Interview with the Brains of Arrested Development
Entertainment Weekly's EW.com | Interview: Why daddy let ''Arrested Development'' die
Creator and executive producer of Arrested Development, Mitch Hurwitz, tells why he chose not to go on with the show. I guess I could sum up his reasons: 1) He's out of good ideas and going on would just create a lesser show; 2) he and the cast were discouraged by FOX's treatment and the experience of the 3rd season; and 3) they knew a show this smart will never be a hit and it was just a "creative exercise" that would be a "temporary endeavor."
Creator and executive producer of Arrested Development, Mitch Hurwitz, tells why he chose not to go on with the show. I guess I could sum up his reasons: 1) He's out of good ideas and going on would just create a lesser show; 2) he and the cast were discouraged by FOX's treatment and the experience of the 3rd season; and 3) they knew a show this smart will never be a hit and it was just a "creative exercise" that would be a "temporary endeavor."
6 Comments:
aha. cliff notes. always good.
By
Tony, at 4/05/2006 12:39 AM
The show was good, but not "I've gotta watch the next and every episode" good. Not that it was due to any deficiency of the show; I think it's just the nature of comedy series. There usually isn't an overarching storyline or bond between episodes, and the only incentive to watch more is if I want some laughs AND I happen to remember that it's on.
One great exception off the top of my head is from Family Guy, when Brian throws a rock at Peter for rolling up the window in the "General Lee", a reference to an episode that aired four years prior.
By
Ron, at 4/05/2006 1:44 AM
There usually isn't an overarching storyline or bond between episodes, and the only incentive to watch more is if I want some laughs AND I happen to remember that it's on.
Have you seen more than one episode of AD? The whole reason the show wasn't popular was because it did have an overarching storyline. Parts of an AD episode is funny by itself, but a lot refers to back episodes that makes it more hilarious. There are even references to future episodes.
The show failed because FOX refused to air shows regularly on a consistent time block. So audiences don't get a chance to connect the episodes together as they come out. Buying the DVDs was the best buy I've made in the past year. I watch the AD set more than I watch my Simpsons DVDs.
By
David, at 4/05/2006 11:16 PM
The whole reason the show wasn't popular was because it did have an overarching storyline.
Are you saying that's so because it's also a comedy, or is that a stand-alone reason? Because I could name plenty of tv shows with over-arching storylines that did/are doing well and were/are popular.
So I really don't buy that. In conjunction with the irregular time schedule, sure. Fox is known for that BS. Over-arching storyline as the whole reason for killing its popularity? Mm...they'd have to really mess up the presentation for that to kill the project.
But back to your question. I saw at least 2 whole episodes, and fragments of others. One with Charlize Theron. It was funny. But I didn't feel the desire to see more. If I caught it on again, randomly, fine. If not, meh.
So, ok, maybe I should add to my original statement. If comedies do have overarching storylines, does anyone really care? Do I care if Dr. Crosby's son ends up marrying the girl he met 15 episodes prior? Do I care if character x from That 70's Show bones character y? Not unless I'm a hardcore fan (you know, like some Friend's fans were known to be). It seems to me, traditionally, meaningful overarching story in comedy has always taken a backseat in comedy, because, frankly the objective is comedy, not drama. It's a little stereotypical, and some shows are blurring/have blurred those lines really well.
Did AD do that? I'm not sure; maybe it did, and I didn't give it a chance. But from what I saw, it didn't seem like it, not really. I think I was just as humorously amused while watching my first episode of Boston Legal as I was while watching AD, and yet I also gleaned far more serious drama out of BL than I probably ever would from AD. That, or watching an ep of The Daily Show online seems like a just as well alternative.
By
Ron, at 4/06/2006 12:19 AM
I meant to say the show failed to gain an audience because it was a comedy that needed its audience to watch previous episodes in order to fully appreciate the humor. Without grasping the background, an AD episode by itself is more confusing than funny ("what happen to Buster's hand? why is he in the Army? who's George? why is in the attic? who's Lucille Two? what's Tobias relationship with Lindsey?")
AD largely depended on continuity between episodes and it was really a funny soap opera. Charlize Theron's appearance spanned five episodes. Yet, you don't find out she's a MRF (Mr. F or Mentally Retarded Female?) until the end of her fourth episode. Yet, she showed all her retarded symptoms in the previous episodes, but you're lead to believe she's a British spy (Michael: "Oh, you teach children!" Charlize: "I like to think they teach me.") It doesn't sound funny on paper, but I thought it was ingeniusly funny.
With most sitcoms, you can comfortably watch an episode without having to see the previous episodes because the humor doesn't rely on past events. There's no continuity. AD heavily relied on continuity and character development to push the humor. The uninitiated won't "get" much of the humor at first, nor will want to see further episodes. But once you get to catch previous episodes and understand where these jokes and characters are coming from, you might appreciate the humor more.
By
David, at 4/06/2006 1:18 AM
Having not seen enough to sufficiently argue about how far the show actually relied on continuity, I will say I never got the impression that the show was more confusing than funny. What happened to Buster's hand (does it really matter for the current episode to work? Can the entire episode possibly rely on one running gag/datum, etc?)? Why is he in the Army (again, does it really, *really* matter?)?
These things, if unknown, seem like they could be taken for granted, and the curious could always look online later if they really want to know. This assumes the show makes no attempts to drop hints or nuances to explain things indirectly.
If you're saying they're so important that not knowing them actually *breaks* the show and the comedy, rendering them confusing and unwatchable...well, then I'd venture the writers have chosen a poor strategy to execute their show (then again I suppose one could argue that "24" has done exactly that). But, like I said, I didn't get that impression.
Btw, the Theron episode I saw was the last one where she was revealed as an MRF. I felt there were sufficient flashbacks and narration to flesh out the missed information from prior episodes (so maybe that actually makes it a poor example). And it was a funny episode. Maybe I did miss out on this alleged awesome zone of humor, cross-linked with the past, present, and future, but I really don't recall being bewildered to the point of non-enjoyment, or even being bewildered at all. Now I'm just being skeptical, but even if I were onto this network of extra humor, I still doubt that would turn me into a "gotta see each and every ep" fan. I mean, how much of the total humor could it have possibly accounted for per episode? I think I'd be generous to guess 30%.
By
Ron, at 4/06/2006 2:35 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home