Underrated TV shows

[alasdairm]

q.e.d.



alasdair

 

[Minxy]

some of the most acclaimed uk comedy series had far shorter runs than that. fawlty towers had only 2 series with a total of 12 episodes; the uk office had only 2 series and an xmas special with a total of 14 episodes.

sometimes, you make something even greater by killing it off after only a couple of seasons at the height of its greatness instead of letting it limp on for 10, 11, 12 seasons...

alasdair

About 5 or so years ago, there was a show on BBC3 called 'Im With Stupid' and it was a bit of an offbeat comedy with an almost fully disabled cast. It was excellent but it only ran for 1 series and then just vanished. Ive looked everywhere for episodes or DVD's to no avail. Hardly anyone has heard of it either so im starting to think I made it up haha
Even IMDB doesn't mention it. Gutted.

 

[lostNfound]

Canadas, Intelligence.

Why this wasn't continued I can not work out for the life of me. The Wire was television at it's best and Intelligence was right on par for course. Highly recommend the S1 & S2 anyway.

 

[alasdairm]

About 5 or so years ago, there was a show on BBC3 called 'Im With Stupid' and it was a bit of an offbeat comedy with an almost fully disabled cast. It was excellent but it only ran for 1 series and then just vanished. Ive looked everywhere for episodes or DVD's to no avail. Hardly anyone has heard of it either so im starting to think I made it up haha
Even IMDB doesn't mention it. Gutted.

be gutted no more: imdb: i'm with stupid

alasdair

 

[Minxy]

be gutted no more: imdb: i'm with stupid

alasdair

Sweet! Admittedly, it was a while ago that I had last looked for it! Thanks alasdair!

 

[MrGrunge]

Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!

It's just one of those things that people either love or hate.

 

[sarcophagus.heels]

^ I'm on the hate side of that debate. I watched it once with my brother, and thought "maybe I could enjoy this if I was high. MAYBE." And then I was smoking up with a group of friends that owned all the DVDs, and after about an hour, I thought someone had taken a hot poker to my brain. I get that a lot of people love the show...I just will never understand.

 

[DooMMooD]

Wow I cant believe no ones mentioned FIREFLY. Unless you all think it goes without saying.

As for me i personally hate Tim & Eric shows. I agree with you sarcophagus, i find them incredibly stupid.

 

[Miss_vanilla]

some of the most acclaimed uk comedy series had far shorter runs than that. fawlty towers had only 2 series with a total of 12 episodes; the uk office had only 2 series and an xmas special with a total of 14 episodes.

sometimes, you make something even greater by killing it off after only a couple of seasons at the height of its greatness instead of letting it limp on for 10, 11, 12 seasons...

alasdair

This, this, a thousand times this.

The best shows, the ones I remember from my childhood had short runs, because back then shows generally did. And yet we still talk about them, watch them, laugh at them now.

I'm sick of shows limping along in season 5 or 6, the actors looking much older than the age they're playing, doing the same things (being bad parents, selling drugs, having bad relationships etc). I can't commit to a lot of TV anyway, there's so much of it, but I mostly stop watching shows after 3 seasons or so because I lose interest.

Weeds comes to mind. I hadn't seen that in years and watching it at a friends a while back (?season 7 or something). I saw no resemblance to the cute, funny, off beat little show in season 1 from a few years back.

I know it's all about money but sometimes we just have to end it!

 

[MrGrunge]

Wow I cant believe no ones mentioned FIREFLY. Unless you all think it goes without saying.

Maybe because that's one of the few cancellations FOX got right? I've only seen a couple episodes, but everything from the writing down to the characters screamed "cliche and generic"

As for me i personally hate Tim & Eric shows. I agree with you sarcophagus, i find them incredibly stupid.

That's the whole point, though. They're not trying to be clever - they've developed an entirely unique brand of comedy just by being strange, absurd, and surrealistic. They deliberately reject the accepted notions of what film or TV comedy should be, and as a result people find them confusing or stupid. And it's not like they can't appeal to the masses - all of those ridiculously successful Old Spice commercials with Terry Crews were created by T&E. For most people, T&E are easier to digest a little bit at a time; sitting through an entire episode or, harder yet, an entire movie really challenges your attention span. It's like watching a public access TV programmer's fever dream. If you can stop 'trying' to understand them, you'll enjoy them all the more - but if you sit there thinking "this is stupid, it doesn't make any sense" then you've missed the point entirely.

