Thats completely different. I am not saying remove one of the characters from AD, just remove the voice that basically has to explain everything because nothing would make sense with out it. A testament to Friends would be that the plot can function without someone explaining it.
Also, no that is not true. Many other shows follow a lot of the principals of reality and are still very funny. I would even argue that is what MAKES them ‘smart’. I find The Office funny because even though things happen in the surreal world of the show they still mainly follow the consequences of a corporate company structure. Therefore, if say Jan and Michael have a sexual affair, well its not like no one gives a shit, they have to go before their boss and explain. The consequences make the action funny.
Oh, I don’t mean to imply anything of the sort - jus the opposite, that it can be enjoyed even if things go past you.
And if things do go past you, that doesn’t mean it’s because you’re a dim bulb. By way of an example, Arrested Development is one of my wife’s favourite shows, and she barely spoke English before 2005. This means that many of the cultural references are lost on her, as well as the meta-humour about the medium and in-jokes about the cast and producers - but she still finds is screamingly funny, just based on the situational stuff and running gags.
I certainly don’t think that a lacuna in trivia knowledge amounts to a mental failing; it’s called “trivia” for a reason. But if the “Happy Days” and “Andy Griffith Show” gags (and 10,000 other pop culture references) go past you, there’s all the word-play… and if the word-play doesn’t do anything for you (and that suggest that you’re too dumb to catch it, you might just look down on puns,) then there is the straight-up farce. If you don’t appreciate farce, you might at least still get something out of the blue stuff.
Nowhere in that is there a suggestion that if it still leave you cold it’s because you’re a dunce, it’s more a case of “Something for everyone! Except you, I guess. Huh.”
I already have a life. I don’t need to project myself into a work of fiction. Fiction is entertainment to me. Arrested Development is a funny show and I can laugh at it without wanting to be a part of it.
So it’s not pretending to take place in the real world, then. You seem to have understood exactly what the rules are: the show has a realistic setting, but the characters get themselves into and out of all kinds of ridiculous situations because of their obliviousness and stupidity. There are few consequences, and when there are consequences they usually happen to Michael, who tries to keep them in check. It’s a wacky and farcical show for sure, and some people like their comedy more grounded. But they’re not doing it wrong. You’re just not a fan of what they’re doing.
I’m pretty sure you’ve never seen any actual absurdism.
You might want to check out That’s What She Said, a blog that has been running commentary on every episode of The Office and assigning it with a corporate liability lawsuit amount for anything ranging from worker’s comp to sexual harrassment. To say the least, The Office is NOT realistic when it comes to corporate company structure. Doesn’t make it not funny, though.
To be honest its really the show as a whole that gives me a sense of continuous disbelief. I grant you some events are better than others and I like them! I can deal with a staircase car that keeps knocking down banners, or a guy who sucks at magic but keeps trying, laughably failing. But the issue I have is when huge unbelievable events happen like a sinking Yacht, jail break, adopting a foreign child! and seemingly nothing changes, nobody is effected. It is as if the status quo just readjusts to whatever absurd thing happend as if nothing happened. I want to see the characters change and grow and be effected by what they do! But they don’t! And then immediately, not even dealing with any of the (nonexistent) repercussions of the last huge event, ANOTHER crazy unbelievable thing happens!
You’re watching the wrong show. I don’t know what else to tell you, but it was kind of obvious early on that Arrested Development was not that kind of show. Buster has grown some, and maybe George-Michael to a degree. That’s about it, and it’s not like they did all that much to give viewers the impression it was going to be otherwise.
I think you hit it on the nose. I definitely don’t think the writers are doing it wrong, and you are right, I am just not a fan. All I am trying to do is figure out why people revere this sitcom so much. I guess a lot of people just really like ungrounded comedy. Not that there is anything wrong with that at all.
And no I haven’t seen any real absurdism. Is it funny? haha
I think I’m starting to have a bit more understanding of, and sympathy with, your point of view.
I remember, when I was a very young kid, I found certain (mainly slapstick) comedy very distressing, because when things got broken or ruined or messed up, I thought that was a bad thing: something to cry about rather than to laugh about. And even as an adult, I occasionally find myself worrying about the consequences of things that happen in a comedy, rather than simply allowing myself to laugh at them.
An awareness of the consequences of one’s own or others’ actions, and a sense of empathy with other people’s misfortunes, are fine and valuable and humane things to possess, but they can get in the way of one’s enjoyment of comedy if one can’t willingly suspend them.
Would it help to think of the Bluth family as a sophisticated sort of live-action toons? We don’t worry about consequences nearly so much when we’re watching a cartoon, and cause and effect operate by different rules: a toon can fall off a cliff or have a stick of dynamite blow up in his face without suffering any real, lasting harm.
Well, this is definitely the wrong show for that. And it’s clearly by design - watch the first episode and the last episode, and pay attention to the parallels that constantly run through them. The only real change that takes place is Michael’s complete disillusion with his family by the end.
