Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Last Man Standing"s weird second season
258 views
Skip to first unread message
David
Apr 1, 2013, 12:10:57 PM4/1/13
to
http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-the-weirdest,95857/
Last Man Standing�s second season was the weirdest sitcom season since
�Til Death
By Todd VanDerWerff
Between Last Man Standing�s first and second seasons, the largely
non-distinct sitcom, mostly known for being Tim Allen�s return to
television, had a choice to make. Headed for Fridays, the second
least-watched night of the week (after Saturdays), the program had to
do something to make some noise and hopefully attract viewership.
Simply having Allen in the cast wasn�t going to do it any longer. So,
as Allen and new showrunner Tim Doyle discussed with the New York
Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a
modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social
issues, Barack Obama, and the nation�s legacy of genocide.
Did it work? Having watched all 18 episodes of the show�s second
season, I can�t really say that it made the show better, but it
certainly made it weirder. (And in terms of ratings, it allowed the
show to keep the lights on on Friday, no mean feat.) Its attempt to
put a finger on the country�s pulse made it much more worthy of
discussion than when it was just about some angry guy living with too
many women, as it was in its first season. It�s like when �Til Death
turned into a strange meta-sitcom in its final season, though somehow
even more misguided.
The basic premise of Last Man Standing is the same as Allen�s former
sitcom hit, Home Improvement, only his character, Mike Baxter, has
three adolescent-and-older daughters, instead of three child sons. The
oldest daughter, Kristin, was the promising one who was going to
succeed, until she had a child late in high school, and she�s lived in
her parents� house with her son, Boyd, ever since. Middle daughter
Mandy is a ditzy fashionplate. Youngest daughter Eve is the one who�s
closest to her dad, into things like soccer and hunting. There�s an
outdoor-store workplace setting where Mike deals with crotchety boss
Ed (meant to be the even more hyper-masculine version of Mike in
season one) and dumbass employee Kyle. And in the second season, the
show made an attempt to flesh out the neighborhood the Baxters lived
in with a handful of recurring characters, including a black couple
who become fast friends with the Baxters, and a Latina maid. In
addition, the second season added the father of Kristin�s son, Ryan,
as a semi-regular, meant to be the Meathead to Mike�s Archie Bunker.
The problem with Last Man Standing�s attempts to go political is
exemplified by the first scene of the season premi�re, which remains
one of the most uncomfortable scenes of television I�ve ever watched.
It�s not even really bad so much as it�s actively discomfiting, doing
its best to push buttons in the audience that don�t need to be pushed,
as if it thinks what made Lear�s sitcoms a success was the yelling or
the mentions of social issues that people sometimes argued about. Mike
says Obama was born in Kenya. Kristin and Ryan make fun of Romney for
being a robot. It goes on and on and gets more and more
squirm-inducing, but in a way that is clearly meant to be a good time.
This is the new height of political humor?
The characters on Last Man Standing don�t speak about issues in any
sort of nuanced manner, nor do they have terribly deep discussions
about them. They mostly repeat buzzwords and shout at each other a
lot. The show wanted to make Mike into a conservative hero, but it
didn�t bother giving him a consistent worldview. He�s just somebody
who spouts Fox News talking points a lot, and while that may be
somewhat true to life�in that most modern political arguments between
left and right tend to boil down to talking points gleaned from
elsewhere�it doesn�t make the experience of watching people shout
pithy, empty phrases at each other any more interesting or involving.
What�s more, Mike�s main liberal competition�Ryan and, occasionally,
Kristin�tend to speak as if they came up with their own political
positions from reading the list of tags at the bottom of posts on a
left-wing blog.
Again, this is true to life. Few political arguments�particularly
those among family�have the level of nuance one might expect from,
say, a mythical boxing match between Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman.
And, thinking back on All In The Family, Archie and Mike Stivic�s
arguments on that show rarely had much nuance to them, either; the
series gained much of its power from moments when it could step
outside of their limited points-of-view and depict the world as it
actually was. What made All In The Family�s political arguments
work�what made the vast majority of all of Lear�s series featuring
such arguments work�were the character stakes. The idea that Archie
and Mike would love or even respect each other at the end of one of
those knockdown shouting matches wasn�t taken for granted. They really
might end up pushing each other too far, and did on occasion. The
relationship, which grew to a kind of grudging respect and finally
love, was one of the best developed in television history.
It�s unfair to hold a relationship that�s only existed for 18 episodes
of television to that sort of standard, but the central problem with
Last Man Standing�s political arguments is that the show A) never
gives viewers a reason to care whether Mike and Ryan respect each
other at the end of the day (after all, Ryan�s not even a series
regular), and B) takes it for granted that the two will respect, and
maybe even love, each other. Ryan abandoned the mother of his child
and said child for three years and has returned, trying to right his
wrongs. The Baxters have every right to be suspicious of him, and it
would be easy enough to turn Mike and Ryan�s political arguments into
arguments about something more fundamental in their relationship: what
Mike perceives as Ryan�s utter inability to help out Kristin when the
chips were down. That�s interesting. That�s drama. But Last Man
Standing runs away from it at every occasion.
The series has the right idea in trying to ground the political in the
personal. For 99 percent of us, politics is personal. Think, for
instance, of the relief you might have felt when Obama won last year,
or the despair you might have felt when Romney lost. Those emotions
may have been driven by something politically concrete on one level,
but they were also driven by a more fundamental, emotional level. No
matter how much you may believe in [insert issue here], every election
comes down to a choice between something you identify strongly with
and something you do not. The two-party system all but guarantees
this. When the characters on a Norman Lear political sitcom argue,
this is what they�re really arguing about: the defense of the self
against something that would encroach upon it. Too often on Last Man
Standing, however, the characters just argue about politics to give
each other a hard time. There�s little sense of passion, and even when
the characters come up against a problem that�s truly insoluble�where
there are significant arguments to be made on both sides�the show
chickens out and ultimately buries everything under a gloss of, �Well,
at least we all still love each other!� Take, for instance, the
episode �Mother Fracking.�
Mike�s wife Vanessa (the great Nancy Travis, given sadly little to do)
is a geologist, and part of her work involves using the process known
as fracking to gather natural gas. Eve�s terrified of the impact this
might have on the planet, so she stages a one-girl protest. Vanessa
rightly points out that the best current method of finding energy
comes from fossil fuels. The choice is presented along admirably stark
lines: Enjoy the modern comforts that in many cases keep us alive, or
probably fuck up the planet irreparably. There�s a real opportunity
here to strain a relationship between mother and daughter, one viewers
actually do care about. Instead, Mike tells Eve that her mother does
her best, and maybe Eve shouldn�t give Vanessa a hard time, since she
really loves her little girl. And� that�s about it.
This question of making giant political issues into smaller, more
personal ones runs throughout the season (though toward the season�s
end, it becomes less about that and more about interpersonal
relationships), and it�s sometimes, frankly, embarrassing. There�s a
whole episode that clumsily creates the impression it wants to make a
one-to-one comparison between the genocide of American Indians and
Ryan leaving after Boyd was born. (Ryan doesn�t appreciate Ed
promoting Outdoor Man with a Western-themed stage show�that arrives
out of nowhere, it must be said�which features rampaging Indians.
Later, when Ryan tries to say that it doesn�t matter what he did in
the past in regards to Boyd, Mike accuses him of turning the tables
and trying to sweep his own history under the rug. It�s� awkward.)
There�s also an episode, talked about in the Post article above, where
Eve gets in trouble for bullying at school, which means well but also
inadvertently seems to suggest that kids should be able to use as many
anti-gay slurs as they want. Because the show is so intent on not
having a definitive political point of view, it comes off as clumsy
more often than not. It also forces the characters to behave in ways
no human being ever would, as in one episode when Vanessa wonders if
she received a promotion because she is good looking, then actually
goes and asks her boss that very question. Who would do this?
There are stabs at character complexity here and there. Ryan is
liberal to a fault but also subject to his own unexamined prejudices,
particularly when it comes to how he, deep down, believes the mother
of his child should submit to his authority. And Eve�s a gun-toting
wannabe Marine who�s also really concerned about the potential
destruction of the planet, and recoils in horror at the Wild West show
when she finds out about the plight of the Indians. I�d feel more
strongly supportive of these stabs at complexity, however, if the
series didn�t leave the impression that it simply forced the
characters into whatever straitjacket it needed them to be in for that
particular episode. Eve will be a budding hippie in one episode, a
budding military member in the next, and never the twain shall meet.
Considering the show does take stabs at consistency of setting and
story serialization, it�s just a little strange, as if Last Man
Standing understands that people are complex but wants to present all
of its characters as different archetypes in different episodes, lest
they get too complex.
That Last Man Standing doesn�t really work is all the more
disappointing because it comes close enough to suggest a show worth
watching. Even if the show�s first season was more consistent across
the board, it was much less interesting than the second, which was
fitfully fascinating, as in an episode when Kristin learns Mandy is
infatuated with Kyle, whom Kristin earlier dated, and takes this
occasion to reignite her relationship with Ryan. It�s a wonderfully
ambiguous moment, where Kristin�s motivations are surprisingly
nuanced�until the next episode, when she and Ryan are just happy
together again. In its second season, it was incredibly evident that
Last Man Standing had seen some of the best shows in TV history and
was trying to ape them, but had mostly just captured the surface of
them.
This is too bad. The cast is game, the jokes work on occasion
(particularly when delivered by Molly Ephraim, who plays Mandy, and
Hector Elizondo, who plays Ed), and the show�s attempts to work
politics into the mix are at least admirable and less wrongheaded than
they might initially appear. Tim Allen doesn�t really have it in him
to play Archie Bunker, but he does have it in him to play a guy who
might have heard Archie back in the �70s and heard in the man�s
bitterness and resentment something that resonated, then found that
sanded down by success and comfort. Where Archie was a blue-collar
hero, Mike Baxter lives in the world of upper-class security. Where
Archie was railing against a world that terrified him precisely
because he didn�t know how secure his future was, Mike doesn�t have to
worry about that. At its best, Last Man Standing can reflect some of
the anxieties of Allen�s generation�like the thought that these late
Boomer parents want to raise their daughters to be independent, then
fall back on tired old gender stereotypes when those daughters really
are independent�and provide a kind of comedy attuned to red-state
sensibilities (ironically, since it�s set in bluing Colorado). Sadly,
it�s too often at its worst, where it knows it has something to say
but has no idea how to say it.
Last Man Standing�s second season was the weirdest sitcom season since
�Til Death
By Todd VanDerWerff
Between Last Man Standing�s first and second seasons, the largely
non-distinct sitcom, mostly known for being Tim Allen�s return to
television, had a choice to make. Headed for Fridays, the second
least-watched night of the week (after Saturdays), the program had to
do something to make some noise and hopefully attract viewership.
Simply having Allen in the cast wasn�t going to do it any longer. So,
as Allen and new showrunner Tim Doyle discussed with the New York
Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a
modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social
issues, Barack Obama, and the nation�s legacy of genocide.
Did it work? Having watched all 18 episodes of the show�s second
season, I can�t really say that it made the show better, but it
certainly made it weirder. (And in terms of ratings, it allowed the
show to keep the lights on on Friday, no mean feat.) Its attempt to
put a finger on the country�s pulse made it much more worthy of
discussion than when it was just about some angry guy living with too
many women, as it was in its first season. It�s like when �Til Death
turned into a strange meta-sitcom in its final season, though somehow
even more misguided.
The basic premise of Last Man Standing is the same as Allen�s former
sitcom hit, Home Improvement, only his character, Mike Baxter, has
three adolescent-and-older daughters, instead of three child sons. The
oldest daughter, Kristin, was the promising one who was going to
succeed, until she had a child late in high school, and she�s lived in
her parents� house with her son, Boyd, ever since. Middle daughter
Mandy is a ditzy fashionplate. Youngest daughter Eve is the one who�s
closest to her dad, into things like soccer and hunting. There�s an
outdoor-store workplace setting where Mike deals with crotchety boss
Ed (meant to be the even more hyper-masculine version of Mike in
season one) and dumbass employee Kyle. And in the second season, the
show made an attempt to flesh out the neighborhood the Baxters lived
in with a handful of recurring characters, including a black couple
who become fast friends with the Baxters, and a Latina maid. In
addition, the second season added the father of Kristin�s son, Ryan,
as a semi-regular, meant to be the Meathead to Mike�s Archie Bunker.
