So there's This:
And then there's This:
At first glance, This and This look like the same show only on different networks and one of them is more...blonde? Basically, my no TV status relegates me to Hulu and Netflix programming only (also to blame: the fact that no one will share their HBO Go password with me - you heartless bastards!), which means that other TV programming is dead to me. And these two shows looked cute, so...
After watching them, however, I quickly realized there is a HUGE difference between these two shows, like a deep cavernous chasm of a difference. They're actually a perfect pair because, held side by side, they present two ends of the sitcom romcom spectrum which begins with mundane and stereotypical on the far left and ends with clever and meaningful on the right. It's a horizontal line. Get it?
I need to learn how to draw this stuff. Is Paintshow still a thing?
Love This. This is an example of a well thought out, carefully crafted story with enjoyable characters who are interesting in and of themselves and not just when they're together. You doubt me? I have examples! The name and the concept are actually connected. I know this sounds like a small thing, but think of how frustrating it is when a show has a generic name that only loosely fits in with what's going on (Forever, because he doesn't die, get it!?). A to Z, because their names are Andrew and Zelda, because it's a journey through their relationship from beginning to end (or so we're led to believe). There's a clear structure to the show. I like structure. I like to feel like a show knows exactly where it's going and not just fumbling through episodes fishing for laughs.
Then there's the characters themselves. Andrew is a romantic who works at an internet dating company pushing hookups to maximize profits. What, what's that I hear? BOOM! That's the sound dramatic irony makes when it, when it's dropped, like, in a show...it's clever, okay. It means something. And then they match him with Zelda, a lawyer, someone practical and independent who's experience with love is that you should be careful and hedge your bets. Opposites attract and create maximum conflict and conflict is entertaining as shit.
The narration is well done, too, and not just for the fact that it's
Katy Sagal (who is THE woman), but it's clever in that she never reveals something without creating another question. A bad narration answers questions that the writer is too unskilled or just plain too lazy to show through action; here we have narration that actually further complicates the story, setting up little mysteries for the characters to reveal later on. It's brilliant. It's purposeful.
And there's chemistry! My god, it actually feels like they should be a couple; there's actual good reason to want them to be together because they complement each other, they're good for each other, they...dare I say it...complete one another (sorry). I mean, look at them! Geez! I will go on record here and now stating that the whole "their relationship will last this-many-days..." is not a buildup to a breakup. It can't be. I won't have it. This show has created a need in me to see these two together forever and that is the very point of a romcom.
On the other hand...
Hate This. Hey, did you know that men like boobs and women like purses!?!? I mean, holy shit; I just had no idea that was a thing thank you so much for illuminating me and hahahaha what a funny way to bring this to the attention of the public at large (sarcasm). Have you ever seen that poster of a sinking Titanic with the subscript "It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to other?" This is like that. It may be that this show exists purely as a warning to us aspiring writers of what not to do. Do not take the easy road. Do not phone it in. Do not think that you can place two flawed humans in the same restaurant and sparks will fly and a romance will be born.
For a show that relies solely on characters and doesn't seek to take on more cosmic questions of love and fate, it doesn't appear that much thought went into these two. In A to Z, Andrew is a hopeless romantic who works for a hookup dating service; here, Peter is a confirmed bachelor and boob man who works at...a trophy shop? We could stretch it and say he's an underachiever making trophies for other underachievers, but that's all I can do for them. Dana is new to the city, timid, insecure and works as a...copy editor? Not sure. Because IT DOESN'T MATTER. Nothing matters in this show.
The hook of this show is supposed to be the ongoing inner monologues of the two key characters; the idea that we can hear what they're thinking during the entirety of their relationship is setup to be funny and illuminating. Hey, hey hey - did you know men like boobs and women like pur - oh I already told you that? Yeah, that last sentence is how this entire show feels. Here's an example:
Dana and Peter have met at a restaurant for their first date. Dana is laughing at Peter's jokes which spurs...
Peter's inner monologue: "Totally going back to my place. When's the last time I washed the sheets?"
Dana's inner monologue: "He thinks we're going back to his place; I hate that he's right."
This, in case you missed it, is supposed to be a joke. This was written for laughs. I'm not laughing, and the reason is largely due to the fact that Peter is set up as a guy who walks down the street assessing his desire to have sex with various women based on their boob size and Dana is set up as a woman who is, within minutes of meeting him, already so taken with boob guy that she considers intercourse between them to be all but a certainty. Despite the fact that this show is about two decades late to this particular brand of jokes, what I'm really offended by is the blatant mediocrity with which the show is executed. It's pure, unadulterated laziness.
There appears to be no attempt at dramatic irony here, no effort to create two people who are fit for each other. It's just throwing two characters into the same environment and because they're the stars we're supposed to want these two passive characters who are of no clear benefit to one another to end up together? Even the name, Manhattan Love Story; why, because they're in New York? She's not even a New Yorker. This story could take place in any city, but the name of the city randomly chosen makes it into the title?
Ugh.
Here's my version: Manhattan Love Story - The inner monologues of two New Yorkers, one a high-powered editor of a leading tech magazine, the other an underachiever who makes participation trophies for peewee sports teams, illuminate the struggle of dating in the city that never sleeps.
That's off the top of my head; it's shit, but it's better shit, in my humble opinion, than what they ended up putting out there (ABC, feel free to contact me for help; my fees are modest and I meet deadlines like a boss. I can come up with shit like this in my sleep. I got shit for days).
Ahem.
Bottom line, neither of these shows is a shining example of groundbreaking television. They aren't the next Breaking Bad. There is no new romcom under the sun, therefore you have to invest time and effort into crafting sympathetic characters who are in and of themselves unique enough to want to watch and, when put together, make a completed pair. Or a complete disaster. But never, NEVER a boring regurgitation of something that's been done a million time before. Work harder. Be better. Eat dinner.
What? I'm hungry.
