The cast consists of a mix of fresh faces and veteran performers, many of whom paid their dues on stage in memorable roles.
Do you think that describes "Glee?" I don't think anyone could've picked most of that cast out of a lineup prior to air. Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison if you knew recent Broadway -- but they weren't exactly Audra McDonald. Jayma Mays maybe, and Jane Lynch was vaguely recognizable -- but the vast majority of the cast was brand new.
I think "Glee" cast less like DA and more like Grey's Anatomy -- where only Patrick Dempsey had the least bit of name recognition. To me, that's what contributed to both shows' success (LOST would be another example).
DA cast more like "The West Wing" or (from my understanding) "Mad Men" -- where you had more of a journeyman ensemble, with a few "fresh faces" thrown in there, IMO. When you have that, you put the show on the shoulders of the actors (and in each case, to great success). But something like Glee or Grey's or LOST, you put the show on the shoulders of the concept (also to great success) .
Basically, while I think "Glee" and DA might have some similarities, I think they got there in entirely different ways. Though Glee and DA S2 both showed that the concept and the acting, respectively, can't cover up bad plotting.
The show turns out a terrific first season and a good, solid second season and then gives way to a subpar third season ... and beyond.
I also take slight issue with this -- though I think the U.S. media beyond TVLine stopped paying attention to "Glee" after S2 (except for notable storylines like Karosfky's attempted suicide) -- but in the press, I think DA S3 is ranked above DA S2 in terms of quality. I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly -- and I think fandom might as well (though it's making me want to do another poll), but I'm not sure whose standards do we use for the definition of "good" is all.
six songs per episode and each episode is shot (roughly) over 8-10 days. There are 22 episodes per season -- that is a lot of work. (I hope Dan Stevens is taking note somewhere out there.)
Heh. Poor baby had to SING in ONE EPISODE. Don't you know how TRYING that must've been for him? And then the next episode, he had to pretend his junk didn't work! OH, THE HUMANITY. ;p
It is probably why, despite the show's problems over the last couple of seasons, the SAG continues to recognize the work of the actors every year
That's an excellent point. (if I was a cynic, I'd say it's because movie actors don't watch a lot of TV and know "Glee" by name, but I like your explanation better. :)
Ryan Murphy's concession to Lea Michele and Chris Colfer for having his idea of a spinoff for them ixnayed
OOOH!!! I didn't know Fox actually nixed a spinoff idea!!! I'm sure they wanted the freedom to have the NY cast return to Lima...fascinating...
Both were set up, initially, with a natural three-season arc in mind.
I TOTALLY understand this for DA, but I find this line of thinking baffling for "Glee" -- not from you, but from Ryan Murphy. Did the man have no experience in broadcast TV? Did he not realize if his show was a hit, he'd have to find SOME way to keep those kids on the show? The fact he thought the concept, not the cast, was the reason for "Glee"'s success is the height of arrogance to me.
Likewise, the models for UK and U.S. TV are so different. DA feasibly could've ended at three years as a hit show -- because shows in the UK do that all the time. But a show set up to appeal to Adults 18-49 that actually does -- there's no WAY Murphy thought it would only go three seasons. Once it went one hit season, it could've run on fumes for AT LEAST four (like "The O.C." did). Also, it was on Fox -- which isn't exactly rolling in scripted hits. IDK, if I know this from the comfort of my living room, I find it baffling Ryan Murphy didn't know this as the show's creator. :/
Glee's primary problem, creatively speaking, is Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk's proclivity to spread themselves too thin (I wonder what Ian Brennan really thinks about this
When "Glee" first became a hit, I remember "Nip/Tuck" fans posting "Ryan Murphy has ideas for 1-2 great years and then he gets bored." I think "Glee's" primary problem -- which perhaps relates to your claim -- is it was too insular in the early years (one might claim the same thing about DA and JF). It was ONLY RIB writing the show.
It's interesting that JF thinks he can bring in new writers for S5 (if it happens, which it will) -- I think he's going to face the same problems as Glee: when the voice for your show is limited, it becomes more difficult for people to get it right. The West Wing learned the same thing once Sorkin left (though it recovered, as I think DA will, on the strength of its acting).
