I was watching a Simpsons rerun the other day and I realized that there is a recurring pattern in episodes where a central character gets lots of money–they always blow it in the end. It seems like such a let down when this happens. Why can’t Hollywood ever give them a break? And I’m talking about poor or middle class characters here, not the ones who are already rich. This happens all the time in sitcoms from as far back as I can remember (Three’s Company). To add insult to injury, the person who blows the money is usually quickly forgiven as the other central characters realize that “money is not really what’s important”, etc. Yeah, like that would happen in real life!
I suspect this is a conspiracy on the part of Hollywood producers and entertainment moguls to demoralize people so as to keep them as zombie-like couch potatos. Or maybe they feel that the audience will lose interest in the show if the characters rise above the masses. I just don’t know.
How about, if they allowed that to happen, it would completely change the tone of the show, and probably alienate a large portion of their audience. The people watching are tuning in to watch The Simpsons, not The Rich Simpsons. When something works, you stick with it. Major changes to serial sitcoms are a Bad Idea[sup]TM[/sup].
Probably because giving them a ton of money would fundamentally change the dynamics of the show. The show starts with whatever premise you like and then they have to stick to it (assuming the show is successful). NOTE: Some sitcoms the people are already rich, or at least well off: The Cosby Show, Newhart, SOAP, The Nanny, Fresh Prince, etc.
You can see this effect in Roseanne. The show revolved around a family with very little money struggling to get by. Towards the end they won the lottery and the show was never the same…soon to be cancelled. To be fair you usually see these big jumps when a show is failing anyway and the writers are grasping for some new ‘shock’ to revitalize it. More often than not they just hasten the sinking of the ship.
There is a website devoted to this phenomenon called Jump the Shark. The site is called this after the time Fonzie jumped the shark in Happy Days. After that you knew it was all downhill and the show was doomed.
A lot has to do with continuity. If a sitcom makes a major change, all future episodes must, in theory, reflect this change. Money is just one example of this; in general, most episodes of a sitcom begin with the family (or what have you) in the “normal zone”. Then, during the episode something happens that moves them away from that paradigm (gotta love those buzzwords). Towards the end, the situation shifts back towards the “normal zone”, and at the end of the episode they’re back the way they were at the beginning. The Simpsons has lampooned this countless times. This is one thing I can’t stand about most sitcoms; something interesting happens to a character, but you know that obviously the situation will revert back to normal by the end of the show…therefore you haven’t “gotten anywhere”.
Yes, “Roseanne” sucked after they won the lottery, but I did happen to catch part of the last episode. It turned out that the last season or so didn’t “really” happen…Dan had actually died of his heart attack, Darlene was really married to Becky’s husband, and vice versa, and they didn’t win the lottery, and the whole thing was made up by Roseanne while writing in her “writer’s workshop” in the basement. Or something like that–I hadn’t watched the show much in its declining seasons, so I was a bit confused.
So, this is a case of “jumping the shark” and then jumping back at the very end. What was up with that? Why wasn’t Roseanne allowed to “really” win the lottery? There may be a conspiracy here, zedan.
Whack-a-Mole, thanks for the link to the Jump the Shark web site, it’s really cool! I’m glad someone else noticed that the Friends cast could NEVER EVER afford that huge deluxe Manhatten apartment with the cool windows.
Regardless, I agree with Tamex, there is still something very suspicious about the chronic failures of sitcom characters. The Roseanne incident is a good example. I continue to believe that this is a conspiracy to demoralize me so that I will continue watching the tube in a state of bemused resignation. This means I don’t get any studying done, which means I will never progress in life, which means I will continue to watch the tube… this conspiracy theory also provides me with a convenient excuse for ditching my responsibilites in real life.
Let’s not forget that many sitcoms have “poor person becomes rich” as the central theme of the show. The Beverly Hillbillies is probably the most famous example, but George Jefferson didn’t first appear on sitcoms as a wealthy man either. Diff’rent Strokes has some elements of the theme too, as do The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and even The Nanny. Woody on Cheers became rich when he married Kelly, but he didn’t really care much, and it didn’t change him. And there are plenty of lesser-known sitcoms like Easy Street…
There are also the sitcoms in which characters who are supposedly struggling to just get by live in apartments which would be pretty darned nice for Decatur, GA, and which for Manhattan (where they live) are totally unbelievable. If they won the lottery, how would their lives be any different?
occ has it by the tail. Keep in mind that TV shows and sitcoms in general are subject to having their creative staffs (read: writers) turn over from time to time. Therefore, they are prone to develop “bibles,” rule books about what can and cannot happen on the show, to the characters, etc. The usual rule is that you can do anything at all you want on a sitcom provided you bring us back to the starting point in 22 minutes.
