1 in the ratings—how do you top that?)
The first series to go off the air at #1 was I Love Lucy in 1957; the second was The Andy Griffith Show in 1968. And after a 30-year gap, Seinfeld became the third and last series on the list, which goes to show that when a sitcom hits #1, the last thing networks want to do is cancel it. Instead, they exploit it.
Can The Office function without Michael Scott?
Sure, winners never quit, but when you’re receiving Emmys and topping the Nielsens, the race is over and you’ve already won. So take your medal and go home. Challenging your opponents to multiple rematches will only tire you out, and eventually you’re going to lose, especially with the extra hurdles of departed cast members.
At some point you've got to ask, can this show really get any better? And if the answer is no, then end it while you're still proud of it.
Two and a Half Men has lasted eight seasons, and that’s a feat for any series. What do you think? Is the race over? Should it and The Office be put out of their misery before they ruin themselves? Or will the new cast members be a change in pace that fuels them to the finish line?
You can’t judge a book by its cover, but no one ever said you can’t judge a sitcom by its trailer.
Welcome to the first annual Lineup Roundup, where I predict the staying power of the new fall comedies solely on the basis of their ads. Here’s how the game works—after viewing all the promotional materials I can find for each show, I rate the series on the following scale:
Built to Last – All the makings of a long-running hit
Shows Promise – Not a knockout, but looks funny
Mercy Vote – Probably won’t last beyond the first season
Going Nowhere – Don’t even bother. There will be no episode two.
Then I defend my rating. Quite simple, really. (I’m only hitting the major networks’ live-action shows because I don’t have cable and, well, it makes things easier.)
Remember, kids, this is just for funsies. These are predictions, not mandates. Shows evolve and improve all the time, and with TV, anything can happen. So let’s begin!
Up All Night. **Shows Promise**
A career mom, a stay-at-home dad, and an unplanned newborn who can’t stay asleep. This Lorne Michaels series takes a look at one couple’s transition from wild partiers to responsible parents. When Reagan (Christina Applegate) has to go back to work and Chris (Will Arnett) has to baby-sit solo, they soon discover that maturity is a lot harder than it looks. Maya Rudolph co-stars as Ava, Reagan’s boss and kooky best friend.
For my personal tastes, ehh, it’s all right. It looks funny. What concerns me, though, is that the entire premise, including the title, lacks foresight. Eventually these parents are going to learn to cope with their new roles, right? They can’t flounder forever. And eventually that baby’s going to be old enough to stay asleep. So, are the writers going to continually invent new reasons for the couple to be “up all night”? Will they have a new baby every season? How long can that go on? Aside from that gripe, the show’s got star power in its favor, and its single-camera, documentary-esque comedy style reminds me of Arrested Development and Modern Family. So I think it’s got a shot.
Network: NBC
Time Slot: Wednesdays at 8/7c
Premieres: Sept. 14
Free Agents. Going Nowhere
Alex (Hank Azaria) is a recent divorcé. Helen (Kathryn Hahn) is a widow. Neither of them is ready to move on. But when these two co-workers end up in bed together, suddenly Alex wants a relationship while Helen wants to be friends. Another sexual encounter later, and they’re not really sure what they are anymore.
If this show is trying to put a new spin on the “will they or won’t they” romantic tension story, it has failed. Casual sex is a poor substitute for winsome flirting, and the premise is better suited for a movie than a TV series. But my real issue with the show is the weak male hero. The previews show two clips of him crying—realistically—for laughs. I don’t know how those things even go together. A man crying just makes me sad. It doesn’t strike me as funny whatsoever. Overall, the characters seem uninteresting, and I don’t care to involve myself in their crazy lives. Thirteen episodes are already scheduled for the first season, but I do not foresee an episode fourteen.
Network: NBC
Time Slot: Wednesdays at /7:30c
Premieres: Sept. 14
2 Broke Girls. **Shows Promise**
Max (Kat Dennings) has been poor all her life, so she has very little sympathy for Caroline (Beth Behrs), a former billionaire who recently lost all her money. They work together as waitresses in a New York diner and end up roommates with only one thing in common—they’re both broke.