And in both cases, the solution de riguer appears to be introducing even more characters -- which the audience has little investment or interest in -- and subplots into an already crowded ensemble which is juggling too many storylines as is.
While I TOTALLY agree "Glee" has done this to an annoying degree, I actually think DA's "bringing in a bunch of new characters" happened in S3, not S4. When I start hearing they're adding six new REGULARS, then I'll start getting annoyed. But none of these characters sound like they're going to be in every ep.
In fact, the better the show in its first season, the more likely it is not to last it seems.
I disagree slightly with this -- because I think you HAVE to take the next two years into account, as well. What I would say is "The greater the difference between S1 & S2-S3, the less likely a show is to last." Basically, you cannot peak in S1. You can have a great S1, but you must also have a great S2 or S3. The West Wing ran for eight years, had a great S1, but arguably an even better S2 before falling back down to earth, and coasted on those two years of greatness for the next several years. LOST had a great S1, a mediocre S2 and found its footing again in S3 (then again, LOST had an end date -- something DA could benefit from ;p ) While the O.C. had a great S1, a mediocre S2, a terrible S3 and a terrific S4 -- after which it ended.
Most people will concede Modern Family -- a show I have always felt is overrated -- has fallen off a bit in its third season
I'm not sure you can use comedies in your argument, because they lack the story arc of dramas. MF tells self-contained stories every week -- so IMO, it's difficult to differentiate S1 and S2 "writing" -- because there's very little holding the season together. Unlike dramas (and dramedies like "Glee") that aren't self-contained, or parts of a whole story -- MF is 22 distinct stories. IDK...
Basically, I think you make an interesting argument, but comparing DA and Glee is an apples-to-oranges comparison because of the differences in U.S. and UK TV. When TV is subsidized by the government (people buy licenses to watch, I believe) and not run exclusively as a for-profit enterprise like the broadcast networks (all owned by major corporate giants), one can have more flexibility in length of series. But once a creator sells his show to a network, they own it -- and they will keep it on as long as they feel like it. And if the creator leaves, too bad -- they'll get someone else to run it, so they can keep it on the air as long as possible.
Should DA have continued past S3? Debatable. But the idea that "Glee" wouldn't have, to me, is a pipe dream. With 2-3 highly-rated seasons, "Glee" was always going to go at least several more years after that. It was up to RIB what they did with those seasons. They appear to be squandering them, which is frustrating, and letting "Glee" die a slow and painful death. But for them to shrug their shoulders and say "Well, it was only supposed to go three seasons" is, to me, the height of naivety. Not even Ryan Murphy is that uninformed. ;p
I think he's going to face the same problems as Glee: when the voice for your show is limited, it becomes more difficult for people to get it right. The West Wing learned the same thing once Sorkin left (though it recovered, as I think DA will, on the strength of its acting).
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "recover." Even with JF around, no way, no how does S4 or beyond surpass S1 and S2. S4 may very well be better than S3 (but IMO that's a low bar to clear). Then again, it may not. And if/when JF leaves, then it's just Coronation Street or EastEnders in period costume. And I doubt the actors (the really good ones anyway) will stick.
I actually think DA's "bringing in a bunch of new characters" happened in S3, not S4.
Oh, I agree. Since Glee is a season ahead of DA, I wasn't specifically comparing Glee S4 with DA S4 -- just that the 3-year mark seems to be when they ran into a bit of a crisis (or at least anticipating the one to come) and each brought in new characters as part of the remedy. I guess I didn't make that explicit, but it was an observation on their trajectories in general, not detail for detail.
S4 was a paradigm shift for Glee and it is going to be -- it has to -- for DA as well (perhaps not as obvious a one because it won't be a show within a show, but it WILL be a very different show from now on).
"The greater the difference between S1 & S2-S3, the less likely a show is to last."
That's probably a more precise way of putting it. I really can't speak to the other shows. I didn't get that into the West Wing because the show just never did anything for me. (:ducks:) I know I'm like one of the ten people probably who feel this way. I saw it as a good, solid network drama, but not terribly original or interesting. (Or maybe it's just because a lot of annoying peers from l-school obsessed over it and it was like a protest against them. IDK.) I kind of compare WW drama wise to Friends comedy wise. Both good shows that everyone loved, but over the years, I probably saw only about a dozen episodes of each (maybe a few more of Friends, because I was stuck watching it with other people a few times). And I liked it that way.
