But, manhattan, your answer part a proves that it does belong here: there is a factual answer.
[hijack]
If I’m remembering right, didn’t Monica inherit the apartment from her grandmother? There was an episode where she almost got evicted because the landlord found out that it wasn’t actually the grandmother living there.
Ross is a college professor/museum researcher (or something along those lines) so his apt is somewhat within reason. Now how Joey and Chandler can afford their apt is beyond me. And what about Phoebe, a masseuse (sp?)?
[/hijack]
<hijack>
Was her name Barbara “Babs” Gordan?
<end hijack>
So, where do the Beverly Hillbillies fit into all this?
Ok…this is off-topic…BUT…I was under the impression that shows in the U.K. only ran for limited runs. Seems like they only make, say, 8-10 shows a year. But this Only Fools and Horses ran for 20 years? Was it a soap opera (serial), or something?
Just curious…
In one episode they mention that Chandler makes quite a bit of money - I’m a cube worker and make $60K a year, and I don’t even have to wear a shirt and tie like Chandler.
i’ve always thought it was hilarious on the Simpsons that often times characters come into a lot of money but don’t lose it in the end. Of course, the funny part is that the next episode there is no mention of the money again. for instance, the Simpson Family came back from Africa loaded with diamonds. They never show the family losing that money, but I’ll wager dollars to donuts that it is never mentioned again.
One notable exception: Kent Brockman. Even though he kept his anchor job after winning the lottery, whenever he’s seen off-air, he’s obviously fabulously wealthy.
No conspiracy. In addition to the examples listed above, Mary Richards never got rich, but it was obvious by the end of the Mary Tyler Moore show that she was better off than when she started. Archie Bunker started off as a loading dock foreman, went to moonlighting as a cab driver and wound up owning his own restaurant. Somewhere between Boston and Seattle, Frasier Crane must have come into money.
And there was a show called Arnie about an average Joe who got promoted to an executive job. It revolved around his struggles to keep his old friends and fit in with the new crowd. It was neither successful, nor particularly funny. Is that what you really want?
[Nitpick]A bar, actually.[/Nitpick]
I think that the answer to the OP can be found in Jump the Shark’s listing for “Roseanne”. Read the “Other Thoughts” toward the bottom of the page. People get pissed when you change a major premise of the show like that. Especially when it is done badly, as, IMO, it was in this case. No wonder they wanted to “take it all back” at the end.
I think it is nice to have characters eventually grow and change in a sitcom, but it has to be done carefully, and it seems that most writers aren’t willing to take the time and effort to do it right, so they just stick with the status quo and no permanent changes. Since most people seem to hate change of any sort anyway, perhaps it’s just not worth it except as a last resort.
Thank you, Whack-a-Mole, for introducing me to the Jump the Shark site :).
I always thought that was because he just makes a lot of money, what with being the only source of news in Springfield.
Don’t forget Jim Ignatowski from Taxi. He inherited a ton of money from his dad when he died. Jim didn’t care about the money. He kept driving his cab. There was also a show where he gave each of the drivers $1000 just so they could see how good it felt to give money to somebody who really needed it. There are times a show can have a character hit the jackpot and not let it kill the show.
[making peace by pointing out that you’re both right]
A bar and grill, actually
[/making peace by pointing out that you’re both right]
There was also a short-lived sitcom called Easy Street. It starred Loni Anderson as the inheritor of a fortune, which she insisted on sharing with (I think it was) her uncle, a skid-row derelict.
In Three’s Company, Jack started out as a really poor cooking school student, and ended up as the sole owner of a successful gourmet restaraunt. Janet started out as an employee of the florist place, and, I don’t remember how, eventually owned it. The blonde trio went from ditzy Susanne Sommers, and ended up as the nurse, Terri…sounds like they did pretty well…
kunilou writes:
> Somewhere between Boston and Seattle, Frasier Crane must
> have come into money.
I don’t see any reason to think that. You never saw where he lived in Boston, if I recall correctly. He certainly acted like he had the kind of money you would expect for a psychiatrist. In Seattle he’s a radio talk show psychiatrist. He lives with his widowed father, a retired policeman. It’s stated that his long-dead mother was a psychiatrist who worked with the police. The apartment Frasier and his father live in is possible on that income (or at least no more beyond their income than the apartments on Friends).
(a)At the risk of getting too philosophical, and
(2) not wanting to go to far down this road, and
(d) not wanting to make too long a post on a Saturday afternoon…
My reaction to the OP was that sitcoms are vehicles for advertising. They tend to encourage popular misconceptions, conformity, and consumerism, thereby assisting the advertisers to sell their stuff.
The way an average citizen with average revenue can get rich is to:
- work hard and don’t sit around watching television
- shop very wisely, buy only on sale or used goods that are really needed
- avoid wasting money on pop culture or fad expenditures such as movies, CDs, scooters…
Philosophically, for the benefit of the television industry, it is better for the viewing public to think that they will never get rich unless they inherit or win the lottery. The truth is that most people who build wealth do it by being frugal, really smart, and working really hard, not your average television viewer and advertising target.
I guarantee you that, at some point when you are middle-aged, it will cross your mind that if you hadn’t bought $200 worth of CDs every month between the ages of 18-25, and spent $250 a month on drinks in bars between the ages of 18-30, and bought new cars on credit every four years, etc etc, and invested the money wisely, you’d be retired and not still dragging yourself off to your hated job and stumbling home at night to sit in front of the TV.
Just IMHO and thinking out loud, my reaction to the question. When it comes to their characters getting rich, the sitcoms are not going to teach their viewers the most common and easiest way to do it, they’re going to encourage popular misconceptions on wealth to sustain the consumer status quo. If consumers start thinking that the doughnut and coffee they spend $3 on every day at work costs them 600 after tax dollars every year (you work one or two weeks a year just to buy doughnuts???), or that their new car costs them $150 (after tax dollars) a week to own, it might affect the quality of their consumerism.
Ha! I was not comfortable with my post, I hate sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but…
Seconds after I posted I heard a radio announcer say “Want to get even with a cheating husband or boyfriend? Don’t get mad, go shopping!”
A pretty good example of the concept I was trying to convey.
I must agree with the theory that “if something works, stick with it.” The most likely reason that the sitcom characters stay poor or middle class is that the majority of the show’s viewers would fall into this category as well, and when you can feel a so-called “connection” wwiht the characters on a show, you are more likely to become a fan. If network producers decided to make all sitcom characters rich, they may lose this “connection” with the viewers of the show who may not be able to financially relate to the characters.