Okay, I’m biased. I’m a big Kat Dennings fan, and I was tempted to rate this as Built to Last because of my own wishful thinking. Then I had it at Mercy Vote for a while, but I bumped it up to Shows Promise, and here’s why. The characters are real. They’re not the well-off women of privilege you usually see on TV. They’re working women struggling to make the rent every month. The humor may be a little mediocre at times, but I find myself interested in where this friendship is going. And I think the premise has a lot of potential. Caroline and Max come from different worlds and have a lot to teach each other. I’ve heard comparisons to The Odd Couple and Laverne & Shirley, but it reminds me more of Perfect Strangers—two average Joes from different cultures, learning about each other’s way of life. 2 Broke Girls might just make it after all.
Network: CBS
Time Slot: Mondays at 8:30/7:30c
Premieres: Sept. 19
New Girl. **Shows Promise**
Zooey Deschanel (500 Days of Summer) is Jess, a girl who decides to move in with three guys from Craigslist after being dumped by her boyfriend. She’s cute and a little offbeat, and she needs serious help getting over her ex. That’s where her new roommates come in. They may not know much about living with an emotional female, but they’re ready to learn.
Deshanel has a lot of personality, sort of like Sandra Bullock. She’s the very funny girl next door. The success of this series will largely depend on the audience’s opinion of her. If you ask me, the main character is hilariously charming, and this series is going places.
Network: FOX
Time Slot: Tuesdays at 9/8c
Premieres: Sept. 20
Whitney. ***Built to Last***
Whitney’s a modern, opinionated gal living with Alex (Chris D’Elia), her boyfriend of three years. They go against convention and live life their own way. And they’d be lost without each other.
Just like New Girl, the success of this series is going to depend on the audience’s response to its star, Whitney Cummings. She’s a mixture of Rosie O’Donnell’s obnoxiousness and Lucille Ball’s screwball comedy, but… in a good way. Her gigantic personality will either charm viewers or scare them off quickly, and it’ll be interesting to see the outcome. But regardless of the star, the premise itself intrigues me. It’s ultimately an examination of social mores. The times are changing, and Whitney asks the question—what’s “traditional” anymore? One scene from the pilot shows Whitney putting on a yellow dress since “you can’t wear white to a wedding.” But when she shows up, the bride is wearing yellow, too. And she’s ticked! The show makes you question those ideas that are always taken for granted, and gives you a few laughs along the way. Cummings might have to tone down her character a smidge, but the concept has a bright future ahead.
Network: NBC
Time Slot: Thursdays at /8:30c
Premieres: Sept. 22
Suburgatory. *Mercy Vote*
Worried that his teenage daughter isn’t being brought up right, a single father (Jeremy Sisto) moves them from Manhattan to the suburbs. But it’s not the suburbs of Father Knows Best. It’s an eerily perfect place where everyone is rich, snobby, and plastic. And these city folk aren’t sure they fit in.
What I’m wondering is, what suburbs are those? Where the heck are they? I grew up in the ‘burbs, and they were nowhere near as hellish as this show portrays them to be. Okay, okay, it’s a satire, I know. Just sayin’. The show is narrated by the daughter, Tessa (Jane Levy), in such a way that reminds me of Malcolm in the Middle. I found some of the trailers humorous, but only in the interactions between Tessa and her dad. Unfortunately, that’s not what the show is about. It’s primarily about how they adjust to life in their Beverly Hills-like suburban town. But none of the suburbanites are real enough to be likeable. I give it a year.
Network: ABC
Time Slot: Wednesdays at /7:30c
Premieres: Sept. 28
How to be a Gentleman. Going Nowhere
In this modern-day Odd Couple, gentle manners columnist Andrew (David Hornsby) runs into his tough former high-school bully Bert (Kevin Dillon) at the gym, and an unlikely friendship is born. Bert takes it upon himself to teach Andrew how to be a man, while Andrew teaches Bert how to be a gentleman.
