A week ago, the Fox network played out the last new network episodes of three seasons of Arrested Development. For my money, the show had obviously imploded creatively. It started out pretty strong, but it turned out to be, as my hero would say, a brilliant mistake. Ah well.
The show was given great, incredibly adoring press, and ultimately several seasons to develop, but it just flat wasn't going over with the general public. Now, the fan base of the show is understandably disappointed that their show never caught on, but some of those people seem a bit stuck on their sense of superiority.
Judging by AD fan comments on my review of their finale, many fans of the show cite its failure as evidence of public stupidity. Anyone who doesn't see that Arrested Development was pure artistic genius must be a Skating With Celebrities or Everybody Loves Raymond-watching retard. Heck, even the Simpsons are hardly in a league with this achievement.
I have an alternate theory: people - including the smart end of the public audience - hated the Bluth family, and didn't wish to spend time with them. It wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone would do so, but some fans of the show obviously identify personally with the Bluth family. They seem to take the failure of the show as a personal affront from all the big stupidheads out in TV land that don't appreciate the (extremely overhyped) supposed brilliance of the show.
For one thing, a lot of them seem to think that getting the convoluted show biz in-jokes that others don't makes them some kind of Hollywood insiders. But getting the gag about having Henry Winkler playing jump-the-shark in invocation of his infamous Happy Days incident makes you a Hollywood insider in about the same pathetic way in which Tobias was an "actor."
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ron Hildebrand
I think the fact that nearly the entire family did consist of "loathsome personalities" was the core of the joke. Of course Lucille would rent out her comatose son's body! The Bluth family was selfishness and venality taken to extremes, ranging from cunningly devious to idotiotically self-centered. Perhaps some of the concepts weren't always hilarious in themselves, but the execution often saved them.
If characters really need redeeming qualities to make a viable television series, which character had any of those qualities in Seinfeld? Which one was most admirable? Probably no one, while AD at least had Jason Bateman's character and his innocent, floundering son, George Michael to play off.
2 - Vcalzone
OK, so your argument is that about 80% of television critics, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, quite a few writers and performers which I won't list here, and just about anyone else who has created anything good does not comprise the smart end of the viewing public, and yet YOU do.
OK, I have a better solution, one that matches reality. YOU comprise a member of the portion of the population (gaining in numbers) that thinks they have good and cool taste, but really was just spoonfed whatever the cool kids liked 10 years ago. Not saying that anyone who didn't watch this show had this problem, but the ones that actively bash it kinda do.
Shame on you. You give Elvis Costello fans a bad name.
3 - Al Barger
Fair enough, Ron. The Michael Bluth character didn't particularly strike me as all that great a literary thing, but he was not just completely nasty like most of his family. And again, George Michael was an ok kid, probably the best person in the family.
And I don't entirely expect easy lovable characters for comfort. That would be pretty artistically narrow minded, and would cause you to miss out on some good work. Seinfeld is the obvious example, as you point out- though even those purposely unlovable characters were not anything like as wicked as the Bluths.
But if you want people to watch such ugly people as the Bluths week after week, you're going to have to absolutely keep up that quality control. Archie Bunker was such an endearing character that hanging out at Archie Bunker's place was like visiting with an old friend, though they were pretty well played out creatively by that point.
But that writing was devolving rapidly at Arrested Development this year, and it'd take a whole lot more than the unearned sense of smug superiority exhibited by Lucille Bluth and her admirers to draw an audience.
4 - Vcalzone
Oh, and I didn't miss your point or dodge it, it's just that the concept that characters have to have positive qualities to be likeable or to be in a quality television show is ludicrous, as is the way in which you completely ignored any positive traits that the Bluths ever displayed to prove your own point.
And the way you tossed in terrorism to try and drive your point home? Priceless. Bravo, sir.
5 - Dave Ryan
We don't think we're "insiders" because we get the jokes. Fans of this show just tend to pay a bit more attention at the jokes.