And I've never seen the OC. (There's plenty of RL "OC" close by and that's enough.)
I'm not sure you can use comedies in your argument, because they lack the story arc of dramas. MF tells self-contained stories every week
Is that really true now, though? Didn't Cheers change everything as far as comedy writing/longer arcs are concerned?
And I don't really watch MF that much but isn't Gloria's pregnancy an ongoing SL this season?
When TV is subsidized by the government (people buy licenses to watch, I believe) and not run exclusively as a for-profit enterprise like the broadcast networks (all owned by major corporate giants), one can have more flexibility in length of series.
Hmm, but as I understand it ITV is essentially a commercial network. It has public service requirements -- they all do to maintain their licenses -- but because of commercial sponsorship, it actually is unburdened by the same constraints placed on the BBC and on the writers/creators for BBC shows (and in fact, that was one reason why JF preferred to do DA on ITV and not the BBC). But I'm not an authority on the television industry in the UK, so. ...
But once a creator sells his show to a network, they own it -- and they will keep it on as long as they feel like it. And if the creator leaves, too bad -- they'll get someone else to run it, so they can keep it on the air as long as possible.
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if JF doesn't still own the copyrights to the scripts at least (and thus, the characters). That's typically the way it works. Granted, he doesn't seem opposed to the idea of assigning them to ITV (based on his NYT interview), but if he really wanted to put down his foot and make a fuss about this or that, he could make it difficult for them. IDK, I keep saying I'm going to look into it. When I have the time. Sigh.
Great, thought-provoking post, as always.
Aww, thanks. I know this wasn't your fave, but I do appreciate the comments. It's always good to flesh things out with someone smart and thoughtful and you, my friend, are both!
I don't think anyone could've picked most of that cast out of a lineup prior to air. Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison if you knew recent Broadway -- but they weren't exactly Audra McDonald. Jayma Mays maybe, and Jane Lynch was vaguely recognizable -- but the vast majority of the cast was brand new.
But for that matter, as far as American viewers go (which weren't the target audience at the outset I know, but they're very much in the mix now so I think the point is valid), I don't think most people could have picked DA's cast out of a lineup either, with the exception of MS, EM and (maybe) HB and/or BC.
LM has worked on Broadway since she was 8, so yeah, I think she's a seasoned performer even though she's young. SA was EXTREMELY popular and is largely credited (along with Wicked and Rent) with making Broadway relevant to youth culture. MM was well known in theater circles as well (Hairspray, Light in the Piazza, etc.). And, no they're not Audra McDonald, but except for the core gleeks who loved the show in the beginning (like me, except I wasn't really in "fandom") and other smart people (like you :-)), most of Glee's viewers don't know who AM is either.
JM I believe was recognizable from Heroes and Ugly Betty (ooh, have we ever talked about UB's downward spiral?). JL was CERTAINLY recognizable. I mean how many Apatow flicks has she been in?
The rest were fresh faces, though in Jenna Ushkowitz's case, she also was recruited from Broadway (just wasn't as well known). Kevin McHale was from a boy band background I believe. Mark Salling was a (struggling?) musician. Cory Monteith was a Canadian actor. Heather Morris was a dancer (notably one of Beyonce's "Single Ladies"). Rivera and Agron had some background in acting/dancing and were trying to get that break. Same for Amber Riley more or less (with singing). I think only Colfer was a true newbie. But, as you say, none were well known. (But they weren't like Glee competition winners either, if you catch my drift.)
where only Patrick Dempsey had the least bit of name recognition.
I think most people knew who Sandra Oh was too. She did a lot of small roles in film -- most memorably, her turn in Sideways. And actually Sideways was great timing for her (in her career) because it came out right as GA was being cast IIRC. ... But ok, yes, no one really knew much about the original cast.
