Everybody Really Does Love Raymond

First, I’d like to say that I am a fan of the show even though it was out for a very long time before I ever saw an episode. Now, I watch every chance I get during the week. Ray’s character makes the show as much of it is based off of the comedy of himself, Ray Ramano. It reminds me of the Seinfeld success. Jerry Seinfeld helps writer Larry David create episodes of comedic humor of everyday issues. I think Everybody Loves Raymond is a mixture of the Seinfeld humor and of humor based on individual characters’ talents (his brother Robert, his mom and Dad, his wife and her problems). I think that is what has made it so successful.

What I wanted to comment on was the connect between Everybody Loves Raymond and Paul Rudd. Who is Paul Rudd? If you’ve seen “Knocked Up” he’s the husband Pete. If you seen “The 40 Year Old Virgin” he’s David a salesman at SmarTech. If you seen “Anchorman” he’s Brian Fantana. Paul mentions in both movies of Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin the show Everybody Loves Raymond:

In The 40 Year Old Virgin, Dave gives title-character Andy a big box of porn with many different erotic films. While going through the list of films, they find Everybody Loves Raymond, pressuring Dave into saying that he tapes it sometimes because it is just a good show. In the next scene, Andy chooses to watch Raymond instead of the porn films. (http://www.answers.com/topic/everybody-loves-raymond)

In Knocked Up, Pete tells Ben that “marriage is like an unfunny version of Everybody Loves Raymond, only it doesn’t last 22 minutes. It lasts forever.”  (http://www.answers.com/topic/everybody-loves-raymond)

The connection is the producer of these films Judd Apatow and a writer of Everybody Loves Raymond Jay Kogen. The two know each other well and, along with Apatow’s clear admiration for the show, the title is mentioned in some of Apatow’s movies.

I don’t think I was the only one to pick this up. Well, hopefully the info was useful especially to those who wondered.  (I actually thought it was like some sort of promotion thing for the show, but maybe I was wrong)

A little bit about All in the Family..

I had never seen All in the Family before class last week. Now, it seems like a show that I would really enjoy. I’ve been watching a few episodes at a time on youtube.com. One thing I came across on youtube was a tribute to Archie and Edith as a couple on the show. When the series stopped, a continuation series called Archie Bunker’s place had begun to air. It was held at a bar that Archie purchased and Archie Bunker’s Place was its name. I have included a clip of part of an episode of Archie Bunker’s Place. Archie walks into the bedroom where he and his wife, Edith, had many of their past memories at. Edith was said to have died of a stroke and Archie reflects in the bedroom with great emotion.

Archie and Edith resemble a couple that is on modern day television. That 70’s Show, my favorite sitcom which I’ve referred to plenty of times on my blog, has a set of parents that resemble Archie and Edith in Red and Kitty. Red, the old conservative war vet, runs a authoritative-style household with close watch and control over his son Eric. Kitty is the loose, outgoing housewife who cooks, cleans, and tries to love everyone. These shows are supposedly taking place in the 1970’s, All in the Family being in real time, and That 70’s Show trying to resemble those times.

Just another word on The Simpsons’ success…

Another word on The Simpsons’ success … M-E-H. Meh has been added to the Collins English Dictionary which will be publish in 2009. Meh was used frequently by Lisa Simpson and has been used all over the internet in blogs and message boards, along with other sites. Meh means boredom, lack of enthusiasm, or mediocre. One episode Lisa had to spell it out for Homer, M-E-H and explain its meaning. Now, according to the Collins English Dictionary ‘09 edition, it is an official word.

Source: http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-47318.html

Simpsons Still Looking Forward

The Simpsons, the longest running sitcom, is set to make several more seasons. Can you imagine? I can. It wouldn’t be the same if the Simpsons weren’t continuing their episodes. They have been on TV as long as I have been alive. In fact, they have been on longer, three years longer than I’ve been alive. They are currently on their 23rd season and more seasons are set to come.

The Simpsons cast is set for a probable three season run following this one. The cast is signed on for 3 more years and many of them have already made up their minds to go on with the next one. Remember, just because they are signed for 3 more years, doesn’t mean they MUST do three years. If they vote unanimously, they do not have to continue as long as the producer OK’s it.  But, according to sources at Yahoo.com, at least 90% of the cast and crew have agreed to go at least 1 more and at least 50% chance they take on all 3 remaining years.

What ever they decide on, the Simpsons have put out the single greatest sitcom series that has ever aired. They have already made history, being the longest running sitcom on television. But they were only able to do this because of the demand from their fans, and there are many. The continued success has been building over the years and their margin of viewers always seems to get bigger.