The problem with Last Man Standing�s attempts to go political is
exemplified by the first scene of the season premi�re, which remains
one of the most uncomfortable scenes of television I�ve ever watched.
It�s not even really bad so much as it�s actively discomfiting, doing
its best to push buttons in the audience that don�t need to be pushed,
as if it thinks what made Lear�s sitcoms a success was the yelling or
the mentions of social issues that people sometimes argued about. Mike
says Obama was born in Kenya. Kristin and Ryan make fun of Romney for
being a robot. It goes on and on and gets more and more
squirm-inducing, but in a way that is clearly meant to be a good time.
This is the new height of political humor?
The characters on Last Man Standing don�t speak about issues in any
sort of nuanced manner, nor do they have terribly deep discussions
about them. They mostly repeat buzzwords and shout at each other a
lot. The show wanted to make Mike into a conservative hero, but it
didn�t bother giving him a consistent worldview. He�s just somebody
who spouts Fox News talking points a lot, and while that may be
somewhat true to life�in that most modern political arguments between
left and right tend to boil down to talking points gleaned from
elsewhere�it doesn�t make the experience of watching people shout
pithy, empty phrases at each other any more interesting or involving.
What�s more, Mike�s main liberal competition�Ryan and, occasionally,
Kristin�tend to speak as if they came up with their own political
positions from reading the list of tags at the bottom of posts on a
left-wing blog.
Again, this is true to life. Few political arguments�particularly
those among family�have the level of nuance one might expect from,
say, a mythical boxing match between Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman.
And, thinking back on All In The Family, Archie and Mike Stivic�s
arguments on that show rarely had much nuance to them, either; the
series gained much of its power from moments when it could step
outside of their limited points-of-view and depict the world as it
actually was. What made All In The Family�s political arguments
work�what made the vast majority of all of Lear�s series featuring
such arguments work�were the character stakes. The idea that Archie
and Mike would love or even respect each other at the end of one of
those knockdown shouting matches wasn�t taken for granted. They really
might end up pushing each other too far, and did on occasion. The
relationship, which grew to a kind of grudging respect and finally
love, was one of the best developed in television history.
It�s unfair to hold a relationship that�s only existed for 18 episodes
of television to that sort of standard, but the central problem with
Last Man Standing�s political arguments is that the show A) never
gives viewers a reason to care whether Mike and Ryan respect each
other at the end of the day (after all, Ryan�s not even a series
regular), and B) takes it for granted that the two will respect, and
maybe even love, each other. Ryan abandoned the mother of his child
and said child for three years and has returned, trying to right his
wrongs. The Baxters have every right to be suspicious of him, and it
would be easy enough to turn Mike and Ryan�s political arguments into
arguments about something more fundamental in their relationship: what
Mike perceives as Ryan�s utter inability to help out Kristin when the
chips were down. That�s interesting. That�s drama. But Last Man
Standing runs away from it at every occasion.
The series has the right idea in trying to ground the political in the
personal. For 99 percent of us, politics is personal. Think, for
instance, of the relief you might have felt when Obama won last year,
or the despair you might have felt when Romney lost. Those emotions
may have been driven by something politically concrete on one level,
but they were also driven by a more fundamental, emotional level. No
matter how much you may believe in [insert issue here], every election
comes down to a choice between something you identify strongly with
and something you do not. The two-party system all but guarantees
this. When the characters on a Norman Lear political sitcom argue,
this is what they�re really arguing about: the defense of the self
against something that would encroach upon it. Too often on Last Man
Standing, however, the characters just argue about politics to give
each other a hard time. There�s little sense of passion, and even when
the characters come up against a problem that�s truly insoluble�where
there are significant arguments to be made on both sides�the show
chickens out and ultimately buries everything under a gloss of, �Well,
at least we all still love each other!� Take, for instance, the
episode �Mother Fracking.�
Mike�s wife Vanessa (the great Nancy Travis, given sadly little to do)
is a geologist, and part of her work involves using the process known
as fracking to gather natural gas. Eve�s terrified of the impact this
might have on the planet, so she stages a one-girl protest. Vanessa
rightly points out that the best current method of finding energy
comes from fossil fuels. The choice is presented along admirably stark
lines: Enjoy the modern comforts that in many cases keep us alive, or
probably fuck up the planet irreparably. There�s a real opportunity
here to strain a relationship between mother and daughter, one viewers
actually do care about. Instead, Mike tells Eve that her mother does
her best, and maybe Eve shouldn�t give Vanessa a hard time, since she
really loves her little girl. And� that�s about it.
This question of making giant political issues into smaller, more
personal ones runs throughout the season (though toward the season�s
end, it becomes less about that and more about interpersonal
relationships), and it�s sometimes, frankly, embarrassing. There�s a
whole episode that clumsily creates the impression it wants to make a
one-to-one comparison between the genocide of American Indians and
Ryan leaving after Boyd was born. (Ryan doesn�t appreciate Ed
promoting Outdoor Man with a Western-themed stage show�that arrives
out of nowhere, it must be said�which features rampaging Indians.
Later, when Ryan tries to say that it doesn�t matter what he did in
the past in regards to Boyd, Mike accuses him of turning the tables
and trying to sweep his own history under the rug. It�s� awkward.)
There�s also an episode, talked about in the Post article above, where
Eve gets in trouble for bullying at school, which means well but also
inadvertently seems to suggest that kids should be able to use as many
anti-gay slurs as they want. Because the show is so intent on not
having a definitive political point of view, it comes off as clumsy
more often than not. It also forces the characters to behave in ways
no human being ever would, as in one episode when Vanessa wonders if
she received a promotion because she is good looking, then actually
goes and asks her boss that very question. Who would do this?
There are stabs at character complexity here and there. Ryan is
liberal to a fault but also subject to his own unexamined prejudices,
particularly when it comes to how he, deep down, believes the mother
of his child should submit to his authority. And Eve�s a gun-toting
wannabe Marine who�s also really concerned about the potential
destruction of the planet, and recoils in horror at the Wild West show
when she finds out about the plight of the Indians. I�d feel more
strongly supportive of these stabs at complexity, however, if the
series didn�t leave the impression that it simply forced the
characters into whatever straitjacket it needed them to be in for that
particular episode. Eve will be a budding hippie in one episode, a
budding military member in the next, and never the twain shall meet.
Considering the show does take stabs at consistency of setting and
story serialization, it�s just a little strange, as if Last Man
Standing understands that people are complex but wants to present all
of its characters as different archetypes in different episodes, lest
they get too complex.
That Last Man Standing doesn�t really work is all the more
disappointing because it comes close enough to suggest a show worth
watching. Even if the show�s first season was more consistent across
the board, it was much less interesting than the second, which was
fitfully fascinating, as in an episode when Kristin learns Mandy is
infatuated with Kyle, whom Kristin earlier dated, and takes this
occasion to reignite her relationship with Ryan. It�s a wonderfully
ambiguous moment, where Kristin�s motivations are surprisingly
nuanced�until the next episode, when she and Ryan are just happy
together again. In its second season, it was incredibly evident that
Last Man Standing had seen some of the best shows in TV history and
was trying to ape them, but had mostly just captured the surface of
them.
This is too bad. The cast is game, the jokes work on occasion
(particularly when delivered by Molly Ephraim, who plays Mandy, and
Hector Elizondo, who plays Ed), and the show�s attempts to work
politics into the mix are at least admirable and less wrongheaded than
they might initially appear. Tim Allen doesn�t really have it in him
to play Archie Bunker, but he does have it in him to play a guy who
might have heard Archie back in the �70s and heard in the man�s
bitterness and resentment something that resonated, then found that
sanded down by success and comfort. Where Archie was a blue-collar
hero, Mike Baxter lives in the world of upper-class security. Where
Archie was railing against a world that terrified him precisely
because he didn�t know how secure his future was, Mike doesn�t have to
worry about that. At its best, Last Man Standing can reflect some of
the anxieties of Allen�s generation�like the thought that these late
Boomer parents want to raise their daughters to be independent, then
fall back on tired old gender stereotypes when those daughters really
are independent�and provide a kind of comedy attuned to red-state
sensibilities (ironically, since it�s set in bluing Colorado). Sadly,
it�s too often at its worst, where it knows it has something to say
but has no idea how to say it.
Tony Calguire
Apr 1, 2013, 1:25:11 PM4/1/13
to
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:99cjl8t0c8jil76te...@4ax.com:
>
> many women, as it was in its first season. It�s like when �Til Death
> turned into a strange meta-sitcom in its final season, though somehow
> even more misguided.
>
Could someone provide a brief summary of what 'Til Death did in its final
season?
news:99cjl8t0c8jil76te...@4ax.com:
>
> many women, as it was in its first season. It�s like when �Til Death
> turned into a strange meta-sitcom in its final season, though somehow
> even more misguided.
>
season?
David
Apr 1, 2013, 1:36:40 PM4/1/13
to
character in a sitcom. But un-briefly here's an article linked from
this one
http://www.avclub.com/articles/nobodys-watching-the-strange-genius-of-the-fourth,42394/
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Apr 1, 2013, 9:06:27 PM4/1/13
to
On Apr 1, 12:10 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By Todd VanDerWerff
> Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a
> modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social
> issues, Barack Obama, and the nation’s legacy of genocide.
Not true. It is not a Norman Lear comedy, nor do they obsess about
"genocide". What they did was include a little bickering between the
father and boyfriend to spice things up. It is like Archie Bunker and
Mike Stivic, but much more tamer and certainly not the whole focus of
the show.
Why this writer chose to ramble on for pages on this issue I don't
know. It's a lousy sitcom, not a PBS news documentary.
While I'm not sure the changes have been an improvement, I don't blame
the producers for trying to experiment.
> The characters on Last Man Standing don’t speak about issues in any
> sort of nuanced manner, nor do they have terribly deep discussions
> about them.
It's a freakin' sitcom! They're not supposed to have 'deep
discussions'.
> By Todd VanDerWerff
> Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a
> modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social
> issues, Barack Obama, and the nation’s legacy of genocide.
"genocide". What they did was include a little bickering between the
father and boyfriend to spice things up. It is like Archie Bunker and
Mike Stivic, but much more tamer and certainly not the whole focus of
the show.
Why this writer chose to ramble on for pages on this issue I don't
know. It's a lousy sitcom, not a PBS news documentary.
While I'm not sure the changes have been an improvement, I don't blame
the producers for trying to experiment.
> The characters on Last Man Standing don’t speak about issues in any
> sort of nuanced manner, nor do they have terribly deep discussions
> about them.
discussions'.
TMC
Apr 2, 2013, 2:24:19 AM4/2/13
to
On Apr 1, 8:10 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-t...
> exemplified by the first scene of the season première, which remains
> liberal to a fault but also subject to his own unexamined prejudices, ...
>
> read more »
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/212676367?p=1
Re: 'Last Man Standing's weird second season By Todd VanDerWerff
by indyjim101 10 hours ago (Mon Apr 1 2013 12:46:28)
UPDATED Mon Apr 1 2013 12:55:13
I actually REALLY liked the second season, my only complaint being
that it was too short. But honestly, after the the first few episodes,
the show dramatically backed off the politically-themed episodes
(which weren't that bad) and relegated politics to where it was in the
first season--ever-present allusions that didn't overshadow the
storyline. People who make a huge differentiation between the first
season and the second season after say, the Christmas episode,
obviously weren't paying close attention to either.
And between Tim Allen and the rest of the wonderful cast, this is one
of the funniest sitcoms out there.
by herbsuperb 9 hours ago (Mon Apr 1 2013 13:26:36)
UPDATED Mon Apr 1 2013 19:30:55
I wholeheartedly agree. The ONLY episode in the second season that
went farther than it really should have with the political bickering
was the opener. It was about the election, so it's forgivable. There
is nothing wrong with the occasional politically charged remark as
long as it doesn't form the basis of an entire episode. The remainder
of season 2 was far more balanced, funny, and routinely charming.
The cast continues to do a wonderful job and the (rather risky)
changes they made prior to starting season 2 have ultimately panned
out nicely. I completely adapted to it by midway through the season. I
don't miss Krosney, am starting to warm up to Ryan, and couldn't care
less that they aged Boyd three years.
I can't wait to see Season 3.
by digitalboy72 7 hours ago (Mon Apr 1 2013 16:00:47)
UPDATED Mon Apr 1 2013 16:14:10
I agree.
Look no further than the season premiere for the definition of
gratuitous and heavy-handed political squabbling, but as you stated it
did ease off quite a bit after that, it also makes sense that they
went this way, they needed to go extreme to get people talking and it
largely worked, looking back at the premiere it was almost laughably
brazen, part of me thinks this was intentional now.
After that episode the writers did a better job of weaving those
issues and discussions more organically into the plots of the show
while also allowing time for straight comedy, after watching the whole
season it's really only Mike and Ryan that engaged in those
discussions, Eve, Kristin (except for the change of actresses), Mandy,
Kyle etc remain more or less the same as they were in season one.
I love what they did in season two, they added an element that spiced
it up a bit while sticking to the original idea and the fact that it
did reasonably well, especially for a Friday night time slot,
demonstrates that they must have done something right.
https://www.facebook.com/BringBackAlexandraKrosney?fref=ts
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-t...
>
> read more »
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/212676367?p=1
Re: 'Last Man Standing's weird second season By Todd VanDerWerff
by indyjim101 10 hours ago (Mon Apr 1 2013 12:46:28)
UPDATED Mon Apr 1 2013 12:55:13
I actually REALLY liked the second season, my only complaint being
that it was too short. But honestly, after the the first few episodes,
the show dramatically backed off the politically-themed episodes
(which weren't that bad) and relegated politics to where it was in the
first season--ever-present allusions that didn't overshadow the
storyline. People who make a huge differentiation between the first
season and the second season after say, the Christmas episode,
obviously weren't paying close attention to either.
And between Tim Allen and the rest of the wonderful cast, this is one
of the funniest sitcoms out there.
by herbsuperb 9 hours ago (Mon Apr 1 2013 13:26:36)
UPDATED Mon Apr 1 2013 19:30:55
I wholeheartedly agree. The ONLY episode in the second season that
went farther than it really should have with the political bickering
was the opener. It was about the election, so it's forgivable. There
is nothing wrong with the occasional politically charged remark as
long as it doesn't form the basis of an entire episode. The remainder
of season 2 was far more balanced, funny, and routinely charming.
The cast continues to do a wonderful job and the (rather risky)
changes they made prior to starting season 2 have ultimately panned
out nicely. I completely adapted to it by midway through the season. I
don't miss Krosney, am starting to warm up to Ryan, and couldn't care
less that they aged Boyd three years.
I can't wait to see Season 3.
by digitalboy72 7 hours ago (Mon Apr 1 2013 16:00:47)
UPDATED Mon Apr 1 2013 16:14:10
I agree.
Look no further than the season premiere for the definition of
gratuitous and heavy-handed political squabbling, but as you stated it
did ease off quite a bit after that, it also makes sense that they
went this way, they needed to go extreme to get people talking and it
largely worked, looking back at the premiere it was almost laughably
brazen, part of me thinks this was intentional now.
After that episode the writers did a better job of weaving those
issues and discussions more organically into the plots of the show
while also allowing time for straight comedy, after watching the whole
season it's really only Mike and Ryan that engaged in those
discussions, Eve, Kristin (except for the change of actresses), Mandy,
Kyle etc remain more or less the same as they were in season one.
I love what they did in season two, they added an element that spiced
it up a bit while sticking to the original idea and the fact that it
did reasonably well, especially for a Friday night time slot,
demonstrates that they must have done something right.
https://www.facebook.com/BringBackAlexandraKrosney?fref=ts
Bill Steele
Apr 2, 2013, 2:58:11 PM4/2/13
to
In article
<e4bd37cf-aac5-4229...@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
ratings, but simply that they were taking an opportunity to call
attention to issues.
Anyway, the stagecoach bit was hilarious.
Sometimes a memo seems to go out across TVland to educate about a
particular subject. Lately, e.g., we've seen a lot of shows about the
consequences of bullying.
<e4bd37cf-aac5-4229...@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:10�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > By Todd VanDerWerff
>
>
> > Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a
> > modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social
> > issues, Barack Obama, and the nation�s legacy of genocide.
>
> Not true. It is not a Norman Lear comedy, nor do they obsess about
> "genocide". What they did was include a little bickering between the
> father and boyfriend to spice things up. It is like Archie Bunker and
> Mike Stivic, but much more tamer and certainly not the whole focus of
> the show.
>
> Why this writer chose to ramble on for pages on this issue I don't
> know. It's a lousy sitcom, not a PBS news documentary.
>
> While I'm not sure the changes have been an improvement, I don't blame
> the producers for trying to experiment.
>
I did not come away with the idea that they were trying to boost
> On Apr 1, 12:10�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > By Todd VanDerWerff
>
>
> > Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a
> > modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social
> > issues, Barack Obama, and the nation�s legacy of genocide.
>
> Not true. It is not a Norman Lear comedy, nor do they obsess about
> "genocide". What they did was include a little bickering between the
> father and boyfriend to spice things up. It is like Archie Bunker and
> Mike Stivic, but much more tamer and certainly not the whole focus of
> the show.
>
> Why this writer chose to ramble on for pages on this issue I don't
> know. It's a lousy sitcom, not a PBS news documentary.
>
> While I'm not sure the changes have been an improvement, I don't blame
> the producers for trying to experiment.
>
ratings, but simply that they were taking an opportunity to call
attention to issues.
Anyway, the stagecoach bit was hilarious.
Sometimes a memo seems to go out across TVland to educate about a
particular subject. Lately, e.g., we've seen a lot of shows about the
consequences of bullying.
TMC
Apr 2, 2013, 3:31:06 PM4/2/13
to
On Apr 1, 9:10 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-t...
>
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-t...
>
>
> read more »
http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?4655
TV Shows - Last Man Standing
Last Man Standing is an American television sitcom starring Tim Allen
and Nancy Travis that currently airs on ABC. The series premiered on
October 11, 2011. This is the second sitcom Allen starred on for ABC,
the first being Home Improvement, which ran from 1991 to 1999.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/270159-Last-Man-Standing?p=3135687#post3135687
I liked this season of the show. The political references and the real
life Iraq war veteran with her legs missing ,made the show more
poignant. It was no All in the Family, but it was good.
TMC
May 14, 2013, 1:49:05 AM5/14/13
to
On Apr 1, 9:10 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-t...
>
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-t...
>
>
> read more »
You know what the Alexandra Krosney-Amanda Fuller transition reminds
me of in a way, the second season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
when Gates McFadden was replaced by Diana Muldar as the ship's chief
medical officer (granted, not as the same character like w/ "LMS" but
you still get the point).
Gates McFadden (Dr. Beverly Crusher) left the show under curious
circumstances following the first season just like Alexandra Krosney
did w/ "LMS". One rumor is that one of the producers (and please note
that I"m not at all insinuating the same sort of thing w/ "LMS") was
sexually harassing her, but that's another different story. Another
rumor is that the producers felt that something was missing conflict
wise and tried to make things more like the original "Star Trek"
series. Namely, the new doctor (Katherine Pulaski) would have to be
sort of a female version Leonard "Bones" McCoy w/ Data filling the Mr.
Spock role.
This is sort of like how Tim Allen and company decided that for Season
2 or "LMS", it had to be more like "All in the Family" w/ him in the
Archie Bunker role and his grandson's father and his daughter filling
the Mike/"Meathead" and Gloria roles respectively.
Despite a majority of fan outrage over the changes, the writers/
producers keep trying to sell us the "positive things" about said
actor (e.g. Amanda Fuller) or character (Dr. Pulaski).
tmc...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2013, 4:28:05 PM12/11/13
to
On Monday, April 1, 2013 9:10:57 AM UTC-7, David wrote:
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-the-weirdest,95857/ Last Man Standing�s second season was the weirdest sitcom season since �Til Death By Todd VanDerWerff Between Last Man Standing�s first and second seasons, the largely non-distinct sitcom, mostly known for being Tim Allen�s return to television, had a choice to make. Headed for Fridays, the second least-watched night of the week (after Saturdays), the program had to do something to make some noise and hopefully attract viewership. Simply having Allen in the cast wasn�t going to do it any longer. So, as Allen and new showrunner Tim Doyle discussed with the New York Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social issues, Barack Obama, and the nation�s legacy of genocide. Did it work? Having watched all 18 episodes of the show�s second season, I can�t really say that it made the show better, but it certainly made it weirder. (And in terms of ratings, it allowed the show to keep the lights on on Friday, no mean feat.) Its attempt to put a finger on the country�s pulse made it much more worthy of discussion than when it was just about some angry guy living with too many women, as it was in its first season. It�s like when �Til Death turned into a strange meta-sitcom in its final season, though somehow even more misguided. The basic premise of Last Man Standing is the same as Allen�s former sitcom hit, Home Improvement, only his character, Mike Baxter, has three adolescent-and-older daughters, instead of three child sons. The oldest daughter, Kristin, was the promising one who was going to succeed, until she had a child late in high school, and she�s lived in her parents� house with her son, Boyd, ever since. Middle daughter Mandy is a ditzy fashionplate. Youngest daughter Eve is the one who�s closest to her dad, into things like soccer and hunting. There�s an outdoor-store workplace setting where Mike deals with crotchety boss Ed (meant to be the even more hyper-masculine version of Mike in season one) and dumbass employee Kyle. And in the second season, the show made an attempt to flesh out the neighborhood the Baxters lived in with a handful of recurring characters, including a black couple who become fast friends with the Baxters, and a Latina maid. In addition, the second season added the father of Kristin�s son, Ryan, as a semi-regular, meant to be the Meathead to Mike�s Archie Bunker. The problem with Last Man Standing�s attempts to go political is exemplified by the first scene of the season premi�re, which remains one of the most uncomfortable scenes of television I�ve ever watched. It�s not even really bad so much as it�s actively discomfiting, doing its best to push buttons in the audience that don�t need to be pushed, as if it thinks what made Lear�s sitcoms a success was the yelling or the mentions of social issues that people sometimes argued about. Mike says Obama was born in Kenya. Kristin and Ryan make fun of Romney for being a robot. It goes on and on and gets more and more squirm-inducing, but in a way that is clearly meant to be a good time. This is the new height of political humor? The characters on Last Man Standing don�t speak about issues in any sort of nuanced manner, nor do they have terribly deep discussions about them. They mostly repeat buzzwords and shout at each other a lot. The show wanted to make Mike into a conservative hero, but it didn�t bother giving him a consistent worldview. He�s just somebody who spouts Fox News talking points a lot, and while that may be somewhat true to life�in that most modern political arguments between left and right tend to boil down to talking points gleaned from elsewhere�it doesn�t make the experience of watching people shout pithy, empty phrases at each other any more interesting or involving. What�s more, Mike�s main liberal competition�Ryan and, occasionally, Kristin�tend to speak as if they came up with their own political positions from reading the list of tags at the bottom of posts on a left-wing