 |  |
For the past few weeks, Bravo has been quietly airing a small reality series named Situation: Comedy. Chances are you haven't seen it because it's been shuffled around the schedule seemingly every week. Nevertheless, like the giant fishing net that it is, the Tivo has managed to rein in all the episodes, and I'm proud to say that I've watched every show. You can pay me later, Bravo.
I haven't been recapping it because for the most part, while the series is interesting, it's a bit quaint and dull. That's not to say I didn't like it. As someone who's worked in the television industry for the past seven years, I actually found Situation: Comedy's look at the pilot process enjoyable, even fascinating.
The basic premise behind Situation: Comedy is that two writers (or teams of writers, as it were) would be plucked from the ether, Project: Greenlight style, and allowed to produce their very own pilot presentations. Then the audience would vote on which pilot it likes more, thus crowning a winner who will go on to bigger and better things in the world of network television.
Well, last week I took a gander at these finished pilot presentations (they're hosted at AOL. Voting ends on Friday), and I'll just put it out there: they're both horrendous. Really honest-to-god awful.
Normally, I'd just close my browser, but since I always have to say my piece, I did cast a vote. The official TVgasm endorsement (or at least, my endorsement) after the jump.
Before I talk about these two pilots, I just want to vent a little bit about this whole Situation: Comedy process. I admire this show. I really do. And, heck, I even respect most of the people on it. I probably could banter with Maxine Lapiduss for hours. I think they all seem like very nice people (except for that jerk on Stephen's Life. You know, the guy who talks like he's deaf, but he's not. Very weird).
Anyway, here's the thing. The whole point of this show is to find a fresh new voice to reinvigorate the sitcom landscape. I think that's a fantastic idea and something the networks desperately need (cough, hire me, cough). But right from the get-go, Situation: Comedy has only served to rile up the cynic in me. After all, from the very first episode right until last week's installment, we've watched these supposedly "fresh" scripts get worked and re-worked through the old studio system.
First we saw the pool of ten thousand (!!) pilots get whittled down by Sean Hayes, his writing partner Todd Milliner, former Golden Girls writer Stan Zimmerman, former Roseanne writer Maxine Lapiduss, and NBC development honcho, Renate So-And-So (sorry, I forgot her last name. That's okay. Her first name is more fun to say anyway. It's pronounced like Renatta. Say it. It's a blast). To be honest, I don't know how funny or not funny any of these people are, but watching this selection process, I couldn't help thinking that the very people picking the scripts could arguably be the same ones responsible for the stale state of sitcoms. Certainly that could affect the sort of pilots chosen to be winners.
After this crew narrowed their finalists down to five writers/writing teams, the newbies then had to pitch to NBC executives, and then based on those pitches, NBC head Kevin Reilly (who didn't even read the scripts) chose the two winning teams.
As the series progressed, we watched as The System slowly molded the scripts. Whether it was forcing a single-camera pilot to go multi-camera or enlisting sitcom vets to punch up the drafts, it became evident that the old guard had a lot more input than we ever thought they would.
That being said, I'm a realist. These writing teams desperately needed the leadership and help of people who'd been around the industry and knew what they were doing. Still, after seeing the final product, I was massively disheartened. The winning presentations were so bad, I was led to two equally sad conclusions:
- Either these scripts started off funny but then the NBC sitcom machine turned them into mediocre dreck; OR
- These scripts were never funny, but they still managed to win the competition because the NBC sitcom machine no longer knows what funny is.
« OMG!!! Jassica No More?? | Main | Newsgasm: Get Yer Phone Out, It's Telethon Time! »
Comments (10)
I've been watching this series every week (and yes that's been hard since they seem to change the time every week).
I think Stephen's Life is actually quite a funny show and if it evolves not into cutesy but more biting I think it could be a really good show--good enough to be one of the only network scripted shows I watch (in addition to Scrubs--and not including all the wonderful reality tv shows)
The Sperm Donor is terrible!!! I can't believe TVGasm is supporting it!! I dedicate quite a lot of time to checking this website everyday from my cube and I must say I'm very disappointed.