In contribution to our classroom discussion regarding television and its censorship issues, if there are any, the Simpsons can produce a hot topic. Is it fit for its time slot on FOX? Is the humor appropriate? I think it is perfect. Its not too tight and its not too lose. You need to have some of that satirical humor to get an audience. You need to keep people loose, and you need to make them think in regard to the humor that is being produced. There is never going to be a more successful sitcom that can censor its humor more than what is produced on the Simpsons. I just don’t think it could be possible.

In regards to its moral standards, the Simpsons isn’t perfect, but what show is? The Simpsons cannot be compared to South Park, because they don’t require a mature audience and they do not take personal shots nor do they focus on mainstream issues and celebrities. The Simpsons also cannot be compared to Seventh Heaven. The show does not follow any extreme position. Like I said, its loose and satirical, but does not cross lines. It may test boundaries here and there, contributing to its “looseness”, but does not cross.

All of this talk about the Simpsons and its possible controversial stake is really what has made it successful. Plus, by now it seems pretty senseless to try and develop an argument and petition the Simpsons when they have maintained an enormous audience in its 23 years in production-successful production at that, the most of any other sitcom.

Sitcom Failure After Success

Sitcoms nowadays are made up, in many cases, with many characters that share diverse personalities. A combination of all of these personalities make up what people may call a “good show”. That is what success is based on-what people say about the show. We can make cases for several good shows like Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond. Some actors in these shows have made runs themselves for more success whether it would be in a sitcom or a movie.

The character “Joey” in Matt LeBlanc in Friends tried a spin off sitcom show based on his previous character. The show lacked diverse personalities, only containing a little boy and a next door girl neighbor as supporting actors in the opening episode. Joey’s character was the same, but the difference was that now he is the head role, rather than the supporting role he played in Friends. Could Joey make a good lead character? This is what was being tested when the show JOEY came out shortly after Friends had ended. It failed. Joey lasted 2 incomplete seasons and struggled to get sought after air time on networks. It lacked that mixture of people talking at once, formulating real life circumstances in  comedic tones.

Everybody Loves Raymond co-star Brad Garrett, playing Robert who is the younger brother of Ray, stars in a sitcom entitled ’til Death. The show initially did very well attracting more than 7 million viewers in its first season’s average. But its average has gone down gradually, attracting between 3 and 4 million reviews. One of the reasons for this was the writer’s strike that inhibited the show early on. The writer’s strike inhibited many other shows including Rule of Engagement which contains movie star David Spade. The show however has proved to be resilient through the strike and through its gradually ratings downturn. It remains a premier show on FOX in the late evening time slot.

Other shows and characters have not seen similar success. The one-time great comedy show Kenan and Kel on Nickelodeon brought atypical Nickelodeon  viewers to tune in an see the shows. Since the shows end, both characters struggled to find work. Both actors tried the movie scene with few successes. One of those included the movie Good Burger, starring both of them as it was Nickelodeon produced. Kenan did the movie Fat Albert, playing the leading role as well. But in terms of lead roles, neither character has found what they once had. Kenan stars on Saturday Night Live on some minor skits while Kel Mitchell seems to be trying to find his music route to fame.

The best sitcom ever, according to many sitcom polls, Frazier, contained Jane Leeves who played Daphne. The success was shared by all supported actors, but Daphne was a regular star on the show. She has had recent stints starring in episodes and films here and there. But her most recent work, the sitcom of which she was the star, entitled Misconceptions, went unaired. Sources have said that it is unlikely that the WB will ever air the show. Six episodes were completed in 2006, but it did not appear in the WB’s schedule.

So attractive names could get the show some viewers. But the overall chemistry is what seems to matter most in these sitcoms. The show may get viewers from a popular named star and may get loyalty viewers from a previous sitcom in which the new sitcom contains a beloved star from a previous sitcom. That seemed to be the case with Brad Garrett. The sitcom Joey proved to attract viewers from Friends, but many of them stopped tuning in due to the show’s inability to produce episodes like those of Friends. It will be interesting to see how the new sitcom Rita Rocks turns out. Rita Rocks contains MadTV star Nicole Sullivan in what is her biggest role on Tv. A look into the show is included….

Dick Polman’s Comments Regarding McCain’s Demeanor

Marshall McLuhan, who could argue with him? Established communications scholar in our history who seemed to make a lot of sense when his theories were attributed to McCain’s demeanor during the 3 debates. I have to say that I agree when I hear that it wasn’t his policies, but his demeanor that cost him the debate.