Now, a whole raft of people are going to trot in here and cite examples of groundbreaking shows which break this rule. News flash: that’s why they’re groundbreaking. Your run-of-the-mill TV show will never, ever break its own rules. That’s why your run-of-the-mill TV show will never be art. Sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings.
This may be true… but it’s extremely annoying when the writers won’t allow the characters to keep even a small amount of money that won’t substantially change their lives but will perhaps allow them to buy a new car or something. Like in Cheers when Cliff got on Jeopardy and racked up thousands of dollars only to blow it at the very end when he risked it all on a subject he knew nothing of. The same goes for Mama’s Family when they were on the Family Feud and racked up thousands of dollars only to blow it at the end when Mama chose a completely stupid answer for a really simple question. Like their lives would’ve changed so much had they won, I think not!
zedan, keep in mind they are being played for comedy. Thus the events also have to be funny. For example, it wouldn’t be funny for Norm to go on Jeopardy and not know any answers, but it is funny that he goes on and wins every question. Similarly, it might be funny for him to win, but it is definitely funny that he bets all the money and loses in such a stupid way. It’s funny when the character misses a simple question because they have a very skewed point of view. “Who are three people who’ve never been in my kitchen?”
Also, keep in mind they are playing to charater types. If the character is a “loser”, then having them win defeats the point of the show. Having them lose, though, especially because of their essential difference from most people, is exactly what the shows are about.
Of course nobody could accuse Hollywood sitcom writers of being original, either.
Yeah. Only Fools and Horses ran for, what, twenty years. All the way through, they were chasing money, losing it, chasing it, losing it. Then they found it, and it stuck, it really, finally, well and truly stuck. In the last *#$!#! episode.
I too agree that sometimes it would be nice if the storyline progressed at least some. I remember seeing part of a Walker: TR, and I was disappointed that it didn’t make a move.
Walker met a cute girl in a wheelchair, but of course they had to leave him unattached, the better to kick butt, I guess. God forbid he date her, and she help out by developing into his private information and communication specialist or something. At least that would have been somewhat novel.
It comes from the one that started it all: Jackie Gleason. He and his troupe created some of the best characters ever on television: the boxer, the bartender, Ralph and Alice Kramden and Ed and Trixie Norton. Imagine how the dyanamics of the characters would be different if they became rich, as opposed to struggling to become rich. The point is that the struggle for richness and more richness is the maguffin that almost all sitcoms are based on. If they become permanently rich, the series is effectively over.
This was the example I thought of on seeing the question. Since I don’t think the series is well-known much outside the UK, it should possibly be explained that it was probably the most universally loved BBC sitcom of the last two decades. The essential set-up was a pair of brothers trying to make a living running a market stall and engaging in endless, invariably unsuccessful, semi-illegal ventures. As noted, in the final episode they suddenly become millionaires (by finding and selling an antique watch).
It hardly fits the rules of US shows, having been written by one guy, John Sullivan, over its entire run. Partly for this reason, the characters and their lives undoubtedly evolved over time, often in surprisingly, relatively serious ways.
While the show had survived one of the central characters becoming well-off and (at least superficially) middle class, it was clear that sudden riches would destabilise the core. Personally, I thus found the ending heavy handed, in that it was a plot twist that obviously could only be used in the final episode. It was almost Sullivan’s more sympathetic version of pushing Del Boy, Rodney and Uncle Albert over the Reichenbach Falls.
a) It’s fiction. The General Answer is “because the writers don’t write them that way.”
b) The question proceeds from a false premise. At the very least, the Jeffersons were presented as considerably wealthier at the end of their run on All in the Family (before they moved on up to a dee-lux apartment in the sky of their own show) than when George was introduced.
c) GQ isn’t the right place for this question for the above reasons. Where is the right place, I’m still deciding.
