Tuned In

Would You Watch Parks & Rec If It Were Friends, America?

Over at Maclean’s, Jaime Weinman (a great, vastly knowledgeable critic you should be reading regularly) has an insightful post wrestling with the question of why Parks and Recreation has a vastly improved second season, but it didn’t result in improved ratings. He posits that the problem was it didn’t retool in any visible way (recasting, etc.), it just got better—so people turned off by season one saw no reason to try it again.

I don’t have much to add to his analysis (except don’t underestimate how hard it is to sell people a sympathetic show about bureaucrats). But Weinman closes his post by embedding this great YouTube mashup (above) of P&R scenes with the theme from Friends, and I wonder if it suggests another theory: Is possible that people don’t watch Parks and Recreation simply because they don’t think it will be fun?

Answering the question involves the distinction between “fun” and “funny.” They are two different things, and while I think P&R is both, I wonder if people look at the packaging of the show—the title, the credits, &c.—and don’t see a show that promises them a good time.

This video includes some of the drop-dead funniest bits Parks and Rec has done: Leslie and Ann attacking a librarian and running, a killer Nick Offerman pratfall. But is silly as it seems to package the show with a peppy ’90s sitcom theme, the aggregate does something that P&R’s dry opening—with its archly ironic Americana theme and scenes of wholesome children enjoying public facilities—just does not. It grabs the viewer and says: “HEY! Do you like having FUN? Because you are going to have some AWESOME FUN with these AWESOME CHARACTERS! And they kiss, too!”

It promises, in other words, things that P&R actually delivers—slapstick, inventive situations and heart—rather than promising them wry amusement, about a parks department. (Consider the opposite case: Weinman noted to me on Twitter that the most popular sitcom is about two depressingly broken single men. But it’s got a peppy theme song!) And that’s not just about the theme and titles, but the series’ title, the premise, and the mockumentary style (which again, may be an easier sell with The Office, since that’s about people you can identify with as surrogate co-workers).

Now, I’m not saying that the producers should ditch P&R’s theme and credits, because I love them. But, you know, I also love Christopher Guest movies. I like wry amusement. It may be that no cosmetic change you could make to P&R would overcome the challenge of making Americans fall in love with government workers. But if nothing else, it’s an interesting thought exercise as to why people choose the comedies they do—and, unfortunately, don’t.

But I don’t know. Maybe they should just go with these credits:

Related Topics: Friends, parks and recreation, titles, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Entertainment

    IFC Films

    Kerouac's On the Road Comes to Cannes: Where's the Beat?

    Walter Salles’ film of the Beat Generation classic wastes a strong cast, including Twilight‘s Kristen Stewart, in a needless tribute to ’50s wanderlust

    Adele Crosses Huge MilestoneHuffington Post

    Adam Rose/FOX

    Glee Watch: NYADA, NYADA, NYADA

    Spoilers for the season finale of Glee below:

    One beef I often have with Glee episodes is that they move too fast, go in too many directions, try to cram in too much at once. You might say that about “Goodbye,” the season 3 finale, but in this case that approach seemed about right. It’s an episode about graduation, and graduation is something that, no matter how much you plan for and anticipate it, still goes too fast. Graduating is something you do, but in the moment it feels like something that happens to you, suddenly and all at once, like going over a waterfall.

  • http://memles.wordpress.com/ Myles

    I think in the column of reasons why Parks and Recreation didn’t take off like The Office, we need to include the “Steve Carell becoming a movie star” factor.

  • anon76

    I believe the mockumentary stylings and mandolin music of the Arrested Development credits were also frequently cited as reasons for quick channel changing 5 years ago. Which leads me to ask “What the f*ck is wrong with you, American TV viewers?”

  • tuchmanmarshman

    As a 20something, I have brought up Parks and Recreation to many friends of my agegroup, and it just doesn’t seem to click with them. As much as I rave about it (Hey! You love The Office, right? Parks and Rec is currently season 2-Office good. Don’t you guys love Aziz Ansari? He’s on it every week!, etc), it just doesn’t seem to crossover.

    With that said, Community is a different thing all together. It barely took to episode 3 for many of my friends, and dozens of people at my campus to just go nuts for it. Obviously, there’s the relatability factor, but I just think Community has a much easier shot to become the new big 18-49 show for NBC before Parks and Rec ever does. Sadly, against The Big Bang Theory, it won’t have much hope of achieving that.