 

[DooMMooD]

TL;DR I put all the shows I think are underrated in BOLD, and then I discuss why I think some shows are better than others (aka why they're good and therefore could be construed as "underrated"). Yes, its a long post I know. But I do consider myself a film/television 'buff' and not only watch a lot of film/tv, but I do a lot of reading/research on it as well. I know, reading about TV, crazy right? But I am studying for a minor in Film, and spent many years working in a mom/pop movie shop just like tarantino, where I wasted many a shift trying to watch every single TV show and film we had in the story.

Yes I realize this isn't exactly my job, but maybe one day writing about it will be, so I do go pretty in depth when it comes to discussing this sort of stuff (I see it as practice, if you will)

Anyway, regarding Firefly If you in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM:

-like anything sci-fi related
-like western related
-like spaceships
-like good little guys vs big bad guys
-like awesome witty dialog and great characters with such depth that you come to love them
-like tv at all

then you will like, if not LOVE, Firefly. I dunno how you dont like it mate...are you not a fan of science fiction? Because it honestly is a sci fi fans wet dream....space opera meets spaghetti western, where the rag tag group of good soldiers is faced against the odds of the galaxy.

Truly epic IMO.

Also:

Brotherhood (Showtime) about 2 irish brothers from Providence, Rhode Island and how 1 is a gangster, the other is a politician, and its about how their lives; that of a gangster and politician, turn out to be much more similar than you'd think.

Also dunno if this is considered underrated but since i haven't seen anyone say anything about it in awhile: The Sopranos. One of the greatest shows in history imo.

I like GOOD SHOWS much better in most cases than good movies; good movies ALWAYS LEAVE ME WANTING MORE, whereas a good ass TV show is like a 60 hour movie of a bunch of great characters (if i enjoy it and its good, that is).

Also Lilyhammer features Steve van Zandt (Silvio Dante from Sopranos and the guitarist for Bruce Springsteen). Once again he plays a gangster, except this time he plays a gangster who rats on his fellow mobsters just so he can get $ from the government and relocate to Lillehammer, Norway, where he uses the rat gotten funds to start up another criminal organization.

Just fyi, I didnt miss that about T&E; I totally get what youre saying about it, but I dont find that funny in the slightest. Just because they've succeeded in being so strange that it breaks norms doesn't make it a good show imo. It just makes it a bunch of flashing lights A.D.D. garbage thrown together. But thats just my opinion. I dont consider a thats so "outside the box" that it isn't even supposed to be enjoyed in its entirety, as you claim. Nor do I appreciate a show thats so "unique" that it consists of images of men riding tricycles in toddler outfits, intersected with repetitive flashing YTMND equivalents. A show designed to be mindless and random doesn't have to be great, and IMO it is far from that. Rather, to me its just rather boring.

I mean the Sopranos was ground breaking IMO: one of the first shows where the protagonist is not only morally grey, but a straight up evil sociopath. And yet despite how terrible a person he is (kills friends and family, values $ over all, and satiates his hedonism at every possible opportunity), despite him being such a repugnant moral being, you cheered him on. You wanted him to succeed, you wanted him to make it, take all for himself and leave everyone else bloodied and dead. You WANTED that evil man to make it to next week, and squealed with delight when he gained something at the suffering of another. The viewer loved it when Tony would kick the shit out of some poor sap who lost his life savings gambling, screaming "Wheres my money?!" the entire time, despite him being the one who dragged the poor sap into that world against their better judgement.

I at least did, and I enjoyed it because deep down everyone wishes they could be that evil, have no conscious and do all those fucked up things.

That to me made that show ground breaking, historic and epic. One of the reasons people like Breaking Bad even more IMO: because that guy at least had good motives for doing bad things. Although now Walts motives have shifted and hes once again a character that helps facilitate evil, but people cheer him on because they always wish they could be that evil man; the once everyman turned for himself to great profit and success, despite the harm he causes(getting kids killed, selling crystal meth that thousands become addicted to and die over), we cheer him on every single week. Breaking Bad also combines it with a healthy amount of separate, but intricately related plots, which helps make it so great IMO, and is something I will discuss at the bottom when talking about another 'underrated' show.

