Talk:Fonzie syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fonzie syndrome article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

Contents

[edit] Other media

Could "Fonzie syndrome" apply to other media? For example, Wolverine in the X-Men comic books seems like a classic example of "Fonzie syndrome". Simon Beavis 1 January 2006.

I think it can. Fonzie syndrome is ultimately a description of dramatic structure, and such rules have never been confined to one medium. The only real requirement would probably be that it has to be a medium that can receive and be influenced by audience feedback while still in production. This couldn't happen to a movie, but a series of movie sequels could have one. Novels like the Harry Potter series might be more resistant to the phenomenon, but wouldn't be immune.

[edit] Family Ties and Valerie removals

I think these two shows could be reinstated. I recall some press speculation that other cast members were peeved when Michael J Fox and Justin Bateman, respectively, seemed to become the stars of the show when they were originally meant as a family ensemble. I am not saying the casts really did think this, just that Fox and Bateman became such big stars that the press seized on it for speculation. I seem to recall the angle was that established actors playing the adults had been working for years, when these new hunks come along and overshadow them. Asa01 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK I went ahead and reinstated as per above. You will also note that of all the actors on the list, these two are possibly the biggest stars. The standout stars of things like 227 are people that never really became stars. I think this adds to my argument. Asa01 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on above

I also think Charlie Angels entry should go, mainly because Farrah was one of the intended stars, and really all the original angels were popular, maybe Farah moreso, but they were all stars. It is not like Bosley became the biggest star or anything. Asa01 03:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the Charlie's Angels entry because the show was, at its beginning, intended as a vehicle for Kate Jackson. msclguru 12:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed M*A*S*H entry

Sorry I removed the M*A*S*H entry below.

Though Klinger (and Father Mulcachy) progressed from being minor recurring characters to regular leads, they never did overtake the characters devised initially as lead characters. Hawkeye, Hotlips, BJ et al always remained central and highly popular and while Kliger's appearances increased he never overtook the nominal stars. Asa01 21:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree that Klinger never became a focal character, I think Hawkeye should have an entry under M*A*S*H. Recall that originally Hawkeye and Trapper were supposed to have equal footing and the main reason Wayne Rogers left the series is because he was playing second fiddle to Alda/Hawkeye -- which is not what he signed on for. Not to mention that many fans thought the show jumped the shark when Alda took more and more creative control (and there was that one episode with only Hawk). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.51.77.64 (talk • contribs) .
I think Hawkeye is a good example, as he did end up being the central character in what was really designed as an ensemble cast. I'm going to add it in. -- MisterHand 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I really have to disagree here. M*A*S*H may have been an ensemble cast at the beginning, but there was no doubt, even from the Pilot -- Hell, even from the movie -- that Hawkeye would be a first-tier character. Msclguru 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Max Klinger may well be a legitimate case. He wasn't even a recurring character originally. He wasn't even in the pilot, he was a one-time character in an early episode as a gag of a guy trying to get out on a psychological discharge, who was such a hit that he went from being a one-shot character, to a recurring chararacter, to being a regular part of the cast, to having entire episodes built around him and being a main character in the spinoff series, while not to the extreme as Fonzie, that's certainly going from being a one-shot character to being a central part of the show. --Wingsandsword 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he's a legitimate case. I'm not removing him-- at least not without allowing time for more discussion-- but while he did grow beyond the original intention for him, I seriously doubt much of anyone ever considered him even nearly as principal of a character as Hawkeye, Hot Lips, Trapper/BJ, or Blake/Potter. This isn't about growing beyond expectations; a character has to grow (as I see it) into at least the #2 character on the show. Klinger never came close.-KP 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degrassi: The Next Generation