blog. Again, this is true to life. Few political arguments�particularly those among family�have the level of nuance one might expect from, say, a mythical boxing match between Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman. And, thinking back on All In The Family, Archie and Mike Stivic�s arguments on that show rarely had much nuance to them, either; the series gained much of its power from moments when it could step outside of their limited points-of-view and depict the world as it actually was. What made All In The Family�s political arguments work�what made the vast majority of all of Lear�s series featuring such arguments work�were the character stakes. The idea that Archie and Mike would love or even respect each other at the end of one of those knockdown shouting matches wasn�t taken for granted. They really might end up pushing each other too far, and did on occasion. The relationship, which grew to a kind of grudging respect and finally love, was one of the best developed in television history. It�s unfair to hold a relationship that�s only existed for 18 episodes of television to that sort of standard, but the central problem with Last Man Standing�s political arguments is that the show A) never gives viewers a reason to care whether Mike and Ryan respect each other at the end of the day (after all, Ryan�s not even a series regular), and B) takes it for granted that the two will respect, and maybe even love, each other. Ryan abandoned the mother of his child and said child for three years and has returned, trying to right his wrongs. The Baxters have every right to be suspicious of him, and it would be easy enough to turn Mike and Ryan�s political arguments into arguments about something more fundamental in their relationship: what Mike perceives as Ryan�s utter inability to help out Kristin when the chips were down. That�s interesting. That�s drama. But Last Man Standing runs away from it at every occasion. The series has the right idea in trying to ground the political in the personal. For 99 percent of us, politics is personal. Think, for instance, of the relief you might have felt when Obama won last year, or the despair you might have felt when Romney lost. Those emotions may have been driven by something politically concrete on one level, but they were also driven by a more fundamental, emotional level. No matter how much you may believe in [insert issue here], every election comes down to a choice between something you identify strongly with and something you do not. The two-party system all but guarantees this. When the characters on a Norman Lear political sitcom argue, this is what they�re really arguing about: the defense of the self against something that would encroach upon it. Too often on Last Man Standing, however, the characters just argue about politics to give each other a hard time. There�s little sense of passion, and even when the characters come up against a problem that�s truly insoluble�where there are significant arguments to be made on both sides�the show chickens out and ultimately buries everything under a gloss of, �Well, at least we all still love each other!� Take, for instance, the episode �Mother Fracking.� Mike�s wife Vanessa (the great Nancy Travis, given sadly little to do) is a geologist, and part of her work involves using the process known as fracking to gather natural gas. Eve�s terrified of the impact this might have on the planet, so she stages a one-girl protest. Vanessa rightly points out that the best current method of finding energy comes from fossil fuels. The choice is presented along admirably stark lines: Enjoy the modern comforts that in many cases keep us alive, or probably fuck up the planet irreparably. There�s a real opportunity here to strain a relationship between mother and daughter, one viewers actually do care about. Instead, Mike tells Eve that her mother does her best, and maybe Eve shouldn�t give Vanessa a hard time, since she really loves her little girl. And� that�s about it. This question of making giant political issues into smaller, more personal ones runs throughout the season (though toward the season�s end, it becomes less about that and more about interpersonal relationships), and it�s sometimes, frankly, embarrassing. There�s a whole episode that clumsily creates the impression it wants to make a one-to-one comparison between the genocide of American Indians and Ryan leaving after Boyd was born. (Ryan doesn�t appreciate Ed promoting Outdoor Man with a Western-themed stage show�that arrives out of nowhere, it must be said�which features rampaging Indians. Later, when Ryan tries to say that it doesn�t matter what he did in the past in regards to Boyd, Mike accuses him of turning the tables and trying to sweep his own history under the rug. It�s� awkward.) There�s also an episode, talked about in the Post article above, where Eve gets in trouble for bullying at school, which means well but also inadvertently seems to suggest that kids should be able to use as many anti-gay slurs as they want. Because the show is so intent on not having a definitive political point of view, it comes off as clumsy more often than not. It also forces the characters to behave in ways no human being ever would, as in one episode when Vanessa wonders if she received a promotion because she is good looking, then actually goes and asks her boss that very question. Who would do this? There are stabs at character complexity here and there. Ryan is liberal to a fault but also subject to his own unexamined prejudices, particularly when it comes to how he, deep down, believes the mother of his child should submit to his authority. And Eve�s a gun-toting wannabe Marine who�s also really concerned about the potential destruction of the planet, and recoils in horror at the Wild West show when she finds out about the plight of the Indians. I�d feel more strongly supportive of these stabs at complexity, however, if the series didn�t leave the impression that it simply forced the characters into whatever straitjacket it needed them to be in for that particular episode. Eve will be a budding hippie in one episode, a budding military member in the next, and never the twain shall meet. Considering the show does take stabs at consistency of setting and story serialization, it�s just a little strange, as if Last Man Standing understands that people are complex but wants to present all of its characters as different archetypes in different episodes, lest they get too complex. That Last Man Standing doesn�t really work is all the more disappointing because it comes close enough to suggest a show worth watching. Even if the show�s first season was more consistent across the board, it was much less interesting than the second, which was fitfully fascinating, as in an episode when Kristin learns Mandy is infatuated with Kyle, whom Kristin earlier dated, and takes this occasion to reignite her relationship with Ryan. It�s a wonderfully ambiguous moment, where Kristin�s motivations are surprisingly nuanced�until the next episode, when she and Ryan are just happy together again. In its second season, it was incredibly evident that Last Man Standing had seen some of the best shows in TV history and was trying to ape them, but had mostly just captured the surface of them. This is too bad. The cast is game, the jokes work on occasion (particularly when delivered by Molly Ephraim, who plays Mandy, and Hector Elizondo, who plays Ed), and the show�s attempts to work politics into the mix are at least admirable and less wrongheaded than they might initially appear. Tim Allen doesn�t really have it in him to play Archie Bunker, but he does have it in him to play a guy who might have heard Archie back in the �70s and heard in the man�s bitterness and resentment something that resonated, then found that sanded down by success and comfort. Where Archie was a blue-collar hero, Mike Baxter lives in the world of upper-class security. Where Archie was railing against a world that terrified him precisely because he didn�t know how secure his future was, Mike doesn�t have to worry about that. At its best, Last Man Standing can reflect some of the anxieties of Allen�s generation�like the thought that these late Boomer parents want to raise their daughters to be independent, then fall back on tired old gender stereotypes when those daughters really are independent�and provide a kind of comedy attuned to red-state sensibilities (ironically, since it�s set in bluing Colorado). Sadly, it�s too often at its worst, where it knows it has something to say but has no idea how to say it.
Why I like 'Last Man Standing' an independent's critique:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/223174827?p=1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/223174827?d=223174827#223174827
Why I Like Last Man Standing - from a liberal leaning indepedent.
(it's a long post, I apologize)
After decades of living through a PC, left wing entertainment complex, Last Man Standing is a breath of fresh air and exactly what this new generation is needing. I've read a lot of reviews, many of which attack this show from the right, for being too liberal and others which attack it from the left. I take these attacks as a good thing, showing that show actively and successfully parodies both sides of the political spectrum. If your pigeonholed to any particular political ideology this show is not for you. It's for independent thinkers, who can think for themselves. Probably the only truly balanced show on T.V. at the moment.
I've always been a fan of Tim Allen, since Home Improvement. He likes to mix comedy, politics with sage like messages rooted in history. The purpose of this show is to redefine manliness in an ever growing feminist world. This redefinition is not the man's man who hunts predators in Africa, ala Ernest Hemmingway (though the show often parodies and flirts with this idea of what a man is.) Rather it's an interplay of male bravado with feminine sensitivities.
The beauty of the show Home Improvement was that it showed the growth of the sometimes absent minded character Tim Taylor from being an accident prone aficionado of all things with "more power," to an insightful and sensitive human being. He encompassed all traits of the New man struggling to come to terms in a changing world. He made fun of his wife for acting too girly and over thinking matters, but when he knew he crossed the line, he tried hardest to see it through her eyes and as a result became more insightful as the years progressed. Last Man Standings Mike Baxter is Tim Taylor, 20 years later, weathered by age, completely engulfed in a PC world where feminism is becoming the norm. While at times he's redolent of the Archie Bunker character from All in the Family, you can tell, that while he condemns certain aspects of the feminist ideology, it's never out of malice or contempt for the opposite sex. He truly loves the women in his life, and enjoys being surrounded by them. He welcomes their influence as they begrudgingly welcome his. However Mike sees things in a sometimes simpler fashion, as males often do, when the females tend to over complicate matters. As a result Mike Baxter is both the voice of insanity and the voice of reason in his family. He's there to tell men, that it's ok to be a man, and that even in this feminine world, they still have a voice that's still valid today. Sadly we are seeing less of this today. For some reason, today's culture ties manliness with chauvinism condemning it outright, rather than viewing it as simply an alternate point of view.
Taoist believe that in order for society to function properly both feminine and masculine, yin and yang, need to be in perfect balance and harmony. This show attempts to bring back the yang in a yin dominated world.
On to politics.
I lean liberal, and I find the political moments absolutely hilarious. I'm use to hearing talking heads on both sides of the political landscape, and I can tell that the show is just mocking today's contentious political climate. People complain that Mike Baxter is too conservative. I don't see him this way. While he has obvious conservative leanings, Mike is just a straight shooter. Sure he likes to make fun of liberals, but he's often found to be a hypocrite, when he starts demonstrating liberal leanings. I'm a liberal who leans towards independent. I believe the majority of people are centrist, who demonstrate this type of behavior. Somethings I'm liberal about, somethings I'm conservative about. That's real life!!! And this show is trying to represent that political movement in people. Sometimes Mike says the stupidest conservative thing, that I find hilarious, cause its so over the top and outlandish. While I don't agree with the sentiment I recognize that caricature. Plus the jokes are actually funny! His love of Ronald Reagan is hilarious cause I know conservatives who are like that! I also know whiny liberals like Ryan, and they irritate the living hell out of me!. This show is able to make fun of both liberals and conservatives in an even handed manner. And I find that admirable. It's what we need right now. If you're trying to attack this show from the left or the right, you're missing the point completely. The show actually demonstrates that conservatism and liberalism has many similarities both in political victories and faults.
While the show isn't perfect.
It's pretty damn funny, and if cultivated properly, could be one of the funniest shows on T.V.