So what if we get the "Happy Days" reference? It doesn't make us smug, it means we get the joke. Are you charging us for paying attention to the many layers of jokes that this show requires you to pay attention to?
Not every family comedy has to be likable, either. Not every show is a "Brady Bunch". From the beginning, the Bluths are an unholy, unlikable bunch. The only redeeming factor of the family was Michael -- his determination to keep his family together. If that's not a redeeming quality, I don't know what is.
His overprotection of his son was his only downfall, something that can't be complained about but I'm sure George Michael wouldn't have minded had he let off a bit.
George is ignorant to his surroundings, as his controlling wife Lucille runs and operates out of her villainous contempt for anything below her supposed social graces. Buster is a product of his mothers self absorbtion, and has become the sheltered mothers boy we all know.
Lindsay is the sister -- adopted or not -- and is the byproduct of being well versed in snobbery. When they lose their money, she snaps out of her delusion and realizes her marriage isn't what she thought, but she, together with the gay-oblivious Tobias decided to stick together for the sake of their daughter, Maeby (isn't that keeping family together a theme?). Their devotion to their daughter may extend to them seeing other people, but they're doing it for her. Even when they attempt to get divorced, they end up back together, realizing thats all they have.
Maeby is what happens when a child raises herself and is shy of parental affection. She bluffs her way through life and is forced to con the world into believing things she puts up. Her rebellions lay in her getting her parents affection, but that doesn't work the way she wants usually.
George Michael is, as mentioned before, the overprotected son. Much like Buster, he can't really express himself and has curious desires -- his cousin (Buster and his attraction to persons like his mother).
GOB is an empty-shell of a man, shown the least amount of love of the bunch. He looks out for himself, as he's been forced to. True, he doesn't care who he hurts along the way, but thats capitalism, baby.
True, the Bluths are holy unlikable on the surface. But deep down, the characters have a niceness we can't disagree with. You criticize them as if they're real, then you criticize us for buying into their situations.
They're a dysfunctional family -- a sitcom norm. What makes this show remarkable in its three seasons is that even with their grossly exaggerated negativities, a few Americans bought into them. The fans aren't to be criticized for this, because they found something unique and helped make it stay for 53 episodes.
All without being 'likable'.
6 - Alfred B.
Oh, honestly. Another review? You're just doing this to get a rise out of people. Such an attention whore...
7 - AztecTomb1
“Someone’s a grumpy Gus.”
First off, how can you possibly defend the Seinfeld characters as being less morally repugnant? I recall George pushing women and children out of his way as he tried to escape a kitchen fire in an apartment. Or there was the time Jerry stole a marble-rye from an old woman. Or when Jerry dated a woman whose boyfriend was in a coma. Or the time George’s fiancée, Susan, died as she mailed out their cheap wedding invitations, and then how George used her death to help him score dates as a bachelor. I’m sorry, but Seinfeld was devoid of any redeeming characters, yet they were loved because of how funny they were. This same principle applies to the characters in Arrested Development, although that humor was clearly lost on you.
In addition, the Arrested characters are at least balanced by the moral compass of the show, George Michael Bluth. Despite his incestuous urges, George Michael displays the sort of values we as a society strive for in the face of increasing moral turpitude. He is devoted to his family, he works hard, and always does the right thing, aside from getting to second base with his cousin (speaking of which, how could you not laugh at the Pete Rose photo? C’mon!!!). It is through George Michael’s enduring innocence that his father, Michael, was redeemed from the questionably moral conduct his family regularly engaged in. Michael’s redemption culminated in the finale when he raced to his son’s aid. Michael finally realized that all that had gone on for the past three years meant nothing compared to supporting and caring for his son. He had lost sight of this basic truth as he sought to keep his other family members together and the business afloat, but in the end he got it right. That scene captured the essence of these two characters and the true depth of the show.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that this show was as funny as anything that has ever been on television. Sadly, as you are clearly an example, if a person were to get hung up on how the characters were behaving then that person would most likely fail to see the wealth of humor being flung at the viewer in varying layers. Actually, anyone who cannot get over the ridiculous antics of these characters ought to take a deep breath, and realize that they are watching TV CHARACTERS!!! Why in the world would anyone watch a sitcom to see a collection of morally righteous stiffs? In fact, as we saw in an episode of Seinfeld, when Elaine associates with Bizarro Jerry and his friends, the only reason they were funny in the least was because they were the opposite of Jerry, George, and Kramer. Last I checked, we watch these shows to laugh and escape our day-to-day lives for half an hour, not to be preached to or be bored to death.
