Sein On For '30 Rock'

Zap2it.com is reporting that Jerry Seinfeld will be guest starring in the season premiere of 30 Rock. He'll be playing himself. No word as to whether George will be in tow asking to get paid what Ted Danson makes, but I think this is good news for the show, which is entering it's sophomore season this fall. Hopefully, Seinfeld's appearance will drum up some viewers that can then be hooked by the show's subtly hilarious writing and spot-on performances. This is a great series which needs to see a ratings boost this coming year if it wants to stay alive.

The full story can be found on zap2it's website.

"The Closer" Re-Opens

The third season of the The Closer started this week. Though it can sometimes feel a little too formulaic, this has always been a strong show, primarily due to the cast and their portrayal of characters that the writing team has developed quite fully within the limited boundaries of the show's format. My main complaint has been the tendency of the show to be a little gory with it's murder victims, and the new season premiere was no different. I didn't really think it was necessary to focus twice on the corpse of a twelve year old girl who had been stabbed multiple times. In fact, I think it probably could have been a more powerful scene had we not seen her at all, but instead focused more on the reactions of the detectives. We could have gotten as clear a feel for of the situation without having to see the details.

For an example of what I mean check out the final scene of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. When Eastwood's character kills Gene Hackman's at point blank range, the camera is from Hackman's point of view looking up the barrel of the gun at Eastwood. Before, during, and after the fatal shot we see nothing but Eastwood's face and it is a much more intense scene than it would have been if we had been forced to witness Hackman take the bullet.

In a different manner, Seinfeld did a similar thing by going out of their way to talk about TV-taboo topics in ways that would pass the censors and not lower themselves to the style of humor that makes Two and a Half Men unwatchable. They did such a good job with those situations that the scenes involved were actually funnier than they would have been it they had gone with the shock-approach.

I'll keep watching The Closer because it's a good show overall, I'll just have to close my eyes for the first few minutes of each episode. I guess there are some advantages to sticking to formula.

The Finest Circumstantial Humor

Yesterday's Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN2 featured a fun discussion between Mike Greenberg and guest host Tim Kurkjian about their favorite sitcoms of all time. Audio for the segment is available here. For the record, Greenberg's number one was Seinfeld while Kurkjian's choice was Get Smart.

This got me thinking about what my list of top sitcoms (or at least favorites) would look like. Without question the two best sitcoms of all time are Seinfeld and Cheers. Seinfeld is quite possibly the best written comedy to ever grace the airwaves (especially those seasons with Larry David at the helm). Cheers had solid writing for all its 11 seasons, but what I think really made it work was the chemistry among all the actors and most of all their comedic timing. Even when a joke was less than stellar (which wasn't very often), the delivery more than made up for it.

After those two, I have trouble with the rest of my top five. I'm tempted to immediately throw Arrested Development, The Office, The Simpsons, and Curb Your Enthusiasm into the mix. But does that have more to do with how fresh they are in my head? What about all those shows from decades past that I know and at least remember loving at the time? That brings up another dilemma. Are those oldies as good as I remember, or is nostalgia clouding my rearview?

Fortunately, we have a number of outlets like Nick-at-Nite, TV Land, YouTube, and sydnication to judge how well many of these shows have held up. Some shows I remember watching religiously when they originally aired, I find almost unwatchable now: MurphyBrown, Frasier, Mad About You, The Brady Bunch, Three's Company. Perhaps these shows were great in comparison to their contemporaries, but for whatever reason these guys just don't stand the test of time. (An aside here- John Ritter was fantastic on Three's Company, but the writing was just too simple and redundant to make the show a classic).

Other shows have aged better, but still don't quite reach the level of classic: Family Ties, The Cosby Show, NewsRadio, Wings, Newhart (the 80's version), Happy Days. Actually, most of these are still really funny, but there's just something there that doesn't quite elevate them to that next level.

Then you have the classics: Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart (the original from the 70's), The Odd Couple, All in the Family, I Love Lucy, and The Honeymooners. These are all great shows which continue to be funny 30, 40, and 50 years later. They have truly stood the test of time, but only one will make my top five. (A lot of people would add M*A*S*H* to this list, but I have never once actually laughed during an episode of that show.)

