Posted 15 April 2006 - 03:14 PM
Some of those "Spin-offs" aren't really spin-offs at all, esp "Laverne and Shirley" and "Mork and Mindy." To spin off a show, you have to us eelements from the original show to create a new show. L&S and M&M merely showcased their characters on "Happy Days" to get viewer interest; they were never a part of the "Happy Days" storyline. So too "The Simpsons;" while it was showcased on The Tracey Ullman show, that was a variety program. Its elements were independent of one another. I would say the same for "Frasier" and "Joey," both of which simply transplanted a character to a different setting. In Frasier's case they resurrected his dad and gave him a brother he'd never had. I thought the show was ok, but it cheated a bit. I can't fathom how the MSN folks think Joey, the "dumb one" was Friends's "most interesting character." Maybe that show was worse than I thought (I hated it).
I like Jame Marsters or whatever his name is, but Spike killed "Buffy" as well as "Angel." Buffy had a great ending in Season 5, and then it just went stupid in Six and Seven. Seriously, everyone just says "But I liked the Musical!" What ELSE did you like about season six? Season Seven -ugh - I don't think anyone liked any of that (the evil preacher was fun, but meaningless and not really a part of the central plot). Keeping Spike around, and then moving him to the other show, just because the fans liked him, is a classic shark-jump, or at best a case of lazy, phone-it-in writing. Season 5 of Angel was a total waste of time (although I liked the final episode).
Most of that other stuff I agree with.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).