This is where Arrested Development came in. From blue paint on the walls, shark jumping, Motherboy XXX, Poof Magazine, school election videos, to drug-dealing on a boat to teach a boy a lesson, this show found more inventive ways to make a person laugh than most shows will discover in a 10-year run. The show required a viewer to look beyond the one-liner a character uttered in order to see all the humor that the writers, actors, and creator put into each scene. Joke on top of joke on top of joke filled each show and made even the lesser episodes a joy to watch, at least for those of us who dared to ignore the morally flawed characters that inhabited the show.
I don’t have a problem with you sharing your opinion that the show was “over-hyped” or that it was a “brilliant mistake.” I simply feel sorry that you were unable to unclench and enjoy 53 episodes of absurd, comedic bliss.
Anyway, when I start to look to sitcoms to provide morals and characters of uncompromising values that is when I will know that I have lost all semblance of a sense of humor. I’ll look for you if I get there.
8 - David
Do you think that the characters of Seinfeld (one of the few shows I would put in front of AD, but not by much), possibly the most popular sitcom ever, were not mallicious or unlikeable? Jerry mugged an old woman, George felt relief after his fiancee died, etc. You seem to turn your rants on Arrested Development into mini psychological lessons. I can't wait until your next blog, what will it say? 'I don't think the audience could connect with Buster on a personal level.' I find it funny that you use reverse psychology as well. You only seem able to catch a few of the jokes in the show, so you try and lash out at people who do get these jokes as if you are too smart to pay attention to the "smart jokes." Face it, you don't get this show. I'm not judging you, but come on, how can you say this is creatively imploding. If Arrested Development lost the creative spark, then what about your garden variety shows, such as Everybody Loves Raymond? How many times is Ray going to do something stupid, get in trouble with his wife, and then be coddled by his mother who then insults his wife? Keep in mind, AD had episodes this past season where Michael's love interest was mentally handicap; but you are right, we see these kinds of plots every week on sitcoms. You nitpick at this show to try and make yourself feel smart, purely for the fact that you don't get it.
9 - Triumph
I like your reviews of Arrested Development--but then again, I eat my own crap.
10 - Jokester
I find it very interesting that you started to lash out against Arrested Development after the season was done and when the future of the show is uncertain. It makes me wonder if you actually were a fan of the show. It's very easy to criticize the show once it's off the air. I think you're attacking the show just because you are angry that you never understood the show yourself. Please don't call yourself a one-time fan of the show ever again. It makes me cringe to think that it could possibly be true.
Oh yeah, I absolutely loved the way you used Bin Laden and terrorism to drive your point home. I find it to be a great gimmick. Hopefully, we'll be seeing more of that in whatever crap you write in the future.
11 - LovePump
Al, you write this drivel just to get a rise out of AD fans. You are pathetic
12 - Ceiyne
You clearly didn't "get" the show, so why do I care about your opinion? I just signed up for Google news alerts, and if this drivel is representative of the "news", I'll be unsubscribing quickly.
13 - Constantine Peterson
MR Barger, all I can say is well done.
Your poorly written little blog has recieved a massive amount of hits, and only because you decided to attack a sinking ship.This work does not deserve the circulation it got, but I suppose that was your intention when you penned this drivel. Your bosses must be over the moon.