As I said, I like GOOD SHOWS that to me are basically extended movies. I do like some shows that are episode independent (family guy, futuruama, etc), but to me GREAT SHOWS are ones with giant arcs and great big epic stories that cant just be told in a 2 hour movie, but rather need years of development for you to truly appreciate. That, to me, is a GREAT SHOW, although as I said anything can be great to anyone, and some shows you like I may not enjoy (Ie Tim & Eric i'm sorry but no matter how clever people claim those guys to be I cannot enjoy that show on any level)

Another underrated show (at least the first season or so): Heroes. God how I wish that show had kept going, it was SO GOOD when it first started. And then the writers went on strike and kinda phoned in the following seasons and it really made 0 sense and totally lost every good thing it had going for it: what was once an awesome show just BECAUSE Of its many intricate yet connected plots, became awful because it became filled with TOO MANY plots that served 0 purpose to advance the story, and somehow rewrote all of what we originally had learned to be true via the show.

That to me is the biggest punch in the balls to a viewer: to rewrite a shows entire history for the purpose of a season like that. I mean to basically redo everything that has been established to be true, just to "pull a 180" on the viewer makes absolutely no sense and is insulting to the viewers intelligence. Like we're going to really believe that everything you've taught us to be true for 3 seasons is suddenly false just for a stupid random reason; then the producers of a show wonder why the plug gets pulled? Maybe dont insult a viewers intelligence by basically wasting every single minute they spent investing in a show by saying "Whoopsies, all BS!"

Again, sorry for the long post, but i LOVE FILM AND TELEVISION! I actually just stated my own film review website. Perhaps if another person on here enjoys films/television just as much, they could write some stuff and contribute it as well? Sometimes I feel as if I could write a book on the subjects! Maybe I will....

 

[MrGrunge]

How can Tony Soprano be both morally "grey" and an evil sociopath? The point of the show is that he's not an stereotypical murderous gangster, but a family man torn between his two lives.

Also, I love Sci Fi, but Firefly is just cheesy. The characters are two-dimensional, the "witty banter" is just hackneyed one-liners, and the story always seemed secondary to "look how cool these characters are" factor, just like every other Joss Whedon production.

Also, Tim and Eric are the Monty Pythons of our generation (albeit in a much more concentrated absurdist form) - the sooner everyone accepts that the sooner we can all get along.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

I accept that they're in the same genre, but they aren't nearly as good as Monty Python.

 

[MrGrunge]

"Good" is subjective, though. Monty Python, in their time, gained a reputation for being "stupid" and "lowest common denominator"-type humor. The truth is, they were ahead of their time. Their comedy was as divisive as it was brilliant. I'm not saying they'll be viewed in the same light as Monty Python in the future, but they definitely fill the same place in the current cultural zeitgeist.

Tim and Eric are like Anti-Comedy: they don't write jokes, they just write funny. The show's brilliance is in its schizophrenic simplicity.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Tom Goes to the Mayor was funny. Tim and Eric's Awesome show, not so much. Personally I don't find Awesome Show funny or brilliant. Comparing it to Python is a stretch. They are very different shows. Tim and Eric play off the fact that they are incompetent, intentionally creating bad programming in order to satirize the plethora of bad programming that already exists. The skits with John C. Reilly where he constantly fucks everything up, etcetera. Python never did this. Or, at least, they didn't revolve around it. This absurd self-satire is not original or particularly clever. What Python did, on the other hand, was clever. Their skits were full of satirical cultural observations. They took Britain, and British television, and turned it upside down. And, unlike the majority of skit shows throughout history, including Tim and Eric, they didn't repeat their ideas until they died. Reilly's character is in half the episodes of Awesome Show, doing the same thing, making goofy mistakes, acting badly. Personally I didn't think his character was funny enough to warrant it appearing in two episodes let alone two dozen. It's just the same joke, over and over again.

