|
Children BAD for the quality & longevity of sitcoms
(click on the names to see responses)
26 May 2006 01:41:13 -0700
rec.arts.tv
previous
The Space Boss...
|
Look at all the sitcoms that revolve around children: they're good for
a few years till the kids start growing up, and then the show hits a
slippery slope, never recovers it's footing and is cancelled yet not
before slipping into horrid mediocrity at best...
Some of the greatest, most enduring sitcoms featured NO children!!!
Three's Company
Laverne & Shirley
Honymooners
Walter Traprock...
|
The "Lost Honeymooners" had a "very special episode" where they try
and fail to adopt a boy who turns out to be a girl.
The Space Boss...
|
Bringing a kid into the world of Ralph, Ed, Alice and Trixie would have
been an ABOMINATION!!!!
et472...
|
Of course, they basically did do that, but the show was titled "The
Flintstones".
The Space Boss...
|
Except on the Flintstones, Fred never raises a hand to his wife and
threatens to hit her.
It used to seem so innocent, now I cringe every time I see this on the
Honeymooners... these days, they would undoubtedly call Ralph Kramden's
behavior ABUSIVE.
|
|
Uniblab...
|
Try catching one of the later color musical episodes - I don't know how a
kid could have made *those* episodes any worse!
The Space Boss...
|
Is this part of the "original classic 39"????
Uniblab...
|
No, but your original posting said nothing about "the classic 39". It just
mentioned "the world of Ralph, Ed, Alice, and Trixie", which goes far beyond
the episodes filmed between 1955 and 1956 - more "Honeymooners" material was
produced outside that period than within it.
The Space Boss...
|
I didn't know this. I only saw one boxset at the store and I assumed
this contained all the episodes. It says it contains "all 39 episodes
ever filmed", and that there were "only 39 full lenght episodes ever
filmed"?>
John Gilmer...
|
The show was just one feature of a variety show. Gleason also played a
bar tender and did some stand up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friends
John Gilmer...
|
Young adults become old adults and don't "work" much better than "kids"
becoming adults. (Also applies the 3's Company and even Laverne & )
|
Seinfeld
John Gilmer...
|
Would not have "worked" with the characters pushing 40.
|
Taxi
Cheers
John Gilmer...
|
Show was popular while on the air but the episodes lack depth and the
Uniblab...
|
"The Honeymooners" was a segment on Gleason's variety series which was done
live in the 50s. For one season, he decided to give up the variety show, and
just did half-hour filmed "Honeymooners" episodes. But those episodes were
less successful in the ratings than his variety show, so he started doing
the variety show again, which once again included "Honeymooners" segments.
Those segments from the variety show were preserved on kinescope, rather
than film (which is why the boxset of the 39 says "the only episodes ever
filmed"). In the 1980s, Gleason edited the kinescoped segments into
30-minute episodes, and added them to the syndication package. In addition,
Gleason did "Honeymooners" skits on his variety series in the 60s, and those
are being rerun as well.
|
re-runs aren't much fun.
|
Golden Girls
John Gilmer...
|
The Golden Girls came close to the opposite problem: the players getting
old and dieing..
|
Fraiser
John Gilmer...
|
Well, Fraiser had a kid (Fredrick?) and a dog and an old man. Even if the
writers could have worked on better scripts there would have been some cast
changes.
Barry Margolin...
|
The kid was a guest once or twice a season, hardly relevant.
|
I just don't enjoy watching the Fraiser re-runs much. I was a bad fan of
the show when they were making new episodes but I have no desire to re-watch
anything.
Malcolm in the Middle and The 70s show could have survived the kids growing
up. I guess the producers decided that another year or two of shows would
not have increased the value of the package of re-runs.
Continuing OT semi-rant: Several of the shows mentioned above were mostly
interesting because we got curious about how the characters would evolve.
I have seen some episodes of Steinfeld and Melcolm (and The Simpsons)
several times and enjoy watching them again. In the case of most shows the
only time I find a re-run interesting is when I have forgotten that episode.
|
And the list just goes on and on. The beginning of the end for "I love
Lucy" was when they had Little Ricky. They should have kept Luci and
Desi's life the same (childless for the sake of the show). Same with
"Bewitched". And what of "Mad about you"? Such a wonderful show, and
yet as soon as they had a kid it came to a crashing end... and let's
not forget the WORST example of all: the abomination that was the
introduction of "Mirth" to the "Mork and Mindy" show.
allenkirshner...
|
feature young children tend to slip during their latter years, when the
children grow up and aren't the cute munchkins they started out as
being. I also agree that introducing a baby, or new child of some
kind, to a show is usually a plot device that prolongs the series but
doesn't necessarily improve its enjoyability.
