Monday, February 15, 2010

There is a new blog logo. Discuss.

The blog logo usually features four individual people from four shows, but this time I went with four pairs. What's the common thread between them? And why does it tie in to some recent blog business?

As a reminder, this post contains links to, and explanations for, all the previous logos.

53 comments:

Christian said...

Perfect couples?

Ramar said...

Office romances?

Steve said...

Famous "will they or won't they?" TV couples?

mike said...

the one on the right has always romanticized for the one on the left.

katka said...

The writers actually allowed this couples to be together, and it did not ruin the show.

Anonymous said...

On again, off again relationships?

Anonymous said...

TV romances handled better than Chuck? (just kidding)

Ben said...

Ramar got it, office romances...right?

What, no Moonlighting? :-)

BF said...

Can we make requests?

Someway, somehow, Gretzky Face needs to make a logo at some point.

Alan Sepinwall said...

What, no Moonlighting? :-)

There is a specific reason Moonlighting is not in the logo and these shows are. You guys have only unlocked half of the theme.

Otto Man said...

"I don't know where Carl ends and I begin!"

"See, it's statements like that that make people think we're gay."

Dylan said...

Yeah... I think it's Office Romances.

Also, for what it's worth, the jury is still out at this point if letting Jim and Pam get together DIDN'T ultimately hurt The Office.

Anonymous said...

^WRONG^

If you think the Office is slipping, it most certainly isn't because of Jim and Pam's relationship. The problems with the show is not them at all.

Mario said...

Alan, is the other half related to all the relationships being supervisor/employee?

I can't remember if Lenny or Carl are each other's boss.

Sam Hobart said...

"Also, for what it's worth, the jury is still out at this point if letting Jim and Pam get together DIDN'T ultimately hurt The Office."

Not really. The jury may be out on how much longer the show can last, but those two have been together for two and a half seasons now and I don't think any dip in quality can really be attributed to putting them together. More likely the show has simply run its course and begun to repeat itself, like most shows after 5 years. I think it's an incredibly tough case to make that the show would be BETTER if they were kept apart.

digamma said...

Lenny and Carl are not a thing. Certainly not in the way the others are.

Dave T said...

And why does it tie in to some recent blog business?

That's got to be about 'shipping on the part of (some) viewers.

Stellar Drift said...

Hm, that's not really a logo is it - its a photo collage :)

Lisa said...

Couples we root for, and then once they're couples, we blame them for shark-jumping the show?

Lisa said...

...oh, and it ties into recent blog business re Chuckpocalypse, given all the hand-wringing about their non-coupling coupling?

Anonymous said...

I was going to say, TV couples we (the audience) had to wait for to get together, and then were rewarded when they got together (the audience was rewarded, not necessarily the couple, e.g. Sam and Diane). But didn't Dave and Lisa hook up almost immediately on NewsRadio?

Diane said...

Could it be "office" couples who had other love interests at some point in their relationships? (Diane had Frasier, Jim had Karen...I'm not sure about the other two, though.)

Anonymous said...

Did Lenny and Carl get married?

Alan Sepinwall said...

Again, ask yourselves this: why did I exclude the couple from Moonlighting?

Anonymous said...

On again, off again TV romances that worked?

Ritsin said...

Couples who were never shown kissing.

Art Fleming said...

Couples whose relationship status wasnt that big of a deal for the show as everybody thought?

MC said...

The shows remained successful after the pairing.

jnb987 said...

Office romances where the man has hair.

Mario said...

Again, ask yourselves this: why did I exclude the couple from Moonlighting?

I guess its not because they were equals? Though, Wikipedia says Carl has been at times portrayed as Homer's boss (and therefore Lenny's by proxy).

Is it that they are all relationships that were kept secret from other characters on the show? (Can't recall that applying to Sam and Diane but it may have.)

Dave T said...

But didn't Dave and Lisa hook up almost immediately on NewsRadio?