I think Craig Manning should be removed from this list. He was introduced in the two-part Season 2 premiere, which centered on his intro and his abuse from his father, and has since then been one of the major focal characters of the show. It's clear he was never intended as a one-off or merely supporting character but as one of the lynchpins of the show's ensemble cast. He doesn't fit the definition of Fonzie syndrome at all. If no one objects, I'll remove the reference to Craig later today. --Patrick T. Wynne 18:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not have a Wikipedia account like the rest of you guys... so, yeah. I was thinking about this and I believe there is a better example of Fonzie Sydrome in Degrassi then Craig: Ellie Nash. She started as a supporting character in the second season and now look! She took Emma's spot as the first character seen in the theme song and she has become a main character. By extention, Jay could also be considered this, too. -- 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Nah, Ellie wouldn't count either as she has not become "the central and most popular character on the show". Nor has Jay. Are they both popular characters? Sure. But most stories still focus on Craig, Paige, Emma, Manny, Marco and Jimmy. Ellie occasionally has a large role in some of those stories, but Jay almost never does. And, at any rate, the modus operandi of the various Degrassi series has always been to take characters that had been background or supporting and elevate them to main cast over the course of a few seasons. --Patrick T. Wynne 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed notes

I removed the notes on Mimi Bobeck and Tommy the White Ranger, because they weren't needed. It's already a given that the characters on this list were minor supporting players but evolved into major characters; that doesn't need to be explained again. Also, the idea that Tommy is THE perfect example of Fonzie Syndrome next to Fonzie itself seems a little off...since Fonzie Syndrome is also known as Urkel Syndrome, Urkel is clearly the next most perfect example of Fonzie Syndrome

The one about Pepe needs to be left in because it explains that he was only introduced on the show, not a major star...however, if this is the case, and it was actually a movie that made him a star, should Pepe and Muppets Tonight even be listed here at all? --msclguru 12:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I decided to remove Pepe after researching Muppets Tonight. The series went off the air before the Muppets in Space movie was released, and so Pepe really doesn't qualify as a "Fonzie Syndrome" example. He became an important person in the Muppets franchise, which extends to several media, but not the specific TV series (and he certainly never overshadowed Kermit the Frog).

--msclguru 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Frasier/Cheers

Just because he went into a spin-off it is not the same thing as Fonzie syndrome. Frasier never came dominate the show Cheers and overshadow its original stars. Yet that is the requirement for a listing here. Many old sitcom characters were continued in later spinoffs. Its not really that unusual. Asa01 19:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartman?

I don't think Cartman qualifies as a fonzie syndrome character, as he was one of the four main characters from the beginning of the show.--Jsonitsac 05:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree he isn't central or most popular, and he didn't have to move so far to get where he is. Dimitrii 22:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newhart: Larry, Daryl and Daryl

Newhart: Larry, Daryl and Daryl: are not "a character that had originally been a one-off or part of the supporting cast becomes the central and most popular character on the show" They certainly went from one-off's to supporting cast but they were never central or most popular. Dimitrii 22:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taxi

While Latka Gravas was a popular character, he was never the central focus of the show. --MisterHand 22:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joey

What about Joey on Friends? Even though he didn't ever take over that show, he did become big and start his own show. DrKC9N 19:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See the conversation on Fraiser above. -- MisterHand 06:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Carver

I removed the Carver (Nip/Tuck) because he really doesn't fit. Just because he received a lot of attention doesn't mean he suddenly became the main character. He was basically a storyline, one that is (for now) done with. -Branddobbe 07:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massive sweep

It seems to me this article has a ton of examples that aren't truly "Fonzie Syndrome" at all. I'm going to wait 24 hours for comments, and after that I'll delete all of the following from the list:

