Talk:Fonzie syndrome

message: I think these two shows could be reinstated. I recall some press speculation that other cast members were peeved when Michael J Fox and Justin Bateman, respectively, seemed to become the stars of the show when they were originally meant as a family ensemble. I am not saying the casts really did think this, just that Fox and Bateman became such big stars that the press seized on it for speculation. I seem to recall the angle was that established actors playing the adults had been working for years, when these new hunks come along and overshadow them. Asa01 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I went ahead and reinstated as per above. You will also note that of all the actors on the list, these two are possibly the biggest stars. The standout stars of things like 227 are people that never really became stars. I think this adds to my argument. Asa01 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Ties and Valerie removals

message: I also think Charlie Angels entry should go, mainly because Farrah was one of the intended stars, and really all the original angels were popular, maybe Farah moreso, but they were all stars. It is not like Bosley became the biggest star or anything. Asa01 03:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on above

message: I think Craig Manning should be removed from this list. He was introduced in the two-part Season 2 premiere, which centered on his intro and his abuse from his father, and has since then been one of the major focal characters of the show. It's clear he was never intended as a one-off or merely supporting character but as one of the lynchpins of the show's ensemble cast. He doesn't fit the definition of Fonzie syndrome at all. If no one objects, I'll remove the reference to Craig later today. --Patrick T. Wynne 18:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a Wikipedia account like the rest of you guys... so, yeah. I was thinking about this and I believe there is a better example of Fonzie Sydrome in Degrassi then Craig: Ellie Nash. She started as a supporting character in the second season and now look! She took Emma's spot as the first character seen in the theme song and she has become a main character. By extention, Jay could also be considered this, too. -- 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, Ellie wouldn't count either as she has not become "the central and most popular character on the show". Nor has Jay. Are they both popular characters? Sure. But most stories still focus on Craig, Paige, Emma, Manny, Marco and Jimmy. Ellie occasionally has a large role in some of those stories, but Jay almost never does. And, at any rate, the modus operandi of the various Degrassi series has always been to take characters that had been background or supporting and elevate them to main cast over the course of a few seasons. --Patrick T. Wynne 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Degrassi: The Next Generation

message: I removed the notes on Mimi Bobeck and Tommy the White Ranger, because they weren't needed. It's already a given that the characters on this list were minor supporting players but evolved into major characters; that doesn't need to be explained again. Also, the idea that Tommy is THE perfect example of Fonzie Syndrome next to Fonzie itself seems a little off...since Fonzie Syndrome is also known as Urkel Syndrome, Urkel is clearly the next most perfect example of Fonzie Syndrome
The one about Pepe needs to be left in because it explains that he was only introduced on the show, not a major star...however, if this is the case, and it was actually a movie that made him a star, should Pepe and Muppets Tonight even be listed here at all?
--msclguru 12:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to remove Pepe after researching Muppets Tonight. The series went off the air before the Muppets in Space movie was released, and so Pepe really doesn't qualify as a "Fonzie Syndrome" example. He became an important person in the Muppets franchise, which extends to several media, but not the specific TV series (and he certainly never overshadowed Kermit the Frog).
--msclguru 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed notes

message: Just because he went into a spin-off it is not the same thing as Fonzie syndrome. Frasier never came dominate the show Cheers and overshadow its original stars. Yet that is the requirement for a listing here. Many old sitcom characters were continued in later spinoffs. Its not really that unusual. Asa01 19:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete Frasier/Cheers

message: I don't think Cartman qualifies as a fonzie syndrome character, as he was one of the four main characters from the beginning of the show.--Jsonitsac 05:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartman?

