I am writing now about a TV series that I mature to like, very worthy, though not a lot. But I had a really generous time when watching it, that is, before major changes (you know which ones) happened to it. The series is Two and a Half Men.
Before I begin with my comment, which I feel is likely to turn out to be a bit vivacious, let me enlighten you about my arrive on watching TV shows.
I can sometimes be a junkie for any kind of program. I can search for Frasier or Wings, Adventure Time or ICarly, reruns of the Andy Griffith note, or Dethklok. Sometimes I fair can't discriminate, and so I stare whatever is being shown.
That said, there are some shows which I deem incandescent, some of them witty, and some of them unprejudiced cheap time fillers. I have prepared a cramped classification for sitcoms:
Shows that are shiny. Examples of a sparkling note are: Seinfeld, The Golden Fgirls and Hot in Cleveland. The writers of these shows really collect their bread, there is plenty of timing and nods... An uber-example of this kind of demonstrate is “The Nights and Days of Molly Dodd”, a program which masterfully handled not only comedy, but also drama. An suitable expose, if you feel like using your grey matter in full-fledged mode.
Witty shows. Their characters are skilled in playing with words, and also somehow fond to mock others for being humorous or dimwitted. I'm thinking here of the Cosby display, Reba, Roseanne, the Suite Life of Zack and Cody (which is also very oddball), How I met your mother (moderately oddball) . The dynamic between Dorothy and Sophia on one side, and Blanche and Rose on the other is pure witty comedy. But it's so brilliant it self-promotes itself to the “shows that are smart” category.
silly and witty: I dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, Melissa and Joey. amusing situations are prioritized over witty comments. But the result is very delicious.
Shows being colorful and witty are: Who's the boss, The Nanny. Some situations are “hammy” here, but you know there is a battle of wits going on there. Also exquisite. The classy factor goes down a notch in relation to the three types mentioned above.
Oddball-smart shows: 30 Rock, Newsradio. To follow a reveal like these, be prepared to listen and ponder every runt thing happening and being said in it. Lots of fun, but don't seek information from it to be easy to peruse. These shows are statistically less in number than intelligent and witty shows. Their bolt is faster, and their level of smartness is higher. Fun, and an output of quality writing But definitely not for everybody.
“Hey, I'd like to be there, too” shows: Friends. Their jokes are really lame when you compare them with any of the shows descibed above. If Friends' jokes were estimable, the “good-looking people” factor would be irrelevant, and the explain would be promoted to the Witty kind. On the other side, if their characters were not absurdly first-rate looking and living in a love atmosphere, the prove would be downgraded to a filler (behold below) . This point to also has the attribute of being easy to explore. You can be shaving, drying your hair or checking some food in the oven while you gape the note. Also, “Friends” works like some material to discuss about with your buddies: hey that guy did this frosty thing, the girl that was in last night's note was so hot, my girlfriend does that, my friend wanted to occupy that dress, etc. If I had a say in what I glance and what I don't, I'd most certainly end miles away from this note.
Time fillers (or comedy rock bottom) : The King of Queens, Everybody loves Raymond, Til Death, According to Jim, etc. The characters here are very unlit and white, remove for example Jerry Stiller as the father-in-law in KOQ, Doris Roberts in ELR, etc. These guys are not witty, their jokes have an conclude as subtle as a steamroller. You unprejudiced want to have a lickety-split laugh here. But sometimes the jokes are so poor that in order to quit watching the present, you need to change your expectations from it, like, forget about catching a profitable joke, but commence tracking the inconsistencies of the context and characters. To me, that is a pastime, too, although sometimes I wish I could unprejudiced turn off the TV region and hasten away from it, instead of playing the game of spotting unpleasant scripts and criticizing the sloppy creative job that is manifest in the display.
