I see that Schitt's Creek is winning Emmies, and it is widely praised by ABC types. I have also seen warnings that the first episode is not a good guide to the rest of the series.
I dunno - I have only seen small bits of it and I don't know from what season, but it didn't grab me. It seems, shall we say, a sort of laboured sitcom writing which I don't care for.
Another widely praised show that feels that way to me - Parks and Recreation. I guess it seems good natured, but the dialogue and characters just a bit too forced.
I have also re-watched a couple of Seinfeld episodes recently. It really did become bad in its lack of connection to reality in the last season or two, and the laugh track seems extremely excessive by current standards.
And OMG, Friends has started on Netflix and is up the top of the popular list already. Seriously? I always maintained it was a vastly over-rated show held up by basically likeable actors but so-so writing. There were some occasional bits I liked enough to watch it semi-regularly, but I really am puzzled by how it has maintained its popularity.
I am sounding like a grump who is generally down on all popular sitcoms: but I have given lots of praise to recent shows like Brooklyn Nine Nine and The Good Place, and I went through a list of older shows in a post in 2005. (Gosh, I have been blogging for a long time.) I just find it interesting trying to work out why I don't like some comedy sitcom writing, and what does work for me.
Update: Oh! I am not alone on Schitt's Creek failure to impress after all. A "lefty" Australian cartoonist has given it her best shot, and still doesn't care for it:
3 comments:
Schitt's Creek winning Emmies demonstrate how much sitcoms have declined. It took me a while but I eventually very much enjoyed The Good Place. Most sitcoms are tedious and even the better ones typically become routine after 2 seasons.
I think it's pretty much a given, John, that sitcoms heavily featuring gay characters will always be praised way out of proportion to their actual quality. It's a bit like how you would always have to discount the review of any Australian film on the old Movie Show - subtract 30 to 50% of the star rating just for being Australian would get you somewhere closer to the mark.
It's annoying in a way that I always have to check whether it's an unfair bias on my part that is causing me to discount a sitcom with a heavy gay element. And it's true, when I think about it, that gay comedians or gay roles that I don't mind tend to not be very gay acting in their persona - think Stephen Fry and Graham Norton, perhaps. Or the character Klaus on Umbrella Academy (who I am surprised to see is played by an Irish actor, but it seems he may be of somewhat ambiguous sexuality in real life).
But even then, a gay person like Ellen DeGeneres did not present as particularly gay acting in her sitcom, which was pretty woeful, especially when it became all about her coming out.
Anyway, I guess I shouldn't need to offer excuses for not usually finding comedy based on gays acting very stereotypically gay to be very good. But in the current social circumstance, it feels like I have to!
I think it's pretty much a given, John, that sitcoms heavily featuring gay characters will always be praised way out of proportion to their actual quality
The SBS is screening Difficult People. I read a review which raved about the program so watched it. It has Gay characters(don't know if the actors are gay) openly talking about getting head jobs here, there and everywhere, about sex on the go, and the plot structure doesn't make sense. It isn't funny but as you stated it gets rave reviews.
Post a Comment