Ere I Saw Elba starts us off.
How did they set up the stage for HOLLYWOOD SQUARES? I know you weren't on that show, though I share your dream of being a panelist on it. More generally, are game show sets just different compared to sitcoms?
See the above photo, which gives you a view of the set from behind.
Game shows are lit very differently from sitcoms. They’re all extremely bright. And they’re lit for tape, not film, although now everyone records in HD.
It also seems like today’s game shows are all frenetic light shows with lasers and sound effects. And some of the sets have become giant. Gone are the days of witty intelligent panelist just sitting at a dais. Now they’re STAR WARS video games.
PolyWogg asks:
Here's a Friday question about retooling shows. When I watched B-Positive last season, one of the few comedies I can stand even though it's not great, I kept wondering what they would do for S02 if renewed? The whole premise of S01 is that an acquaintance from high school donates a kidney to him. End of S01, surgery's done, all is good. But what happens after that? She was living with him, sure, but that could get creepy quick as he inevitably falls for her now in S02. So what's the hook? They've retooled the show, she's running a retirement home with an opp for fantastic guest stars each season, and he's a therapist who comes into consult. It's Cheers in a nursing home! J/K. What retooling of shows for, say, S02 do you think have worked well and others that completely sank?
PARKS & REC springs to mind as one that worked. Not that they changed the setting or premise, but their mid-course corrections turned it into one of the best sitcoms of its era. Good going, Mike Schur.
HAPPY DAYS and THE ODD COUPLE both switched from single-camera to multi-camera and that proved to be wildly beneficial for both. Kudos, Garry Marshall.
Most shows don’t work when you retool. If you have to change the premise it’s like making a U-turn in a battleship. A number of shows tried and failed. Two MTM spin-offs fall into that category. Both RHODA and PHYLLIS groped around after their first seasons.
We made a bunch of cast changes on AfterMASH for the second year, along with new spiffy opening titles. We were re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I think my favorite example is SANFORD ARMS. Both stars left the show. As some wag said, “NBC just renewed the set.”
As for B-POSITIVE, you’re right, once he had his surgery and things were fine there goes your premise. They had to re-develop it for season two. There was a time networks wouldn’t pick up shows that only had a finite number of episodes. But all bets are off today as networks scramble to find anything that will attract viewers right this minute. They'll worry about season two if there's a season two.
I’ve talked about this before because it’s a very common problem on streamers and cable. Great first seasons that have natural endings, and then what? Usually, the “then what” is TV’s version of feeling around in a dark closet.
Houston Mitchell (one of my favorite writers) wonders:
I recently watched an episode of Matlock, where Andy Griffith and Don Knotts recreated a Judo scene from The Andy Griffith Show. There's a video on Youtube that shows them side-by-side and it's an exact recreation, which seems fine since they both involved Griffith and Knotts. I have seen other shows do an almost exact recreation of a scent from classic sitcoms of the past, and when asked about it the creators pass it off as a tribute, which may be true. My long-winded question: Does the original writer of the scene get any money for that if they are still alive?
I wish, but no. I think if you look at a lot of so-called “classic” bits on sitcoms they were derived from something else. The great candy conveyor belt scene in I LOVE LUCY — a direct lift from Charlie Chaplin’s MODERN TIMES.
If anyone deserves the money it’s Chaplin, Stan Laurel, Harold Lloyd, and Buster Keaton.
And finally, from Mike Bloodworth:
Do you think it's just the tiniest bit elitist that so many actors, directors and producers are now making shows for streaming services instead of the networks? Or am I just a dinosaur who doesn't realize that broadcast TV is dead?
I hate to say it but I think the latter. Streaming is the future. One just has to look at this year’s Emmycast to see that the exciting, innovative, original shows of today are on streaming platforms. Networks are filling their schedules with franchises. How many NCIS’s and LAW & ORDERS do we need?
Like I said, the future is in streaming.
What’s your Friday Question?
from By Ken Levine
Comments
Post a Comment