TV's All Time Most Overrated Show

Most TV shows are a reflection of their times in the sense that their potential is limited to the sensibilities and technology of their time. This is pretty obvious to most people, but when trying to rank TV shows in an all-time orders, modern shows are always going to have a leg up because their visual look is superior to their 50's-60's-70's-80's counterparts, and the writers have greater creative freedom now that in any other time in TV history.

So when people look to include older shows in an all-time list, they usually include shows that were ahead of their time, or were so influential that their basic blueprints are still followed today. Is Law and Order anything more than Dragnet with higher production values, and and additional last half-hour in a courtroom setting? Has anyone done the basic husband and wife sitcom better than The Honeymooners?

One show from the 1960's is always held in high esteem (the show was #13 in TV Guide's top 50 list in 2002), always mentioned as being tuned into "modern sensibilites", supposedly possessing a more sophisiticated type of humor that other shows of its era.

That claim was a fraud then, it's a fraud now, and the time has come to expose this myth.

So I present to you, TV's All Time Most Overrated Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show.

Yes, the one everyonse supposedly loves, with Mary Tyler Moore, Buddy, Sally et. al.

The Myth vs. The Facts

Myth: This show threw off the stodgy constraints of 50's sitcoms. Rob and Laura were hip, they were young, they were sexy suburbanites living outside the button-down world.

Facts: This show premiered the same year Kennedy was sworn in as President, and that Camelot magic rubbed off on people's perception of the sitcom (it sure helped that MTM looked like the First Lady). If this show was so modern and sexy, why did Rob and Laura sleep in separate beds? Much more "modern" was the show Bewitched (but that's another post)

Myth: MTM was a new kind of sitcom mom. She was allowed to wear sexy pants (believe me, it was a big deal back then). She was a proto-feminist, much more an equal partner in marriage than June Cleaver.

Facts: MTM's character is mentally unstable. Any common household event, like Richie forgetting his milk money, launches her in crisis mode, she screeches "Oh, Rob" and then he has to stop whatever he is doing and solve her problem. How feminist and forward thinking tohave you husband rescue you. June Cleaver may not have been liberated, but she certainly knew what to do in her family role of "Mom". MTM's character would have been reaching for "Mother's Little Helper" all day long.

Myth: The humor in this show was "sophisticated" compared to other shows of its time.

Facts: This is the biggest myth of all. The main source of humor comes from such topical and relevant issues as...baldness. Get it? Mel is bald! When he walks into the room, Buddy will make a bald joke! One of the most celebrated episodes of this show centers around the fact that Laura says Alan Brady is bald on national television. How cutting edge and sophisticated!

And we also have the sophisticated humor of Dick Van Dyke falling over ottomans, running into doors, accidentally getting hypnotized (I think he uses this conceit to act like a drunk) etc., etc.

And my personal favorite in the "sophisticated" humor department: At least once or twice a season, Rob, Buddy, and Sally would be at a cocktail party. To entertain the guests, they would do old burlesque and vaudeville routines. Those jokes had to be 50 years old! I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to work in the "NIAGARA FALLS! Slowly I turned..." at some point.

How could this show rank #13 on TV Guide's list of all time shows? Does anyone with a brain really think that The Dick Van Dyke Show is a better TV show than The X-Files? Than The Larry Sanders Show? Than Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

The Dick Van Dyke Show was a mediocre show in its time, and TV's All Time Most Overrated Show.

In This Contest, Everyone's A Loser

This weekend we have the big box office showdown between the stupid comedy starring mostly white actors (You, Me and Dupree) versus the stupid comedy starring mostly black actors (Little Man). Let the laughs begin!

Is it too much for me to ask that both these films crater with opening weekend returns similiar to Gigli? (That would be less than $4 million.)

Honestly, is anyone looking forward to seeing these films? Did anyone camp out last night so they could be the first in line and catch the noon showing?

These movies one-joke potential is competely played out in the 60 second commercials that have been overplayed. Dupree is an idiot that repetitively does stupid and annoying things, but his heart is in the right place (Awwwwwwwww!) The Little Man and his partner in crime hatch an incredibly complicated and unfocused plan to get back a diamond that they stole and dropped in the wrong purse (or something). They are supposed to be crooks. Why don't they just stick a gun in someone's ribs and demand the diamond back? It's not like the characters would have moral issues about such things.

The audience is conditioned to believe that summer movies are light and breezy, and we should (in Shawn Wayans words "Take your brain out of your head, sit down and just have a ball." ) Yeah, just be sure to leave you $10 with the cashier. So we can continue to have summer after summer of movies like these.

The Madcap Passes On

To me, Syd Barrett was the ultimate reclusive figure in rock. I didn't find much interesting in the 'death or disappearance" of Jim Morrison or Elvis Presley (although the respective estates milked the artist's fans for every last dollar). Much more interesting was the man that hid in plain sight.

