Critics annoyed by "Jericho" fans
David
'Jericho' Nuts Pelting Critics
“I understand you will be out in California for the press tour. The
fans are working VERY hard to recruit new viewers and we are always
interested in any new information that can help our cause. … If you
learn anything new or can talk/write about JERICHO to keep it in the
forefront, the fans would be EXTREMELY grateful!!”
Critics are receiving e-mails like this from “Jericho” fans, the sort
of politely worded yet fiercely annoying dispatches usually reserved
for television executives.
The successful fan campaign to renew the show, which included sending
thousands of pounds of nuts to CBS, seems to be entering a new phase.
The critics assume a fan site published a list of reporter e-mail
addresses, and they are not amused.
“We are TV critics,” a critic says he wrote to one e-mailer. “We are
not part of your campaign. You are making a serious miscalculation.”
“You’re responding?” another critic asks. “You shouldn’t respond.
“We need to give CBS hell for encouraging these people.”
David Barnett
news:stes931scin624ou6...@4ax.com...
> http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/james-hibberd/
>
> 'Jericho' Nuts Pelting Critics
>
> "I understand you will be out in California for the press tour. The
> fans are working VERY hard to recruit new viewers and we are always
> learn anything new or can talk/write about JERICHO to keep it in the
> forefront, the fans would be EXTREMELY grateful!!"
>
> Critics are receiving e-mails like this from "Jericho" fans, the sort
> of politely worded yet fiercely annoying dispatches usually reserved
> for television executives.
>
> The successful fan campaign to renew the show, which included sending
> thousands of pounds of nuts to CBS, seems to be entering a new phase.
>
> The critics assume a fan site published a list of reporter e-mail
> addresses, and they are not amused.
>
> "We are TV critics," a critic says he wrote to one e-mailer. "We are
> not part of your campaign. You are making a serious miscalculation."
>
> "You're responding?" another critic asks. "You shouldn't respond.
>
> "We need to give CBS hell for encouraging these people."
IMVHO Jericho is a passable show, but not worth the resurrection due to the
fans of the show. Again IMVHO resurrection of Veronica Mars would have been
more worthwhile.
--
David Barnett
Audie Murphy's Ghost
Barnett <dbar...@nospam.com> wrote:
From here, it looked as if Jericho wasn't nearly finished, while
Veronica Mars was past due for being put to sleep.
You'd think the TV critics would be happy that somebody still thinks
they're relevant.
Tony Calguire
news:stes931scin624ou6...@4ax.com:
> http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/james-hibberd/
>
>
> The critics assume a fan site published a list of reporter e-mail
> addresses, and they are not amused.
>
> “We are TV critics,” a critic says he wrote to one e-mailer. “We are
> not part of your campaign. You are making a serious miscalculation.”
>
> “You’re responding?” another critic asks. “You shouldn’t respond.
>
> “We need to give CBS hell for encouraging these people.”
Who the hell do these critics think they are? They allow themselves to be
wined and dined, schmoozed and booze-cruised by the networks and producers,
but when their readers-- their ACTUAL AUDIENCE asks for a little help, they
get all sanctimonius?
"We are not part of your campaign"... HA! The hell you aren't! These
critics would think nothing of championing the cause of some low-rated
"critical darling" show, if they felt they'd got the idea themselves. But
when the impetus for them to do their jobs comes from the fans-- the
ultimate critic-- suddenly, it's a "miscalculation".
Sorry critics, but it is you who have "miscalculated". It is your job to
recognize good television from bad television. Ignoring Jericho
demonstrates a lack of skill in that area. Refusing to come around, when
prodded by the fans, simply makes you guys even more irrelevant than you
already are.
So, critics, what kinds of shows are part of YOUR campaign?
Invid Fan
<calg...@tcfreenet.invalid> wrote:
Ones they actually like? Pestering people who don't like a show isn't
going to get them on your side.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Barry Margolin
Tony Calguire <calg...@tcfreenet.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry critics, but it is you who have "miscalculated". It is your job to
> recognize good television from bad television. Ignoring Jericho
> demonstrates a lack of skill in that area. Refusing to come around, when
> prodded by the fans, simply makes you guys even more irrelevant than you
> already are.
IIRC, critics RAVED about the show when it first came out. They wrote
their reviews, that's their job. Now it's old news, and it's time for
them to write reviews of this year's crop of new shows.
Most critics who write reviews of returning series will probably praise
this show. What more are you expecting them to do?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
James Gassaway
Is this where I point out that "good" and "popular" are not the same thing?
Are not even vaguely connected, in fact?
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
peachy ashie passion
Oh, I beg to differ. I think there is often an inverse connection
between the two.
Ian Galbraith
> In article <139t6c4...@corp.supernews.com>, Tony Calguire
> <calg...@tcfreenet.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>> So, critics, what kinds of shows are part of YOUR campaign?
>
> Ones they actually like? Pestering people who don't like a show isn't
> going to get them on your side.
Indeed, its likely to make it worse.
--
"Artists and their surrogates who fall into the trap of seeking recompense
for every possible second use end up attacking their own best audience
members for the crime of exalting and enshrining their work." - Jonathan
Lethem
Dano
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:stes931scin624ou6...@4ax.com...