  • Andy Griffith Show: Barney Fife (Don Knotts)
    • Barney was never the focale point of the show.
  • ER: Carol Hathaway (Julianna Margulies)
    • Hathaway was never the focale point of the show.
  • Family Matters: Steve Urkel (Jaleel White)
    • No need to mention this example again, it's already in the main text of the article.
  • Happy Days: Fonzie
    • No need to mention this example again, it's already in the main text and title of the article.
  • King of the Hill: Dale Gribble (Johnny Hardwick)
    • Dale was never the focale point of the show.
  • Laverne & Shirley: Lenny (Michael McKean) and Squiggy (David Lander)
    • Lenny and Squiggy were never the focale point of the show.
  • Newhart: Larry, Darryl and Darryl (William Sanderson, Tony Papenfuss, and John Voldstad)
    • Not only were these characters never the focale point of the show, but their appearances were usually only limited to a few seconds per episode, if that.
  • Star Wars: Boba Fett
    • Star Wars is not a tv show, and Boba Fett was never the focale point. A better example would be Darth Vader who went from being the henchman of the villain in the first film to the main character in the last three.
  • Taxi: Latka Gravas (Andy Kaufman)
    • Latka was never the focale point of the show.
  • The Drew Carey Show: Mimi Bobeck (Kathy Kinney)
    • Mimi was never the focale point of the show.
I am only going to comment of the shows I have actually seen before. Remove duplicate entry for Happy Days. As for Laverne and Shirley, not only did Lenny and Squiggy never evolve into being the focal point of the show, they were always main support characters from the begining, and continued in that role through the series. They remained as they had been intended. Though I've only seen a couple of episodes of this series, the Taxi entry seems highly questionable. I'm in Australia and a quick glance at the list of regulars reveals many names recognisable to me. Paradoxically Kaufman was one of three names I did not recognise. Asa01 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback. Time is up, and all of the above examples have been removed. -- MisterHand 05:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think there might be some value in mentioning several of those examples, such as the Carol Hathaway one. I recall reading her character was supposed to die in the pilot, but was kept. And Boba Fett is a great example of a character with almost no lines who becomes enormously popular with the fans. Maybe make sections like in the Chuck Cunningham entry? FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One from another medium...

Just a stranger here, but I'm thinking a great example of Fonzie Syndrome would be Penguin Opus from Bloom County.

[edit] Time for another sweep

Unless there are objections, I'm going to remove the following entries in a day or two:

  • Arrested Development: The characters of George Bluth Sr. (Jeffrey Tambor) and Tobias (David Cross) were intended to be non-recurring characters but were so successful that the writers kept them in.
    • Not "Fonzie Syndrome" as neither George Sr. nor Tobias were ever the focale point of the show.
  • Cheers: Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger) was originally signed on to appear in the first 8 episodes.
    • Cliff was never the focale point of the show.
  • Seinfeld: Cosmo Kramer (Michael Richards)
    • Kramer was never the focale point of the show.
      • I object. Kramer did evetually become the focal point otf the show. It was noted that Kramer's applause eventually became so long when he entered through the doors that producers had to order the audience to restrain from applauding. Also his increased stardom was spoofed when the NBC producers are talking about Jerry's pilot and mentioned their preference to Kramer and how they want to see more of him. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.22.189 (talk • contribs)
        • Being popular and getting lots of applause is not the same thing as being the focal point of the show. Even at the height of Kramer's popularity, it was still an ensemble show with Jerry Seinfeld at the center. -- MisterHand 19:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The focal point is determined by the viewers, not the show's producers. Jerry Seinfeld kept himself at the center of the show, but despite this Kramer was the most identifiable and recognizable of all the cast much like Urkel compared to Carl Winslow. It is hard to argue that Cody from Step by Step or Michelle Tanner from Full House gained more focus from the audience than Michael Richards did as Kramer. He was the one offered the spin-off and definitely became the focal point of the show towards the end more so than other people on the list.
            • The focal point of a show may be SELECTED by the viewers, but it is DEFINED the show's writers. Kramer's storylines never became the dominant ones on the show, so he was never the focal point. The comparison with Urkel is absolutely not valid--on Family Matters, Urkel became the driving force of every script, and eventually he appeared in promo spots all by himself. Nor is it a valid point that he was offered the spin-off (which he did not take), as the discussions here of Frasier and Joey have already demonstrated that getting a spin-off doesn't necessarily mean that a character is the focal point of the original show. Msclguru 19:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Well said. Back in the 1990s I attended a writing seminar with Larry Charles. He said that despite Kramer's popularity, the writers of the show were careful to not expand his role...realizing that the character only worked in small doses. -- MisterHand 13:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to shorten the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers entry to just "Tommy Oliver." We don't need every name that character has ever had listed on this page. -- MisterHand 14:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of shows I am acquainted with, I would say delete Cheers and Seinfeld references. As you say, never developed into main focus of show. Also, they were initially devised as a regular support character with quite a lot of screen time, and the roles stayed that way - no syndrome saw them change into anything different. Asa01 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Remove them all, and I would suggest also removing the Will & Grace entry as well. Jack and Karen are secondary characters, and although they are a big part of the series, Will and Grace have and always will be the main characters. Also, remove the Homestar Runner entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.51.77.64 (talk • contribs) .
I'm going to remove them all, along with Will and Grace & Homestar Runner as you've recommended. I'm also going to remove "The Carver" (added today) as per Branddobbe's comments above. -- MisterHand 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek & Spock