"The West Wing" or (from my understanding) "Mad Men" -- where you had more of a journeyman ensemble, with a few "fresh faces" thrown in there, IMO. When you have that, you put the show on the shoulders of the actors (and in each case, to great success). But something like Glee or Grey's or LOST, you put the show on the shoulders of the concept (also to great success)
It's an interesting point ... but I don't know if we're really disagreeing here. My original remark was that it was a mix of fresh faces and veteran performers. Veteran doesn't mean older or even famous necessarily (and actually Mad Men is a great example of that because no one on that show except John Slattery and Robert Morse were readily recognizable, but most of them, as you say, WERE experienced).
Though Glee and DA S2 both showed that the concept and the acting, respectively, can't cover up bad plotting.
And yet to me, both were unquestionably better in their S2s than their S3s. HFPA and SAG agreed with respect to Glee ... I guess we'll see about DA.
but in the press, I think DA S3 is ranked above DA S2 in terms of quality
I guess I wonder what the empirical basis for this is. I remember S2 reviews (here, mind you, not in England) and the critics loved it (yes, they had their issues with fake!Patrick and Matthew's sudden recovery, etc. but overall it was well reviewed). S3 it seems to me wasn't as universally well liked ... I saw A LOT more snark towards DA and if not, snark, then ... boredom? I would say 60% of the critics disliked the CS of Doom and those who defended it didn't exactly say they liked it. It was more ... "aw, c'mon everyone this could be a blessing in disguise." In other words, looking at the glass as half-full. You don't have to do that when a show is really good and everyone knows it.
(if I was a cynic, I'd say it's because movie actors don't watch a lot of TV and know "Glee" by name
But the SAG voters are by and large working actors (mostly commercials, probably), not movie stars (the people in the Shrine are only the minority of those voting). And actually, from what I understand (an associate of mine was a child actor and still has a SAG card, still votes and actually headed up one of the TV/drama committees this year), before they vote, like members of the Academy, they have an opportunity to screen everything.
I didn't know Fox actually nixed a spinoff idea!!!
That's what's been reported. And we know LM has agreed to do S5; if they were going to do a spinoff the time to do it would have been this year or next year at the latest (when the rest of the main cast graduates).
Did the man have no experience in broadcast TV? Did he not realize if his show was a hit, he'd have to find SOME way to keep those kids on the show?
Oh I think he realized it was an inherent tension in the whole concept, but I think it was a "we'll cross that bridge/figure it out later" kind of thing. And it shows too because during S2, RIB (mostly R) seemed to change their minds right and left about what to do when they graduated. "No, they're too old now, that's depressing to keep them around." "No, we want Lea and the rest as long as they'll stay." Couldn't make up their minds.
Do you think that describes "Glee?" I don't think anyone could've picked most of that cast out of a lineup prior to air. Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison if you knew recent Broadway -- but they weren't exactly Audra McDonald. Jayma Mays maybe, and Jane Lynch was vaguely recognizable -- but the vast majority of the cast was brand new.
I think "Glee" cast less like DA and more like Grey's Anatomy -- where only Patrick Dempsey had the least bit of name recognition. To me, that's what contributed to both shows' success (LOST would be another example).
DA cast more like "The West Wing" or (from my understanding) "Mad Men" -- where you had more of a journeyman ensemble, with a few "fresh faces" thrown in there, IMO. When you have that, you put the show on the shoulders of the actors (and in each case, to great success). But something like Glee or Grey's or LOST, you put the show on the shoulders of the concept (also to great success) .
Basically, while I think "Glee" and DA might have some similarities, I think they got there in entirely different ways. Though Glee and DA S2 both showed that the concept and the acting, respectively, can't cover up bad plotting.
The show turns out a terrific first season and a good, solid second season and then gives way to a subpar third season ... and beyond.
I also take slight issue with this -- though I think the U.S. media beyond TVLine stopped paying attention to "Glee" after S2 (except for notable storylines like Karosfky's attempted suicide) -- but in the press, I think DA S3 is ranked above DA S2 in terms of quality. I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly -- and I think fandom might as well (though it's making me want to do another poll), but I'm not sure whose standards do we use for the definition of "good" is all.
six songs per episode and each episode is shot (roughly) over 8-10 days. There are 22 episodes per season -- that is a lot of work. (I hope Dan Stevens is taking note somewhere out there.)
