From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Married With Children... New life?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:53:37 GMT

areid@mary.fordham.edu (Darin Reid) writes:

 >>>It's a thought, and some of it could be funny (for a while at least),
 >>>but the problem is that Al's never having any money is pretty much the
 >>>cornerstone of the show and his whole character.

 >See!  That is what I am talking about!  Married... has been on for six years,
And now in it's seventh season...

 >in ALL of that time hea has been broke.  Why not make him rich and see what 
 >happens?  The'd still be th Bundys right!  

I said it would probably be funny, and I think the idea as merit, but it 
still prompts the comment I made about how the foundation of the "Al" 
character has been that he is the "hard-working man who can't get ahead".
That is the #1 thing that has made him so popular with most people.

 >They could be just as crass, mean snotty, and even _worse_ if they 
 >had money!  

Actually, we HAVE seen a sampling of this in the second season episode
"MASTER THE POSSIBILITIES", where Buck is sent a credit card. Funny stuff.

 >Whyis everyone so afraid of change?  
All i'm "afraid" of is BAD change.  I have now seen four episodes 
with this "change", and I have yet to see anything good about it.
Any *change* for MWC should make it FUNNIER.  This one has not.

 >So what if his being broke is the crux of the show, 

It's more the "crux" of Al Bundy.  Peg always seems to have money to spend.

 >make being rich the crux of the show.  
Any particular reason?

 >Imagine the Bundys with money! imagine the things they'd do and be!  
 >That is a potentially (sp?) hilarious show right there.

I expect it could easily be very funny.

 >You don't even have to make it permanent, do it for like 3 or 4 shows.

That would probably make the most sense, otherwise you would have a
*completely* different show.  Generally when producers want to make 
a totally different show, they DO make a completely different show
and not just turn a current HIT totally upside down.  

 >Then his loss of the money in some typical Al Bundy way can become a
 >running joke for the rest of the show's run.  If the audience likes it
 >you've bolstered the show if not it was there and gone.

"bolstering" does not seem that likely...  For me at least, MWC is just
about the funniest thing around.  What reason is there for real RADICAL
change when you have something that works?  Doing NEW things and having
new ideas is almost always good, but completely revamping a show is
something you do when you DON'T have a hit.

 >I wish everyone would use their imagination!  Staying the same and 
 >safe should, IMHO, not be what TV series are about.

Actually, that (sadly) IS what the majority of shows are about.
The thing I have always liked about MWC is that it's NOT "safe".
They have done more new and original things than almost any other
show I can think of...

Once again, THAT is one of the reasons I am so disturbed by this
latest situation.  Bringing in the new "cute kid" character is about 
the LEAST original thing imaginable.  It has been done to death.

-{ Dean Adams }-