> http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-the-weirdest,95857/ Last Man Standing�s second season was the weirdest sitcom season since �Til Death By Todd VanDerWerff Between Last Man Standing�s first and second seasons, the largely non-distinct sitcom, mostly known for being Tim Allen�s return to television, had a choice to make. Headed for Fridays, the second least-watched night of the week (after Saturdays), the program had to do something to make some noise and hopefully attract viewership. Simply having Allen in the cast wasn�t going to do it any longer. So, as Allen and new showrunner Tim Doyle discussed with the New York Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social issues, Barack Obama, and the nation�s legacy of genocide. Did it work? Having watched all 18 episodes of the show�s second season, I can�t really say that it made the show better, but it certainly made it weirder. (And in terms of ratings, it allowed the show to keep the lights on on Friday, no mean feat.) Its attempt to put a finger on the country�s pulse made it much more worthy of discussion than when it was just about some angry guy living with too many women, as it was in its first season. It�s like when �Til Death turned into a strange meta-sitcom in its final season, though somehow even more misguided. The basic premise of Last Man Standing is the same as Allen�s former sitcom hit, Home Improvement, only his character, Mike Baxter, has three adolescent-and-older daughters, instead of three child sons. The oldest daughter, Kristin, was the promising one who was going to succeed, until she had a child late in high school, and she�s lived in her parents� house with her son, Boyd, ever since. Middle daughter Mandy is a ditzy fashionplate. Youngest daughter Eve is the one who�s closest to her dad, into things like soccer and hunting. There�s an outdoor-store workplace setting where Mike deals with crotchety boss Ed (meant to be the even more hyper-masculine version of Mike in season one) and dumbass employee Kyle. And in the second season, the show made an attempt to flesh out the neighborhood the Baxters lived in with a handful of recurring characters, including a black couple who become fast friends with the Baxters, and a Latina maid. In addition, the second season added the father of Kristin�s son, Ryan, as a semi-regular, meant to be the Meathead to Mike�s Archie Bunker. The problem with Last Man Standing�s attempts to go political is exemplified by the first scene of the season premi�re, which remains one of the most uncomfortable scenes of television I�ve ever watched. It�s not even really bad so much as it�s actively discomfiting, doing its best to push buttons in the audience that don�t need to be pushed, as if it thinks what made Lear�s sitcoms a success was the yelling or the mentions of social issues that people sometimes argued about. Mike says Obama was born in Kenya. Kristin and Ryan make fun of Romney for being a robot. It goes on and on and gets more and more squirm-inducing, but in a way that is clearly meant to be a good time. This is the new height of political humor? The characters on Last Man Standing don�t speak about issues in any sort of nuanced manner, nor do they have terribly deep discussions about them. They mostly repeat buzzwords and shout at each other a lot. The show wanted to make Mike into a conservative hero, but it didn�t bother giving him a consistent worldview. He�s just somebody who spouts Fox News talking points a lot, and while that may be somewhat true to life�in that most modern political arguments between left and right tend to boil down to talking points gleaned from elsewhere�it doesn�t make the experience of watching people shout pithy, empty phrases at each other any more interesting or involving. What�s more, Mike�s main liberal competition�Ryan and, occasionally, Kristin�tend to speak as if they came up with their own political positions from reading the list of tags at the bottom of posts on a left-wing blog. Again, this is true to life. Few political arguments�particularly those among family�have the level of nuance one might expect from, say, a mythical boxing match between Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman. And, thinking back on All In The Family, Archie and Mike Stivic�s arguments on that show rarely had much nuance to them, either; the series gained much of its power from moments when it could step outside of their limited points-of-view and depict the world as it actually was. What made All In The Family�s political arguments work�what made the vast majority of all of Lear�s series featuring such arguments work�were the character stakes. The idea that Archie and Mike would love or even respect each other at the end of one of those knockdown shouting matches wasn�t taken for granted. They really might end up pushing each other too far, and did on occasion. The relationship, which grew to a kind of grudging respect and finally love, was one of the best developed in television history. It�s unfair to hold a relationship that�s only existed for 18 episodes of television to that sort of standard, but the central problem with Last Man Standing�s political arguments is that the show A) never gives viewers a reason to care whether Mike and Ryan respect each other at the end of the day (after all, Ryan�s not even a series regular), and B) takes it for granted that the two will respect, and maybe even love, each other. Ryan abandoned the mother of his child and said child for three years and has returned, trying to right his wrongs. The Baxters have every right to be suspicious of him, and it would be easy enough to turn Mike and Ryan�s political arguments into arguments about something more fundamental in their relationship: what Mike perceives as Ryan�s utter inability to help out Kristin when the chips were down. That�s interesting. That�s drama. But Last Man Standing runs away from it at every occasion. The series has the right idea in trying to ground the political in the personal. For 99 percent of us, politics is personal. Think, for instance, of the relief you might have felt when Obama won last year, or the despair you might have felt when Romney lost. Those emotions may have been driven by something politically concrete on one level, but they were also driven by a more fundamental, emotional level. No matter how much you may believe in [insert issue here], every election comes down to a choice between something you identify strongly with and something you do not. The two-party system all but guarantees this. When the characters on a Norman Lear political sitcom argue, this is what they�re really arguing about: the defense of the self against something that would encroach upon it. Too often on Last Man Standing, however, the characters just argue about politics to give each other a hard time. There�s little sense of passion, and even when the characters come up against a problem that�s truly insoluble�where there are significant arguments to be made on both sides�the show chickens out and ultimately buries everything under a gloss of, �Well, at least we all still love each other!� Take, for instance, the episode �Mother Fracking.� Mike�s wife Vanessa (the great Nancy Travis, given sadly little to do) is a geologist, and part of her work involves using the process known as fracking to gather natural gas. Eve�s terrified of the impact this might have on the planet, so she stages a one-girl protest. Vanessa rightly points out that the best current method of finding energy comes from fossil fuels. The choice is presented along admirably stark lines: Enjoy the modern comforts that in many cases keep us alive, or probably fuck up the planet irreparably. There�s a real opportunity here to strain a relationship between mother and daughter, one viewers actually do care about. Instead, Mike tells Eve that her mother does her best, and maybe Eve shouldn�t give Vanessa a hard time, since she really loves her little girl. And� that�s about it. This question of making giant political issues into smaller, more personal ones runs throughout the season (though toward the season�s end, it becomes less about that and more about interpersonal relationships), and it�s sometimes, frankly, embarrassing. There�s a whole episode that clumsily creates the impression it wants to make a one-to-one comparison between the genocide of American Indians and Ryan leaving after Boyd was born. (Ryan doesn�t appreciate Ed promoting Outdoor Man with a Western-themed stage show�that arrives out of nowhere, it must be said�which features rampaging Indians. Later, when Ryan tries to say that it doesn�t matter what he did in the past in regards to Boyd, Mike accuses him of turning the tables and trying to sweep his own history under the rug. It�s� awkward.) There�s also an episode, talked about in the Post article above, where Eve gets in trouble for bullying at school, which means well but also inadvertently seems to suggest that kids should be able to use as many anti-gay slurs as they want. Because the show is so intent on not having a definitive political point of view, it comes off as clumsy more often than not. It also forces the characters to behave in ways no human being ever would, as in one episode when Vanessa wonders if she received a promotion because she is good looking, then actually goes and asks her boss that very question. Who would do this? There are stabs at character complexity here and there. Ryan is liberal to a fault but also subject to his own unexamined prejudices, particularly when it comes to how he, deep down, believes the mother of his child should submit to his authority. And Eve�s a gun-toting wannabe Marine who�s also really concerned about the potential destruction of the planet, and recoils in horror at the Wild West show when she finds out about the plight of the Indians. I�d feel more strongly supportive of these stabs at complexity, however, if the series didn�t leave the impression that it simply forced the characters into whatever straitjacket it needed them to be in for that particular episode. Eve will be a budding hippie in one episode, a budding military member in the next, and never the twain shall meet. Considering the show does take stabs at consistency of setting and story serialization, it�s just a little strange, as if Last Man Standing understands that people are complex but wants to present all of its characters as different archetypes in different episodes, lest they get too complex. That Last Man Standing doesn�t really work is all the more disappointing because it comes close enough to suggest a show worth watching. Even if the show�s first season was more consistent across the board, it was much less interesting than the second, which was fitfully fascinating, as in an episode when Kristin learns Mandy is infatuated with Kyle, whom Kristin earlier dated, and takes this occasion to reignite her relationship with Ryan. It�s a wonderfully ambiguous moment, where Kristin�s motivations are surprisingly nuanced�until the next episode, when she and Ryan are just happy together again. In its second season, it was incredibly evident that Last Man Standing had seen some of the best shows in TV history and was trying to ape them, but had mostly just captured the surface of them. This is too bad. The cast is game, the jokes work on occasion (particularly when delivered by Molly Ephraim, who plays Mandy, and Hector Elizondo, who plays Ed), and the show�s attempts to work politics into the mix are at least admirable and less wrongheaded than they might initially appear. Tim Allen doesn�t really have it in him to play Archie Bunker, but he does have it in him to play a guy who might have heard Archie back in the �70s and heard in the man�s bitterness and resentment something that resonated, then found that sanded down by success and comfort. Where Archie was a blue-collar hero, Mike Baxter lives in the world of upper-class security. Where Archie was railing against a world that terrified him precisely because he didn�t know how secure his future was, Mike doesn�t have to worry about that. At its best, Last Man Standing can reflect some of the anxieties of Allen�s generation�like the thought that these late Boomer parents want to raise their daughters to be independent, then fall back on tired old gender stereotypes when those daughters really are independent�and provide a kind of comedy attuned to red-state sensibilities (ironically, since it�s set in bluing Colorado). Sadly, it�s too often at its worst, where it knows it has something to say but has no idea how to say it.
Why I like 'Last Man Standing' an independent's critique:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/223174827?p=1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/223174827?d=223174827#223174827
Why I Like Last Man Standing - from a liberal leaning indepedent.
(it's a long post, I apologize)
After decades of living through a PC, left wing entertainment complex, Last Man Standing is a breath of fresh air and exactly what this new generation is needing. I've read a lot of reviews, many of which attack this show from the right, for being too liberal and others which attack it from the left. I take these attacks as a good thing, showing that show actively and successfully parodies both sides of the political spectrum. If your pigeonholed to any particular political ideology this show is not for you. It's for independent thinkers, who can think for themselves. Probably the only truly balanced show on T.V. at the moment.
I've always been a fan of Tim Allen, since Home Improvement. He likes to mix comedy, politics with sage like messages rooted in history. The purpose of this show is to redefine manliness in an ever growing feminist world. This redefinition is not the man's man who hunts predators in Africa, ala Ernest Hemmingway (though the show often parodies and flirts with this idea of what a man is.) Rather it's an interplay of male bravado with feminine sensitivities.
The beauty of the show Home Improvement was that it showed the growth of the sometimes absent minded character Tim Taylor from being an accident prone aficionado of all things with "more power," to an insightful and sensitive human being. He encompassed all traits of the New man struggling to come to terms in a changing world. He made fun of his wife for acting too girly and over thinking matters, but when he knew he crossed the line, he tried hardest to see it through her eyes and as a result became more insightful as the years progressed. Last Man Standings Mike Baxter is Tim Taylor, 20 years later, weathered by age, completely engulfed in a PC world where feminism is becoming the norm. While at times he's redolent of the Archie Bunker character from All in the Family, you can tell, that while he condemns certain aspects of the feminist ideology, it's never out of malice or contempt for the opposite sex. He truly loves the women in his life, and enjoys being surrounded by them. He welcomes their influence as they begrudgingly welcome his. However Mike sees things in a sometimes simpler fashion, as males often do, when the females tend to over complicate matters. As a result Mike Baxter is both the voice of insanity and the voice of reason in his family. He's there to tell men, that it's ok to be a man, and that even in this feminine world, they still have a voice that's still valid today. Sadly we are seeing less of this today. For some reason, today's culture ties manliness with chauvinism condemning it outright, rather than viewing it as simply an alternate point of view.
Taoist believe that in order for society to function properly both feminine and masculine, yin and yang, need to be in perfect balance and harmony. This show attempts to bring back the yang in a yin dominated world.
On to politics.
I lean liberal, and I find the political moments absolutely hilarious. I'm use to hearing talking heads on both sides of the political landscape, and I can tell that the show is just mocking today's contentious political climate. People complain that Mike Baxter is too conservative. I don't see him this way. While he has obvious conservative leanings, Mike is just a straight shooter. Sure he likes to make fun of liberals, but he's often found to be a hypocrite, when he starts demonstrating liberal leanings. I'm a liberal who leans towards independent. I believe the majority of people are centrist, who demonstrate this type of behavior. Somethings I'm liberal about, somethings I'm conservative about. That's real life!!! And this show is trying to represent that political movement in people. Sometimes Mike says the stupidest conservative thing, that I find hilarious, cause its so over the top and outlandish. While I don't agree with the sentiment I recognize that caricature. Plus the jokes are actually funny! His love of Ronald Reagan is hilarious cause I know conservatives who are like that! I also know whiny liberals like Ryan, and they irritate the living hell out of me!. This show is able to make fun of both liberals and conservatives in an even handed manner. And I find that admirable. It's what we need right now. If you're trying to attack this show from the left or the right, you're missing the point completely. The show actually demonstrates that conservatism and liberalism has many similarities both in political victories and faults.
While the show isn't perfect.
It's pretty damn funny, and if cultivated properly, could be one of the funniest shows on T.V.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 11, 2013, 4:44:22 PM12/11/13
to
On Monday, April 1, 2013 12:10:57 PM UTC-4, David wrote:
> And in terms of ratings, it allowed the
> show to keep the lights on on Friday, no mean feat.
That's all that counts--the ratings. The rest of the long article is irrelevant.
> And in terms of ratings, it allowed the
> show to keep the lights on on Friday, no mean feat.
> They mostly repeat buzzwords and shout at each other a
> lot.
> This question of making giant political issues into smaller, more
> personal ones runs throughout the season
tmc...@gmail.com
Dec 14, 2013, 3:13:53 AM12/14/13
to
Hell, "All in the Family" (which I suppose is the "godfather" of these types of shows) more than likely isn't as potent now than it was when it was first broadcast. All of the references to stuff like references to the Vietnam War, hippies, Nixon, McGovern, etc. really make it a product of the 1970s (the same thing can be said about "Family Ties" and the Ronald Reagan era, 1980s). It think that perhaps "AITF" still holds up somewhat to modern audiences however can be considered a testament to the writers and to the actors.
