I love a good debate – it’s a great way to blow off steam (which is something we can all use by the end of midterm season). So, in the spirit of the lengthy response I received from my last post, I would like to take this opportunity to provide a rebuttal.
If HIMYM does prescribe to the Friends “framework” (as both my adversary and I agree it does), then its use of the formula subjects it to some measurable results. Let’s take a moment to address these comparable FACTS:
HIMYM is currently in its fifth season. By the fifth season of Friends (1998-1999),Jennifer Aniston had earned a starring role in 7 major motion pictures, David Schwimmer, Courteney Cox and Lisa Kudrow had all starred in 4, Matthew Perry had starred in 3, and Matt Leblanc had a major role in 2 films.
With the exception of Neil Patrick Harris (who I adore but who cannot be responsible for carrying this production) HIMYM doesn’t compare. To date, Josh Radnor only has 1 starring role in a major motion picture (which is currently in post-production), Alyson Hannigan also only has 1, and Cobie Smulders is still chipping away at some sideline roles. Although Jason Segel has recently starred in three big comedies, his largely typecast role as the big awkward guy seems to be fizzling out; his next three projects fall largely into the kid-comedy domain.
By their fifth season on the air, Friends had been recognized by a wide range of institutions. They had received nominations and awards for ALL of their main actors, their casting, their direction, their cinematography, their soundtrack, and the overall quality and achievement of the show.
With the exception of NPH’s recognition, none of the other HIMYM cast members have even been thrown a nod, nor have the writers or the directors. In fact, most of the show’s major award wins and nominations are for art direction and cinematography, both of which are technical aspects only.
While I thank He Who Must Not be Named (that devoted supporter who replied to my previous post with such exuberance) for the food for thought, I have to ask him and everyone: what MEASURABLE RESULT can you provide me that attests to this show’s quality?
Posts
10 comments:
Well, from what I've gathered, the requirements for a show to be considered a 'good' show is not at all for the content but rather the attractiveness of the cast as well as the fact that they have to be considered 'famous'? And for these reasons, television viewers should not watch the show, How I Met Your Mother?
Let me first off AGREE with you that the cast of Friends has seen exponentially more success than the cast of How I Met Your Mother, however, again I don't quite see the relevance to how that should deter me from the watching the program. I am a fan of Friends but by comparing the success of the cast to How I Met Your Mother yet agreeing that they held the same framework, you might as well write another blog about comparing it to That 70s Show that ran for 8 Seasons and although Mila Kunis, Laura Prepon, Topher Grace and Ashton Kutcher vary in the degree of attractiveness, the show should not be watched because they are a group of friends who hang out in Eric Foreman's basement.
This award statistic that you've stated is true but also not another reason to support your argument not to watch How I Met Your Mother. The reasons that determine whether a show is successful I'm afraid isn't the number of awards they win, but rather, as mentioned in my previous post, is due to the writing, casting as well as the execution and the cast of HIMYM demonstrates that as well as Jennifer Aniston and the gang did for the brilliant writers of Friends.
Now, to your typecasting point. Okay sure, Jason Segel has been typecasted. This happens to many actors and actresses, including your beloved Friends 'star' David Schwimmer. Frankly, that's what often happens with comedians, they have their style of comedy and they ride with it as long as viewers enjoy it and see SUCCESS. Till this day, David Schwimmer is still playing the neurotic, nervous, voice cracking doofus that we all know and love. That doesn't mean he's not good, we know he's good, he won an Emmy with his insecurities, just as Jason Segel has and will continue to find success in his "typecasted" roles. Lastly, I have nothing against Matt Leblanc but in all seriousness, what are his major roles in his 2 films? Being Lucy Liu's boyfriend in the Charlie's Angels series and the 1996 film, Ed in which he's a minor league baseball player who becomes friends with a monkey who plays baseball? You can't seriously be referring to these two serious roles right? Because last time I checked, those were comedies and he was still..an idiot like Joey. Well, I don't know about his character in the film, Ed but come on, he's friends with a monkey.