The premise is reasonable enough, but I’m not interested in caricatures. And that’s what Andrew and Bert are—caricatures. They’re “types” with no real goals or aspirations to give their characters humanity. Their points of view are entirely predictable. Consider this exchange from the pilot: Andrew says of a female neighbor, “I kill many of her bugs.” Bert replies, “You should be taking off many of her pants.” Don’t get too attached; this show will be canceled in no time.
Network: CBS
Time Slot: Thursdays at /7:30c
Premieres: Sept. 29
Last Man Standing. **Shows Promise**
Mike Baxter (Tim Allen), a married father of three and the marketing director for an outdoor sporting goods store, lives in a house full of women. He doesn’t always understand them, and they rarely understand him; nevertheless, they must learn to coexist peaceably as a family.
If you took Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor in all his grunting glory, but removed the male friends from his life, he wouldn’t be the same ToolMan. That’s the dynamic addressed by Last Man Standing. Mike is a manly guy living with four females, and he’s in desperate need of a male support group. Allen told ClevverTV that he is fascinated with the communication between the sexes, and I have a feeling this fascination will play a major role in the series’ humor. I’m looking forward to the results. The show isn’t just about Mike clinging to his masculinity, but also the role women play in making men feel manly. Whether you’re a man or a woman, you’ll be able to relate to something in this show.
Network: ABC
Time Slot: Tuesdays at 8/7c
Premieres: Oct. 11
Man Up! *Mercy Vote*
Will’s a husband and father, Craig’s a single musician, and Kenny’s a pudgy divorcé. They’re three best friends at different stages in their lives, all trying to figure out what it means to be a man. Yet every time they take charge and act manly, they massively screw up. But it’s okay. At least they’ve got each other.
This one’s more for the guys than the girls, so it’s not much of a surprise that I’m not interested in it. It could be a funny buddy comedy, or it could be a complete failure. It’s hard to tell which it will be. With only the commercials to go on, I expect it will be a one-season wonder.
Network: ABC
Time Slot: Tuesdays at /7:30c
Premieres: Oct. 18
I Hate My Teenage Daughter. Going Nowhere
Annie (Jaime Pressly) and Nikki (Katie Finneran) are best friends and single mothers whose teenage daughters make them feel insignificant, just like the mean girls in high school used to. In an attempt to give their girls the privileges they never had, these moms have inadvertently created two spoiled monsters.
I find no humor in a show glorifying disrespectful teens, and I hope the American public feels the same. The trailer only frustrates me. A mother who is afraid to punish her child is pitiful, sad, not funny. I hate their teenage daughters, too! And thus, I won’t be watching. Will anyone?
A joke from TheEllen Degeneres Show reminded me of an issue that used to bug the heck out of me. No, it was nothing political, nothing social, nothing along those lines. Ellen was talking about the phasing out of TV theme songs.
“We don’t have time to sit through anything. Sitcoms… when I was growing up, there were full-on theme songs,” said the three-piece-suit-clad comedienne. “Now the songs before a show starts are just ‘bah bow!’ and then they’re in the kitchen talking.”
Degeneres makes the point that viewers’ attention spans are too short to focus on theme songs anymore. If the opening credits last longer than ten seconds, we’ve already changed the channel.
I, too, once thought the lack of decently-lengthed theme songs was some kind of conspiracy. Perhaps a negative reflection of our postmodern society and its severe ADD.
But the real reason, according to writers CarterBays and Craig Thomas, creators of How I Met Your Mother, is that TV shows themselves are getting shorter, and commercial breaks are getting longer, so every second of airtime is precious.
That’s why the 12-second opening to How I Met Your Mother got cut down to six seconds for syndication.It’s also where shows like Gilmore Girls and 30 Rock got their quick-witted reputations.
"30 Rock's fast-talking style comes from the fact that our show needs to be two and a half minutes longer than it is,” said creator/writer Tina Fey. “I'm trying to fit five pounds' worth of ideas into a two-pound bag."
Timing issues aren’t a new problem for the television industry, but oddly enough, the concern used to be filling up the time.
