CBS renews 11 shows, no freshmen series

[David]

http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renewed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/

CBS Renews 11 Returning Series, No Decision On 'Criminal Minds', 'CSI: Cyber' & All Freshman Shows
by Nellie Andreeva

CBS has given early renewals to 11 returning series --

dramas Blue Bloods, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Hawaii Five-0, Madam Secretary, Elementary and Scorpion; comedies Mom and 2 Broke Girls; and reality veterans Survivor and The Amazing Race.

They join flagships NCIS and The Big Bang Theory, which already have deals for next season.

CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl, Life In Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.

Of the returning players, there are two major omissions, veteran crime procedural Criminal Minds and sophomore CSI: Cyber.

[Obveeus]

On 3/25/2016 1:42 PM, David wrote:
> http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renewed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/
>
> CBS Renews 11 Returning Series, No Decision On 'Criminal Minds',
> 'CSI: Cyber' & All Freshman Shows by Nellie Andreeva
>
> CBS has given early renewals to 11 returning series --
>
> dramas Blue Bloods, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Hawaii
> Five-0, Madam Secretary, Elementary and Scorpion; comedies Mom and 2
> Broke Girls; and reality veterans Survivor and The Amazing Race.

ELEMENTARY is the most surprising renewal...sure, syndication reasons,
but still with smaller episode counts being 'enough' these days I
expected they might just dump ELEMENTARY at this point.

> They join flagships NCIS and The Big Bang Theory, which already have
> deals for next season.
>
> CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl,
> Life In Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.

CODE BLACK and LIMITLESS will likely be cancelled.

> Of the returning players, there are two major omissions, veteran
> crime procedural Criminal Minds and sophomore CSI: Cyber.

CYBER is most likely cancelled.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <93592d0b-0e14-4dd7...@googlegroups.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renew

Okay, so, anything here that would make me change my mind and keep CBS?

Blue Bloods - don't hate it, but don't keep current
NCISLA - don't care
NCISNO - hate it
H5.1 - hate hate hate hate hate it
Madam Secretary - okay, it's better than 'State of Affairs' but still
Elementary - I watch it as a Holmes completist, but as we've been saying
we don't even remember who did it by the end of an ep
Scorpion - bailed after the pilot
Mom - hate it hate it hate it
2 Broke Girls - I adore Kat, but if I had to get my Kat fixed, I could
watch horrible Thor movies
Survivor - it's a struggle to slog through it any more
The Amazing Race - never more than sampled it
NCIS - I've not been watching it regularly since Bland Blonde came on
board. Without Tony, and maybe with Sarah Clarke? There's nothing
there calling to me at all.
The Big Bang Theory - watching it on momentum, it's been a loooong time
since it made me belly laugh
Life in Pieces - never seen it
Limitless - gave up
Code Black - never seen it
Criminal Minds - that's interesting ... get rid of a regular and then
not get renewed anyway?
CYBER!!! - hate it hate it hate it
and finally
STUPIDGIRL - oh, please, please PLEASE cancel it!!!!!

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[anim8rfsk]

In article <nd3u8n$6pl$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

CYBERCANCEL1111!11!!!11!!!

[Lord Vader III]

On 3/25/2016 12:42 PM, David wrote:
> http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renewed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/
>
> CBS Renews 11 Returning Series, No Decision On 'Criminal Minds', 'CSI: Cyber' & All Freshman Shows
> by Nellie Andreeva
>
> CBS has given early renewals to 11 returning series --
>
> dramas Blue Bloods, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Hawaii Five-0, Madam Secretary, Elementary and Scorpion; comedies Mom and 2 Broke Girls; and reality veterans Survivor and The Amazing Race.
>

So much garbage listed here and yet they already cancelled POI.

LVIII

[Obveeus]

I guess that the 'beautiful and alluring partner' isn't always enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_tIzCQvrmI

[Adam H. Kerman]

>http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renewed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/

>CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl, Life
>In Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.

Call a Code Blue on Code Black.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>Okay, so, anything here that would make me change my mind and keep CBS?

>Blue Bloods - don't hate it, but don't keep current
>NCISLA - don't care
>NCISNO - hate it

Just say "no".

>Limitless - gave up

I liked the most recent episode!

[A Friend]

In article <93592d0b-0e14-4dd7...@googlegroups.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl, Life In
> Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.

The fangirlies over at supergirl.tv have been chattering on and on
about how Les Moonves said it had been renewed. He never said that.
He said it was his understanding that, among others, SUPERGIRL would be
returning ... but it's not his job to renew stuff. It's his
underling's.

I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
what it was for the pilot, and it has never brought in the younger
demographic they were hoping for. It could easily find a place on The
CW if they started over, and especially if they canned all the CatCo
crap.

