I think Cheers is more of a character-driven show. Their interaction is what propels an episode from start to finish, especially because they take place in a contained environment. You can't get a lot of action, but you can get a lot of great lines.
In contrast, Frasier seems to be more plot-driven. I tend to remember what happened to the characters rather than what they said. Again, this may have to do with the fact that Frasier had more freedom with sets.

I prefer character driven shows, movies, books etc, just in general.

That is actually what I liked about Cheers, the stationary set caused for it to be character driven.


I think Seinfeld actually achieved the perfect balance, because there was little central story, though every episode had a very complex storylines, the characters insane behavior is what really caused the humor.

Definitely character-driven.

Any show that can stay on 11 years using primarily one setting, is without a doubt a character-driven show.

It's always the dialogue and interactions between the characters that people remember, or what the characters did, rather than what kinds of stories they were involved in. When you think about it, the plots on "Cheers" were always extremely thin and any other sitcom could have wrapped them up in 10 minutes, but "Cheers" took 22-25 minutes to tell because they deliberately told stories that allowed for plenty of character interaction and development.

"Seinfeld" was definitely plot-driven. Yes, the characters were memorable, but it was the plots that were the center of the show. If you think about it, if you interchanged Jerry, George or Elaine in stories, there wouldn't be much of a difference because those three were basically the same type of character, just with different dominating characteristics (Jerry's a smartass, George is a neurotic liar, Elaine's kind of a bitch).

character driven, no doubt.

Def. character driven, I usually don't like character driven shows, but for sitcoms it works better, for Dramas it doesn't work as well.

I think it is very character driven, moreso than any other series.
Each character (even the much deplored Rebecca) was well thought out and very funny in their own right. (somehow, each of them could hold a series on their own)

Speaking of the stationary set.
Over the first 2 and a half seasons, the only sets used were the bar, the poolroom, the office, and Diane's apartment (and even that was only used 5 or 6 times, and all we saw was the living room)

Yeah, and the office and pool room were still part of the bar, so you can fudge it and say they only used two sets in the first two or three years. Wow.

I almost wish they kept that up and never introduced other sets (although some, like the street outside and Melville's would still have been okay). It really gave the show a unique feel, almost like a one-act play each week, that fit with the tone and style of the bar itself. And since the star of the show was technically the bar, it made sense to keep the focus there. That may have gotten boring after awhile, though.

Originally posted by slackermonkey
Yeah, and the office and pool room were still part of the bar, so you can fudge it and say they only used two sets in the first two or three years. Wow.

I almost wish they kept that up and never introduced other sets (although some, like the street outside and Melville's would still have been okay). It really gave the show a unique feel, almost like a one-act play each week, that fit with the tone and style of the bar itself. And since the star of the show was technically the bar, it made sense to keep the focus there. That may have gotten boring after awhile, though.

Yeah, I always felt like the episode got a little lost when they moved out of the bar - mostly because that meant they had to ignore the other characters. I hated how in "Yacht of Fools," for example, the writers ignored the rest of the bar for half of the episode. (Though that happened quite a bit when they focused too much on Sam and Diane in the second season.)

Originally posted by Chambers
Yeah, I always felt like the episode got a little lost when they moved out of the bar - mostly because that meant they had to ignore the other characters. I hated how in "Yacht of Fools," for example, the writers ignored the rest of the bar for half of the episode. (Though that happened quite a bit when they focused too much on Sam and Diane in the second season.)

I agree, alot of times it would get a little convoluted when they would venture to say Norm's office or Gary's Old Towne Tavern.

Cheers was definately character driven. IMO, sitcoms are better if they are character driven than plot driven. Think about it: a plot lasts for 22 minutes, but a character lasts for years!

There were certain episodes that were only funny because of the Cheers characters. If it were any other people, it wouldn't be nearly as funny. The show, like many of the best sitcoms, got its humor from character interactions.

Yes, character-driven is always the way to go. Every one of my favorite shows is character-driven, except maybe "Seinfeld," which I still believe was plot-driven.