However, there have also been many enduring family sitcoms that are fun
to watch for years on end while the children are growing up and still
fun to watch, in reruns, years later. Arguably the most successful
(ratings-wise) comedies of both the 1980s -- the Cosby show -- and the
1990s -- Home Improvement -- were broad, family-oriented sitcoms. Both
still survive in repeat syndication today years after signing off. The
family sitcom has been a staple on TV schedules since the days of Ozzie
& Harriet and today's TV schedule could do with another blockbuster
family hit to counter the onslaught of heavy-handed dramas and endless
reality shows.
|
trike...
|
For every example you cite there is a counter-example. In fact, many
of the biggest sitcom hits and/or longest-running shows featured kids
prominently. Leave it to Beaver, The Cosby Show, Home Improvement,
Roseanne, Family Ties, Family Matters, Family Affair, Growing Pains,
Full House, The Brady Bunch, Boy meets World, Step by Step, The Facts
of Life, etc.
It depends on how the show is structured as to whether it can absorb
the addition of a kid or not. Friends and Frasier dealt with the kids
thing by not dealing with the kids as major characters. Ben on Friends
lived with his mom, as did Frasier's Frederick, and Emma was the
lowest-maintenance baby of all time. My Name is Earl takes a similar
tack with the kids -- they're there, but not predominant. Scrubs
should be able to handle Turk and Carla's baby without a misstep.
One of my friends had the same reaction as yours to the addition of the
daughter on Mad About You, but I thought it was a natural progression
for the characters and it gave the show one of its best episodes. (The
"sitting outside the nursery" one, which was like a stage play in its
purity. Paul and Jamie sitting outside the baby's room for the entire
episode.)
The Space Boss...
|
Why was it such a natural progression?? People don't always have
timeOday...
|
Because the average person has at least 2 children. Otherwise there
would be no people.
|
children in real life. If they were happy the way they were, just the
two of them, they shouldn't have messed with it.
...just as in real life...
Barry Margolin...
|
They don't always have children, but married people usually do. I'm
just guessing, but I'll estimate that at most 10% of couples in
successful marriages intentionally avoid having children. So if this
was anything like a typical marriage, it would be normal for them to
have children.
trike...
|
My wife and I are intentionally not having kids, and if they were
making a sitcom about us it would make sense that our characters would
be childless. But it always seemed to me that Paul and Jamie were
moving in that direction. After all, what was the dog but a
child-substitute? Admittedly the final episode was a surprise in
content, but casting Janeane Garofalo as the grown-up daughter in the
future was spot-on.
|
|
|
So, no, I don't think your premise of "Children BAD for the quality &
longevity of sitcoms" is valid. Sorry.
|
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
Little Ricky came along really early in the show. And stayed in his room
for most of it.
Uniblab...
|
Seriously. He was born in the middle of the second season, for gosh sakes!
OK - maybe the author meant that the end was near when they brought in a
slightly older actor to start saying lines for the final season, but he
still didn't have much to do, and the show had some great episodes that
year.
The Space Boss...
|
This is actually what I meant.. I guess my point could be that children
are OK as long as they aren't the FOCAL POINT of the show. An example
of this would be "YES DEAR". It's a great show because the kids are
generally "props". They're just "there", don't say much, and most of
the show revolves around the Adults. Once the kids start talking and
having scenes, this show is OVER!
theresa...
|
How about Father Knows Best or Leave It To Beaver? They weren't
sit-coms, per se, and didn't have that slap-happy air to them.
Maybe that is the difference...
|
|
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
Watching any random I Love Lucy episode now, unless it's one right around
when she gave birth, I'd have no idea if she had a kid or not. In fact it's
often startling if then mention him.
|
|
Bewitched would have been a very different show without Tabitha. I think
she worked; she provided a reason for Sam and Darren to stay together. What
ruined Bewitched was the change in Darrens.
