Nov 17, 2013 5 min read

When “Mike and Molly” returned to CBS earlier this month, it was promoted as “The New Mike and Molly.” Even casual viewers quickly picked up on the “new” aspect – a full-blown revamping of the “Molly” character in the mode of Lucille Ball.

They might as well be calling the show, “I Love Molly.”

Although “Mike and Molly” has never been a breakout hit, its selling point has been an ensemble cast that generally fires on all pistons. While that cast has remained intact in the first two episodes of the “new” era, one senses that may not be the case for long.

We know why CBS upended the sitcom. Since the series premiered in 2010, Melissa McCarthy’s star soared with slapstick roles in “Bridesmaids,” “Identity Thief” and “Heat.” All of her flamboyant film characters were far removed from her mostly mellow, frustrated teacher role on the sitcom. So CBS took the risk of “Lucy-fying” McCarthy by having the teacher suffer a nervous breakdown (although it was never called that) and opting for a spur-of-the-moment lifestyle. Perhaps she’ll soon be stomping grapes or working in a candy factory. Perhaps the couple will have a son and name him Little Ricky. But I doubt audiences will be beating the drum for more “Molly.”

Let’s hope the ensemble element, at least, is maintained. Television’s best shows – “Big Bang Theory,” “Modern Family” and “Parenthood” – are multi-character endeavors.

Revamps of failing sitcoms are largely futile; sadly, “Mike and Molly” didn’t even warrant a makeover as it wasn’t anywhere near the cancellation line. I’m reminded – and CBS should be – of the popular quote from Thomas Paine: “Character is much easier kept than recovered.”

Paine wasn’t referring to TV characters, of course, but it nonetheless applies. If CBS wants a slapstick sitcom, create one. And if McCarthy’s the actress they want for the role, wait until “Molly” plays out (another two or three years, perhaps). But don’t undermine an entertaining sitcom midstream in hopes of a short-term ratings spike – which, by the way, hasn’t happened. Recovering the old “Molly” won’t be an easy task.

I suspect Paine’s mantra about “keeping” the character would certainly allow for growth. Last Wednesday, I caught the pilot episode of “The Middle,” a five-year-old sitcom, just before its newest episode aired. All of the characters have grown, if not matured, but the producers have resisted vaulting any of the three kid characters to the forefront, even though advertising agencies would no doubt prefer a younger focus. “The Middle” was created as throwback family fare and remains true to its roots. In both the first and latest episodes (and practically all of the 100 shows in between) the overarching theme is the parents’ dealing with family – and not the other way around.

While we’re tossing around quotes, here’s one from Malcolm Gladwell. “There is a simple way to package information that, under the right circumstances, can make it irresistible. All you have to do is find it. (“The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.”)

The networks obviously haven’t seen that one.

There are about two dozen sitcoms facing cancellation this year because they are anything but “irresistible” to viewers. It’s conceivable there might have been interest in a show about four single guys, but not the way CBS packaged “We Are Men.” James Caan remains a likeable actor, but in a comedy about a kids’ baseball team? (This was clearly the wrong circumstance – there has never been a successful TV series about baseball.) And did anyone even do a focus group on the wretched “Welcome to the Family?”

Obviously, some series are going to fail, and some concepts that look good on paper aren’t going to pan out. But how many industries can survive with a success rate of about 15 to 20 percent? Perhaps research and study went into developing this year’s crop of shows, but “haphazard” more likely comes to mind. Here are some examples of current sitcoms that seemed to be thrown on the air without much planning:

• “The Crazy Ones” has begun a slow fade, not because people don’t like star Robin Williams but because, in a few episodes, the entire cast believed they needed to have Williams’ manic delivery. They might find it entertaining to out-“Mork” each other, but it’s getting old fast.

• “The Millers” got some great laughs from Beau Bridge’s brow-beaten, forgetful character in the premiere, but the father figure is more sad than funny now, and the fact his TV “children” are ignoring his life changes isn’t amusing at all. And it will be extremely un-amusing for the TV family to deal with it down the road..

• “Super Fun Night” – If that’s all the thought that was given to the title, how much effort do you think was put into the show?