Why couldn’t that happen?
Jim Carrey being one of the characters?
Bill Cosby for another?
Tom Hanks?
Rita Rudner?
Jeff Dunham?
And Carol?
Isn’t it just about F*CKING Time, to start laughing again???
Who ELSE???
Thanks
Quasi
Well, I doubt they’d do it. But, you know, there are some funny shows out there these days.
Oh, how I wish someone had the talent to pull off a show like Carol’s. It makes me sad to think that we will never see good clean comedy like that ever again.
What exactly are you asking? Are you wondering why there isn’t a TV program which has Jim Carrey, Bill Cosby, Tom Hanks, Rita Rudner, Jeff Dunham, and Carol Burnett as regulars doing sketch comedy? That’s impossible for so many reasons that it’s hard to even list them. Those people have no interest in doing a TV show. They certainly have no interest in co-starring in a TV program. The period in a comedian’s career in which they would consider doing a sketch comedy program is usually pretty short, so it’s essentially impossible to get a group of well-known comedians together for a show that late in their careers. It would also be absurdly expensive just to pay their salaries for such a show. There’s no way that it could even break even, let alone make a profit. Furthermore, any TV executive would look at that list and say, “Those people are all too old. They won’t appeal to our target audience.”
There have been a few attempts at prime-time variety shows lately.
Rosie O’Donnell had a special–“Rosie Live”-- that I think was a tryout to see if she could draw a big enough audience for it to become a regular show. It wasn’t good and it bombed in the ratings.
The Osbournes (Ozzie and family) had a one-shot variety show–“Osbournes Reloaded”–within the last month or so. I watched about 5 minutes of it and turned it off. It was terrible.
Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson had at least two variety-show specials during the peak of their popularity a few years ago. They were somewhat successful ratings-wise, but I don’t think there will be a reunion show. 
So it’s not that it hasn’t been tried–though you could certainly argue that it hasn’t been tried with the right people. I loved The Carol Burnett Show as a kid, and I watched (or tried to watch) the above-mentioned shows because of that nostalgia-factor. In those days it was nice to tune in and see comedy sketches, song and dance numbers, circus acts, interviews, etc, all in one show. Most people didn’t have a large choice of television stations to watch, so a variety show was a good bet that you would see at least something you liked. But in today’s world we are overwhelmed with variety: hundreds of cable channels, the internet (youtube, hulu, etc), sophisticated video game systems, satellite radio. There isn’t really a need (or demand) for the variety show format.
It’s done in Late Night to some extent, but with interviews as the center rather than sketches. It will be interesting to see what Leno does with his prime time slot this fall.
The Tracey Ullman Show fits your category, even though it was only a half hour, and I don’t believe she had a lot of guest stars. Sketch comedy, musical numbers, recurring cast and characters.
I watched it all the time. Great show, but it didn’t seem to catch on. Shame.
The new Leno show is supposed to be more a variety type show than the Tonight show. We’ll see in few months if that is true.
Sketch comedy could be done, but today’s writers lack an understanding of innuendo. It’s better to make a person THINK he sees something rather than letting him see it.
At first glance this is hard to understand because in today’s world people demand not only great but perfect special effects. At least that’s the going theory.
However look at movies like “Mary Poppins,” or shows like “The Honeymooners,” and “I Love Lucy.” Or even “The Wizard of Oz,” the special effects and scenery is awful by today’s standards but the writing is so good, you can overlook that.
George Burns used to comment on Sally Rand, who was a fan dancer. She wore a flesh colored, form fitting suit. And she danced around with huge fans. Burns commented on how erotic this was, then he says: "The thing was you were very satisfied, except an hour later you realized she really didn’t show you anything. BUT she made you THINK you saw something, but that never really happened.
When you listen to OTR (old time radio) these shows can be frightening, simply because what you conjure up in your mind is almost always worse than anything a set designer can produce.
Lastly with the medium of TV and movies it’s very difficult to do new things simply because the old stuff is still around and the old stuff was done so well, why do it over? You can simply enjoy the old stuff.
