Mary Tyler Moore Show and Its Spin-Offs

[TaranofPrydain]

He also had a small role on Die Hard 2 as Major Grant, the head of the US Special Forces unit who in a later twist is revealed to be in league with William Sadler's character.

I remember that twist. I am normally not someone who is,shovked by much in films, have seen a lot over the years but that threw me for a loop.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

RIP John Amos, one of the last recurring actors from MTM.


View attachment 54494

John Amos was a good actor. Good Times was never quite as good without him

 

[Marley Drama]

Rhoda
Season Two
Somebody Down There Likes Him / Call Me Grandma / Myrna’s Story / Love Songs Of J. Nicholas Lobo / Friends And Mothers / A Night With The Girls / Bump In The Night / If You Don’t Tell Her, I Will / Rhoda’s Sellout / Attack On Mr Right / If You Want To Shoot The Rapids You Have To Get Wet / The Return Of Billy Glass / A Federal Case / The Marty Morgan Story / Let’s Call It Love / It’s Not My Fault, Is It? / Don’t Give Up The Office



Based on earlier comments and knowing something of the changes in Season Three, I feel this could be the last thoroughly enjoyable Rhoda season. Mind you, I felt that could be the case once Rhoda married and moved in with Joe, so it’s at least possible that I’m wrong. I hope I am.

Season Two has been a good one for me, as evidenced by the fact that I’ve watched the entire season straight through without considering mixing it up with episodes from contemporaneous seasons of MTM or Phyllis for some variety.

The ensemble has continued to work well for me this season. I feel they complement one another well. I appreciated the episodes that gave focus to Martin: firstly his anxieties when an old friend who dated Ida returned and then his mid-life crisis. Harold Gould is a nice actor, subtle by the standards of those around him, and it’s nice to see him being serviced. The “piano man” episode even gave some touching moments thanks to his delivery. Julie Kavner’s always reliable as well, and I’ve also continued to enjoy Ida.

The guest-actors have all helped keep interest, even if they’re mostly unknown to me. My goodness - Denise Galik looks very much like a proto Alicia Silverstone (I had to look up to see if they were related, but found nothing to suggest they are). I’ve never watched I Love Lucy, but Vivian Vance is associated with sitcom royalty by that virtue, so this felt like a bit of a coup. Interesting, too, that Fred and Ethel were name-checked a few episodes later.

I realise marriage has somewhat changed Rhoda’s character from the one we knew on MTM but the energy between Valerie Harper and David Groh is so good I’ve thoroughly enjoyed these seasons. I’m curious to see what the Season Three shakeup brings, but equally I don’t feel any sense of urgency to dive in. Just as well since I have a year’s worth each of MTM and Phyllis to watch before then.

Incidentally, something that’s occurred to me this morning is that the parent series at this point has become rather homogenised, with pretty much the entire ensemble of characters consisting of WASPs. Earlier on MTM had some diversity with Gordy and Rhoda herself. It’s already been said here that these things just were, so it’s not necessarily a problem that they now aren’t. But it seems a little unusual (certainly by today’s standards) that a series becomes less culturally diverse as it evolves. But, as has been said, at least it does evolve, so perhaps that's enough.

 

[Marley Drama]

One of the episodes I skip is what's regarded as the series' best episode and often considered one of the best American sitcom episodes of all time. I just don't care for it; or, perhaps, just find it overrated.

Oh, that's intriguing. Do I need any hints, or will I know it when I see it. I'm a bit worried I'll overlook it and fail in my MTM fandom bid.

I think what intrigued you to watch MTM was comments about this being a rare American sitcom to evolve. By the last two seasons, those changes are in place. Characters, relationships and situations aren't the same as they were in the beginning. These changes are organic and logical, but they also changed so much of what I loved about the early seasons. Change is a double edged sword!

As with the changes coming up on Rhoda, I'm curious to see what shape these changes take, and if they'll affect my enjoyment of the series either way. Part of me feels MTM needs a bit of a shakeup at this point, but I know to be careful what I wish for... especially since I completely agree about it being a double-edged sword.

I just passed a season six episode with a detail I had not really noticed previously. Ted likes Murray's teasing; a nice touch by the writers to keep that relationship pleasant.

I'll be on the lookout for that one, and hoping it elevates Murray back up a little in my estimation.

