I say! Fine language for a gentleman!
Sitcoms that ended on a high Page 7
Quote: gashparty @ November 26 2008, 2:00 PM GMTI prefer Frasier, but is that because it is not a high profile never ending repeat?
Depends on which channel(s) you watch.
Frasier may have ended on a high, but there was a real dip in quality for around two or three seasons. Although in the minority, I always thought Cheers was consistently better, and ended on a high.
Quote: Aaron @ November 26 2008, 3:14 PM GMTDepends on which channel(s) you watch.
anyone there?
Quote: gashparty @ November 26 2008, 3:58 PM GMT
Is there any chance you might be able to use correct English?
Or make sense?
Quote: Seefacts @ November 26 2008, 9:45 AM GMTWhy, because it unashamedly had lots of jokes?
Sorry but I just couldn't stand "the feel" of Friends. (Play with that asyou wish!)
Loads of jokes - yes - but I hated the self-satisfied smugness - and I still love Jack Dee.
I'm not worried about it being cool. I always hated it from the first time I saw it.
Quote: gashparty @ November 26 2008, 2:25 PM GMTRowan Atkinson is such a c"£$%^&*()g w""£$%^&*(d .
I can only think of one 'c' word, and I could swear it's no where near that long.
Quote: Seefacts @ November 26 2008, 9:45 AM GMTWhich had better jokes Friends or Fawlty? You know what, the answer is Friends. The fact is behind the smaltzy stuff and mawkish sentimentality it's one of the sharpest sitcoms ever written.
No. Going to have to disagree with you there. More people have probably laughed at Friends than Fawlty Towers, in the same way more people have laughed at their older brother burping at the dinner table when they were five years old than at a brilliant witty observation that went over their head at a work function.
"...one of the sharpest sitcoms ever written"?
That couldn't be further from the truth. On a scale of 1 to Blackadder it's lucky to be a 2. The show at best could be described as ‘amusing'. It's about as "sharp" as a rubber ball.
Quote: Seefacts @ November 26 2008, 9:45 AM GMT10 years and hundreds of classic jokes and moments. It's impact on US sitcom was unrivalled, and whilst it's not a cool show now, time will show it to be one the greatest sitcoms of all time.
Mad Cow disease had a lot of impact too, but I wouldn't put it up there as one of the best moments in barbequing history.
Well as long as they keep cancelling shows like Futurama and Arrested Development the lack of competition may just allow it to be remembered as "…one the greatest sitcoms of all time."
Quote: Seefacts @ November 26 2008, 9:45 AM GMTArrested got cancelled because it wasn't a big enough hit. And joke for joke it wasn't as good as Friends. Not many US sitcoms have been, barring Simpsons, Seinfeld and when it was good Frasier.
Joke for Joke? It was superior to Friends in every conceivable level. Just because it doesn't have a laugh track to tell the less observant viewers when a joke just happened doesn't make it less funny. It's lack of popularity was due to tha large contingency of trailer park trash over there that didn't support it because they didn't get it. The same reason Bladerunner had to be given a happy ending and narration added, the same reason Rambo survived the first film, the same reason Brazil had a stupid happy ending that made no sense in many places, the same reason I am Legend got the ending that completely missed the point, etc.
I think David Cross covers it here: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeFV5GprfaQ[/url]
It was not less popular because it was an inferior product. To quote Niles Crane [Frasier] "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity."
Quote: Sir Geoffrey Loftus @ November 27 2008, 12:12 AM GMTNo. Going to have to disagree with you there. More people have probably laughed at Friends than Fawlty Towers, in the same way more people have laughed at their older brother burping at the dinner table when they were five years old than at a brilliant witty observation that went over their head at a work function.
"...one of the sharpest sitcoms ever written"?
That couldn't be further from the truth. On a scale of 1 to Blackadder it's lucky to be a 2. The show at best could be described as ‘amusing'. It's about as "sharp" as a rubber ball.
Mad Cow disease had a lot of impact too, but I wouldn't put it up there as one of the best moments in barbequing history.
Well as long as they keep cancelling shows like Futurama and Arrested Development the lack of competition may just allow it to be remembered as "…one the greatest sitcoms of all time."
Joke for Joke? It was superior to Friends in every conceivable level. Just because it doesn't have a laugh track to tell the less observant viewers when a joke just happened doesn't make it less funny. It's lack of popularity was due to tha large contingency of trailer park trash over there that didn't support it because they didn't get it. The same reason Bladerunner had to be given a happy ending and narration added, the same reason Rambo survived the first film, the same reason Brazil had a stupid happy ending that made no sense in many places, the same reason I am Legend got the ending that completely missed the point, etc.
Is that the same 76 million strong US audience that watched the final Seinfeld - a show a million miles away from what you describe?
Friends essentially ran at the same time as Simpsons, Fraiser and Seinfeld - three of the best sitcoms ever. And it arguably came out on top. That's the hallmark of quality.
If the US audience are so stupid how can a show like Curb be so huge? Or the US Office?
Quote: Seefacts @ November 27 2008, 12:18 AM GMTIs that the same 76 million strong US audience that watched the final Seinfeld - a show a million miles away from what you describe?
Friends essentially ran at the same time as Simpsons, Fraiser and Seinfeld - three of the best sitcoms ever. And it arguably came out on top. That's the hallmark of quality.
If the US audience are so stupid how can a show like Curb be so huge? Or the US Office?
I think you've completely missed my point.
Just... nevermind.
Quote: chipolata @ November 26 2008, 3:25 PM GMTFrasier may have ended on a high, but there was a real dip in quality for around two or three seasons. Although in the minority, I always thought Cheers was consistently better, and ended on a high.
