
In the year 2030, an unseen narrator named Ted tells his teen kids about how he met their mother. Cut to 2005, where lovelorn architect Ted helps his happy roommate Marshall propose to snarky Lily, and vows to get married himself. He hits a singles bar with his caddish friend Barney, who flings him at Robin, a commitment-phobic newscaster. Ted gets a date with her, but ruins it by saying he loves her. With his friends’ help, he gets another chance with her at the end.
PART 1: IS
THIS A STRONG CONCEPT FOR AN ONGOING SERIES? (18/20)
|
|
The Pitch: Does this concept excite everyone who
hears about it?
|
|
Does the concept satisfy the
urges that get people to love and recommend this type of series?
|
Yes, it’s both funny and romantic.
|
Does
the series establish its own unique point of view on its setting?
|
Very
much so: Ted is telling his kids this story in the future.
|
Is
there a central relationship we haven’t seen in a series before?
|
Yes,
a guy who wants commitment with a girl who doesn’t.
|
Does
the ongoing concept of the series contain a fundamental (and possibly fun)
ironic contradiction?
|
Yes,
a romantic comedy in which the man wants marriage and the woman just wants
sex.
|
Does
the concept meet the content expectations of one particular intended network,
venue, or audience?
|
Like “Cheers” this is
another rare example of successful re-branding, CBS wanted to break their
mold and make an NBC-style sitcom, and they succeeded. So yes, but not the
network it ended up at.
|
Even
if the setting is unpleasant, is there something about this premise that is
inherently appealing? (Something that will make the audience say, “Yes, I
will be able to root for some
aspect of this situation to recur episode after episode.”)
|
Yes,
all the characters and their goals are very appealing in the pilot, even
Barney: We don’t approve of his goals, but we approve of his dedication to
his craft.
|
Series Fundamentals: Will this concept generate a
strong ongoing series?
|
|
Is
there one character (or sometimes two, in separate storylines) that the
audience will choose to be their primary hero (although these heroes should
probably be surrounded by an ensemble that can more than hold their own)?
|
Ted
|
If
this is a TV series, is the hero role strong enough to get an actor to
abandon a movie career, come to work in TV for the first time, and sign a
five-year contract before shooting the pilot? (And even if not for TV, is the
hero role still that strong, simply for narrative purposes?)
|
No: they had to cast a total unknown
and he wound up being the weakest performer on the show. This is probably because of the
character’s weakness, which actors are notoriously reluctant to play. A-list actors refuse to play “the bitch role” and
that very much describes Ted.
This is a shame, because it’s actually a well-written role, and a
better actor (someone like Jake Johnson, of “The New Girl”), could have
kicked this show up a notch.
|
Somewhat, Ted now feels insecure both at home, because his roommate is engaged and he isn’t, and at the bar, because it’s a singles
bar and he sucks at being single.
|
|
Is
this a setting that will bring (or has brought) different economic classes
together?
|
Yes:
Ted’s best-friends include a corporate executive and a kindergarten teacher.
|
Will
trouble walk in the door on a regular basis?
|
Somewhat: new women to hit on enter the bar
constantly. Barney will issue
new “challenges” every week.
|
Will
the heroes be forced to engage in both physical and cerebral activity on a
regular basis?
|
Not forced to, no, but they will
choose to. These characters run
around town more than on any other three-camera show.
|
Are
there big stakes that will persist episode after episode?
|
Yes,
will we meet the mother?
|
Will
the ongoing situation produce goals or mini-goals that can be satisfactorily
resolved on a regular basis?
|
Somewhat, the show is nominally focused on one quest, but
they can’t possibly break that quest down into enough mini-goals to fill 200+
episodes, so the nominal situation will have be ignored often.
|
The Pilot: Will this pilot episode be marketable and
generate word of mouth?
|
|
Does
the pilot contain all of the entertainment value inherent in the premise
(rather than just setting everything up and promising that the fun will start
next week)?
|
Yes.
|
Does the pilot feature an image we haven’t seen before (that can be used
to promote the show)?
|
Yes, the blue French horn. A guy peacocking in a suit in a crowd where a suit doesn’t
belong.
|
Is
there something bold, weird, and never-before-seen about this concept and/or
pilot?
|
Yes,
the opening titles saying that it’s 2030, the whole premise, the many jump
cuts and flashbacks.
|
Is there a “HOLY CRAP!” scene somewhere along the way in the pilot (to
create word of mouth)?
|
Sort of, when he says “I love you” on the first date, it
was pretty startling, at the time, to see that kind of guy on TV.
|
Does
the pilot build up potential energy that will power future episodes (secrets
that will come out, potential romances, etc.)?
|
Yes,
will Ted ever get to kiss Robin?