Edit: Do you find it confusing or frustrating that Hans Moleman and Kenny continually come back to life?
Ok but I would still go back to what I wrote to Skald the Rhymer that unreal worlds (like The Office’s) still must have a set of principals to govern them, even if those principals are made up.
By having there be at least some sort of effect or consequence to an action (whether it be to true reality’s corporate standard or a made up version of corporate standards) we can relate and find it funny. Because in the real world there ARE causes and effects and consequences to actions!
Really, would half the stuff that happens in the office be funny if it didn’t take place in an Office? I mean thats the whole point of the show is that there are assumed rules, assumed human behaviors… an assumed reality of and office space and thus when crazy things happen it is shocking and funny.
Yeah, but with the voice, it makes sense. So, the problem with the show is…
Look, there’s a lot of different ways that you can provide backstory and motivation. AD went with voice-over narration. You can’t remove the narrator, and say that shows the characters don’t have motivations, because you’ve just removed the vehicle by which the writers convey the motivations.
I’ve only seen a few episodes of The Office, but based on what I’ve seen, I’d have to disagree with you pretty heavily on that one. Just in the handful of episodes I’ve seen, pretty much every single character would have been fired from a real job. Most of them repeatedly.
Because if you’re into what they are doing, it’s very funny. The Iraq War commentary in “The One Where They Build a House?” Loved it. And it felt like no other shows on TV were doing that at the time, by the way. The crazy things Michael and Gob do to try to rig a school election for George-Michael - only to have him do even worse than his father had done? George Sr.'s bizarre religious conversion? I could keep listing stuff I guess, but when the show was really good it could have a Simpsons-style frenetic quality and the use of editing and narration was really great. I can’t think of another comedy that worked that way.
I don’t think it’s an underground thing. It didn’t get really good ratings, but it was on Fox for three years and critics seemed to like it a lot.
Not really. But I assure you it’s possible to do stuff that has no basis in reality and that you don’t relate to. That’s kind of the point, actually. Anyway- this might be a subject for another thread, but nothing on TV is realistic. The whole nature of scripting a show with a beginning, middle and end for a 30-minute or one-hour broadcast (often structured to accommodate commercials) is about as unrealistic as it gets. Yes, it’s possible to make the details more realistic or less and sometimes they get discarded so badly that it can get in the way of your ability to accept the show. But nothing on TV or in the movies is particularly realistic and it’s sort of limiting to insist that everything has to be.
Actually I don’t, but that is kind of getting into different shows. I don’t know who Hans is but I do really like South Park and SP ironically is like AD in the sense that the characters are completely static. However the crucial differences are:
I feel like SP says something somewhat meaningful or profound in their episodes - whether it be societal satire or philosophical musings. I get to the end and find my self thinking about something interesting. (As compared to AD where I feel actually dumber) And,
9 out of 10 characters on SP are not self absorbed assholes who run the whole plot of the show and never change. There is only one asshole on SP and he usually gets his ass handed back to him. So I like South Park.
So Arrested Development isn’t funny because there aren’t consequences to actions, but The Office IS funny because there also aren’t consequences to actions?
Arrested Development is funny and smart because on its face, it’s just a typical semi-funny sitcom, but then takes it several more levels beyond that. The episode “Justice Is Blind” (S01E17) is a great example - on it’s face, it’s a slap-stick filled caper-gone-wrong episode (two capers gone wrong, actually). The writers turn it on its ear with the “the seeing eye dog is blind, not Maggie” bit - but it gets smart only when they take it one step further and make Maggie actually blind before the big reveal. Add in the parallels between that case, the side-story with Lindsay trying to remove the 10 Commandments, and Maggie being “healed” by being struck in the face with the courtroom Bible, and you have more comedic and storytelling layering than you’ll see in entire seasons of other shows.
The problem is not the conveying of the motivation, its that the motivation HAS to be explained to be understood. Other shows don’t need it because nearly all the characters act like normal people. In AD the motivations are so unrealistic, ignorant, and self centered that somebody HAS to explain it otherwise the majority of people who are not stupid and self centered won’t understand why the characters act the way they do.
Thats all I’m saying. Not that the show is bad because it needs a voice over to convey the motivation, but that the motivation is so unbelievable and un relatable that it needs to be explained.
I’m getting a bit tired of this to be honest. I think we just have different tastes.
But about the office. I still think there is more of a sense of consequence than in AD. People don’t openly commit fraud and get away with it scott free. And if something big does happen the characters change because of it. Like people.
Also not that unrealistic: rich family has stupid, useless children who get a reality show.
They choose to write it that way, though. They could do it that way without the narrator, but they write the narrator into the story. The problem is not that they can’t explain things without the narrator, it’s that the narrator is intentionally part of the way the story is told and the jokes are told.