Why they were on Top

[searadiofreak]

I pretty much agree with BPatrick as well. I grew up with former vaudeville performers on radio and TV and there are very, very few later comics that could hold a candle to them.

One who I feel didn't make a good transition from radio to TV though was Bob Hope. On radio he was very good, especially when ad-libbing with one of his cronies of the day. On TV though he became way too topical and the pregnant pauses while awaiting the audience to acknowledge his greatness was embarrassing. Of all the old vaudeville comics Hope was probably the most true to the stand-up comedian. He was great when paired with Crosby et al., but a disappointment alone.

No disrespect intended toward Bob Hope - he was very talented. But he was just coasting on TV - especially the last couple of decades. His 'Specials" in particular were not very funny, poorly written (IMO), and amateurishly performed and edited. And Hope's joke delivery wasn't great, either. Good timing, yes - but he always seemed to be looking down and to the left at cue-cards. He'd make inside jokes about it, like he didn't care - perhaps he didn't. Contrast that, though, with Dean Martin, who was famous for being super relaxed and never rehearsing, but somehow came off looking professional.

Tend to agree about Bob Hope. His true genious was in his early radio shows and his movies with Bing Crosby. In later years it became formula, but he still had a huge fanbase, and deservedly so. People liked him no matter what.

As for sitcoms then and now. Quality is what it is all about whether it is 1955 or 2011. Good writing, good performances, chemistry makes a sitcom great. This probably will never change.

 

[Corky Marlowe]

My 2c about Bob Hope...My mom and dad went to see him live once in the mid 60s. They never really rolled on the floor laughing at his TV shows as a rule, but I remember my dad telling me about the live show, "I was praying that he would stop because I was laughing so hard!" So maybe the TV specials weren't the greatest showcase of his talent. Look up some clips of him on the Tonight show or "What's My Line?", and he's much funnier there than on his specials, too.

 

[therealjm12]

In Bob Hope's early movies he was as good as anybody a master. His jokes were fast and funny. As he got older he just seemed to coast. I think his political views of the late 60's & 70's hurt his image. The guy who once wrote the book on being hip & irreverent just became another silent majority spokesman. I don't think he thought of himself that way, but that was the way he was viewed.

 

[landtuna]

Look up some clips of him on the Tonight show or "What's My Line?", and he's much funnier there than on his specials, too.

That goes back to the ad-libbing I spoke of earlier. He was funniest when he was unscripted. Of course, there were others equally talented: Dean Martin, Johnny Carson, Red Skelton, Tim Conway and even George Gobel could ad-lib with the best of them. Unless he was in this type of informal comedy Hope always seemed to be reading his cue cards.

 

[Cincinnati Kid]

The sit-coms of the 1950's and into the 1960's were basically about what is funny. No real attempts, for example, at getting laughs by suggestive language or references to bodily functions.

In later years, with less restrictions on what can be said and because there is competition from hundreds of cable & satellite channels, shows feel they have to use numerous means to get a laugh and hold an audience.

 

[bpatrick]

Look up some clips of him on the Tonight show or "What's My Line?", and he's much funnier there than on his specials, too.

That goes back to the ad-libbing I spoke of earlier. He was funniest when he was unscripted. Of course, there were others equally talented: Dean Martin, Johnny Carson, Red Skelton, Tim Conway and even George Gobel could ad-lib with the best of them. Unless he was in this type of informal comedy Hope always seemed to be reading his cue cards.

There was one special Hope did in 1980; Loretta Swit, Loni Anderson, and Larry Gatlin were his guests, and Hope seemed to be talking at them rather than to them, because he kept looking at the cue cards. Steve Allen, in "More Funny People," quotes an entire monlogue performed live and untelecast at the Universal Amphitheater the same year. If you can find it, read it. It's hilarious. Allen also quotes a reminiscence by Danny Thomas, who was working in a small nightclub in Detroit one night in 1940. Hope was in town, probably for a fund-raiser, and dropped in. It happened to be raining quite hard, and Hope's trousers were spattered with mud and water. He looked down at his wet pants cuff and said, "Those Detroit cab drivers sure come mighty close." Tremendous laugh, and Thomas pointed out that the laugh came, not because the joke was so funny, but that it took advantage of a situation. That was Hope in his prime; sadly, after about 1970, we didn't get much of that unless we could catch him live and without the cameras rolling (unless he was a guest on Carson).

 

[landtuna]

The sit-coms of the 1950's and into the 1960's were basically about what is funny. No real attempts, for example, at getting laughs by suggestive language or references to bodily functions.