Who will be the mother?
Is Marshall ready for marriage?
|
Even
if this is episodic, is there a major twist or escalation at the end (though
sometimes this twist will only be new to, or only revealed to, the audience)
that will kick future episodes up a notch?
|
Yes,
we find out that Robin is not really the mom.
|
PART 2: IS THIS A COMPELLING
HERO (OR CO-HEROES IN DIFFERENT STORYLINES)? (11/16)
|
|
Believe: Do we recognize the hero (or co-heroes) as
human?
|
|
Does
the hero have a moment of humanity early on? (A
funny, or kind, or oddball, or out-of-character, or comically vain, or
unique-but-universal “I thought I was the only one who did that!” moment?)
|
Somewhat. We
feel pity for him: he plans a proposal but it’s for someone else, his life
plan could be called comically vain, I suppose. We really love him when he hits on Robin by letter her
throw her drink in his face to impress her friends.
|
Does
the hero have a well-defined public identity?
|
Yes,
the sad-sack single guy.
|
Does
that ironically contrast with a hidden interior self?
|
Not really, they read him like a book.
|
Does
the hero have three rules he or she lives by (either stated or implied)?
|
Yes,
he has a whole list of rules about love that he recites.
|
Does
the hero have a consistent metaphor family (drawn
from his or her job, background, or developmental state)?
|
Somewhat, based on his immature
naiveté, he’s always making optimistic, elaborate plans that can’t possibly
work.
|
Does
the hero have a default personality trait?
|
Yes, romantic.
|
Does
the hero have a default argument tactic?
|
Yes,
appealing to abstract theories, then stubbornly insisting on them in the face
of evidence to the contrary.
|
Care: Do we feel for the hero (or co-heroes)?
|
|
Does the hero have a great flaw
that is the flip side of his or her great strength?
|
Yes, he’s naïve and needy.
|
Does
the hero feel that this flaw cannot be resolved until it’s time to abandon
the world of the show?
|
Hmm,
he wants to abandon Barney’s world and join Marshall and Lily’s world, but
the irony is that the only way to one seems to be through the other.
|
Does
the flaw resonate with the theme and/or setting of the show?
|
Ironically, yes: Ted’s romanticism represents a general
reversal of gender expectations in singles bars.
|
Invest: Can we trust the hero (or co-heroes) to
tackle this challenge?
|
|
Does the hero have a great
strength that is the flip side of his or her great flaw?
|
Yes, he’s forthright and romantic.
|
Is the hero good at his or her
job (or family role, if that’s his or her primary role)?
|
It depends on how you define his
primary role: he’s a successful architect, and he’s a good friend, but he’s a
bad dater.
|
Is the
hero surrounded by people who sorely lack his or her most valuable quality?
|
Not really, unless you define his most
valuable quality as “moderation”: he forms the middle of a spectrum between
commitment (Marshall and Lily) and commitment-phobia (Barney and Robin)
|
Is the
hero curious?
|
No, not really.
|
Is the
hero generally resourceful?
|
Somewhat. He
steals the horn.
|
Does the hero use unique skills to solve problems (rather than doing what
anybody else on the show would do)?
|
Somewhat, he
relies on his romantic instincts to steal the horn, but they quickly lead him
wrong. He’s pretty hapless.
|
PART 3: IS THIS A STRONG
ENSEMBLE (BEYOND THE HERO OR CO-HEROES)? (11/13)
|
|
Powerful: Is each member
of the ensemble able to hold his or her own?
|
|
If
this is a network TV series, are there at least two more roles that are
strong enough to get TV veterans to sign their own five-year contracts? (And
even if not for TV, are the characters still that strong, simply for
narrative purposes?)
|
Yes:
three great TV vets signed up and would go on to dominate the show: Neil
Patrick Harris, Alyson Hannigan and Jason Segal. (Four if you count Bob Saget
as the narrator)
|
Are
all of the other regular roles strong enough on the page in this first
episode to attract great actors? (ditto)
|
The one remaining role, Robin, did not
attract a very strong actress.