They did. The show wanted to avoid the usual "will they or won't they?" and just had them get together from the start.

Unless it was in a recent episode (I've missed a few), Lenny and Carl are not a romantic pairing, so that's out as a common theme.

(And there's still the "Moonlighting" thing to address.)

Grunt said...

Bruce Willis still had hair in the Moonlighting days.

Couples whose relationship status were handled well in the end?

Dave and Lisa were Schtuping by episode 2 if I recall, and Diane and Sam got together fairly quickly, Lenny and Carl is just fanwanking and Jim & Pam never broke up after they finally got together.

Couples whose relationship status are incidental to the show?

Oh wait... is it:

Couples who are part of an ensemble where the ensemble is the focus of the show, not the couple?

It's not the Jim & Pam show, it's The Office (with Michael and Dwight and Ryan and Creed and Stanley and etc...)

It's not the Lenny & Carl show it's The Simpsons (with Marge & Homer, Lisa, Bart, Maggie, Mr. Burns etc...)

It's not the Lisa and Dave show, it's News Radio (with Matthew and Beth, Catherine, Joe, Bill and Mr. James, etc...)

It's not the Sam & Diane show, it's Cheers (with Cliff, Norm, Coach, Carla, Woody etc...)

Or, of course, it could just be eight people who have never been in my kitchen.

Anonymous said...

there are all will they or won't they couples on ensemble comedies.

Anonymous said...

I just came back into this thread to post that exact thought. Great TV Romances in Comedies.

Devin said...

Could it be couples that hid their relationship from their coworkers?

Grunt said...

There was never a will they or won't they component to Dave and Lisa. They did. It took one episode.

rachel said...

I'm voting for "office couples where one is the boss"

However- why no Dana/Casey action (as they were sort of together about as long as Dave/Lisa)

The Nag said...

Couples who fit into Alan's theory that Moonlighting did not go downhill because they put the two leads together but that they put them together because the show was already in decline.
The logo proves Alan's point and feeds into recent discussions about Chuck: Let them get together then go on with the show.

Nicole said...

How about shows that survived regardless of the romantic status of the shipper couple because there are other plots and characters?

Instead of Gretzky Face, I would nominate Nash Face.
That said, I was actually at the Opening Ceremonies and it was pretty awesome regardless of that glitch. It really makes a difference not having to listen to television commentators drone on about stupid facts during the parade of nations.
And I haven't even bothered checking out the NBC coverage of the ceremonies, because when you mix up Terry Fox and Michael J Fox, you really haven't done any research.

Alan Sepinwall said...

The Nag has probably come the closest, but since you're all circling around the same tiny runway, may as well spell it out at this point:

Shows featuring sexual tension between two characters that managed not to screw it up, whether by putting them together quickly (Dave and Lisa), doing an endless (and funny) series of break-ups and reconciliations (Sam and Diane), getting them together after just enough struggle that it felt momentous but not so much that people got annoyed (Jim and Pam) or just letting the tension percolate under the surface (Lenny and Carl).

Moonlighting screwed up by dragging things out way too long, in part because of production problems, in part because Willis and Shepherd hated each other.

Anonymous said...

what, no review of last night's Undercover Boss? Haha, just kidding. I missed the Waste Management ep and caught the Hooters one. You and Fienberg were dead on about this show.

Ginger said...

I guess everything relies on personal opinion, but I thought that Sam and Diane were broken up because as a couple they turned out be as interesting as... well, Maddie and David. So I'm not sure that I agree that their romance was successful - although I supposed I will concede that by finally breaking them up, the show managed to survive what could have been much worse.

Dylan said...

I actually think the loss of the Jim and Pam will they/won't they tension IS a big part of why the show is slipping. Whenever they went wacky on wacky on one side of the show, the Jim/Pam relationship (even if it was fun in a given episode) gave the writers a grounded reality. They haven't figured out how to replace that since then without being boring. As a result, some of the more madcap situations the characters get into tend to feel like they are spinning off the rails.

