On Sep 20, 3:48 pm, "Starword" <starw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "manitou" wrote:
>
> To recap, difficult to view the new show without ghosts from the past
> haning heavily. 'Chuck' is so similar to Frasier, it's hard to know
>
> >>where one starts and the other ends.
>
> Interesting. I thought I recognized a lot of Frasier in Chuck too. But
Pe=
ter
> said he thinks one drawback of the show is Chuck is a much less likable
> character than Frasier. He said he thinks there's something about a
pompo=
us,
> erudite snob that's a lot more endearing than a womanizing,
ego-inflated,
> unintellectual jerk.
>
> >>And Patricia Heaton's character is like a combo of Roz, Kate Costas
>
> plus take-your-pick from dozens of dates-go-bad from Frasier's past.
> I'd say her character needs another female character to play off ---
> and someone a lot more interesting than the bimbo weather girl ---
> otherwise it's just going to be a formulaic battle of the ***es.>>
>
> I had that thought too. Roz and Daphne were such strong characters and
bo=
th
> were multi-dimensional and integral to the ensemble. The Hispanic,
overse=
xed
> weather lady doesn't strike me as having anywhere interesting to go w/
her
> character, and she's not much of a foil to the female co-anchor.
>
> >>And I saw the surprise revelation coming, the moment Heaton mentioned
>
> the daughter.>>
>
> Good for you! I didn't. I don't know why...I just didn't pick on it.
Only
> when the age thing came up did I realize it's intended to give Chuck the
> idea the child could be his. Which of course made his speech funny. But
I
> assumed it was just the plot of the pilot and would not pan out. I
assumed
> he'd find out she wasn't his. Only when the mother went into a panic to
g=
et
> Chuck out of the house did I realize the girl really is his. After the
sh=
ow,
> I said I couldn't see why the woman panicked so, as though Chuck would
see
> the girl looked like him and she doesn't. Peter said he thinks we're
> supposed to assume the girl *does* look like him, even though the
actress=
is
> unrelated to KG and doesn't look like him at all. I guess.
>
> >>But, the show did make me laugh and smile many times, which is a good
>
> sign. James Burrows' direction was a lot less forced than what Mr.
> Burrows was churning out during the later seasons of "Will & Grace".
>
> Hard to see where the story can go. I don't sense the presence of so
> many extraordinary characters we had from the start on FRASIER.>>
>
> I reminded Peter that the pilot of "Frasier" wasn't all that funny
either.
> It showed potential, but it gave no clue how delightfully funny it was
go=
ing
> to be. Peter agreed and said that's the problem with a pilot...it has to
=
do
> all this set-up in under a half hour for who the characters are and what
> it's going to be. It really can't get down to the tough business of
clever
> bits and dialogue and jokes until it lays the necessary groundwork
first.=
I
> think that's fairly true, although "All in the Family", for instance,
had=
me
> LOL hysterically in its pilot. But that kind of thing is truly rare.
>
> >>Of the remaining cast, I liked Ty Burrell (excellent in "Out Of
>
> Practice"). If the producers are looking for feedback, my advice is
> focus on Chuck and Ty's character. The other people at the station
> were too clich=E9ed to be compelling IMO >>
>
> I liked Fred Williard's character...I think he has potential. The
nervous,
> sweaty, kid news director shows little promise. Ditto for weather lady.
>
> >>I'd like the show to succeed, but it's too early to tell if it will.
>
> I had the feeling about it that I did w/ the Out of Practice pilot.
> Something there but does it have the legs to run? And we all know how
that
> turned out. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, though. I'll defnitely
l=
ook
> at it next week. That's something.
I watched it again last night and am glad to say I enjoyed it, if
anything, more the second time round, and again laughed a lot
throughout the show.
If there's an obvious immediate problem, I'd say it's trying to
disassociate Kelsey from Frasier --- but this was likely inevitable,
as the characters are very similar if not quite identical, especially
the alternating fatuous pomposity and sensitivity (toward the end of
the pilot).
Again, I'd say there's a lot of potential to develop an ongoing 'B'
plot between Chuck and Ty Burrell's character, mainly because Burrell
is a really good actor.
As for the 'A' plot, Chuck and Kelly, I think it's going to be more
difficult to sustain the story effectively because at so many levels
the story between these two is, if not over, well advanced. This is
not like Sam and Diane at the beginning of "Cheers" or Niles and
Daphne at the start of "Frasier".
I'd acknowledge if they can use the absolute best writers available,
starting with David Lloyd, they could make it work, but it won't be
easy.
Seeing Burrell, though, makes me realize I preferred "Out Of Practice"
which IMO had a clearer premise, and a stronger, more varied set of
characters with a stronger overall cast (aside from Winkler).
BTW, if anyone cares, I found out yesterday that Alan Taylor, who won
an Emmy on Sunday for directing on "The Sopranos", is the son of a
lady I've known here for almost thirty years, Mimi Cazort, now retired
as a curator of drawings at the National Gallery Of Canada. My Yale
PhD friend knows her even better as he worked in tandem with her at
the Gallery for many years.
Mimi is a very colorful lady, and you could definitely create a TV
series about someone like her. She also was responsible for the
Gallery purchasing one of my favourite images in their entire
collection, "Valley Of The Eisak in the Tyrol near Brixen", an
apocalyptic Alpine watercolor (northern Italy near Austrian border) by
John Robert Cozens.
Charles
|