Actors Bob Denver and Dawn Wells were such fast talkers that episodes of Gilligan’s Island frequently came up too short. Likewise, editors on The Monkees sometimes made such tight cuts to the episodes that the boys had to film spontaneous interviews at the end to fill up the extra time. Ever watch The Andy Griffith Show? Man, they talked slooooow down in Mayberry, didn’t they? Their scripts were deliberately written shorter so that the slow-talking, Southern-drawled actors could pause and speak at their natural pace.
“When we did shows that had (musical) entertainment in it… it also made it a lot easier on the writer,” said Carl Reiner, creator/writer of The Dick Van Dyke Show. “We used to have to write 27 minutes of show, and when you had three or four musical numbers, you only had to write about 16 minutes of show.”
Comedies today run about 21 and a half minutes long. And in all that time, the writers have to introduce the main plot and subplots, make the characters debate, feature some false highs or false lows, throw in a few twists, and arrive at a decent conclusion, sometimes tying a lesson from the subplot in with the main plot. Oh yeah, and it all has to be funny. With that kind of a time crunch, it’s no surprise theme songs are getting nixed to make room for more story.
With this knowledge in mind, I’m kind of astounded by any modern show that still does a traditional theme song, the kind that’s lengthy enough to credit the cast. Most series today have brief segments featuring only the title and the creators’ names, but there are still a few, like 30 Rockand The Office, thatmanage to fit all the actors’ names in too. Kind of gives me a new appreciation for these shows, like they’re upholding the integrity of the theme song, carrying on the tradition and all that jazz.
Remember the old days when sitcom intros explained the premise to you? Such as, “Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale / A tale of a fateful trip / That started on this tropic port / Aboard this tiny ship.” It explained the whole show to you. The song not only sums up why these random people are on a desert island together, it also goes on to name every character as it credits the actors, so the audience gets a formal introduction to each castaway (well, except for the first season, when the Professor and Mary Ann were merely "the rest").
Or how about, “Come and listen to my story ‘bout a man named Jed / A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed / And then one day he was shooting at some food / And up through the ground come a bubblin’ crude”? So right away, on the audience’s first viewing, they understand why hicks like the Clampetts are living in a mansion in Beverly Hills, clearly out of their element. (Here's a link.)
I guess theme songs used to be more important then than they are now. From the beginning of television until the end of the sixties, the theme song dial had two settings—instrumental and “tell the story.”
Probably one of the most famous “tell the story” TV openings was on The Brady Bunch. “Here’s the story / Of a lovely lady / Who was bringing up three very lovely girls…” The fact that the Bradys were a mixed family was never spoken of after episode one, but viewers always had the theme song to remind them.
And who doesn’t love the beginning of Green Acres, another classic “tell the story”theme? Duh-dut-duh dah dah, the chores! Duh-dut-duh dah dah, the stores!
But these days, sitcoms don’t require the extra storytelling element that song lyrics and clips from the show provide. Traditional theme songs have mostly been kicked to the curb because time is limited.
The first time it really hit me that opening credits were getting shorter, I was watching a short-lived ABC sitcom called Odd Man Out, starring Erik von Detten. The intro showed von Detten standing by himself and suddenly being encircled by the show’s female characters (‘cause he’s the “odd man out,” you see). From start to finish, the thing was fifteen seconds long. And there wasn’t anyone singing words; it was a guy going “Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.” I thought, “My goodness, that was the crappiest theme song I’ve ever seen!” It was 1999 – the beginning of the end.
Maybe I’ve just always had an unnatural affection for theme songs. I'm almost ashamed to say it, but there was a time when if I had missed the first minute of Who’s the Boss?, I wouldn’t even bother watching the episode. “Brand New Life,” paired with those cute clips of Tony Danza and Judith Light, was my favorite part of the show. (I've realized since that the actual episodes are way cuter than the theme song.)
But intros are more than just music and clips. Today’s sitcoms, with their short, lyric-less themes, are missing out on a chance to make history. What TV fan will ever forget the classic image of Mary Tyler Moore tossing her tam in a Minneapolis intersection? And who doesn't recognize the hook from the theme song to Friends? Are any of today's theme songs long enough to be memorable?
Okay. I admit. How I Met Your Mother’s theme song is insanely catchy. And it’s only 12 seconds long.