message: Newhart: Larry, Daryl and Daryl: are not "a character that had originally been a one-off or part of the supporting cast becomes the central and most popular character on the show"  They certainly went from one-off's to supporting cast but they were never central or most popular.  Dimitrii 22:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newhart: Larry, Daryl and Daryl 

message: While Latka Gravas was a popular character, he was never the central focus of the show. --MisterHand 22:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxi

message: What about Joey on Friends?  Even though he didn't ever take over that show, he did become big and start his own show. DrKC9N 19:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the conversation on Fraiser above. -- MisterHand 06:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joey 

message: I removed the Carver (Nip/Tuck) because he really doesn't fit. Just because he received a lot of attention doesn't mean he suddenly became the main character. He was basically a storyline, one that is (for now) done with. -Branddobbe 07:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Carver

message: It seems to me this article has a ton of examples that aren't truly "Fonzie Syndrome" at all.  I'm going to wait 24 hours for comments, and after that I'll delete all of the following from the list:
*Andy Griffith Show: Barney Fife (Don Knotts)
** Barney was never the focale point of the show.
*ER: Carol Hathaway (Julianna Margulies)
** Hathaway was never the focale point of the show.
*Family Matters: Steve Urkel (Jaleel White)
** No need to mention this example again, it's already in the main text of the article.
*Happy Days: Fonzie
** No need to mention this example again, it's already in the main text and title of the article.
*King of the Hill: Dale Gribble (Johnny Hardwick)
** Dale was never the focale point of the show.
*Laverne & Shirley: Lenny (Michael McKean) and Squiggy (David Lander)
** Lenny and Squiggy were never the focale point of the show.
*Newhart: Larry, Darryl and Darryl (William Sanderson, Tony Papenfuss, and John Voldstad)
** Not only were these characters never the focale point of the show, but their appearances were usually only limited to a few seconds per episode, if that.
*Star Wars: Boba Fett
** Star Wars is not a tv show, and Boba Fett was never the focale point.  A better example would be Darth Vader who went from being the henchman of the villain in the first film to the main character in the last three.
*Taxi: Latka Gravas (Andy Kaufman)
** Latka was never the focale point of the show.
*The Drew Carey Show: Mimi Bobeck (Kathy Kinney) 
** Mimi was never the focale point of the show.
::I am only going to comment of the shows I have actually seen before. Remove duplicate entry for Happy Days. As for Laverne and Shirley, not only did Lenny and Squiggy never evolve into being the focal point of the show, they were always main support characters from the begining, and continued in that role through the series. They remained as they had been intended. Though I've only seen a couple of episodes of this series, the Taxi entry seems highly questionable. I'm in Australia and a quick glance at the list of regulars reveals many names recognisable to me. Paradoxically Kaufman was one of three names I did not recognise. Asa01 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for your feedback.  Time is up, and all of the above examples have been removed. -- MisterHand 05:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think there might be some value in mentioning several of those examples, such as the Carol Hathaway one.  I recall reading her character was supposed to die in the pilot, but was kept.  And Boba Fett is a great example of a character with almost no lines who becomes enormously popular with the fans.  Maybe make sections like in the Chuck Cunningham entry? FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive sweep 

message: Could an argument be made for the character of Spock in the original Star Trek series? William Shatner was supposedly the star, and the character of Captain Kirk the lead character, but Leonard Nimoy became incredibly popular and many episodes focused on Spock moreso than Captain Kirk. Of course, because the triumvirate of Kirk/Spock/McCoy was more or less the focal point of the series from day one, I am not sure Spock ever really became more important than Captain Kirk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.51.77.64 (talk • contribs) .
: I would say that Spock was never the focale point of the series and don't think it applies myself. -- MisterHand 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same here.  I was just tossing it out there. 209.51.77.64 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, every Star Trek TOS episode was always centered on Kirk by the climax.  Even Spock-centered episodes like the one where he went to his home planet climaxed with Kirk in the arena having to fight him.  Just being popular and memorable doesn't make someone "Fonzie syndrome" Algr 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek & Spock 

message: What is this line about "episodic media (usually TV sitcoms)?" That's too broad. "Fonzie Syndrome" is an actual TV industry term. If you want to create a section about other media where similar situations have occurred, that's fine, but it's inaccurate to take a TV-specific term and rewrite its definition to include all other episodic media. That's like saying that Nielsen ratings determine the audience size for episodic media (usually TV programs).
I will rewrite this sentence in 24 hours unless someone brings up a good argument why not. Msclguru 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Episodic Media"? 

