And you even have the nerve to put ATJ and Lucy in the same category! Ha HA! ATJ is certainly no Three's Company and not even in the same league as Lucy.
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Obveeus:
quote:
Originally posted by total eclipse: I wouldn't put Seinfeld and Friends in the same category. Friends was aiming to a much broader audience than Seinfeld or Frasier. I always felt those two were layered, so some of the jokes aimed to the casual TV consumers, and some to a more sophisticated audience. This multi layered writing is also evident is currently airing sitcoms like HIMYM. Then, of course, you'd have things like "According to Jim" - what do you make of its (target) audience?
I agree with you that different kinds of shows have different layers.
I'd put HIMYM and BBT in the pool with Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, and M*A*S*H.
I'd put According to Jim in the pool with I Love Lucy, Three's Company, and King of Queens.
I'd put The Office in with Arrested Development, and Soap.
Well, you certainly made for LOL moment. You put 4 of the best comedies in the history of TV (Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, and M*A*S*H) in the same "pool" as 2 run of the mill garbage shows (HIMYM and BBT). Those 4 shows will always be remembered and shows in syndication, probably for the next 20 years. Meanwhile HIMYM and BBT will disappear very quickly and 1 year later no one but a scant few will even remember them. They are 2 garbage shows that don't even get good ratings.
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Friends was a ratings hit and a cultural phenomenon. That is a fact. We can all split hairs over the difference between hit and massive hit. No one can deny the impact of Friends. It will be remembered and enjoyed for a very long time. And EVERY network wishes they could have a comedy of this sort on their roster right now.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
R u serious Friends was a huge hit.
I agree with u on some things.
But this one is just plain stupid.
You can't think thats not a hit and think your right.
Please
I said it's a hit, but not a "massive hit"
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Originally posted by robert: I wouldn't call GA a massive hit and a couple of years ago was getting the same numbers almost.
So, you basically think that there is less than one 'massive hit' per year on TV? Your definition of 'massive hit' is simply wrong (too high a bar). The top 5 ratings shows airing every year are all 'massive hits'.
For me "massive hit" is based on numbers not on rankings. If next year not a single show averages more than 15 million then i would say "zero massive hits". IMO at this moment "massive hit" is a show that averages over 20 million. It's not my fault only AI does that. And 10 years ago i would've said at least 25 million for a show to be a "massive hit". And let's not forget CSI was pulling 30 million. Now that's what i call a "massive hit"
Originally posted by whatsonpop: Friends was a ratings hit and a cultural phenomenon. That is a fact. We can all split hairs over the difference between hit and massive hit. No one can deny the impact of Friends. It will be remembered and enjoyed for a very long time. And EVERY network wishes they could have a comedy of this sort on their roster right now.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
R u serious Friends was a huge hit.
I agree with u on some things.
But this one is just plain stupid.
You can't think thats not a hit and think your right.
Originally posted by whatsonpop: Friends was a ratings hit and a cultural phenomenon. That is a fact. We can all split hairs over the difference between hit and massive hit. No one can deny the impact of Friends. It will be remembered and enjoyed for a very long time. And EVERY network wishes they could have a comedy of this sort on their roster right now.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
R u serious Friends was a huge hit.
I agree with u on some things.
But this one is just plain stupid.
You can't think thats not a hit and think your right.
Please
I said it's a hit, but not a "massive hit"
Why on Earth was Friends a "cultural phenomenon"? I think we lived in 2 different countries. But then again some think GG is a "cultural phenomenon" beacause it's changing the way we're watching TV
Originally posted by AL: Well, you certainly made for LOL moment. You put 4 of the best comedies in the history of TV (Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, and M*A*S*H) in the same "pool" as 2 run of the mill garbage shows (HIMYM and BBT). Those 4 shows will always be remembered and shows in syndication, probably for the next 20 years. Meanwhile HIMYM and BBT will disappear very quickly and 1 year later no one but a scant few will even remember them. They are 2 garbage shows that don't even get good ratings.
I put them in category by their style, not by their ratings. The possibility that none of the current sitcoms on TV will be around in syndication 20 years from now really isn't relevant.
Perhaps the CW should look at picking up "The Bachelor" & "Bachelorette", which should give'em 2 established showzz which would have a viewership of some 4.5 million each, and largely their target demo, young adult females. This would make room for ABC to put something actually ENTERTAINING in their slots.