[David]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

>I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>what it was for the pilot

That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
show starts instead of where it is currently. Would it be more
deserving of renewal if it had started lower but still had the same
rating now?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Doesn't it continue to lose audience week over week? hunter isn't the
sought-after demographic, and someone who is seems to want the writing
to suck less.

The rest of us are watching for snark.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <260320160424490396%no...@noway.com>,

A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <93592d0b-0e14-4dd7...@googlegroups.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl, Life In
> > Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.
>
>
> The fangirlies over at supergirl.tv have been chattering on and on
> about how Les Moonves said it had been renewed. He never said that.
> He said it was his understanding that, among others, SUPERGIRL would be
> returning ... but it's not his job to renew stuff. It's his
> underling's.

The gay racist.

>
> I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
> what it was for the pilot, and it has never brought in the younger
> demographic they were hoping for. It could easily find a place on The
> CW if they started over, and especially if they canned all the CatCo
> crap.

I'd shake up the writing staff first and foremost.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <pm7dfbhtq8ij46qmo...@4ax.com>,

It wouldn't be deserving of renewal no matter what it's ratings were.

[number6]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Obveeus wrote:

>
> ELEMENTARY is the most surprising renewal...sure, syndication reasons,
> but still with smaller episode counts being 'enough' these days I
> expected they might just dump ELEMENTARY at this point.
>

My wife loves the show ... but always falls asleep midway through
when the 2 major characters have a facts discussion ...

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

>>>I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>>>what it was for the pilot

>>That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
>>show starts instead of where it is currently. Would it be more
>>deserving of renewal if it had started lower but still had the same
>>rating now?

>It wouldn't be deserving of renewal no matter what it's ratings were.

Hah! That's nothing a network programming executive would ever consider!

[anim8rfsk]

In article <nd68nn$a0n$4...@news.albasani.net>,

No, but he'd cancel it because she's white.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

>>>>>I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>>>>>what it was for the pilot

>>>>That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
>>>>show starts instead of where it is currently. Would it be more
>>>>deserving of renewal if it had started lower but still had the same
>>>>rating now?

>>>It wouldn't be deserving of renewal no matter what it's ratings were.

>>Hah! That's nothing a network programming executive would ever consider!

>No, but he'd cancel it because she's white.

Benoist is clearly a foreign last name. He'd have no clue she wasn't
Persian and wouldn't dare.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT), David <diml...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Is it any wonder the networks have such a problem keeping an audience.
I personally enjoyed Code Black and it had decent ratings. CBS
stupidly will not renew it.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <nd6auf$es1$2...@news.albasani.net>,

hee hee

[David]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:47:27 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

"Free market" - The be-all and end-all until white people don't get to
be the center of attention.

[Adam H. Kerman]

What free market? The needs of stupidity are being served. Sarah Shahi
WAS white... until some moronic network executive started claiming
she WASN'T white because he'd already announced that Nancy Drew wouldn't
be cast with a white actress.

It's not even funny, David. Hell, it's offensive. Did you see the massive
amounts of crap targeting Zoe Saldana this week from the family of
Nina Simone, who she's playing? Nina Simone was a jazz pianist and singer
and 1960s activist. They created the character through makeup and a flat
nose piece. I couldn't figure out if the family's criticisms were due to
use of makeup to make her complexion darker or that they didn't cast an
actress who looked exactly like her.

The producers cast Saldana because movies are a business and they want
to attract an audience and investors want a return on investment. Without
anticipating a return on investment, they couldn't have gotten investors.

Duh.

They even found a professor to heap on further criticism because in the 1930s,
actresses who weren't black enough had to wear makeup to darken their
complexion to make sure no one in the audience would mistake them for
white and question portrayals of racial separation on screen. Since that
hasn't been an issue for decades, why even claim stigma?

Don't contribute to this, David.

[David Johnston]

A show that has gained audience to get where it is in fact more
appealing to the suits than one that has lost audience to get where it
is because that offers hope that it will continue to gain. Which it the
reason why they'll be hoping for a viewership spike from the crossover.

[David Johnston]

Ah yes, White protagonists are so very very rare on television.

[David]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:23:09 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

She was never white. Maybe people assumed she was white by default.
But even her characters' names on "Chicago Fire" and "Person of
Interest" were foreign.

And however they go about it, the networks didn't go from 0 to 60 in
terms of diversity because they've all suddenly become do-gooders.
It's what they think the market is calling for.

[Obveeus]

...and to a large extent a reflection of which portion of the population
hasn't abandoned free OTA TV viewing for cable and/or internet streaming.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Wrong, David. I don't know why you're rehashing this bullshit. She didn't
have a history of playing ethnic characters. In Life (her first well known
role), they added details of the actress's personal life to the character,
but subsequently, those details were never traits used in the rest
of her career.