message: Surely Hawkeye was always ment to be the star. He was given top billing even in the film. Though Trapper was a more dominant character in the film, from the start of the television series, it was always clear that Hawkeye was meant to be the lead.--Crestville 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mash

message: Vala Mal Doran and Carson Beckett are nowhere near the focal point of the show; Carson has yet to have a full episode featuring him centrally, unlike Rodney McKay, and Vala was plot-bound to Daniel Jackson for a number of episodes. She is certainly not central, and neither show appears to be affected by Fonzie syndrome. One could argue that Rodney has more popularity than John Sheppard, but that's the same as the Cartman entry above. Removing both for now. AKismet 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Stargate SG-1|SG]] & [[Stargate Atlantis|Atlantis]]

message: I'm going to reinstate Michael J. Fox as an example of "Fonzie Syndrome." Indeed, Alex P. Keaton is considered one of the better examples of the syndrome listed. For example, here's a quote from an article I found:
: The network and the producers made the decision to shift focus from Elyse and Steve to their preppy son. There was some grumbling, but the move proved to be the right one. For one thing, it helped buy time for Family Ties as audiences slowly discovered it during its first two seasons on the air. 
If there's disagreement, let's hash it out. -- MisterHand 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that Alex P. Keaton should remain in the article. As a youngster I was even aware of the shift to his character and the tension surrounding it. At this time I had not seen Happy Days though have since seen it in repeat runs. As for Fonzie Syndrome making a show better, well better is a matter of point of view and personal taste. I interpret Fonzie Syndrome as a caving-in to popular taste in many respects, but it is also something borne of a show losing original popular cast members later in their runs, and also of the series running out of ideas later on. In these weakened circumstances, the show will increasingly rely on dependably popular figures. Making batter does not really figure in to it, and this would differ from show to show anyway. There are also those struggling shows that only gain popularity with the addition or development of a popular Fonzie Syndrome figure: for example I'm sure most fans of Melrose Place agree that the show was better with Amanda in place. Asa01 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael J. Fox / ''Family Ties'' 

message: I have removed the following entry:
*The Drew Carey Show: Mimi Bobeck (Kathy Kinney)
Mimi was never the focal point of the series. -- MisterHand 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimi / Drew Carey show 

message: I've done a large sweep and erased several entries because they were added without regard for the definition of Fonzie Syndrome.
Fonzie Syndrome does not occur simply when a supporting character becomes more important and popular, or receives better billing and more screen time. It happens when the supporting character becomes the single most important character on the show. 
So, for example, I erased the entry for Niles in Frasier because Niles never became more important to the show than Frasier himself. 
Just because somebody's name and character moves higher up in the order on the show credits (i.e., Waldo on Family Matters), does not necessarily mean that they are examples of "Fonzie Syndrome." If the character in question does not become THE major character on the show, that show shouldn't be listed here.
Msclguru 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Sweep: YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!!! 

message: I don't see Ryoko as ever becoming more important than Tenchi to any version of Tenchi Muyo!. I'd suggest that item be removed. Redneckgaijin, March 29, 2006
*Ryoko was the major focus in Tenchi Universe (as well as the movie Tenchi Forever!, though she does share screen time with Ayeka), as shown in the intro. I changed it to reflect this. Duo02  *Shout here!** 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenchi Muyo? 