Heh. Poor baby had to SING in ONE EPISODE. Don't you know how TRYING that must've been for him? And then the next episode, he had to pretend his junk didn't work! OH, THE HUMANITY. ;p
It is probably why, despite the show's problems over the last couple of seasons, the SAG continues to recognize the work of the actors every year
That's an excellent point. (if I was a cynic, I'd say it's because movie actors don't watch a lot of TV and know "Glee" by name, but I like your explanation better. :)
Ryan Murphy's concession to Lea Michele and Chris Colfer for having his idea of a spinoff for them ixnayed
OOOH!!! I didn't know Fox actually nixed a spinoff idea!!! I'm sure they wanted the freedom to have the NY cast return to Lima...fascinating...
Both were set up, initially, with a natural three-season arc in mind.
I TOTALLY understand this for DA, but I find this line of thinking baffling for "Glee" -- not from you, but from Ryan Murphy. Did the man have no experience in broadcast TV? Did he not realize if his show was a hit, he'd have to find SOME way to keep those kids on the show? The fact he thought the concept, not the cast, was the reason for "Glee"'s success is the height of arrogance to me.
Likewise, the models for UK and U.S. TV are so different. DA feasibly could've ended at three years as a hit show -- because shows in the UK do that all the time. But a show set up to appeal to Adults 18-49 that actually does -- there's no WAY Murphy thought it would only go three seasons. Once it went one hit season, it could've run on fumes for AT LEAST four (like "The O.C." did). Also, it was on Fox -- which isn't exactly rolling in scripted hits. IDK, if I know this from the comfort of my living room, I find it baffling Ryan Murphy didn't know this as the show's creator. :/
Reply
When "Glee" first became a hit, I remember "Nip/Tuck" fans posting "Ryan Murphy has ideas for 1-2 great years and then he gets bored." I think "Glee's" primary problem -- which perhaps relates to your claim -- is it was too insular in the early years (one might claim the same thing about DA and JF). It was ONLY RIB writing the show.
It's interesting that JF thinks he can bring in new writers for S5 (if it happens, which it will) -- I think he's going to face the same problems as Glee: when the voice for your show is limited, it becomes more difficult for people to get it right. The West Wing learned the same thing once Sorkin left (though it recovered, as I think DA will, on the strength of its acting).
And in both cases, the solution de riguer appears to be introducing even more characters -- which the audience has little investment or interest in -- and subplots into an already crowded ensemble which is juggling too many storylines as is.
While I TOTALLY agree "Glee" has done this to an annoying degree, I actually think DA's "bringing in a bunch of new characters" happened in S3, not S4. When I start hearing they're adding six new REGULARS, then I'll start getting annoyed. But none of these characters sound like they're going to be in every ep.
In fact, the better the show in its first season, the more likely it is not to last it seems.
I disagree slightly with this -- because I think you HAVE to take the next two years into account, as well. What I would say is "The greater the difference between S1 & S2-S3, the less likely a show is to last." Basically, you cannot peak in S1. You can have a great S1, but you must also have a great S2 or S3. The West Wing ran for eight years, had a great S1, but arguably an even better S2 before falling back down to earth, and coasted on those two years of greatness for the next several years. LOST had a great S1, a mediocre S2 and found its footing again in S3 (then again, LOST had an end date -- something DA could benefit from ;p ) While the O.C. had a great S1, a mediocre S2, a terrible S3 and a terrific S4 -- after which it ended.
Most people will concede Modern Family -- a show I have always felt is overrated -- has fallen off a bit in its third season
I'm not sure you can use comedies in your argument, because they lack the story arc of dramas. MF tells self-contained stories every week -- so IMO, it's difficult to differentiate S1 and S2 "writing" -- because there's very little holding the season together. Unlike dramas (and dramedies like "Glee") that aren't self-contained, or parts of a whole story -- MF is 22 distinct stories. IDK...
Basically, I think you make an interesting argument, but comparing DA and Glee is an apples-to-oranges comparison because of the differences in U.S. and UK TV. When TV is subsidized by the government (people buy licenses to watch, I believe) and not run exclusively as a for-profit enterprise like the broadcast networks (all owned by major corporate giants), one can have more flexibility in length of series. But once a creator sells his show to a network, they own it -- and they will keep it on as long as they feel like it. And if the creator leaves, too bad -- they'll get someone else to run it, so they can keep it on the air as long as possible.