Python, although inconsistent, had some brilliant skits. Not brilliant because they are inane; brilliant because they are so well conceived and executed. They didn't intentionally execute skits poorly. Some of the dialogue is utterly fantastic. Particularly:

Nudge Nudge Wink Wink http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...hI3bBQ&usg=AFQjCNH-eYOjC-_dD_dSnULrJSdONuPk7Q

The Parrot sketch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

and... (my favourite)

Michael Ellis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzX_YcGkWbY

 

[sarcophagus.heels]

^ I'm with foreverafter on this one. Comparing it to Monty Python, even just in the sense of fitting that cultural nitch, seems way off the mark.

I also liked Tom Goes to the Mayor. Tim and Eric are talented guys, I just don't think this show is funny. Surreal and absurd can be hilarious - hell, The Mighty Boosh is probably my favorite comedy, and it was strange as hell. It was chaos, but a controlled chaos. Tim and Eric's Awesome Show seems to go for pure over-the-top absurdity and shock value. I'm friends with people who love the show, and have told me that I just have to watch it with the understanding that it's a deconstruction of comedy, to just enjoy it as the psychotic orgy of ideas that it is. And I can respect that - everyone has their sense of humor, and this just doesn't do it for me. Not my cup of tea.

 

[MrGrunge]

... in order to satirize the plethora of bad programming that already exists.

What Python did, on the other hand, was clever. Their skits were full of satirical cultural observations. They took Britain, and British television, and turned it upside down.

You're right, they're fairly similar in that regard.

While I don't know that the conception of even the most popular Python sketches were necessarily brilliant (since most of them don't even have endings), they were particularly well-executed: some of those sketches would be difficult to perform for even the most talented stage actor.

The thing that appeals to me about Tim and Eric though is how steadfastly individualistic they are - that they do what they want to do without having to worry about pandering to Nielsen Ratings and other corporate interests. They have fun doing what they do and it comes across in their work. It's refreshing, really.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Satirizing bad television is not the same as satirizing an entire culture inclusive of bad television; Awesome Show does not do for the US what Python did for Britain. It takes pot shots at easy targets, like daytime cooking shows and news anchors; whereas Python made all sorts of controversial allusions to British culture. It didn't revolve around reconstructing incompetent programming with emphasis on the incompetence.

Python skits have endings for the most part, they are just unconventional endings. In the context of broader fiction, narratives are capable of being complete without traditional summations.

I've heard people say all sorts of things about Tim and Eric. Calling them geniuses and shit. But really they're just idiots. The John C. Reilly skits (I keep referring to them because I find them particularly uninspired) consist of a cooking show host, or nutrition expert, or something, purposely making mistakes. That's the whole concept. He is incompetent. Which justifies the script as being incompetent and the acting and everything else. They are making an incompetent show, full of incompetent segments, as a commentary on how incompetent US media is. The problem with this, as far as I'm concerned is that they are contributing to the incompetence, satire nor no.

The gay news anchor skits and the John C. Reilly skits are not "steadfastly individualistic". They remind me of a whole bunch of self-satirizing television. Johnny Carson used to do cooking show segments in which the producer would ensure that something went wrong. Because, as they say in The Larry Sanders show, everybody loves that bit where the monkey grabs Johnny's balls. Awesome Show is not a departure from this. Nor is it clever or original. It is playing the same flute network television has played for years. The only thing original about it is how camp and over-the-top the execution is. But even this has been done before. Graham Norton. The gay news anchor skits play on homophobia. Lets dress a heterosexual man up like a homosexual and pretend he's a woman. Let's play gay chicken on television. And, while we're at it, we'll repeat the formula of impersonating incompetence. This, too, has been done countless times throughout television history. And before television even existed. It is something the theatre world has been using since it's conception. Back when men played women's roles. Drag queens. Etcetera. Again, the only difference is how far Tim and Eric chose to take it. Tim's make-up is particularly disgusting. They tongue kiss. Etcetera. Personally I'm not homophobic enough for this to amuse me. It is the lowest common denominator. Using an eccentric news anchor duo as a context for comedy is tired. The only time it actually works is when the writers do something with it. When the jokes are exceptional. Taking a formula and pushing it to nth degree means nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

Tim and Eric are willing to self-deprecate more than their predecessors; they succeed by publicly shitting on themselves.

They deliberately reject the accepted notions of what film or TV comedy should be, and as a result people find them confusing or stupid.