Two and a Half Men was a witty present. Charlie Sheen played the role of somebody who preferred to live alone, but had to beget with a homeless brother and his kid, a no nonsense maid ready to shatter whatever Charlie notion was a agreeable view or appreciation, and that cute stalker that complicated the bachelor's playboy-like life. The premise worked very edifying. My expectation of an hour of this display was to net Charlie's, Bertha's or Charlie's mother's verbal attacks to others and between themselves. Gosh, you need to be a bit of a rascal to deem like that, and certainly very bright to say those things that blueprint! That, my friends, was the display. I did appreciate watching it.
The point to has changed. Yes, it has. The center of the life in the bachelor's house is not a forty year conventional infamous brat and a playboy, but a very uncouth profile computer programmer who, instead of attacking posthaste as a cobra to anyone importuning him, begs the other members of the household to give him a crash.
Holland Taylor's role as the bachelor's mom did fit very well in the reveal. She showed she was tougher than ultra tough Charlie, and managed to ridicule Charlie's needy brother Allen with immense style. The three of them created a very great triangular dynamic. Charlie's mom could fracture Charlie into pieces at will, so we saw the tough being intimidated by the toughest. This is only one of the things I liked from the character region in the note.
But Two and a Half Men's world ended when Charlie Sheen left the point to. I wanted to occupy the demonstrate could survive, but I don't deem it actually did. To me, the exhibit is now mostly the equivalent of a reanimated corpse. Looks like the guy, but it's brain is boring as a stone. Charlie's mom comes and goes from the household, basically due to completely implausible arguments. Walden, the novel center of the household, tolerates this: a guest living for free in his house, a maid that he could have easily replaced for any other, due to the fact that he owes her nothing, she is mostly a fresh acquaintance to him, and she does not work. But he also bears with the snide guest's kid., the heinous guest's kid' friend, the atrocious guest's mother. This is implausible, unlikely, fantastic. Charlie bore with his family and maid, Walden bears with people completely unrelated to him that acquire his life difficult.
We said farewell to the stalker girl. She was laughable. A recent character was introduced: Walden's girlfriend. Well, she is not humorous. If Walden plays the straight guy in the display, Zoey, his girlfriend, is troubled about making the splendid choices in her life, and doesn't quite laugh or mock others: she is not witty, she's almost a humorless character. She has nice features, and it can be argued that Walden does have some, too. I am, therefore, tempted to designate this expose as one of the “Hey, I'd like to be there” kind. Actually, it fits very well in that category, because it has a good-looking romantic couple in the center of its world, and let's not forget that Walden is rich, owns a jet and some cold stuff. Yes, Walden's thing is flying in his fill jet, where Charlie's thing was scorning others while holding a drink and wearing a bowler's shirt combined with shorts, and shoes and socks which didn't match. Jet-setting is adore. Holding a drink looking like somebody who doesn't care how he looks like is not, but conveys character instead. And it was fun, at the same time.
I said what I wanted to say. But I want to manufacture very distinct this: I don't disfavor neither Ashton Kutcher, nor Eric Walden. Kutcher is alright. Walden is a nice guy, but that doesn't rescue him from being ineffective in the explain. I felt replacing Charlie Sheen was a Herculean task, to say the least. The writers seemed to have chosen Kutcher either because they wanted to open “clean-slate” (what? They kept almost everybody else in the exhibit, how is this well-kept slate? ) or they upped the ante and bet for an experienced comedy star like Kutcher to re-engineer the show's dynamics with some x-factor sort of performance. In either case, they failed. Wait a small, there was a third option! They wanted to milk the cow for a while. OK, then they have succeeded.
But don't you query me to say thanks and congratulations, dear people in charge of the indicate. Two and a Half Men ended when Charlie left the expose. You, colluded with Jon Cryer, a star I believe deserved and collected deserves a worthy better career, have turned Two and Half Men into a franchise, the fresh instance of which you handle the same arrangement a greedy but burger-hater food joint owner would be squeezing the McDonald's name in order to sell terrible quality food to people who would eat anything that carried that name.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar