10-04-2014, 10:13 PM
Couple of stray thoughts:
1. What is people's evidence/justification/explanation for the assertion that this show would've been cancelled after S2 or S3 if A and B weren't added and changes weren't made? I'm guessing "diddly squat", because that's the Canons' usual level of skill at debating/persuading...but maybe another HQer has some insight into this.
2. Why do they assume that this would be a bad thing? If someone told me "this show would've ended after two or three years if it didn't change", my answer would be a resounding "GOOD." This idea that a sitcom should run for 10 years seems to have become a deeply, deeply ingrained cultural belief, in America, whereas in many other countries, TV series often last for just two or three seasons, no?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of *any* long-running sitcoms that added new *major* characters unless there were special circumstances, like another castmember left, was fired, or died, and therefore needed to be replaced. Something like "The Office" doesn't count, because that was truly an ensemble show which had a large cast from the start. Jim and Pam were usually the POV characters, supported by a rotating group of secondary characters.
I know I've said this in several other posts, but I strongly believe that we'd have higher-quality television and more enjoyable things to watch if this concept of the long-running traditional sitcom would die. People don't question this idea that a sitcom should just keep running and running indefinitely. Apparently it's become so commonplace that they just accept it, uncritically.
Three seasons would be 60-70 episodes, no? Is that really not enough for some people? That's a hell of a lot of episodes, from where I'm standing. Do people really think that a show ended prematurely if it doesn't make it to 8, 10, 12 seasons?
This idea that a sitcom should last for ten years needs to be broken. Again, the general viewing public is not smart enough to even realize there might be other formats, other ways of doing things. I would like to see more "mini-series" of maybe 15-20 episodes and then done.
I will choose quality over quantity every single time. If you really examine it closely, a typical Canon statement like "Shows need to change or die" is very self-contradicting. That's some type of logical fallacy, although I'm blanking on what exactly to call it. It's one of those Yogi Berra-type statements that doesn't make sense. If a particular concept has been exhausted, if there's nothing left to say about that particular situation and those particular characters, then surely that means the show in question has reached its natural ending-point. If the story is over, if a show has explored all the territory and all the plots that it can explore, then continuing it beyond that point is like putting a dead thing on life-support.
Of course, I *don't* believe that TBBT had exhausted all possible plots and all possible situations with the original 5, at all. That's part of the reason why HQers are so frustrated, right? Because so many great and funny stories COULD HAVE been told, but instead we received romcom.
If you have to change pretty much everything about a show: cast, premise, tone, structure, format, then surely on some level it ceases to be the same show. Now they've even changed the setting, to some extent, because some of the characters no longer live where they used to live, or work where they used to work.
"Shows must change or die" and "Characters must grow and mature" are like pieces of religious dogma. They're not any type of logical argument, because you can't produce *any* evidence or examples or adequate explanations, to back it up. "This is true because everyone says so, and everyone says so because it's true." It's just a widely-accepted and deeply ingrained cultural value, not a fact.
This is Internet debating at its worst and lowest level: "this is true because I say so."
I dunno, I'm sleepy right now and I'm not explaining myself very well, but something about "This show would've died if it didn't change" reminds me of "When did you *stop* beating your wife?" It's that same type of circular reasoning. The reality is not "the show continued *because* changes were made", it's "changes were made *and* the show continued."
How can you KNOW the show would've ended? You'll never, never know. There is absolutely no way of knowing, because it *didn't* end. And it continued for the sake of $$$, not because TPTB had some kind of master plan or grand artistic vision, or because they're hopeless romantics who want to see everyone paired-up. Really, the Canons give way, waaaay too much credit to TPTB, if they think the show's continued existence has anything to do with character-based, plot-based, story-based reasons, like "Oh, we love these characters and we don't want to say goodbye."
No, it's filthy lucre, bitches!
I'm unhappy because of the destruction of these beloved characters, not because I didn't get X number of seasons. I'd jump for joy if all copies of S3 or 4 onward were somehow destroyed by Nostalgic Terrorist Guerrillas.
TL;DR: why do people believe that a sitcom needs to run, and run, and run, for as long as it possibly can? When did this become standard practice? And why do people get away with statements like "This show would've been cancelled if didn't change", when there is no possible way of proving that?
ETA: some nitwit on IMDB is telling Nostalgics to "curl up in the fetal position in your Mom's basement and watch S2 on continuous loop." But, he/she used the word "feral" instead of "fetal", so I don't think much of their writing skills
ETA again: prior to the 1970s, most TV shows did not have "story arcs", and most episodes were self-contained. There were PLENTY of very successful and very popular long-running sitcoms where *nothing* ever changed and there was little or no attempt at "character development." Fashions come and go in TV, just like fashions come and go with clothes or music. I'm not saying that I want zero character development, ever, or that modern TV shows should be like "Gilligan's Island", but the statement of "A show will be cancelled if it doesn't change" is easily disproved. Hogan's Heroes ran for six years and won Emmys, and that's a show where every episode is literally the same.
Also, as we've all noticed, the phrase "character development" is not being used correctly, now. It's being used to mean "radical changes made arbitrarily, in a very short time-span." I'm not opposed to *all* character development, but my idea of what that concept actually entails, bears no resemblance to the definition used by the Canons.
