I could never get into Leverage simply because it seemed to be a ripoff of the UK series Hu$tle, down to the one-to-one correspondence of the roles of the main characters. Whenever I try to watch, I’m reminded that Mickey Bricks was far more clever and the plots were far better.
Similarly, I didn’t really like Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist because of the similarity to Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, which had the same concept but which used original songs (all first-class) and dealt with with a great deal of depth over the course of the show.
Outside of TV, I never cared for Erma Bombeck because I head read Jean Kerr. I realize now that there was a difference – Bomback wrote regular columns, while Kerr did occasional essays – but she always struck me as far funnier.
What shows/books/movies (and not sequels/reboots) left you cold because of the similarities to a superior version?
Family Guy. I’ve watched a few episodes many years ago, but it always played like a forced rip-off of the SImpsons, a show I still adore for the first 10 seasons or so. In retrospect, I’d say that Family Guy from the beginning was very similar to the latter (that means the last 20 years) Simpsons stuff, just as stale and only good for two or three mild smirks per episode.
ETA: and don’t ask me about American Dad. That was the rip-off of the rip-off and even worse.
I was skeptical for the same reason, but Zoey has to be treated as an entirely different beast. There’s probably never going to be a musical comedy show as good as Crazy Ex-Girlfriend but having just watched the season 1 finale of Zoey, I can assure you that Zoey takes the audience to some pretty profound places. I think Zoey is more of a softball - it has broader audience appeal, there are no dysfunctional and self-destructive characters… but it’s instructive and insightful on dying, grief and loss in a way I’ve never quite seen done before.
The Simpsons wasn’t cruel, though. Family Guy is like the Simpsons without the heart.
I’ve talked about this before. Even though I’ve only seen and read snippets of what the show is about, the Amercian version ofThe Masked Singer is in utter bastardization of the original King of Mask Singer.. King of Mask Singer is focused on giving celebrities, especially K-Pop idols in a group, a chance to showcase their unknown singing talents. There’s no elaborate costumes, just the mask, which is chosen by the contestant.
This is why I follow many Twitter accounts that post Family Guy gags out of context. Out of context, they’re hilarious, but going through a whole episode of them is such a chore. I’d recommend following “Family guy funny moments” in particular if you actually want to laugh at Family Guy.
I’ll go in a different direction and say that TV made in the last 15-25 years has ruined most of the classic stuff because the medium is just so much better now. Today’s average shows would have run the table at the Emmys in 1978.
Amazon Prime has a show called “Homecoming.” The first season starred Julia Roberts, the second Janelle Monae, but the stories are connected. I and my wife are literally the only people I know who’ve watched it. It’s very good but evidently not super popular, and while I think it’s above average I wouldn’t say it’s one of the five or ten best shows I’ve ever seen. Maybe top twenty. But it’s better than ANY drama from the 1970s. Leaps and bounds better in production value but also script.
That’s true. The Simpsons made fun of everything and everybody, but though it was often sharp and biting, I can’t remember an instance when it was downright mean.
That was bound to happen when in 1978 there were only three networks producing shows, and they had to tiptoe around the FCC. You couldn’t even have aired many of the shows produced now by cable networks or streaming channels.
Agree with this entirely. My problem with Family Guy is that it tries to hard to be edgy and funny which sabotages it in some ways from achieving that goal. The humor on The Simpson and South Park seems a lot more naturally. (Well at least the first decade of The Simpsons; I can’t believe The Simpsons as been on long enough we can divide it into three decades.)
Worth pointing out that the American version of The Office is highly regarded by critics and audiences alike, so this opinion is by no means universal.
I think it’s a bit tricky to compare the two, as while the American version started off as a quite faithful replica (the pilot episode was basically the precise script of the British pilot, with a few British-isms changed), it developed its own distinct personality starting in season 2.
I’ve watched each series in its entirety at least twice, and consider myself a fan of both. I’d compare/contrast them as follows:
-British Office (BO) is much much shorter, and maintains a very consistent tone and very high level of quality throughout, whereas AO has a peak in quality from season 2 to 6 or so, but then continues for several years past that, and has some fairly forgettable episodes and plot lines to fill up so many episodes of TV. Its tone also shifts markedly over its run, starting as a clone of BO in season 1, then shifting gears in season 2 while still maintaining grounding in apparent reality, and then getting increasingly flanderized over its run time
-BO’s primary appeal is cringey awkward humor and the unbelievable lack of self awareness of David Brent (which it does very well). AO’s primary appeal is getting to hang out with characters who you get increasingly attached to, with lots of very big laughs. AO is a much “happier” show
-Presumably largely because of how it ran, the total number of really top notch episodes of AO is greater than BO
-If I had to pick a single one to be judged for overall quality from episode 1 to the end, I would pick BO. If I had to pick one to take with me to the proverbial desert island, I would pick AO.
Not a TV show but I have hard time watching Rebel without a Cause with James Dean when Thurston Howell III from Gilligan’s Island is playing his father.