MovieChat Forums > Newhart (1982) Discussion > Wow... those Baby Stephanie episodes wer...

Wow... those Baby Stephanie episodes were terrible

posted 9 years ago by aluminum_foil
13 replies | jump to latest

Watching season 8 on Antenna TV recently, and realized just how bad some of the storylines got (especially Baby Stephanie):

8.15: Child in Charge
Stephanie's parents buy Baby Stephanie WPIV making her the new owner of the local television station.

8.18: Daddy's Little Girl
Michael has competing dreams about Baby Stephanie as a grown up, one in which she's horribly spoiled, the other in which she's selfless to a fault.

As annoying as Michael and Stephanie can be, I can tolerate them. However, these episodes were atrocious.

[–] rebound4july 9 years ago

Although I liked the scene where Dick interviews George McGovern, Child in Charge is one of the worst episodes of the series. The idea of the baby running the station, with everybody sucking up to her, was absurd.

Daddy's Little Girl wasn't that great either, but the part with the Darryls playing with the jack-in-a-box made me laugh.

[–] hfan77 8 years ago

I totally agree. I thought it was a very inane episode and it showed that the writers were beginning to run out of ideas. A baby running a TV station? That's insane.

[–] reganjaye 9 years ago

The whole last season just seems like a different show. All the writers were new and everyone's character changed for the worse.

[–] dini0519 8 years ago

There were a few exceptions-The Handymania episode about George's popular hit board game, the Jumping George episode where the town rallied around George to help him cope with the possibility of having a heart attack during his sleep, and The Gang episode featuring the Hooligals. In general though, the last season went downhill.
Dini

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

I didn't really care much for 'Daddy's Little Girl' but I do think we needed some episodes at the end which showed what life might be like for the Harrises in the future (though of course they were figments in the dream/imagination of Dr. Bob Hartley).

I loved 'Child in Charge.' I found it to be a brilliant satire about the infantilism of network television executives. And I am sure that is what the writers were spoofing and taking potshots at with this story. It was supposed to be absurd, that we have all these intelligent adults bowing down to someone who knows nothing about running a TV station or making decisions that would matter. Candice Bergen's show Murphy Brown also took potshots at network execs but tended to get heavy-handed. On Newhart's show, it was a lot sillier and tongue-in-cheek.

[–] calcaylor 8 years ago

Good point, jarrod. Like others above, I really struggled with the absurdity of the story line. Maybe the tv station had to be bought by Stephanie's father for other story line purposes but if some other mogul had bought it and gave it to a child that could actually speak might have helped.

IMDB needs a Like button: 👍
  

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

If the show had gone on to a 9th season, having the baby in charge of the station is a storyline I think they could have definitely continued. There's a lot of mileage comedy writers can get out of the absurdity of such a plot. Like Dick and Joanna and hosts of other shows could have been forced to endorse strollers, diapers, baby formula, all that kind of stuff on air. Dick could have even had a dream where he had to dress up like a baby for one of the segments, to make little Stephanie happy so she didn't pull the plug on Vermont Today.

They also could have done some sort of 'Look Who's Talking' thing where we heard the baby's thoughts or saw the baby's thoughts in cartoon bubbles above her head-- where she's actually very intelligent, and in a strange way, she brings prosperity and awards to the station. After awhile, baby Steph could have been such a well-loved boss that they were all dreading the day she might give it up for kindergarten.

There was a lot the writers could have done. Yes, it would have been silly and kind of different, but it would have been funny too.

[–] carstairs38 8 years ago

As much as I love the show, I'm not really a fan of the final season for this very reason. The characters were always right on the line between funny characters and over the top caricatures, and they jumped to caricatures big time in the final season.

Mark
http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

Good comment. Yes, I'd say they jumped to caricatures at the beginning of season 7 when they switched headwriters.

The first half of season 7 is very difficult for me to watch, because the changes are kind of abrupt. I think Joanna changes the most. She is very inconsistent in season 7. Like they are trying to figure out how to give her an identity outside the inn, and some of the situations are very outlandish. Up to that point, she was always the voice of reason and very consistent.

Also, the episode where Dick burns down the restaurant is not good at all-- not good in terms of characterization (even if the situation has plenty of laughs). The Loudons were never people who would be dishonest and turn away from any sort of responsibility. We'd expect Michael & Stephanie to start a fire and not reveal it to the authorities. But for Dick and Joanna to do that, it's just wrong and over the top at the expense of the characters' integrity.

And as for Stephanie and Michael-- the arc where Michael has his breakdown and goes into a nut-house was very far-fetched. The character was very cartoonish during all of that.

There are still some good episodes in season 7-- mostly the ones that involve the town. And there are some good guest stars who do well with the material. But it's such a change from the previous seasons (3-6 were near perfect) that it's a let-down. By the time we get to season 8, we're a little more used to the caricatures and since it's building to the reveal of it all being a dream, the outrageousness of those plots can be excused away. But in season 7, we do not know it's a dream yet-- so if we are taking it very literally, then it falls flat.

[–] Doug-Oh 8 years ago

The show had clearly run its course by the last season.
I was surprised to read online how long it ran.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

I was surprised to read online how long it ran.

It ran so long because it had a good time slot on Mondays. Near the end, CBS moved it around a bit (different hour) but it still remained on Monday nights where people could easily find it.

It also benefited from the fact that at its core, Bob Newhart is a very conservative type of comedian. And this was the era of Reagan and very conservative politics.

[–] carstairs38 8 years ago

It's been years since I watched anything that wasn't out on DVD, but my memory was that seasons 3-6 were the best of the show, and season 7 was when it went downhill again. Thanks for confirming that for me. Yes, I'll still get season 7 when it hits DVD in December, but now I know what to watch for when it does as far as quality.

Mark
http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 8 years ago

Yes-- all the seasons have fun episodes, but 3-6 are virtually flawless. I credit Miriam Trogdon, the headwriter/producer during that time. She's the main reason for the success of those four middle years. After she leaves, it's just not as good anymore.

The stuff with Kirk in 1-2 seems like another show almost. And we've been discussing the outlandish caricatures in 7 & 8 which turns it away from a sitcom more into a sketch comedy.

If they just syndicated 3-6 (meaning it was not a dream, but a real town with real people) we'd have a perfect show. And that's how I prefer to remember it.