why i think it failed - Back to You (2007) Discussion

[–] kevinhw 15 years ago

the ship had sunk by then.

Earn this, earn it.

reply

It was a casualty of the strike

Goodness look at my wrist, I need to go

reply

[–] Bucky-8 11 years ago

You are absolutely correct, the writers' strike was the death knell for Back to You (2007).

There was a good ensemble cast, clever scripts, and developing characters, everything that is needed for a sitcom's success.

We were very disappointed to see this show get the axe.

Bucky
____________________________________________

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

reply

[–] Asteri-Atypical 11 years ago

It might have been the death knell but I found it uninspired to begin with.

MAYBE, and that's a big maybe, it could have been rescued had the writers been able to take a different approach. Lord knows there was enough talent attached to the show to make it a success. But, as we know, that never even had a chance to happen.

A few years later, I really don't miss it, and that is always the litmus for me; if I find myself yearning for a show, years later, or rediscovering it, then it had a certain spark. Despite I really wanted Grammer back again, there just wasn't anything I loved about this show.

Entertainment and politics... I see Ellsworth Toohey is winning...

reply

[–] damienoujia 10 years ago

I think the show by itself was decent. However, it felt like Frasier doing the news. Kelsey Grammar brought nothing new to the character. It was a decent one season show, more would have been interesting, and I watched every episode. I didn't hate the show, but it felt like it wasn't breaking any ground. I think maybe part of its failure was due to it wasn't as good as the past sitcoms the two leads were on, though by itself it was good on its own.

reply

[–] travinitrav 14 years ago

I believe it failed for a number of reasons not the least of which is Kelsey Grammer being unable to move on from Frasier. Seemed like throughout most of the series he was just doing the cocky version of Frasier, instead of a completely new cocky character. Beyond that I didnt see too many good character developments. Most of the cast was just annoying stereotypes, which is much too dumb for a sophisticated group of actors. I never felt like ANYONE had any chemistry, and the lack of it was most apparent with Kelsey and Patricia. The daughter wasnt lovable enough considering how important she was to the overall theme. Also it didnt seem like they would be able to carry on the charade for any real length of time. Niles charade with Daphne managed to last because they didnt make it a major plot point until later on, and the writers dealt with it directly. Overall, too many similarities to Frasier, but it wasnt as well written.
If Back to You had been successful it still would not have lasted more than a few seasons.

reply

[–] matt-jade81 14 years ago

The main reason it failed is because it wasn't funny. Nuff said.

reply

[–] dan6pitcher 14 years ago

It failed because the pilot was too cheesy and the jokes were cliche. Not only that, but the characters seemed very fake. I'm a big Kelsey Grammar fan, as well as a Fred Willard fan, but the writing and direction was terrible. I gave up halfway through the first episode and never watched again until today when I was bored at work and needed something to watch on Hulu so I decided to give it another chance.

reply

[–] happipuppi13 14 years ago

I also think,like i mentioned in my review of the show 3 years ago,was that similarity to Murphy Brown.

Murphy returned to find a young producer in charge and so did Kelseys character. Murphy had gone through the embarrasment of need ing re-hab,Chukc hadd simply been embarrased nationally.

The concept,was overall , just not very original. I thought it was a funny show,especially the one where all the guys are afraid of a raccoon in Ms. carr's home!

HaPpIpUPpI 13 *Arf!*

reply

[–] danafranklin 14 years ago

IMHO: Two-three factors: The writers strike really did them in, followed by the Network moving the show around too much.

Another factor, perhaps less so, was replacing Laura Marano, who played the daughter. They should have used the Lily Jackson from the start. I like the Laura Marano, but she was too old for the character they seemed to be going for (younger ten year old, vs. an older 11 or 12 year old). Too drastic a change for so early in the series. If they were unsure of the direction they wanted to head in, then so would the audience, and they would loose them, which, of course, they did.

"The best thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother."

reply

[–] OldGeezer916 12 years ago

This series had a lot of potential but I think the writing was really weak. Many successful series started out this way however. The first season of Frasier was not all that great but it began picking up in the second season. With some changes in the writing staff and a second season it could have survived. There were a few very funny moments though. When everything started going wrong in the "House of Tomorrow" (ep. 16) is one example.

reply