Now that I have a journal, I’m wondering what I should write about. What happens during my day is generally pretty BORING most of the time, so boring that even I probably couldn’t stand to read about it. So that’s not what this journal should be about—not what any of my journals have ever been about. A journal should be about what you are THINKING. So here is one thing I have been thinking about in the last day or two. Monk.
For anyone who may not know, Monk is this great TV show about a “defective detective” — i.e., he is this fabulously intelligent and gifted detective, but he also happens to be crippled by almost every kind of neurosis, fear and obsessive/compulsive behavior known to man. So you get a lot of comedy out of his reaction to his world, and of course he always solves the crime that nobody else can. He has this “nurse” Sharona who takes care of him (and also helps him solve the crimes). She is this real New-Yawker single mom who is always wearing miniskirts and fringe jackets and tight shirts and sexy boots. He depends on her TOTALLY, and even though he drives her crazy most of the time, they have this really great relationship.
So here’s the problem. The actress that plays Sharona is leaving the show, and they are going to replace Monk’s sidekick with some new actress. She won’t be a new Sharona, she’ll be a totally new character. Mary says it will never work. I say it might. I’m not saying it will definately be better, or that it will definately be worse, I’m just saying “Let’s wait and see.” It’s kind of hard to imagine the show being just as good without Sharona, so I see how Mary could say that. I mean, imagine Lucy without Ricky (hey! They did that—and it was never as good, right?) or Cheech without Chong (that happened too, and also didn’t work out too good) or Penn without Teller — no,I can’t even imagine that! (Or is it Teller without Penn? Which one is the one that doesn’t talk?)
Anyway, I think I’m digging myself into a hole here. Maybe somebody can help me out. Was there ever a time when a successful duo was split up and changed around, and the new combination was more successful than the original??? I started out to write that sometimes Change can be a good thing, and maybe in real life sometimes it is, but in stories and entertainment, I’m starting to think generally it doesn’t work out that way. Maybe that’s because we as people are resistant to change. And especially because we come to stories (movies, books, TV shows, etc)to be ENTERTAINED and amused and comforted—and change is not always comfortable, so we tend to resist it.
And that opens another whole can of worms, doesn’t it? Is the purpose of art to enlighten, to cause us to think (as in “Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth”) or is the purpose of art simply to make us laugh and feel good? Too too deep and philosophical, I know. Sorry! But being that my life in general is sort of boring, I have to make it more interesting by thinking about things like this. Also, even though it’s been a long time, there’s still a bit of the college student about me. 🙂
It will never work.
lol, Sorry, but I like Sharona. Sharona is my favorite character on the show! I can already guess what the new one is going to be like. She’s probably going to be laid-back, ditzy, and extremely messy. It might be funny, but it will never be the same.
Personally, I think that art (writing, drawing, tv, movies, etc) should do both: entertain and be philosophical. I mean, if you ant something mindlessly entertaining, you know not to go pick up anything written by Thoreau, and if you want something that will make you think till your brain hurts, you know not to go read The Littlest Elf (You know whats really sad…I tried for about a minute to think of something that I watch and DONT think about and I couldnt..I am plagued with incurable philosophizing!)
See, I think, atleast it is this way for me, that people only want change when it is necessary. What I mean is, “If it aint broke, dont fix it” If a show has this terribly annoying and stupid character who does not conrtibute anything to the amusement or overall value, change them! If the show has an incredibly talented actress who is as much a main, loved part of the show that it would be like a part of the show died when they left, then DONT CHANGE HER!
Well, ’tis all I have on the subject right now since it is midnight and I am STILL unable to sleep…my insomnia has really been acting up lately..this sucks
I’ve never seen Monk. But it does bother me when they change actors/actresses for a character. It’s not that the new person is better or worse, it’s just that they’re *different*. Like when a book character you like is mangled in the movie. It’s half the insult that they were mangled, and half that you know you’re never going to be able to picture them fully the old way again. And its sad if you liked the old way better.
I agree. Sometimes it’s better, often it’s not, but no matter what, they are different. As for “mangling characters,” it’s inevitable, because often other people don’t interpret characters the same way as the author. And a lot of times, especially when book characters are being represented in a movie, the producers/director have to think about what the greatest number of people in the audience are going to respond to, because ultimately it’s all about SELLING TICKETS. So if they think changing the character will sell more tickets, they do it, even if it strays from the original intent. Damn Hollywood! For you kids that are writing, keep this in mind in case you ever write something that might be made into a movie. But you should see Monk, I think you would enjoy it.