She's only half Persian. Since the mythical origin of the anthropological
pseudo-scientific Caucasian race is actually in that part of the world,
Persians were white till it became important to make another more
meaningless distinction of "brown people".

>Maybe people assumed she was white by default. But even her characters'
>names on "Chicago Fire" and "Person of Interest" were foreign.

I don't watch Chicago Fire. Person of Interest: She was employed as
an assasin by US government special forces. Was she born in Iran?
Then her background was immediately forgotten about as it was never
important to the character.

Looking it up, the name Sameen is Urdu for "precious", so the writers
were going for irony.

>And however they go about it, the networks didn't go from 0 to 60 in
>terms of diversity because they've all suddenly become do-gooders.
>It's what they think the market is calling for.

With Nancy Drew? Bull and/or shit.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David? I note your complete failure to address exactly the same nonsense
being applied to Zoe Saldana. It's not market-driven in any way.

Here's another one you will refuse to address:

Chloe Bennet, all of 23, couldn't get her acting career going when she
used her Chinese surname "Wang". Several years into A.G.E.N.T.S. O.F. Shield,
she suddenly found that she had an "ethnic" mother played by an actress
who is half-Tibetan and merely 10 years older than her. The character
didn't have this background when she was hired to play the role of Skye.

[Jim G.]

David sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 09:41 AM:

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>> what it was for the pilot
>
> That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
> show starts

Which tells them that the show had a lot of potential--until the writing
or whatnot destroyed a lot of it...while threatening to destroy even more.

> instead of where it is currently. Would it be more
> deserving of renewal if it had started lower but still had the same
> rating now?

I agree since it presumably shows that the show had a limited potential
audience to begin with and then didn't squander it through incompetence.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“Were we the only ones that got the 'no weapons' memo?” – Lance Hunter,
MARVEL'S AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.

[Jim G.]

anim8rfsk sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 09:57 AM:

Yep. For one thing, it seems like every week has a completely
unnecessary and irrelevant one-sided partisan dig or two, almost as if
they're *trying* to lose even more of the audience than they already
have. That stuff--aimed at either side of the aisle--simply has no
business on a show like this which claims to want to be "inclusive."

[anim8rfsk]

In article <nd6ojq$8pq$2...@news.albasani.net>,

Ironic, given that she sure gets my Wang going!

Several years into A.G.E.N.T.S. O.F. Shield,
> she suddenly found that she had an "ethnic" mother played by an actress
> who is half-Tibetan and merely 10 years older than her. The character
> didn't have this background when she was hired to play the role of Skye.

[Tom Benton]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:02:01 -0400, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>On 3/25/2016 1:42 PM, David wrote:
>> http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renewed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/
>>
>> CBS Renews 11 Returning Series, No Decision On 'Criminal Minds',
>> 'CSI: Cyber' & All Freshman Shows by Nellie Andreeva
>>
>> CBS has given early renewals to 11 returning series --
>>
>> dramas Blue Bloods, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Hawaii
>> Five-0, Madam Secretary, Elementary and Scorpion; comedies Mom and 2
>> Broke Girls; and reality veterans Survivor and The Amazing Race.
>

>ELEMENTARY is the most surprising renewal...sure, syndication reasons,
>but still with smaller episode counts being 'enough' these days I
>expected they might just dump ELEMENTARY at this point.
>

>> They join flagships NCIS and The Big Bang Theory, which already have
>> deals for next season.
>>

>> CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl,
>> Life In Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.
>

>CODE BLACK and LIMITLESS will likely be cancelled.

>
>> Of the returning players, there are two major omissions, veteran
>> crime procedural Criminal Minds and sophomore CSI: Cyber.
>

>CYBER is most likely cancelled.


Certainly looked like a farewell episode to me.

[Adam H. Kerman]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Wang2200.png

[David]

A lot of calculations go into who will play a pilot's lead. It's not
something they did without considering how it helps the show.

[Adam H. Kerman]

It's like you have your fingers in your ears. Sarah Shahi can play the
character. There's no reason for the character to have the actress's
background. There's no reason for the network to announce "we won't cast
a white girl" and then pretend that they didn't by casting the whitest
dark skinned woman they could find.

[A Friend]

In article <pm7dfbhtq8ij46qmo...@4ax.com>, David
<diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

SUPERGIRL's ratings have been trending lower since its premiere. I
think you'd want an audience to build over the course of a season, not
decline.

The answer to your question, oddly enough, is yes -- to a point. It's
not good under any circumstances for ratings to spiral downward.

Maybe the Flash crossover will help. If it does, that'll tell us
something -- mostly that SUPERGIRL belongs on The CW, and that it
should be set in the Flarrowverse, along with the others. I think that
the best thing that could happen to SUPERGIRL is getting it away from
whoever it is as CBS that's writing the network notes.

Understand me: I want this show to succeed, but it needs serious work.

