Bob Newhart was such a brilliant straight man that even when he was alone on stage, the other guy got all the funny lines. Lots of his routines were of him talking on the phone and you had to fill-in what the other guy said.
Came in here to mention this one. We’re re-watching the series and he has such an insignificant role in many episodes. The one we watched last night, where he and Mother Carlson are “dating”, is a rarity where he’s in a large part of the episode and he plays a key role.
Our previously semi-binge watch comedy was Mary Tyler Moore.
So I disagree strongly with the Mary vs. Rhoda on MTM mentioned earlier. Rhoda was not all that interesting of a character. Generic sadsack. Mary had all sorts of characteristics which really drove the show.
Sue Ann.
Bland? What about John Hart on the TV show? He made Jay Silverheels look like Laurence Olivier.
Christine Baranski’s character, Maryann Thorpe, was supposed to be the sidekick to Cybill Shepherd’s lead on Cybill, but ended up stealing just about every scene she was in. Baranski even racked up the cast’s only Emmy award. Supposedly this infuriated Shepherd (though she denies it in her autobiography).
It’s interesting. The concept of a relatively bland protagonist surrounded by much more colorful side characters seems to be so common in so many good shows, I’m beginning to think it’s a feature, not a bug. Maybe they’re necessary. Maybe if you removed the boring guy or girl at the center and only left the more “interesting” characters, the show wouldn’t work.
It actually seems to be a fairly common technique in fiction, I’ve found, though I don’t know if anyone’s formally codified or taught it—the idea that you make the main character at least somewhat bland, so it’s easier for the audience or reader to “project” themselves onto them, and thus connect with and become immersed in the story.
This reminds me: Sterling Archer is, to me, much less interesting than the rest of his coworkers. Pam, Cheryl, and the rest are much more entertaining.
It’s that, absolutely. I think a story also needs an “anchor”, a stable point all the other characters can orbit. You need a reason for all of these very different people to talk to each other, and one way to do that is having one neutral character they all can interact with. Spock and Bones are more interesting that Kirk, but without the Captain, all they’d do is bicker. Kirk gets them to smooth their eccentricities enough to get along with him, and thus with each other. Or could you imagine George, Elaine and Kramer staying friends for more than five minutes without Jerry there to act as mediator?
Oliver Twist pretty much disappears from the novel that’s supposedly about him. Fagin, Sykes, Nancy, and even the Artful Dodger turn out to be much more interesting people.
Liz Lemon is plenty interesting. She just isnt a Sci-Fi character like Kenneth or Jane K.
I have to disagree with the premise here. Sure, some movies and TV shows have unintentionally bland and unengaging lead characters. But Burn Notice isn’t one of them. Bruce Campbell is undeniably awesome, as always, but I really like the character of Michael Westen as well. I enjoyed all his voiceovers full of esoteric bits of spycraft and the different characters he played each week in order to insinuate himself into whichever group/gang he was trying to take down.
Andy Devine as Jingles in the old Wild Bill Hickok series.
Bruce Lee as Cato in the old Green Hornet series.
I’m a big fan of the show and the Archer character, whom I do find rather interesting. However, Bob Belcher from Bob’s Burgers really isn’t that exciting IMHO - his kids (and to a lesser extent, his wife) are much more interesting and entertaining.
I get the impression that’s deliberate, though.
I disagree with the premise that the boring character is necessary. As a counterexample, I offer the Japanese workplace sitcom anime “Working!”. Each cast member has their own strange quirk, and the comedy stems from how the interact. The way it makes it work without the bland protagonist is that the character who plays the part of the straight man changes from scene to scene. I think that it helps keep things fresher; it also rounds out the characters better and prevents the leads from being one-note characters. The downside is that there were times when a character was being particularly zany and I felt it was out of character for them.
The concept is not absolutely necessary, but it can be very effective in comedy. I’ve had several humorous stories published; nearly all had protagonists who were the (somewhat) calm center of the madness.
In Green Acres, Oliver was usually the calm center of the madness (his only quirk was being overzealous wanting to be a farmer). Jed Clampett did the same in The Beverly Hillbillies.
There were also Dick Benjamin and Paula Prentiss in He and She, where, despite being the title characters, they took a back seat to the others in the cast.
Yeah, but she’s also forever playing voice-of-reason to Tracy, plus she’s the go-to regular person in Jack Donaghy’s larger-than-life world – and so she kind of gets a “she’s the comparatively normal one” momentum going – at which point it’s easy to have her play it straight in any given scene, which means her boyfriend du jour can play walking punchline or Carrie Fisher can play funhouse mirror.
How about the 70s sitcom “Alice”? Mention the show these days, and if someone remembers it it’s either for wisecracking waitress Flo (“Kiss My Grits!”) or oily diner owner Mel Sharples. In fact, I remember back then a number of people actually calling the show “Mel’s Diner”.
I notice most anime tend to have a boring/generic main character who plays the straight man (and also the audience identification character) and then surround them with the most zany and interesting supporting cast, and the humor comes from the boring main character having to deal with all of these weird people.
I don’t think this is what the OP intended, but I have to say one thing that makes Sam more appealing is that Michael is really unlikeable as a person. (especially if you consider any episode after Anson showed up (which I pretend don’t exist)).
He has this blindered view of the world. He has no empathy. He’s selfish. He has a nearly sociopathic perspective. His upbringing damaged him, but his bosses didn’t care to fix him, just use him, like a tool.
He’s the perfect guy to send on tough missions, but you wouldn’t want to invite him to the unit BBQ afterwards. He’s probably be happier cleaning his weapons anyway.
Again, not blander, but unlikeable - Brenda Leigh Johnson. The woman is a narcissist, a user, a bully, a 6 year old passing as an adult. She never has to pay any penalty her behavior. Provenza is a much more likeably interesting character.