What do you think?

Well everything was mostly based on Lucy and her antics so my thoughts are a lil bit of both. It was solely based on Lucy and the antics that the writers made up for her.

Plot driven. None of the storylines made the characters grow or evolve. They were essentially the same people when the show started and when it ended. And characters changed to fit certain storylines. For example when Lucy needed money for the horseshow conviniently there was a pretty woman in the house to presuade Fred to give Lucy some cash. And all of the sudden Ethel and Lucy were into superstitions just to fit the Seance storyline. So anyways, I think these plots could be used with any characters so it is plot driven.

I think that a lot of it was stuff that could really happen, just a little bit streched out to make it more funny. I think it came from the heart and it was the greatest show of all time because of it. I think that Lucy could have easily been that ditsy; seeing as I don't know her personally, I can't say for sure, but its fun to think that she put a little bit of herself into the show. Also all of the other people, Vivian, William and Desi. I think that they all put a little bit of themselves into the show, and thats what makes it what it is. An awesome show. Nothing else was, or ever will be like it.

I think the show was character-driven. Their characters may not have been very deep, but they were consistent throughout the entire series just like the Honeymooners. If you looked at the scripts, alot of the lines weren't really that funny until they acted them out. Even before Fred or Ethel opened their mouths, you knew whatever they were going to say would be funny because of their characters. They all even evolved a little throughout the series. For example, Lucy was a winey brat in the first season, but then after little Ricky, she matured alot.

The show was so great and still is because of the 3 basic elements: characters, conflict, & chemistry. No matter where the gang was (New York, Hollywood, Europe, or even Mars) they always maintained those three elements. That's why the show has stood the test of time. They were human and everyone can relate to them. It never really relied on slapstick as many people think. The physical comedy portions of the show only lasted about 1 to 3 minutes...that's squat! The slapstick was just the cherry on top of the sundae. That's why her other shows (The Lucy Show & Here's Lucy) weren't as good and have not aged well at all. Those shows failed to be anything but silly plot and slapstick-driven, and nobody cared about the characters because there were none!

I don't think it can be said that it was one dominanant over the other. Characters can be interesting and entertaining, but not if they just do nothing, or nothing out of the ordinary. And a plot will be no good if there are not characters who can make it "come to life" (this having nothing to do with believability).

Nevertheless, I will say the plots depended on the characters a little more than vice versa, because while we didn't know (at first viewing) how the plot may come out, we did know the characters and their idiosyncracies; therefore, it is still funny even when they react as we expect.

The poster above mentioned that The Lucy Show and Here's Lucy have not held up as well as ILL over the years/decades. I think that is true because they are too much character-driven; generally Lucy, who we know so well as a schemer of unrealistic expectations about herself, and a guest star, who also basically does what we expect, except maybe something unexpected to appease Lucy.

Like most of the posters on this thread, I agree this show is more plot driven than character driven. That's not to say that the characters weren't memorable... they are!
But if you were to stop a stranger on the street and ask them what do they remember about I Love Lucy, they would most likely say: a) Vitameatavegamin b) Chocolate factory or c) grape-stomping. All of those choices are memorable plots from the series, not characters.

To the person who said a show can be too much character driven, I disagree. A show can never be too much character driven. Some classic shows such as Mary Tyler Moore and Cheers had the majority of their humor come from character interactions as opposed to plot driven shows like I Love Lucy.

What do you think?

I think a little bit of both. I had great characters who were funny,
but the situations Lucy and Ethel got into really were what the show
were about.

Characters can be interesting and entertaining, but not if they just do nothing, or nothing out of the ordinary.

I don't know if I agree with that. Let's take Friends as a modern day example. A lot of the show is just them sitting around drinking coffee and shooting the breeze. Different arguments and conversation make that show interesting, not exactly the plots.

For a more retro example, The Jeffersons took place in a deluxe apartment in the sky. Most of that show was just Louise hanging out in her apartment as guests dropped by. It wasn't the plot that hooked you, it was the character's interaction with each other.