I guess an "I disagree" would suffice.

>This right here is the crux of our disagreement. If you buy
>into his "I'm doing it for my family" then you won't see that
>there's a problem.

See, I don't see it as an "I'm doing it for my family" thing. I think it's an "I'm doing it for ME" thing. He's the one who wants to be "normal". The rest of them don't give a shit.

> Arrested Development is very funny
>but the name IMO is dead on: none of the characters or
>relationships are at all developed.

I take the name as an allusion to the fact that these people are completely stifled, and will never grow or progress. Again, this illustrates Michael's flaw. He doesn't get it. The joke is on him.

>Michael often seems like
>the only person affected by the others' actions. If Gob
>screws up, Lindsay and the mother rarely care or get upset.
>Buster's antics are almost always separate issues.

Yeah, this is true. But that's mainly because he's bringing it upon himself. And I can *sorta* see where this could turn people off. But I should be clear on something that maybe didn't get across before:

I don't want to 'save' AD. I want to sit back, let the writers go nuts, and enjoy the madness while it lasts. Nitpicking on a message board won't change things, and even if it did, I'm not sure it would be worth it. It'd be like gnawing off your own leg to escape a bear trap. Sure, you'd survive. But things would never quite be the same again.

>The gags in this show are funny but the
>storylines are not tight at all IMO and that is the achilles
>heel of the show.

So what's the problem with AD again? Is it Michael's character or the storylines?

>In AD, the business and the family life are fairly separate
>and consequences are, many times, nil.

Here's another instance where I can see how it would turn people off, but I still wouldn't change it. The lack of consequence thing. It goes back to that 'mental ward' thing I mentioned earlier. It's a world gone mad, devoid of consequence. And yet Michael insists on living by some code- and expecting others to do the same.

>"Another quasi-Oedipal overtone you have is the George/Michael
>clash. These two patriachal figures having some bizarre tug of
>war over the fate of the family business. I think you'd lose a
>lot of that by casting a female lead."
>
>I think you could easily make Lindsay have similar problems
>with George and her own daughter.

I disagree. The father/son elements are far too pivotal to this show. It's not a sexism thing, it's an archetypal thing. A female lead would leave far too many holes in the show. And I don't know what you would fill them with and still be able to maintain the show's integrity.

>They made this argument on the DVD commentary as well but I
>think, again, it's part of the problem. Basically you are
>explaining exactly the issue that I'm trying to fix. Michael
>is supposed to be the person that you identify with however he
>is possibly the hardest preson to get a grasp on.

Evidently you've been blessed with a lifetime of healthy, functional relationships. I'm happy for you. Unfortunately, I can relate to Michael a great deal. Who hasn't played the Michael role in a relationship before? You just keep trying to fix things that are not in your power to fix. You feel like the last sane mind on earth. You *know* that things will get better if you *just work hard enough*! These are not weak motivations to me. These are incredibly real and relatable. I've had "Michael Bluth moments" before. I've yet to experience a "Tobias moment" (For which I am quite greatful)


Anyways...I think our viewpoints are so fundamentally different that there's really no point in furthering this discussion. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on your opinion now, but I still completely disagree with it. It's been fun though.