> http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/james-hibberd/
>
> not part of your campaign. You are making a serious miscalculation."
>
> "You're responding?" another critic asks. "You shouldn't respond.
>
> "We need to give CBS hell for encouraging these people."
Yes indeed. These are *serious* journalists. I sure hope they hold to
their *principles*.
Hacks.
Robin Miller
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:duudne8T1sVazgLb...@comcast.com...
Several TV critics have written very positive articles on Jericho following
the CBS press tour. Yes, some were cranky, but it appears (from messages
posted to the CBS Jericho board) that most were not.
Warning: Some of these articles contain a spoiler about a personal
relationship on the show.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2007/07/cbs-faces-the-p.html
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2007/07/could-jericho-s.html
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2007/07/jericho-update-.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/213/story/174827.html
--Robin
Steven L.
> IMVHO Jericho is a passable show, but not worth the resurrection due to the
> fans of the show. Again IMVHO resurrection of Veronica Mars would have been
> more worthwhile.
But Jericho's final episode ended with a dandy suspenseful cliffhanger,
assuming a second season which never came. The fans wanted to at least
see how the cliffhanger turned out. That's what CBS is now able to do.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
David
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>David Barnett wrote:
>
>> IMVHO Jericho is a passable show, but not worth the resurrection due to the
>> fans of the show. Again IMVHO resurrection of Veronica Mars would have been
>> more worthwhile.
>
>But Jericho's final episode ended with a dandy suspenseful cliffhanger,
>assuming a second season which never came. The fans wanted to at least
>see how the cliffhanger turned out.
I didn't think the cliffhanger needed an on-screen resolution. Viewers
can fill in the blanks themselves: The fighting starts and the
military rides in at the perfect moment to put an end to it.
Now the "terrorist inside U.S. government" plot did need a resolution,
but then again it wasn't interesting enough to keep me up nights.
>That's what CBS is now able to do.
The funny thing, going by Carol Barbee's comments, the 7 episodes will
probably end on another cliffhanger, the fan campaigns and CBS-bashing
will start up again, and the goodwill CBS so desperately craved will
dissipate faster than they'll know what happened.
Victor Velazquez
news:GIzni.8170$fj5.2768@trnddc08...
> James Gassaway wrote:
>> Is this where I point out that "good" and "popular" are not the same
>> thing? Are not even vaguely connected, in fact?
>>
>
> Oh, I beg to differ. I think there is often an inverse connection
> between the two.
Salieri fan, eh?
Robin Miller
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:muLni.8807$tj6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> David Barnett wrote:
>
>> IMVHO Jericho is a passable show, but not worth the resurrection due to
>> the fans of the show. Again IMVHO resurrection of Veronica Mars would
>> have been more worthwhile.
>
> But Jericho's final episode ended with a dandy suspenseful cliffhanger,
> assuming a second season which never came. The fans wanted to at least
> see how the cliffhanger turned out. That's what CBS is now able to do.
Actually, the fans want the show to continue. CBS originally floated the
idea of a TV movie to resolve the cliffhanger, and fan (and the writers')
opinion was decidedly negative. CBS has explictly stated that the show can
continue if the ratings during the seven episodes warrant it.
--Robin
Steven L.
Not necessarily. They could simply work with the writers to create a
"mini-season" (almost like a miniseries) that comes to a definite
conclusion on Episode 2.08, wrapping up most loose ends.
Steven L.
Of course they can say that safely. Because they know it won't happen.
Brian Henderson
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Is this where I point out that "good" and "popular" are not the same thing?
>Are not even vaguely connected, in fact?
Sure, but can I point out that when "good" and "popular" come into
conflict, it's "popular" that survives, "good" is utterly meaningless.
John Schilling
<calg...@tcfreenet.invalid> wrote:
>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:stes931scin624ou6...@4ax.com:
>> http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/james-hibberd/
>> The critics assume a fan site published a list of reporter e-mail
>> addresses, and they are not amused.
>> “We are TV critics,” a critic says he wrote to one e-mailer. “We are
>> not part of your campaign. You are making a serious miscalculation.”
>> “You’re responding?” another critic asks. “You shouldn’t respond.
>> “We need to give CBS hell for encouraging these people.”
>Who the hell do these critics think they are? They allow themselves to be
>wined and dined, schmoozed and booze-cruised by the networks and producers,
>but when their readers-- their ACTUAL AUDIENCE asks for a little help, they
>get all sanctimonius?
The ACTUAL AUDIENCE for a TV critic or reviewer, is all the people who
*don't* already watch the TV show being criticized or reviewed. They want
someone they can trust to tell them whether the show is any damn good and
thus worth devoting their own time to.
Hardcore fans, need not apply. If you already think [TV show X] is the
greatest thing ever, to the point where you are actively campaigning for
the show's renewal, what the hell do you care what a critic thinks? You
don't need the service he is providing. And he similarly doesn't need
anything you have to offer.
>"We are not part of your campaign"... HA! The hell you aren't! These
>critics would think nothing of championing the cause of some low-rated
>"critical darling" show, if they felt they'd got the idea themselves.
