Going out on top - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

BLT · 07-10-2004, 12:57 AM

Which is a.) better having your favorite show go out while on top or b.) linger for years past their prime? I know the popular answer will be a. but I would feel that the best shows lingering past their prime are hundreds of times better than an episode of a crappy show during its 'prime' (i.e: Yes Dear, no offense Yes Dear fans).

Mr. Television · 07-10-2004, 01:06 AM

Its better to go out on top. I'm a big Dallas fan and watching those last 2 years is just painful.

BLT · 07-10-2004, 08:22 PM

I do agree that the last couple years of Dallas WAS a bit ridiculous. J.R. in a mental institution? Parody of "It's A Wonderful Life"? What were they thinking?

tvfan0101 · 07-10-2004, 08:25 PM

It depends on the show. For some shows, the quality is so high that even after the peak of the run the last few seasons can still be very entertaining. I think that means I'm agreeing with BLT. If a show is always ho-hum quality then it would be best to go out in its prime, before ho-hum becomes dumb. Ha! Rhyme.

Mr. Television · 07-10-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BLT
I do agree that the last couple years of Dallas WAS a bit ridiculous. J.R. in a mental institution? Parody of "It's A Wonderful Life"? What were they thinking?

It was awful and all those new characters. Most of them couldn't act.

Back to sitcoms, The one sitcom that is airing right now that nobody is paying any attention to is The Drew Carey Show. That sitcom used to be so good and was a top 20 hit for about 5 years. Its painful to watch that now. I think if it had ended about 3 or 4 years ago it would be rememebered as one of the best sitcoms of the 90's.

TJL · 07-10-2004, 08:40 PM

It's best when a show goes out on top.
As Mr. Roper pointed out with "Drew Carey," it's a shame watching a once great show plummet to the bottom of the ratings.

tvfan0101 · 07-10-2004, 08:59 PM

I actually think The Drew Carey Show is very funny right now. I watch it every week and I'm laughing out loud at least a few times per episode. Should it have ended earlier? Perhaps. But ABC dropped the ball; the quality didn't drop at all, in my opinion.

TJL · 07-10-2004, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tvobscurities
I actually think The Drew Carey Show is very funny right now. I watch it every week and I'm laughing out loud at least a few times per episode. Should it have ended earlier? Perhaps. But ABC dropped the ball; the quality didn't drop at all, in my opinion.

I agree, the show is still pretty funny, but it's a shame that the show is been reduced to burning off thier remaining episodes in the Summer.

The show should have had a proper sendoff from ABC a few years ago.

EmoJoe · 07-10-2004, 09:08 PM

B- id rather a show last long than be short-lived, because if it lasts long, its likely to be popular, and its likely to be shown in syndication. Short-lived sitcoms usually arent shown in syndication, some are, but most arent.

Brian · 07-10-2004, 11:11 PM

I think it is better for a show to go out on top. I was really disappointed when I learned that Seinfeld ended but years later I think that it was good that they put the kybosh on it before it got too stale.

James · 07-11-2004, 12:38 AM

BLT, my answer is "B". I prefer that shows, like the Energizer bunny, keep going and going and going. I mean, I'm very sure there's someone out there who wanted to see the Bradys, the Waltons, and the Arnolds when they were grown up. (Granted, we got to see the Bradys and the Waltons in their grown-up years in the form of specials after their series ended.)

As to the Arnolds, I think the ending of The Wonder Years would have made sense only to someone who thinks life ends in eleventh grade. Sure, I thought the best years were seventh through ninth grade, but considering that Kevin and the gang had finished eleventh grade, it would have been appropriate for ABC to keep the show on at least one more year so we fans could see them graduate from McKinley High, regardless of whether ABC thought the show was a shell of its former self! Talk about INCOMPLETE!!! Considering no high-profile shows were ending in 1994 TWY could have been the buzz of the entertainment world, spawning block parties like they had just before the finale of Survivor I in 2000, perhaps with a sequel series about Kevin, Paul, and Winnie in college after that, a la Frasier.

I am Roboto · 07-11-2004, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tvobscurities
It depends on the show.

I agree. For example, I think the last season of All in the Family and the series Archie Bunker's Place was funny, though not up to the level set in the early 70's. On the other, hand, the final season of Roseanne was horrible, IMO.

Dean Winchester · 07-11-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by James
Considering no high-profile shows were ending in 1994 TWY could have been the buzz of the entertainment world, spawning block parties like they had just before the finale of Survivor I in 2000, perhaps with a sequel series about Kevin, Paul, and Winnie in college after that, a la Frasier.

The Wonder Years had fallen out of the top 50 and was no longer a smash when it ended in 1993... so I highly doubt there would've been any chance even if it ran on one more season, that the final episode would've been treated as an event like Seinfeld, Friends, Cheers, Mash... it'd been more like the Third Rock finale (got decent ratings, then plummetted)

Dean Winchester · 07-11-2004, 03:52 PM

depends on the show, some series you can keep fresh and keep new and interesting storylines for years and years, and then you have other shows like Ally McBeal (I loved it, but it's true, by season 5 they were out of ideas) that really burned brightly for a few seasons and quickly crashed and burned. because they used up all the good storylines in the first 3 seasons.

There are shows like Frasier and The Simpsons that can run for over 10 years and you can still find new and interesting things to do with it, but those are the exceptions not the norm.