[David]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:


>David? I note your complete failure to address exactly the same nonsense
>being applied to Zoe Saldana. It's not market-driven in any way.

I'm not sure what you were getting at. Nina Simone was a real person
and the complaints can be summed up as "Zoe Saldana doesn't look like
her." This scrutinizing occurs with almost every biography, especially
if the subject's family is still around.

>Here's another one you will refuse to address:
>
>Chloe Bennet, all of 23, couldn't get her acting career going when she
>used her Chinese surname "Wang". Several years into A.G.E.N.T.S. O.F. Shield,
>she suddenly found that she had an "ethnic" mother played by an actress
>who is half-Tibetan and merely 10 years older than her. The character
>didn't have this background when she was hired to play the role of Skye.

Again I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't know when they came
up with the Inhumans plot but with the collaboration and signing-off
between the comics, TV and movies I would guess it happened far in
advance. And her mother being a native works well with her father's
backstory.

[David]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:32:05 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>David sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 09:41 AM:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>>> what it was for the pilot
>>
>> That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
>> show starts
>
>Which tells them that the show had a lot of potential--until the writing
>or whatnot destroyed a lot of it...while threatening to destroy even more.

You can't blame the writing for it losing so many viewers. There
weren't any expectations it could hold on to that high a rating. The
point to remaking movies or adapting known characters is you hope to
start so high that after losing the typical percentage of viewers you
still have enough left to look respectable.

[David]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:51:35 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Umm if what you were getting at is they want to hedge their bets, then
sure. In many cases they want to cast someone light-skinned and
attractive by American standards.

But is that the collective outrage the internet had about the "Nancy
Drew" casting, that they didn't go diverse enough? Because that's
laughable. It's right in line with the "black Spider-Man" controversy
or "Idris Elba as James Bond" or anything else involving colorblind
casting.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <df5efb1bo8n1qjnlj...@4ax.com>,

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:32:05 -0500, "Jim G."
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >David sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 09:41 AM:
> >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
> >>> what it was for the pilot
> >>
> >> That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
> >> show starts
> >
> >Which tells them that the show had a lot of potential--until the writing
> >or whatnot destroyed a lot of it...while threatening to destroy even more.
>
> You can't blame the writing for it losing so many viewers.

Of course you can

[anim8rfsk]

In article <cu5efbtsklku3j8tj...@4ax.com>,

It's not colorblind when you say "no whites allowed" which is exactly
what the racist head of CBS programming did.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <nd6vqj$n7q$1...@news.albasani.net>,

So not going to click that

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>26 Mar 2016 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>David? I note your complete failure to address exactly the same nonsense
>>being applied to Zoe Saldana. It's not market-driven in any way.

>I'm not sure what you were getting at.

It's not just about not enough good parts for blacks. It's about hypocrisy.

>Nina Simone was a real person and the complaints can be summed up as
>"Zoe Saldana doesn't look like her." This scrutinizing occurs with almost
>every biography, especially if the subject's family is still around.

So what? The complaints are ridiculous, nothing Mss Saldana can do anything
about: She's not black enough, she's too Hispanic, it's insulting that she
was wearing makeup because decades ago the makeup was used to make sure
the actress looked black enough.

How is attacking an actress for the way she looks and her parentage any
different then, what's the word, prejudice?

>>Here's another one you will refuse to address:

>>Chloe Bennet, all of 23, couldn't get her acting career going when she
>>used her Chinese surname "Wang". Several years into A.G.E.N.T.S. O.F. Shield,
>>she suddenly found that she had an "ethnic" mother played by an actress
>>who is half-Tibetan and merely 10 years older than her. The character
>>didn't have this background when she was hired to play the role of Skye.

>Again I'm not sure what you're getting at.

More hypocrisy. Hollywood doesn't give a shit about casting non-white
actresses, despite what you just claimed. She couldn't get work with
a Chinese last name, so she changed it to get white parts.

>I don't know when they came up with the Inhumans plot but with the
>collaboration and signing-off between the comics, TV and movies I would
>guess it happened far in advance. And her mother being a native works
>well with her father's backstory.

They came up with it in the season they aired it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>26 Mar 2016 22:51:35 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>26 Mar 2016 19:32:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>>And however they go about it, the networks didn't go from 0 to 60 in
>>>>>terms of diversity because they've all suddenly become do-gooders.
>>>>>It's what they think the market is calling for.

>>>>With Nancy Drew? Bull and/or shit.

>>>A lot of calculations go into who will play a pilot's lead. It's not
>>>something they did without considering how it helps the show.

>>It's like you have your fingers in your ears. Sarah Shahi can play the
>>character. There's no reason for the character to have the actress's
>>background. There's no reason for the network to announce "we won't cast
>>a white girl" and then pretend that they didn't by casting the whitest
>>dark skinned woman they could find.