So maybe I’m overreacting.
Maybe.
I guess I can't blame sitcoms for ditching the theme song motif. They need all the time they can get. Still, I miss the little tykes. The scenes made me smile, and I’d rather have joy than more advertisements any day! But you can’t fight progress. So, as we say goodbye to the theme song era, let us take a moment to bow our heads and listen to one of my favorites—Welcome Back, Kotter. An ironic farewell indeed…
It’s almost September, and you know what that means. Fall premieres are just around the corner. The trailers are out. The press releases are in. The anticipation is mounting!
This year’s new comedies tackle such issues as being young and broke (2 Broke Girls), raising kids (Up All Night, I Hate My Teenage Daughter), falling for your co-worker (Free Agents), and acclimating to an eccentric roommate (Apartment 23, New Girl). But there’s also a deeper, more philosophical theme floating around TV land this season, serving as a premise for three new series. The question is, “What does it mean to be a man?”
Last Man Standing, Tuesdays on ABC
Tim Allen returns to ABC Oct. 11 in Last Man Standing, playing a married father of three daughters, with a tagline that reads, “He’s a man’s man, but lately he’s realizing he’s not in a man’s world anymore.” Can you imagine Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor raising girls? Can you picture how utterly clueless he would be? And how insensitive he would come off to them? Yeah, that’s Last Man Standing in a nutshell.
Some of the humor comes out of basic gender differences, poking fun at the stereotypical ways men and women can seem ridiculous to each other (men don’t listen, women cry a lot). But judging by the advertisements, the show is mostly about Tim Allen’s “fight to stay manly” while parenting three emotional females.
How to be a Gentleman, premiering Sept. 29on CBS, has a similar tagline: “Bert's a man's man. Andrew's a gentleman. This fall they will teach each other a little bit about becoming a better man.” The two main characters here represent two extremes on the spectrum. Bert’s a rude, dumb, sloppy horndog who lifts weights and acts macho. Andrew’s a skinny, intelligent, prim-and-proper “nice guy” who writes a column on being gentlemanly.
How to be a Gentleman, Thursdays on CBS
Despite what the tagline says, the trailers indicate that it is mainly Bert who is teaching Andrew how to be a man rather than both characters teaching each other. And that’s rather unfortunate because Andrew has many admirable qualities while Bert has virtually none. Dave Foley, who plays Andrew’s boss on the show, commented, “Bert becomes a great, sort of, alter ego to Andrew in helping him basically learn how to be more of an ass.”
That is a scary quote. On a show addressing the topic of what makes a man manly, why is the nice guy derided and the jackass glorified? Maybe the series will live up to its tagline and Andrew will teach Bert a thing or two about respecting women… and being less ass-like.
ABC’s Man Up!, coming Oct. 18, advertises this slogan: “Will, Craig, and Kenny—three best friends who have completely forgotten what it means to be a man.” These are three sensitive, childish guys who feel a bit emasculated in their suburban lifestyles. They recall how their forefathers fought in wars, and they ask themselves what tough things they have done in their lifetimes.
Man Up!, Tuesdays on ABC
“They’re constantly like, ‘Man, we should be more like our fathers and take charge,’” said Dan Fogler, who plays the divorced Kenny. “And every time they take charge, they just mess up. That’s the fun of it.”
So unlike How to be a Gentleman, where the characters are, in theory, learning to be better men, in this show our main guys fail at redeeming their masculinity. The comedy depends on it.
What are we to conclude? Clearly the definition of manhood is on a lot of people’s minds lately, or else it wouldn’t be the basis for so many shows. But for the male viewer questioning the issue, are these shows going to give him any answers? Will the protagonists’ failures be comic relief or a frustrating blow to the ego?
As a woman, I don’t think I can answer that question. And we can’t know how these shows will actually pan out until they air. What I do know is that with active viewing, television can give us new questions to ponder and new ways of considering ideas. So at the very least, my hope is that these series will prompt discussions as they cause their viewers to see the issue from new angles.
What do you think? Is masculinity in jeopardy in real life or just in entertainment? Are nice guys doomed to finish last?