They are stupid. Tom Goes to the Mayor is absolutely brainless. I love it, but it's utter idiocy. There is nothing extraordinary going on. Don't you think Python and Chaplin deliberately rejected the accepted notions of what comedy should be? Don't you think it's been done a thousand times before, to better effect?

You use complex language to describe something simple: zeitgeist; steadfastly individualistic; skizophrenic simplicity. But your language, no matter how eloquent or impressive in terms of vocabulary, fails to illustrate how the show itself is complex. "It just is," with a degree in articulation, fails to convince me. You have provided no explanation as to why they are so brilliant. In fact, you've created this clause in which explanation is unnecessary:

If you can stop 'trying' to understand them, you'll enjoy them all the more - but if you sit there thinking "this is stupid, it doesn't make any sense" then you've missed the point entirely.

They are beyond question. No explanation is necessary. To attempt to understand why they are brilliant, or to attempt to explain it, is contrary to the whole point of their existence. Therefore they are beyond criticism? I don't get it. You could apply this logic to any number of crappy television shows.

Jersey Shore: if you sit there thinking "this is stupid, it doesn't make any sense" then you've missed the point entirely.

It's true. If you turn off that part of your brain that tells you to change the channel; if you stop being critical; stop being selective: then you can watch just about anything. But that doesn't make it good. Or brilliant.

they do what they want to do without having to worry about pandering to Nielsen Ratings and other corporate interests. They have fun doing what they do and it comes across in their work. It's refreshing, really.

You could make the same statement about countless shows. Everybody has fun making silly TV shows and there is an endless list of bizarre contemporary television that makes no effort to please it's audience. Tim and Eric is on that list, sure. But it wasn't the first one to qualify. Or the second.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

"Good" is subjective, though. Monty Python, in their time, gained a reputation for being "stupid" and "lowest common denominator"-type humor. The truth is, they were ahead of their time. Their comedy was as divisive as it was brilliant. I'm not saying they'll be viewed in the same light as Monty Python in the future, but they definitely fill the same place in the current cultural zeitgeist.

Tim and Eric are like Anti-Comedy: they don't write jokes, they just write funny. The show's brilliance is in its schizophrenic simplicity.

I get what you're saying about their off-beat style, but still, I never got the gut busting humor like you can get with Monty Python from Tim and Eric. All the laughs they go for are like short little giggle breaths with little serious impact. Some of the stuff on Python I can still laugh my ass off just thinking about it.

In a similar modern off-beat kinda vein is The Life and Times of Tim on HBO. That's a hilarious little cartoon about this pathetic office worker who has no control over the events in his day. There's a few full episodes on youtube, but they have loads of scenes from the show. It's surrealistic in that it's almost 100% as realistic as possible, but every now and then a ridiculous archetype of a human being comes on and just blows people's minds. It has quality voice actors too. I'm not sure how popular it is.

 

[MrGrunge]

The gay news anchor skits and the John C. Reilly skits are not "steadfastly individualistic". They remind me of a whole bunch of self-satirizing television. Johnny Carson used to do cooking show segments in which the producer would ensure that something went wrong. Because, as they say in The Larry Sanders show, everybody loves that bit where the monkey grabs Johnny's balls. Awesome Show is not a departure from this. Nor is it clever or original. It is playing the same flute network television has played for years. The only thing original about it is how camp and over-the-top the execution is.

Reducing the entirety of Awesome Show to Jan and Wayne Skylar and Dr. Brule is ridiculous. Granted, they are recurring characters, but just because a vague archetype of their characters have existed at some point in the past doesn't really mean much. The whole point of the show is to satirize these vaguely-familiar character archetypes. They weren't the first to film a spoof cooking show, but they were the first to film one through "Tim-and-Eric vision". So while the concept may not be fresh, the execution is wholly their own.

But even this has been done before. Graham Norton. The gay news anchor skits play on homophobia. Lets dress a heterosexual man up like a homosexual and pretend he's a woman. Let's play gay chicken on television.

Uh, they're not gay Newsanchors, they are clearly a married heterosexual couple. The heterosexual man isn't dressing like a homosexual, he's dressing like a woman in order to play the part of a woman. They're characters.

And, while we're at it, we'll repeat the formula of impersonating incompetence.

So they're only impersonating incompetence? Since you wrote an entire dissertation on the subject I would have assumed you thought them genuinely incompetent.

