October
3
"Cavemen": Um ... Again, Not That Bad
Accelerating the end of my journalistic career, I will defend "Cavemen" not once, but twice.
It's a show that has left most critics scratching their heads, and I won't deny that it's a particularly strange program. But in Tuesday's official premiere of the show's alternative pilot, I continued to see redeeming qualities.
It's dry, even droll. It doesn't beg for laughs. It's much more interested in character than joke, joke, joke — and the characters are interesting in their insider/outsider way. And, despite its Geico ad roots, as far as sitcoms go, "Cavemen" is wholly original in its situation (which is half of "situation comedy," in case you've forgotten).
A counterpoint to the show — and this is really going to get me in trouble
— is something like NBC's "Chuck," which also has its upside but seems more interested in looking good than being good. Compared to "Cavemen," is "Chuck" really any funnier, any more dramatic, any more insightful or even that much more plausible?
In "Chuck" so far, the characters have been types. The show is definitely easier on the eyes (although, not to commit the same kind of offense "Cavemen" takes a stand against, you could exchange Yvonne Strzechowski of "Chuck," right, with Kaitlin Doubleday of "Cavemen," left, pretty swiftly), and it's a more obvious good time, but I'm not seeing how "Chuck" isn't a more shallow endeavor.
Let me caution that "Cavemen" is nowhere near as good as the show I'm about to mention — not even close — but thinking about it this morning, the comedy that came to mind was "The Office." When that show premiered in the U.S., it was anything but a laugh riot; it was not at all clear what it was going to be. But there were signs it could be something, if it were given room to breathe.
"Cavemen" could go either way at this point. As James Poniewozik of Time wrote today, some of the changes made from the original pilot were for the worse, such as the fact that "Nick, the militant postgraduate student, was especially defanged." In any case, it's certainly not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but in this day and age, what is? It will be interesting to see if Tuesday's adequate ratings hold up next week, providing an indication of whether "Cavemen" can be a niche success.
— Jon Weisman

Subscribe to this blog's feed

Wonderful page may make endless growth, with thanks present, all the build up about skills can be to keep on getting to know, curiosity is normally the start of immense success.
Posted by: cheap oakley sunglasses | September 28, 2011 at 01:05 AM
Yes, Chuck looks better, especially in high definition but it is not very interesting---Reaper, which one-ups Chuck (sorry, couldn't resist) is a little more amusing and just as visually interesting as non-Satanic Chuck but not great television, either. I really wanted to hate Cavemen because it just sounds so bad. It is not great televsion, either(don't think I will have any arguments there)however, there was something strange enough about watching cavemen intellectualize around non cavemen that kept me watching at least this once. Not sure if I will sample again. Where are the Cavewomen?
Posted by: Mo Shizzle | October 03, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Yes, Chuck looks better, especially in high definition but it is not very interesting---Reaper, which one-ups Chuck (sorry, couldn't resist) is a little more amusing and just as visually interesting as non-Satanic Chuck but not great television, either. I really wanted to hate Cavemen because it just sounds so bad. It is not great televsion, either(don't think I will have any arguments there)however, there was something strange enough about watching cavemen intellectualize around non cavemen that kept me watching at least this once. Not sure if I will sample again. Where are the Cavewomen?
Posted by: Mo Shizzle | October 03, 2007 at 04:11 PM
Wow. Really? Comparing Cavemen to Chuck? Huh. Maybe the world IS flat.
Posted by: Sean Storm | October 03, 2007 at 02:31 PM
In total agreement. Chuck, for all it's gloss and oppressive out of home and digital advertising, isn't particularly engaging- more along the lines of McG's Fastlane than his first season or two of The O.C. Cavemen, while hardly edgy, is at least better than the standard ABC comedy skein of these last few years or so (According to Jim?), Ugly Betty not withstanding. To paraphrase Brandon Tartakoff, nobody comes home and really wishes there were a hilarious firehouse comedy on: Audiences fall in love with characters, not premise. Isn't Chuck nothing more that Jake 2.0... 2.0?
Posted by: D. | October 03, 2007 at 02:14 PM