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/482104/dated-jokes-movies-shows-etc
Nancy2
Dec 14, 2013, 8:56:31 AM12/14/13
to
I wonder why the original writer treats the sitcom like a great American Classic. There was no salient point
to his over-analytical oral diarrhea. I love Last Man Standing, and have always thought it to be just a
throwback to the golden age of sitcoms. It doesn't have to have a modern, deep social conscience for me
to enjoy Tim Allen's talent, and I'm glad he is back. For me, the writers could dwell less on Boyd's parents
and more on the other cast members, because I find their storyline supremely boring.
N.
to his over-analytical oral diarrhea. I love Last Man Standing, and have always thought it to be just a
throwback to the golden age of sitcoms. It doesn't have to have a modern, deep social conscience for me
to enjoy Tim Allen's talent, and I'm glad he is back. For me, the writers could dwell less on Boyd's parents
and more on the other cast members, because I find their storyline supremely boring.
N.
Barry Margolin
Dec 14, 2013, 12:34:41 PM12/14/13
to
In article <472cc1ea-1411-4548...@googlegroups.com>,
modern kids watching The Brady Bunch know who Bobby Sherman was (the
best you can probably explain is that he was Marcia's Justin Bieber)?
The fashions look silly, and family dynamics have changed drastically in
40 years.
> Hell, "All in the Family" (which I suppose is the "godfather" of these types
> of shows) more than likely isn't as potent now than it was when it was first
> broadcast. All of the references to stuff like references to the Vietnam
> War, hippies, Nixon, McGovern, etc. really make it a product of the 1970s
> (the same thing can be said about "Family Ties" and the Ronald Reagan era,
> 1980s). It think that perhaps "AITF" still holds up somewhat to modern
> audiences however can be considered a testament to the writers and to the
> actors.
While the specific references are dated, the general feelings are still
relatable. Viet Nam is ancient history, but we have Iraq and
Afghanistan. Racism is not as blatant, but it still exists, and now we
have gay rights (esp. same-sex marriage) as a more visible civil rights
issue.
The specific issues don't really matter so much. What made AITF great
wasn't just that it tackled timely, hot-button issues, but the way
Archie butted heads with the people around him, and how he reacted. It
was about a man dealing with a world that's changing, and that happens
in every generation. Older people can relate to Archie and Edith,
younger ones can relate to Gloria and Mike.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> The basic or fundamental problem w/ a TV show being very "issue" oriented or
> political is that you immediately run the risk of severely dating yourself
> (which would be extremely problematic come rerun time).
Even non-issue shows run this risk, although to a lesser extent. Do
> The basic or fundamental problem w/ a TV show being very "issue" oriented or
> political is that you immediately run the risk of severely dating yourself
> (which would be extremely problematic come rerun time).
modern kids watching The Brady Bunch know who Bobby Sherman was (the
best you can probably explain is that he was Marcia's Justin Bieber)?
The fashions look silly, and family dynamics have changed drastically in
40 years.
> Hell, "All in the Family" (which I suppose is the "godfather" of these types
> of shows) more than likely isn't as potent now than it was when it was first
> broadcast. All of the references to stuff like references to the Vietnam
> War, hippies, Nixon, McGovern, etc. really make it a product of the 1970s
> (the same thing can be said about "Family Ties" and the Ronald Reagan era,
> 1980s). It think that perhaps "AITF" still holds up somewhat to modern
> audiences however can be considered a testament to the writers and to the
> actors.
relatable. Viet Nam is ancient history, but we have Iraq and
Afghanistan. Racism is not as blatant, but it still exists, and now we
have gay rights (esp. same-sex marriage) as a more visible civil rights
issue.
The specific issues don't really matter so much. What made AITF great
wasn't just that it tackled timely, hot-button issues, but the way
Archie butted heads with the people around him, and how he reacted. It
was about a man dealing with a world that's changing, and that happens
in every generation. Older people can relate to Archie and Edith,
younger ones can relate to Gloria and Mike.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 14, 2013, 3:18:40 PM12/14/13
to
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 3:13:53 AM UTC-5, tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hell, "All in the Family" (which I suppose is the "godfather" of these types of shows) more than likely isn't as potent now than it was when it was first broadcast. All of the references to stuff like references to the Vietnam War, hippies, Nixon, McGovern, etc. really make it a product of the 1970s (the same thing can be said about "Family Ties" and the Ronald Reagan era, 1980s). It think that perhaps "AITF" still holds up somewhat to modern audiences however can be considered a testament to the writers and to the actors.
All in the Family, seen today on reruns, still holds it own because (1) it's more about relationships, and (2) the political issues were major historical issues, not trivial stuff. Nixon will be remembered, for better or worse, far longer than Dan Quayle. Also, some issues, like general liberal vs. conservative and race issues continue to this day.
> Hell, "All in the Family" (which I suppose is the "godfather" of these types of shows) more than likely isn't as potent now than it was when it was first broadcast. All of the references to stuff like references to the Vietnam War, hippies, Nixon, McGovern, etc. really make it a product of the 1970s (the same thing can be said about "Family Ties" and the Ronald Reagan era, 1980s). It think that perhaps "AITF" still holds up somewhat to modern audiences however can be considered a testament to the writers and to the actors.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 14, 2013, 3:19:16 PM12/14/13
to
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 8:56:31 AM UTC-5, Nancy2 wrote:
> I wonder why the original writer treats the sitcom like a great American Classic.
An excuse to write a paper, and possibly be paid for it.
> I wonder why the original writer treats the sitcom like a great American Classic.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 14, 2013, 3:23:52 PM12/14/13
to
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 12:34:41 PM UTC-5, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Even non-issue shows run this risk, although to a lesser extent. Do
> modern kids watching The Brady Bunch know who Bobby Sherman was (the
> best you can probably explain is that he was Marcia's Justin Bieber)?
> The fashions look silly, and family dynamics have changed drastically in
> 40 years.
Actually, The Brady Bunch was carefully written with long term syndication in mind, and carefully avoided topical stuff.
> Even non-issue shows run this risk, although to a lesser extent. Do
> modern kids watching The Brady Bunch know who Bobby Sherman was (the
> best you can probably explain is that he was Marcia's Justin Bieber)?
> The fashions look silly, and family dynamics have changed drastically in
> 40 years.
As to "family relationships", what the B/B portrayed was fictional in its own time. It was a marshmallow show for children, and remains popular to this day. As to the fashions, the 70's styles are more in today than the frizzle hair taffeta of the 1980s and 1990s (look at early Full House).
Adam H. Kerman
Dec 14, 2013, 3:27:30 PM12/14/13
to
which ones were timeless. After about the fourth season, it got tiresome,
with the occassional gems, and I didn't even want to watch later seasons.
Actually, when it became "about the relationships", when Archie grew as a
character and Edith started showing some backbone, it was a lot less bitter,
a lot less funny, and lost its edge.
It was funniest when Jean Stapleton was playing Edith as a clown, because
Jean Stapleton was a gifted clown and Carroll O'Connor doing Archie's
over-the-top blowups at Edith were funny because he was playing off her.
That was best during earliest seasons.
I never thought Archie was funny except playing off someone else, and then,
not always.
Stan Brown
Dec 14, 2013, 5:16:46 PM12/14/13
to
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:34:41 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Viet Nam is ancient history,
You're right, but my heavens I feel old seeing that written down! I
> Viet Nam is ancient history,
remember sweating out the draft lottery my senior year in college,
when that war was at its height.
> now we have gay rights (esp. same-sex marriage) as a more visible
> civil rights issue.
gay people had no legal protection at all, let alone aspirations to
equality. And that it should have come from a basically Republican-
appointed Supreme Court ...
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
tmc...@gmail.com
Dec 15, 2013, 4:22:38 AM12/15/13
to
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/223366482?p=1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828327/board/flat/223366482?d=223366482#223366482
...or maybe the "preachy non-denominational-non-themed-politically-correct douchebag" show. Ugh, I'm about ready to give up on the whole thing.
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3208897-last-man-standing/page-16#entry16184103
They really are trying to force the audience to like Ryan no matter what. So, now his Dad was a jerk who could have cared less about Christmas so hence Ryan doesn't believe in any of that. I also hate how Eve has turned into this mean spirited trickster the last two years. I mean some of the stuff she's played on Boyd is just really mean, not a loving aunt. The more and more they go I just want to wonder what Kristen really sees in Ryan because most women at this point would have said: "Ok, you're my son's father but you are a wackjob and I can do better."
tmc...@gmail.com
Dec 15, 2013, 4:27:55 AM12/15/13
to
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=4742697&postcount=17
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3208897&view=findpost&p=15346354
Holy cow. I thought the show was cute last season. Not great, but cute. I don't even understand what's going on now. I can't tell if these are actually Tim Allen's views, or if he's pulling a Carroll O'Connor. If it's the latter, then he is in no way as skilled as Carroll O'Connor. Nor is his character as sympathetic. Archie Bunker, for all his bigotry, was an old weary man on his old weary chair, in his average Queens blue collar house. Mike Baxter is middle-aged, married to a very pretty woman, and lives in a frickin' mansion. He doesn't work in a factory or drive a bus. He vlogs -- VLOGS! -- for a living. And so his hard-line, they're the takers, we're the makers shtick is all the more unsavory. He's got a pretty damn nice life, despite the fact that a portion of the USA speaks Spanish. If he was struggling early-Roseanne style, maybe I could see why he feels the way he does. But as it is, Archie Bunker he is not. And with no intelligent counterpoint to his views, a la Meathead, it makes me think Tim Allen shares more opinions with his character than not and likes using his show to voice them. That's absolutely his prerogative, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
For all the manliness and tools and grunting that was espoused on Home Improvement, there was a much more gentler spirit at the heart of that show. Tim Taylor never failed to learn a lesson at the end of every episode that brought him closer to understanding someone else's point of view. Mike Baxter is summed up by "Us against Them" -- red state vs. blue state, men vs. women. His grandson's father doesn't want his son to play dodgeball, therefore he is not a man, therefore he is not on Mike's team. I never thought I'd describe Home Improvement as nuanced, but it was, especially compared to this.
As for the cast changes -- don't like 'em. I didn't really care for the new Kristin when she was on Grey's Anatomy, and she grates here.
And dodgeball was my favorite game when I was little -- like ages 7-11. I think 5 is probably too young, and I can absolutely understand why a school would not want their students playing a game where getting injured is pretty par for the course -- hello, liability! Actually, Red Rover might've been my favorite. We used to play it on asphalt. You could totally do some damage playing that game. Ah, New York City public schools in the early 90s. I'm surprised I never broke my glasses.
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3208897&st=270&p=15346733&#entry15346733
The only reason why Archie Bunker got away with his bigotry was because he was seen as an old uneducated fool who didn't know any better and representative of the older close-minded generation (I would cringe at some of the things my grandma would say). Mike Baxter just comes off as racist. We can't even forgive him because he is too young and too educated to be so close minded. That is why this new show "Re-tool Time" won't work!
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3208897&view=findpost&p=15350157
The actress who plays nuKristin is 28 years old, which makes her way too old to play Kristin as a girl who got pregnant at the prom and finished high school on home teaching.
Quote
I can't tell if these are actually Tim Allen's views, or if he's pulling a Carroll O'Connor.
Carroll O'Connor was funny because he was playing the opposite of his own views. According to what I've read, Tim Allen believes every word he's saying.
Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=300417&page=2#ixzz2nXB7iwWg
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 16, 2013, 11:27:44 AM12/16/13
to
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 3:27:30 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> You have to be very selective about All in the Family episodes to say
> which ones were timeless. After about the fourth season, it got tiresome,
> with the occassional gems, and I didn't even want to watch later seasons.
Agreed.
> You have to be very selective about All in the Family episodes to say
> which ones were timeless. After about the fourth season, it got tiresome,
> with the occassional gems, and I didn't even want to watch later seasons.
> Actually, when it became "about the relationships", when Archie grew as a
> character and Edith started showing some backbone, it was a lot less bitter,
> a lot less funny, and lost its edge.
Archie did indeed mellow out and that was a lot less funny. But I think that occured much later, perhaps when they adopted Stephanie.