Could an argument be made for the character of Spock in the original Star Trek series? William Shatner was supposedly the star, and the character of Captain Kirk the lead character, but Leonard Nimoy became incredibly popular and many episodes focused on Spock moreso than Captain Kirk. Of course, because the triumvirate of Kirk/Spock/McCoy was more or less the focal point of the series from day one, I am not sure Spock ever really became more important than Captain Kirk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.51.77.64 (talk • contribs) .

I would say that Spock was never the focale point of the series and don't think it applies myself. -- MisterHand 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Same here. I was just tossing it out there. 209.51.77.64 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, every Star Trek TOS episode was always centered on Kirk by the climax. Even Spock-centered episodes like the one where he went to his home planet climaxed with Kirk in the arena having to fight him. Just being popular and memorable doesn't make someone "Fonzie syndrome" Algr 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Episodic Media"?

What is this line about "episodic media (usually TV sitcoms)?" That's too broad. "Fonzie Syndrome" is an actual TV industry term. If you want to create a section about other media where similar situations have occurred, that's fine, but it's inaccurate to take a TV-specific term and rewrite its definition to include all other episodic media. That's like saying that Nielsen ratings determine the audience size for episodic media (usually TV programs).

I will rewrite this sentence in 24 hours unless someone brings up a good argument why not. Msclguru 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. It appears the term was changed sometime in the past by somebody who wanted to shoehorn in non-television works. -- MisterHand 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I have rewritten the opening sentence, and on that same token I have removed the entry for the "X-Men" animated series; someone else mentioned that Wolverine gained prominence in the original comic, not the TV cartoon; in other words, they are using the animated series as an attempt to smuggle in a non-television work under the radar. Msclguru 06:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mash

Surely Hawkeye was always ment to be the star. He was given top billing even in the film. Though Trapper was a more dominant character in the film, from the start of the television series, it was always clear that Hawkeye was meant to be the lead.--Crestville 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as I noted above, and I am removing the Hawkeye entry. 68.55.115.149 20:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SG & Atlantis

Vala Mal Doran and Carson Beckett are nowhere near the focal point of the show; Carson has yet to have a full episode featuring him centrally, unlike Rodney McKay, and Vala was plot-bound to Daniel Jackson for a number of episodes. She is certainly not central, and neither show appears to be affected by Fonzie syndrome. One could argue that Rodney has more popularity than John Sheppard, but that's the same as the Cartman entry above. Removing both for now. AKismet 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J. Fox / Family Ties

I'm going to reinstate Michael J. Fox as an example of "Fonzie Syndrome." Indeed, Alex P. Keaton is considered one of the better examples of the syndrome listed. For example, here's a quote from an article I found:

The network and the producers made the decision to shift focus from Elyse and Steve to their preppy son. There was some grumbling, but the move proved to be the right one. For one thing, it helped buy time for Family Ties as audiences slowly discovered it during its first two seasons on the air. [2]

If there's disagreement, let's hash it out. -- MisterHand 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, good point. I didn't start watching until the second season, IIRC, so I missed that. It's also odd to think of "Fonzie syndrome" as actually making a show better! If I can find some TV critics who have written on the subject, I'll write a section about "good Fonzies". --M@rēino 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That would be an excellent addition to the article (which, let's admit it, it almost 100% original research right now). -- MisterHand 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe that Alex P. Keaton should remain in the article. As a youngster I was even aware of the shift to his character and the tension surrounding it. At this time I had not seen Happy Days though have since seen it in repeat runs. As for Fonzie Syndrome making a show better, well better is a matter of point of view and personal taste. I interpret Fonzie Syndrome as a caving-in to popular taste in many respects, but it is also something borne of a show losing original popular cast members later in their runs, and also of the series running out of ideas later on. In these weakened circumstances, the show will increasingly rely on dependably popular figures. Making batter does not really figure in to it, and this would differ from show to show anyway. There are also those struggling shows that only gain popularity with the addition or development of a popular Fonzie Syndrome figure: for example I'm sure most fans of Melrose Place agree that the show was better with Amanda in place. Asa01 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi / Drew Carey show

I have removed the following entry:

Mimi was never the focal point of the series. -- MisterHand 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Another Sweep: YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!!!

I've done a large sweep and erased several entries because they were added without regard for the definition of Fonzie Syndrome.

Fonzie Syndrome does not occur simply when a supporting character becomes more important and popular, or receives better billing and more screen time. It happens when the supporting character becomes the single most important character on the show.

So, for example, I erased the entry for Niles in Frasier because Niles never became more important to the show than Frasier himself.

Just because somebody's name and character moves higher up in the order on the show credits (i.e., Waldo on Family Matters), does not necessarily mean that they are examples of "Fonzie Syndrome." If the character in question does not become THE major character on the show, that show shouldn't be listed here.

Msclguru 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Suggestions for a removal and an addition - the removal needed especially if a strict definition is being used.

Removal: Spock [Star Trek] as he was one of the main characters from the start - never merely a supporting character (except in the pilot).

Addition: Spike [Buffy the Vampire Slayer]: Spike started as a villian intended to have only a few episodes in the second season. He was popular enough to not only continue in that season but also bring back and develop into a major character in Buffy for the final three seasons and cross over to Angel's final season once Buffy ended. Some might argue he should also be listed for Angel. No, he shouldn't as he was brought on a major character for the final season.

I am making the suggestions here and not actually making the changes on the entry page as this is my first participation.172.136.216.76 01:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Tom40585

[edit] Tenchi Muyo?

I don't see Ryoko as ever becoming more important than Tenchi to any version of Tenchi Muyo!. I'd suggest that item be removed. Redneckgaijin, March 29, 2006

  • Ryoko was the major focus in Tenchi Universe (as well as the movie Tenchi Forever!, though she does share screen time with Ayeka), as shown in the intro. I changed it to reflect this. Duo02 *Shout here!** 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I'm not gonna be bold and remove it right now, but I don't think she really has a place on this list (although it's been quite a while since I last watched Universe.)
      Shingen 02:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) with an edit 1 minute later.
      • I disagree with Ryoko being considered Fonzie syndrome, because she started out much too prominently to qualify. The whole first episode (OAV) is about her and Tenchi, with everyone else very much in the background. Algr 00:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrested Development

I removed George Bluth (Arrested Development) from the list. He was never the focal point of the series. -- MisterHand 20:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yank-centric?

"Fonzie Syndrome is also sometimes known as Urkel Syndrome after the popular (and, at first, one-off) character Steve Urkel from the 1990s sitcom Family Matters." Maybe in the States, but I don't think the show has even run in the UK. Perhaps some editing of the line would be in order?

[edit] There seems to be some disagreement

About what this term actually means. There are two characteristics of the undisputed Fonz and Urkel cases 1) they both started out as very marginal characters (in Urkel's case, at least, not a member of the main cast); 2) they both ended up becoming the central focus of the show. I think that either both of these characteristics need to be met for a character to appear on the list, or else we should have separate lists for "major characters who ended up becoming the central focus of the show" and "recurring characters who ended up becoming very major characters." As it stands now, the latter instance is consistently removed from the article, while we have people like Alex Keaton, who was always a main character in Family Ties, mentioned. This seems unbalanced. It seems to me that someone like Spike in Buffy, who starts out the show as a minor recurring villain, and then proved so popular that he later returned as a main cast member, and then proved so popular that by the end of the show's run he was quite clearly the most important character on the show apart from Buffy herself, fit the Fonzie paradigm considerably better than, say, Homer Simpson, who was always about the most important character on The Simpson, or Josiah Bartlett, who, after all, played the president on a show about the White House.