 

[Soaplover]

I remember Valerie Harper had stated that the original version of Rhoda that spanned from season 1 into season 3 could be compared to Mad About You... and I think the original reason for the season 3 change was because the writers didn't know how to write a happily married Rhoda.

Obviously the writers had never seen a married person.. because being neurotic and/or insecure doesn't just vanish once you get married.

 

[Crimson]

I’ve never watched I Love Lucy, but Vivian Vance is associated with sitcom royalty by that virtue, so this felt like a bit of a coup

I imagine there was intention with that casting choice. Vivian had been the sitcom princess of the 50s and 60s, supporting Lucy; Valerie took over in that role in the 70s, supporting that decade's new sitcom queen. Unlike Valerie, though, Vivian never found her own solo stardom.

But it seems a little unusual (certainly by today’s standards) that a series becomes less culturally diverse as it evolves.

I think it was a combination of wanting to avoid Norman Lear territory -- and just dodge even the slightest question of race -- and, after Sue Ann, the producers never committed to a new ongoing character.

Oh, that's intriguing. Do I need any hints

and I think the original reason for the season 3 change was because the writers didn't know how to write a happily married Rhoda.

The writers were also hampered by evolving mores of TV by the mid-70s. There had been a strong pushback among social conservatives against the bold topics of the early 70s TV; the RHODA writers felt they were limited in honestly addressing matters of marriage and sex. They just didn't seem to know how to write the marriage from any perspective.

 

[Soaplover]

The writers were also hampered by evolving mores of TV by the mid-70s. There had been a strong pushback among social conservatives against the bold topics of the early 70s TV; the RHODA writers felt they were limited in honestly addressing matters of marriage and sex. They just didn't seem to know how to write the marriage from any perspective.

Rhoda was a step-mother, new wife, had an ex wife to deal with... plus you had mother as an interfering mother in law and step grandmother. So there was a lot of avenues the writers could have explored with Rhoda and Joe that they seemed unwilling to do.

By season 4, the show seems like 'Mary Tyler Moore in New York City' instead of a show with it's own identity.

Phyllis, on the other hand, had limited avenues to explore in the concept created for her spin off. Although in the three episodes that the late Barbara C had filmed as Julie... I sensed a good on screen chemistry between her and Cloris that sadly never got to be explored as boss and employee, plus both previously having shared Lars.

 

[Marley Drama]

The writers were also hampered by evolving mores of TV by the mid-70s. There had been a strong pushback among social conservatives against the bold topics of the early 70s TV; the RHODA writers felt they were limited in honestly addressing matters of marriage and sex.

It's good to get this context.

I was aware that censorship became stricter around this time when it came to violence (as reflected in the Wonder Woman series, which began with her throwing punches and blowing up manned ships, and ended with her her opponents either falling into empty cardboard boxes or hypnotised by her gymnastic skills), so I suppose it's natural this would extend to sex as well.

Certainly at the point I've reached, I've appreciated that signs point to Rhoda and Joe enjoying a healthy sex life. One of the last episodes of Season Two had them both taking time off work to spend a few days' quality time in their apartment. Other episodes have shown them to be visibly frustrated when Brenda staying has interfered with their spontaneous sex life.

Rhoda was a step-mother, new wife, had an ex wife to deal with... plus you had mother as an interfering mother in law and step grandmother. So there was a lot of avenues the writers could have explored with Rhoda and Joe that they seemed unwilling to do.

I've enjoyed all these elements being present throughout Season Two. To me it feels like a sitcom that's working, and with potential for further gold to be mined, so the changes ahead aren't thrilling me at this point.

By season 4, the show seems like 'Mary Tyler Moore in New York City' instead of a show with it's own identity.

That's a shame. Watching recently, it's felt a little like Knots Landing to MTM's Dallas, and I was looking forward to seeing it continue to carve its own identity.

Aha!

I see that episode is one of only two from the entire series that has its own hyperlink on Wikipedia's list of episodes. I won't click through until after watching, but it's a little exciting to know that the two episodes that seem to be viewed as among the most important are still to come.

 

[Crimson]

So there was a lot of avenues the writers could have explored with Rhoda and Joe that they seemed unwilling to do.

I've enjoyed all these elements being present throughout Season Two. To me it feels like a sitcom that's working, and with potential for further gold to be mined, so the changes ahead aren't thrilling me at this point.