For some reason I felt compelled to add The Mary Tyler Moore show to my list. Though I hadn't seen it in a while, I remember it being very well written and acted, and most importantly, hilarious. I thought I would refresh my memory at YouTube, and after watching the two clips below I put it at number three without hesitation.

So my final top five looks like this:

1. Seinfeld
2. Cheers
3. Mary Tyler Moore
4. Arrested Development
5. The Office

Time may change my mind on 4 and 5, but it'll be tough. Think about what these five shows all have in common and you can see why each is a classic in its own right.

Have your own top-five or want debate my list? Leave a comment below or send an email to cathoderadiation@gmail.com.

For more fun, check out the Mike and Mike segment where they play name that tune with TV sitcom theme songs, it's pretty good. Also take a peek at this list of sitcoms from Wikipedia. There were more than a few in there I had completely erased from my memory banks.

And on the Eighth Day, God Moved Onto His Next Project

Creators create shows. They write the pilot, executive produce, and if the viewer is lucky, they stay heavily involved in the story direction and development of the series. Some, like Aaron Sorkin, even write the majority of the episodes or at least do a heck of a lot of rewriting. Unfortunately however, a creator may decide to shepherd a show for only so long before she decides to move onto a new project. That's a perfectly acceptable decision, except for the fact that it often means the show is going to be left in less capable hands, or at least in the hands of people who might not have the same storytelling ability or vision as the creator.

Yet another disappointing episode of Smallville got me thinking about all this the other day. I began to wonder how much of a role the creators are still playing in that show. They are both still listed as executive producers, but how actively are they involved in the week to week running of the series? I ask because Smallville has turned from a show for which I would eagerly await each new episode to one I find myself watching purely out of obligation. They continue to recycle tired story lines and ridiculous plot gimmicks. Clark becomes less mature with each passing episode. At this point he will have finally developed the traits that make him Superman around the time he is starting to collect Social Security. The show's first three seasons were spectacular. Even if the show was written towards a younger demographic, there was reverence for the characters and the mythology, there was an appropriate amount of knowing references to future of the characters, and the show incorporated a slight darker tone at times.

Starting with season four though the show has been on a long, very long, downward spiral. Clark is less mature as a college sophomore than he was as a high school freshman. His decisions are rash, stupefying, and often end up causing more harm than good. Lex isn't nearly as cool or as three dimensional as he used to be. In fact, character development has essentially stopped and caricature development has started in its place. (For another example of this phenomenon see seasons 5+ of Friends).

How much of this has to do with the creators moving onto other projects and focusing less time on the show is debatable, but when you look at other series where a similar situation has taken place it seems the creator plays a vital role in maintaining the quality and tone of a series, especially in regard to serialized dramas.

Alias went sharply downhill when J.J. Abrams moved on to other projects. Again, he was still an EP of the show, but he was also working on Lost, plus other shows and directing Mission Impossible 3. This was another show where it felt like deja vu sometimes, with recycled story ideas or plots and characters finding themselves in exactly the same situation as in earlier episodes. The show also started to veer from its mythology, to its detriment.

After Aaron Sorkin was canned, The West Wing should have been. Season five of that show was a complete disaster. Sure it got good again in seasons six and seven, but it never equalled what it once was.

When Larry David left Seinfeld after season six it remained a ridiculously inventive, funny, and great show, but it wasn't the same one that it had been for the previous six seasons.

And though I would disagree with them, some might say the same about Lost. If you look closely it has become a slightly different show than when it started, but not that different and not really in a bad way. I think that's because most of the people originally involved in it are still on board.

These are just of few of some recent instances that came to mind, I'm sure there are dozens of others. Obviously if someone wants to move on they're going to. And it really only seems to be a problem for serialized shows, and that's why maybe TV execs need to rethink the whole series development process. Rather than try to keep a money-making show on the air for as long as possible (all the while draining it entirely of its soul and originality) why not purchase shows that have a distinct beginning and end, and a defined season length? For example in Smallville's case I would have made it a four year show, just focusing on Clark's high school years. It would have allowed for greater freedom in storytelling and a greater consistency of quality since the writers wouldn't have been saddled with creating what are essentially filler episodes.

Such a scenario would still allow a creator to move on to another project, but it would also leave a defined blueprint for his successors to follow, which would be a big benefit for the audience who has invested so much time in someone's work.