IMHO, what hurt the show was the loss of Archie's comic foils. Mike & Gloria moved out, and George & Louise moved on up. Irene and her husband were just plain weird and not entertaining nor likeable characters. But we felt a connection to George, Louise, and Lionel.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 16, 2013, 11:31:28 AM12/16/13
to
On Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:22:38 AM UTC-5, tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> They really are trying to force the audience to like Ryan no matter what.
No, they are not. They are trying to create a comic foil. Ryan is not a particularly likeable character and never was.
> They really are trying to force the audience to like Ryan no matter what.
> I also hate how Eve has turned into this mean spirited trickster the last two years.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 16, 2013, 11:43:33 AM12/16/13
to
On Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:27:55 AM UTC-5, tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I can't tell if these are actually Tim Allen's views, or if he's pulling a Carroll O'Connor.
It is irrelevant whose views they are. Those are political humor, nothing more, nothing less.
> I can't tell if these are actually Tim Allen's views, or if he's pulling a Carroll O'Connor.
> For all the manliness and tools and grunting that was espoused on Home Improvement, there was a much more gentler spirit at the heart of that show. Tim Taylor never failed to learn a lesson at the end of every episode that brought him closer to understanding someone else's point of view.
Tim Allen is playing a noticeably different character this time. His children are noticeably different, also older.
(However, his occasional backward jokes to the former show, "this boy was raised right!" are funny.)
> As for the cast changes -- don't like 'em. I didn't really care for the new
Kristin when she was on Grey's Anatomy, and she grates here.
> The only reason why Archie Bunker got away with his bigotry was because he was seen as an old uneducated fool who didn't know any better and representative of the older close-minded generation (I would cringe at some of the things my grandma would say). Mike Baxter just comes off as racist. We can't even forgive him because he is too young and too educated to be so close minded. That is why this new show "Re-tool Time" won't work!
> The actress who plays nuKristin is 28 years old, which makes her way too old to play Kristin as a girl who got pregnant at the prom and finished high school on home teaching.
Adam H. Kerman
Dec 16, 2013, 12:39:23 PM12/16/13
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Saturday, December 14, 2013 3:27:30 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>You have to be very selective about All in the Family episodes to say
>>which ones were timeless. After about the fourth season, it got tiresome,
>>with the occassional gems, and I didn't even want to watch later seasons.
>Agreed.
>>Actually, when it became "about the relationships", when Archie grew as a
>>character and Edith started showing some backbone, it was a lot less bitter,
>>a lot less funny, and lost its edge.
>The show was about relationships from day one.
The show was about Archie versus the world and resenting his place in it.
>On Saturday, December 14, 2013 3:27:30 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>You have to be very selective about All in the Family episodes to say
>>which ones were timeless. After about the fourth season, it got tiresome,
>>with the occassional gems, and I didn't even want to watch later seasons.
>Agreed.
>>Actually, when it became "about the relationships", when Archie grew as a
>>character and Edith started showing some backbone, it was a lot less bitter,
>>a lot less funny, and lost its edge.
>The show was about relationships from day one.
The relationship with his son-in-law was allegorical, to introduce
political conflict into the show; never thought Meathead was a fully-drawn
character till he got fleshed out later. Gloria was one-note. Unfortunately,
that one note was rather shrill.
But what the show was really about was word play, and the routines Jean
Stapleton would do and the slow burn Carroll O'Connor would do in reaction.
After the first few seasons, that all got dropped, and the show was little
different than standard sitcom fare, but with better actors.
>Archie did indeed mellow out and that was a lot less funny. But I think
>that occured much later, perhaps when they adopted Stephanie.
the first season. The overt hostile attitude remained for several seasons,
even though the dialogue had been cleaned up greatly. Even first season was
never as overt as the UK show on which it was based.
>IMHO, what hurt the show was the loss of Archie's comic foils. Mike &
>Gloria moved out, and George & Louise moved on up. Irene and her
>husband were just plain weird and not entertaining nor likeable
>characters. But we felt a connection to George, Louise, and Lionel.
One thing I never understood: was George recast? I have this vague
recollection of a man Louise introduced as her husband, and then a few
weeks later, Sherman Helmsley was introduced as her husband, and they
said something about how she was pretending her brother-in-law was
her husband.
Barry Margolin
Dec 16, 2013, 12:57:22 PM12/16/13
to
In article <7e5ec091-24a7-45bd...@googlegroups.com>,
do I think it's reasonably successful. They occasionally get good fodder
by showing the hypocricy of the characters, like last week when Kristin
spanked Boyd and wanted to keep it a secret from Ryan, or earlier in the
season with the episode about public versus private schools.
There's an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been
mugged, and a newer variant that a liberal is a conservative who has
been mugged by an illness. This show often demonstrates these principles.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Mike Baxter is NOT Archie Bunker, and no one suggests that he is. Mike B is
> a "conservative" and a Republican. He is throwing out sarcastic barbs
> against liberalism. They created a comic foil with a liberal daughter and
> son-in-law.
And I think they mostly work. LMS is no AITF, but for what it tries to
> Mike Baxter is NOT Archie Bunker, and no one suggests that he is. Mike B is
> a "conservative" and a Republican. He is throwing out sarcastic barbs
> against liberalism. They created a comic foil with a liberal daughter and
> son-in-law.
do I think it's reasonably successful. They occasionally get good fodder
by showing the hypocricy of the characters, like last week when Kristin
spanked Boyd and wanted to keep it a secret from Ryan, or earlier in the
season with the episode about public versus private schools.
There's an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been
mugged, and a newer variant that a liberal is a conservative who has
been mugged by an illness. This show often demonstrates these principles.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 16, 2013, 1:16:17 PM12/16/13
to
On Monday, December 16, 2013 12:39:23 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
RE: All In The Family
> The show was about Archie versus the world and resenting his place in it.
> The relationship with his son-in-law was allegorical, to introduce
> political conflict into the show; never thought Meathead was a fully-drawn
> character till he got fleshed out later. Gloria was one-note. Unfortunately,
> that one note was rather shrill.
I think it was more about Archie vs. the _changing_ world. Archie was opposed to all the _new_ liberal and political ideas coming out in those years, and Mike and Gloria were big supporters of that stuff. This ranged from actual protest actions to Mike carrying a purse.
Archie was trying as best he could to protect his family, including Mike and Gloria, from the hostilities of an urban world, including one that was deteriorating. Many times the producers portrayed as mere bigotry or stubborness the threats Archie perceived. In looking back at the show 40 years later, it would appear Archie did have a good point in a _few_ areas, more than the producers gave him credit (they did occasionaly show him to be right).
At the time the show aired, real life men like Archie in New York were having a tough time of it. Crime was rapidly increasing and they no longer felt save in their own homes, plus they worried about their family's safety. Some of that crime was pretty ugly with brutal beatings and injuries to victims.
There was also a change in social values. For many of us viewers, we approved of those changes. But it was a difficult pill for Archie's generation to accept. For instance, in the show, Gloria & Mike were always married (except in flashbacks). In real life, in those days Gloria & Mike probably would've hooked up before marriage. That would've driven Archie livid with rage--he would seen that as a violation of his little girl. Indeed, the show avoided that touchiness* by having them married, but touching on that subject with other couples, such as Archie's niece dating Lionel.
* Lots of TV shows cover touchy social issues by having secondary characters do the deed, like kids having sex, getting into drugs, etc; as opposed to main characters. This deflects controversy.
> Archie stopped making outright stereotypical and prejudice insults after
> the first season. The overt hostile attitude remained for several seasons,
> even though the dialogue had been cleaned up greatly. Even first season was
> never as overt as the UK show on which it was based.
I felt Archie's prejudice continued for a long time through the show, perhaps even in Archie Bunker's Place. I'd say it stayed at the same level for the first several seasons. Later on in the series he overall demeanor softened somehow, his "Aw Geez" were watered down. He make the very same comments as earlier, but with less intensity.
In any event, I didn't see Archie as overtly hostile, unless something threatened his domain. Of course, the show was about the changing world, which often brought such changes into his living room.
> One thing I never understood: was George recast? I have this vague
> recollection of a man Louise introduced as her husband, and then a few
> weeks later, Sherman Helmsley was introduced as her husband, and they
> said something about how she was pretending her brother-in-law was
> her husband.
If memory serves, originally, "Jefferson" was definitely another character, but introduced or later explained as George's brother. The actual George Jefferson (Sherman H.) came on a little later.
I recall a recently aired episode where George was running for local council to effect a zoning change for his store. Archie was perfectly happy with that reason. Lionel and Mike were aghast. I think it turned out that the store wasn't even in the district, so George's effort was a waste of time.
George was portrayed as an Archie, too. He was prejudiced and also, like Archie, a conniver. Unlike Archie, George was much better at the wheel and deal, able to build up a successful business; Archie focused on getting a few free quarters from a screwed up busienss promotion.
RE: All In The Family
> The show was about Archie versus the world and resenting his place in it.
> The relationship with his son-in-law was allegorical, to introduce
> political conflict into the show; never thought Meathead was a fully-drawn
> character till he got fleshed out later. Gloria was one-note. Unfortunately,
> that one note was rather shrill.
Archie was trying as best he could to protect his family, including Mike and Gloria, from the hostilities of an urban world, including one that was deteriorating. Many times the producers portrayed as mere bigotry or stubborness the threats Archie perceived. In looking back at the show 40 years later, it would appear Archie did have a good point in a _few_ areas, more than the producers gave him credit (they did occasionaly show him to be right).
At the time the show aired, real life men like Archie in New York were having a tough time of it. Crime was rapidly increasing and they no longer felt save in their own homes, plus they worried about their family's safety. Some of that crime was pretty ugly with brutal beatings and injuries to victims.
There was also a change in social values. For many of us viewers, we approved of those changes. But it was a difficult pill for Archie's generation to accept. For instance, in the show, Gloria & Mike were always married (except in flashbacks). In real life, in those days Gloria & Mike probably would've hooked up before marriage. That would've driven Archie livid with rage--he would seen that as a violation of his little girl. Indeed, the show avoided that touchiness* by having them married, but touching on that subject with other couples, such as Archie's niece dating Lionel.
* Lots of TV shows cover touchy social issues by having secondary characters do the deed, like kids having sex, getting into drugs, etc; as opposed to main characters. This deflects controversy.
> Archie stopped making outright stereotypical and prejudice insults after
> the first season. The overt hostile attitude remained for several seasons,
> even though the dialogue had been cleaned up greatly. Even first season was
> never as overt as the UK show on which it was based.
In any event, I didn't see Archie as overtly hostile, unless something threatened his domain. Of course, the show was about the changing world, which often brought such changes into his living room.
> One thing I never understood: was George recast? I have this vague
> recollection of a man Louise introduced as her husband, and then a few
> weeks later, Sherman Helmsley was introduced as her husband, and they
> said something about how she was pretending her brother-in-law was
> her husband.
I recall a recently aired episode where George was running for local council to effect a zoning change for his store. Archie was perfectly happy with that reason. Lionel and Mike were aghast. I think it turned out that the store wasn't even in the district, so George's effort was a waste of time.
George was portrayed as an Archie, too. He was prejudiced and also, like Archie, a conniver. Unlike Archie, George was much better at the wheel and deal, able to build up a successful business; Archie focused on getting a few free quarters from a screwed up busienss promotion.
Adam H. Kerman
Dec 16, 2013, 2:41:02 PM12/16/13
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Monday, December 16, 2013 12:39:23 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>RE: All In The Family
>>The show was about Archie versus the world and resenting his place in it.
>>The relationship with his son-in-law was allegorical, to introduce
>>political conflict into the show; never thought Meathead was a fully-drawn
>>character till he got fleshed out later. Gloria was one-note. Unfortunately,
>>that one note was rather shrill.
>I think it was more about Archie vs. the _changing_ world. . . .
>On Monday, December 16, 2013 12:39:23 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>RE: All In The Family
>>The show was about Archie versus the world and resenting his place in it.
>>The relationship with his son-in-law was allegorical, to introduce
>>political conflict into the show; never thought Meathead was a fully-drawn
>>character till he got fleshed out later. Gloria was one-note. Unfortunately,
>>that one note was rather shrill.
Do you know of an era in which the world didn't undergo change? Unless you
live in a tribal society entirely cut off from outside influence, the world
you got used to at age 12 is not the same by the time you grow up.