>Umm if what you were getting at is they want to hedge their bets, then
>sure. In many cases they want to cast someone light-skinned and
>attractive by American standards.

You say "attractive" like that's a bad thing.

>But is that the collective outrage the internet had about the "Nancy
>Drew" casting, that they didn't go diverse enough? Because that's
>laughable. It's right in line with the "black Spider-Man" controversy
>or "Idris Elba as James Bond" or anything else involving colorblind
>casting.

I've reminded you that it's NOT color-blind casting. You're just
ignoring the obvious. Take off the rose-colored glasses.

You're also ignoring that James Bond was color-blind casting with
Sean Connery; duh. Elba is English; Connery wasn't.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>26 Mar 2016 17:23:09 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

It's safe for Ian.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <nd7ac5$81c$3...@news.albasani.net>,

So very not going to click that

[Obveeus]

On 3/26/2016 7:05 PM, David wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> David? I note your complete failure to address exactly the same nonsense
>> being applied to Zoe Saldana. It's not market-driven in any way.
>
> I'm not sure what you were getting at. Nina Simone was a real person
> and the complaints can be summed up as "Zoe Saldana doesn't look like
> her." This scrutinizing occurs with almost every biography, especially
> if the subject's family is still around.

TRUMBO suffered greatly from that problem.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 3/26/2016 3:54 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <pm7dfbhtq8ij46qmo...@4ax.com>, David
> <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>>> what it was for the pilot
>>
>> That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
>> show starts instead of where it is currently. Would it be more
>> deserving of renewal if it had started lower but still had the same
>> rating now?
>
>
> SUPERGIRL's ratings have been trending lower since its premiere. I
> think you'd want an audience to build over the course of a season, not
> decline.
>

Shows don't gain audience anymore.

--
Privacy IS Security

[Dimensional Traveler]

If you want to do color-blind casting, write new material.

--
Privacy IS Security

[Dimensional Traveler]

Ironic, considering you usually are the one posting questionable links. :P

--
Privacy IS Security

[Dimensional Traveler]

In all fairness, character back stories are always being invented on the
fly as the shows progress. Frequently it is to incorporate something
about the actor since the actor has a lot to do with establishing the
character's character.

--
Privacy IS Security

[A Friend]

In article <anim8rfsk-9C7E0...@news.easynews.com>,

You really should. It's hilarious.

[A Friend]

In article <df5efb1bo8n1qjnlj...@4ax.com>, David
<diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The numbers are here:

http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/supergirl-season-one-ratings-39121/

You'll see that the decline in the demo from the pilot to now is
actually 60%. The decline in total numbers is "only" 54%. These
numbers are neither typical nor respectable -- at least, not of a
series that expects to get picked up for a second season.

SUPERGIRL can probably be fixed, but I wonder if it'll get the chance.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <nd7go7$pk7$3...@dont-email.me>,

My links aren't questionable; my links are certain.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Yes, they are certainly questionable. :)

--
Privacy IS Security

[David]

It doesn't matter how far it's fallen on how "respectable" its decline
looks. A show is sold to advertisers based on current ratings, now "it
only fell 30% since its premiere."

[David]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:19:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>26 Mar 2016 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>David? I note your complete failure to address exactly the same nonsense
>>>being applied to Zoe Saldana. It's not market-driven in any way.
>
>>I'm not sure what you were getting at.
>
>It's not just about not enough good parts for blacks. It's about hypocrisy.

If what you were getting at is there's hypocrisy at the studios then
you're not saying anything people don't know. That just proves that
the diversity is market-based, otherwise they wouldn't be casting
actors who look agreeable to most people.

>>>Chloe Bennet, all of 23, couldn't get her acting career going when she
>>>used her Chinese surname "Wang". Several years into A.G.E.N.T.S. O.F. Shield,
>>>she suddenly found that she had an "ethnic" mother played by an actress
>>>who is half-Tibetan and merely 10 years older than her. The character
>>>didn't have this background when she was hired to play the role of Skye.
>
>>Again I'm not sure what you're getting at.
>
>More hypocrisy. Hollywood doesn't give a shit about casting non-white
>actresses, despite what you just claimed. She couldn't get work with
>a Chinese last name, so she changed it to get white parts.

Like I said, TV changed remarkably quickly. There hasn't been an
Asian-led comedy in 20 years and now there's "Fresh Off the Boat" and
"Dr. Ken" this season. There's an Asian heroic lead on "The Walking
Dead" and an Asian romantic lead on "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend."