I'm thinking you are forgetting shows like "Laugh-In" (1968) and all those Dean Martin shows and roasts. There was plenty of suggestive language there but they didn't step over the line. But it goes both ways too. Foster Brooks was one of the funniest guys on TV I ever saw but his act, the very severe drunk, wouldn't be accepted today the way it was then. Drunks have become unfunny. Same with gays, and ethnic humor (unless very carefully handled).

I can't think of a regularly scheduled sitcom of the 50's I thought was funny. "Leave It To Beaver" was more a play on American culture and "Ozzie and Harriett" much of the same. The variety shows were generally where the humor was in those days but today we don't have a single one left. Gleason, Skelton, Gobel, Kovacs, Allen and even guests on Sullivan's show....all gone.

 

[Hal Erickson]

That goes back to the ad-libbing I spoke of earlier. He was funniest when he was unscripted. Of course, there were others equally talented: Dean Martin, Johnny Carson, Red Skelton, Tim Conway and even George Gobel could ad-lib with the best of them. Unless he was in this type of informal comedy Hope always seemed to be reading his cue cards.
[/quote]

I hate to disillusion anyone, but with rare exceptions those ad-libs were either scripted or (in Skelton's case) dreamed up in rehearsal, before the studio audience came in. There is a sizeable body of evidence indicating this.

 

[landtuna]

I hate to disillusion anyone, but with rare exceptions those ad-libs were either scripted or (in Skelton's case) dreamed up in rehearsal, before the studio audience came in. There is a sizeable body of evidence indicating this.

I'm not talking about the scripted shows but rather the times one was a guest on a talk or interview show. It's not too difficult to tell the difference between a scripted comment and a true ad-lib.

 

[visaman]

There was one special Hope did in 1980; Loretta Swit, Loni Anderson, and Larry Gatlin were his guests, and Hope seemed to be talking at them rather than to them, because he kept looking at the cue cards. .

Well, keep in mind that Mr. Hope was 77 when he did that special, we can't blame him for slowing down a bit. Imagine what Conan O'Brien would be like at 77.

 

[landtuna]

Imagine what Conan O'Brien would be like at 77.

About the same as he is now? ;D

 

[bpatrick]

I pretty much agree with BPatrick as well. I grew up with former vaudeville performers on radio and TV and there are very, very few later comics that could hold a candle to them.

One who I feel didn't make a good transition from radio to TV though was Bob Hope. On radio he was very good, especially when ad-libbing with one of his cronies of the day. On TV though he became way too topical and the pregnant pauses while awaiting the audience to acknowledge his greatness was embarrassing. Of all the old vaudeville comics Hope was probably the most true to the stand-up comedian. He was great when paired with Crosby et al., but a disappointment alone.

No disrespect intended toward Bob Hope - he was very talented. But he was just coasting on TV - especially the last couple of decades. His 'Specials" in particular were not very funny, poorly written (IMO), and amateurishly performed and edited. And Hope's joke delivery wasn't great, either. Good timing, yes - but he always seemed to be looking down and to the left at cue-cards. He'd make inside jokes about it, like he didn't care - perhaps he didn't. Contrast that, though, with Dean Martin, who was famous for being super relaxed and never rehearsing, but somehow came off looking professional.

If you've ever seen the infomercials for Dean's weekly show, Florence Henderson says that Dean would come out, and within about thirty seconds he'd be completely into the show. I've also read (I think it may have been Arthur Marx's book about Dean and Jerry Lewis, "Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime, Especially Himself") that Dean was actually more naturally funny than Jerry and was somewhat resentful for getting no credit for routines he--not Jerry--helped think up. (George Burns was much the same way when Gracie was alive and working, but he wouldn't have left her for all the money in the world, IMO.)

Another thing about Hope: on television he would slow down his monologue, pausing to accommodate the laugh "sweetener" or the edit that would come if the joke bombed. On radio, and in live stage shows, he'd go sailing right into the next joke; he once said he was playing a game with the audience, daring them to keep up with him. Despite his faults on television, I think most experts would still consider Hope the king of the monologue, and Berle perhaps a close second, although Berle would find someone in the audience to play against, such as a bald man he once told, "I'd like to stick my fingers in your ears and go bowling" (although that nearly got him killed one night in Chicago in the 1930s when his needling of gangster Pretty Amberg didn't go down well at all with Uncle Miltie's target).

 

[Cincinnati Kid]

I certainly don't think that Hope's best comedy routines came from his TV specials. That seems especially true in the later years when he was older and videotape edits were apparently more in use. In addition, as noted, he was also getting much older by then. Hope's writers seemingly never get any credit from outsiders because he was a master of delivering lines almost as though he was ad-libbing. It's possible he was best on TV when he was the host on the academy awards.