I am not a massive fan of the show, but I have seen enough of it to recognise it as the best sit-com on Television.
You really should try to make a career out of attacking this show, cause it seems that it is the only work of yours that people will actually read.
Grow uo Barger. The fact that you wrote a completely unaccurate article about a show you seemingly know noting about, just because you think somebody might actually read it, is pathetic. I'd call on all AD fans not to respond to this article. Why lower yourself?
Mr Barger is destined to write these Blogs for the rest of his 'career'. I wonder why a major publication hasn't acquired his services yet? He's so wise
14 - Al Barger
Dave Ryan, thank you for your thoughtful comment #5. That's definitely the best, most considered answer I've had to either of my two AD columns. I'm not sure how much of your argument I'm buying, but I can almost kind of halfway see some of your defense of a couple of them- though I'm still failing to see the point of identification.
Noting this, I have to temper my criticism at least a bit. You seem like a reasonable fellow who identifies with characters that just ain't making it with me. General criticisms do not apply to those to whom they don't apply, and that definitely includes you.
But some of them anklebiters running loose here, what do you think you're accomplishing? I've made detailed and carefully considered critiques of a scripted fictional tv show, and you respond with dumb personal attacks on me. Do you think that random insults against me in some way would offer persuasion to someone else regarding the merits of this show?
Now, besides being more personally pleasant, Mr Ryan has actually made some bit of positive defense of these characters and their show. That kind of approach might get you somewhere.
And really, some of you need some new material. You keep insisting that I'm just a big old stupidhead that didn't understand. No, I'm a member of Mensa- I think I understand your little sitcom. I GOT the jokes- I just thought they were rapidly becoming more repetitive and less funny. Yes, of course cruel Lucille Bluth would rent her not-even-comatose sone out for medical experiments, but that obvious play was not executed with any significant creative wit. I'm not buying it for funny.
But pay attention, cause THIS column was not particularly a "review" of the show- note that it's not labeled as such. It was an explication of the negativity of the underlying characters.
Did it not occur to you that when you start carrying on with dumb attacks on me like these that you're just re-enforcing the point of the negativity of the characters and some of their fanbase?
On the other hand, at least one of y'all from the other thread thinks that playing on the names with William Hung and Judge Reinhold means that the writers are just like Shakespeare.
How could I possibly argue against that?
15 - Vcalzone
No, it occurred to me that attacks would be wasted on you. But you didn't strike me as having an argument that was subject to reason, particularly since you just wrote something expressing your distaste for the show a week ago. And I somehow doubt that anyone looking to get into the show would check first here for an opinion.
That said, the reason the writing was kind of off this season was because they had to hire an entirely new writing staff after the combination of fear over cancellation and strenuous working hours made several key writers leave. So if it seems like the show changed this year, you're right.
However, your argument is with the characters in general, not just this year. And while nobody could argue that the character of George Sr is completely self-absorbed and corrupt, you'd be hard pressed to say that none of the others have ever exhibited any positive traits whatsoever. Actually, I'd argue that they all want to be good people, and often make an effort to make moves toward that goal, but their own fear and insecurity brings them back to being safely oblivious to their own problems.
So to demonstrate that just because I think you're a moron doesn't mean that I'm one or that I can't defend my point:
Lindsay is a wanna-be activist, and perhaps at one point in her life, she really was one, but years and years trapped in a marriage completely devoid of sexuality and respect have left her in a state of complete denial and a constant longing to escape her own responsibilities, even though she knows she can't.
As for Tobias, I have no idea why you would call him a loathsome personality. Part of that might be because you gave him nothing more than a cursory mention, but even though he's oblivious to most of what's going on, at least he cares for his family. Even if he's checked out emotionally, he's always there for them when it really counts, and they know that.