[David]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 00:23:48 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>26 Mar 2016 22:51:35 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>26 Mar 2016 19:32:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>And however they go about it, the networks didn't go from 0 to 60 in
>>>>>>terms of diversity because they've all suddenly become do-gooders.
>>>>>>It's what they think the market is calling for.
>
>>>>>With Nancy Drew? Bull and/or shit.
>
>>>>A lot of calculations go into who will play a pilot's lead. It's not
>>>>something they did without considering how it helps the show.
>
>>>It's like you have your fingers in your ears. Sarah Shahi can play the
>>>character. There's no reason for the character to have the actress's
>>>background. There's no reason for the network to announce "we won't cast
>>>a white girl" and then pretend that they didn't by casting the whitest
>>>dark skinned woman they could find.
>
>>Umm if what you were getting at is they want to hedge their bets, then
>>sure. In many cases they want to cast someone light-skinned and
>>attractive by American standards.
>
>You say "attractive" like that's a bad thing.

Viola Davis or Taraji P. Henson are attractive but they make bigots go
bananas. Kerry Washington and Zoe Saldana are a safer choice, lest
anyone get worked up.

[A Friend]

In article <0lgffbtob1s5bvpbn...@4ax.com>, David

In that case, SUPERGIRL is doomed, because its current numbers really
suck.

[David]

Not really. Lots of shows with worse ratings have already been
renewed.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>27 Mar 2016 00:19:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>26 Mar 2016 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>David? I note your complete failure to address exactly the same nonsense
>>>>being applied to Zoe Saldana. It's not market-driven in any way.

>>>I'm not sure what you were getting at.

>>It's not just about not enough good parts for blacks. It's about hypocrisy.

>If what you were getting at is there's hypocrisy at the studios then
>you're not saying anything people don't know. That just proves that
>the diversity is market-based, otherwise they wouldn't be casting
>actors who look agreeable to most people.

You haven't proved anything. So-called diversity is appeasement. If
Hollywood took a hard look building at building audiences at reasonable
costs, there'd be plenty of diversity in casting.

>>>>Chloe Bennet, all of 23, couldn't get her acting career going
>>>>when she used her Chinese surname "Wang". Several years into
>>>>A.G.E.N.T.S. O.F. Shield, she suddenly found that she had an "ethnic"
>>>>mother played by an actress who is half-Tibetan and merely 10 years
>>>>older than her. The character didn't have this background when she
>>>>was hired to play the role of Skye.

>>>Again I'm not sure what you're getting at.

>>More hypocrisy. Hollywood doesn't give a shit about casting non-white
>>actresses, despite what you just claimed. She couldn't get work with
>>a Chinese last name, so she changed it to get white parts.

>Like I said, TV changed remarkably quickly. There hasn't been an
>Asian-led comedy in 20 years and now there's "Fresh Off the Boat" and
>"Dr. Ken" this season. There's an Asian heroic lead on "The Walking
>Dead" and an Asian romantic lead on "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend."

I raised Chloe Bennet, which proves that Hollywood just isn't hiring.
Once she was hired, the producers patted themselves on the back
proving that they don't discriminate in hiring by reconning the character
to "not white".

I don't watch Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, so the gag went over my head.

[Obveeus]

There are a few exceptions like EMPIRE, THE WALKING DEAD, and BREAKING
BAD, but yes, nearly every show loses a huge percentage of audience
between the premiere and the finale...and the percentage loss is even
bigger if the premiere had some built-in hook the way SUPERGIRL did.

[Obveeus]

Well, to be fair, this is entirely new material about a middle aged lady
working for the cops. The only thing not new is the five finger
discount on the name.

[Obveeus]

Does not compute.

[David]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:20:49 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>If what you were getting at is there's hypocrisy at the studios then
>>you're not saying anything people don't know. That just proves that
>>the diversity is market-based, otherwise they wouldn't be casting
>>actors who look agreeable to most people.
>
>You haven't proved anything. So-called diversity is appeasement. If
>Hollywood took a hard look building at building audiences at reasonable
>costs, there'd be plenty of diversity in casting.

If your problem is they're using half-measures and appeasement you're
not disagreeing with me. Though "Hollywood" isn't monolithic. The TV
industry is way ahead of the movie industry.

>I raised Chloe Bennet, which proves that Hollywood just isn't hiring.
>Once she was hired, the producers patted themselves on the back
>proving that they don't discriminate in hiring by reconning the character
>to "not white".

I can't untangle the whats, wheres and whens of Chloe Bennet's
career/Marvel's "SHIELD" plotting/character's backstory so I won't
try.

It does however remind me of Jim Caviezel complaining that he couldn't
find a job because of intolerance over his playing Jesus when, based
on his "Person of Interest" work and imo grating line-delivery he's at
worst a terrible actor and at best an unexceptional Christian
Bale-lite of the type Hollywood isn't short on.