For example, although I know this is just my point of view, the songs “Over The Rainbow,” and “God Bless America,” are so identified with Judy Garland and Kate Smith respectively, it’s painful to my ears to hear anyone else do them. So why should anyone redo them when you can always hear the originals done so well.
Another example is when Olivia Newton-John tried to redo Minnie Ripperton’s smash hit “Loving You.” To her credit Newton-John didn’t even attempt to do the high notes that come after the “La, La, La, La, La…” part. But the song doesn’t sound right without the high notes, so the whole thing falls apart.
Sketch comedy could be done, and done well, but writers have outpriced themselves and networks would rather use the time for things they know will make money.
Back in OTR there was only so much commericals you could put on. Rules were more restrictive. For instance, the musicans union demanded live music, so you couldn’t rerun shows or use tapes, without a darn good reason (such as the star took ill between the first and second performances). Yes in the days of radio, two shows were done. One for the East and Midwest and another live show for the West Coast.
Orson Wells said the main reason he became famous was the rules of the time, were restrictive and the network couldn’t sell the time. So they would put on “Prestige Shows” with no commericals just to show how classy they could be.
For this they turned to Wells and surprise the shows went over well and his fame grew. Without that he wouldn’t have been able to sell his shows.
So there is no reason artistically why a sketch show shouldn’t work. Actually someone like Justin Timberlake, who has proven he can do singing, comedy and such quite well, would be an excellent choice. But there are too many commerical (read: no assurance of profit) to prevent this from happening
As much as I dearly love Carol Burnett and there were parts of her show that were classics (the Gone With The Wind skit comes to mind), her show also introduced us to the insufferable character that spawned Mama’s Family (ugh) and the one-too-many cracking up of actors on stage that got old real quick. Just like those who fawn for old Johnny Carson Shows - reviewing many of these shows gives some insight into the reasons they died off. They simply became predictable and less funny over the years.
Yes, The Carol Burnett Show had some moments of true brilliance, but it also had lots of hokey shtick that eventually got to be tiring very quickly. I think part of the reason there are no shows like that is because it isn’t easy to do, week after week.
Look at SNL - again, some great moments over the years, and the Tina Fey as Palin bits were priceless. But even with all that money, talent and guest stars - the show is still very much a hit-or-miss (mostly miss) week after week.
It’s been tried again and again and again and it’s failed again and again and again.
It’s not for the lack of talent, it’s the lack of viewers wanting variety.
What songs will the singer sing? Chances are 2/3 of the audience won’t have heard them. What movies will they parody? The old ones that have already been parodied everywhere from Garry Moore to the Simpsons, or the newer ones that only appeal to teenage males?
In the old days, when Ed Sullivan had Robert Merrill and Peter and Gordon on the same show, the kids sat through the opera and their parents sat through rock and roll because…partly because they knew their favorite act would be coming soon and partly because what would you switch to? Now you can simply flip to 80 other channels as soon as your favorite act ends.
And, as noted, sketches are notoriously uneven. Do you like it when the performers spontaneously go off in the middle of a sketch, or do you think they’re too busy thinking of themselves as funny while you aren’t laughing?
Once upon a time, you could put together a a 60-minute show that 10 very different people would watch. Now you’d end up with 10 six-minute shows, with one person watching at a time.
I wouldn’t cross the street to watch any of these. But I would watch a well-written, well-cast variety show if it could be Carol Burnett Show in quality.
A lot of good points (pro & con) are made here, and I do understand them all, and I do understand why such a show might not work.
Yes, there are many “tune-out” factors involved today that weren’t around in the early days of variety shows, one of them being 100’s of other channels available to turn to, and maybe not return, thereby causing the advertisers to lose out on selling their products.
I will cite myself as an example: In the early days of SNL, I was a constant fan. Every Saturday night, at 11:30 I would be right there, ready to be entertained.
But we’re a fickle lot, aren’t we?
Today, if the host or the musical act isn’t to our liking, we’re likely to not watch at all (in my case anyway;)).
