5 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

I tried to watch a few of his comedies such as Love thy neighbor.. and I see a lot of mugging, but little humor.

His comedies suffer from the same deficiencies as his dramas: broad characters that trade on stereotypes and long scenes with repetitive dialogue that have no purpose whatsoever.

On 2/20/2026 at 9:16 AM, Khan said:

The early days of FOX, UPN and The WB are perfect examples of Hollywood's relationship with "urban" audiences. They always need us in the beginning to help establish their brands. Then, once they're financially solvent, they can't WAIT to ankle us and chase after more upscale, white audiences.

Exactly. Fox, UPN, The WB built their networks off the backs of the African-American audience.

1 hour ago, kalbir said:

Exactly. Fox, UPN, The WB built their networks off the backs of the African-American audience.

There's a lot to the Internet that's bad, but there's a lot to it that's good, too; and one of the good things about the Internet, I think, is that POC don't have to rely anymore on the traditional TV networks for entertainment that reflects their experiences. Even as streaming services merge and dissolve and get gobbled up by media conglomerates, we still have avenues where we can share our stories, without any need to cater to any other demographic or sugar-coat hard truths about society that need to be told.

16 hours ago, Khan said:

His comedies suffer from the same deficiencies as his dramas: broad characters that trade on stereotypes and long scenes with repetitive dialogue that have no purpose whatsoever.

The main issue is that he's writing like he's stalling. It's like he decides that a few "big" things (that often turn out to be not-so-big) should happen in an episode and everything else is just a stalling tactic to get to the "big" scenes. It's not like these long back-and-forth scenes really does any character building or try to reveal motivations behind their actions.

3 hours ago, te. said:

The main issue is that he's writing like he's stalling. It's like he decides that a few "big" things (that often turn out to be not-so-big) should happen in an episode and everything else is just a stalling tactic to get to the "big" scenes. It's not like these long back-and-forth scenes really does any character building or try to reveal motivations behind their actions.

IA.

51 minutes ago, Khan said:

IA.

Have you ever got caught watching something you're thinking "man there's just too many episodes"? These characters have no internal lives, so nothing they do is ever compelling - even the whole Hanna / Kathryn relationship that's supposed to be heartwarming. You just end up thinking that all of these characters should DIE because they're just all ultimately wusks of characters.

Sorry, at some point I will stop writing about The Haves and the Have Nots, approximately when I run out of episodes. It's just like eating pure sugar - at one point you'll get a tooth infection and then it starts bleeding into your brain...

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by te.

OK, Wyatt has now admitted the priest gave him a "banana foster" and that he wanted his mother to hug him and I can't stop laughing. Why is this show so awful?

Sorry, but every character's theme on Tyler Perry's The Haves and the Have Nots should be the never-remembered track on Robyn's third ill-thought out third album that was supposed to be her US launch:

P-S-Y-C-H-O

I thought that you oughta know!

Why could you just don't let me be?

You're turning psycho on me!

You better rethink your life!

I'll never be your wife...

I feel just like Janet Lee, you're turning...

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by te.

8 hours ago, te. said:

Have you ever got caught watching something you're thinking "man there's just too many episodes"?

That's one of my complaints about all the primetime soaps from the '80's and '90's. Because they never repeat well (except, that is, on streaming, lol), networks forced them to produce 25 or more episodes per season for several seasons, forcing producers either to pad part of those seasons or to throw in so many story twists and turns that the stories themselves verged on becoming ludicrous.

3 minutes ago, Khan said:

That's one of my complaints about all the primetime soaps from the '80's and '90's. Because they never repeat well (except, that is, on streaming, lol), networks forced them to produce 25 or more episodes per season for several seasons, forcing producers either to pad part of those seasons or to throw in so many story twists and turns that the stories themselves verged on becoming ludicrous.

See, that's the opposite of what I love about prime time soaps. Well, most of them.

14 minutes ago, Khan said:

That's one of my complaints about all the primetime soaps from the '80's and '90's. Because they never repeat well (except, that is, on streaming, lol), networks forced them to produce 25 or more episodes per season for several seasons, forcing producers either to pad part of those seasons or to throw in so many story twists and turns that the stories themselves verged on becoming ludicrous.

It did get to be too much (although Knots managed it better than you'd think), but I miss those days compared to now where so many shows have 8 episodes every 2 years.

For a serial drama to be effective, you need to have a few basics:

1) Pacing - Telling multiple stories at different speeds will leave the audience satisfied and never viewing an episode as filler. Most modern day attempts at serial dramas/prime time soaps have a limited concept and limited story threads that don't go in a linear direction.

2) Ensembles - You need a strong ensemble or else your show falters. JR wouldn't have been so iconic if he didn't have Bobby/Pam to play off of.. same with Alexis vs Krystle, etc.

3) More episodes - 13 episodes is just not effective to really delve into a story, nor is 22 episodes. 26 to 28 episodes is the sweet spot.

4) Diverse Acting styles - You had Joan Collins going OTT while you had Pamela Bellwood opting for a more subdued acting style. Knots Landing had various different acting approaches by the main women and me, as did early Falcon Crest.

1 minute ago, DRW50 said:

I miss those days compared to now where so many shows have 8 episodes every 2 years.

True, lol. Shows in the UK seem better equipped for shorter, more infrequent seasons, but that's probably because their audiences have been conditioned to them over time. (For one thing, the shows I've watched know to put more story in those seasons, so that doesn't it feel like two episodes of worthwhile drama being stretched into eight, lol).

Just now, Khan said:

True, lol. Shows in the UK seem better equipped for shorter, more infrequent seasons, but that's probably because their audiences have been conditioned to them over time. (For one thing, the shows I've watched know to put more story in those seasons, so that doesn't it feel like two episodes of worthwhile drama being stretched into eight, lol).

You're right. Many of those shows also had actors who were doing multiple shows so when one ended another popped up. Nicolas Lyndhurst, of the short-lived Frasier revival, had two huge shows in the mid/late '90s. Now you just have these short shows and the actors don't do much else and everything seems scattered.

1 minute ago, DRW50 said:

You're right. Many of those shows also had actors who were doing multiple shows so when one ended another popped up. Nicolas Lyndhurst, of the short-lived Frasier revival, had two huge shows in the mid/late '90s. Now you just have these short shows and the actors don't do much else and everything seems scattered.

It also doesn't help when there's 11,000 streaming services and you're trying like hell to remember which show streams on which app, lol.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Khan