 

[johnbasalla]

Bob Hope had the misfortune, particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s to be in some truly awful movies. A few are legendary in their badness.
There's one that was supported (financed?) by the United Nations. Boy, what a bore! Long before "Political Correctness" became an issue, this film had a bad case of it. They had some potentially funny situations, all harpooned by blandness. The central theme seemed to be to support the work of the United Nations.

 

[johnbasalla]

Quote from "Landtuna" -- "I can't think of a regularly scheduled sitcom of the 50's I thought was funny. "Leave It To Beaver" was more a play on American culture and "Ozzie and Harriett" much of the same.

Those two shows are good examples of the mild humor so prevalent during the 1950s. They helped the energetic, fast paced shows like "I Love Lucy", and "The Honeymooners" to really stand out.

 

[landtuna]

Quote from "Landtuna" -- "I can't think of a regularly scheduled sitcom of the 50's I thought was funny. "Leave It To Beaver" was more a play on American culture and "Ozzie and Harriett" much of the same.

Those two shows are good examples of the mild humor so prevalent during the 1950s. They helped the energetic, fast paced shows like "I Love Lucy", and "The Honeymooners" to really stand out.

I'd use the term "boring" for the first two. Without Ricky's teen idol musical talents I doubt Ozzie & Harriet would have lasted on TV. Their follow-on show with the two girls, but without the boys, was very brief. "Beaver" was basically a morality play.

"Lucy" and "Honeymooners" both had their moments but they were inconsistent and both were guilty of verbal bullying and lots of noise. And unlike most sitcoms both were basically physical comedy.

 

[Robnoxious]

I'm not talking about the scripted shows but rather the times one was a guest on a talk or interview show. It's not too difficult to tell the difference between a scripted comment and a true ad-lib.

Ad-libbed interviews still exist and are alive and well on The Late Late Show w/ Craig Ferguson.
His interview style runs circles around everyone in Late Night.

 

[searadiofreak]

Quote from "Landtuna" -- "I can't think of a regularly scheduled sitcom of the 50's I thought was funny. "Leave It To Beaver" was more a play on American culture and "Ozzie and Harriett" much of the same.

Those two shows are good examples of the mild humor so prevalent during the 1950s. They helped the energetic, fast paced shows like "I Love Lucy", and "The Honeymooners" to really stand out.

I'd use the term "boring" for the first two. Without Ricky's teen idol musical talents I doubt Ozzie & Harriet would have lasted on TV. Their follow-on show with the two girls, but without the boys, was very brief. "Beaver" was basically a morality play.

"Lucy" and "Honeymooners" both had their moments but they were inconsistent and both were guilty of verbal bullying and lots of noise. And unlike most sitcoms both were basically physical comedy.

Lucy had physical comedy, but if that is all one takes from the series, then you've lost something. I Love Lucy plots offered much more than physical comedy...they were chalk full of intelligent interaction between the principles, combined with very funny intellectual situations. If one to were watch a highlight reel of Lucy, then I guess I could understand it coming across as a physical comedy show, but it was SO much more.

 

[landtuna]

Lucy had physical comedy, but if that is all one takes from the series, then you've lost something. I Love Lucy plots offered much more than physical comedy...they were chalk full of intelligent interaction between the principles, combined with very funny intellectual situations. If one to were watch a highlight reel of Lucy, then I guess I could understand it coming across as a physical comedy show, but it was SO much more.

We'll continue to disagree about that. What I remember about "Lucy" was the continuing plot by her to (a) get involved with Ricky's night club show (early series) and (b) later on, to meet famous Hollywood actors. Dialog between Lucy and Ricky usually consisted of an argument about her spending or zany antics that got him in trouble. Fred always looked like he'd have rather been somewhere else and Ethyl was basically a combination of Lucy's BFF and mother. The few really funny scenes were all physical (Lucy stomping grapes....Lucy putting candy down her blouse....Lucy lighting a nose on fire etc.).

Don't get me wrong, I loved watching Lucy when I was a kid. But there was no "intellectual" humor in that show. I thought subsequent shows with Gale Gordon were much funnier than the early ones. Still physical though.

 

[searadiofreak]

Awh, here is the rub. When Lucy was setting herself up for the physical comedy, there was always a unique thought-process that got her there. That is what I meant by "intellectual". Lucy was VERY smart.

Beyond that, if I Love Lucy was a total physical comedy show, it never would have been as acclaimed as it has become.