She’s good but not great.
|
Does each member of the ensemble
have a distinct and defensible point of view?
|
Yes.
|
Is
each character defined primarily by actions and attitudes, not by his or her
backstory?
|
Yes,
very much so.
|
Do all of the
characters consciously and unconsciously prioritize their own wants, rather
than the wants of others? (Good characters don’t
serve good, evil characters don’t serve evil.)
|
Yes.
|
Do
most of the main characters have some form of decision-making power? (And is
the characters’ boss or bosses also part of the cast, so that major decisions
will not be made by non-regulars?)
|
Yes,
none of them seem to have any bosses.
|
Balanced: Do the members
of the ensemble balance each other out?
|
|
Whether this is a premise or
episodic pilot, is there one point-of-view who needs this world explained
(who may or may not be the hero)?
|
Yes: the kids in the future.
|
Does
it take some effort for the POV character to extract other characters’
backstories?
|
Yes,
the kids are sort-of our POV characters and they’re certainly getting very slow answers to their questions.
|
Are the non-3-dimensional
characters impartially polarized into head, heart and gut (or various forms
of 2-way or 4-way polarization)?
|
The polarization is somewhat odd: Ted
is head and heart, no gut, Marshall is heart, no gut or head, Lily is all
three, Barney and Robin are crotch.
This would all shift around over the years.
|
Does each member of the ensemble
have a distinct metaphor family (different from the hero’s, even if they’re
in the same profession)?
|
Nor really, Barney clearly has one: frat, but the others
are a little indistinct at this point, though they’ll clear up later.
(Marshall: Minnesota / Lawyer, Robin: Canada, Lily: Hip hop, for some reason)
|
Does
each member of the ensemble have a different default personality trait?
|
Yes.
Marshall: wimpy, Lily: take charge, Robin: snarky, Barney: alpha male
|
Does
each member of the ensemble have a different default argument tactic?
|
Yes:
Marshall: gives in, Lily: brooking no opposition, Robin: skepticism, Barney:
Not listening
|
Is
there at least one prickly character who creates sparks whenever he or she
appears?
|
Barney
|
PART 4: IS THE PILOT
EPISODE A STRONG STAND-ALONE STORY AND GOOD TEMPLATE FOR THE ONGOING SERIES?
(22/22)
|
|
Template: Does this match
and/or establish the standard format of this type of series
|
|
Does
the pilot have (or establish) the average length for its format?
|
Yes.
|
If
this is intended for a form of commercial media, does the pilot have the
right number of commercial breaks for its intended venue?
|
Hmm,
there are only two here. I
suspect that they broke off the tag to form another one when it aired.
|
If
this is intended for commercial TV, does every act end on a cliffhanger or
escalation, especially the middle one (and, if not intended for commercial
TV, does it still have escalations happening in roughly the same places,
simply for narrative purposes)?
|
Yes:
1st: he spots Robin and implies in the VO that she’s the mom, 2nd:
Ted steals the horn.
|
Does
the pilot establish the general time frame for most upcoming episodes of this
series?
|
It
establishes that this show will jump around in time.
|
Do all
of the pilot’s storylines intercut believably within that time frame?
|
Yes,
Marshall and Lily finally drink their champagne at the same time that Ted
gets rejected.
|
If
this is a premise pilot, is the basic premise established by the midpoint,
leaving time for a foreshortened typical episode story in the second half?
|
Yes,
he’s met Robin and they’re off.
|
Pilot Story Fundamentals: Does the pilot
episode have a strong story?
|
|
Does
the pilot provide at least one satisfactory stand-alone story (even if that
story is just the accomplishment of a mini-goal)?
|
Yes.
|
Is
this episode’s plot simple enough to spend more time on character than plot?
|
Somewhat. The
plot is fairly complicated.
|
Is the
pilot’s challenge something that is not just hard for the hero to do (an
obstacle) but hard for the hero to want to do (a conflict)?
|
Yes,
he has to feign interest in casual sex when he’s really obsessed with getting
married.
|
First Half: Is the problem established in a
way that reflects human nature?
|
|
Does
the hero start out with a short-term goal for this episode?
|
Ted
wants to stage-manage Marshall’s proposal.
|
Does a
troubling situation (episodic pilot) or major change in the status quo
(premise pilot) develop near the beginning of the episode?
