New Arrested Development! (SPOILERS)

[Mister Fandango]

This doesn't depend on it. I had as many laughs in this season as any other. I haven't rewatched any.

I don't understand it, either. While the format was different from previous seasons, the writing was pretty much spot on. It just told the story differently. As with previous seasons, the best bits are actually all of the meta/background stuff.

 

[Evil Twin]

Just finished it. Wow, that was a really limp, anticlimactic ending (granted, the season 3 finale wasn't the best either.)

Worst episode: "Borderline Personalities" (the first George Sr. one)
Best episode: "Colony Collapse" (the first Gob one)

I think my favorite running gag was the parmesan/mustard. So yet so

 

[shivkala]

^
I still like the SceneStealer Pro gag, myself. Especially how

Spoiler: Buster's Episode

For the last clip, from Buster's episode, it flashed that the trial was over and they had to pay for it from now on

.

I also liked how they threw in a lot from the previous seasons, such as the Richter brothers, Warden Gentiles, the double-entendre (of the bad kind) doctor, Gene Parmesean, Motherboy, the dead dove in the freezer, etc. Also, it was a nice touch that George Michael mentioned Rebel Alley being in Les Cousins Dangereux.

Biggest disappointment (unless I missed it)--NO BANANA STAND!

 

[tighr]

Biggest disappointment (unless I missed it)--NO BANANA STAND!

No banana stand, but in all the scenes set after the Cinco party, Michael is wearing a banana stand shirt. Something happened between when we last saw him and when he's telling GOB that he made a huge mistake, because he changed clothes.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

There's always money in the banana stand.

 

[doubleohfive]

The biggest thing people need to remember is that, much like the three seasons before it, season four is best when viewed, then viewed again. Perhaps more so, if only for the sheer number of sight gags, in-jokes, intertextual references, and callback jokes/references. There is just no way you can appreciate them on first viewing because you just don't know about them yet.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

The other thing people need to remember is how poor season 3 was. All this "It's not as good as the first three" no, it's a damn sight better than season 3.

 

[doubleohfive]

Eh. I've never had much of a problem with season 3, truncated though it may have been. I even liked the Rita/Wee Britain stuff

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Don't get me wrong, poor Arrested Development was still funny, possibly being an actual Brit the crappy accents and stupid stereotypes grated a bit more than for Americans but 3 is by far the worst of the 4.

Also, the 3 Houses of Parliament thing, was that a joke or did they just cock it up?

 

[Pingfah]

2/3 through. Enjoying it, some really gut-bustingly funny moments so far.

Thank goodness they released it all on one day. No way could I have kept up with this one week at a time.

 

[tighr]

Also, the 3 Houses of Parliament thing, was that a joke or did they just cock it up?

That's part of the joke. You can't trust everything Ron Howard says. British Parliament has 2 houses. It's the American Congress that has 3 houses.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Also, the 3 Houses of Parliament thing, was that a joke or did they just cock it up?

That's part of the joke. You can't trust everything Ron Howard says. British Parliament has 2 houses. It's the American Congress that has 3 houses.

I know it does. That's what I've been trying to work out since they said it, was it a joke that the narrator and George Michael are in on or was it just a scripting error. I got that, of course, Rita is wrong about it, but Ron Howard and George Michael both saying "it's 3" made me wonder if they actually thought it was three.

Though it's good writing that has a joke in there that makes you question yourself over something you think you know because rather than thinking "That's a joke" I thought "There's 3? What's the third? ... No, there's only 2."

 

[doubleohfive]

I am still not convinced season four "failed," but this article is the first to even come close to explaining why it might have that makes any sense to me:

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/craft-features/tv-writing-whats-wrong-with-arrested-development

 

[tighr]

I am still not convinced season four "failed," but this article is the first to even come close to explaining why it might have that makes any sense to me:

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/craft-features/tv-writing-whats-wrong-with-arrested-development

I was willing to subscribe to his criticisms until I reached the following paragraph:

The key with any sequel, whether it’s The Godfather II, The Hangover II, or Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom, is to think about the promise the original made to the audience, and to deliver on that same promise, in a slightly different way.

All three of those movies (with the possible exception of The Godfather Part II...) don't come close to comparison with the original films. Especially in the case of Hangover Part II and IJ: Temple of Doom, when both of those films are barely shadows of the great films that preceded them.

And, on top of that, I provide counterpoint: Aliens. A film that completely upends the "engine" of its predecessor, and ends up being the superior film. (I note that this is a contentious opinion, however).

 

[Spot's Meow]

I am still not convinced season four "failed," but this article is the first to even come close to explaining why it might have that makes any sense to me:

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/craft-features/tv-writing-whats-wrong-with-arrested-development

That article does make a lot of sense, and I agree with all of it. The new season is still good, but it is different, not just because time has gone by or the plots are new or the actors have aged, but because it feels like it has a different purpose.

I think that when it comes to dramas, stepping outside of predictability and allowing the characters to grow and change is more acceptable, but when it comes to comedy that just isn’t as satisfying. I don’t want to see Michael’s internal moral struggles. Or Gob’s, or George Michael’s, or Buster’s, or Lindsay’s. It’s a real turn off actually, for a comedy. I want to see their outward moral struggles with the rest of their family. And when the rest of the cast can’t be there, or are only there in bits and pieces, we don’t get that. I think the show really only truly succeeds as an ensemble.

