Cheers – “Cliff’s Rocky Moment” Episode 16 – Air Date 01/26/1984 – Picture: (LR) John Ratzenberger … more
Who was Norm Peterson? You grow older if you know the answer to the question. More realistically, aging yourself by clicking a piece of opinion with “Norm Peterson” in the title.
Regarding what has been written so far, you are sure that none of them have to tell readers about a performance they knew and loved (again, clicking on a piece for a fantastic person) and none of them have to repeat many large Norm lines. Others have and will do all this much better.
Instead, the purpose of this opinion is to make a case that the rule does not resonate exclusively with older readers because of the years when Cheers shown. The speculation is that only the elderly could and did the rule the way the young people just couldn’t.
To see why, think about Norm’s character again. The bar where everyone knows his name is his refuge from the daily butter of his work as an accountant. Some will say the cheers were a haven from Vera (the wife we never saw), but for the “Beginning of Peterson”, the episode in which Norm defended the price of Vera.
Norm loved Vera, but not his job. He was not a driver of Formula 1, executive for Red Sox or teacher in a city full of them, Norm was an accountant. He was in a job for which he was not passionate. Which is not a picture.
At the same time, it is not absurd to point out that a younger observer Cheers He would not take Norm the way people took him from 1982-93. This is due to the fact that Hollywood, as an incomplete, is a mirror. That requires a short divergence.
Probably more than some who knew and loved the cheerfulness they read The big sandinor saw the movie. One reason he possessed is that readers and filmmakers understood the character of Robert Duvall. Whether they had fathers like him, their fathers had fathers like him, or perhaps both. Fast forward to the present, and while it is no scope to say that young people would really enjoy the novel or the movie, they would not know Bull Meachham. There is no framework. Fathers are nice and become better than day. The view here is that the goodness of the fathers today is not irrelevant to the possibility that young people today will not take Norm.
What they wouldn’t go to Norm is his lack of passion for his job. Again, Norm came to cheer to escape a job that was a job. The view here is that the rule was meaningful as a character in the 1990s, and therefore made sense to viewers, precisely because he did not like his work.
Norm would not make sense today because as I wrote in my 2018 book The end of workThe nature of the work has changed so much and is going to change quickly. See AI. Just because it will make so much today’s work unnecessary, AI will release more than work that needs to be in favor of work that people I can’t do. There is a huge difference and the view here is that the misery of the previous work explains the difficult fathers of the past in the same way that the rapid improvement of the work explains the much easier fathers of today.
Which is a comment that there will never be another Peterson rule not only because George Wendt played him so perfectly. More optimistic, there will never be another rule, because the rules of the past are more likely to find themselves fortunately working than escaping it in the bar.