Dean Winchester · 07-11-2004, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BLT
I would feel that the best shows lingering past their prime are hundreds of times better than an episode of a crappy show during its 'prime' (i.e: Yes Dear, no offense Yes Dear fans).

well, technically, Yes Dear shouldn't exist. If life was fair, Life With Roger should've become a big hit and had still been running (since it premiered in 1996, it could've still been on in 2000 if it got good ratings) by the time Yes Dear had started, which meant Mike O'Malley already would've had a show to be on, LOL.

07-10-2004, 12:57 AM	#1
BLT Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Mar 06, 2003 Posts: 496	Going out on top Which is a.) better having your favorite show go out while on top or b.) linger for years past their prime? I know the popular answer will be a. but I would feel that the best shows lingering past their prime are hundreds of times better than an episode of a crappy show during its 'prime' (i.e: Yes Dear, no offense Yes Dear fans).
	__________________ I have nothing else to say.

07-10-2004, 01:06 AM	#2
Mr. Television 23 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,132	Its better to go out on top. I'm a big Dallas fan and watching those last 2 years is just painful.
	__________________ Sonny

07-10-2004, 08:40 PM	#6
TJL Suburbanite Extrordinaire Forum Star Join Date: Dec 29, 2001 Location: New Jersey - the cradle of civilization Posts: 16,588	It's best when a show goes out on top. As Mr. Roper pointed out with "Drew Carey," it's a shame watching a once great show plummet to the bottom of the ratings.
	__________________ "I think I'll stroll up to the front to see how the shooting's going..." - Capt. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce Read my blogs! http://centralparkamisguide.com/ http://dvdcriticscorner.com Visit me on Facebook!http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=641138880 Hey, I do the tweet thing too! http://twitter.com/TomLevier My shop of handmade items! http://www.etsy.com/shop/ColdGarageCreations

07-10-2004, 09:08 PM	#9
EmoJoe Cool cool cool Forum Addict Join Date: Apr 23, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 71,478	B- id rather a show last long than be short-lived, because if it lasts long, its likely to be popular, and its likely to be shown in syndication. Short-lived sitcoms usually arent shown in syndication, some are, but most arent.
	__________________ "I know the difference between TV and reality, Jeff. TV has structure, it makes sense, there are likable leading men. In real life, we have this. We have you." - Abed Nadir, Community www.sitcomsarestupid.blogspot.com Last edited by EmoJoe; 07-11-2004 at 11:20 PM.

07-10-2004, 08:22 PM	#3
BLT Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Mar 06, 2003 Posts: 496	I do agree that the last couple years of Dallas WAS a bit ridiculous. J.R. in a mental institution? Parody of "It's A Wonderful Life"? What were they thinking?

07-10-2004, 08:25 PM	#4
tvfan0101 Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 29, 2003 Posts: 961	It depends on the show. For some shows, the quality is so high that even after the peak of the run the last few seasons can still be very entertaining. I think that means I'm agreeing with BLT. If a show is always ho-hum quality then it would be best to go out in its prime, before ho-hum becomes dumb. Ha! Rhyme.

07-10-2004, 08:59 PM	#7
tvfan0101 Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 29, 2003 Posts: 961	I actually think The Drew Carey Show is very funny right now. I watch it every week and I'm laughing out loud at least a few times per episode. Should it have ended earlier? Perhaps. But ABC dropped the ball; the quality didn't drop at all, in my opinion.

07-10-2004, 11:11 PM	#10
Brian Member Forum Celebrity Join Date: Jun 23, 2001 Posts: 20,451	I think it is better for a show to go out on top. I was really disappointed when I learned that Seinfeld ended but years later I think that it was good that they put the kybosh on it before it got too stale.

07-11-2004, 12:38 AM	#11
James Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Jan 07, 2001 Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA Posts: 6,370	BLT, my answer is "B". I prefer that shows, like the Energizer bunny, keep going and going and going. I mean, I'm very sure there's someone out there who wanted to see the Bradys, the Waltons, and the Arnolds when they were grown up. (Granted, we got to see the Bradys and the Waltons in their grown-up years in the form of specials after their series ended.) As to the Arnolds, I think the ending of The Wonder Years would have made sense only to someone who thinks life ends in eleventh grade. Sure, I thought the best years were seventh through ninth grade, but considering that Kevin and the gang had finished eleventh grade, it would have been appropriate for ABC to keep the show on at least one more year so we fans could see them graduate from McKinley High, regardless of whether ABC thought the show was a shell of its former self! Talk about INCOMPLETE!!! Considering no high-profile shows were ending in 1994 TWY could have been the buzz of the entertainment world, spawning block parties like they had just before the finale of Survivor I in 2000, perhaps with a sequel series about Kevin, Paul, and Winnie in college after that, a la Frasier.

07-11-2004, 03:52 PM	#14
Dean Winchester Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Sep 28, 2003 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 14,803	depends on the show, some series you can keep fresh and keep new and interesting storylines for years and years, and then you have other shows like Ally McBeal (I loved it, but it's true, by season 5 they were out of ideas) that really burned brightly for a few seasons and quickly crashed and burned. because they used up all the good storylines in the first 3 seasons. There are shows like Frasier and The Simpsons that can run for over 10 years and you can still find new and interesting things to do with it, but those are the exceptions not the norm.