Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zitrone: quote: 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.
Did i say it wasn't a hit? Although "massive hit" is a little exaggerated. It was getting 22-24 million viewers which isn't all that impressive. AI gets those numbers now when the ratings are lower than in 2000 |
| |
|
|
|
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
I completely agree. It lasted far too long, and the frequency of relatively watchable eps waned over time. By the end it was simply pathetic. I could swear even the pre-recorded laugh track sounded reluctant!
|
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Obveeus: quote: 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.
True |
| |
|
|
|
Partly agree. Funny is funny. There are people who find 30 Rock funny. There are people who find BBT funny. And those who dont. The real problem is no network has been able to produce a mass-appealing comedy in years. 2 1/2 is the closest thing we have to it. Shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Lucy, Roseanne, Cosby, Golden Girls were forces in the pop culture landscape. We have nothing like that on the air now. Sad. quote: Originally posted by TV-aholic: quote: Originally posted by Zitrone:
Single-camera or 'sophistication' are not the problems.
This is so true. Funny is Funny. Doesn't matter if it is single camera or multi-camera. 30 Rock would still suck if it was on a sound stage with 3 cameras.
pisherafferty-free since 2008
|
| |
| Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006 | |
|
|
Married with Children is one of the most under-rated sitcoms of all-time. I mean... C'mon. It did wat NO other show could. it survived 8 years with Ted McGinley in the cast.  quote: Originally posted by Obveeus: quote: 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.
|
| |
| Posts: 15762 | Location: Indiana | Registered: 20 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
I red the ratings for Friends in 200-2001 and i realized that back then the ratings in spring were dropping even more than now
In fall a Friends episode got 27 million, and the penultimate one got 15.6 million (just as DH yesterday). And yet again i see Friends was doing much worse than i thought, most of the episodes around 20 million. I actually thought it was a bigger hit. Why were they paid 1 million for episode with these numbers?
|
| |
|
|
|
I think any show that last 10 years in the top 5 and has a finale watched by over 50 million people is a massive hit. quote: Originally posted by robert: quote: Originally posted by Zitrone: quote: 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.
Did i say it wasn't a hit? Although "massive hit" is a little exaggerated. It was getting 22-24 million viewers which isn't all that impressive. AI gets those numbers now when the ratings are lower than in 2000
pisherafferty-free since 2008
|
| |
| Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TV-aholic: Married with Children is one of the most under-rated sitcoms of all-time. I mean... C'mon. It did wat NO other show could. it survived 8 years with Ted McGinley in the cast. quote: Originally posted by Obveeus: quote: 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.
Underrated in USA beacause all over the world it is the most famous american sitcom. In Germany or France i think they are showing it for the 7th time. |
| |
|
|
|
quote: Did i say it wasn't a hit? Although "massive hit" is a little exaggerated. It was getting 22-24 million viewers which isn't all that impressive. AI gets those numbers now when the ratings are lower than in 2000
Thing is, a successful sitcom makes most of its money in syndication, where it can be an earner for decades. Even taking its lower budget into account, AI won't be nearly as lucrative longterm as Cheers, Seinfeld, Frasier, Raymond, etc. |
| |
|
|
|
I just read a book called Desperate Networks and it actually goes into detail about why Zucker paid them so much. They basically did that to keep their "Must-see thursday night" brand alive. quote: Originally posted by robert:
I red the ratings for Friends in 200-2001 and i realized that back then the ratings in spring were dropping even more than now
In fall a Friends episode got 27 million, and the penultimate one got 15.6 million (just as DH yesterday). And yet again i see Friends was doing much worse than i thought, most of the episodes around 20 million. I actually thought it was a bigger hit. Why were they paid 1 million for episode with these numbers?
pisherafferty-free since 2008
|
| |
| Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by whatsonpop: Partly agree. Funny is funny. There are people who find 30 Rock funny. There are people who find BBT funny. And those who dont. The real problem is no network has been able to produce a mass-appealing comedy in years. 2 1/2 is the closest thing we have to it. Shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Lucy, Roseanne, Cosby, Golden Girls were forces in the pop culture landscape. We have nothing like that on the air now. Sad. quote: Originally posted by TV-aholic: quote: Originally posted by Zitrone:
Single-camera or 'sophistication' are not the problems.
This is so true. Funny is Funny. Doesn't matter if it is single camera or multi-camera. 30 Rock would still suck if it was on a sound stage with 3 cameras.
That is largely because the niche has been exhausted to death for years. Now every time the nets greenlit a sitcom you feel like Deja Vu. Eventually, even those who are into cookie-cutter shows that exemplify no originality whatsoever (like BBT) will say "enough is enough", hence the declining numbers.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by whatsonpop: I think any show that last 10 years in the top 5 and has a finale watched by over 50 million people is a massive hit. quote: Originally posted by robert: quote: Originally posted by Zitrone: quote: 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.
Did i say it wasn't a hit? Although "massive hit" is a little exaggerated. It was getting 22-24 million viewers which isn't all that impressive. AI gets those numbers now when the ratings are lower than in 2000
It was the #1 most watched show on TV in its 8th season. I'd call that a massive hit. It won the Emmy for best series that year as well. |
| |
| Posts: 264 | Location: Indiana | Registered: 10 January 2007 | |
|
|
|
quote: I just read a book called Desperate Networks and it actually goes into detail about why Zucker paid them so much. They basically did that to keep their "Must-see thursday night" brand alive.
We have that book here on CD. Is it interesting? Or will it put me to sleep as I work... |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by total eclipse: quote: Originally posted by whatsonpop: Partly agree. Funny is funny. There are people who find 30 Rock funny. There are people who find BBT funny. And those who dont. The real problem is no network has been able to produce a mass-appealing comedy in years. 2 1/2 is the closest thing we have to it. Shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Lucy, Roseanne, Cosby, Golden Girls were forces in the pop culture landscape. We have nothing like that on the air now. Sad. quote: Originally posted by TV-aholic: quote: Originally posted by Zitrone:
Single-camera or 'sophistication' are not the problems.
This is so true. Funny is Funny. Doesn't matter if it is single camera or multi-camera. 30 Rock would still suck if it was on a sound stage with 3 cameras.
That is largely because the niche has been exhausted to death for years. Now every time the nets greenlit a sitcom you feel like Deja Vu. Eventually, even those who are into cookie-cutter shows that exemplify no originality whatsoever (like BBT) will say "enough is enough", hence the declining numbers.
There is almost nothing on TV, or movies, that is "original" anymore.
|
| |
| Posts: 15762 | Location: Indiana | Registered: 20 September 2006 | |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
