The cast consists of a mix of fresh faces and veteran performers, many of whom paid their dues on stage in memorable roles.
Do you think that describes "Glee?" I don't think anyone could've picked most of that cast out of a lineup prior to air. Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison if you knew recent Broadway -- but they weren't exactly Audra McDonald. Jayma Mays maybe, and Jane Lynch was vaguely recognizable -- but the vast majority of the cast was brand new.
I think "Glee" cast less like DA and more like Grey's Anatomy -- where only Patrick Dempsey had the least bit of name recognition. To me, that's what contributed to both shows' success (LOST would be another example).
DA cast more like "The West Wing" or (from my understanding) "Mad Men" -- where you had more of a journeyman ensemble, with a few "fresh faces" thrown in there, IMO. When you have that, you put the show on the shoulders of the actors (and in each case, to great success). But something like Glee or Grey's or LOST, you put the show on the shoulders of the concept (
( ... )
Glee's primary problem, creatively speaking, is Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk's proclivity to spread themselves too thin (I wonder what Ian Brennan really thinks about this
When "Glee" first became a hit, I remember "Nip/Tuck" fans posting "Ryan Murphy has ideas for 1-2 great years and then he gets bored." I think "Glee's" primary problem -- which perhaps relates to your claim -- is it was too insular in the early years (one might claim the same thing about DA and JF). It was ONLY RIB writing the show.
It's interesting that JF thinks he can bring in new writers for S5 (if it happens, which it will) -- I think he's going to face the same problems as Glee: when the voice for your show is limited, it becomes more difficult for people to get it right. The West Wing learned the same thing once Sorkin left (though it recovered, as I think DA will, on the strength of its acting).
And in both cases, the solution de riguer appears to be introducing even more characters -- which the audience has little investment or interest in -- and
( ... )
I think he's going to face the same problems as Glee: when the voice for your show is limited, it becomes more difficult for people to get it right. The West Wing learned the same thing once Sorkin left (though it recovered, as I think DA will, on the strength of its acting).
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "recover." Even with JF around, no way, no how does S4 or beyond surpass S1 and S2. S4 may very well be better than S3 (but IMO that's a low bar to clear). Then again, it may not. And if/when JF leaves, then it's just Coronation Street or EastEnders in period costume. And I doubt the actors (the really good ones anyway) will stick.
I actually think DA's "bringing in a bunch of new characters" happened in S3, not S4.Oh, I agree. Since Glee is a season ahead of DA, I wasn't specifically comparing Glee S4 with DA S4 -- just that the 3-year mark seems to be when they ran into a bit of a crisis (or at least anticipating the one to come) and each brought in new characters as part of the remedy. I guess I didn't make that
( ... )
I don't think anyone could've picked most of that cast out of a lineup prior to air. Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison if you knew recent Broadway -- but they weren't exactly Audra McDonald. Jayma Mays maybe, and Jane Lynch was vaguely recognizable -- but the vast majority of the cast was brand new.But for that matter, as far as American viewers go (which weren't the target audience at the outset I know, but they're very much in the mix now so I think the point is valid), I don't think most people could have picked DA's cast out of a lineup either, with the exception of MS, EM and (maybe) HB and/or BC
( ... )
Wonderful posttripp3235March 12 2013, 03:02:45 UTC
Nice post. I loved Glee when it first aired. I still watch but not for any character love. I watch mainly because I think the cast is still talented in the singing department and hearing renditions to songs, old and new, makes me happy.
The storylines do not. And they get worse and worse. (As do the couples). And a lot of times I just FF through the talking scenes. It's a shame because the first two seasons were awesome.
Re: Wonderful postshanghaiedinlaMarch 14 2013, 06:33:59 UTC
Thanks for stopping by ...
I still watch but not for any character love.
When you were invested, who was your favorite character/ship?
It's a shame because the first two seasons were awesome.
Sigh. Actually, I'd say the first season was awesome, the second season was good with flashes of brilliance ("Silly Love Songs" was a great ep, as was "Never Been Kissed" and "Funeral"). Third season was terrible until the very end and, well, you know what I think about the fourth!