Sam Hobart said...

Not to threadjack into a discussion of "The Office" but I'll do it anyway.

I agree with your premise that Jim and Pam are the primary grounding influences that offset the madcap comedy. While that was an easy go to in the first two seasons, they really began to break that pattern with Jim in Stamford in season three and for those of us who liked the Michael Scott Paper Company, the Jim/Pam relationship was almost irrelevant.

Was the show consistently better prior to putting them together? Yes. But it was also fresher

By putting Jim and Pam together, the creators managed to maintain a high (if not as high) level of relatively grounded comedy whereas dragging it out any longer would have almost definitely turned into a series of quickly diminishing returns.

While the show may be less than it was, I for one do not find these two as a couple boring at all. Insufferable on occasion, but then Jim in particular had a tendency to lean that direction even when Pam was engaged to Roy.

spiderpig said...

Alan, I think the confusing part is that you included Lenny and Carl in the list of couples. Do you have some inside knowledge that they're gay?

Anonymous said...

I could not disagree more about Sam and Diane, Ginger. That is one of my all-time favorite TV couplings. They were a wonderful juxtaposition of differences that worked. The show also did a terrific job of having fun with the on-again, off-again nature of the romance, to the point where it got a little meta about it.

Then again, I'm one of the few people who seemed to really enjoy Diane Chambers and Shelley Long in general. I think she had a very tough job, playing that brand of obnoxious in a way that could still be sympathetic to an audience. I was always strangely rooting for their reunion, and felt very sad when they broke up for good in one of her rare return visits to the show.

Col Bat Guano said...

getting them together after just enough struggle that it felt momentous but not so much that people got annoyed (Jim and Pam)

Well, there were some of us who got annoyed during the late stretch of S3 with the decisions they took on The Office. The season finale might have redeemed it though.

floretbroccoli said...

Four couples who have never been in my kitchen, together.

Matthew L said...

Alan, I think the confusing part is that you included Lenny and Carl in the list of couples. Do you have some inside knowledge that they're gay?

Spiderpig - See Alan's comment at 12:53 PM, February 15, 2010 for an explanation.

Personally, as soon as I saw it, I realised what the broad theme was, and thought the inclusion of Lenny and Carl was a very funny joke.

Anonymous said...

Alan,

Does Newsradio really count as sexual tension? As I recall, they got together in the second episode.

This did get me thinking about Sportsnight, which had a terrible and great handling of it: Dana and Casey was awful (especially Dana's ludicrous "plan") but Jeremy and Natalie was perfectly handled, including their rocky points.

And HIMYM had one well handled and one poorly with the same character. I thought Ted and Robin were never really believable. But I though the build up of Robin and Barney was great (too bad they torpedoed it so quickly).

Finally, on the Chuck controversy. My problem with the show isn't that Chuck and Sarah haven't gotten together. It's that season 2 built so much momentum and then this season has really put the breaks on it with needless acrimony and more vague over-arching plots. (What the hell do fulcrum and the ring do exactly, other than "be spies").

Anyway, I enjoy the blog. Thanks.

grimey said...

lenny = white
carl = black

Linus said...

not so much that people got annoyed (Jim and Pam)

That simply isn't true. A lot of people -- including me -- were VERY annoyed by what they did with Jim & Pam in the third season of "The Office".

David Dovey said...

The mention of Sports Night reminded me of yet another source of sexual tension that I personally thought was handled very well, that being Josh Lyman and Donna Moss on The West Wing. I think the key to the success of that particular situation was that the tension between the two never really took up much of the real-estate on the show, and spent a lot of time just on the edge of the show's radar, kind of like Lenny and Carl, I guess. Also even though it was incredibly gratifying when they did finally hook up it never seemed like it was inevitable, and it was entirely likely that nothing would come of it, and that wouldn't be so bad either.