But isn’t that who John McCain is? He’s known as a hothead in the senate who stood up to…well those who went against his proposals in the Senate. That is basically what we saw during the debates. McCain obviously got upset and angry during various times of each debate because of the constant bashing of his policies. I think it segued into the overall character that McCain portrayed even when he wasn’t being put on the spot.

“Senator McCain, who do you plan on having as your Secretary of Treasury?”

“Well, not you, Tom.”

This statement came out of left field from McCain that really hadn’t related to any prior comments between the debate host and John McCain. But I think it was a reflection of how McCain was feeling throughout the debate: Frustration, frustration, and more frustration. It inhibited McCain to the point where he could not get his ideas across properly or effectively.

And Barack Obama stared on with a determined look as if he knew exactly what he was doing and his plan was working.

Source Link to Professor Woll’s Post Containing Comments: http://awoll.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/hot-personalities-mccain-vs-obama/#more-75

My Thoughts on Politics and TV

This is strictly opinionated. I have developed a negative feeling toward the relationship between politics and television. I do believe that television has taken a humorous turn when it involves politics. I believe much of it started back in the Bill Clinton days. He was obviously known first as the president involved with the female intern at the White House, then as the president who did a really good job getting our economy back on its feet after the first George Bush. Television really promoted Bill Clinton as an object of laughter. Cartoons, skits, jokes, everything in that day had to do with Clinton. It didn’t help that George W. Bush was the next president. He comes off very negatively regarding his intelligence resulting from poor decision making and choices of words. The character of George Bush has really taken a toll on television in the past 8 years.

This year seems to be no different. Sara Palin is the subject of laughter as we enter the new presidential election. Shows like the Daily Show, Colbert Report (who has gone as far as tried getting his name on the ballot with Spiderman as his running mate), and Saturday Night Live all have their lines about Palin and her inexperience. The next president of the United State is going to have one of the hardest jobs any president in the past has taken up. However, I believe if Barack gets elected, the humor dies down.

So in a way I think politics has brought it on itself with the humorous television trend that has been the case the past decade or so. Clumsy acts of presidents have caused these humorous outbursts from the media. But the media stretches it further and further to the point that we cannot take someone seriously. Can George Bush be taken seriously? I disagree with Bush about a ton of topics, but I will listen to him. I think the consensus is not the same. When people hear him speak, they automatically believe its a bunch of b/s because of how he has been regarded in the media. Not to stick up for him, because I am not, but media has really helped in destroying Bush’s reputation. That can’t be denied.

If Obama is elected much of this humor will stop. I think that is a good thing because more privilege and respect needs to be restored in the presidency of the United States. I believe Obama will help that along, but if McCain is elected, Sara Palin is going to be the next George Bush and Bill Clinton of media.

What’s Your Favorite Sitcom?: The National Consensus Is….

Frazier.

Did anyone see that coming? I didn’t but maybe that’s because I never watched Frazier. I was always a Seinfeld kinda guy, getting that from my father who also never watched Frazier. Seinfeld was voted the third best sitcom ever, trailing Frazier as #1 and #2 Fawlty Towers…….?

Anyone vote for The Office? That is number 10 on the best situational comedy, which is not the first British-based comedy on the list. Did anyone know Fawlty Towers was a BBC comedy? Probably not since it was aired in 1975 and produced 12 episodes. I personally have never seen an episode, but they must have been pretty good to land the #2 spot of the best sitcoms.

Curb Your Enthusiasm anyone? That ranked at #15 in the top 20. That is not bad for a sitcom going on its seventh consecutive season. It also helps to have the great Seinfeld writer Larry David writing the episodes and starring in the sitcom. It shares much of the same humor as that of Seinfeld, but it is much less uptight and fit for networks like Fox and ABC. The loose humor is more suitable for HBO, where it receives great ratings.

Much of the sitcoms that make up the top 20 are ones that have been shot more than 10 years ago in either America or in the UK. But I think it shows how hard it can be for some sitcoms to make it, let alone become extremely successful. With the exception of Frazier, Seinfeld, I’m Alan Partridge (13th), The Office, and Curb Your Enthusiasm, the 20 best sitcoms rest in past generations, not this one.

Source: http://www.paramountcomedy.com/comedy/news/article.aspx?id=320

Individual Advancement Not Guarenteed By Sitcom Success

There have been many sitcoms created over the years that had been successful due to great cast members. The success of the show depends heavily on the chemistry of the cast members. How well they compliment each other’s characters, mesh in conversations, match each other’s humor; these are all ingredients of good cast. When the show does really well and the ratings are high for a consistent period of time, these cast members tend to get offers to star or co-star in movies. The producers figure that since they are well known on a certain show, they should attract viewers to the movie that they star in. However, in the past, we’ve seen that achievement in a sitcom doesn’t necessarily guarentee the spotlight in Hollywood.

