PARKS and RECREATION aka "Everything's coming up Amy"

only thing I remember loving in the last season was the claymaytch

No real drop off to me I just agree about the cartoony nature of the characters at this point.

yeah i agree with matt, and my complaints about the show pretty much extend to last season as well. it pretty much seems too self-aware and cutesy in a way that it didn't quite have to *rely* on in seasons 2 and 3.

as long as I lol a few times per episode I'm good. and the only episodes that didn't make me lol at all were the first few.

I feel like some people here have only watched this and, like, two other shows ever. Y'all have no perspective whatsoever if you're talking about major declines wrt this show. And I even share your same general concerns (the point they took the leash off Dwight was the point when the rest of the cast of The Office slowly started moving towards Caricatureville and, ultimately, Awfulsburg). I just don't see it at all with P&R. I'd advise a straight-shot rewatch to getcher head back in the game.

And for the record, I totally understand why a show like this just isn't some people's thing. What I don't get is how it could be your thing for a while and then suddenly not so much when it's been doing the same thing for a long while at the same general level of consistency.

Oh, and the main reason I complain about people complaining in these threads is that they hardly ever specify why they think the show is taking a turn for the worse so it's hard to even see where they're coming from. Re: Evan's point about Ron and his meat, I honestly don't see where that whole thing is taking that broad a turn. And I did watch the series straight through recently, so it's fairly fresh in my mind.

The characters were acting a bit more like caricatures of themselves but I have the feeling it was deliberately broadly written in order to recap on a lot from last season and feel accessible to new viewers. It was very much like a Community season opener in that regard. I doubt there'll be a significant drop in quality but they need to find a way to get all the characters back into one setting.

Yeah, thats what worries more than anything, NBC acts like these are toxic to "regular" sitcom viewers. Worse that just this being the last season of P&R though, this means Fall 2013 will be full of shitty fucking comedies. I understand the "controversial" opinions wrt this show, The Office, Community, etc etc, but I'll take even a sub-par P&R over a fucking Two and Half Men or shitty, third-rate comedian with hot wife sitcom any day. At least these shows tried to bend formula a little.

― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:26 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

NBC is trying pretty hard to be square this year but i don't think Animal Hospital and Guys With Kids are going to suddenly do really well and make them think oh we do need any of these shows critics like anymore.

the quality dropoff in this show is definitely a mass hallucination but i'm enjoying watching this thread eat itself.

Also Chris Pratt has been an absolute genius at doing broad comedy for two seasons now so it's not like broadness in itself is a problem in Parks and Rec.

hay guys RON SWANSON and MUSTACHES and BACON right hahahahahahahah

Re: Evan's point about Ron and his meat, I honestly don't see where that whole thing is taking that broad a turn. And I did watch the series straight through recently, so it's fairly fresh in my mind.

― Old Lunch, Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:45 AM (4 hours ago)

They just keep trying top the last Ron-loves-red-meat-gag in every single episode as soon as it became a popular meme.

But...top it how? I mean, what exactly is the progression of outlandishness here? It's not like they have him wearing a bacon suit and gnawing a porterhouse in every scene. Like, he's a dude with a clearly-stated fondness for meat and in this episode, he's put in charge of a barbecue. If the b-plot in the next episode is Ron demanding that his office chair be reupholstered in jerky, I will concede your point.

some dude the new head of nbc specifically stated nbc needs to and will be moving away from niche (his word) critics shows and used the thursday shows as what he was specifically talking about. i've heard the theory 'nbc has so many shows they have to cancel before they get to parks and rec' and this is plausible - chuck got 5 seasons this way - but i can totally see the new guy canceling a show that he didn't develop (and hence gets no credit for), a show where the ratings are only going down, is only gonna get more expensive to make, and has a high enough media profile (but doesn't do anything at the emmys) that the argument can be made that anyone who was gonna watch this show is already watching this show. considering that the other thursday niche shows are either already announced ending this year or moved to another night (and probably ending this year) i don't think it's crazy to suggest that a show the head of nbc specifically pointed out as the type of show w/ no future on his network might not have the brightest future.

oh i know what the guy said -- just saying their slate of new shows is so incredibly weak that who knows what plan they'll scramble for when Matthew Perry fails to save them. frankly i wonder if NBC itself going down the tubes isn't a bigger threat to certain shows than simply being canceled.

personally i would be happy w/ P&R and Up All Night both being canceled so Poehler and Arnett can take some time off, mend their relationship, and find projects where they're actually more than 10% as funny as they CAN be

tbh GOON is a good bit funnier than it has any business being

Animal Hospital, not so much

yeah Goon Tuesdays is not a bad show, it's more its existence that's depressing

don't we already have a bunch of "NBC sucks" threads?

Not enough, imo. NBC is kind of the George Lucas of television networks.

tbh GOON is a good bit funnier than it has any business being

Well, it has Brett Gelman and Bob Ducca--though it has barely used them so far--so it's a fair bit ahead talent-wise than other new sitcoms.

I feel like some people here have only watched this and, like, two other shows ever. Y'all have no perspective whatsoever if you're talking about major declines wrt this show.

Did this episode by episode pulse-checking of sitcoms begin when the Simpsons started to go sour? Before that I can't recall ever caring about particular episodes of TV shows (unless they were more standalone, like SNL.) Like, I watched Cheers and Roseanne, but if there was a weak episode I just figured there'd be a better one next week, not that this was a turning point in the show.