Originally posted by slackermonkey
Yes, character-driven is always the way to go. Every one of my favorite shows is character-driven, except maybe "Seinfeld," which I still believe was plot-driven.

Really? I've always thought of Seinfeld as being character driven

It was the plots that drove the show. The characters were memorable, sure, but the stories were what made the show about "nothing."

Originally posted by slackermonkey
It was the plots that drove the show. The characters were memorable, sure, but the stories were what made the show about "nothing."

Exactly.

Jerry in Episode 1 was Jerry in Episode 100
same goes for Elaine, George and Kramer.... you could basically air any episode of the series in any order, and it all makes sense. (for the most part)

Not to mention if you interchanged Jerry, George or Elaine in stories, you'd get the same outcome. Those three were basically the same character with slightly different characteristics.

Originally posted by slackermonkey
Not to mention if you interchanged Jerry, George or Elaine in stories, you'd get the same outcome. Those three were basically the same character with slightly different characteristics.

That is true, although George is by far the best.

Poor Jason Alexander. One of the greatest TV actors of the 90s and he's been reduced to crappy sitcoms and KFC commercials.

Originally posted by barwars
Exactly.

Jerry in Episode 1 was Jerry in Episode 100
same goes for Elaine, George and Kramer.... you could basically air any episode of the series in any order, and it all makes sense. (for the most part)

Same way with Cheers IMO. Norm in Season 1 was the same Norm in Season 11 wasn't he? Same with Sam, Carla, Cliff, etc........that's why I say just like with Cheers, Seinfeld was character driven

Well, Norm is a different case. He is a static character. His job, along with Cliff's, was never to be one of the focal characters, but to remain in the background, comment on what's going on and provide the comic relief.

Sam, Diane, Rebecca, Woody, Carla, Frasier... these characters grew as the series progressed. You can't say that about the "Seinfeld" characters. They remained as immature as ever in the finale. Jerry himself even talks about this, that the characters on his show were never allowed to learn life lessons and evolve.

Originally posted by Angela Micelli
Same way with Cheers IMO. Norm in Season 1 was the same Norm in Season 11 wasn't he? Same with Sam, Carla, Cliff, etc........that's why I say just like with Cheers, Seinfeld was character driven

Besides Norm.... they really weren't the same though.

Cliff got progressively dumber and more annoying (to the people at the bar.... not me)

Sam went from being the single ladies man, to a serious relationship, back to being a ladies man, and then a sexaholic.

Carla especially changed, they did bring her full circle in the end.... but she got married, and became a widow.

Originally posted by Angela Micelli
Same way with Cheers IMO. Norm in Season 1 was the same Norm in Season 11 wasn't he? Same with Sam, Carla, Cliff, etc........that's why I say just like with Cheers, Seinfeld was character driven

I think the difference is that the story was propelled by the character interactions specifically.

Here's the pattern for a typical episode of Cheers:

Norm walks in and says something funny; Carla insults Diane; Sam says something sleazy; Diane gets mad at Sam; Cliff says something stupid; Carla insults Cliff and so on.

The stories in the episodes happen as a result of the way the characters interact. One episode may be about something Carla did to Diane and having the two of them in a big fight. Another may be about Cliff doing something stupid and having the whole bar make fun of him.

But in Seinfeld, the episodes go like this:

Jerry shaves his chest; Elaine eats a bad sandwich; Kramer wins the lottery; George has sex with somebody.

Not only are the stories often individual (meaning they revolve around one or two characters instead of the whole cast), but they don't happen because of the interaction between characters. So that would make Seinfeld plot-driven.

Originally posted by barwars
Besides Norm.... they really weren't the same though.

Cliff got progressively dumber and more annoying (to the people at the bar.... not me)

Sam went from being the single ladies man, to a serious relationship, back to being a ladies man, and then a sexaholic.

Carla especially changed, they did bring her full circle in the end.... but she got married, and became a widow.