Should DA have continued past S3? Debatable. But the idea that "Glee" wouldn't have, to me, is a pipe dream. With 2-3 highly-rated seasons, "Glee" was always going to go at least several more years after that. It was up to RIB what they did with those seasons. They appear to be squandering them, which is frustrating, and letting "Glee" die a slow and painful death. But for them to shrug their shoulders and say "Well, it was only supposed to go three seasons" is, to me, the height of naivety. Not even Ryan Murphy is that uninformed. ;p
Great, thought-provoking post, as always. :D
Reply
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "recover." Even with JF around, no way, no how does S4 or beyond surpass S1 and S2. S4 may very well be better than S3 (but IMO that's a low bar to clear). Then again, it may not. And if/when JF leaves, then it's just Coronation Street or EastEnders in period costume. And I doubt the actors (the really good ones anyway) will stick.
I actually think DA's "bringing in a bunch of new characters" happened in S3, not S4.
Oh, I agree. Since Glee is a season ahead of DA, I wasn't specifically comparing Glee S4 with DA S4 -- just that the 3-year mark seems to be when they ran into a bit of a crisis (or at least anticipating the one to come) and each brought in new characters as part of the remedy. I guess I didn't make that explicit, but it was an observation on their trajectories in general, not detail for detail.
S4 was a paradigm shift for Glee and it is going to be -- it has to -- for DA as well (perhaps not as obvious a one because it won't be a show within a show, but it WILL be a very different show from now on).
"The greater the difference between S1 & S2-S3, the less likely a show is to last."
That's probably a more precise way of putting it. I really can't speak to the other shows. I didn't get that into the West Wing because the show just never did anything for me. (:ducks:) I know I'm like one of the ten people probably who feel this way. I saw it as a good, solid network drama, but not terribly original or interesting. (Or maybe it's just because a lot of annoying peers from l-school obsessed over it and it was like a protest against them. IDK.) I kind of compare WW drama wise to Friends comedy wise. Both good shows that everyone loved, but over the years, I probably saw only about a dozen episodes of each (maybe a few more of Friends, because I was stuck watching it with other people a few times). And I liked it that way.
And I've never seen the OC. (There's plenty of RL "OC" close by and that's enough.)
I'm not sure you can use comedies in your argument, because they lack the story arc of dramas. MF tells self-contained stories every week
Is that really true now, though? Didn't Cheers change everything as far as comedy writing/longer arcs are concerned?
And I don't really watch MF that much but isn't Gloria's pregnancy an ongoing SL this season?
When TV is subsidized by the government (people buy licenses to watch, I believe) and not run exclusively as a for-profit enterprise like the broadcast networks (all owned by major corporate giants), one can have more flexibility in length of series.
Hmm, but as I understand it ITV is essentially a commercial network. It has public service requirements -- they all do to maintain their licenses -- but because of commercial sponsorship, it actually is unburdened by the same constraints placed on the BBC and on the writers/creators for BBC shows (and in fact, that was one reason why JF preferred to do DA on ITV and not the BBC). But I'm not an authority on the television industry in the UK, so. ...
But once a creator sells his show to a network, they own it -- and they will keep it on as long as they feel like it. And if the creator leaves, too bad -- they'll get someone else to run it, so they can keep it on the air as long as possible.
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if JF doesn't still own the copyrights to the scripts at least (and thus, the characters). That's typically the way it works. Granted, he doesn't seem opposed to the idea of assigning them to ITV (based on his NYT interview), but if he really wanted to put down his foot and make a fuss about this or that, he could make it difficult for them. IDK, I keep saying I'm going to look into it. When I have the time. Sigh.
Great, thought-provoking post, as always.
Aww, thanks. I know this wasn't your fave, but I do appreciate the comments. It's always good to flesh things out with someone smart and thoughtful and you, my friend, are both!
Reply
But for that matter, as far as American viewers go (which weren't the target audience at the outset I know, but they're very much in the mix now so I think the point is valid), I don't think most people could have picked DA's cast out of a lineup either, with the exception of MS, EM and (maybe) HB and/or BC.