GOB is a pretty clear-cut case of a guy who just didn't get enough love from his dad, so he's imitating all his dad's bad habits: womanizing, lying, manipulating. However, when he realizes that he might actually hurt someone in the family (George Michael, Michael, Maeby), he backs off instantly. And when he had to choose between turning in his brother or his father, he made the right decision.
Maeby has been emotionally orphaned for a long, long time, and so now she looks out only for herself, and doesn't really recognize the damage she's doing to other people. It's called antisocial personality disorder. And while it certainly doesn't make her a good person, she definitely has been shown to feel remorse from time to time, even if she immediately runs away from those feelings.
Lucille is clearly very resentful of her children and of George Sr, for making her give up her own dreams and ambitions in favor of a family. She was revealed to be the one running the show, but never gets any recognition for it. She's a horrible person, but you can understand how she got that way.
Michael might display negative traits from time to time, but he's the only character that actually makes an effort to do the right thing, even when it's really damn hard to do. With the exception, of course, of George Michael, who ALWAYS tries to do the right thing, ALWAYS puts his family before himself, and NEVER asks for credit for it. And he was taught to do so by Michael.
In summary, you can make the argument that these characters are extremely flawed, and you'd be correct. But since when is that what matters? The bottom line is that you can determine the reasoning for what made every single one of these characters the way they are, and why they continually fail to evolve. Which is more than you can say for ANY other TV show you named. Even Simpsons just had Bart pop out of the womb as a total bastard, and Lisa pop out as a goody-two-shoes. Seinfeld never made any character analysis at all. Can you say you know what made them the way they are, or did they just pop out fully-formed and completely devoid of conscience?
And BTW, you won't get anywhere with me by name-checking Mensa. You had more credibility when you said you were an Elvis Costello fan.
16 - Acrylamid
"the innate distastefulness of the characters did the whole thing in for being a watchable TV show - particularly the incest theme."
Your point is that TV shows with unlikable characters and incest themes can't attract many viewers.
Although I think that most of the characters are likeable (as explained by Vcalzone) and the themes are much more multi-layered than just incest jokes, the assumption is simply not true.
What about Married with Children and War at Home? These shows have only unlikeable characters without any redeeming features. George Michael alone shows more heart and sensitivity than both casts together.
And the incest theme was heavily used on Friends, which was one of the most successful (and mainstream) sitcoms ever.
17 - Professor Chaos
I started reading this second article of yours, and at first I couldn't even finish it and wanted to jump down for the angry comments. But I held off and went back to re-read the article because I wanted something more effective than "Stop trying to get a rise out of such a loyal fanbase of people" like I was going to say.
After you talk about how absurdly ravenous the AD fans are, you do get to making an interesting point about how loathesome the Bluth family is. When I started watching the show I could not have agreed more. I could not relate to a family that would stab each other in the back and maniplulate each other the way they did. Plus this show was on Fox whom had cancelled Futurama (and Family Guy) so I assumed the show was crap. I wasn't reading all the magazines and online articles praising it because I generally don't waste my time on TV shows like that.
That might have been the end of it if it weren't for some friends of mine growing quite fond of it in season 2. I hung around, watched parts of the episodes and I found it really funny. But you always enjoy things more when you are surrounded by friends that are enjoying it as well, so I was still cautious.
Without having a TV connected to cable or antenna I have been getting TV DVDs from the library recently, and decided to try out this Arrested Development that everyone had been raving about. And watching the episodes in DVD format, chronologically is where the subtleties really started to come through. The characters are in a state of arrested development (to really run that theme into the ground). And you notice that while all these characters are greedy and self centered, its because they never grew up, being safely under the umbrella of the Bluth fortune. Realizing that then you begin to see that the characters have a certain innocence to all of them (except maybe George and Lucille).
Gob is a magician because it serves his needs for attention and he is always just trying to impress everyone. He's like a kid going off a diving board demanding that his mom look at him.