This, too, has been done countless times throughout television history. And before television even existed. It is something the theatre world has been using since it's conception. Back when men played women's roles. Drag queens. Etcetera. Again, the only difference is how far Tim and Eric chose to take it. Tim's make-up is particularly disgusting. They tongue kiss. Etcetera. Personally I'm not homophobic enough for this to amuse me. It is the lowest common denominator. Using an eccentric news anchor duo as a context for comedy is tired. The only time it actually works is when the writers do something with it. When the jokes are exceptional. Taking a formula and pushing it to nth degree means nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

And that is why Tim and Eric are not for you. Nobody ever said they were clever. You either like the random, absurd, batshit insanity that is Tim and Eric or you don't. Your post could have stopped here.

They are stupid. Tom Goes to the Mayor is absolutely brainless. I love it, but it's utter idiocy. There is nothing extraordinary going on. Don't you think Python and Chaplin deliberately rejected the accepted notions of what comedy should be? Don't you think it's been done a thousand times before, to better effect?

No. Nobody has ever seen comedy through the same eyes as Tim and Eric - nobody. Not Chaplin, not Python - nobody. Whether its better or worse is a completely subjective notion. Their particular style is wholly their own. I mentioned Python because of Terry Gilliam's contributions to the show - I think if you look at his animated segments, in particular, you can see the roots of Tim and Eric's style. They took the same sort of stylized, random insanity and contemporized it.

You use complex language to describe something simple: zeitgeist; steadfastly individualistic; skizophrenic simplicity. But your language, no matter how eloquent or impressive in terms of vocabulary, fails to illustrate how the show itself is complex. "It just is," with a degree in articulation, fails to convince me. You have provided no explanation as to why they are so brilliant. In fact, you've created this clause in which explanation is unnecessary.

So now you're picking on my vocabulary? The show isn't complex - I never said it was. In fact, if you reread one of those words you quoted from me, I called it "simple". Also, considering there is not an English word for "zeitgeist", I'm not sure what you would find more appropriate.

They are beyond question. No explanation is necessary. To attempt to understand why they are brilliant, or to attempt to explain it, is contrary to the whole point of their existence. Therefore they are beyond criticism? I don't get it.

Beyond criticism? What?? Stop making shit up, man. Of course they're not above criticism - the fact that the show is so critically divisive is one of the things I find fascinating about it.

It's true. If you turn off that part of your brain that tells you to change the channel; if you stop being critical; stop being selective: then you can watch just about anything. But that doesn't make it good. Or brilliant.

Maybe, but I know many intelligent, cultured people who enjoy Tim and Eric, whereas I can't say I'm friends with anyone who has anything good to say about Jersey Shore. I'm not saying these people are the height of refined sophistication (we can't all be ForEverAfters), but as far as film/television/music go, they seem to know what they're talking about. It's a phenomenon, really, that a show so unabashedly stupid can garner an otherwise intelligent fanbase. The fact that a fifteen-minute program on Adult Swim can elicit support from actors like Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, Zach Galifianakis, and Will Forte and god knows how many others (Youtube their "Billion Dollar Pledge") must mean that they're onto something. I consider myself an extremely critical person, especially of film and even more especially of television. In a world where everything is whitewashed, homogenized, repackaged, remade, corporate bullshit, I find the sense of genuine (not marketed) stupidity to be refreshing.

You could make the same statement about countless shows. Everybody has fun making silly TV shows and there is an endless list of bizarre contemporary television that makes no effort to please it's audience. Tim and Eric is on that list, sure. But it wasn't the first one to qualify. Or the second.

Countless shows? Which ones? And did any of them manage to make it to five seasons? I can think of a few pre-2000 television shows, but nothing from recent memory that wasn't also on Adult Swim. Television is different from film in that its completely corporate - nobody is making "independent television" outside public access shows that can only ever hope to make it to Youtube. If a show doesn't try to please anybody, be it the audience or their corporate overlords, it gets cancelled. The only reason Tim and Eric managed to stick around so long was because Adult Swim happened to exist.

Also, what does being first have to do with anything? Nothing is new under the sun. Surely they didn't invent bizzare, surrealist humor, but they managed to find a format in which their brand happened to work.