I was pretty skeptical about HBO doing a sitcom, an actual sitcom not something where the humor is more dry and mimicking reality like Curb Your Enthusiasm. The reason is that sitcoms are hard to do to begin with and subscription cable usually produces something that deviates from what we normally associate with the average sitcom. I'm not saying it's bad to deviate from the norm but sometimes the results can be "unfunny" because the show is too experimental and strays too far from what we like in our humor as average Americans.

The other major obstacle is that a new sitcom has to establish their characters quickly and there have to be laughs even though you may not know the characters real well. Would George Costanza be funny if you saw Seinfeld for the first time in Season four? Kramer would be, yes, but George has so many flaws and so much background that many of the jokes would be lost on a viewer that wasn't familiar with him. Lack of character knowledge is why many sitcoms die an early death. We are hesitant to get to know strangers (in real life and in the imaginary world) unless of course a friend introduces us to those strangers--in other words "buzz." I don't read entertainment magazines regularly but as far as the news media and the hype vendors, I haven't heard much "buzz" about Lucky Louie and I'm betting ABC, CBS, and NBC are hoping a subscription based sitcom fails miserably. HBO and Showtime are already eating into their profits as it is with shows like The Sopranos and Big Love.

So let me give you the "Buzz." Lucky Louie is a competent show and more interesting than the usual intro into the sitcom hopefuls. It is raw and a bit edgy and it hasn't firmly planted its feet into the humor yet but I can see this show succeeding if the HBO audience gives it a chance and if the cast is allowed to progress in developing their characters. If I were to compare it to anything it would be a combination of the first season of Roseanne mixed with Archie Bunker.