I think the difference hear though is not necessarily writers giving the character some growth within the show's universe. It was more changing the character into something different than the original premise.

Hard to say. Some of it was simply the contrast between that and the happy family sitcom. Another things was playing into some of the darker, more cynical side of family life that working-class people joke about. Though it definitely cranks it up to absurd levels.

The TV Land show "Teachers" is the latest example of that kind of thing. I have heard that a 1990s-set spin-off of The Goldbergs is on the way, focused on the school and teachers. The creator has said it will poke fun at teachers, but not in the cynical way some other shows/movies do.

Yep, my sentiments exactly. In later episodes of that show, no only was she super hot, but she did a really good job as Kelly. Early episodes had her more of a sullen teenager, but she later on became a lot more happy and fun.

I remember that one, though I'm sure Al must've said "hooters."

Yeah, I agree it shouldn't be considered on the same level as some of those examples. But I do think it should stand on its own as a funny, stupid, and sort of subversive sitcom. But it was also unrepentantly, purposely dumb.

Oh, I really loved that "Bundy Bounce"

I recall one special discussing the show and there was one improvised gesture from O'Neill that sold them on his take on Al. Before he opens the front door when returning home from work. He sighed, and acting like he was steeling himself to have to deal with his family again.

That may be the episode I remember most. That one probably belongs on this list. In fact, I may even suggest its similar to the Seinfeld "Chinese Restaurant" episode. Nearly the whole episode is set at the theater.

I found Jefferson more entertaining because he played along with Al's terribleness. Steve just seems like as much of a wet blanket at Marcy. This show is one of the few examples of show that really doesn't need a "real" character for the viewer to identify with.

Agreed. When you see her appear on a show as her self, you realize how well she did portraying Kelly as so damn stupid. She seems to be the polar opposite. Too bad she hasn't really found another big acting role, though she's been working all along. Doesn't she have a one-season sitcom she starred in at one point?

The latest run of teacher comedy does tend to lean toward making teachers crazy, chain-smoking, lazy people who hate kids.

I really like Gaffigan, who is a nice step into more silly comedy when you'd like to get away from some of the "heavier" comedians.

To avoid putting in a candidate with a lot of baggage, who many decided they would never vote for many years ago.

Hey, you've just described 90% of political TV and talk radio.

Is that the same as a single-issue voter or candidate? I hate to mention abortion but as Louis uses it as an example, in some minds being against it or for it makes you a terrible person. But let's say you're a more conservative voter… if someone is pro-choice but agrees with you 90% of the time otherwise, do you vote…

Blah blah, social justice warriors, blah blah, war on men…

Why call it out as "multiracial"? Brooklyn Nine-Nine is multiracial, and even gives us a non-stereotypical gay character, yet I don't think it was described as such.

Definitely, especially where it says "[announcer voice]".

I think the voices of Homer and Marge were Tracy Ullman cast members.