JacoIII wrote:ShogunRua wrote:How do you feel that the sensibilities of Park and Rec differed from those of say 30 Rock, Arrested Development, and/or the US version of The Office?
Well 30 Rock is less character-based and more of a joke-delivery system. They also avoid naturalistic dialogue, the jokes in 30 Rock SOUND like jokes (I'm often reminded of Jack Handey/John Swartzwelder). The jokes in Parks and Rec are meant to SOUND like funny things each character would say. I'm working on a comedy data-analysis project and my initial findings (very, very initial) suggest that 30 Rock never goes more than 3 lines of dialogue without a joke. The Parks and Rec ratio is much lower. 30 Rock is also less self-congratulatory about it's left-wing politics. Jokes are often made about Liz's strong opinions on topics she barely understands while Jack is portrayed as an intelligent, eloquent, and (somewhat) kind conservative. Additionally, 30 Rock often makes jokes about race, religion, transsexuals, and other risky topics, which Parks and Rec avoids.
I agree with your analysis, but I feel like those are relatively minor points. On the whole, the humor feels similar, even if not wholly identical.
JacoIII wrote:As for The Office, well, it's not all that different. Parks and Rec was pretty obviously an attempt to cash in on the popularity of The Office. Amy Poehler does a Michael Scott impression all the way though the first season.
Yeah, it's a less funny imitation of a show that was itself a less funny imitation.
JacoIII wrote:Wow, I never, ever felt this way about Michael Bluth at all. I mean, I don't want the character to fail but that has absolutely nothing to do with the way I see myself. I've actually never heard that interpretation from anyone. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I honestly don't think the character was created for that purpose.
Michael Bluth is actually presented as a kind of shitty guy (the characters often talk about how he ignores his son, how he thinks he's better than everyone else, he's so shallow he even dates a mentally handicapped woman for months without realizing it etc.) but he also acts the most normal of the family. He's not happy to be used, at all, and this is actually a huge sticking point throughout the show. The only times he gets truly angry are when his family tricks him or asks for too much. In just the second episode, he and his brother burn down a banana stand because the patriarch forced Michael to work there every summer 20 years ago. He's actually quite petty.
That said, he's also the straight man, a necessary character for all the other crazy people to bounce off. People aren't supposed to see themselves in him so that they'll feel better, they're supposed to see the way a somewhat normal person would respond to the insanity that surrounds him. It's meant to ground the show in some kind of accessible reality.
This is actually why, in my opinion, It's Always Sunny doesn't work. They don't have a centered, moral character, which means the plots and jokes become obvious: the worst, most reprehensible thing that COULD happen, WILL happen. The conflict is often nonexistent.
However, I could be totally out of touch with the average TV viewer. I watch TV because I want to see what ideas and jokes writers and actors can come up with. I'm not looking for characters to make me feel better about the type of person that I am. Maybe some people love AD and Sunny for that reason but I see no evidence that either show was created to be an emotional pacifier. It seems unfair to judge a program based on the response of those viewers.
Fair enough. Maybe my "pandering" interpretation went a bit too far, and it's just personal annoyance at the horrid writing.
Ocelot wrote:Arrested Development absolutely does not portray Michael as a "hero" in any way other than people associating "hero" with "protagonist." In fact, Michael is quite possibly the worst out of all of them as he doesn't even acknowledge his faults and constantly puts down the rest of his family for theirs.
Such a reading of the show is so baffling that I can't help but imagine you either didn't actually watch it or just sat there in contempt the whole time mumbling "fucking hipsters."
I watched the first two episodes. That was all I could fucking suffer through.
And okay, if Michael is not meant to be the hero, then it's a show about a bunch of completely unfunny, astonishingly dull, whiny morons . None of whom are remotely sympathetic. Not sure that's an improvement.
CMonster wrote:Also, who watches It's Always Sunny and says, "Hey, I'm a lot like the main characters." They are all differing levels of moronic and morally repugnant. We are supposed to be laughing at them and not with them. Shogun, if you know people who think they are like less edgy versions of the It's Always Sunny characters you should really stop hanging around such stupid people because it's bleeding into rational analysis.
On the flip side, maybe you should stop hanging around squares, and start making friends with funnier, more gregarious people?
The people I know who feel that way aren't dumb any moreso than the people in this topic who enjoy Arrested Development.They literally see their lives as "funny" (their interpretation, not mine) and crazy as those of the protagonists of the show, except without the moral bankruptcy and convenient bouts of utter retardation.