Mork and MIndy was failing fast; Jonathan Winters was a breath of fresh air.
What ruined M&M was them getting married; same notation for I Dream of
Uniblab...
|
I thought what ruined the show was the change in production team at the
beginning of the color episodes, after Elizabeth Montgomery's husband took
over the show. Gone was the romantic comedy from the first two seasons;
instead, it was all gimmicky witchcraft/witch rules/wacky relatives all time
time.
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
Very few shows that existed in both B&W and color didn't go dramatically
downhill when they made the switch to color. I agree Bewitched's B&W eps
are better than their color, but I contend that the color Dick York are
better than the color 'Darren's out of town' episodes, and the 'Darren's out
of town' episodes are better than the 'faux Darren' shows.
I didn't realize Asher wasn't always in charge.
|
|
Jeannie.
Uniblab...
|
The marriage on IDOJ, I thought, didn't ruin it - it happened at just the
right time, during the middle of the last season. It was obvious that the
show was on its last legs even without the marriage, so why not give the
Uniblab...
Uniblab...
|
He was merely a production consultant during the first two seasons. Danny
Arnold (later, the creator of "Barney Miller") was the original producer.
But once Asher took over in the third season, he got rid of many Arnold
loyalists (some accounts say this is why Irene Vernon, the original Louise
Tate, left as well).
I think IDOJ is one of the very few series that got better with color -
maybe Gilligan, too. I think it's because they were so early in the run when
they converted.
|
viewers what they wanted - the two leads getting together and a glimpse of
their married life afterward.
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
It seemed suddenly indistinguishable from Bewitched. Of course, I thought
the worst part was the surprise makeover on their house. Bleah. I remember
Walter Traprock...
|
That's one of my favorite I Dream Of Jeannie episodes! The one with the
"bleah" weird artwork, machine gun table lamps, gurgling tubes in a mess
of a table of some sort, etc.
|
wondering as a kid why Nelson didn't have Jeannie blink back their old
Uniblab...
|
Yeah, that's the same one. Mrs. Bellows arranged for some avant-garde guy to
redo the house, and it was a ridiculous mess. So Jeannie blinked it into the
redesign that we saw in the later episodes, and pretended that it was the
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
Hmmm. I went over to IMDb. I had *no* idea that there was a SECOND Jeannie
reunion movie, that seems to be totally out of continuity with the first,
and has Cliff Barnes get Jeannie in the end!?!?!?
|
artist's work.
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
Oh, cool, thanks! I haven't seen those since the original airings. :-)
|
|
house, except when they had company.
The Space Boss...
|
AHHHHHHHHHh.. this brings me to another point: although children are
undoubtededly the worst thing for a sitcom, the next worse thing is a
LOCALE CHANGE:
Remember when Laverne and Shirley moved into their new digs in
California..? THINGS WERE NEVER THE SAME...
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
Didn't they also move forward in time? I never really paid much attention
to L&S, but I recall they ended up in CA in the late 60s, 'cause Star Trek
was on.
Uniblab...
|
I don't know if it was because of "Star Trek", but they did move forward a
few years. In 1980, the year they moved, parent series "Happy Days" was
around 1961-62, while "L&S" was in 1965.
|
|
Remember when Lucy and Desi moved into thier house out in the country?
THINGS WERE NEVER THE SAME...
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
I've mostly seen Lucy in reruns in random order. I never knew if the
Connecticut house was something they did one year or a new series or if they
ever went back or what.
|
Remember when the "Facts of Life" girls moved out of thier dorm in
Easton? THINGS WERE NEVER THE SAME...
ANIM8Rfsk...
...and don't get me started on when the "Saved By the Bell" class went
to College!! That was a double whammy!
ANIM8Rfsk...
|
Oh, God, that was awful. At least they wised up and brought Kelly on board,
Uniblab...
|
The last half of the last season took place after they moved from New York
to Connecticut. The one-hour specials they did afterward were also based in
Connecticut. I like the half-hour CT episodes, myself - I thought the show
needed some shaking up at that point, and they still had some excellent
episodes after they moved. They also got a lot of story mileage out of it -
different episodes focused on buying the house, actually moving in, missing
the Mertzes, meeting the neighbors, etc.
|
but then they went and had that horrible tragic series ending . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
