Calling the show "Mel's Diner" vs. "Alice"

[TALLguyinKY]

Well, we've all heard it said that Linda Lavin's ego got out of control on the show and she flaunted herself around Alice as the big star.

Well, in a way this isn't surprising, considering the name of the series was the name of her character---Alice.

But for the series to have worked more magically and perhaps stayed more of a true ensemble show, I think it would have worked better if it had been called Mel's Diner.

Now as a big fan of the theme song and opening titles, I realize the emphasis on Alice's story of her journey from NJ to ending up in Phoenix and her struggle with the single home life and raising her son would be lost. But considering we had 4 good characters with some good chemistry and potential for a great long-time series and a wide variety of storylines, we may have had the "classic ensemble" of Alice, Flo, Vera, and Mel for more than 3 1/2 seasons. And yes I realize Alice was based on the film Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, but for a TV series I think it would have been better this way.

In this respect it could have been another Golden Girls or Designing Women or Facts of Life, in that those shows had long runs with the same cast without one character being touted as the "star". Now yes I know Designing Women got into some really messy things behind the scenes, but even then, the "classic" seasons with Suzanne still in the cast were a good 5 seasons. But, say, had the show been called Julia and Julia Sugarbaker were the main focus, things may have gotten uglier even earlier (even though Dixie Carter wasn't the front-runner in the problems with Delta Burke).

However, Alice probably wouldn't have lasted 9 seasons were it simply Alice, Vera, Flo, and Mel for the entire run. Cheers had a run of 11 years, but it was split between The Diane Years and The Rebecca Years. Then again, Alice came along in the late 70s, when there wasn't much viewer choice of what to see on TV (i.e., before cable). So who knows?

Anyway, just some thoughts I've had for a while. If only the show were Mel's Diner and not Alice, I think some of the problems could have been avoided, and we would have had dear old "Floey" around for quite a while longer.

[Ireneparalegal]

The fact that the name was ALICE rather than the long title of the movie from which it was based on and also since we only had the option of 13 channels, with a few those channels being reserved for nothing (PBS programming, spanish channel, etc.) left us with basically only 8 channels to choose from. And at that time, we only had three networks, so whatever was shown on those three channels were our only options. The remainder of the channels were mostly showing old movies or reruns of older shows. It left us viewers to learn what was given to us. I must say, we really had a great choice of sitcoms and dramas to choose from for so few channels.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

The fact that the name was ALICE rather than the long title of the movie from which it was based on and also since we only had the option of 13 channels, with a few those channels being reserved for nothing (PBS programming, spanish channel, etc.) left us with basically only 8 channels to choose from. And at that time, we only had three networks, so whatever was shown on those three channels were our only options. The remainder of the channels were mostly showing old movies or reruns of older shows. It left us viewers to learn what was given to us. I must say, we really had a great choice of sitcoms and dramas to choose from for so few channels.

You are absolutely right Irene. Their were fewer channels but we had great choices. It's to bad not many people had VCR's back then. I had to miss a lot of great shows and catch up with them in the summertime. We have more chanels now and the vast majority of things on them are pure junk. I hardly watch anything live anymore. I program my own schedules.

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by Walking Tall

You are absolutely right Irene. Their were fewer channels but we had great choices. It's to bad not many people had VCR's back then. I had to miss a lot of great shows and catch up with them in the summertime. We have more chanels now and the vast majority of things on them are pure junk. I hardly watch anything live anymore. I program my own schedules.

I was thinking the same thing. Look at how many channels we now have and look at the garbage we are given???? My God, we have so many channels, but how many sitcoms are there? We had A LOT of sitcoms and drama shows back in the days!

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

I was thinking the same thing. Look at how many channels we now have and look at the garbage we are given???? My God, we have so many channels, but how many sitcoms are there? We had A LOT of sitcoms and drama shows back in the days!

and we had great lineups like the CBS Saturday Night Lineup and the ABC Tuesday Night Lineup. All the comedies were great and they all flowed into one another. Nowadays the networks don't even program on Saturday night. Friday night is starting to look like a dumping ground. ( remember when everyone had to be home to watch Dallas? lol)..not to mention all those cheap reality shows that are all over the schedule. I will say today's dramas are pretty good but that's about it. The sitcoms of today are mostly terrible.