The stories of Elvis and Jim always centered around when/if they were coming back, and what they were doing when they were gone. Who cared? And the more bizarre the stories got, the more attention that was paid to them. My favorite was when a Pittsburgh radio station played a tape "Elvis" made in 1981. He was signing a song (I think it was "I Love A Rainy Night") when he suddenly stopped, because he was just told (in the middle of recording???) that Reagan was shot. Instead of continuing to sing, he babbled on about the fact that Reagan was shot. On one hand, it seems like a waste of studio time, on the other, it's a better performance that any other one I ever heard Elvis give.

Both estates churned out substandard product for years (and will continue to do so). I remember all the hype of The Doors "Alive, She Cried" in 1983. Morrison (Jim, not Van), will sing "Gloria", and it will be dirty! They made a video, and it will be shown on MTV (Take that, new wave fans)! The album sucked, I can't even find evidence that it is in print anymore.

By contrast, Syd quietly disappeared after Pink Floyd's second album. The story of his disappearance never changed. He was an acid casualty/victim of mental illness. He spent his remaining days mostly painting and gardening. He released two albums shortly after leaving Pink Floyd. A third album was released in 1988. There was no noisy promotion, no flashy video, no trotting him around on tour to make a quick buck.

By accounts, Syd's family took care of him, and the other members of Pink Floyd also took care of him, making sure he continued to receive the royalties to which he was entitled.

Syd lived his remaining days, and died with dignity, while Morrison and Elvis are crassly promoted to this day. What a difference it makes when people who genuinely care about you take care of your legacy.

The 40-Year Old Virgin is supposed to be funny?

I was not feeling well last night, so I tried to find something to watch on cable. Since I was under the impression that this was a comedy, I decided to watch it.

This movie should be called "The 40-Year Old Script" or "The 40-Year Old Jokes". There was nothing original in the concept or the execution. Hey, the guy that can't get laid collects toys! When he tries to bag a drunk girl as easy pickings, she throws up on him! The guy who acts all nonchalant about women actually had his heart broken! All of these concepts come from the cliche hall of fame!

Why do people like Steve Carell and Paul Rudd continue to get to make films? In here and in Anchorman they play one-note charcters that never say or do anything funny. Unless you think Steve Carell stitching together an incongruous series of obscenities is worth paying 10 dollars. If you do, I wish I made tapes of Bluey in college. He perfected that act 20 years ago. I could have got a movie's worth of material every semester. We could have released a movie every year and been billionaires by now. Maybe it's not too late. We could start a nightclub act. Or maybe if you pay us $10 and feed us, we'll come to your house.

Also, there is nothing visually interesting about this movie. It has the visual splendor of a sitcom.
Yet the movie had an estimated budget of $26 million, and took in around $110 million. Where did the money go? It certainly doesn't show on screen on in the script.

TV-G????

Say you have a 10 year old, and the kid says he saw an ad for a new TV show he wants to watch, and asks you if he can watch it. You monitor your kids viewing habits, and you have never heard of the show, so you ask your kid to describe the ad.

"Well, Dad," your kid says, "Here's what happens. A teen-age boy wakes up naked in the middle of a forest. He gets up, and starts walking around. He comes across a tent. He opens up the tent and sees a teenage couple getting ready to have sex. The boy gets sent to juvenile hall. Down there, they figure out this kid is somehow not right, so a woman decides to take him into her home, although she knows nothing about him and the boy does not seem to know how to act around people, she figures he can't do any harm. The teen-age boy continues to do inappropriate things, like leer at the teen-age daughter as she runs around in a bath towel, and hide behind the shower curtain so he can watch a 10 year old boy sit on the toilet and look through pornographic magazines."

You have heard enough. "Absolutely not!" you tell your kid. "I will not let you watch anything that inappropriate!"

"But dad, the show is OK. The show is callled Kyle XY and it's on the ABC Family Channel!"

Oh, yes the Faamilllyyy channel. What is it about this country that everytime the word "family" is used that people shut down the thinking part of their brains and drift into the images of a Norman Rockwell painting? Families are all about baseball, ice cream, apple pie and everything that is supposed to make America great. Stick the word "family" into anything you are trying to sell, and people will no longer question your motives or actions.

Over the months, the ABC Family channel (which also airs The 700 Club) has aired such "family" friendly fare at the first Austin Powers movie, Blazing Saddles, and (my favorite programming choice of theirs) Cruel Intentions.

What I don't understand is why the Brent Bozells of the world, those people that worried that we are all going to hell because Janet Jackson's floppy tit got airtime during the Super Bowl, those people that photocopied and sent letters to the FCC that ulimately resulted in hefty fines for the incident, never direct their attacks against the ABC Family Channel? Instead, they rail on about The Sopranos, South Park, and other shows that are clearly not designed or marketed towards children.

Could it be that they are hyprocrites, that they would never take on of their own (Pat Robertson) to task?

And why doesn't the media ever point out this inconsistency? Brent Bozell gets a lot of coverage when he makes a statement about a show, but no one ever questions the shows he chooses to attack versus the ones he lets get a free pass (like Kyle XY).