1. What is people's evidence/justification/explanation for the assertion that this show would've been cancelled after S2 or S3 if A and B weren't added and changes weren't made? I'm guessing "diddly squat", because that's the Canons' usual level of skill at debating/persuading...but maybe another HQer has some insight into this.
2. Why do they assume that this would be a bad thing? If someone told me "this show would've ended after two or three years if it didn't change", my answer would be a resounding "GOOD." This idea that a sitcom should run for 10 years seems to have become a deeply, deeply ingrained cultural belief, in America, whereas in many other countries, TV series often last for just two or three seasons, no?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of *any* long-running sitcoms that added new *major* characters unless there were special circumstances, like another castmember left, was fired, or died, and therefore needed to be replaced. Something like "The Office" doesn't count, because that was truly an ensemble show which had a large cast from the start. Jim and Pam were usually the POV characters, supported by a rotating group of secondary characters.
I know I've said this in several other posts, but I strongly believe that we'd have higher-quality television and more enjoyable things to watch if this concept of the long-running traditional sitcom would die. People don't question this idea that a sitcom should just keep running and running indefinitely. Apparently it's become so commonplace that they just accept it, uncritically.
Three seasons would be 60-70 episodes, no? Is that really not enough for some people? That's a hell of a lot of episodes, from where I'm standing. Do people really think that a show ended prematurely if it doesn't make it to 8, 10, 12 seasons?
This idea that a sitcom should last for ten years needs to be broken. Again, the general viewing public is not smart enough to even realize there might be other formats, other ways of doing things. I would like to see more "mini-series" of maybe 15-20 episodes and then done.
I will choose quality over quantity every single time. If you really examine it closely, a typical Canon statement like "Shows need to change or die" is very self-contradicting. That's some type of logical fallacy, although I'm blanking on what exactly to call it. It's one of those Yogi Berra-type statements that doesn't make sense. If a particular concept has been exhausted, if there's nothing left to say about that particular situation and those particular characters, then surely that means the show in question has reached its natural ending-point. If the story is over, if a show has explored all the territory and all the plots that it can explore, then continuing it beyond that point is like putting a dead thing on life-support.
Of course, I *don't* believe that TBBT had exhausted all possible plots and all possible situations with the original 5, at all. That's part of the reason why HQers are so frustrated, right? Because so many great and funny stories COULD HAVE been told, but instead we received romcom.
If you have to change pretty much everything about a show: cast, premise, tone, structure, format, then surely on some level it ceases to be the same show. Now they've even changed the setting, to some extent, because some of the characters no longer live where they used to live, or work where they used to work.
"Shows must change or die" and "Characters must grow and mature" are like pieces of religious dogma. They're not any type of logical argument, because you can't produce *any* evidence or examples or adequate explanations, to back it up. "This is true because everyone says so, and everyone says so because it's true." It's just a widely-accepted and deeply ingrained cultural value, not a fact.
This is Internet debating at its worst and lowest level: "this is true because I say so."
I dunno, I'm sleepy right now and I'm not explaining myself very well, but something about "This show would've died if it didn't change" reminds me of "When did you *stop* beating your wife?" It's that same type of circular reasoning. The reality is not "the show continued *because* changes were made", it's "changes were made *and* the show continued."
How can you KNOW the show would've ended? You'll never, never know. There is absolutely no way of knowing, because it *didn't* end. And it continued for the sake of $$$, not because TPTB had some kind of master plan or grand artistic vision, or because they're hopeless romantics who want to see everyone paired-up. Really, the Canons give way, waaaay too much credit to TPTB, if they think the show's continued existence has anything to do with character-based, plot-based, story-based reasons, like "Oh, we love these characters and we don't want to say goodbye."
No, it's filthy lucre, bitches!
I'm unhappy because of the destruction of these beloved characters, not because I didn't get X number of seasons. I'd jump for joy if all copies of S3 or 4 onward were somehow destroyed by Nostalgic Terrorist Guerrillas.
TL;DR: why do people believe that a sitcom needs to run, and run, and run, for as long as it possibly can? When did this become standard practice? And why do people get away with statements like "This show would've been cancelled if didn't change", when there is no possible way of proving that?
ETA: some nitwit on IMDB is telling Nostalgics to "curl up in the fetal position in your Mom's basement and watch S2 on continuous loop." But, he/she used the word "feral" instead of "fetal", so I don't think much of their writing skills
ETA again: prior to the 1970s, most TV shows did not have "story arcs", and most episodes were self-contained. There were PLENTY of very successful and very popular long-running sitcoms where *nothing* ever changed and there was little or no attempt at "character development." Fashions come and go in TV, just like fashions come and go with clothes or music. I'm not saying that I want zero character development, ever, or that modern TV shows should be like "Gilligan's Island", but the statement of "A show will be cancelled if it doesn't change" is easily disproved. Hogan's Heroes ran for six years and won Emmys, and that's a show where every episode is literally the same.
Also, as we've all noticed, the phrase "character development" is not being used correctly, now. It's being used to mean "radical changes made arbitrarily, in a very short time-span." I'm not opposed to *all* character development, but my idea of what that concept actually entails, bears no resemblance to the definition used by the Canons.