It seems to me that the character starting off as a minor or one-off character is at least as important as the character becoming the central focus of the show. It's especially problematic to list characters who were always one of the two or three most important characters on the show, but who were gradually emphasized more, but not list someone like Spike who went from minor recurring character to second most important character over the course of six seasons. It is to be added that the whole article is completely unsourced, so there's no particular grounds for the article keeper's claims as to what "fonzie syndrome" "really" means. john k 16:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor Moon

What situation is it referring to? I haven't watched the entire series, but I read the Hitoshi Doi synopsis, and don't see her as a Fonzie syndrome situation. Also, did the manga come first? Hackwrench 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody loves raymond

does debroah not fit into this catagory? almost every storyline revolves around her with ray's antic just exaserbating the problem. 69.199.55.143 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lost

Fonzie syndrome? Really? I can see Urkel from Family Matters the best example of Fonzie Syndrome, but not Jack from Lost.

[edit] Is this real?

Are there any verifiable sources that use this term? --cholmes75 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is a fun article but if not used outside this wikipedia page, doesn't that make this original research? Format 02:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scrubs

I wouldn't say that the Janitor became more important to the show than any of the main protagonists, which is what this seems to be about. Yes, he did have an episode that followed him around for an episode, but so did Dr. Cox and Elliott, but I wouldn't say they are more important than J.D. - they're merely better developed supporting characters, as the Janitor is.

Also, Turk and Carla have each gotten their own narrative episode. The only main character who HASN'T is Dr. Kelso.--Radaar 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] definition

the introduction does say "and/or most popular character on the show." kramer would fit this description, though you've already said that he doesn't count. maybe someone should change the intro if you're not sticking to it.

Kramer became the most popular character on Seinfeld? I always saw him as part of the ensemble, no more or less important than the rest. -KP 01:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spike?

Would you guys define Spike from Buffy as having a mild case of Fonzie syndrome? After all, he went from being a villain who was supposed to die in Season 2 to the "wacky neighbor" role in Season 4, to becoming an ally by the end of Season 5, and even a love interest in Seasons 6 and 7. Then, he was brought to Angel for its final season, and even surpassed some of the characters on that show. I don't think he ever dominated either show, but he did get a little more screen time than some of the original members.

I'd call Spike (on Buffy) an example of the syndrome. Partially because the other characters were written below previous standards in Seasons 6 and 7, he arguably turned into the focal point of the show. Some people blame that fact for the show's decline in its last two seasons. I don't, seeing it as a symptom rather than part of the problem. He was a great character, and that never hurts a series. He became over-prominent because the others, who also were very good or great characters, lost so much of their luster in the last two seasons.
On Angel, it was totally different. He became the second most prominent character on the show, but that was very much by design, to try to make sure Buffy fans would watch the show. He also was clearly never the focus of the show. The title character remained the focus.-KP 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That 70's Show (Kelso)

I deleted Kelso - while Eric Forman was the most central character of the show, it was an ensemble cast, and recognized as such, from the very first episode. Therefore, Kelso fits neither of the qualifiers for Fonzie syndrome - he was never considered a minor character (his spot in the credits never changes, reflecting this) and he was never the single most important character. He wasn't even a series regular in the final season! He simply doesn't belong in this conversation.

[edit] Rebecca Donaldson

I added her because she was originally only set to appear in six episodes, but because she was so popular she became one of the main characters.

[edit] where is the basis for "Fonzie syndrome"?