    It’s such a shame, because I bet you if they were to put Community post-Office this fall for a good amount of time, it would slowly but surely become a hit. I’m not even sure if Parks and Rec could get that after The Office.

  • denisemorris

    Can I just say that I hate “Two and a Half Men”? I have never seen an episode that I like. It is boring and tries to get by solely on dirty jokes. I just don’t understand why it’s such a popular comedy. Maybe I’m missing something…

  • http://pitypie.com PityPie

    Only one show has ever made Americans fall in love with government workers, and it was an Aaron Sorkin drama. But that’s really besides the point…

    A lot of people, as well as more than a few critics, have all lauded the improvement of Parks and Rec, so I decided I would give it another chance (having decided half way through season 1 it just didn’t warrant my precious time.) But for whatever reason, the show really just does not click with me. Maybe people aren’t watching because they just don’t find it that entertaining. To me, it’s simply not as smart as 30 Rock; not as good at the awkward shitck as The Office; not as quirky as Community; nor even as witty as Modern Family. I love Amy Poehler, so for me, the blame lies in the supporting cast – I just really don’t find them funny at all.

  • http://www.thesmogger.com Michael

    this is seriously one of the best shows on television – it is completely underrated, but incredible. I hope the third season continues the upward trend the 2nd season began. http://www.thesmogger.com

  • rhys1882

    Unfortunately I think Parks & Rec suffers from Arrested Development-syndrome. I think it is funnier than The Office and 30 Rock. But the humor is more nuanced. A lot of the humor derives from an investment in the characters. Swanson’s slide across the grass is not funny unless you are invested in Swanson as a character. Without that, it simply comes across as a stupid pratfall.

    Meanwhile, the Office has a lot of aspects that are appealing to mainstream America. The key characters are Jim, Pam, & Michael. You get the relationship BS with Jim & Pam – from will-they-won’t-they start dating – to will-they-won’t-they stay together – to the cheesiness of getting married and having a kid. Then with Michael you get slapstick buffoonery.

    What’s interesting is that Leslie Knoppe’s buffoonery in the first season may have provided a hook for passerby viewers if they’d been able to maintain it in the second season while also improving the show overall. Now, I am actually glad they ditched that, but I am just commenting on how Michael’s buffoonery has continued throughout the Office and may be one of the draws for viewers who do not get the nuance.

    Also, in reference to Myles’ point, when looking up info on the Office I came across a fact I hadn’t remembered before – 40 Year Old Virgin came out between Seasons 1 and 2 of the Office. In fact, it came out about a month before Season 2 premiered. That’s how the Office got a ton of people to tune in after its mediocre first run.

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    “HEY! Do you like having FUN? Because you are going to have some AWESOME FUN with these AWESOME CHARACTERS! And they kiss, too!”

    Hey they should have Adam Scott ask “Are we having fun yet?!”…Oh wait, we’re trying to get more viewers. That said, I do love this show and am sad I have to wait until next Spring.

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    “HEY! Do you like having FUN? Because you are going to have some AWESOME FUN with these AWESOME CHARACTERS! And they kiss, too!”

    Hey they should have Adam Scott ask “Are we having fun yet?!”…oh wait, we’re trying to get more viewers. In all serious, I do love this show and am sad I have to wait until next Spring.

  • http://bennettphillips.wordpress.com bennettphillips

    Very good points with reference to The Office getting the Steve Carrell bump. Given that Amy Poehler’s already been in several movies, if Parks & Rec is going to get a boost from a movie star (a big “if” with all the upcoming scheduling woes), I think it’s more likely to come from Aziz Ansari.

  • jndecou

    I realize it’s not quote on topic, but the Parks & Rec “Friends” video made me desperately want to see a “Friends” opening credit sequence for Breaking Bad. Walt, Jesse and all their wacky hijinks. That would be awesome.

    Anyway, I’ve watched Parks & Rec from the beginning. Which is a good thing- because I do find it difficult to return to watching a show that I had previously given up on. Not exactly sure why that is. I find it similarly difficult to give up on a show that’s going down hill fast.

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    They should have Adam Scott just say “Are we having fun yet?” … Oh wait, we want more viewers. In all seriousness, I do love this show.

blog comments powered by Disqus