And they get worse and worse. (As do the couples)
LOL, what is this thing with Quinntanna?? I used to make fun of GA because it was so incestuous, but LBR, Glee is just as bad!
But the reality is RIB and Fox don't care WHY we still watch as long as we do. ... I just hope DA doesn't succumb to the same laxity.
When you were invested, who was your favorite character/ship? I wanted to see how Puck/Rachel would do. But that lasted 2 minutes when it did happen and we were right back with Finn/Rachel. I got really turned off because there was no character development.
I doubt DA will get as bad as Glee but with Matthew gone I'm not sure I am going to be able to watch.
Comments 8
Do you think that describes "Glee?" I don't think anyone could've picked most of that cast out of a lineup prior to air. Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison if you knew recent Broadway -- but they weren't exactly Audra McDonald. Jayma Mays maybe, and Jane Lynch was vaguely recognizable -- but the vast majority of the cast was brand new.
I think "Glee" cast less like DA and more like Grey's Anatomy -- where only Patrick Dempsey had the least bit of name recognition. To me, that's what contributed to both shows' success (LOST would be another example).
DA cast more like "The West Wing" or (from my understanding) "Mad Men" -- where you had more of a journeyman ensemble, with a few "fresh faces" thrown in there, IMO. When you have that, you put the show on the shoulders of the actors (and in each case, to great success). But something like Glee or Grey's or LOST, you put the show on the shoulders of the concept ( ( ... )
Reply
When "Glee" first became a hit, I remember "Nip/Tuck" fans posting "Ryan Murphy has ideas for 1-2 great years and then he gets bored." I think "Glee's" primary problem -- which perhaps relates to your claim -- is it was too insular in the early years (one might claim the same thing about DA and JF). It was ONLY RIB writing the show.
It's interesting that JF thinks he can bring in new writers for S5 (if it happens, which it will) -- I think he's going to face the same problems as Glee: when the voice for your show is limited, it becomes more difficult for people to get it right. The West Wing learned the same thing once Sorkin left (though it recovered, as I think DA will, on the strength of its acting).
And in both cases, the solution de riguer appears to be introducing even more characters -- which the audience has little investment or interest in -- and ( ... )
Reply
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "recover." Even with JF around, no way, no how does S4 or beyond surpass S1 and S2. S4 may very well be better than S3 (but IMO that's a low bar to clear). Then again, it may not. And if/when JF leaves, then it's just Coronation Street or EastEnders in period costume. And I doubt the actors (the really good ones anyway) will stick.
I actually think DA's "bringing in a bunch of new characters" happened in S3, not S4.Oh, I agree. Since Glee is a season ahead of DA, I wasn't specifically comparing Glee S4 with DA S4 -- just that the 3-year mark seems to be when they ran into a bit of a crisis (or at least anticipating the one to come) and each brought in new characters as part of the remedy. I guess I didn't make that ( ... )
Reply
Reply
The storylines do not. And they get worse and worse. (As do the couples). And a lot of times I just FF through the talking scenes. It's a shame because the first two seasons were awesome.
Reply
I still watch but not for any character love.
When you were invested, who was your favorite character/ship?
It's a shame because the first two seasons were awesome.
Sigh. Actually, I'd say the first season was awesome, the second season was good with flashes of brilliance ("Silly Love Songs" was a great ep, as was "Never Been Kissed" and "Funeral"). Third season was terrible until the very end and, well, you know what I think about the fourth!
And they get worse and worse. (As do the couples)
LOL, what is this thing with Quinntanna?? I used to make fun of GA because it was so incestuous, but LBR, Glee is just as bad!
But the reality is RIB and Fox don't care WHY we still watch as long as we do. ... I just hope DA doesn't succumb to the same laxity.
Reply
I wanted to see how Puck/Rachel would do. But that lasted 2 minutes when it did happen and we were right back with Finn/Rachel. I got really turned off because there was no character development.
I doubt DA will get as bad as Glee but with Matthew gone I'm not sure I am going to be able to watch.
Reply
Leave a comment