More than a just a season. In the pilot episode, Lucille finds that her fox stole is missing a front paw.
Welcome to the SDMB, aBystander! I hope you enjoy the time you spend here, and sample many of the topics we discuss! 
ETA:
Just to satisfy my curiosity, what program would you assign to the top of that pedestal?
My favorite show ever. I voted smart. I can’t understand why it never got good ratings, since almost everyone I’ve heard of who watched it liked it.
Choie, I accept that humor is subjective. You will surely not see in any of my posts phrases remotely similar to the ones you put in all caps above. Truly my purpose here was more to understand why AD is hailed as super intelligent humor and to see if the flaws that greatly bother me irk anyone else. No matter how many times I say it is not funny to me, I doubt I will ever convince someone that something they find funny is not. (Ironically, telling someone something is not funny makes it even funnier to them.)
However, can we agree that debating what is or is not quality television in terms of writing, style, effectiveness, development, audience response etc. is a valid use of this space?
I would like to respond to a few of your statements. First you say, “So let’s discard the idea that the use of a narrator is somehow inherently bad for storytelling.”
No where in my posts did I say the narrator is bad for storytelling, nor did I imply it. I don’t have problem at all with narrators in film or in TV and I think in most cases they add a lot to the story. In this circumstance I was merely pointing to the use of a narrator to highlight a true flaw that I find in the show - the overly irrational behavior of many of the main characters. The point I was trying to make was that the characters’ actions in this show are so irrational, so counterintuitive, selfish and idiotic that they can not be related to and thus some of the humor falls flat. When asked for an example, I said the greatest testament that the characters are irrational is the fact that a narrator basically has to come in every five minutes or so to explain why characters are doing the ridiculous things they are doing. Please go back and read my posts before responding to them incorrectly.
Unfortunately, I haven’t seen many of those films or TV shows you referenced therefore I will not claim to know anything about them, but my gut tells me that stylistically, Narration should be used more to enhance the plot - give the plot different perspective and deeper meaning - than to continuously explain what is going on. In the movies I have seen where narration is used, that is exactly how it is done. (Basically just Shawshank and Its a Wonderful Life, so yea not much so perhaps I am wrong.) If you read the post in which I responded to Miller my challenge to him was to see if the actions of the characters in AD still made sense without the Narrator. In at least both those movies I think the characters still make sense without someone telling us every few minutes why they are deciding to do what they are doing. However, you make the argument that AD’s use of Narration is stylistic and innovative on which I agree with you - it is. Perhaps this is a cool new way of using narration to enable other characters to do dumb (by dumb I mean irrational) things and still be quickly explained to move the increasingly unbelievable plot along.
You say, “Others have already described the multitudinous consequences for the characters.” To me these seem even more fake than anything else: they are the resemblanceof real world repercussions to keep up the farse that there still consequences in the fake world of AD. Sure, G.O.B. sure gets tossed into jail - and saunters out, gets stabbed - and is fine, loses his girlfriend - and throws a hissyfit, then after everything, still acts completely irrationally and stupidly. Buster no matter how much shit happens to him is still so dumb (I mean really is he retarded? No offense of course, it is a genuine question that would explain a lot. Because right now he just comes of to me as an actor acting half-retarded, half-normal - which, haha, is actually what he is.) Lindsay, still spends like crazy no matter how many times she gets in trouble. I don’t know. Maybe its just that I root so vehemently against them that when I see nothing stick to them because the writers want to keep them the same, stupid people I can’t bloody stand it. But I digress because now I am getting much more into personal grudges and less of what makes ‘good’ TV. As Miller aptly states, I just don’t really like what the writers are doing.
So with that, I will end this like you did with the statement: humor is subjective. This just doesn’t tickle me like it does you and that is fine. And I will admit that even though I argue that this is not ‘smart’ television, if it makes you laugh then I guess regardless of whether or not it is ‘smart,’ it is definitely effectivetelevision.
It seems, sadly, I am part of the small minority who can’t look past (I apologize but,) the pure stupidity (oh come on, admit that Tobias is the pinacle of stupidity!) to see then gem inside of AD.
Mosier, Except me.
thank you kaylasdad99
Mmm yea no. I genuinely want to like it and as I stated in the first post, I do find a lot of the quick humor pretty funny. However, in aggregate I want to strangle many of the characters in the show and don’t understand why my friends don’t feel that way too.
Oh and if you are asking me, probably Whedon’s Firefly.
Firefly? It insists on itself.
Interesting. My original reply in the other thread initially included mentions of SDMB favorites that just don’t click with me, like Buffy, Firefly, any of the Star Trek series. I don’t understand why they’re as wildly popular as they are, but they are, so I guess it’s probably just a mixture of not the type of stories/style of writing I like and I just may be missing something as a viewer, for whatever reason. That’s okay. They’re probably all very good shows, and maybe even genius, but they don’t click with me on any level.