The article has no basis or explanation for who, when and where this term arose. There is no evidence that someone here didn't just make this up, much in the same way I could just make up an article called Mork syndrome to describe TV shows where the entire show consists of one character ranting and raving for 30 minutes, or Cigarette Smoking Man syndrome to describe shows where the most popular character is rarely even on the show. A cursory Google search showed only pages referring back to this Wikipedia article. wikipediatrix 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked to see if it was coined, for all practical purposes, by a Wikipedia editor; or if it was a real pop culture term. It got 134 hits on Google, so I think it's fair to call it a real pop culture term.-KP 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
134 hits is extremely low for a real and notable pop culture item, and besides, as I stated already, most of those hits are mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or people on blogs referring back to the Wikipedia article. wikipediatrix 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I don't know what existed before this article. I didn't create it, and I don't know what led to the creation of it.
I will say that I know that the concept predates this article quite a bit, whether the term "Fonzie syndrome" was commonly used or not. As a fan of the Buffy/Angel shows, I know that critics-- especially those who disliked Spike's prominence in late seasons of Buffy-- compared him over and over again to Fonzie's prominence on Harry Days. I've seen other characters on other ahows referred to similarly.
As to the list, I don't agree with every inclusion (Klinger of MASH took over the show? What show was that person watching?), that sort of thing tends to cause people to try to say "ditch the list," which is completely unconstructive.
I know that I stumbled upon the article, found it interesting, and in fact found it intersting enough to participate in editing it. The number of edits suggests others find it interesting as well. I hate "deletaholism" (which I did just coin), of saying an article doesn't merit inclusion, when enough people find it interesting that there have been numerous edits.-KP 23:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hold your horses there, KP. I haven't said the article doesn't merit inclusion, nor have I said anything about deleting it. I'm simply seeking the etymology of the term "Fonzie Syndrome" itself, which may or may not be an WP:OR issue. wikipediatrix 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's definitely true that the concept existed before this article, whether or not the term did. I do think that the lack of any discovered material on how, precisely, to define the term makes it hard to debate the list. Does the character need to start out as not part of the regular cast? Do they need to become the most important character on the show? I think the idea that the character should start out as peripheral (preferably a one-off or recurring character) and end up as one of the most important characters, but not necessarily the most important character. Spike fits this pretty perfectly. On the other hand, a lot of people editing the article seem to think that putting in characters who were always one of the central characters, but became the most popular character, or what not, is more important - thus Alex Keaton, for instance. I think this is a dubious use of the term, because it doesn't really match the Fonz/Urkel model very well. But since there's no literature on the subject, it's hard to really say for sure. john k 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
But Fonzie clearly DID become the most important character, so how is the comparison/syndrome supposed to work when you're suggesting it be applied to those who did not necessarily become the most important character? wikipediatrix 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
When you say "The X Syndrome," X is (usually) the most extreme case of the syndrome, such that examples don't have to be as good of examples of the Syndrome as X in order to be good examples. If there were a "Hitler Syndrome" about extremist racists getting power, one could include David Duke had he won his Louisiana governor's race despite the fact there's no proof that he'd do things as bad as Hitler even given Hitler's level of power, and a governorship of a state is not equal to dictatorial power over a country.-KP 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that Alex Keaton is a good enough example of this syndrome, if maybe less clear cut than Spike. Family Ties was originally intended to center around the parents. Alex Keaton was supposed to be one of the kids in the way that the Huxtable children on Cosby were a necessary part of the show, but the real focus was the parents. Many, many family sitcoms have used this format.
Largely because Michael J. Fox is a brilliant actor, he became the character people liked most to watch and thus the star of the show. While he started out intended to be more important than the original intentions for Spike on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Alex Keaton became the main character of the show, whereas Spike certainly never completely took over Buffy. If Michael J. Fox had left Family Ties anytime starting around its third season, the show would have ended; whereas if James Marsters had left Buffy before the season that producer Joss Whedon and star Sarah Michelle Gellar agreed should be its last, and the show's ratings had not been marginal (which they were, unlike with Family Ties), the show would have continued-- I (and the majority, but not all) fans think it would have been lesser for it, but it would have continued.
I do think Spike is a very good example-- and in fact, while I guess people have added and removed him before, I'm the most recent to add him; I'm just saying Alex Keaton is as good, or at least close.
My criteria would be (1) The character started off intended to be considerably less important than he or she became, and (2) He or she became at least the second or third most important character. That includes both Spike and Alex Keaton, but excludes someone like Klinger, who fits criterion 1 but not criterion 2.
But that it's impossible to agree about the criteria for the list doesn't disqualify the article or the list. I know there's been controversy of that nature in the anti-heroes article. There's been a lot written about anti-heroes, but not everyone agrees on who qualifies. Many, many lists on Wikipedia exist about which people argue about inclusion or exclusion. That doesn't mean it's better to exclude the entire list or article.-KP 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout characters in television fiction

