TV - How to determine equivalent characters between two different series?

[Pink Jazz]

I was wondering, how do you prefer to determine equivalent characters between two different series: by role, by physical appearance, or by personality?

My preference is by role, with personality a close second. Equating characters by physical appearance is very flawed, since many characters with a similar physical appearance can be totally dissimilar in terms of role and personality.

For example, Powerpuff Girl Blossom's Sailor Moon equivalent is Sailor Moon (not Sailor Venus) because Sailor Moon is the leader like Blossom. Similarly, Andros' (the Red Space Ranger from Power Rangers in Space) equivalent from Power Rangers Time Force is Jen the Pink Time Force Ranger (not Wes the Red Time Force Ranger) because they are both leaders.

What do you think is the best way?

[Pete from Boston]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Pink Jazz]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Well, what I mean is that when comparing characters from two different TV series, what characters are most similar to each other.  My criteria is role first, personality second, and physical appearance last.

[Pete from Boston]

My biggest TV character comparison problem, and any help is appreciated, is this:

You have Greg Brady, and Keith Partidge.  Easy enough.

Marsha Brady, Laurie Partridge.  You follow?

Peter Brady and Danny Partridge, Bobby Brady and Chris Partridge, and Cindy Brady clearly matches up with little Tracy Partridge.

So what the hell, no Jan?

We all knew the Partridge Family was jumping on the Bradys' coattails.  It was ok, there were adventures enough for everyone.  But this little "Oh, we're completely different kids–we don't have a Jan" move was a pretty weak ploy to artificially distance the show from what we all knew they were doing. 

It's just like The Flintstones' "No, we're not the cartoon Honeymooners in prehistoric times–there were no kids on The Honeymooners, and we have Pebbles and Bam-Bam.  Totally different."

[kinupanda]

I'm just going to leave this here...

[vdeane]

You use this site.

You're welcome.

[Pink Jazz]

You use this site.

You're welcome.

Actually, you can find counterparts of characters from this site:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Scratchpad

Example:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Blossom_(The_Powerpuff_Girls)

[NE2]

Token hepcat.

[corco]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/tv/2299767-how-do-you-normally-determine-equivalent.html
http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=1266445

[Laura]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/tv/2299767-how-do-you-normally-determine-equivalent.html
http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=1266445

Oh no you didn't, lol.

Anyway, I was literally just thinking about this last night in relation to The Office and Parks and Rec. Mark Brendanawicz was supposed to be the Jim Halpert character, but as the plot evolved in season 2, his character was a bit of a drag for the show so they reduced his role, so he got mad and left. So they replaced him with Ben Wyatt, played by Adam Scott. Amusingly, Adam Scott auditioned for Jim but didn't get the role. Even as the series evolved into its own thing and not an office clone, Ben was known for his distinctive facial expressions, similar to Jim.


iPhone

[Molandfreak]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/tv/2299767-how-do-you-normally-determine-equivalent.html
http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=1266445

Lol, really Pink Jazz?

[Pete from Boston]

The marketing departments that invent TV shows study the same data and come up with the same handfuls of formulas that we'll fall for and talk about.  That's most of what there is to say about comparing television characters.

[Molandfreak]

I'm just going to leave this here...

Besides the fact that the elder pairs of kids and the dogs aren't similar in any way, shape, or form?

[Laura]

The marketing departments that invent TV shows study the same data and come up with the same handfuls of formulas that we'll fall for and talk about.  That's most of what there is to say about comparing television characters.

There are so many things I loved about Parks and Recreation (and I'm still recovering from the fact that last night was the last episode), but while you can say that certain characters from the show fit formulas, so many others became their own thing unlike any other character on TV. That show managed to be cheerfully optimistic without being super cheesy and had full character development.


iPhone

[Pete from Boston]

The marketing departments that invent TV shows study the same data and come up with the same handfuls of formulas that we'll fall for and talk about.  That's most of what there is to say about comparing television characters.

There are so many things I loved about Parks and Recreation (and I'm still recovering from the fact that last night was the last episode), but while you can say that certain characters from the show fit formulas, so many others became their own thing unlike any other character on TV. That show managed to be cheerfully optimistic without being super cheesy and had full character development.

To me it was basically a "Law & Order"-style line extension of "The Office."

[english si]

Anyway, I was literally just thinking about this last night in relation to The Office and Parks and Rec. Mark Brendanawicz was supposed to be the Jim Halpert character, but as the plot evolved in season 2, his character was a bit of a drag for the show so they reduced his role, so he got mad and left.

I read last week that it was that he found being stuck in a 24-episode season difficult as he wanted to also do other projects, so they reduced the role near the end of S2, and let him leave at the end of it.

I'm not sure that Mark was the 'Jim'. S1 Mark was more the Office S3 Jan - the 'we had a thing once, so I'm going to act awkward around them, but they are superior to me at work and there might still be a thing' character for the main character. S2 Mark was the 'we don't really know what to do with him now the love interest thing has gone, but we're paying him to be here so lets pair him up with the secondary female' character. I guess there was a 'I don't like or care about my job' shared trait with Jim Halpert - but he's not a Jim clone, unlike Jim himself, who is a total Tim Canterbury clone (at least until he develops beyond where the UK office gets).

I was surprised how in the finale used footage from the usually forgotten S1 and early S2. No Brandanaquitz though, mostly as they want you to forget their worst major character in a show that was all about the characters.

To me it was basically a "Law & Order"-style line extension of "The Office."

I felt from the get go that other than being a mockumentary set around workplace proximity associates, Rashida Jones, and some of the writing/production team it was a totally different show, rather than the same show with different situation and characters. It wasn't The Office: Local Government, feeling totally different.

Perhaps the biggest thing was that it was at the opposite end of the optimism <-> pessimism scale. The Office typically had downers driving the plot "the branch might close, Jan hates Michael, Dunder Mifflin is going out of business, our new bosses have put us on a sacrificial lamb project, the documentary has screwed our lives up" Parks typically had uppers "we're building a park, putting on a Harvest Festival, Leslie is running for Office, Leslie is doing great things on the council, Leslie is looking at a new job with the Feds, lets create a National Park"

You were meant to take Michael less seriously than he took himself, but his job much more seriously, but vice versa for Leslie (more seriously than she took herself, save some early episodes, but her work much less seriously than she did).