Every postmortem on RHODA reaches the same conclusion: the producers and writers were bored and dissatisfied with the premise of their own show; one writer even said they were bored with the show before the audience. That dissatisfaction may have been rooted in the network dictate to marry Rhoda and Joe almost immediately, rather than allowing the relationship to develop organically.

Alternately, I wonder if they ever would have allowed Joe and Rhoda to develop if left to their own; the MTM producers were consistently skittish about committing Mary to a relationship and it's possible that would have carried over to RHODA.

 

[Treeviewer]

Alternately, I wonder if they ever would have allowed Joe and Rhoda to develop if left to their own; the MTM producers were consistently skittish about committing Mary to a relationship and it's possible that would have carried over to RHODA.

I read somewhere that the character played by Ted Bessell in two episodes of MTM was supposed to become a regular but the plans fell through when he became unavailable for some reason. I remember a phone conversation with Mary telling Rhoda about him and remarking on the coincidence that they had both found men named Joe.

 

[Crimson]

I read somewhere that the character played by Ted Bessell in two episodes of MTM was supposed to become a regular but the plans fell through when he became unavailable for some reason

Presumably something personal; it doesn't appear that Bessell had a professional conflict, since IMDB shows a 4 year gap after MTM and his next project. The book on MTM's production makes no mention of the actor or the character. His casting seemed intentional and important, since he had played the boyfriend on THAT GIRL, one of MTM's primary inspirations.

The producers did say that each time they wrote and cast a suitor for Mary, they thought he was "the one" -- only to be disappointed by the results on screen.

 

[Marley Drama]

That dissatisfaction may have been rooted in the network dictate to marry Rhoda and Joe almost immediately, rather than allowing the relationship to develop organically.

Alternately, I wonder if they ever would have allowed Joe and Rhoda to develop if left to their own

The marriage certainly felt rushed, and I'm sure that would have been the case had I watched at the original weekly pace. A month and a half between the air dates of their first meeting and the wedding is bonkers, even allowing for a time lapse here and there. It did diminish the character of Rhoda in my eyes for a time, because of the way it was written (presumably necessarily, to move the story from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible).

Since it's happened I've felt fine with the setup, but I can see how the network pushing for the early marriage took away a lot of material. If the creators had a vision in mind based on the independent Rhoda we knew from MTM, it's understandable they may lose interest when it became a series about a newly-married couple.

 

[Crimson]

Having finished my rewatch of MTM, I'm giving PHYLLIS a go. I'll eschew reviews so as not to spoil anything for Mel, so instead some of the backstage dramas that resulted in PHYLLIS:

If the MTM producers had been reluctant to spinoff Rhoda, they were downright resistant to doing the same with Phyllis. How could a character whose defining traits made her a pain-in-the-ass be the center of a series? Even worse, Cloris, like Phyllis, was something of a pain-in-the-ass. A Method actress, she often held up production of MTM while obsessing with minutia of her performance. Because she was only a recurring character, the producers thought the payoff was worth the pain; but to build an entire show around such an exacting actress? They didn't have much choice though. By the mid-70s, Cloris was at a career high having won an Oscar and a few Emmys. If MTM Production didn't build a show around Cloris, another company would have.

Cloris was indeed known to be difficult on the PHYLLIS set, particularly in how she tried to control performances of the other actors to shift the focus to herself (how Phyllis!) You can see the results of this on screen. In the two episodes I watched, the other actors are all curiously muted as if they're just standing around waiting for Cloris to do something funny. The star of the show may have been the show's undoing.

One direct commentary on the show, which does not bode well: it has obnoxiously loud audience laughter. This is one of those sitcoms where the audience laughs -- real or "sweetened" -- at everything that happens, even when it's not remotely amusing. It makes the show feel desperate.

 

[Marley Drama]

Mary Tyler Moore
Season Six
Edie Gets Married / Mary Moves Out / Mary’s Father / Murray In Love / Ted’s Moment Of Glory / Mary’s Aunt / Chuckles Bites The Dust / Mary’s Delinquent / Ted’s Wedding / Lou Douses An Old Flame / Mary Richards Falls In Love / Ted’s Tax Refund / The Happy Homemaker Takes Lou Home

Happily, most of the reservations I had about MTM during the last season have vanished and I’ve enjoyed the first half of the Sixth Season. I wouldn't say it’s the series at its finest, but it’s certainly had its moments and remains a nice, fairly comforting way to pass the time.