Seeing as there is no valid basis for the neologism "Fonzie Syndrome", this article's name should be changed to Breakout characters in television fiction. This term officially and correctly applies to the same thing as the so-called Fonzie Syndrome: a character who "breaks out" from the other cast members and becomes the super-popular one that the studio audience massively cheers for when they walk in the door onscreen. (In Man on the Moon, Danny DeVito's TV-producer character even refers to "the breakout character" as synonymous with "the Fonzie of the show".) wikipediatrix 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can go along with such a name change, as long as in the article it continues to say that it could be called "Fonzie Syndrome" or "Urkel Syndrome" and that those redirect to the article.
I will say that I disagree with some of your deletions-- and agree with others-- but since you fixed any issues that could remotely be called POV issues, I object to the tag you placed on the article. Had you instead placed the tag that only said that the article may contain original research, I'd understand. Since the article's creator isn't speaking for himself, I really don't know if it's original research or not. But you can make enough of a case that it might be to justify an original research tag, but not the general tag you placed there.
I'm going to try to find the proper tag, and if I do I'm going to replace your tag with the original research tag only. I may not find it, and the tag will then remain as it is for now-- but I hope you'll consider such a substitution.-KP 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me add why I think the tag replacement that I now have made was in order: The new tag just says it may contain original research or unverified claims. The reason that that is the only tag that should apply is that: Suppose it were proven that the article was not original research and had no unverified claims. Could you find any other problems with it? That's why it should be the only tag.-KP 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The West Wing

At some time during the recent cleaning, Josiah Bartlet was removed from this list of characters. According to the definition, the character needs to not be the main focus and then become the single most important character on the show. If you look at The West Wing article, you will see that Rob Lowe's character, Sam Seaborn was intended to be the main character but was bumped by the president (who was originally only supposed to show up on the series occasionally). I really do believe this qualifies, as the documentation is there: Rob Lowe signed on as highest paid cast member, salary eventually surpassed by Martin Sheen, then Rob Lowe left the show in the fourth season because he was upset that his role as lead had been taken over. I think this is classic Fonzie; who removed it and why? — Scm83x hook 'em 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Wikipediatrix that removed him. He's using a very strict definition for the category. Even by my more relaxed standards, Bartlet on TWW is a close call (and I neither add nor remove those I see as close calls). I do know it's entirely accurate that the original intention was that Rob Lowe's character would be the center of the show and that Bartlet wouldn't even be in the majority of the episodes.
What makes it a close call for me is that (a) there was not a period at the beginning where Bartlet was rarely used. It's true that by the second season he was getting more screen time than early in the first, but I don't think he missed any episodes until the end, when much of the focus went to the campaigns of Santos and Vinick to replace him, (b) he really became a full member of the ensemble cast rather than dominant, and (c) that in the last season he, in fact, did miss many episodes. Breakout characters become so popular that it's fatal for a TV show to leave them out, and they thus aren't left out. Yet he probably appeared in no more than half the final season's episodes (can you imagine Alex Keaton, Spike, Fonzie, or Urkel missing that many?).
I'm not strongly in favor of his removal, either. I'm neutral/ambivalent about it. I'm giving you the argument for it, though, although Wikipediatrix could better explain why he removed him.-KP 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he fits at all. Whatever the idea of the show was in development, Sheen was always a full member of the ensemble cast. And also - it's a show about the bloody White House. How can the President be a fonzie? That's like saying Buffy was the Fonzie character in Buffy. john k 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

Since I have created the breakout character article, and the citations for this are better but we seem to have little support for the article title, I think a merge to that one is justified. Daniel Case 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)