I feel like it goes back way further than that (see Cousin Oliver in The Brady Bunch or Happy Days giving birth to the phrase "jumping the shark")

I think those were more generalized, "the show started to suck when..." things, as opposed to something like, "The first rough draft season of the Brady Bunch gave way to the brilliant second season, then season three had several spotty episodes, probably due to turnover in the writing staff..."

keyes: my suspicion is that The Simpsons having such a long run and slow decline + being around during the rise of Usenet etc. is one of the original topics of this style of discussion

I think you needed an internet that was evolved enough to be used by pretty much anyone before you could get the feedback loop in place that is necessary to monitor the health of a sitcom in this fashion.

I have a wild suspicion/theory that some of these shows with higher college age demographics have marketing guys and writers that pay attention to memes and popularity of screen grabs of jokes from earlier episodes and base character development and the success of the show on the organic marketing produced by fan generated content right on the medium that the bulk of their fans congregate.

And thats why all of these shows end up so cartoony.

agree that the shipper aspects are too prominent esp for one of the relatively weaker aspects of the show

They completely nailed it with April and Andy to be fair. Leslie and Ben is a good TV couple as well but there were other things driving that storyline other than will-they-won't-they.

If you pair up every character you lose the potential for secondary characters. Would be perfectly happy to see Ann introduce a succession of loser boyfriends this year.

And thats why all of these shows end up so cartoony.

Have you seen other sitcoms? Like, from any point since the form was invented?

OR maybe Ann could just stay single for a while and her character could do other things besides be pathetic in dating situations.

would love for the show to figure out what to do with Donna

I think part of the reason we don't know much about Donna is that her role in the show kind of takes on her work role, in that she doesn't want all these bozos she works with involved in her personal life in any way.

Donna is hilarious as she is, they don't need to do anything with her character.

Donna is sorely underused

I dunno, part of the reason she's so funny is that she's sparingly used. I'm fine with her being there for one-liners and occasional brief glimpses at what her life is actually like without having to involve her further as a character.

her reaction shots are the BEST

I'd like to see her ruthless efficiency played up a little more; I have the impression that when she stops lurking in the background and reacting that she is the most effective person in the office and secretly the reason why the Parks Department works.

That makes sense, her and Jerry are probably the only two employees that actually do any meaningful work.

And thats why all of these shows end up so cartoony.

Have you seen other sitcoms? Like, from any point since the form was invented?

― Old Lunch, Monday, September 24, 2012 11:02 AM (8 minutes ago)

Point taken, damn...

I was speaking a bit too broadly. I just like when shows leave open the possibility that there is still something to learn about a character, even secondary ones.

the internet meme thing... i don't think these shows are trying that hard to get something .gif'd, it's just gonna happen regardless. it happens to shows from every age! (waits for Three's Company grabs)

True, but I can't help feeling like they see memes as free marketing and analytics to what the fans want where all you had was ratings to go by before internet and gifs and memes.

yeah i've definitely seen interviews with writers and creators who talk openly about looking at blogs and twitter after an episode airs to see what jokes/scenes caught on with people

like on WTF when Offerman was trying to tell Maron about Ron Swanson internet memes and he was all, "What are you talking about?"

i wonder if aziz ansari is aware. i wonder.

people are apt to keep their finger on the 'it's done' trigger maybe bc we're conditioned to treat all art like it has peaks, and no one thinks an *~artistic peak~* can last so many years all in one project, so it's natural to wonder when the magic will fade

on a more literal level, writing staffs change every year, shows face more and more scrutiny from networks like NBC as time goes by, longtime writers grow tired of working on the same project for so long or they go off to do their own projects (like daniels and schur leaving the office), or they simply lose track of what fans watched the show for. more likely to happen with single camera sitcoms than your roseannes or your cheerses imo, maybe cause it's easier for funny new writers to replicate those scripts, and they were successful enough to avoid network pressure until roseanne's millionaire dead dan fever dream or the episode where frasier is murdered (nb i've never watched cheers)

seinfeld obv played to this to some extent (back when the phrase was 'water cooler'), they were clearly aware and hoping that things like 'yada yada' would enter the culture. i don't think this was to the detriment of the show, can't recall any times they tried to make 'fetch' happen, but i do shudder to think of what seinfeld would've been like in a world w/ tumblr and facebook. or a show like friends, where fans definitely would've wrapped their identity in it but that kind of meme generation was not nearly as built in to the show.

Maybe it worked for Seinfeld because there wasn't really any element of romantic comedy cuteness, or more broadly a concern for character development.

i agree, the complete lack of character development - which is still more or less totally standard for sitcoms - does make it less open for nitpick examination

I guess my thing is that, as long as a show I like continues to be true to its basic premise and the people working on it still seem to enjoy doing what they do, I'm usually willing to overlook the inevitable decline that comes with being on the air forever. But the decline of many legitimately good shows (particularly when they don't wear out their welcome) is usually minor enough to be completely unworthy of note. P&R had a great fourth season which was completely in keeping with at least the two previous seasons and 95% of everything else currently on television is pure garbage, so the presence of this conversation in this particular thread continues to baffle me.

I also feel like people want to be able to say they were the first to "call" a show's decline. Not so much here, but in other places on the internet you see people trying to one-up each other on noting a show starting to lose steam.