When Comedy Becomes Tragedy

I watch a lot of TV. Well...actually no I don't. At least not when compared to a majority of people, but I do watch my fair share, which is more than I'd like. Naturally, I tend to turn to comedy when it's on. Not sitcoms, because they're all pathetic, tired, and I don't need a laugh track telling me something's funny when it clearly isn't. To me causing laughter is the greatest achievement...this means that an ill-fated, miserably-failing attempt to draw my laughter the greatest offense.

That mindset breeds a great deal of dislike for many mainstream comedians and shows, like say the Sarah Silverman Show for instance. One would think that taking a popular comedian and giving them a half-hour every week would have great effects, no? But it is often not the case. Then again, they often give shows to unfunny comedians simply because they have large fanbases because they put on accents and pander to specific demographics (see Lopez, George or Mencia, Carlos). I think the problem is...stand up comedy doesn't always translate into a good television show.

You can combat that by saying, "Steve...Seinfeld was the best show of all time, and he was a stand-up comedian."

And I can easily counter, "Yes, but he also had Larry David who has proved with Curb Your Enthusiasm he is a phenomenal writer."

The problem is that networks focus too much on the name. They look for a popular comedian to draw in audiences, but neglect the writing. The best comedy shows on Television--South Park, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the Office--all have one thing in common...great writing. With the exception of the Office, none had a huge name involved, and even with the Office...other than Steve Carell the cast was a bunch of unknowns. A majority of people didn't know who Larry David was. Danny Devito didn't join Sunny until it's second season, and the writing was already there.

I understand the need for a name from a marketing standpoint...but you also need the writing from a quality standpoint...that's how you make an enjoyable show and build up a cult following who will watch religiously every week and buy every DVD and holiday special. But networks will never learn, other than FX...they know what they're doing.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Coo Coo for CoCo? What's next? How about some wild speculation...

$40 million dollars, reportedly, and the undying support of an entire nation. This is what Conan O'Brien received as his severance from NBC's decision to abandon comedy for the sake of God knows what Jay Leno provides--certainly not anything entertaining. But what is next? We know the future of The Tonight Show...it is once again unwatchable and now I can give David Letterman the love and attention he deserves at 11:35pm until Conan settles elsewhere.

Rumors have the Tonight Show Pariah heading to FOX for a substantial deal. It makes sense for FOX to have a late night show of their own to compete with the other major networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC), but after a lifetime of Simpons and Seinfeld syndicated re-runs, a nighttime talk show seems a little out of place.

But where else can Conan go?

Does a late-night show really need to be on one of the big networks to succeed? In the 90's, the Emmy's were dominated by major networks with a few scattered wins from an HBO show here and there. In the new millennium, and continuing on further, cable networks have been showing an increased presence on the awards circuit, and FX, USA, Comedy Central, Showtime, and AMC have all been getting in on the action. Some of the best comedies and dramas are on cable networks, as well as the late-night show that has held the Emmy for that category since 2003, The Daily Show.

But despite The Daily Show's success, it still at best averages under Conan's mark of 2.2 million, and less than half as many viewers as The Late Show(1.5million versus 3.5+ million). Its spin-off, The Colbert Report, averages a similar number. With Conan's deserved cult following, could he average this many viewers on a cable network? I would think so. Could he rival the ratings of Letterman or Leno? Probably not, unfortunately.

For the sake of argument, though, let's defy the conventional wisdom of going where the highest ratings await and try to conceive the best possible product. The popularity and viewership of cable networks is on the rise, so eventually the ratings will be there. It just needs someone to take the leap(no George Lopez does not count because he is neither funny nor on a channel with entertaining original content). So imagine Conan and his unique brand of comedy on FX, following the funniest show on television, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, almost entirely unrestricted. Or better yet, picture a late-night line-up of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Conan O'Brien--two hours of heralded comedy icons every evening.

Now which would you rather do: follow the ten o'clock news and a re-run on FOX, join a growing network in FX and further the evolution of cable TV, or combine forces with two brilliantly successful satirists to form a late-night powerhouse on the aptly named Comedy Central. Options two and three sound exponentially more appealing than the former.

If I were a cable executive at Comedy Central, FX, or a handful of other stations trying to make a splash, I'm calling Conan with the biggest offer my budget can handle, and then some. Because along with the good publicity and popular support, you'll get one hell of a funny man and a franchise to anchor your network for years to come, as cable continues to push the boundaries, and network TV remains stuck making the same formulaic sitcoms and talk shows.

No matter what happens, wherever Conan goes(even if he does delve into pornography), I'm sure he'll succeed and make me laugh in the process.

Where do you think Conan should go?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Support Conan - I'm With COCO