|
Ted
realizes that he wants to get married too.
|
Does
the hero eventually commit to dealing with this situation personally?
|
At
first he just lets Barney introduce him to two girls, but then he proactively
tries again with one of them.
|
Do the
hero’s efforts quickly lead to an unforeseen conflict with another person?
|
The
first one’s taken.
|
Does
the hero try the easy way throughout the second quarter?
|
Barney tries again and introduces Ted to Robin, and things
seem to go well.
|
Does
this culminate in a major midpoint setback or escalation of the problem
(whether or not there’s a commercial break)?
|
He
fails to get a kiss at the end of their date.
|
Second Half: Is the mini-goal resolved as
the ongoing trouble escalates?
|
|
Does
the hero try the hard way from this point on?
|
Yes,
he decides to surprise her at home with the French horn.
|
By
halfway through, are character decisions driving the plot, rather than
external plot complications?
|
Yes.
|
Are
the stakes increased as the pace increases and the motivation escalates?
|
Yes,
he ups the stakes by showing up at her door.
|
Does a
further setback force the hero to adopt a wider view of the problem?
|
Yes,
he accidentally says that he loves her.
|
After
that setback, does the hero finally commit to pursuing a corrected goal?
|
Yes,
he decides to stop pretending that he doesn’t want to get married.
|
Before
the final quarter of the story begins, (if not long before) has the hero
switched to being proactive, instead of reactive?
|
Yes.
|
After
the climax, does either the hero, the point of view character or a guest star
have a personal revelation and/or life change, possibly revealed through
reversible behavior?
|
Yes,
he realizes that he no longer wants to be single and swears that he will soon
find a wife.
|
PART 5: IS EACH
SCENE THE BEST IT CAN BE? (22/23)
|
|
The Set-Up: Does this scene begin with the essential
elements it needs?
|
|
Were tense and/or
hopeful (and usually false) expectations for this interaction established
beforehand?
|
Yes, he’s told
Barney that he has a complex plan, but then Barney tosses him in.
|
Does the scene eliminate small
talk and repeated beats by cutting out the beginning (or possibly even the
middle)?
|
Yes, it cuts away to Marshall and Lily
then back to Robin and Ted when the small talk is over.
|
Is this an intimidating setting
that keeps characters active?
|
Yes, they’re in a meat market.
|
Is one of the scene partners not
planning to have this conversation (and quite possibly has something better
to do)?
|
Yes, she was just getting a drink and
she’s supposed to be cheering up her friend.
|
Is there at least one non-plot
element complicating the scene?
|
Yes, her “monkey playing the ukulele”
story, her friend getting dumped by Daniel.
|
Does the scene establish its own
mini-ticking-clock (if only through subconscious anticipation)?
|
Yes, her friends are waiting for her
to return and glaring at her.
|
The Conflict: Do the conflicts play out in a lively
manner?
|
|
Does this scene both advance the
plot and reveal character?
|
Very much so for both.
|
Are one or more characters in
the scene emotionally affected by this interaction or action as the scene
progresses?
|
Ted begins to fall in love.
|
Does the audience have (or
develop) a rooting interest in this scene (which may sometimes shift)?
|
Yes, we hope he’ll pick her up.
|
Are two agendas genuinely
clashing (rather than merely two personalities)?
|
Yes, she wants to get back, he wants a
date.
|
Does the scene have both a
surface conflict and a suppressed conflict (one of which is the primary
conflict in this scene)?
|
Not really, they’re pretty much one and the same.
|
Is the suppressed conflict
(which may or may not come to the surface) implied through subtext (and/or
called out by the other character)?
|
NA
|
Are the characters cagy (or in
denial) about their own feelings?
|
Yes, he doesn’t
tell her how into her he is (yet).
|
Do characters use verbal tricks
and traps to get what they want, not just direct confrontation?
|
Yes, he ironically overcomes her
resistance by inviting her to throw a drink in his face.
|
Is there re-blocking, including
literal push and pull between the scene partners (often resulting in just one
touch)?
|
Yes, the exchange
of the card and the drink.
|
Are objects given or taken,
representing larger values?
|
Yes, her card, the
drink.
|
If this is a big scene, is it
broken down into a series of mini-goals?
|
It’s a small scene.
|
The Outcome: Does this scene change the story going
forward?