Originally posted by robert: I wouldn't call GA a massive hit and a couple of years ago was getting the same numbers almost.
So, you basically think that there is less than one 'massive hit' per year on TV? Your definition of 'massive hit' is simply wrong (too high a bar). The top 5 ratings shows airing every year are all 'massive hits'.
For me "massive hit" is based on numbers not on rankings. If next year not a single show averages more than 15 million then i would say "zero massive hits". IMO at this moment "massive hit" is a show that averages over 20 million. It's not my fault only AI does that. And 10 years ago i would've said at least 25 million for a show to be a "massive hit". And let's not forget CSI was pulling 30 million. Now that's what i call a "massive hit"
Do you think any of us give a sh** about what your definition of a "massive hit" is? There are 5 pages of arguments about the difference between "hit" and "massive hit". Spare us. We don't care.
The only way GG is changing the way we watch tv is by making people not watch the CW.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by whatsonpop: Friends was a ratings hit and a cultural phenomenon. That is a fact. We can all split hairs over the difference between hit and massive hit. No one can deny the impact of Friends. It will be remembered and enjoyed for a very long time. And EVERY network wishes they could have a comedy of this sort on their roster right now.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
R u serious Friends was a huge hit.
I agree with u on some things.
But this one is just plain stupid.
You can't think thats not a hit and think your right.
Please
I said it's a hit, but not a "massive hit"
Why on Earth was Friends a "cultural phenomenon"? I think we lived in 2 different countries. But then again some think GG is a "cultural phenomenon" beacause it's changing the way we're watching TV
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
The Big Bang Theory is still strong. It was doing very well until the strike came, which seemed to hurt a lot of shows. I think this line up for CBS would work the best:
8 - HIMYM 8:30 - NAOOC 9 - 2.5 Men 9:30 - BBT
*Perhaps even putting 2.5 Men at 8:30, so it could potentially help both the 9 and 9:30 show.
Posts: 2260 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 02 January 2008
Originally posted by whatsonpop: Friends was a ratings hit and a cultural phenomenon. That is a fact. We can all split hairs over the difference between hit and massive hit. No one can deny the impact of Friends. It will be remembered and enjoyed for a very long time. And EVERY network wishes they could have a comedy of this sort on their roster right now.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
R u serious Friends was a huge hit.
I agree with u on some things.
But this one is just plain stupid.
You can't think thats not a hit and think your right.
Please
I said it's a hit, but not a "massive hit"
Why on Earth was Friends a "cultural phenomenon"? I think we lived in 2 different countries. But then again some think GG is a "cultural phenomenon" beacause it's changing the way we're watching TV
It was because from th looks of the ratings a good bunch of the viwers of t.v in genarel were watching.
And that my friend is a massive hit and a cultural phenomenon.
Originally posted by AL: Well, you certainly made for LOL moment. You put 4 of the best comedies in the history of TV (Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, and M*A*S*H) in the same "pool" as 2 run of the mill garbage shows (HIMYM and BBT). Those 4 shows will always be remembered and shows in syndication, probably for the next 20 years. Meanwhile HIMYM and BBT will disappear very quickly and 1 year later no one but a scant few will even remember them. They are 2 garbage shows that don't even get good ratings.
I put them in category by their style, not by their ratings. The possibility that none of the current sitcoms on TV will be around in syndication 20 years from now really isn't relevant.
OK then. So in what way does HIMYM and BBT have a similar style to Seinfeld? The answer is none. Seinfeld was a unique, hilarious, LOL show. HIMYM and BBT are generic, not funny, and run of the mill. Not that there is anything wrong with that...
Originally posted by galveston: That's all the CW cares about, too, that insufferable 18-34 and teen female demo. It'll drive the network to financial ruin, but whatever. I wish some of that budget that went for all those ads for Gossip Girl could be spared to get more classic rock back into Supernatural. grumbles. Yes, I like my grapes very sour, thank you. Of course, not having Bela next season would also free up that money. SPN's budget being cut for next year chaps my behind.
Well they need to find the money to pay for the advertisement and wardrobes on Gossip Girl, 90210, How To Teach Filthy Rich Girls, Nanny Dallas, [insert show about rich characters here] somewhere. Do you expect they to buy off the rack or reuse outfits? insert sarcasm