I've finally found someone that agrees with me. Cheers was a rare show that ended up much funnier than it was when it began and was consistently good through its entire run. Frasier was great for its first 5 series, awful in its 6th series, had a partial return to form in its 7th series, was average in it's 8th, 9th & 10th series and returned to its former glory in its final series.
Quote: Sir Geoffrey Loftus @ November 27 2008, 12:12 AM GMTMore people have probably laughed at Friends than Fawlty Towers, in the same way more people have laughed at their older brother burping at the dinner table when they were five years old than at a brilliant witty observation that went over their head at a work function.
And here YOU have missed the point. To a 5 year old a burping sibling is hugely funny and so the elder brother has succeeded in his comedic output. If a witty observation goes over the head of it's recipients then it is far from brilliant.
In your analogy the elder brother is a comedy genius and the younger brother entertained. They win.
When I watch Friends I do so to laugh, when I eat a Big Mac I do so for yummy food and when I listen to the Spice Girls I want to tap my feet. All three work, and do so for millions of people. They achieve what they set out to do better than the competition. To suggest they are less, in any sense, than the alternatives is to miss THEIR point which is to achieve wide appeal.
While wide acceptance can indicate mediocrity wide appeal does not. Millions of people may put up with Friends if it just plods an inoffensive middle ground but when they embrace it they way they did (and do) dismissing this as anything other than a comedy bulls eye is just snobbery for the sake of it.
Quote: Sir Geoffrey Loftus @ November 27 2008, 12:12 AM GMTJust because it doesn't have a laugh track to tell the less observant viewers when a joke just happened doesn't make it less funny.
Less funny makes it less funny. A sitcom is a complete product when we see it on screen. The actors, the wardrobe, the set...the audience, all make it what it is. If the laughter from the audience enhances the show for any reason then that is a good call by the people behind the product. Yo cant pick and choose which bits of your show you want to put forward as great and then attack elements in the shows you dont like. Friends laugh track was fine, it was a studio show and felt like it. Watching it without a laugh track would be like watching a stand up show with no audience laughter.
If you think sticking laughs on poor jokes makes retards giggle enough to turn a show into a global monster then you're naive in the extreme.
Quote: Sir Geoffrey Loftus @ November 27 2008, 12:32 AM GMTI think you've completely missed my point.
Your point is clear...it was more popular but not as "good". Yet you have chosen to measure good using "your opinion" and not viewer numbers, longevity, cultural impact, number of laughs, etc, etc. In other words, you either disregard these measures or dismiss them as overly affected by lesser mortals.
It's like saying Louis Walsh is a better racing driver than Louie Hamilton.....because he parks nicer. Which is fine, but you have to understand that people who look at things like winning races as a measure of success will disagree with you.
Okay, I'm going to have to skim over what needs to be said here, as you'll only take offence to it. (Bearing in mind that I said never mind)
We're talking about shows that ended on a high. This is a reflection of quality writing and execution making a dignified exit, not commercial success and ability to put millions of brain dead sheep on a couch for 30 minutes to ensure that sponsoring commercials are viewed.
If someone tells a joke and someone doesn't get it. The person telling the joke is not unfunny because the other person lacked the intellectual capacity to comprehend the joke.
Ye gads, you even used McDonalds as a benchmark for quality. I would be wasting my time continuing this argument with you, as you've clearly made up your mind that financial success is evidence for reaching the apex of quality no matter how poisonously full of sugar and lacking in nutrition.
You're kidding yourself if you think you can be a massive commercial success off the back of relying on idiots who know no better than to watch. It may fit nicely with your own approach to comedy when you can say "ahh, but the morons just don't GET how funny I am" but, in reality, a comic/comedy that makes millions of people laugh is doing its job.
Your inclusion of issue of nutrition in a discussion on McDonald's just highlights my point - what McDonald's try to do is make people happy by providing a certain type of food.....that's all. They aren't out to make us healthy, just happy....and they do that better than just about anyone. Now, you can say it's just brain dead morons who can't afford or don't know any better but when I like the odd Maccy d's and yet I've eaten at some of the best restaurants in the world.
In the same way Friends is a quality product. It may not have the type of humour you like but the humour it does have it provides on mass to people that find it very funny. I can't think of a single audience sitcom I would rather watch to pass half an hour.....this does not mean I am selecting an inferior quality product - it means I am selecting the best quality product for my needs.
It seems you would rather tell a complexly crafted joke that no one gets than a simple one that everyone laughs at. The first joke may be complex, but with no one laughing its measure of quality will only be high if you ignore the traditional approach to measuring such a thing (i.e. laughs).
The original question was "which shows finished on a high". When a show's last episode is watched by 52 million people you are clutching at straws to say "yes, but it's not very good".
Quote: Seefacts @ November 26 2008, 9:45 AM GMTArrested got cancelled because it wasn't a big enough hit. And joke for joke it wasn't as good as Friends.
Yes to your first point, Arrested did get cancelled because it wasn't a big enough hit. In fact it was barely a hit at all and struggled. But that doesn't mean it's not as good as something that was a bigger hit. Or that the jokes were poorer. Just that it didn't connect with a bigger audience.
I think Friends is underrated, there are some laugh out loud funny episodes and moments. The Show Where Everybody Finds Out was an excellent piece of writing and should have won the Emmy that year. Frasier won for Merry Christmas Mrs Moskowitz and that wasn't very good to me at all. Dial M For Martin and Dr Nora were vastly superior.
Friends is so much better than people give it credit for and it had its fans it had a broader appeal than Frasier, but just because Friends didn't make references to German opera, literature or art doesn't mean that it wasn't clever. In fact the cleverest episode I think that I've seen of a US sitcom was Seinfeld's The Contest, we all knew what it was about but it was never mentioned by name.