|
|
As a result of this scene, does
at least one of the scene partners end up doing something that he or she
didn’t intend to do when the scene began?
|
Yes, she agrees to a date.
|
Does the outcome of the scene
ironically reverse (and/or ironically fulfill) the original intention?
|
Yes, he gets her number by getting a
drink thrown in his face.
|
Are previously-asked
questions answered?
|
Yes, who’s that
girl?
|
Are new questions posed that
will be left unanswered for now?
|
Yes, how will it
go?
|
Is the audience left with a
growing hope and/or fear for what might happen next? (Not just in the next
scene, but generally)
|
Yes, we have high hopes for the date.
|
Does the scene cut out early, on
a question (possibly to be answered instantly by the circumstances of the
next scene)?
|
No, it goes to the end.
|
PART 6: IS THIS
POWERFUL DIALOGUE? (13/14)
|
|
Empathetic: Is the dialogue true to human nature?
|
|
Does the writing demonstrate
empathy for all of the characters?
|
Yes, very much so. Five very different characters are
well-drawn and hold their own.
|
Does each of the characters,
including the hero, have a limited perspective?
|
Yes.
|
Are the characters resistant to
openly admitting their feelings (to others and even to themselves)?
|
Yes, except for
when Ted accidentally reveals his feelings too early, but that’s the exception
that proves the rule.
|
Do the characters avoid saying
things they wouldn’t say?
|
Yes.
|
Do the characters listen poorly?
|
Yes. Barney refuses to hear that he’s
not Ted’s best friend, or really any objections to anything.
|
Do the characters interrupt each
other more often than not?
|
Yes.
|
Specific: Is the dialogue specific to this world and
each personality?
|
|
Does the dialogue capture the
culturally-specific syntax of the characters (without necessarily attempting
to replicate non-standard pronunciation)?
|
Not really, this is pretty clearly a show written by
L.A.-based writers (true, they had recently re-located from New York, but
there’s very little real New York syntax here.)
|
Does the dialogue capture the
jargon of the profession and/or setting?
|
Very much so: “Suit up!”
|
Does the dialogue capture the
tradecraft of the profession being portrayed?
|
Very much so: “Have you met Ted?” As Barney comes to take over the
show, it will become a fascinating look at the mechanics of how lotharios ply
their trade.
|
Heightened: Is the dialogue more pointed and dynamic
than real talk?
|
|
Is the dialogue more concise
than real talk?
|
Yes.
|
Does the dialogue have more
personality than real talk?
|
Yes.
|
Is there a minimum of commas in
the dialogue (the lines are not prefaced with Yes, No, Well, Look, or the
other character’s name)?
|
Yes.
|
Do non-professor characters
speak without dependent clauses, conditionals, or parallel construction?
|
Yes. (although Ted will go on to be a professor)
|
Is there one gutpunch scene,
where the subtext falls away and the characters really lay into each other?
|
Yes. Robin sets him straight and he deflates.
|
PART 7: DOES THE PILOT MANAGE ITS TONE
TO CREATE AND FULFILL AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS? (9/10)
|
|
Genre and Mood: Does the series tap into
pre-established expectations?
|
|
Does the series fit within one
genre (or compatible sub-genres)?
|
Romantic comedy
|
Are unrealistic genre-specific
elements a big metaphor for a more common experience (not how life really is,
but how life really feels)?
|
There are no unrealistic
genre-specific elements here.
|
Separate from the genre, does
the pilot establish an overall mood for the series?
|
Yes, it’s brisk and raunchy (despite
the fact that this is a story he’s telling his kids!)
|
If there are multiple storylines,
do they establish the spectrum of moods available within that overall mood?
|
No, the two storylines have the same
mix of zaniness and serious relationship stuff. With only a few exceptions (like when Marshall’s dad died,
or Robin found out she couldn’t have kids) this would be a show with little
tonal variation.
|
Is there a moment early on that
establishes the type and level of jeopardy?
|
Yes, cutting from Marshall to Barney,
we see that Ted wants to be Marshall, but is afraid of becoming Barney.
|
Framing: Does the pilot set, reset, upset and
ultimately exceed its own expectations?
|
|
Are there framing devices
(flashforwards, framing sequences and/or first person narration) to set the
mood, pose a dramatic question, and/or pose ongoing questions?
|
Oh my yes. That’s the whole set-up here, and the show will have Saget
jump in often to pose more questions, drop more hints and “accidentally”
spill details early. It’s a
great device.