LM has worked on Broadway since she was 8, so yeah, I think she's a seasoned performer even though she's young. SA was EXTREMELY popular and is largely credited (along with Wicked and Rent) with making Broadway relevant to youth culture. MM was well known in theater circles as well (Hairspray, Light in the Piazza, etc.). And, no they're not Audra McDonald, but except for the core gleeks who loved the show in the beginning (like me, except I wasn't really in "fandom") and other smart people (like you :-)), most of Glee's viewers don't know who AM is either.
JM I believe was recognizable from Heroes and Ugly Betty (ooh, have we ever talked about UB's downward spiral?). JL was CERTAINLY recognizable. I mean how many Apatow flicks has she been in?
The rest were fresh faces, though in Jenna Ushkowitz's case, she also was recruited from Broadway (just wasn't as well known). Kevin McHale was from a boy band background I believe. Mark Salling was a (struggling?) musician. Cory Monteith was a Canadian actor. Heather Morris was a dancer (notably one of Beyonce's "Single Ladies"). Rivera and Agron had some background in acting/dancing and were trying to get that break. Same for Amber Riley more or less (with singing). I think only Colfer was a true newbie. But, as you say, none were well known. (But they weren't like Glee competition winners either, if you catch my drift.)
where only Patrick Dempsey had the least bit of name recognition.
I think most people knew who Sandra Oh was too. She did a lot of small roles in film -- most memorably, her turn in Sideways. And actually Sideways was great timing for her (in her career) because it came out right as GA was being cast IIRC. ... But ok, yes, no one really knew much about the original cast.
"The West Wing" or (from my understanding) "Mad Men" -- where you had more of a journeyman ensemble, with a few "fresh faces" thrown in there, IMO. When you have that, you put the show on the shoulders of the actors (and in each case, to great success). But something like Glee or Grey's or LOST, you put the show on the shoulders of the concept (also to great success)
It's an interesting point ... but I don't know if we're really disagreeing here. My original remark was that it was a mix of fresh faces and veteran performers. Veteran doesn't mean older or even famous necessarily (and actually Mad Men is a great example of that because no one on that show except John Slattery and Robert Morse were readily recognizable, but most of them, as you say, WERE experienced).
Though Glee and DA S2 both showed that the concept and the acting, respectively, can't cover up bad plotting.
And yet to me, both were unquestionably better in their S2s than their S3s. HFPA and SAG agreed with respect to Glee ... I guess we'll see about DA.
but in the press, I think DA S3 is ranked above DA S2 in terms of quality
I guess I wonder what the empirical basis for this is. I remember S2 reviews (here, mind you, not in England) and the critics loved it (yes, they had their issues with fake!Patrick and Matthew's sudden recovery, etc. but overall it was well reviewed). S3 it seems to me wasn't as universally well liked ... I saw A LOT more snark towards DA and if not, snark, then ... boredom? I would say 60% of the critics disliked the CS of Doom and those who defended it didn't exactly say they liked it. It was more ... "aw, c'mon everyone this could be a blessing in disguise." In other words, looking at the glass as half-full. You don't have to do that when a show is really good and everyone knows it.
Reply
But the SAG voters are by and large working actors (mostly commercials, probably), not movie stars (the people in the Shrine are only the minority of those voting). And actually, from what I understand (an associate of mine was a child actor and still has a SAG card, still votes and actually headed up one of the TV/drama committees this year), before they vote, like members of the Academy, they have an opportunity to screen everything.
I didn't know Fox actually nixed a spinoff idea!!!
That's what's been reported. And we know LM has agreed to do S5; if they were going to do a spinoff the time to do it would have been this year or next year at the latest (when the rest of the main cast graduates).
Did the man have no experience in broadcast TV? Did he not realize if his show was a hit, he'd have to find SOME way to keep those kids on the show?
Oh I think he realized it was an inherent tension in the whole concept, but I think it was a "we'll cross that bridge/figure it out later" kind of thing. And it shows too because during S2, RIB (mostly R) seemed to change their minds right and left about what to do when they graduated. "No, they're too old now, that's depressing to keep them around." "No, we want Lea and the rest as long as they'll stay." Couldn't make up their minds.
Reply
Leave a comment