Beyond the first couple of episodes, the new apartment has actually been a fairly easy adjustment for me. My biggest gripe was that there was no real closure for me as a viewer with the old apartment. Yes, it was seen at the beginning of Season Seven, but it was never seen again once Mary decided to move (a decision taken away from the apartment, if I remember correctly), so there was no “goodbye” scene. It didn’t help that I’d forgotten this change was about to happen, so it jarred me in the way I imagine it might have done the original audience.

Now it’s done, though, I’m pleasantly surprised that I haven’t missed that classic set very much. I put this down to there being no Rhoda, Phyllis or Bess. Somehow with the new set, regular visits from the WJM crowd feels less intrusive and more logical. I can’t remember if anything’s been mentioned but I’ve rationalised it that the new apartment is closer to the city, and so probably also to the studio and perhaps even the homes of other characters. When Georgette had a one-to-one conversation with Mary at the old apartment, I found myself constantly wishing it was Rhoda. In the new location that hasn’t happened. I’m enjoying Georgette more than I have in some time, so the move is improving my relationship with the remaining characters.

Some stories feel a little repetitious or familiar. Ted looking at an apartment in Mary’s building, for example. Or Murray’s crush on Mary which we’ve previously seen with another of her colleagues (Ted again, I think). The latter in particular just felt like disposable, plot-driven sitcom fare where characters act in ways that serves the story of the week rather than in a way that feels truthful. Sadly, this was also another strike against Murray who I just struggle to “get” as a character. As things have gone along, he’s proved to be a bad friend, a bad colleague, a poor father and (more than once) a bad husband. I don’t watch television for puritanical morality, but because I just don’t get what Murray is about beyond an endless string of snarky put-downs I find it more difficult to accept. Conversely, Sue Ann’s acidic comments are a divine joy and never fail to make me smile.

Having watched it, I feel I should mention Chuckles Bites The Dust, but at the same time I’m not sure I have anything profound to say about it. I enjoyed that it explored attitudes towards death and the tendency in Western society to use inappropriate humour as a coping mechanism in response to death. I thought it came together well in the second half and I thought it was a good episode. That said, watching it with “the best American sitcom episode ever”, it had a lot to live up to and I don’t feel it did this. Watching in this context, it read to me as simply one of a number of very enjoyable episodes over the course of the series. Which is still no bad thing.

There was a piece of real-life fun to come from watching the episode. Yesterday I was at a nature reserve. The canteen area had a vaulted ceiling from which hung a huge mobile of different leaves. I found myself smiling and said to my partner (who has been watching along with me) “I think Sue Ann’s been here” before nodding at the mobile. It gave the pair of us a laugh, even though the display in question was much more pretty and tasteful than Sue Ann’s food group effort.

 

[Marley Drama]

Having finished my rewatch of MTM, I'm giving PHYLLIS a go. I'll eschew reviews so as not to spoil anything for Mel

Oh great. I'm aiming to begin Phyllis after MTM S6.

Please don't hold back on comments or reviews on my account. I'm not overly worried about spoilers with this kind of series, and I have read about the basic premise. I can always skip what's read and come back to it later.

she tried to control performances of the other actors to shift the focus to herself (how Phyllis!) You can see the results of this on screen. In the two episodes I watched, the other actors are all curiously muted as if they're just standing around waiting for Cloris to do something funny. The star of the show may have been the show's undoing.

I'll look out for this when I begin watching.

This is one of those sitcoms where the audience laughs -- real or "sweetened" -- at everything that happens, even when it's not remotely amusing. It makes the show feel desperate.

Oh dear. That can have the opposite effect. Probably by virtue of not watching as many sitcoms recently, I seem to notice the studio audience these days more than I used to.

Along similar lines, one of my bugbears is when there's one person (or a couple of people) with a particularly loud, annoying or distinguishable laugh (or any combination of these). It becomes hugely distracting, and I sometimes wonder if it's done with intent so that person can go home and hear themselves the show.

 

[Crimson]

the new apartment has actually been a fairly easy adjustment for me.

I'm a bit more ambivalent about it and find the change to by symbolic of all the many changes on MTM. Mary moving to a new apartment is entirely organic to the story and character. With Rhoda and Phyllis gone, there was nothing keeping Mary in the same apartment. Being more successful, it makes sense that Mary would want a bigger place. The original apartment set was cozy, distinct and personal. The new apartment set was none of those things; I find it generic, cold and functional. Each evolution of MTM just slowly chipped away at what made the earlier seasons magical.

Some stories feel a little repetitious or familiar.

I have long felt that the ideal duration of a scripted TV show is 5 years; after that, it's either going to be repetitious and/or change too much. Some shows can hold the quality together for a few additional seasons, even if the repetition and/or changes start to become slightly problematic. After that, it's all downhill.

Sadly, this was also another strike against Murray who I just struggle to “get” as a character.

I've never really thought about Murray in a negative light, but I also can't disagree with any of your objections to the character. I suppose Gavin McLeod's inherent likability did some heavy lifting to make Murray seem like a good guy, even while his actions often said otherwise.

But you've touched on what was my thematic premise in discussing the show originally: the characters evolve and I don't always find the evolution to be all that enjoyable. So here's my hot take about MTM: I often dislike Mary Richards in the last two seasons. This is mostly due to a shift in Moore's performance; she added a sour quality to Mary that I find unlikable. I suppose as the character evolved, her earlier comedic aces-in-the-hole -- fumbling, stammering insecurity and occasionally even crying -- weren't as appropriate. I think Moore went too far in the opposite direction. In the early seasons, Mary always responded to Ted, Phyllis and Sue Ann with bemusement. In seasons six and seven, Mary often responded to Ted and Sue Ann with a sneering attitude that I dislike immensely.

Please don't hold back on comments or reviews on my account. I'm not overly worried about spoilers with this kind of series, and I have read about the basic premise. I can always skip what's read and come back to it later.

I'm six or seven episodes in and there's much less to potentially spoil than I imagined. And that's part of the problem, I think; the show isn't really about anything. I think sitcoms succeed based on two qualities: the premise and the cast. PHYILLS fails on both.

The show starts with a solid idea: Phyllis as a widow, making her more sympathetic. And then the character immediately moves in with her very well-to-do in-laws, removing any comedic/dramatic challenges of Phyllis trying to "make it on her own". Neither her homelife nor job offer any potential. The two characters are home at vague and pleasant; the two characters at work are vague and less pleasant. Unlike a TV newsroom, a photography studio doesn't open up many story possibilities. I'm already tired of these characters bickering over how to photograph an inanimate object.

Barbara Colby, in the first three episodes, at least offered some personality even if she seemed muted compared to her two appearances on MTM. Even though I knew the recast was coming, I still found it jarring. Although I have enjoyed Liz Torres in other TV shows, I've disliked her in every appearance on PHYLLIS so far.

The biggest frustration with PHYLLIS is they had a great premise staring right at them, and they skipped it: the eccentric, irresponsible mother and the level-headed teenage daughter. The show seems to go out of its way to avoid the Phyllis-Bess relationship. Even the episode ostensibly about Bess still managed to under-utilize Lisa Gerritsen.

Alternately, the show might have learned some lessons from MAUDE, which PHYLLIS slightly resembles; a manic, over-the-top central character surrounded by a supporting cast mostly there to react. But somehow PHYLLIS takes all of MAUDE's weaknesses and makes them worse.

Heavy criticisms aside, the show isn't really bad. I've certainly seen much worse American sitcoms. But it's not good either. One thing I will say in the show's defense: every episode has built up to and ended with one big laugh (always Phyllis', naturally; even when she was off-screen for one of them). I'm not sure if this will continue, but so far it seems like a deliberate story structure to climax the episode with a solid punchline, even while the rest of the episode was tepid.

I suppose I'll keep watching, but my pace has already slowed.

Along similar lines, one of my bugbears is when there's one person (or a couple of people) with a particularly loud, annoying or distinguishable laugh (or any combination of these).

Like a film score, I think the best audience reaction / laugh tracks are the ones you don't quite notice. I just watched all seven seasons of MTM and I was barely aware of the audience laughter; it mostly just seamlessly blended into the show.

The only exception I make are the various LUCY sitcoms, which has a very distinct woman's laughter in the audience. It was Lucy's mom who was at the filming of every episode, which I find sweet.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I'm a bit more ambivalent about it and find the change to by symbolic of all the many changes on MTM. Mary moving to a new apartment is entirely organic to the story and character. With Rhoda and Phyllis gone, there was nothing keeping Mary in the same apartment. Being more successful, it makes sense that Mary would want a bigger place. The original apartment set was cozy, distinct and personal. The new apartment set was none of those things; I find it generic, cold and functional. Each evolution of MTM just slowly chipped away at what made the earlier seasons magical.



I have long felt that the ideal duration of a scripted TV show is 5 years; after that, it's either going to be repetitious and/or change too much. Some shows can hold the quality together for a few additional seasons, even if the repetition and/or changes start to become slightly problematic. After that, it's all downhill.



I've never really thought about Murray in a negative light, but I also can't disagree with any of your objections to the character. I suppose Gavin McLeod's inherent likability did some heavy lifting to make Murray seem like a good guy, even while his actions often said otherwise.

But you've touched on what was my thematic premise in discussing the show originally: the characters evolve and I don't always find the evolution to be all that enjoyable. So here's my hot take about MTM: I often dislike Mary Richards in the last two seasons. This is mostly due to a shift in Moore's performance; she added a sour quality to Mary that I find unlikable. I suppose as the character evolved, her earlier comedic aces-in-the-hole -- fumbling, stammering insecurity and occasionally even crying -- weren't as appropriate. I think Moore went too far in the opposite direction. In the early seasons, Mary always responded to Ted, Phyllis and Sue Ann with bemusement. In seasons six and seven, Mary often responded to Ted and Sue Ann with a sneering attitude that I dislike immensely.



I'm six or seven episodes in and there's much less to potentially spoil than I imagined. And that's part of the problem, I think; the show isn't really about anything. I think sitcoms succeed based on two qualities: the premise and the cast. PHYILLS fails on both.

The show starts with a solid idea: Phyllis as a widow, making her more sympathetic. And then the character immediately moves in with her very well-to-do in-laws, removing any comedic/dramatic challenges of Phyllis trying to "make it on her own". Neither her homelife nor job offer any potential. The two characters are home at vague and pleasant; the two characters at work are vague and less pleasant. Unlike a TV newsroom, a photography studio doesn't open up many story possibilities. I'm already tired of these characters bickering over how to photograph an inanimate object.

Barbara Colby, in the first three episodes, at least offered some personality even if she seemed muted compared to her two appearances on MTM. Even though I knew the recast was coming, I still found it jarring. Although I have enjoyed Liz Torres in other TV shows, I've disliked her in every appearance on PHYLLIS so far.

The biggest frustration with PHYLLIS is they had a great premise staring right at them, and they skipped it: the eccentric, irresponsible mother and the level-headed teenage daughter. The show seems to go out of its way to avoid the Phyllis-Bess relationship. Even the episode ostensibly about Bess still managed to under-utilize Lisa Gerritsen.

Alternately, the show might have learned some lessons from MAUDE, which PHYLLIS slightly resembles; a manic, over-the-top central character surrounded by a supporting cast mostly there to react. But somehow PHYLLIS takes all of MAUDE's weaknesses and makes them worse.

Heavy criticisms aside, the show isn't really bad. I've certainly seen much worse American sitcoms. But it's not good either. One thing I will say in the show's defense: every episode has built up to and ended with one big laugh (always Phyllis', naturally; even when she was off-screen for one of them). I'm not sure if this will continue, but so far it seems like a deliberate story structure to climax the episode with a solid punchline, even while the rest of the episode was tepid.

I suppose I'll keep watching, but my pace has already slowed.



Like a film score, I think the best audience reaction / laugh tracks are the ones you don't quite notice. I just watched all seven seasons of MTM and I was barely aware of the audience laughter; it mostly just seamlessly blended into the show.

The only exception I make are the various LUCY sitcoms, which has a very distinct woman's laughter in the audience. It was Lucy's mom who was at the filming of every episode, which I find sweet.

You make some interesting observations.

Some of my own

Never liked Phyllis, but maybe that was the point of the character

While still good, not as good without Rhoda. Mary's best friend seemed to be Murray, after Rhoda departed.
Not the same

Gavin MacLeod was a terrific actor who played many good roles.
I always found Murray's attitude toward Ted to be a bit too mean-spirited.

Ted Knight, also a terrific actor who played many roles, was my favorite on the show. He portrayed Ted with a kind of likeable buffoonery,
and didn't overact, which could be tendency for such a character

I thought Mary's character grew stronger in later years, not as unlikeable as you sggest (respectfully).
I think that as Mary grew older, it was a natural evolution for the character to be a bit more
wordly, for lack of a better word.

 

[Marley Drama]

I'm a bit more ambivalent about it and find the change to by symbolic of all the many changes on MTM.

This makes sense to me.

The original apartment set was cozy, distinct and personal. The new apartment set was none of those things; I find it generic, cold and functional.

I'd agree with this. I wouldn't say I find it cold, but generic and functional certainly fits. Early on in my viewing I commented how much I enjoyed the apartment set. It looked like somewhere I'd be happy to spend some time or even live. The new one looks as though it could be anywhere, and feels much more impersonal. The only aesthetic feature I've noticed is the (very of its time) tiling in the kitchen, and that only evoked a kind of nostalgia in me because it's similar to one the tile behind the cold meat counter in a nearby supermarket when I was young.

I suppose Gavin McLeod's inherent likability did some heavy lifting to make Murray seem like a good guy, even while his actions often said otherwise.

I've wondered if these mixed signals are actually the cause of the problem for me.

I often dislike Mary Richards in the last two seasons. This is mostly due to a shift in Moore's performance; she added a sour quality to Mary that I find unlikable.

I've raised eyebrows a couple of times at some of those sneering responses she's given. At times it's felt the writers have confused assertiveness with just plain brittle.

The final scene of the episode with Ted's tax returns hinged on all of his colleagues building him up to give him an "out" before throwing him under the bus by withdrawing any potential help. While it was in character for Mary to have a problem with lying even to save his hide, the way she toyed with him before (again) leaving him hanging felt as though it crossed a line into cruelty.

the show isn't really about anything. I think sitcoms succeed based on two qualities: the premise and the cast. PHYILLS fails on both.

Oh, shame. Thinking about it, I'd probably struggle to describe the premise of Rhoda to someone, so perhaps it's the law of diminishing returns.

Fortunately, I think Rhoda's cast is an area where it's succeeded and that gets it through.

 

[Soaplover]

I'm a bit more ambivalent about it and find the change to by symbolic of all the many changes on MTM. Mary moving to a new apartment is entirely organic to the story and character. With Rhoda and Phyllis gone, there was nothing keeping Mary in the same apartment. Being more successful, it makes sense that Mary would want a bigger place. The original apartment set was cozy, distinct and personal. The new apartment set was none of those things; I find it generic, cold and functional. Each evolution of MTM just slowly chipped away at what made the earlier seasons magical.



I have long felt that the ideal duration of a scripted TV show is 5 years; after that, it's either going to be repetitious and/or change too much. Some shows can hold the quality together for a few additional seasons, even if the repetition and/or changes start to become slightly problematic. After that, it's all downhill.



I've never really thought about Murray in a negative light, but I also can't disagree with any of your objections to the character. I suppose Gavin McLeod's inherent likability did some heavy lifting to make Murray seem like a good guy, even while his actions often said otherwise.

But you've touched on what was my thematic premise in discussing the show originally: the characters evolve and I don't always find the evolution to be all that enjoyable. So here's my hot take about MTM: I often dislike Mary Richards in the last two seasons. This is mostly due to a shift in Moore's performance; she added a sour quality to Mary that I find unlikable. I suppose as the character evolved, her earlier comedic aces-in-the-hole -- fumbling, stammering insecurity and occasionally even crying -- weren't as appropriate. I think Moore went too far in the opposite direction. In the early seasons, Mary always responded to Ted, Phyllis and Sue Ann with bemusement. In seasons six and seven, Mary often responded to Ted and Sue Ann with a sneering attitude that I dislike immensely.



I'm six or seven episodes in and there's much less to potentially spoil than I imagined. And that's part of the problem, I think; the show isn't really about anything. I think sitcoms succeed based on two qualities: the premise and the cast. PHYILLS fails on both.

The show starts with a solid idea: Phyllis as a widow, making her more sympathetic. And then the character immediately moves in with her very well-to-do in-laws, removing any comedic/dramatic challenges of Phyllis trying to "make it on her own". Neither her homelife nor job offer any potential. The two characters are home at vague and pleasant; the two characters at work are vague and less pleasant. Unlike a TV newsroom, a photography studio doesn't open up many story possibilities. I'm already tired of these characters bickering over how to photograph an inanimate object.

Barbara Colby, in the first three episodes, at least offered some personality even if she seemed muted compared to her two appearances on MTM. Even though I knew the recast was coming, I still found it jarring. Although I have enjoyed Liz Torres in other TV shows, I've disliked her in every appearance on PHYLLIS so far.

The biggest frustration with PHYLLIS is they had a great premise staring right at them, and they skipped it: the eccentric, irresponsible mother and the level-headed teenage daughter. The show seems to go out of its way to avoid the Phyllis-Bess relationship. Even the episode ostensibly about Bess still managed to under-utilize Lisa Gerritsen.

Alternately, the show might have learned some lessons from MAUDE, which PHYLLIS slightly resembles; a manic, over-the-top central character surrounded by a supporting cast mostly there to react. But somehow PHYLLIS takes all of MAUDE's weaknesses and makes them worse.

Heavy criticisms aside, the show isn't really bad. I've certainly seen much worse American sitcoms. But it's not good either. One thing I will say in the show's defense: every episode has built up to and ended with one big laugh (always Phyllis', naturally; even when she was off-screen for one of them). I'm not sure if this will continue, but so far it seems like a deliberate story structure to climax the episode with a solid punchline, even while the rest of the episode was tepid.

I suppose I'll keep watching, but my pace has already slowed.



Like a film score, I think the best audience reaction / laugh tracks are the ones you don't quite notice. I just watched all seven seasons of MTM and I was barely aware of the audience laughter; it mostly just seamlessly blended into the show.

The only exception I make are the various LUCY sitcoms, which has a very distinct woman's laughter in the audience. It was Lucy's mom who was at the filming of every episode, which I find sweet.

Barbara Colby and Cloris had a good rapport/chemistry that I'm sure would have continued to develop had real life hadn't sadly happened to her. I could have seen her being more of a Rhoda foil type for Phyllis.. while Liz Torres didn't have the same presence as Barbara Colby nor the chemistry with Cloris.

Oddly season 1 was highly rated.. higher rated then either MTM and Rhoda so viewers obviously enjoyed some aspects of the show in season 1.. though it is a struggle to watch some weeks compared to Rhoda in season 1 and 2.

 

[Crimson]

Ted Knight, also a terrific actor who played many roles, was my favorite on the show. He portrayed Ted with a kind of likeable buffoonery,
and didn't overact, which could be tendency for such a character

Ted Baxter was the broadest and most potentially cartoonish of MTM's characters. so it's impressive that Knight managed to keep him believable and likeable. Hard to imagine the other actors considered for the role -- Jack Cassidy, Lyle Waggoner -- bringing the same nuance to Ted Baxter.

I wouldn't say I find it cold, but generic and functional certainly fits.

Cold might be harsh, but I find it the opposite of cozy. Apparently the new apartment bothered someone even more than me, since she wrote a whole article on Psychology Today about it.

"f Mary’s original apartment was a dress, the new one was a suit. The old one was soft, the new one hard."

I don't have the best eye for such things, but I don't think they re-used any furniture from the original set in the new apartment (except, obviously, for the M on the wall). Keeping the same furniture may have helped warm up the new set. Plus, it's pretty implausible for someone to just buy all new furniture after they move.

Mary’s Aunt

Just noticed you passed this episode, with two noteworthy aspects. Flo Meredith is the only character from MTM to appear on the drama LOU GRANT. I have no interest in watching that show, but one of these days I'll check out that particular episode. If nothing else, I'm curious to see if there's any reference to MTM.

The episode also starts some obvious revisionism of Mary's past, establishing that Mary had always wanted to be a journalist and was inspired by her aunt. Of course, there's no indication of this earlier in the series. Mary applied for a job as a secretary in the first episode, and there was no hint that she was specifically interested in TV journalism. When she later started taking journalism classes, it was with a "Oh why not?" kind of attitude. Subsequent episodes continue this revisionism.

Oh, shame.

Well of course you enjoyed MAUDE and RHODA more than me, so there's always a chance you'll find more to enjoy in PHYLLIS too.