The Sperm Donor couldn't be more silly. It's a very bad rip off of the same idea you always see, plus it just isn't funny.
Anyway, I'm very surprised that a tv connoseuir such as yourself would endorse such crap. I strongly suggest that you reconsider this endorsement.
1 of 10 | Posted by sweet j | Posted on September 1, 2005 10:24 AM
It was pretty telling that when they were announcing the losers, half the time the committee would say something like "this is really smart, but I don't think it will work." Nope, can’t have anything to intelligent on NBC.
2 of 10 | Posted by janis | Posted on September 1, 2005 10:34 AM
sweet j --
Just to remind you, I thought both were incredibly unfunny, and i would never *ever* watch either one. But at least sperm donor made me laugh out loud once. very low standards we're dealing with here.
3 of 10 | Posted by B-Side | Posted on September 1, 2005 12:11 PM
I watched both.
I didn't laugh once during Sperm Donor, and kept waiting for Maggie Wheeler to break into a nasal "oh my gaaaawd"
I laughed quite a few times during Stephen's Life.
But you're right, neither blew me away.
I voted for Stephen's life.
4 of 10 | Posted by Meesh | Posted on September 1, 2005 12:24 PM
I watched two minutes of each. I laughed once at Sperm Donor (at the beat the show takes for you to figure out what the mother's profession is, though the immediately following line is lame beyond belief), and never at Stephen's Life.
So, though Sperm Donor is slightly better, I'm going to take inspiration from Stephen and indulge in that fine American tradition of not voting at all. And then eat a donut while watching five-year-old videos of Bill Clinton (?).
5 of 10 | Posted by Jedzz | Posted on September 1, 2005 1:35 PM
I couldn't finish watching either one of them out of sheer boredom.
Besides, I've developed a severe aversion to laugh tracks over the years. Especially when it's almost constant, like with these two shows.
6 of 10 | Posted by Amber | Posted on September 2, 2005 1:15 PM
I don' know the name of it, but I think that "The Sperm Donor" is the plot of some WB or UPN show this fall ... it has Daphne from Frasier. Is it the same show?
7 of 10 | Posted by dumbanddumber | Posted on September 4, 2005 12:34 PM
Could someone explain to me why Cheri Oteri can't seem to find work - she cracks me up. I loved her on SNL
8 of 10 | Posted by bdos88 | Posted on September 5, 2005 3:57 PM
Wow! It was so nice to find your blog with intelligent commentary. The stuff on the Bravo message boards was scary.
My opinions about those shows is pretty much the same as yours. I didn't get a chance to vote for the shows, the voting ended too early, but if I had to choose, it would be "The Sperm Donor", only so those others guys wouldn't win. Editing or not, I couldn't stand that Andrew guy.
Didn't you also think that Cheri Oteri's character was kind of icky? Drooling over a middle school kid? Stroking his leg? I love warped humor, but I just think that was completely tasteless and most of all, not funny.
Do you think any of those writers will actually work in TV after this?
9 of 10 | Posted by Ellen | Posted on September 6, 2005 2:59 PM
I've seen all the eps and both pilots. One thing I found stunning was the utter joylessness of the entire process of producing these comedies.
I've worked as a writer on several sitcoms and animated shows... and regardless of our position in the Nielsen rating-- we laughed. A lot. Comedy writers are generally amusing people to be around.
Andrew strikes me as the type of guy who'd be singled out as the funniest attorney in the risk management dept.
Stan and Maxine seem like decent folk. But they both had that regretful pallor that industry pros get five minutes after they start teaching their Learning Annex class entitled "How to Break Into Television."
Given that all the characters in both pilots were sampled from other, better shows, I suppose both pilots were well acted. (That said, the kid who played Stephen needs a speech therapist and an endocrinologist, stat.)
The writing is, unfortunately, industry standard comedy writing.
The kindest thing I can say is that they are both familiar products. Like bags of Cheez Doodles whose expiration dates have long past.
10 of 10 | Posted by HoJo | Posted on September 6, 2005 4:31 PM