message: I removed George Bluth (Arrested Development) from the list. He was never the focal point of the series. -- MisterHand 20:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrested Development 

message: About what this term actually means.  There are two characteristics of the undisputed Fonz and Urkel cases 1) they both started out as very marginal characters (in Urkel's case, at least, not a member of the main cast); 2) they both ended up becoming the central focus of the show.  I think that either both of these characteristics need to be met for a character to appear on the list, or else we should have separate lists for "major characters who ended up becoming the central focus of the show" and "recurring characters who ended up becoming very major characters." As it stands now, the latter instance is consistently removed from the article, while we have people like Alex Keaton, who was always a main character in Family Ties, mentioned.  This seems unbalanced.  It seems to me that someone like Spike in Buffy, who starts out the show as a minor recurring villain, and then proved so popular that he later returned as a main cast member, and then proved so popular that by the end of the show's run he was quite clearly the most important character on the show apart from Buffy herself, fit the Fonzie paradigm considerably better than, say, Homer Simpson, who was always about the most important character on The Simpson, or Josiah Bartlett, who, after all, played the president on a show about the White House.  
It seems to me that the character starting off as a minor or one-off character is at least as important as the character becoming the central focus of the show.  It's especially problematic to list characters who were always one of the two or three most important characters on the show, but who were gradually emphasized more, but not list someone like Spike who went from minor recurring character to second most important character over the course of six seasons. It is to be added that the whole article is completely unsourced, so there's no particular grounds for the article keeper's claims as to what "fonzie syndrome" "really" means. john k 16:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There seems to be some disagreement 

message: What situation is it referring to? I haven't watched the entire series, but I read the Hitoshi Doi synopsis, and don't see her as a Fonzie syndrome situation. Also, did the manga come first? Hackwrench 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sailor Moon 

message: does debroah not fit into this catagory? almost every storyline revolves around her with ray's antic just exaserbating the problem. 69.199.55.143 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everybody loves raymond 

message: Are there any verifiable sources that use this term?  --cholmes75 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it is a fun article but if not used outside this wikipedia page, doesn't that make this original research? Format 02:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this real? 

message: I wouldn't say that the Janitor became more important to the show than any of the main protagonists, which is what this seems to be about. Yes, he did have an episode that followed him around for an episode, but so did Dr. Cox and Elliott, but I wouldn't say they are more important than J.D. - they're merely better developed supporting characters, as the Janitor is.
Also, Turk and Carla have each gotten their own narrative episode.  The only main character who HASN'T is Dr. Kelso.--Radaar 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrubs 

message: the introduction does say "and/or most popular character on the show." kramer would fit this description, though you've already said that he doesn't count. maybe someone should change the intro if you're not sticking to it.
:Kramer became the most popular character on Seinfeld?  I always saw him as part of the ensemble, no more or less important than the rest. -KP 01:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: Would you guys define Spike from Buffy as having a mild case of Fonzie syndrome?  After all, he went from being a villain who was supposed to die in Season 2 to the "wacky neighbor" role in Season 4, to becoming an ally by the end of Season 5, and even a love interest in Seasons 6 and 7.  Then, he was brought to Angel for its final season, and even surpassed some of the characters on that show.  I don't think he ever dominated either show, but he did get a little more screen time than some of the original members.
:I'd call Spike (on Buffy) an example of the syndrome.  Partially because the other characters were written below previous standards in Seasons 6 and 7, he arguably turned into the focal point of the show.  Some people blame that fact for the show's decline in its last two seasons.  I don't, seeing it as a symptom rather than part of the problem.  He was a great character, and that never hurts a series.  He became over-prominent because the others, who also were very good or great characters, lost so much of their luster in the last two seasons.
:On Angel, it was totally different.  He became the second most prominent character on the show, but that was very much by design, to try to make sure Buffy fans would watch the show.  He also was clearly never the focus of the show.  The title character remained the focus.-KP 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spike? 

message: Since I have created the breakout character article, and the citations for this are better but we seem to have little support for the article title, I think a merge to that one is justified. Daniel Case 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion