Schitt's Creek (Netflix)

icdg

gmisk wrote: »

It just shows you how subjective comedy is.

Roland is far and away my least favourite character in the entire show.

It's maybe not helped by the fact when I see him I can only see that character he played in the scary movie films with the weird hand...

Not a fan of his either. Can’t figure out whether he is meant to be playing an outright “villain” character or just a “loveable rogue”.

For a whole generation Eugene Levy is “Jim’s Dad“. Those films were way more popular than they had any right to be, but it may colour some people’s impressions of this series.

Posy

I never seen Eugene Levy in anything other than Schitt's Creek, luckily.

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Everything you want from a 'comedy'..

I think most good sitcoms have a bittersweet ending, where you are sorry to say goodbye to your favourite characters and see them move on. Even 'Friends' was a bit of a tearjerker as all the characters left the empty apartment.

If I wasn't a little bit sad at the end of a series, it would just mean (to me) that the series wasn't really that good.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Everything you want from a 'comedy'..

Tears of joy is exactly what i want from a feel-good show, especially in its last season.

I also found it funny throughout, which can't be said for many comedies anymore.

EDIT: oh I see you thought Modern Family was funny (maybe for the first season or two sure, but it went downhill fast) so we probably won't be in agreement over comedies.

AbusesToilets

I found Stevie's treatment frustrating. She starts out as a pretty strong, self reliant character, yet by the end of the show she looks like she's about to burst into tears constantly. I thought her and David's interactions were great, but they pushed her backwards in favor of Patrick, who was fairly milquetoast imo.

Mantis Toboggan

Also Starring LeVar Burton wrote: »

Tears of joy is exactly what i want from a feel-good show, especially in its last season.

I also found it funny throughout, which can't be said for many comedies anymore.

EDIT: oh I see you thought Modern Family was funny (maybe for the first season or two sure, but it went downhill fast) so we probably won't be in agreement over comedies.

Yeah for me Modern Family is just an all round better show. I still enjoyed parts of Schitt's creek though just can't see how it won so many awards. Moira hands down the best character, she's brilliant, lot of other characters I found annoying tbh.

JP Liz V1

Cina wrote: »

I'd urge anyone who struggled with it early on to stick with it.

Season three onward really picks up and it's hilarious.

Yes it got better as it went on

pixelburp

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I found Stevie's treatment frustrating. She starts out as a pretty strong, self reliant character, yet by the end of the show she looks like she's about to burst into tears constantly. I thought her and David's interactions were great, but they pushed her backwards in favor of Patrick, who was fairly milquetoast imo.

Yeah, hers was the one arc that left me a little cold TBH: it felt like the writers didn't know what to do with an ultimately rootless, drifter character by the end. That everyone needed new horizons, but that ran contrary to her being, Stevie seeming relatively "happy" having no goals. Tough luck apparently, as she became a bit of a passenger to her own life while David & Johnny Rose made career decisions for her.

I think any sitcom that leaves the viewer a little teary by the end has done it's job well: Schitt's Creek; The Good Place; Parks & Recreation; New Girl, to name four were all excellent sitcoms that nailed the landing in giving everyone a nice wee send-off. I was sorry to see their stories come to an end, but enjoyed knowing they still had a life beyond what we saw on-screen.

Ashbourne hoop

Last two seasons were good, not brilliant. Almost gave up on many occassions, but stuck with it to the end. Overall it was decent enough, but I'm struggling to see how they won so many awards. Alexis as my fav in it.

Hannibal_Smith

I think with Stevie, they took her out of her comfort zone. She said to Moira in Cabaret that she watches everything happen from behind a desk. She never really tried for more. Getting the Motel nearly destroyed her.

But by the end, she's standing in a room of corporate people giving a presentation. Which is a decent jump.

Say Your Number

I loved the arc of Alexis, starting out as this vain brat and then becoming very likable, loved the scene around series 3/4 when she's in the pub looking at her old friends and having a laugh to herself about how shallow they are, would say Moira is one of the best comedy characters of all time.

stopthevoting

I am in the middle of Season 2 now. I am trying to understand how exactly do the Roses (or David to be precise) own the town. Do they own the land it's built on? Do they own some or all of the houses and buildings, and get rental income? It doesn't look like that is the case though. Do they own the motel, and if so, is Stevie their employee, and who was her boss before they arrived? I presume they have free accommodation at the motel, or are they paying guests? Do they have any income from owning the town? They don't seem to have any other benefits of ownership. They don't seem to have any power or control in the town. For example, Moira had to ask the town council to provide some shrubs, and Roland was complaining that Johnny didn't apply for permission for his office work in Bob's garage.

stopthevoting

Actually, just looked back at the first episode and it seems that Roland is in charge of the motel. Not sure if he owns it or just manages it.

icdg

stopthevoting wrote: »

Actually, just looked back at the first episode and it seems that Roland is in charge of the motel. Not sure if he owns it or just manages it.

It’s all explained later in the series exactly about the motel’s ownership (

it was owned by Stevie’s great-aunt, and so Stevie is effectively the owner until first Johnny and then later Roland buy in

)which makes the scenes in the pilot harder to explain except to say that he is meeting them as the mayor. Exactly what the Roses got out of their supposed ownership of the town is never stated. It’s just a plot device to get them there and not important past the pilot really.

Hannibal_Smith

David Rose owns the town, but seemingly not the buildings on it. Its almost as if there's a superior ownership interest (not sure how US land ownership is broken up) of the town itself and that's what the Roses own.

Roland doesn't own the Motel. He's the mayor of the town which was founded by his ancestors.

The Motel, when they arrive in Schitts Creek is owned by Stevie's aunt.

They are told in the first episode that they can stay in the town virtually for nothing which is how the end up there.

Its clearly not considered a valuable enough asset to have been taken from them when they lose everything at the start and they're not gleaming any money from it so town ownership seems to be a valueless namesake thing only.

stopthevoting

Thanks for above two replies.
I can imagine that it could be something similar to the Freehold versus Leasehold property ownership in Ireland, where if your house only had a Leasehold title, you only owned the building itself but not the land that it was built on, and you were liable to pay annual Ground Rent to the owner of the land.
But maybe in their case, as you say, the land ownership has no real monetary value.
I suppose, as owners of the town, the Roses must have some real or honorary right to free or subsidised accommodation to be provided for them by the town council. Maybe the mayor arranged for two motel rooms for that reason. Otherwise they could have gone to any other cheap motel anywhere in North America.
I wish it was explained directly, but maybe owing a town is a well known concept in Canada/USA that doesn't need to be explained to the viewers.

BOSTIK

Just finished bingewatching the first 5 seasons, very enjoyable so far. I like that it's not meanspirited comedy, it's quite clever and there are some smashing heartwarming scenes too.

Think the standouts are Stevie & Johnny, they're the perfect foil for the dramatics of Moira, Alexis & David. I like Jocelyn & Ronnie as well.

Roland could've been a good character, but I find Chris Elliott to be plain annoying in everything he does, otherwise it's pretty well cast.

Lokking forward to the final season now.

Hannibal_Smith

Aww... Enjoy the last series. Some fantastic episodes in there! That's what I love about it too... There's nothing mean spirited about it. Its just a really lovely funny story

the purple tin

Bob is one of my favourite characters. I love the little saunter he does

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD_3ZYL9wfY

Hurrache

Ha, I love his trot, I look like an eejit every time I try to demonstrate it to someone.

BOSTIK

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Aww... Enjoy the last series. Some fantastic episodes in there! That's what I love about it too... There's nothing mean spirited about it. Its just a really lovely funny story

Got to the end of this. Final season wasn't as good as the preceding ones, but still had some good moments. Think I preferred Stevie when she was sarky rather than tearful.

Think they were right to end it when they did while there was a bit of road left.

Bob was well, Bob. Think everyone knows somebody like him.

JP Liz V1

Starting on Dave July 17th