Well, this was nice, thank you for responding, I always enjoy a debate regarding How I Met Your Mother which is a very SUCCESSFUL, QUALITY COMEDY with up and coming actors. If you love Friends, by all means, keep loving it, I watch it myself sometimes, but watch How I Met Your Mother as well, it's a very funny show with great writing and a great cast.
P.S. No need to put up the statistic on number of viewers that Friends had because although HIMYM numbers are substantially lower, its still around 8.5 million which is considered, dare I say, successful. Sorry if I put a damper on your next blog post. :)
OWWWWWWW SNAP.....PWNAGE!!!
Okay, first thing's first: Friends is a standardized model, one which you yourself set. While it is just an example, it is also a model of undeniable success with which HIMYM can be compared. Again, following a model means there are criteria that can be measured and compared. So again, let's review.
In terms of the cast, (and again, we're excluding NPH here) anyone who has that kind of exposure who is any good will be coveted for other projects. If the actors really did have anything to offer, there would be no shortage of outlets for them. That's how the system works: they slap your name and face all over anything and everything to sell anything and everything. That is, of course, unless you have nothing to offer. After 5 seasons, the cast has had ample opportunity to prove themselves - maybe they just fall short.
But let's not get stuck on "maybes". Let's get back to formal, measurable criteria.
How good can the show's "writing, casting and execution" really be if no single authority has ever thought to acknowledge them? (Again, excluding NPH) None of these criteria have ever been nominated for an Emmy, a Screen Actor's Guild Award, or a Golden Globe. Again, five seasons later, they've failed to attract any formal interest.
Granted, they may have 8.5 million viewers but QUANTITY is not synonymous with QUALITY. A lot of people like McDonalds - that doesn't make it filet mignon.
So again, I'm sitting here waiting for someone to provide me a concrete, measurable indication of quality. While I value your opinion (and your tenacity) that's all you're giving me - I need facts.
Oh, and PS. Matt LeBlanc was also in Lost in Space (1998) and granted, his role in Ed was small, but at least he had one (which is more than I can say for Cobie Smulders).
I agree with the first comment, even though friends statistically had more viewers then HIMYM, 8.5 million viewers each week is pretty good for the show being in it's 5th season.
Even though HIMYM doesn't have many successful actors like Friends did, really quantity doesn't matter it's more about quality. Jason Segel from HIMYM has had 3 movies, yes. But they have all been really successful and really funny, where he's had the main role or one of the more important roles in the movie, alot of the people from friends starred in many movies, but had very minor parts and weren't very successful.
Great debate topic overall.
Yes, it's true. The way I've been debating this is that Friends is the first to set this very high bar for comedic sitcoms, however, I'm not claiming that How I Met Your Mother is better but rather what I'm standing up for is your claim that it is not good television and it's a series that isn't worth watching, which I along with 8.5 million viewers each week disagree with.
Have all the shows you enjoy won Emmys and Golden Globes? Friends had a tremendous cast and saw over 20 million viewers each week which was and still is incredible, however, they were set in the age of television where sitcoms were pretty much the only kind of programs one could find back then starting with the emergence of Seinfeld in 1989. However, as I'm sure you also know, times have changed from sitcoms to reality shows. I would be surprised to see if any show will ever see that kind of success on television again since there are now so many different genres of television entertainment. Although it's true that none of the actors "aside from NPH", I don't see why we can't keep him in the mix, every show has their standout actor, House has Hugh Laurie, The Office has Steve Carrell, and HIMYM has Neil Patrick Harris, but anyway, although it's true they have not been nominated for awards, again doesn't mean they're not funny, that they're not good at what they do. They may not be AS good at it as Jennifer Aniston and Matthew Perry but they're still talented enough to make a show good enough to be considered one of the best comedic sitcoms on television today.
Although they have not been individually acknowledged for their performances, it doesn't mean the actors aren't good at what they do since they are the reason why the show has been nominated for Emmys since they first emerged. So what that they've only been acknowledged for their technical expertise? Being nominated for that means they're doing that well and this year HIMYM was nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series, you know what that means. The Academy DOES think the show is good and worth watching because they felt it was good enough to put them on the list among shows like 30 Rock which is a show that can be comparable to Friends who has seen success in writing as well as acting.