Tobias, despite all his homosexual tendencies really believes himself to be heterosexual (at least until into the third season it seemed, new writers, gah). Its not like he's trying to hide a secret, because he just doesn't believe it himself.
Lindsey I always found to be more of a charicature, but she really is just used to getting everything, but at the same time she genuinely wants to help people. She just doesn't understand that it hurts her credibility to do that without self-sacrifice.
Hell, even Lucille isn't as malicious as people classify her as. While she certainly looks out for herself first and foremost, when people mess with her family they often end up missing or passed out in a bar after a drinking contest. She's a strong woman that will fight tooth and nail for anyone she deems to be "on her side" which I think is quite endearing.
I think that the Bluths faced the same problem all good villians do. Many people are able to appreciate a good villian and enjoy the dynamics that go into creating and executing such great characters. Meanwhile others will simply take them at face value as bad people, and will often not even like the actors who play such great villians just because they leave a bad taste in their mouths.
Now I only expect you to "almost, kind of, half-way" see my arguments (I'm sorry for the personal attack, it was childish) but I would like it if you would join me in calling a truce. People posting here think they are smarter than you, and you think you are smarter than the posters. You can see how this can only escalate. I am telling you right now that you are probably smarter than some of the people posting comments here, and you are probably dumber than some of them as well. Its nothing pesonal, its just that its kind of a big world out there. Its starting to become a battle of who can out-snob who and its tiresome.
My opinion personally was that although a lot of the third season I found relatively dismal, the last four episodes (especially the last three) really did feel like the AD I knew and loved, and it was probably one of the best series finales I have watched.
Professor Chaos
18 - Al Barger
Professor Chaos, now you're talking halfway sensible. Some of your defense I can see, but why do I want to bend over so far backwards to identify with these unsavory characters? After a certain point- which comes fairly soon- the utter shallowness of these people loses my interest.
Also, don't worry about giving me a little insult or two. It comes with the territory. A little of that is natural emotions, and that's cool.
Plus, there's not really escalation to come with the silly AD fans. I'm restraining myself on grounds of not wishing to engage in battles of wit with the unarmed. Notice again that despite some provocation, I'm really trying to address myself to the actual artistic artifact- the show itself- rather than silly folks who seem intent on taking my comments on the Bluth family personally.
But going back to my first story, the actual review, I just don't see how anyone not absolutely chauvinistically attached to the show could think it was much good. A notch up from Raymond MAYBE, but that's setting the bar very low.
19 - Vcalzone
You've done nothing BUT insult the fans. How are your first 5 paragraphs not insulting and disdainful? I have no problem with people who don't see the humor in the show, but when people start to make generalizations about the show and its fans, it pisses me off.
Even in your last comment, you didn't say, "I just didn't see what was so great about the show", you said, "I don't see how anyone could think it was very good". That's an insult. So I hope you'll forgive me for taking it personally.
As for the last episodes, I think you had to be a fan of the show to really get them. They weren't made for other people to enjoy. And realistically, they were made by people who had been on the brink of cancellation constantly for three years, all while making a rather innovative and amusing television show, at a time when almost every sitcom on the air was pure crap. And now they have to sit back and watch The Office succeed where they did not. If anyone in the world deserves to be spent artistically, it's those guys. Did I find those last episodes funny? Absolutely. Would I expect anyone to find them as funny if they didn't know the show very well? Absolutely not.
But again, the idea that it didn't succeed because people didn't like the characters doesn't hold water. It just wasn't the right time, and Fox hasn't been able to market an intelligent comedy for years. Even Family Guy only took off because Adult Swim did all the work for them. Every other comedy they've had in the last five years has either flopped or has been a success because it was tagged along to American Idol or been nestled between Simpsons and Family Guy.
20 - Brian
"You keep insisting that I'm just a big old stupidhead that didn't understand. No, I'm a member of Mensa- I think I understand your little sitcom."