For the sake of an example, we will use That 70’s Show to demonstrate that chemistry is what makes good characters, not the individual. Topher Grace was much of the focus in That 70’s Show. He played Eric Foreman, a high school kid who had a close-knit group of friends that almost always hung out in his basement. His character was a weak, scrawny boy who was loved by his mom, hated by his sister, and scared of his dad. His girlfriend Donna (Laura Prepon) pushed him around when they wrestled, made most of the decisions, and basically presided over their relationship. Eric was teased a lot by his friends, as they teased each other. But he was a mommy’s boy, easily manipulated, small, and scrawny. That was Eric Foreman. That was Topher Grace.

Topher Grace is a serious-minded actor. That 70’s Show behind the scenes portion of the DVDs shows Topher as extremely level-headed, nearly demanding perfection on the set. When someone screwed up, he showed distress and dissatisfaction with his fellow cast members. He wasn’t nearly what his character portayed, but it was his character that made him successful. Topher has starred in two relatively big films in Spiderman 3 and In Good Company. Aside from those films, I don’t believe he has distinguished himself in Hollywood just yet.

I also think the same can be said for ex-That 70’s Show cast member Wilmer Valderrama, who played the infamous “Fez”. Other than being the host for the MTV show “Yo Mamma”, Wilmer has done next to nothing in Hollywood after playing one of the more popular characters on That 70’s Show. Laura Prepon, Eric Foreman’s girlfriend Donna has appeared in films such as Slackers, the series October Road (1st season), and the freak film, Karla. No major roles has been taken up by Laura Prepon after playing a relatively big role on That 70’s Show.

Two more characters in Mila Kunis and Danny Masterson also differ. Mila Kunis has recently been distinguished co-starring in the film Forgetting Sara Marshall. She is also the voice of the sister in Family Guy. Mila’s character was the snobby, yet not so smart Jackie who was Donna’s best friend in the show. A supporting role in the show has helped her gain popularity and seems to be growing by the day. Danny Masterson is not in the same boat, however. Other than making appearances in Dracula 2000 and Comic Book Villains, he has been relatively quiet in the movie scenery.

One exception arose from this break up of crew members. Ashton Kutcher has been on a movie prow in the last few years. He has made comedy movies stand out such as Guess Who? with Bernie Mac, Just Married with Brittany Murphy, and the recent What Happens in Vegas with Cameron Diaz. He has also done television series shows in Punk’d and Beauty and the Geek. He also was the star in the frightening film, The Butterfly Effect. Aston’s career was made possible by his clumsy, funny, and loud character Kelso in That 70’s Show.

What I think we’ve seen here is a demonstration that the cast members make each other better and together they are successful. When they are split apart when a show ends and stops airing, the results are not the same for their individual achievement. Kelso, or Ashton Kutcher, has done extremely well for himself while others in Wilmer Valderrama, who played an equally if not bigger role than Kelso did, and Danny Masterson have struggled to find the big scene.

What’s Alan Watching? -Review

This is in review of the blog “What’s Alan Watching?” As I scrolled along the blog to see what Alan was watching, I noticed a lot of different things going ont a once. First, there is the “About Me” section on Alan’s blog. I think by reading this section you can get a feel of the opinions for each of the show that Alan portrays. I think you can also judge as to whether or not you trust Alan and his blog full of opinions. He offers a section of suggested readings and he offers a read of his other writings for the Star-Ledger.

If you don’t like Alan’s blog, then look at his friends’ blogs. There is another section on Alan’s page full of other blogs of friends and fellow columnists. If you would like to see what Alan said about a particular show, say three of four years ago, go into his archives and check it out.

With the variety of different links and categories, as well as posts and opinions Alan offers on his page, makes this blog a legitimate one. It must be highly regarded, partly because this is a columnist for the Star-Ledger, and partly because it is not just full of his opinions about television shows. There is a lot to choose from on Alan’s page and its sitcom/television series theme. The variety and elusiveness of this page makes it more trustworthy than other blogs out there. The set-up says it all. What I first saw when I viewed the page is a blog that is not stuck to their own words. It offers up other points of views and is willing to admit that it’s wrong by placing a list of archived blog entries.  I’m sure Alan took some heat for judging the show Friday Night Lights when it came out on television.