People assign reasons to someone not getting work when it could just
be that Bennet disn't stand out from a ton of other women in the
industry. Or it could be that there's nothing out of the ordinary
about her career path before she got on "S.H.I.E.L.D." since
apparently she only moved to Hollywood a few years before getting the
show and in that time had an arc on "Nashville" and a failed ABC pilot
so it's probably likely that she's done better than most.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>27 Mar 2016 12:20:49 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>If what you were getting at is there's hypocrisy at the studios then
>>>you're not saying anything people don't know. That just proves that
>>>the diversity is market-based, otherwise they wouldn't be casting
>>>actors who look agreeable to most people.

>>You haven't proved anything. So-called diversity is appeasement. If
>>Hollywood took a hard look building at building audiences at reasonable
>>costs, there'd be plenty of diversity in casting.

>If your problem is they're using half-measures and appeasement you're
>not disagreeing with me. Though "Hollywood" isn't monolithic. The TV
>industry is way ahead of the movie industry.

I don't have a problem, David. I objected to your abuse of the term
"free market", then claiming that Hollywood is doing pro-race casting
in support of some sort of market. You failed to identify the market,
or make any argument that that's what Hollywood was doing.

>>I raised Chloe Bennet, which proves that Hollywood just isn't hiring.
>>Once she was hired, the producers patted themselves on the back
>>proving that they don't discriminate in hiring by reconning the character
>>to "not white".

>I can't untangle the whats, wheres and whens of Chloe Bennet's
>career/Marvel's "SHIELD" plotting/character's backstory so I won't
>try.

What's confusing you? It's not difficult in the least. Chloe Bennet,
after years of trying to break into the business as "Wang", changed her
name to "Bennet" and began getting cast. She got a recurring role on
Nashville. She got her big break in 2013, when she was cast as Skye.

The character "Skye" was written with no particular ethnicity in mind,
just an entirely annoying mystery that the writers had never plotted out
but later came up with that she was known to S.H.I.E.L.D. and, still
later, that she had the potential for superpowers. Her background was
retconned to somewhat match the actress's.

She's at the beginning of her career, but her experiences demonstrate
against your claims about Hollywood casting. Her hiring is not an
example of diversity in casting, a la preferences, but Hollywood
patting itself on the back that they'd made a conscious choice about
diversity when casting her.

>It does however remind me of Jim Caviezel complaining that he couldn't
>find a job because of intolerance over his playing Jesus when, based
>on his "Person of Interest" work and imo grating line-delivery he's at
>worst a terrible actor and at best an unexceptional Christian
>Bale-lite of the type Hollywood isn't short on.

Ok. I made comments on this a few years back; don't want to rehash them.

>People assign reasons to someone not getting work when it could just
>be that Bennet disn't stand out from a ton of other women in the
>industry.

She has given interviews in which she states that she was told:
Chinese? Ok, you'd have to be up for the part of the best friend, not
the lead, and we're not casting you as the best friend.

She changed her name. Suddenly she wasn't Chinese any longer.

Post S.H.I.E.L.D., she won't be able to change her name back to Wang,
not if she wants to be cast.

>Or it could be that there's nothing out of the ordinary about her career
>path before she got on "S.H.I.E.L.D." since apparently she only moved
>to Hollywood a few years before getting the show and in that time had
>an arc on "Nashville" and a failed ABC pilot so it's probably likely
>that she's done better than most.

Anyone who can feed himself as a full-time television actor has done
better than most.

[David]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:11:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>27 Mar 2016 12:20:49 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>If what you were getting at is there's hypocrisy at the studios then
>>>>you're not saying anything people don't know. That just proves that
>>>>the diversity is market-based, otherwise they wouldn't be casting
>>>>actors who look agreeable to most people.
>
>>>You haven't proved anything. So-called diversity is appeasement. If
>>>Hollywood took a hard look building at building audiences at reasonable
>>>costs, there'd be plenty of diversity in casting.
>
>>If your problem is they're using half-measures and appeasement you're
>>not disagreeing with me. Though "Hollywood" isn't monolithic. The TV
>>industry is way ahead of the movie industry.
>
>I don't have a problem, David. I objected to your abuse of the term
>"free market", then claiming that Hollywood is doing pro-race casting
>in support of some sort of market. You failed to identify the market,
>or make any argument that that's what Hollywood was doing.

The circumstancial evidence of TV becoming diverse at an extraordinary
rate that can't be a coincidence of every network suddenly becoming
conscientous speaks for itself. Similarly you can look at the hundreds
of corporations having spoken out/now speaking out against Indiana and
North Carolina where 10 years ago they would have stayed out of the
conversation. They weren't all suddenly taken over by bleeding-hearts.
They've realized that even implicitly being on the side of
discrimination is bad for business.