>>Archie stopped making outright stereotypical and prejudice insults after
>>the first season. The overt hostile attitude remained for several seasons,
>>even though the dialogue had been cleaned up greatly. Even first season was
>>never as overt as the UK show on which it was based.
>I felt Archie's prejudice continued for a long time through the show,
>perhaps even in Archie Bunker's Place. I'd say it stayed at the same
>level for the first several seasons. Later on in the series he overall
>demeanor softened somehow, his "Aw Geez" were watered down. He make the
>very same comments as earlier, but with less intensity.
in to some P.C. types, or CBS S&P cracked down.
>In any event, I didn't see Archie as overtly hostile, unless something
>threatened his domain. Of course, the show was about the changing
>world, which often brought such changes into his living room.
associating change with the presence of outsiders, so your statement
isn't meaningful. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference if one feels
an unreasoning hatred against people one would never come in contact with.
>>One thing I never understood: was George recast? I have this vague
>>recollection of a man Louise introduced as her husband, and then a few
>>weeks later, Sherman Helmsley was introduced as her husband, and they
>>said something about how she was pretending her brother-in-law was
>>her husband.
>If memory serves, originally, "Jefferson" was definitely another
>character, but introduced or later explained as George's brother. The
>actual George Jefferson (Sherman H.) came on a little later.
any event, it didn't make sense that the couple wasn't introduced together.
>I recall a recently aired episode where George was running for local
>council to effect a zoning change for his store. Archie was perfectly
>happy with that reason. Lionel and Mike were aghast. I think it turned
>out that the store wasn't even in the district, so George's effort was a
>waste of time.
>George was portrayed as an Archie, too. He was prejudiced and also,
>like Archie, a conniver. Unlike Archie, George was much better at the
>wheel and deal, able to build up a successful business; Archie focused
>on getting a few free quarters from a screwed up busienss promotion.
yes? Defintely wasn't playing a black stock character. If anything,
Sherman Helmsley's comic walk, trying to make a short man seem taller,
always reminded me of Groucho Marx.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 16, 2013, 3:53:32 PM12/16/13
to
On Monday, December 16, 2013 2:41:02 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Do you know of an era in which the world didn't undergo change? Unless you
> live in a tribal society entirely cut off from outside influence, the world
> you got used to at age 12 is not the same by the time you grow up.
The world of that time frame was changing more radically and in far-reaching ways than the world had changed before and after. Basic societal institutions were shaken to the core. Everyday life and relationships were being shaken.
> Do you know of an era in which the world didn't undergo change? Unless you
> live in a tribal society entirely cut off from outside influence, the world
> you got used to at age 12 is not the same by the time you grow up.
Today, we're used to the new world that came out of all that. But back then, especially for older people, it meant throwing out social norms they were taught and knew all their lives. The older folks, the "greatest generation" in many cases vehemently objected to the changes as being morally wrong and harmful to society. The young folks felt just as strongly that it was time to make those changes.
The issues of Vietnam, Watergate, racial integration, women's rights, the economy, politics all were hot button issues frequently discussed, often passionately argued about everywhere. Heck, when the NYT _today_ does a story on Vietnam, it get tons of reader responses, more so than for other articles. (When McNamara died there was a torrent of hate mail.)
Many older folks were strongly shaped by their WW II experience. They felt very strongly that (1) we were in Vietnam for a good reason and (2) intentional draft dodging was treason and war protest in general was a distateful activity, and (3) when the govt says "you go", you go! They felt protests that shut down colleges was disgraceful (coming from a perspective where to them, college participation was a gift not be squandered). When Archie went nuts (one of his most angry tirades) upon Mike bringing home a draft dodger, an awful lot of people in that time frame felt exactly the same way.
As the 1970s wore on, as did the Vietnam War without resolution--and with Watergate--many of those older people changed their viewpoint. They began to realize that the government did indeed lie to them and couldn't be trusted. But it was a painful and slow change.
Indeed, the resignation of Nixon under disgrace was a momentus event, something that never occured before or since. That's the kind of world Archie & family lived in.
> You know George Jefferson was a Jewish stereotype played by a black man,
> yes? Defintely wasn't playing a black stock character. If anything,
> Sherman Helmsley's comic walk, trying to make a short man seem taller,
> always reminded me of Groucho Marx.
Indeed, for the most part, I only remember the show taking place in the apartment building, either in George's apartment, their neighbors, or maybe a party.
Adam H. Kerman
Dec 16, 2013, 4:31:24 PM12/16/13
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Monday, December 16, 2013 2:41:02 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Do you know of an era in which the world didn't undergo change? Unless you
>>live in a tribal society entirely cut off from outside influence, the world
>>you got used to at age 12 is not the same by the time you grow up.
>The world of that time frame was changing more radically and in
>far-reaching ways than the world had changed before and after.
You're smoking something. Nothing compares to the massive disruption and the
>On Monday, December 16, 2013 2:41:02 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Do you know of an era in which the world didn't undergo change? Unless you
>>live in a tribal society entirely cut off from outside influence, the world
>>you got used to at age 12 is not the same by the time you grow up.
>The world of that time frame was changing more radically and in
>far-reaching ways than the world had changed before and after.
loss of a significant part of an entire generation of men during WWII.
Nothing.
>Basic societal institutions were shaken to the core. Everyday life and
>relationships were being shaken.
world-wide economic disruption or war, one set of people dies off and
another is born and times change, so there's conflict the writers write
about and it shows up on tv.
At least Archie had an industrial job to go to. He wouldn't have that
job today.
>Today, we're used to the new world that came out of all that. But back
>then, especially for older people, it meant throwing out social norms
>they were taught and knew all their lives. The older folks, the
>"greatest generation" in many cases vehemently objected to the changes
>as being morally wrong and harmful to society. The young folks felt
>just as strongly that it was time to make those changes.
of the past?
>>You know George Jefferson was a Jewish stereotype played by a black man,
>>yes? Defintely wasn't playing a black stock character. If anything,
>>Sherman Helmsley's comic walk, trying to make a short man seem taller,
>>always reminded me of Groucho Marx.
>In thinking about it, I don't see George as being a Jewish stereotype.
>Indeed, his _day-to-day_ business was only a peripheral part of the
>show--I don't think we ever got to see him in one of his stores or met
>any of his employees or customers. That would be necessary to fulfill
>the stereotype. Instead, we saw only George attempting to network with
>bigshots. One time George was arrested as a rioter while trying to
>proect his store, but that's as far as it went.
>Indeed, for the most part, I only remember the show taking place in the
>apartment building, either in George's apartment, their neighbors, or
>maybe a party.
isn't really a black stereotype with regard to Hollywood. Nah,
Kingfish (Amos 'n' Andy) was more typical, the schemer trying to rip
you off. One assumes George worked pretty hard during early days and wasn't
spending all his time at home fighting with his loudmouth maid when he'd
opened his first store and could barely meet payroll.
tmc...@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2013, 5:10:49 PM12/16/13
to
On Monday, December 16, 2013 8:31:28 AM UTC-8, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:22:38 AM UTC-5, tmc...@gmail.com wrote: > They really are trying to force the audience to like Ryan no matter what. No, they are not. They are trying to create a comic foil. Ryan is not a particularly likeable character and never was.
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3208897-last-man-standing/page-17#entry16184677
> On Sunday, December 15, 2013 4:22:38 AM UTC-5, tmc...@gmail.com wrote: > They really are trying to force the audience to like Ryan no matter what. No, they are not. They are trying to create a comic foil. Ryan is not a particularly likeable character and never was.
It would be so bad if they didn't make Ryan so dumb, especially when he was trying to make a point. I mean when he was going on about how he didn't want a christmas tree because cutting down christmas trees is bad for the environment, I really wish someone had reminded them that Christmas trees are essentially farmed, and if you buy one they plant more, so in that respect it is no different than wheat that gets cut down when you buy bread.
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3208897-last-man-standing/page-17#entry16185560
That's the biggest problem with Ryan. They have tried to make him this completely sympathetic and stupid person version instead of when Nick Jonas first played the character. Not to mention why he really ran out on Kristen and Boyd in the first place. He comes across as a complete moron, not to mention his change of history makes no sense. So, he lived in Canada until he was 15, then his dad (who apparently could care less about holidays) moved the family down south to Montana for 4 years. Then Ryan gets Kristen pregnant, instead of stepping up or at least trying to be supportive. He instead runs out on them, goes backpacking in South America to "find himself" while his parents go back to Canada for no reason but to go back to Canada. He comes back from South America, works for a trucking company and a theatre company. Decides now to be a father, then decides that means throwing on half sense "hippy crap" on his son because he grows a beard. Kristen magically falls back over him, Vanessa goes: "Well, he's Boyd's father, so he can do whatever he wants in our house." Mandy and Eve basically don't care, then Eve gets all jealous of Boyd because she's not number 1 anymore. Then Ryan keeps walking in and out of the house acting like he owns the place. Mike constantly says how much he hates Ryan but still enables his actions.
Kristen is all: "Oh Boyd, listen to your father because he's your father, I forgive him for being such a moron." Yet we are supposed to always be on his side because Ryan's father was a jerk, his mother didn't care and he was from Canada? Sure. We never even seen his parents not to mention from the way it's been written and depicted, Mike and Vanessa never met Ryan's parents. Ryan gets his girlfriend pregnant and there was never a meeting or talk with Ryan's parents? Yet they hate it when they never see their only grandson? Umm... huh?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Dec 17, 2013, 10:23:11 AM12/17/13
to
On Monday, December 16, 2013 5:10:49 PM UTC-5, tmc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I really wish someone had reminded them that Christmas trees are essentially farmed
As an aside, Taylor Swift started out that way (tree farmer)
> I really wish someone had reminded them that Christmas trees are essentially farmed
> That's the biggest problem with Ryan. They have tried to make him this completely sympathetic and stupid person version
(I think the original intent of the show was not to have Ryan in it, but the remake changed things.
tmc...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2013, 7:11:41 PM12/18/13
to
> This question of making giant political issues into smaller, more
>
>
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3208897-last-man-standing/page-14#entry15580978
Quote
However, it seems more and more they wanted to age Boyd and didn't see Krosney as being able to have a kid that old.
In the episode before this one they had Kristen say she was 23. I would have believed Krosney as 23--it's actually a lot easier than believing this actress is only 23. (Heck, I just looked up Alexandra Krosney and she is 23.) I know in Roseanne the original Becky left for school so there was no contentious issue with her coming back but I really wish this show could change the show runner again and have the new person go to Krosney apologizing profusely for the last guy's idiocy (i.e: the second season) and get her back.
Have this season be a weird burrito nightmare that Vanessa had. She could wake up at the beginning of season 3, turn to Mike and say "I had the most awful dream where you became a right-wing bigot who wished he had boys instead of girls, our eldest no longer wanted to go back to school and her awful ex came back and they were back together--but he no longer even had the talent to sing on cruise ships, our youngest became a shrill, unhappy girl who couldn't make up her mind what she wanted week to week. At least Mandy was still pretty much Mandy. I didn't even remember that I'm a highly respected geologist. And the strangest thing was that your office at Outdoor Man switched with Ed's and no one has any idea why. I'm never eating burritos in bed after 10 pm again." One fell swoop and that would fix everything.
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3208897-last-man-standing/page-14#entry15581116
That would be beautiful, add in the fact that Mike then says: "Wait, Ryan couldn't sing on cruise ships?" "That's the only thing I ever liked about him because it kept him away for months." Vanessa: "He also became a huge hippy who wanted Boyd to be a vegan and was trying to always tell bad jokes. Also, is Boyd 5?" Mike: "No, he's 4. Was Kyle dead?" Vanessa: "No, he was dating Mandy." Mike: (Pause) "He is dating Mandy." Vanessa: "Damn."
Barry Margolin
Dec 18, 2013, 7:55:04 PM12/18/13
to
In article <c52e3323-c907-4f06...@googlegroups.com>,
Mostly, although would the old Mandy have dated a dweeb like Kyle?
Mostly, although would the old Mandy have dated a dweeb like Kyle?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages