I honestly didn’t think it was humanly possible. In fact, since his star turn on The West Wing, I’ve seen him in some of his older work that I never would have watched before, and I’ve loved it. So when I heard he was in a new show I thought, “Where can I sign up?”
But then I saw The Good Guys. And then I saw it (partially) again. And Bradley Whitford was a huge disappointment.
It’s not just the character he plays, although Dan Stark is terrible and something we’ll get to in a moment. It’s also the show. Michael wrote a few weeks back about how sweet it was to have that ’70s cop show vibe back (and what’s Keen Eddie?). Well, not for this ’80s baby it isn’t. To me, the genre is awful. And here’s why.
In the 1970s, everyone was either fighting in a war, burning their bras, engaging in group sex, or stoned. So campy series, with their poorly written and ill-conceived plots, badly developed characters, and total lack of suspense, drama, or comedy, were “groovy, man.” But can you imagine the mess a show like that would be if you’re sober and paying attention? It’s like a black-light poster sitting out in the sun … you see it for what it really is, and what it is ain’t good.
And Whitford? Well, maybe part of the problem is that the wife and I are keeping away the pre-summer TV season doldrums by viewing our Studio 60 DVD every night, where the combination of Whitford, Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, Aaron Sorkin, et al makes us wonder what in the world was wrong with the viewing public when they let the show fail. So seeing Whitford as Dan after watching him as Danny Tripp is exactly like what the former character name is to the latter — it falls short.
But he’s also a buffoon. Joshua Lyman is playing a buffoon. One half of the Whitford/Spencer combo, one half of the Whitford/Perry combo, is playing a buffoon, a washed-up has been of a cop, whose partner is symbolic of exactly what Colin Hanks (no offense) is to Whitford — an inexperienced newbie still cutting his teeth on schlock. When did Bradley Whitford become the fizzled star whose remaining career choices consist of helping bring the new guy along?
I realize he’s not done yet, and in truth a perfect example of what may lie ahead for him could be seen by looking at Scott Bakula, now once more a superstar on Men of a Certain Age. But that’s tomorrow. As for today, what’s going on?
When my wife dropped out in the middle of the pilot, I yelled at her for being a Josh deserter. But in the end she was the one who was right, because she spared herself the pain of watching the rest of the pilot and the first twenty minutes of the second episode. Because they were bad. So bad that I couldn’t even keep the episode on in the background while I took care of things around the old homestead.
Since I now see them as a team, my hope is that Matthew Perry turns in a star performance on his new show; my fear is that his Mr. Sunshine will be no better than The Good Guys. Only time will tell.
In the meantime, let The Good Guys recede quietly into the night while Bradley Whitford can still save some face. He deserves at least that much from us.
Clacked by Aryeh S.
on Jun 09, 2010 @ 14:00 EST5EDT
How sad is it that Whitford has portrayed my favorite all time TV character (Josh) and one right up there (Tripp), and I won’t even try to watch this show.
*POST AUTHOR*
You’re better off for having gone with your gut on this one.
Word. And I have crush dreams about him as Danny Tripp.
The viewing public didn’t let “Studio 60″ fail. Aaron Sorkin’s ego did. And I say that as someone who owns the first 5 seasons of “The West Wing”, and is in the middle of re-watching Season 2 right now. I also own and love “Sports Night”. But “Studio 60″, which I stuck with right to the bitter end, hoping it would improve, was an inferior work.
As far as Whitford and “The Good Guys”, why does someone who plays smart roles have to be typecast that way? I’m not his biggest fan, but I can appreciate what this character is about. I’ve seen Richard Schiff play a dumb loser in other roles, and he played it well. Allison Janney’s recent guest role on “Lost” was pretty much 180 degrees from C.J. Cregg, and while I wasn’t thrilled with the episode, she wasn’t to blame (her recurring role on “In Plain Sight” is good, too).
I have high (probably unrealistic) hopes for “Mr. Sunshine”. Perry was always the best part of “Friends”. And he’ll have Janney to play off of. Now if only Richard Schiff can become a recurring character…
*POST AUTHOR*
I don’t think he should be typecast. I do think, however, that he’s climbed high enough on the ladder to only be offered good roles, and to only take good roles. Show fails, that’s how it works. But this stinks.
Boo! Hiss! Boo, I say!
Not (ever) being a West Wing watcher, I have been introduced to Mr. Whitford for the very first time with this show. (That doesn’t make me a bad person … does it? Does it?)
Maybe it was the wide-eyed wonder of youth and exuberance that attracted me to Starsky and Hutch oh, those many years ago. And, maybe, it’s that same youthful and exuberant frame of mind which has attracted me to The Good Guys. (Okay … okay … yes, I did procure a facsimile Starsky sweater in Mexico once. So what? Yeah … my first car was a Mercury Montego … reminiscent of the Grand Torino on same. And I’m glad for that influence. And, yeah … the mannerisms displayed on TGGs are akin to those of David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser on the ‘70’s memory so fondly engrained within my mind.
A bit of television ‘nepotism’? Maybe. The yearning of past days? Perhaps. The wishful thinking of buried youth who probably shouldn’t have been watching said program … who instead should have been doing his homework? Granted.
But, not having a previous point of reference to Mr. Whitford, it’s cool to delve into a show like this with eyes wide shut to outside influences, so to speak. I don’t feel any the lesser toward Mr. Whitford for doing this show.
So … if you want to throw wet blankets atop beach party bonfires, go ahead. There’s some pain there you’re trying to exorcise … and I can understand that. But there’s a child-like innocence that this viewer is digging that’s coming from The Good Guys … and it will not be squelched.
Next, you’re going to lambaste me for never (yes, I used “never”) watching a single episode of Seinfeld … aren’t you?
Yay Michael! I think we need to teach Aryeh how to have some fun! :-) Because I never liked Sorkin — West Wing or Studio 60 — give me the drivel any day!
*POST AUTHOR*
You never what? Seriously? A Few Good Men? The American President? Charlie Wilson’s War? Ivey, are you seeing this???
Good, lord Deb. What’s wrong with you????
:P
Did you even ever give SportsNight a try?
Actually, I caught Sports Night here and there and it was OK, but didn’t make me fall in love with it. For me, Sorkin is too preachy (is that what I’m trying to say?) and full of holier-than-thou dialogue, whether it be about politics or religion … or sports, I guess! ;-)
*POST AUTHOR*
Starsky and what?
I don’t think I can even process what you said at the end….
*guffaws*
In that case, my work here is done …
I am a huge Brad fan, but won’t watch this drivel.
Have immensley higher hopes for Matt Perry’s outing based on this clip https://theflickcast.com/2010/06/08/check-out-2-new-clips-from-matthew-perrys-mr-sunshine/
So many from the glorious Studio 60 involved! And they have to get that next show ready.
Yeah. How to tell you this… looks horrible to me. Real bad jokes and only because it’s cut to a 3 minute preview there are any laughs. It’s multi-camera so there won’t be a laugh-track and I really don’t think that the show will be that fast-paced. Take a look at the second two clips. Really really non-funny.
And I really start to think it’s because of Andrea Anders. She seems to be comedy poison. I don’t understand why she keeps getting casted. Joey got two Seasons, The Class got one, Bettef Off Ted 24 episodes… she’s clearly not working on any of these shows and those scenes with Matthew were really really wrong. Again a story that I think is comedy poison. Breakup right in the first episode. Because of a black guy. Who’s the protagonist’s co-worker and “friend”. There clearly is too much taken from Studio 60 that didn’t work there and they exchanged one horrible blonde actress for another.
And that announcement – later next season. Mid-Season replacement. ABC seems to have a TON of trust in the show. Not.
Still willing to give Sunshine a chance based on the clips. Remember the point of this post is how hideous The Good Guys looks. The promo with Brad screaming, “It’s an orange gun!”; was more than enough of that show for a lifetime for me. He looked pained doing it and that’s their go to piece?
Super. Part of me wants Whitford to fail so miserably that I will never ever have to read about him again if only that would lead to not having to discuss “Studio 60″ anymore. It’s getting old. Really really old.
I mean what you wrote here again… “what was wrong with the audience” yadda yadda yadda “What is Keen Eddie”, why the ’80s sucked…
I’m really getting tired reading these types of posts. It’s as if you see a barely healed wound, get out your dirty stick and start poking. Every day of the week.
*POST AUTHOR*
I used Studio 60 as an example of the great work he’s done, as I did with The West Wing. The point of what I wrote was the actor, not a show he was once on. Did I editorialize a little? Of course … why wouldn’t I?
I didn’t like “The Good Guys” myself but I stopped reading after that sentence about “Studio 60″. How am I supposed to read further when you basically say that you at the moment watch another show by the guy and your take on the show can’t be anything else than tainted by that? Not taking into account that you say you don’t understand the viewers and why they didn’t like “Studio 60″ back then.
I just didn’t want to subject myself to the dribble that just has to come after that on why “The Good Guys” is a bad show. Let me guess: “It’s no Studio 60″ mixed with “I don’t like the character”.
I mean honestly. Aren’t you supposed to at least TRY to have an open mind? It’s always perfonal preference all the time with you.
*POST AUTHOR*
You can certainly read what you choose to, but I make no such comparison. As I said before, I was merely juxtaposing that high with this low.
If I didn’t have an open mind, I wouldn’t have tried The Good Guys after, for example, seeing the orange gun promo (thanks segsig!). The fact that I tuned in twice proves that I was willing to see what else Whitford could do.
I have to agree that giving the show more than one episode is keeping an open mind, although trying it for a few more would go a long way towards silencing your detractors. Far be it to speak for him, but I think some of the points Sebastian was trying to make are that you can’t claim to not be influenced by an actor’s earlier work. Not that you so much that came out and said it than the implication was there.
I never liked Studio 60 even a little, but I’ll grant those that did that it was a quality show, just not to my tastes. I’ve been disappointed by a lot of actors who land themselves in what I feel to be lesser roles after loving them in something else, but more often than not I would eventually embrace the new persona. I remember when the Sylvester Stallone movie “Cliffhanger” came out and I found out John Lithgow was playing the bad guy in a serious role. I couldn’t believe it, but he pulled it off even though it took most of the movie for me to take him seriously.
Thank God we have 400 bazillion channels so that everyone gets a little of what they want. When we first got cable TV it came with SIX whole channels and no snow! It was seriously like going to HDTV back then, plus we’d had a color TV for only about a year so that was something. Today we’re spoiled, have tons of shows to discuss/argue over and I love it even more!
*POST AUTHOR*
It’s definitely hard to separate, but a good actor will do much of that work for you. That does little to shore up a bad role, or a bad show.
Again, I was using past roles as examples of quality work from which I think he’s fallen. I saw none of Josh Lyman or Danny Tripp in Dan Stark … that might have been part of the problem!
As a TV critic you should know that there’s always the pilot and once the show gets picked up for amount X of episodes, there’s episode two. Tons of things can change between a pilot and the second episode. On “Joey” they even re-cast the female lead (which was Andrea Anders which isn’t something I would put into the “good” column but I digress)
I recently experienced how I didn’t like the pilot for “Parenthood” and still watched the next three episodes and I still had the feeling I might be wrong about the show. Because after I dropped it, people started commenting on the “Parenthood” reviews here that the show had gotten better in the episodes that followed, yet I couldn’t bear returning because I didn’t like a Peter Krause who’s playing an absolute wuss.
I didn’t like the pilot for “The Good Guys” either. But don’t you think that reducing Whitford to his two main roles and then comparing him in those roles to this show, saying he’s on a low point here and comparing him to Scott Bakula (you might notice I now read the rest of your post) very very generalizing? I understand why you say what you say but honestly you simply can’t believe that. I mean would you say that Julia LuisDreyfuss was on a bad Sitcom for the last four years just because the show in general doesn’t live up to what “Seinfeld” was? Even more so if you think that “Studio 60″ was oh so great (which is highly debatable and you know that and that’s why it annoys me to no end that you use it as an example in the “good” column) then why would you even expect anything that isn’t from Sorkin to be even close to what you like?
I for one will watch the second episode and most likely the third as well. That’s what I did for “Drive” that’s what I’ll do for all shows that I even consider writing a comment about and honestly I don’t get what’s so great in watching a single episode of ANYTHING and then shreading it to peaces in a so-called review (read: editorial that’s based on your own taste).
Honestly I don’t get it. What’s so great in watching a single episode of anything and then even write about it when you didn’t like that one SINGLE episode and then compare the stuff someone on the show did that has nothing to do with the show. I mean you honestly can’t say that you just wanted to list something good Whitford did. Look at those two paragraphs. You basically tell us that this is no Sorkin show. That’s just idiotic.
Whitford is a very funny guy who’s been on “Real Time” a couple of times. To be honest I really think he _enjoys_ his role in this. I simply don’t see a reason to write the guy down like that after having watched ONE episode. I don’t get it, sorry.
*POST AUTHOR*
Actually, one of Whitford’s roles that I generally think back on is from Little Manhattan, specifically because he was so different from Josh Lyman. I’ve seen him do other things, and well.
I think Julia Louis-Dreyfus was on a bad sitcom these last few years because I think The New Adventures of Old Christine is a bad show. That’s different than saying, “How could Julia Louis-Dreyfus do this after being on Seinfeld?” There’s actually a pretty broad distinction there.
I was just a tick away from hating the pilot, but since I hated the first few episodes of many series that later became my favorites I’m giving this one a chance. The second episode, while not a big improvement over the first, was a small nudge in the right direction and that’s a lot more than I can say for most of what’s on TV now. I think you should know, however, that I’m old enough to have grown up on the television of the 70’s and while I’ll give you your editorializing I think it’s unfair to characterize the television of my era as “poorly written, ill-conceived plots…” and the like. Some of the best television ever came out of that era and yes, there were a lot of shows that fit your criticisms, but the same can be said for television of any time. Personally, I think it’s far more true today with the glut of so-called reality garbage that amounts to nothing more than voyeuristic viewing of people in situations designed to show the worst sides of humanity. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I get enough of that in rush-hour traffic and all too often just in the freaking mall.
Shows like “All In The Family” and “Sanford and Son” regularly dealt with issues nobody would touch today because the PC crowd would call for their heads on pikes. Jack Klugman as “Quincy” brought ideas in crime solving barely seen again until the advent of the CSIs. Without the original, campy Battlestar Galactica we would never have seen the amazing reboot of the franchise, plus thanks sci-fi back then we have scores more of it today. I remember genre shows being so dismissed that the TV Guide classified sci-fi as “melodrama.” Talk about a kick to the groin. You want some fun? Dig up a little show called “Soap” and see how good a dramedy could be. Actually, “Soap” is kind of its own animal, but it was filled with people who went on to do great things. Try a little “Columbo” for more great mystery solving. (And if you say you’ve never seen even 1 episode of “Columbo” I’m paying someone to go kick you in the groin!)
You’ll have to look past the filters of your age and excuse the bits of these shows that don’t wear well over time, but the great TV of today owes a lot to the television of the 60s, 70s and 80s. So maybe you have to be long-in-the-tooth to even begin to enjoy the nostalgic camp of “The Good Guys,” but I’m enjoying it, if only a little. In all fairness, if this were the rampage of a new television season with a lot of new stuff to sift through I’d most certainly pass on this show, but there isn’t much on right now so I’m giving it a shot.
BTW, I don’t mean any personal insult when I suggest you “look past the filters of your age” because we all deal with that. I’m just trying to explain why someone 50 years old (yeah, we *do* live that long!) might enjoy it more than someone even 10-15 years younger. Nostalgia is meaningless to those who didn’t live it out and that’s not a criticism, simply an observation.
Oh, Soap … one of my all-time favorite shows. And well said, Lenny! :-)
*POST AUTHOR*
I think it all depends on where you’re looking at things from. I’d tend to disagree, and say that the 1990s produced the best on TV, and I’m sure there are people to make the argument for every decade. It all depends on what types of entertainment you like, and what resonates with you.
I do find it interesting, however, that people use how progressive some 70s show were in dealing with social issues as examples of how good they were. I’m not sure what All In The Family’s dealing with racism made it good TV. And I’m definitely the wrong person to drag out science fiction to … I’d blame the original Battlestar Galactica for saddling us with the genre of today. ;)
I have seen Columbo, but I don’t enjoy the aesthetics or the plots. The show oozes its decade, and if one can’t connect….
No insult taken! :)
Aryeh, I guess I wasn’t really clear when I pointed out how sitcoms of the 70’s dealt with social issues. I wasn’t using that to indicate their quality, but to show that a funny series could be made that also had biting social commentary. If you don’t find “All In The Family” enjoyable then I have to say it’s you that has the problem, because while dated it’s still a very funny show. You will have no idea what I’m talking about, but I can still laugh at “My Three Sons” and do the same for “South Park” in the same evening. Maybe it comes with age, but I can enjoy many different eras of television without feeling like something’s off with one or the other. I take them for what they are and enjoy each for its particular charms.
Debbie – You may be right, but I’d bet you’re a LOT younger than me. Most days I feel like everyone’s younger than me. If it were not for “Human Target” this discussion would have me spearheading a move for a rebirth of “Keen Eddie.” Mark Valley is always entertaining and I just loves me some British TV!
Time to dust off my Red Dwarf and re-watch Jekyll. The latter being some of the best television to air anywhere, any time. If you haven’t seen it I highly recommend grabbing a DVD and preparing to see a take on the old story like you’ve never imagined. (Sorry, I go off on these tangents all the time!)
*POST AUTHOR*
I was afraid I’d given the impression that I didn’t like All In The Family. Not my intent. I was just saying that I’ve heard many people represent the show’s greatness by talking about how progressive it was, and I don’t see the correlation.
Speaking of younger, that picture’s a current one of me. ;)
*whew*
Glad you cleared up that picture thing, Aryeh.
Here I thought it was some Benjamin Button throwback and you didn’t have much time left …
*wipes brow*
“Speaking of younger, that picture’s a current one of me.”
THAT explains a lot! Seriously though, with references to shows like “All In The Family” I was trying to convey that way back in the 70’s shows could be written that were both funny and smacked of biting social commentary all while being family friendly. It takes real talent to be able to dance around sensitive issues, joke about them and not be patently offensive. It’s rare to find a show that embodies all those qualities today. Either the comedy is too preachy and self-righteous or it sounds like it was written by dirty-minded 12-year-olds.
For me the best and most recent example of a show that can juggle all those elements whilst not being offensive is the now defunct “Better Off Ted.” Everything about it was near perfect; from the casting to the writing to the use of colors. It was smart, funny, fast-paced, filled with interesting characters and characitures and, therefore, doomed to fail.
I’d gladly pay $3 to see one episode of BOT than $10 for most of the motion pictures in the cinemas now. Too bad a system like that wasn’t in place, maybe we’d still be paying to watch Ted and Firefly. And maybe Aryeh would even know about “Keen Eddie.” (Sorry, I know that sounds like a low-blow, but I only included it to indicate that *maybe* a quality show like that would still be around for you to watch. I have many dreams of frivolous things that should be, but likely never will.)
Um, that should be “caricatures.”
I shall go spank myself for such poor spelling now.
And Aryeh, stay off my lawn!
*POST AUTHOR*
It’s an interesting thought. I think it would be tough to put together the money needed for each episode using that monetizing scheme, but it would be very interesting if we lived in a world where pay-per-view could keep TV series alive.
Oh yeah, I have to add that you asking, “What is ‘Keen Eddie'” is, to me at least, as bad as never having seen one episode of “Seinfeld.” “Keen Eddie” was a fantastic show and if you haven’t even heard of it I’m just sticking my carrots in my ears and shouting, “La la la la la…” while you talk! :o)
Oh Lenny, you and I may be separated at TV-viewing birth … Keen Eddie was ahead of its time and I bet it would be successful if it aired now. Aryeh — try a virgin diary — such a great show!
*POST AUTHOR*
I fell for that once already…. :)
Aryeh and I always disagree. Fact. Have a laugh Aryeh. Why so serious?
*POST AUTHOR*
Because “Bradley Whitford is making me sad!” :)
Aryeh has a brilliant plan here, where he can do mini virgin diaries with his “what’s this show” posts without having to commit to an entire season if he hates it! If he does like it, though, it would be cool for a full season to be covered.
I agree I think Sorkin’s stuff is too preachy. That’s simply not my idea of entertainment. And if that means I’m a low-life and unintelligent because I watch shows like South Park and find that more entertaining, then so be it.
I wonder, though, if people who don’t like Good Guys would like the show if they weren’t hung up on Whitford not being like he was on West Wing.
Oh, and for the person who never saw Whitford before, Revenge of the Nerds? Hellloooo?
*POST AUTHOR*
Challenge accepted! :)
I’ve never read any critics who’ve said, “I hated this show, but I’ll try it six more times because that’s what’s demanded of me.” Hell, I’ve seen some of our writers pass on shows based on pilot scripts…. ;)
I don’t want anyone to write another Josh Lyman for Bradley Whitford; I just want him to play characters that I can enjoy. If he’s not, I won’t be interested in watching, like with anyone else. But my biggest problem with The Good Guys? As a show, it’s not good. Not because it’s not something else, just because it’s not good.
Studio 60 was the most promising show in years, had a wonderful cast, besides the blond haired bitch, and it sucked because it wasn’t funny, it wasn’t well written and the storylines were jokes. We really need three episodes dealing with the Iraq War?! It’s a freaking SNL ripoff that somehow sucked more than SNL.
Aryeh S, you are right on as it relates to “Good Guys”. I wanted it to be a good show, particularly in this season of network re-runs and poor reality fillers–but it is hard to watch. I’ll be honest, and admit that it’s been so bad, I didn’t even grasp that it was Bradly Whitford playing the senior cop, until reading the various clacks. I watched the pilot, (bad), but as many said, I set my TIVO for 2 and 3, to give the show a chance. After watchng #2, I deleted #3. Based on the discussions, I’ll give it another shot, but it needs a lot of work–even when you can skip some of the worst jokes and set-ups.
Related comments under discussion: “Keen Eddie” one of the few TV shows, cancelled so early, that I am still upset. At least I have the VCR tapes to replay from time to time. Also, FOX has given “Human Target” a second season; some comfort there. I’m in Lenny’s generation, and fully agree with him, “Sanford and Son”, “All in Family”, “Quincy”, and others from that era still stand up well against many shows of today.
I hear what Deb and Keith are saying about Sorkin being preachy, but I’m not going to let his politics or agenda get in the way of me enjoying the quality television he produces :)
I just cringed….. I thought ‘ OMG, it’s JOSH! Only sooo not.
Wish I had never seen it.
Well, I like it! I am a huge fan of Whitford and have seen just about everything he’s done. Good on him for taking the ‘smart guy in the suit’ and destroying him,lol! An actor needs new challenges. Yes, the humour can be a bit of a stretch at times ( I didn’t find the ‘awringe gun’ line funny either- there have been much better!) but I laugh out loud in every ep. The characters are ones I can care about – except Jenny Wade’s Liz. There is a character so far from reality…It is meant to be a parody. The humour isn’t typical comedy show formula. I also like how Dan is one of the few non one dimensional characters.As the series has gone on, we are seeing depths to him not immediately obvious.
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth as there was a lot of criticism and I just wanted to even things up a bit.
*POST AUTHOR*
The show definitely seems to have its fans. I just couldn’t see past Whitford’s other roles to this character. But if it’s another success for him, that’s great. :)