The new season is like an entirely different show. It seems that without his family around him, Michael has devolved into his own selfishness and moral bankruptcy. This is the complete opposite of who we were originally led to believe this character was. From the first three seasons, there was always the sense that Michael would be a better person living a happier life if only he could get away from his family, but that he stuck around out of familial loyalty. I really believe that was at the heart of the show – you felt bad for this guy who would never be able to get away, no matter how many times he tried to escape (much like the Gilligan’s Island analogy)! He was just too good of a guy to leave his family hanging, even though they were self-absorbed pricks.

They “changed the rules” with this new season, and with it the premise. He did leave his family, they all left each other, and now we find out Michael is a selfish prick just like the rest of them when his family is not around? Well that’s depressing. It’s certainly not funny. And it’s not the original premise. Before, when Michael made selfish choices it was because being around his family had a bad influence on him, not because he was an inherently selfish person. After watching this new season I kind of hate them all. Sitcom characters should not undergo such drastic changes. The situations around them should change but the characters themselves just being who they have always been is what makes the show satisfying!

 

[doubleohfive]

^ I would absolutely concur with your point about the change in Michael. He is, largely, my biggest compaint about the new season. It's one thing to see him having fallen from grace but the way he behaves throughout the fifteen episodes leaves a lot to be desired if we're supposed to be rooting for him the way we did during the first three seasons. I'm willing to let that one go though, because it's painfully obvious the ending of season four was specifically laying ground for the film/season five conflict between Michael and his son with the family in the backdrop as they all come back together.

I am still not convinced season four "failed," but this article is the first to even come close to explaining why it might have that makes any sense to me:

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/craft-features/tv-writing-whats-wrong-with-arrested-development

I was willing to subscribe to his criticisms until I reached the following paragraph:

The key with any sequel, whether it’s The Godfather II, The Hangover II, or Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom, is to think about the promise the original made to the audience, and to deliver on that same promise, in a slightly different way.

All three of those movies (with the possible exception of The Godfather Part II...) don't come close to comparison with the original films. Especially in the case of Hangover Part II and IJ: Temple of Doom, when both of those films are barely shadows of the great films that preceded them.

And, on top of that, I provide counterpoint: Aliens. A film that completely upends the "engine" of its predecessor, and ends up being the superior film. (I note that this is a contentious opinion, however).

All of which is subjective. I love Aliens, Godfather II, and Temple of Doom but Hangover II is, in my opinion, garbage. So what? All it means is that this system works some of the time and not all of the time.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I am still not convinced season four "failed," but this article is the first to even come close to explaining why it might have that makes any sense to me:

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/craft-features/tv-writing-whats-wrong-with-arrested-development

I was willing to subscribe to his criticisms until I reached the following paragraph:

The key with any sequel, whether it’s The Godfather II, The Hangover II, or Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom, is to think about the promise the original made to the audience, and to deliver on that same promise, in a slightly different way.

All three of those movies (with the possible exception of The Godfather Part II...) don't come close to comparison with the original films. Especially in the case of Hangover Part II and IJ: Temple of Doom, when both of those films are barely shadows of the great films that preceded them.

And, on top of that, I provide counterpoint: Aliens. A film that completely upends the "engine" of its predecessor, and ends up being the superior film. (I note that this is a contentious opinion, however).

I don't think the author was arguing that those sequels were necessarily successful, I think he was just giving examples of how in any genre or level of artistry you should remain true to your purpose.

Also, I think there is a lot more leeway with films than with television. And there's even less leeway with comedies.

 

[RoJoHen]

Honestly, I never thought Michael was a particularly honest or decent person. His son was usually the only reason he ever made the right choices. He used to play the martyr when his family was around, and it made him feel like the better man, but now he doesn't have that audience.

 

[Spot's Meow]

^ I would absolutely concur with your point about the change in Michael. He is, largely, my biggest compaint about the new season. It's one thing to see him having fallen from grace but the way he behaves throughout the fifteen episodes leaves a lot to be desired if we're supposed to be rooting for him the way we did during the first three seasons. I'm willing to let that one go though, because it's painfully obvious the ending of season four was specifically laying ground for the film/season five conflict between Michael and his son with the family in the backdrop as they all come back together.

I agree, since it was so clear that these episodes were set-up for something to come, I feel like I can't really fully judge them until I've seen what happens next. It's like that point in a TV show or movie when it seems like things have taken a turn for the worst and all hope is lost...until someone does/says/realizes something that saves the day and happiness or normalcy is restored. It's the part of the piece that is hardest to watch, but needs to happen for the good stuff that happens later to make sense. Unfortunately in this case it is 15 episodes long. Although there are still funny jokes and interesting parts, the whole thing gives me a feeling of unease and for that reason I can't see myself rewatching it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Honestly, I never thought Michael was a particularly honest or decent person. His son was usually the only reason he ever made the right choices. He used to play the martyr when his family was around, and it made him feel like the better man, but now he doesn't have that audience.

Definitely agree. He was never a good person, he was as bad as any of the family but his son kept him on the straight and narrow, the main thing is we always saw things from Michael's POV, if you think about these episodes where we see it from Michael's point of view his family are asking him for things and he tries to do it, when you see it from their POV he's dealing with them to get what he wants and adding conditions we don't see from his POV, so I think we're supposed to take from that that in the past it took his side of things. George Michael was the moral centre of the show, if anything.