Is that sometimes all you need? Really? 'Cause, I can find eye candy anywhere; I wouldn’t watch a sitcom for it if it had no other redeeming qualities.
Desperation. I’ve seen it before. It’s a “nudge nudge isn’t that a howler” scenario – and still never works.
Besides, if you’re going for that, you have to work a bit harder at it. Consider That’s My Bush, which was an ironic comment on that style of comedy. It also had a loud laughtrack, but everything was also played very broadly. The Winner was played pretty realistically, which eliminated the irony.
Major, major brainwave, Chuck. I was thinking of That’s My Bush for this whole thread. That show was occasionally funny, but it didn’t really work either. Perhaps it just doesn’t work to make broad sitcom parody the basis for your show.
I, too, watched about 5 minutes of this before giving up on it. (To be fair, I had taped it, so I was leaving open the possibility of coming back and watching the rest later. But I don’t think I will.)
I wasn’t thinking hard enough to come up with coherent reasons why it sucked, but I think the analysis presented in this thread is right on.
I used to watch that WB show with Nikki Cox just for her. It wasn’t a must-see, but if it was on and I was channel surfing I would watch her. Of course, I don’t watch Las Vegas even though she is in it.
It doesn’t matter if it’s operating on some mega-ultra-meta-ironic level; the laugh track is simply too intolerable to invest the effort.
Opening with an O.J. Simpson joke didn’t help, either.
And it’s a pity because the premise had potential.
I watched about half of the first episode and gave up. Cliche riddled. Unfunny. Oppressive laugh track. Stupid sit-commy plotting. Arguably worse than “The War at Home.”
Yep, the Korean hooker was funnier than any of the regular characters. Should change the show’s focus, huh?
I found it just appalling. I was floored by how inept it was.
I do get the meta-joke - it’s playing up sitcoms, or at least I sure hope so - but just because something is satirical doesn’t make it good. If you want to watch a sitcom that sends up sitcoms, that’s what “Family Guy” is for.
I didn’t catch anything satirical about it, but then maybe I didn’t watch long enough.
The problem wasn’t that it was warped; the problem was that every joke was horribly cliched and predictable.
Thanks for the replies, folks. Heres how a printed ad for the show should look like:
THE CRITICS AGREE:
What kills me is that someone actually thought it would be a hit! Do they not see what shows are popular? Do they not see what formulas seem to work? Do they actually think it was funny? I have to wonder if the programming dudes just started the job the night before.
Well, not to sound like I’m flogging a dead horse, but I think “Arrested Development” serves as a case study for how sometimes clever, funny shows flounder while formulaic crap lives on (and I’m not going to single out any particular other show for the formulaic crap part so I don’t offend anyone 
).
I’m sure no one will be offended if I agree that “The Winner” is a horrible, horrible show. On the other hand, I thought the pilot for “American Dad” was absolutely awful, but then I ended up liking the later episodes, so I guess there’s a chance that maybe Seth just needs a little time to work out the bugs?
Man, I can’t believe anyone thought that laugh track was a good idea though…
I agree…formula doesn’t make it good. But I just can’t figure out how they thought this show would be a hit. I will try it again, just cuz I try to always give it two tries, but…I’m not holding much hope for it.
I will. “Everybody Loves Raymond.”
“Arrested Development” lasted three full seasons, IIRC, which is not “foundering” by any measure. A legitimate series failure dies in a season or less. Three seasons is more than most shows. Sure, it had a few more seasons left in it, but it’s not like it died in a month like “girls club” or “That 80’s Show.”
Sure, there are bad shows that last; “According to Jim” is a famously bad show that just seems to amble along like a zombie. But the thing is, from what I’ve seen so far, “The Winner” is actually worse than “According to Jim.”
I heard Rob Corddry was involved and planned on checking this out, but forgot. Now I read that Seth Macfarlane is in on it? Glad I didn’t waste my time. I haven’t found anything he’s done even remotely amusing.
Well, it is set in 1994.
I don’t know. I’m going to go against the grain in this thread and say that I kind of liked it.
The laugh track is abominable (even if it is for the sake of irony) and many of the jokes do fall flat, but there have only been two episodes so far.
The biggest thing I have against The Winner is that it has knocked King of the Hill off the schedule until March 25th.
Maybe the show kind of resonates personally for me. Hard to tell. I mean, I’m 28, currently (though not always) living with my parents, and have a thing for a girl named Allison, so… 
Well, at least I did have sex with Allison.
I wonder if the exceedingly dreadful Rules of Engagement is produced by the same people. Horrible, unfunny, and laugh track turned on every 2.1 seconds. Awful, awful stuff.
MacFarlane is a guy who does one thing well. That justifies him having one show, not three - but then again, the same is true of Chris Carter and he had four shows.