Like when Brian goes conservative and hangs out with Rush Limbaugh, just to be a contrarian. (You know, on that remarkably smart show, Family Guy.)
You’ve certainly missed out on most of the classics if you’re not checking out movies that age and older.
The write-up for the current shirt on shirt.woot made me think of this thread.
I would suggest that the show is smart, but some viewers are not.
I skipped through the last 30 or so posts, I assume they were the same as the first 60.
One thing that always bugs me is when people complain about characters on a show as being too self centered or when no one is likable. In a show like AD, it’s not like they set out to be likeable or not selfish and failed…that’s specifically who the characters are. There was a thing on youtube (which is gone now) where Portia said that was her motivation for the character, to be a selfish as possible.
Also, speaking of hidden jokes, some of the actors on the show mentioned that there were a handful of jokes that even they missed until years later when they would catch an episode on TV.
Also, this website came up on another AD thread a few days ago. It’s worth taking a look at.
http://splitsider.com/2012/08/53-arrested-development-jokes-you-probably-missed/
ETA, regarding the narrator, if they took him out, they would just replace him with more dialogue and action. It’s not like you would just lop him off and send it out that way. That’s like cutting out JD’s dream sequences from Scrubs and then complaining that the show doesn’t make any sense because JD keeps zoning out for a few minutes at a time (though they did make a joke about that once).
The narration isn’t there to fix a broken show, it’s part of what makes the show funny.
Nailed it!
But the flaws you see are not flaws, they are what the show is and intends to be. They are also greatly exaggerated and mostly unsubstantiated. This is where I think you are having an issue. To put this as concisely as possible:
- Most shows cater to a specific world view or understanding, and they succeed or fail based on how well they meet those goals. Comparing Friends to Seinfeld to AD in terms of their artistic merit and quality is not really fair unless you are attempting to understand the goal of the artistic endeavor. Is it fair if I condemn Friends for not having an episode talking about 9/11? Of course, not. Now it’s a perfectly fair critique from a stylistic or subjective point a view, but it doesn’t diminish the show; it just means it’s not really my cup of tea. Just as you could think The Wire sucks, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad show.
AD was created as a critique of the times, our entertainment culture, and other sitcoms. You had scandals like Enron, the Iraq War, and others that really highlighted the selfishness, short sightedness, and egoism of many of the elite in our society and government. AD was vehicle for dissecting a lot of that. For example, what is Ken Lay’s family like? You say it’s unrealistic, but it’s actually about as believable a CEO buying $6k shower curtain on the company dime. People were really justifiably angry with those guys, and AD was an attempt (in a small way) to make them pitiable, laughable characters.
AD was also good about sending up the typical sitcom and our entertainment culture. The family was dysfunctional, and even the heart to heart moments were inevitably misunderstandings. One reason AD doesn’t work for some people is that they don’t have that basis of understanding. That’s not knock on people who hate the show, just an explanation for why (for example) GOB’s magic doesn’t really resonate with people who don’t remember being subjected to David Copperfield’s (or David Blaine’s) primetime magic specials. Or that Maeby’s alter-ego, Surely, being a reference to Airplane!. Or that the tiles of many episodes recall how Friends episodes were titled (eg. "the one where…). Seeing all these things is what makes many people love the show. It validates their worldview. It doesn’t mean you are stupid if you didn’t watch Friends or Airplane!, it just means the show probably seems a bit more empty and shallow. At a time when institutions and people were failing left and right, many in the audience needed a show to validate their outlooks. AD did that quite well.
-
There is not a sitcom I am aware of that is even close to being realistic. Your submission of The Office is particularly laughable given that the whole show is supposed to be a film crew filming everyday to make a documentary… for like 7 years. Realism isn’t even really on the list of criteria. What is marginally important is, as you stated later, whether the internal “rules” are followed. AD does about as well as any other sitcom in that regard.
-
Every sitcom has the functional equivalent of a narrator. Yes, a narrator can be used as a shortcut, and is often lazy writing. But that’s only the case if you are not using the time saved to make the show better. AD was great at using that shortcut to pack in more depth to the scenes and interactions between the characters. It was the modern equivalent of a dumbshow. The narrator gives you the basic plot, but the dialogue and subtlety of the characters is where the heart of the show lies. I think that’s why a lot of people don’t “get” the show.
He was voluntarily in jail IIRC.
Yes, he is stupid. Why would he get smarter when he is clearly not too bright, and severely maladjusted?
Yeah, almost everyone.
Just out of curiosity, what’s your favorite comedy tv show? Maybe if I knew that, I could wrap my head around the idea that someone who actually gets the jokes could possibly not like AD.
Who’s doing that? Personally, I liked the show a lot and look forward to its return, but I would describe it as a clever show, not a super-intelligent one, except perhaps in comparison to conventional television fare.
It’s hard to say what’s on top vs my personal preference but in my tainted opinion Seinfeld is on top. If you include animated shows, the Simpsons would probably be at the peak.