[Ireneparalegal]

Originally Posted by Walking Tall

and we had great lineups like the CBS Saturday Night Lineup and the ABC Tuesday Night Lineup. All the comedies were great and they all flowed into one another. Nowadays the networks don't even program on Saturday night. Friday night is starting to look like a dumping ground. ( remember when everyone had to be home to watch Dallas? lol)..not to mention all those cheap reality shows that are all over the schedule. I will say today's dramas are pretty good but that's about it. The sitcoms of today are mostly terrible.

You said it. God, Tuesdays were great when it was Happy Days and then Laverne and Shirley. Fridays were all abt Love Boat and then Fantasy Island and when DALLAS started...OMG, it was all abt my man, J.R. Ewing.
We had one great show after another. And if there was a show that wasn't your style, you could flip to another channel and voila! something good was on. Everyday had something to offer.

[Brian Damage]

My wife just called the show "Mel's Diner" I think that was a more fitting title then Alice. It was the ENTIRE cast that made it so enjoyable.

[TALLguyinKY]

Yes, that's my point. If it were called "Mel's Diner", I really do think we would have had the original ensemble around a lot longer. Linda would not have had a reason to get such an inflated ego, "run the show", and Polly wouldn't have had to leave.

[Mr. Television]

I don't know if the name would have made any difference. Their were other shows like All In The Family and M.A.S.H. that didn't name the main star but everyone knew who it was. As long as Linda Lavin was top billed she probably still would have been jealous of her supporting cast...and really who can blame her? They were funny and she wasn't. That doesn't mean she wasn't an important member of the show. You have to have a sane member to balance out all the others.

[TALLguyinKY]

Yes, but in another thread here we discussed just because someone is the main character in a series, doesn't mean they have to be any less entertaining than the supporting characters. Just look at Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore---in both of their headlining shows, they themselves were brilliant, funny, quirky, and loveable. So was Kermit on The Muppet Show even though he was a talking frog, LOL!

But if it were called "Mel's Diner", I would picture Vic Tayback having top billing since it was his diner (I didn't think to put this in my first post). After him, the three waitresses could have been in the credits in any order (although at first it would have been odd for Beth Howland to have 2nd billing since Vera's part was smaller in the first part of season 1).

And I do think Alice is funny sometimes, just not as funny as the others.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by TALLguyinKY

Yes, but in another thread here we discussed just because someone is the main character in a series, doesn't mean they have to be any less entertaining than the supporting characters. Just look at Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore---in both of their headlining shows, they themselves were brilliant, funny, quirky, and loveable. So was Kermit on The Muppet Show even though he was a talking frog, LOL!

But if it were called "Mel's Diner", I would picture Vic Tayback having top billing since it was his diner (I didn't think to put this in my first post). After him, the three waitresses could have been in the credits in any order (although at first it would have been odd for Beth Howland to have 2nd billing since Vera's part was smaller in the first part of season 1).

And I do think Alice is funny sometimes, just not as funny as the others.

The difference was they weren't jealous of their supporting cast. I loved the supporting cast of MTM especially. I think they were very talented and Mary knew enough to let them shine. A bunch of them won emmys because of it.


That would probably be the only way it would work and then Vic Tayback would be the star.

[catlover79]

She may have been the "star" of the show, but to me Linda Lavin brought the least to the table of all the actors. While Flo, Mel and Vera got the lion share of the wackiness to play, Alice wasn't even that convincing to me as the "straight man".

I'm not putting LL down, don't get me wrong. I quite enjoyed her stint as Det. Janice Wentworth on Barney Miller, and she was quite convincing as a ruthless Jewish grandmother in an episode of L&O: Criminal Intent. It's just that I found her the least entertaining character on her own show!!

[Scoobiedoo30]

Alice is Better