I think Mensa just lost some of it's luster.
21 - Al Barger
Vcalzone, you try my patience with comment 19. You're such a big fan of a show that made a big point of finding humor in cruelty, yet you come with
Oh, the tender sensitivity by which you found the pea of an insult under seven mattresses of me making nice.
Alright fine, I'll be direct. That's just the kind of hurt feelings over NOTHING that makes me want to slap the taste out of the likes of Tobias or Gob. But I don't think that even the mama's boy Buster would be that pussified over so little a bit of nothing as me saying I don't see why anyone would like some and such show.
22 - Vcalzone
I wasn't hurt, I was pissed off. And only pointing out that your previous statement that "I'm really trying to address myself to the actual artistic artifact- the show itself- rather than silly folks who seem intent on taking my comments on the Bluth family personally." was not really true.
Had you not MENTIONED the fans in your article, I wouldn't have cared. I didn't say word one about your review, even though I didn't agree with it. But when you say something like:
"For one thing, a lot of them seem to think that getting the convoluted show biz in-jokes that others don't makes them some kind of Hollywood insiders. But getting the gag about having Henry Winkler playing jump-the-shark in invocation of his infamous Happy Days incident makes you a Hollywood insider in about the same pathetic way in which Tobias was an 'actor.'"
or "Ultimately, the Bluths were basically a liberal sendup of Enron America. I don't know what kind of people would identify with such a crew, but I'm glad they're not MY neighbors. They would represent a pretty fair version of some of the worst things the most fanatic Muslims would like to accuse US of."
That's not insulting the show, that's insulting the people who like the show. And in an extremely dismissive fashion. So forgive me if I responded in an equally dismissive fashion.
23 - James
I think the generalizations made in your review have really missed the point, and really the genius, in Arrested Development altogether.
Forgive me for being blunt, but it seems like all the critics of AD have really jumped on the same bandwagon. As a fan, I can say I don't watch the show because I identify with Michael Bluth's situation, or even really associated anything with the Bluth family. In fact, I don't even really care much about the content of the show, as long as it doesn't get old and stale.
I like Arrested Development because it's great humor. The juxtapositional irony, the fast paced, rapid fire situations, the spontaneity and random events, and numerous other elements which you don't see in your average, run of the mill comedy. Arrested Development is fairly unique in this aspect.
It seems to me that the only person who is really guilty of what you accuse the fans to be is yourself. Step off the pedestal and enjoy Arrested Development as the rest of us -- a simple comedy.
24 - Jake
What exactly do you mean when you say "For my money, the show had obviously imploded creatively." Are you referring to the show imploding over the course of 3 seasons? or are you referring to how it closed season 3? If it's the first, that's a ridiculous comment, because the show was by far the funniest show on television. If you are saying that it imploded creatively based on the 4 finale episodes, then think about this: The writers had to cut down the number of episodes from 22 to 13, which means they have to pretty much scrap their planned progression of the season and adapt to a timeline considerablly shorter. Add to that the fact that they had to come up with a possible series finale, but still leave an opening in the event that another network picks up the series. I agree, there have been funnier episodes, but given the circumstance, the writers delivered.
What do you suggest AD viewers watch now??? A show like Freddie? Please. The reason that AD did not attract the audience is not because viewers "hated" the Bluth family, but because FOX did NOT care about the show. You will see promos for American Idol and 24 all day long, but how many teasers do you see for AD? Barely any, if any. Had I not read online about the season 3 finale, I would have missed it...why? Because I did not see 1 single promo for it at anytime on FOX...terrible. Also, look at how they would show 1 or 2 new episodes, then take it off the air for a month while baseball is on...terrible again. I don't know who is making the programming decisions over at FOX, but I'm certain I could do a better job.
25 - Hounsy
To each there own but I don't have to like characters personas to find them funny and watchable. In Arrested Development I believe the malice and distaste of so many of the characters is what made it for me.