Then on the other side of who determines whether a show is good or successful are the viewers. Since the show came to be in 2005, in viewers choice award shows, How I Met Your Mother has been mentioned. Yes, I am aware that awards like Teen Choice Awards (who give out surfboards) are no Emmys or Golden Globes, the reason why I'm mentioning this is because like me, many others agree that How I Met Your Mother is a good show. And I'm sure that the Friends gang has won plenty of them in their day, but because How I Met Your Mother is nominated for these same Viewers Choice Awards means it is in fact a good show whether or not you or I agree with it. These nominations are concrete indication that the show is considered to be quality. Again, I'm not arguing that HIMYM is a better show than Friends, I never have been, but rather the topic is that HIMYM isn't a show worth watching but these nominations all say otherwise. Hope these Emmy nominations are factual enough for you.
And Yeah it's true Cobie has only worked television and very minuscule roles in films to date, she has a supporting role in Broken Lizards's upcoming film, Slammin' Salmon. She won't be a Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow and for some reason, Courtney Cox, but she's still very funny on the show and is very attractive and cmon...she's Canadian. haha.
Y'ALL SUCKAS JUST GOT SERVED
side note.....might i suggest some kind of word limit
Alright Caspar and posse,
In the interest of keeping this short (which is an excellent suggestion), I will leave it at this:
I find the show's minimal formal recognition and strong tween fanbase very telling indeed. However, since I can't foresee a scenario in which we will agree, and I recognize the value of diverse opinion, I can only say to each their own. I can't say I'll ever be a fan of this show or personally accord it any merit, but I respect that you do.
Thank you for your contribution.. and your peanut gallery, haha.
strong tween fanbase? I don't see how you can possibly establish that majority of the fanbase are tweens. This is How I Met Your Mother, not Hannah Montana. You can agree to disagree all you want but at the end of the day the topic has never been about personal preferences but rather whether show is good and I have proven to you that it is with their Emmy nomination for Outstanding Comedy Series. You set the bar of who is able to determine whether a show is good or bad and it turns out, that they also find How I Met Your Mother a good show. What we think of the show doesn't matter because according to you, the viewers have no merit unlike the ones who do have merit and think its good. So thank you for humouring me. Point me along with the support of my "peanut gallery"
But Americans love it!
In honesty, I think the show deserves credit for addressing taboo subjects in a pretty unabashed way. I'm not saying it's tearing down barriers like, say, the Cosby Show, but for a show that is generally pretty light, it does tackle issues ranging from sexuality to relationships to...CANDIAN CITIZENSHIP! w00t w00t.
Okay, so finally I get to see the infamous views on HIMYM (Rhia told me about them). I agree for the most part, with the only piece of rebuttal being that many of the Friends cast's movies were romantic comedies and critical (and sometimes financial) flops. However, How I Met Your Mother does not seem to be doing much better, with the exception that Jason Segel has done some quality work (though I would say that a lot of it was done prior to his HIMYM fame, e.g. SLC Punk, or Dead Man on Campus, or even Freaks and Geeks). And Alyson Hannigan had done great work with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. So those two have some acting chops I would say.
I would venture that this show (I have watched and enjoyed most of its five seasons) rides the oft-irritating Seinfeld routine of creating a new brand of phraseology. Though ( and the disappointing fourth and fifth seasons of HIMYM are an example of this), this can lose its humour and I think the show may be on its last legs. This loss of quality (I think the first three seasons are pretty good) can be seen in the increased pressure on the Barney character to carry the plotlines.
Anyway, although I really do like the show, I can see what you don't like about it. It is certainly no Scrubs or Arrested Development (I wouldn't even say it compares in terms of cinematography and editing).
The show was at its best when barely anyone watched it (it was dangerously close to being cancelled throughout its first and second seasons), and now that it's popular it seems as if the writers have become aware of their successful formula and have simply recycled it. Of course, that's me being a pretentious, "I only watch underground movies"-type ass.
I think I'm rambling. In any case, Friends is much better. In terms of quality and re-watchability it towers over HIMYM. I can't see myself watching the show five years from now.
Post a Comment