|
Is there a dramatic question
posed early on, which will establish in the audience’s mind which moment will
mark the end of the pilot?
|
It’s a false one: Ted implies to his
kids that Robin will be their mom (they don’t know their mom’s name??), but
it’s a fake out at the end.
|
Does foreshadowing create
anticipation and suspense (and refocus the audience’s attention on what’s
important)?
|
Yes, very much so.
|
Are set-up and pay-off used to
dazzle the audience, distracting attention from plot contrivances?
|
Somewhat. The contrivance that they’re all in the cab for the
conclusion is set up by Barney’s earlier obsession with Ted’s love life, and
by their earlier oversharing with another cab driver.
|
Is the dramatic question of the
pilot episode’s plot answered near the end of the story?
|
No, it gets stretched out…for nine years.
|
PART 8: DOES
THE PILOT CREATE A MEANINGFUL ONGOING THEME? (13/14)
|
|
Pervasive: Is the
theme interwoven into many aspects of the show?
|
|
Does
the ensemble as a whole have a unique philosophy about how to fill their role
(and competition from an allied force with a different philosophy)?
|
Yes,
they’re more analytical than other singles, constantly debating their complex
theories.
|
Does
the pilot have a statement of philosophy and/or theme, usually either at the
beginning or ¾ of the way in. (Sometimes this will be the ensemble’s
statement of philosophy, sometimes this merely be the implied theme of the
series itself.)
|
It
ends with one: “Your olive theory?
Load of crap.” Which
translates to: “Don’t overthink love”
|
Can the show’s overall ongoing
theme be stated in the form of a classic good vs. good (or evil vs. evil)
dilemma?
|
Yes: fun vs. responsibility.
|
Throughout the pilot, do the
characters have to choose between goods, or between evils, instead of
choosing between good and evil?
|
Yes, Ted has to choose between lying
about his emotionality so he can find love or telling the truth about it
which will sabotage any relationship.
|
Are
the storylines in the pilot thematically linked (preferably in an indirect,
subtle way)?
|
Yes,
they’re cleverly linked by the olives: Ted finds an olive match who turns out
not to be, and Marshall and Lily realize they still fit even though
Marshall’s been lying about olives.
|
Are small details throughout the
pilot tied into the theme?
|
Yes, Robin covering the story about
the leaper foreshadowing Ted’s leap, for instance.
|
Will
the heroes grapple with new moral gray areas in each episode?
|
Well, more like ethical grey areas, as the continually deal
with the possibility that Barney is really a bad guy.
|
Grounded: Do the
stakes ring true to the world of the audience?
|
|
Does the series’ set-up reflect
the way the world works?
|
Yes.
|
Does the series have authentic
things to say about this type of setting?
|
Yes and no. There are lots of good specific New York details (NY1!),
but there are also a lot of spectacularly wrong details (no New Yorker would
check to see if a bodega had a bathroom!) betraying the fact that this was a
show created by ex-New Yorkers but made in LA.
|
Does the ongoing concept include
twinges of real life national pain?
|
Not really, it’s pretty decontextualized at this point, but
it’ll improve at that as time passes.
|
Are these issues presented in a
way that avoids moral hypocrisy?
|
NA
|
Do all of the actions in the
pilot have real consequences?
|
Yes, Ted’s confession.
|
Untidy: Is the
dilemma ultimately irresolvable?
|
|
Do the characters refuse (or
fail) to synthesize the meaning of the pilot episode’s story, forcing the
audience to do that?
|
Yes, Ted is given no time to process
the revelation that Marshall likes olives (and all his theories may therefore
be incorrect).
|
Does the end of the pilot leave
the thematic dilemma wide open and irresolvable?
|
Yes, very much so.
|
2 comments:
I think Ted is surrounded, sort of, by people who lack his most valuable quality. Lily and Marshall are people who found true love very quickly and without looking too hard for it; Barney is willing to try ridiculously hard to get meaningless sex, which is not particularly sympathetic. So - I think, to the extent that our sympathies lie with Ted, it's because he has high aspirations and is willing to work really hard for them, and I don't think Marshall and Lily and Barney have that to the same extent.
That's an valid take, but I'm not sure we're supposed to admire his high aspirations. I've always seen those as more a flaw. I'll be exploring this question in more depth later today...
Post a Comment