Hmmmm never thought about that. They all still came full circle, I mean even though Carla got married and was widowed, she still was the same Carla deep down.

I still say Seinfeld is character driven, it's a show about nothing, it can't be plot driven :p ;)

Cheers there were memorable plots, not a bash, but seriously was there on Seinfeld? Didn't most of Seinfeld's episodes revolve around the characters?

Originally posted by Chambers
I think the difference is that the story was propelled by the character interactions specifically.

Here's the pattern for a typical episode of Cheers:

Norm walks in and says something funny; Carla insults Diane; Sam says something sleazy; Diane gets mad at Sam; Cliff says something stupid; Carla insults Cliff and so on.

The stories in the episodes happen as a result of the way the characters interact. One episode may be about something Carla did to Diane and having the two of them in a big fight. Another may be about Cliff doing something stupid and having the whole bar make fun of him.

But in Seinfeld, the episodes go like this:

Jerry shaves his chest; Elaine eats a bad sandwich; Kramer wins the lottery; George has sex with somebody.

Not only are the stories often individual (meaning they revolve around one or two characters instead of the whole cast), but they don't happen because of the interaction between characters. So that would make Seinfeld plot-driven.

I see similarites between the two when you describe it that way, because there were times, on Cheers when it was just about Sam and Diane, or Cliff or Norm. Same with what you described about Seinfeld, the plots revolved around them as individuals(CHARACTERS) so that to me is character driven.

Didn't most of Seinfeld's episodes revolve around the characters?

No. Aren't you the person who never really liked "Seinfeld?" You can't really be sure it's character-driven if you don't know too much about the show. (If you're not that person, I apologize.)

The show's gimmick was always in the plots. One whole episode was about them waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant or looking for their car in a parking garage, and usually each character's plots would intersect by the end of the episode.

Sure, the characters carried the plots, but it was the stories and dialogue that made the show what it was. Phrases like "double-dipping," "yada yada yada," etc. that are now used in our language were a result of the stories, not the characters.

Originally posted by Angela Micelli
I see similarites between the two when you describe it that way, because there were times, on Cheers when it was just about Sam and Diane, or Cliff or Norm. Same with what you described about Seinfeld, the plots revolved around them as individuals(CHARACTERS) so that to me is character driven.

But you can say that about any show, just because it has characters.

"Seinfeld" was plot driven because it was the plots that influenced the character's actions, not the other way around. That's a fact.

Originally posted by Angela Micelli
I see similarites between the two when you describe it that way, because there were times, on Cheers when it was just about Sam and Diane, or Cliff or Norm. Same with what you described about Seinfeld, the plots revolved around them as individuals(CHARACTERS) so that to me is character driven.

What I mean by character-driven is that what happens on the episodes revolve around character interaction. Not to say that episodes aren't focused on one character, but what happens during the episode is a result of the constant interaction between the characters.

When I say plot-driven, I mean that the episode is less concerned with how the characters interact and more concerned with what happens to them. In Cheers, even though an episode may be focused on Cliff, he's constantly interacting with the other characters, which brings about a solution to the story. In Seinfeld, the characters tend to go about their day individually (with little or no contact - sometimes the most they do is talk to each other on the phone). So what happens to these characters is not a result of the character interaction but rather a result of simple plot.

Originally posted by Angela Micelli
Cheers there were memorable plots, not a bash, but seriously was there on Seinfeld? Didn't most of Seinfeld's episodes revolve around the characters?

I find it completely the opposite.
Cheers.... like Chambers said, was more about the interactions.

MANY episodes (especially in the first season).... was just them talking at the bar for the most part ("One For The Book" is a perfect example of this)


Whereas with Seinfeld, just them talking was big part, but there were so many memorable plots (I guess you have to watch the show for anything to be memorable)

Originally posted by Chambers
So what happens to these characters is not a result of the character interaction but rather a result of simple plot.

Exactly.

Definitely character driven, which is why I think I love it so much.