If I had been asked... Anatomy of a Spin-Off

Ok, next aspect of the previous discussion.  Did they approach Agents like a Frasier spin off or like a Joey spin off?  We will examine these two shows to identify why some spin offs work, and some don't.  

Frasier on Cheers was a beer drinker, as they all were, and while he was snobby and erudite, he obviously wasn't above having a beer with Norm or Cliff, and acted as a foil to them.   As grounded as they were, he wasn't, or so I recall from my limited memory of that show.  The challenge for the Frasier creators then was what to do when this ensemble actor becomes the headliner?  

Well, the guys from Frasier completely wiped the slate clean and started from scratch.  They set up as his foil for the new show, his dad, who is also the primary source of conflict.  Again, as snobby as Frasier is, his dad is grounded, which causes tension between them, especially when the dad is forced to move in with his son in the pilot episode.  Then the creators went for the hat trick and figured having a foil isn't good enough, we're going to throw in a brother, one that is more erudite, snobby, and fussy than Frasier.  The brothers frequent the same circles, but in certain comparisons Frasier looks like the salt of the earth compared to Niles.  Now they have a character spectrum on the show.  When the occasional member of the Cheers gang drops in, they commented they were surprised by Frasier has family. Apparently in Cheers he said his dad was dead, and never mentioned a brother, but that didn't deter the Frasier creators and producers, and sets them up nicely with an ensemble cast, built in tension, that lends itself to future episodes of comedy and room for the characters to grow.  The thing about tension is that ultimately these characters are on a journey together, and it helps to start them off as extreme caricatures, so that over the time the characters evolve, and the show can explore new areas in later season's that they couldn't in the beginning.   

In Cheers, the gang drank beer.  In Frasier, he drinks wine, with only a handful of times drinking beer. Ccheers was focused and set at the bar.  Frasier moved between his job at the radio station and his home.  If you were to read the scripts, one wouldn't notice these are the same characters except for the name, and that is the genius I feel that made Frasier successful.  Cheers went for broad comedy, and while Frasier has aspects of that, it was more about the dialogue, which was quick, witty, and smart.  Not words typically used to describe an episode of Cheers, and adding in Niles meant a whole other well to tap for comedy - Frasier couldn't stand to be outdone by his younger brother, and would go to great lengths to beat him, again tension leading to growth.  

Now we will examine Joey.  Joey was great on Friends, but by himself?  They took the same character, and just moved him.  Instead of wiping the slate clean, they just broke off the Joey part and plopped him in L.A., without his friends, and instead gave him a sister and teenage nephew.  Now, Joey Could have worked, and the show didn't need a Friend to come along, but he needed a foil and none was given.  In Friends, his shtick worked because as goofy and irresponsible as he was, he had friends who were responsible and made his character lovable in part because they were mean.  Chandler and Joey worked as foils, because as sarcastic as chandler was, he made Joey more open, sympathetic, and therefore the lovable goof.   As Frasier demonstrated, it is all about relativity.  The character is only as good as who they are playing against.    

In L.A., Joey becomes the more responsible one?  Not words used to describe NY Joey, and really his family is just like him, so there is no tension to play off of.  The only tension I can recall from that show is the love triangle with his neighbor.  I can’t even recall what the plots of the episodes were.  Now in the Showtime series Episodes, The Matt LeBlanc character works because he has tension on so many levels, at least as far as I can tell from the 3 episodes I watched.  One, there is tension in the fact that Matt the actor isn't as dumb as Joey, and he wants to prove they aren't the same person.  There is tension between the British creators, who don't want to dumb down their critically acclaimed movie for the American TV audience.  And then there is tension between the creators and Matt.  Well, the wife who doesn't think Matt is right for the role and is pandering to the lowest common denominator.   Again, you have foils for the characters, there is tension and from the tension comes the comedy and the journey which ultimately leads to future episodes, character growth, etc.  

Agents of Shield doesn't have foils- the agents are stiff.  The scientists are nerdy, and then there is Skye. The tension created from her inclusion was essentially closed by ep. 4, when even Agent Ward warmed to her, only to have her later betray them, but that tension isn't long lasting, or the focus.  So what now? They have got themselves into the Marvel Universe, without a hero, and from what I can tell there is little potential for character growth which is essential, even for procedurals.  It is critical that an audience voluntarily wants to be a part of this universe, and Agents doesn't really work to get the audience interested.  They just have a crime of the week, some lingering questions- the hope being that on plot alone the audience will come back.  That procedural formula of ‘case of the week’ can work in limited measure, but the formula only starts to turn into NCIS numbers when the creators get the audience interested in the characters.  We the audience have to want to care what happens to the characters.  We cared what happened to Frasier in Seattle, we didn't care so much what happened to Joey in L.A.  I can only presume the Green Arrow isn't going to die anytime soon (he is super after all) so I’m not so invested into what happens on Arrow, or to any of the characters.  If Thea was to die, my eyes would be dry.  Whedon knows the audience has to care, his previous shows show he is the master at creating that bond.

To take Agents of shield from so-so procedural (with a ginormous special effects budget) to a blockbuster, they have to make the audience bond with the characters, and simply making it a spin-off of something great, this being ‘The Avengers’, doesn't make it so.

-L. Sue