Welcome to a new Wildcard Wednesday, on a Tuesday! This week, I’ve got another Q&A entry, where I answer questions submitted by readers. Thanks to everyone who sent in something — if you don’t see your “Q” here, I just may “A” it next time. (And keep them coming — any related topic on which you want my opinion and/or a little research? Just let me know!)
MDay991 asks… What do you think are the most underrated sitcoms from each decade?
I’m going to answer this for the 1950s through the 2000s, as that’s what we’ve covered here. Starting with the 1950s, I think the most underrated sitcom from that decade is probably The Bob Cummings Show, but that’s because most of it is hard to find now. Otherwise, I’d say The Danny Thomas Show still doesn’t get enough credit – outside of my work – for the way it sits between I Love Lucy and The Dick Van Dyke Show, the two finest sitcoms of their respective eras. From the 1960s, I can’t think of a great answer on the fly, but I have a soft spot for Gilligan’s Island and don’t think its smart design and crystal-clear characters are praised enough — the quality of its actual writing often obscures those basic strengths. From the 1970s, Maude is probably a lot funnier than people remember it being, and Rhoda (discussed more below) is a lot better written than it’s treated, its reputation never surmounting the ill-defined Joe and all the troubles of that early marriage. Next – nothing’s really jumping out at me from the 1980s, except for maybe Mama’s Family. It’s a reliably funny show that often gets knocked simply because it purposely rejects the dramatic bite of its sketch origins. (Like Gilligan’s, it’s not brilliantly penned, but I don’t need it to be.) From the 1990s, I don’t see much love anymore for The Larry Sanders Show, even though it’s a top-tier effort from the period. And lastly, going into the 2000s, I think The King Of Queens (which actually premiered in 1998 but mostly ran in the following decade) is another reliably funny show that’s too often minimized, despite the hilarious work of its stars and a handful of excellent half-hour samples.
Issa Kelly has a good question for me… To me, Rhoda and Frasier share a lot of similarities as spin-offs. What do you think allowed Frasier to thrive while Rhoda eventually floundered?
I see similarities as well. They both take funny ensemble players from a terrific MTM or MTM-descended series and place them between one character who can enhance their established definitions by emphasizing corresponding conflict (Ida and Martin) and another character who is essentially an extreme version of what they represented on the previous show (Brenda and Niles). This allows the lead to seem moderated in contrast and therefore a viable anchor. However, the way the two shows constructed their situations was different. Rhoda did not codify its lead’s relationships with Ida and Brenda as the nucleus of its low-concept premise (as Frasier did with its equivalents). Rather, the intended narrative engine of Rhoda, and therefore its situation, was her relationship with Joe. To that point, it also wasn’t crafted as a traditional MTM workplace-plus-home sitcom, but rather a romantic comedy featuring an unlikely duo. Therein lied the problem, for Joe was simply not a well-made character (not funny in the slightest!), and the choice to marry them so quickly – to lock in this premise – trapped Rhoda in a format where she had little to play off, thereby stifling her ability to display the comedic qualities that once justified her existence. Heck, she had to go be around Ida and Brenda (simultaneously) just to seem like herself! And since the show was built around the troubled Rhoda/Joe relationship – early on, there wasn’t even a workplace to visit for help! – when the series opted to finally fix itself by dropping Joe, it was also destroying its reason for being, which felt like failure and suggested unreliability. This proved to be impossible to surmount in a genre hinged on creating expectations and satisfying them. (That said, I still think Rhoda is underrated in the genre overall. It’s another humanely written MTM sitcom from the peak of MTM’s dynasty. The novelty of its premise keeps Season One, and the early part of Two, fun and fresh, and although things get dire soon after, there are a handful of good episodes in the last two seasons focusing on the Morgenstern women, who always should have been the focus in the first place.)
Kanav is a Friends fan… I just wanted ask whether there are more scripts like The One With the Jetlag which never got produced or made. Really like the show and would love to read them.
Yes, I have a table draft script from the fifth season entitled “The One With Amnesia Man.” Never heard of it? That’s because it was significantly retooled and retitled “The One With Joey’s Bag.” This original version had a totally different Rachel/Joey subplot — about her dating a producer from Saturday Night Live and Joey intruding on their dates in the hopes of securing an audition. It’s, honestly, pretty stupid and unfunny. Although the eponymous bag storyline that replaced it isn’t a great character showcase, it’s at least an improvement. And speaking of improvement, the other subplots — about Phoebe meeting her dad, and Chandler lying about Monica’s massages — were the same in this draft. But the scenes themselves also got radically revised (I’d say 75%) before the final aired cut, which is much funnier and more believable for the characters. So, it’s a fascinating artifact in terms of seeing the show’s creative process — and just how hard the crew worked during a production week to get the best product possible.
Patrick writes in with… Jackson, I would love to know your thoughts on Hulu’s Mid-Century Modern. As you have examined in your foray into the 21st century on the blog, the multi-cam has not only fallen out of favor, but in 2025 it seems all but dead. Here comes one that feels like a true throwback, premise and all.
I liked it – it’s funny like Will & Grace was at its peak, and though obviously derivative of The Golden Girls in terms of premise, that reliable template provides a shorthand for both the show and its audience, so the writing can instead jump right into comedic ideas that feature the leads and display its sense of humor. It’s not reinventing the wheel, but it’s not trying to either. (Too bad it was cancelled and won’t get a chance to move beyond ten episodes.)
Donna Sahlin says… I have been reading your blog for a while and one thing I love about you and your work is that you admit that you’re always re-evaluating your opinions and changing your mind. What is one thing you’ve changed your mind on lately that might be surprising?
Well, here’s a big topic on which I’ve changed my mind a bit. M*A*S*H. I still think it’s too much of a drama to be judged alongside the actual comedies in this genre, but I’m warming to it — I’ve found some episodes that I like, and since it’s an important part of the 1970s, I feel an inevitability about studying it. So, the door is no longer closed to it here. It’s now cracked.
Have a question for me? Submit it at the “Ask Jackson (Q&A)” link.
Come back next week for another Wildcard! And stay tuned for more sitcom fun!