Lately I've been thinking about how Bob Newhart will often say that Bob Hartley's psychology license should have been revoked after the first season, due to the fact that many of his patients are uncured. But does anybody know the average amount of time it takes for a psychologist to cure a patient? Is there an average amount of time, or does it vary (for which Bob wouldn't be blamed for)? Is this something I should be asking in the "Questions about anything" thread?
While Bob does have a good number of recurring patients who don't get cured during the shows run - by my count, the number of regular patients is 8 (Mr. Carlin, Mr. Peterson, Mrs. Bakerman, Michelle, Mr. Gianelli, Mr. Herd, Mr. Plager, and Mr. Vickers), in addition to a couple who only appear in two or three episodes (I can't remember their names, one of them was in two episodes as part of the group that consisted of Mr. Herd, Mr. Vickers, Mr. Plager, and Mr. Carlin, the later in that group as well as the main group) - he does have a lot of patients who only appeared in one episode. It could be assumed that those patients did get cured and we just never saw them (have there been any instances where a patient got "cured" on-screen? The first episode opens with Bob on the phone with a patient he cured, and "Who is Mr. X" shows that he had cured some people in the past).
And one thing I find interesting is how most of Bob's patients are called Mr. or Mrs. and then their last names, yet Michelle Nardo is called by her first name as opposed to Miss Nardo. I wonder why she goes by her first name. Were there any other (one-shot) patients who went by their first names?
Changing the topic a little, I've been thinking about the episode of Newhart where a critic keeps giving Vermont Today bad reviews. I haven't seen that one in a long time, but it seems like Dick makes a bigger deal out of it than he should, considering that the critic was just doing his job. I can see Michael and the rest of the station staff making a big deal out of it, but Dick should be reasonable and understanding over negative reviews. Of course when Chester decides to use his power as the mayor against the critic and he, Jim, and I think Joanna consider forms of disappropriate retrobution, Dick merely just suggests making a law against negative reviews (which should be unconstitutional). Is there anything about the critic in this episode being more than just a designated villain?
I'll have to find the episode online and see for myself (and I think I've got some new tropes to add to the series page, once I've watched it again).