In defense of the thread, let me just say that here sits a 59 year old guy reminisicing and appreciative of what, apparently, can no longer be.
Thanks
Q
Also, just a quick add-on (if I may). Many times, variety shows were “showcases” for tunes from musicals popular at the time.
“Camelot”, “Fiddler On The Roof” and “The Sound of Music” come to mind as examples of shows I may never have seen if it had not been for the Sullivan Show.
Today, it might be “High School Musical” or “The Jersey Boys” just to name a couple.
Yeah, I do miss the spinning plates (to the music of “The Sabre Dance”) and Topo Gigio (sp?).
Q
I think that kunilou has the truth of it.
Back when there were three networks, a variety show that had something for everyone (which meant that you might wind up sitting through a segment that didn’t interest you, to get to the one that did) made sense.
Today, most viewers aren’t willing to sit through something that doesn’t entertain them, this very minute.
And, in the case of the Carol Burnett Show, part of the charm was the chemistry that the performers had with each other, and the unscripted reactions they’d have to one another (such as Tim Conway trying to get Harvey Korman to break character). I wonder if audiences today would react the same way to that.
It’s perhaps worth noting that Jim Carrey’s big break was In Living Color, a variety show produced by the Wayans Brothers.
Thank you. Tom!!!
That was exactly the reason I mentioned him!
Fire-Chief Bill, wasn’t it?
Kiddos… suspend your disbelief for a moment…
Coudn’t it happen???
Gary Sinise (one of my FAVORITE actors - love those eyes!) went back to TV.
There are more!
Right?
For just one show, to see how it goes?
Thanks
Q
Quasimodem, is it really necessary for you to use one-sentence paragraphs and to end all your sentences with exclamation marks, question marks, and ellipses (groups of periods)? That makes it extremely difficult to understand what point you’re making. Instead of being a coherent argument, what you say comes across as being disconnected ramblings even within a single post.
No, there’s no chance that someone as famous as Jim Carrey would come back to TV to do a sketch comedy program in which he would co-star with other now famous actors who did sketch comedy in their younger days. It’s almost as difficult to imagine him as coming back to do a sketch comedy program where he would be the host and there would be some newer people for the other roles. He has no reason to give up making movies.
Yes, one can imagine a program like In Living Color being attempted again, where a group of younger comedy actors is hired to do a sketch comedy program. That’s almost what you want. In fact, isn’t there a comedy sketch program (with a musical guest each week) that hires upcoming comedy actors who do a few years on the program before they move on in their careers? One that’s been on the air for, say, thirty-four years?
Oh, yeah, it’s Saturday Night Live.
Criticize it all you want, but it’s as close to what you want as you’re ever going to get. You can’t get established comedy actors to co-star in a comedy sketch program no matter how much you want them. They have too much money (and too much ego) to do something that hard that late in their career.
No, it ain’t necessary, and I am sorry if it effs up your day, but it is my “style” of writing, and you are the first person to ever complain about it.
I will try to do better.
Jim Carrey coming back to TV?
Jim and Gary Sinise, Jeff Goldblum, William Shatner…
No, not in Variety, but who’s to say they could’nt?
I have already said my idea might not “fly”, and others have already given the reason.
What’s your “beef” with me? Really?
Quasi
Gary Sinise was never a big star. Jeff Goldblum came close to being a big star, but that was twenty years ago, and his career has been going slowly downhill ever since then. He’s lucky to have a regular job. William Shatner had the same problem that every other regular in the original Star Trek has - nobody wanted to hire him except in roles where people can say “Oh, wow, that’s Captain Kirk.” He is the only cast member from the original Star Trek who has had anything like a oridinary career since the series went off the air. The other cast members have worked, but it’s been doing things where they are playing off their roles in Star Trek, not ordinary acting jobs.
In any case, the real problem would be getting more than one older established comedy actor in a single program. They wouldn’t want to do it, and it would cost too much to hire them to make the program profitable.
Your posts are incoherent. It’s nearly impossible to figure out what you’re talking about.