Well, yes. That's their JOB.
>But when the impetus for them to do their jobs comes from the fans...
And that's NOT their job.
The job of a critic is to express his *own* opinion. That's a useful
service he can provide, for people with similar tastes but less time
for TV-watching. Expressing fannish opinion, is utterly worthless,
because fannish opinion is always positive and thus not reliable
guidance for anyone who isn't already a fan.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
peachy ashie passion
I had to look up Salieri.
I'm guessing that means not exactly?
Rob Jensen
<takebac...@2006.com> wrote:
I have to agree. While I rated several episodes of VM from this
season *higher* than those that profess to love it, it was clear that
the Nancy-Drew-crossed-with-Dashiell-Hammet thing was NOT clicking
with the viewers. I blame the very pathetic production values --
cheap looking sets, fucking *awful* score that probably alienated at
least half of the viewership, a few of the recurring characters not
being able to act their ways out of wet paper bags (sorry, Percy
Daggs, but reciting lines is not acting when there's no emotion or
intent communicated). The show was so low-budget that it made The
Dresden Files look like Spider-Man 3 by comparison purely in terms of
budget.
But hey, we're talking critics' whose own association can't be
bothered to split up the acting categories into genres, genders and
lead vs. supporting. The TCAs only have one acting award for Drama
and one for Comedy and that's just fucking lame.
OTOH, IMO,, it would just be a total lack of ethics for any
reviewer/reporter to grade the show down just because of a few
overzealous Jericho fans. If they're going to hold the fans' actions
against the show, then they should quit as reporters as, forget
objectivity, their *subjecivity* comes entirely into question as well.
Prejudge the show based on something that isn't in the show and your
opinion is IMO absolutely worthless.
And I say that as someone who, while I like Jericho, could take itor
leave it and thus, wasn't part of that campaign.
-- Rob
RichA
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
So in "Jericho's" case, resurrecting it only if it made, say, monetary
sense is your belief, but because you like Veronica Mars more, they
should bring it back even though it's ratings made an ep. of "Jericho"
seem like it had "House" level ratings?
Victor Velazquez
I just mean to provide a snarkish example of good and popular going
hand-in-hand. Perhaps these sorts of examples (Shakespeare and Marlowe) are
the exceptions that prove the rule, I'm just hoping to whomever that they
aren't.
Merrick Baldelli
>I didn't think the cliffhanger needed an on-screen resolution. Viewers
>can fill in the blanks themselves: The fighting starts and the
>military rides in at the perfect moment to put an end to it.
You're working under the assumption that the television public
LIKES open-ended endings to shows, series and movies. My experience
and several polls that can readily be found searching through the
Neilsons indicate the opposite.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> Actually, the fans want the show to continue. CBS originally floated the
>> idea of a TV movie to resolve the cliffhanger, and fan (and the writers')
>> opinion was decidedly negative. CBS has explictly stated that the show can
>> continue if the ratings during the seven episodes warrant it.
>
>Of course they can say that safely. Because they know it won't happen.
Have a crystal ball do you? Good. Polish it up and give me
the winning Powerball and Megamillion numbers for this Saturday. I'd
like to spend my time retired.
Invid Fan
<Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote:
Which means they can't wrap up major plot lines, as they must leave
things for episode 8 and beyond, so if ratings AREN'T good it'll be
canceled again and fans are back to square one :)
peachy ashie passion
> "peachy ashie passion" <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JAUni.6676$2o5.3748@trnddc03...
>
>>Victor Velazquez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"peachy ashie passion" <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:GIzni.8170$fj5.2768@trnddc08...
>>>
>>>
>>>>James Gassaway wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is this where I point out that "good" and "popular" are not the same
>>>>>thing? Are not even vaguely connected, in fact?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I beg to differ. I think there is often an inverse connection
>>>>between the two.
>>>
>>>
>>>Salieri fan, eh?
>>
>> I had to look up Salieri.
>> I'm guessing that means not exactly?
>
>
> I just mean to provide a snarkish example of good and popular going
> hand-in-hand. Perhaps these sorts of examples (Shakespeare and Marlowe) are
> the exceptions that prove the rule, I'm just hoping to whomever that they
> aren't.
>
>
Ahhh. And the snark would have been SO good if I had just been
smart enough to catch it!
Victor Velazquez
Pffft! It's been a long time since "Amadeus" came out. I don't think it's
a sign of smarts so much as age. It's not like I know anything about Mozart
other than that he pledged Delta.
Merrick Baldelli
<flower...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2007-07-20, Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:50:11 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't think the cliffhanger needed an on-screen resolution. Viewers
>>>can fill in the blanks themselves: The fighting starts and the
>>>military rides in at the perfect moment to put an end to it.
>>
>> You're working under the assumption that the television public
>> LIKES open-ended endings to shows, series and movies. My experience
>> and several polls that can readily be found searching through the
>> Neilsons indicate the opposite.
>
>That's a cultural problem, though. I heartily endorse any product
>and/or service that attempts to correct this defect.
Then endorse teaching kids to think more and watch television
less.
peachy ashie passion
Mozart pledged Delta?