After all that hype about new ways to watch TV, they pulled the next episodes of GG from Internet to increase live ratings, and fail. Are they going to repeat it is major hit until the CW dies?
Hey, it's doing better by CW standards than SCC is doing by FOX standards. And please note--it's renewed for a second season. And that's all about the ratings, right? The ratings are all that matter, remember?
The nets all live by the saying "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade."
And they're all drowning in lemonade this season. And trying so hard to hide their sour expressions.
Ya i posted that Sarah Connor was renewed yesterday.
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.
I'd take Jim out of the Three's Company, Lucy, and KoQ pool and throw it in with stuff like Happy Hour, War at Home, Listen Up, and Cavement: down right awful.
I'd just lump them all together, and don't forget the god awful Everyone Loves Raymond, 2 1/2 Men and the likes - heirs to the doubvious throne of lowest common denominator, loud, intelligence-insulting and downright offensive sitcoms that should have never been greenlit to begin with.
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.
Agree that Seinfeld is probably the most sophisticated of the two, but even Friends wasn't on paper "lowest common denominator". A bunch of 20-something hanging out all day in a Manhattan coffee shop? It certainly sounded less family friendly a priori than shows like Cosby or Everybody Loves Raymond.
Posts: 636 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
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.
Agree that Seinfeld is probably the most sophisticated of the two, but even Friends wasn't on paper "lowest common denominator". A bunch of 20-something hanging out all day in a Manhattan coffee shop? It certainly sounded less family friendly a priori than shows like Cosby or Everybody Loves Raymond.
And yet it was designed to have a wide appeal, to audiences outside of NYC, some of it was due to its soap factor (the whole Ross / Rachel crap, then Monica / Chandler crap). And indeed the effect this show had reacher much farther than Manhattan and its coffee shop to the point of teeny boppers all over North America (and beyond) lining up to get a "Rachel do".
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.
I'd take Jim out of the Three's Company, Lucy, and KoQ pool and throw it in with stuff like Happy Hour, War at Home, Listen Up, and Cavement: down right awful.
Call me even more stupid but i actually liked War at Home. NOt something i would rewatch but for a one time viewing it was OK. It remainded me somewhat of may favourite sitcom of all times Married With Children.
But Listen Up, Happy Hour or Caveman are without a doubt awful
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.
Agree that Seinfeld is probably the most sophisticated of the two, but even Friends wasn't on paper "lowest common denominator". A bunch of 20-something hanging out all day in a Manhattan coffee shop? It certainly sounded less family friendly a priori than shows like Cosby or Everybody Loves Raymond.
And yet it was designed to have a wide appeal, to audiences outside of NYC, some of it was due to its soap factor (the whole Ross / Rachel crap, then Monica / Chandler crap). And indeed the effect this show had reacher much farther than Manhattan and its coffee shop to the point of teeny boppers all over North America (and beyond) lining up to get a "Rachel do".
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.
Agree that Seinfeld is probably the most sophisticated of the two, but even Friends wasn't on paper "lowest common denominator". A bunch of 20-something hanging out all day in a Manhattan coffee shop? It certainly sounded less family friendly a priori than shows like Cosby or Everybody Loves Raymond.
And yet it was designed to have a wide appeal, to audiences outside of NYC, some of it was due to its soap factor (the whole Ross / Rachel crap, then Monica / Chandler crap). And indeed the effect this show had reacher much farther than Manhattan and its coffee shop to the point of teeny boppers all over North America (and beyond) lining up to get a "Rachel do".
Friend was a very unoriginal sitcom, it was very traditional in fact (remember Cheers?), i don't know what the critics were loving it so much. I never was a fan of the show. There were 3-4 funny episode and then 10 really boring. Not to mantion that all the soapy part was plain stupid. Actually now Friends looks even worse than it did 10 years ago. At least that's my opinion
Ya i posted that Sarah Connor was renewed yesterday.
Dude, I TOLD you we knew about that over a week ago. I was talking about Gossip Girl. Gossip Girl is renewed for a second season. On CW. That's not a scoop, CW announced it March 3rd. FULL SEASON pick-up. First full season pick-up to be announced this season. Have there been any others since?
So clearly this means Gossip Girl must be a huge success, and CW is incredibly pleased with its ratings, right?
Originally posted by robert: Friend was a very unoriginal sitcom, it was very traditional in fact (remember Cheers?), i don't know what the critics were loving it so much. I never was a fan of the show.
Whatever you think of the show, it was a massive hit, and Seinfeld too, of the kind all networks fail to reproduce now. Even 2 1/2 Men is nowhere near that level of success (taking into account lower viewers in general).
Single-camera or 'sophistication' are not the problems.
Posts: 636 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
I completely disagree. I didnt watch Friends when it was on. I started watching it in syndication and it has really stood up very well, with the exception of a couple of Anistons' hair styles. I think the soap element makes it harder for casual viewing though.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by total eclipse:
quote:
Originally posted by Zitrone:
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.
Agree that Seinfeld is probably the most sophisticated of the two, but even Friends wasn't on paper "lowest common denominator". A bunch of 20-something hanging out all day in a Manhattan coffee shop? It certainly sounded less family friendly a priori than shows like Cosby or Everybody Loves Raymond.
And yet it was designed to have a wide appeal, to audiences outside of NYC, some of it was due to its soap factor (the whole Ross / Rachel crap, then Monica / Chandler crap). And indeed the effect this show had reacher much farther than Manhattan and its coffee shop to the point of teeny boppers all over North America (and beyond) lining up to get a "Rachel do".
Friend was a very unoriginal sitcom, it was very traditional in fact (remember Cheers?), i don't know what the critics were loving it so much. I never was a fan of the show. There were 3-4 funny episode and then 10 really boring. Not to mantion that all the soapy part was plain stupid. Actually now Friends looks even worse than it did 10 years ago. At least that's my opinion
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 416 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
no kidding! it's never going to be a mass appealing show. Not because it's sophisticated, or nuanced, or whatever. It's just a show that will only appeal to a VERY small audience.
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic: Too bad it can win any viewers over.
quote:
Originally posted by whatsonpop: If the Emmy Awards had a category for best comedy, 30 Rock would win it... oh wait...
quote:
Originally posted by Obveeus:
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic: If thats the case, 30 Rock must have a butt-load of it.
If the Emmy Awards had a special category for 'nuance', 30 Rock would definitely win.
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 416 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Originally posted by robert: It remainded me somewhat of may favourite sitcom of all times Married With Children.
I'd categorize Married With Children alongside Malcolm in the Middle, Aliens in America, and The Simpsons, and 3rd Rock from the Sun: families with rough edges that ultimately always stick together.