>>>I raised Chloe Bennet, which proves that Hollywood just isn't hiring.
>>>Once she was hired, the producers patted themselves on the back
>>>proving that they don't discriminate in hiring by reconning the character
>>>to "not white".
>
>>I can't untangle the whats, wheres and whens of Chloe Bennet's
>>career/Marvel's "SHIELD" plotting/character's backstory so I won't
>>try.
>
>What's confusing you? It's not difficult in the least. Chloe Bennet,
>after years of trying to break into the business as "Wang", changed her
>name to "Bennet" and began getting cast. She got a recurring role on
>Nashville. She got her big break in 2013, when she was cast as Skye.

Looking at her biography, she moved to China at 15 and had time to
learn Mandarin and pursue a singing career. It doesn't say when she
returned but by the time she was 18-19 she was getting pilots,
"Nashville" and later a lead on "SHIELD." How long could she have been
a struggling actress, really?

>She's at the beginning of her career, but her experiences demonstrate
>against your claims about Hollywood casting. Her hiring is not an
>example of diversity in casting, a la preferences, but Hollywood
>patting itself on the back that they'd made a conscious choice about
>diversity when casting her.

Whether the studios are patting themselves on the back over how
enlightened they are is pretty irrelevant.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>27 Mar 2016 18:11:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>27 Mar 2016 12:20:49 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>If what you were getting at is there's hypocrisy at the studios then
>>>>>you're not saying anything people don't know. That just proves that
>>>>>the diversity is market-based, otherwise they wouldn't be casting
>>>>>actors who look agreeable to most people.

>>>>You haven't proved anything. So-called diversity is appeasement. If
>>>>Hollywood took a hard look building at building audiences at reasonable
>>>>costs, there'd be plenty of diversity in casting.

>>>If your problem is they're using half-measures and appeasement you're
>>>not disagreeing with me. Though "Hollywood" isn't monolithic. The TV
>>>industry is way ahead of the movie industry.

>>I don't have a problem, David. I objected to your abuse of the term
>>"free market", then claiming that Hollywood is doing pro-race casting
>>in support of some sort of market. You failed to identify the market,
>>or make any argument that that's what Hollywood was doing.

>The circumstancial evidence of TV becoming diverse at an extraordinary
>rate that can't be a coincidence of every network suddenly becoming
>conscientous speaks for itself.

I further object to your abuse of the term "evidence", when you mean
"attempts to pat themselves on the back publicly".

There really isn't a lot of difference between attempts to appease this
year versus past era. You refuse to recognize appeasement for what it is.

The variation is the way they declare the appeasement of decades past to
be evidence of racism in those eras, oblivious to the fact that in future,
everything they're doing right now will be laughed at.

>Similarly you can look at the hundreds of corporations having spoken
>out/now speaking out against Indiana and North Carolina where 10 years
>ago they would have stayed out of the conversation.

You refuse to appreciate that corporations have a public conscience to
the extant that they can give their P.R. flaks something to tout.

I guess if Hobby Lobby rules that "corporations are people" for the purpose
of their religious liberty, then David can claim "corporations are people"
for the purpose of claiming to have a public conscience.

I'd rather corporations stopped polluting (directly and by their main
vendors) and stopped taking advantage of outrageous labor practices in
the third world by their vendors. That would be real.

>They weren't all suddenly taken over by bleeding-hearts. They've realized
>that even implicitly being on the side of discrimination is bad for
>business.

They found a way to get themselves in the news. That's the job of their
P.R. flaks.

>>>>I raised Chloe Bennet, which proves that Hollywood just isn't hiring.
>>>>Once she was hired, the producers patted themselves on the back
>>>>proving that they don't discriminate in hiring by reconning the character
>>>>to "not white".

>>>I can't untangle the whats, wheres and whens of Chloe Bennet's
>>>career/Marvel's "SHIELD" plotting/character's backstory so I won't
>>>try.

>>What's confusing you? It's not difficult in the least. Chloe Bennet,
>>after years of trying to break into the business as "Wang", changed her
>>name to "Bennet" and began getting cast. She got a recurring role on
>>Nashville. She got her big break in 2013, when she was cast as Skye.

>Looking at her biography, she moved to China at 15 and had time to
>learn Mandarin and pursue a singing career. It doesn't say when she
>returned but by the time she was 18-19 she was getting pilots,
>"Nashville" and later a lead on "SHIELD." How long could she have been
>a struggling actress, really?

If she started auditioning at age 18, that was 2010, so two years.

It's like talking to a brick wall with you, David. The hypocrisy that
you refuse to acknowledge was that she'd still be struggling, or out
of the business, today if she hadn't changed her name. She simply
wasn't going to get hired if casting directors perceived her to be
Chinese and not white.

Her experience is actual evidence that Hollywood doesn't change.

I really would like you to acknowledge right now that she wasn't going
to have a successful career with a Chinese surname.

>>She's at the beginning of her career, but her experiences demonstrate
>>against your claims about Hollywood casting. Her hiring is not an
>>example of diversity in casting, a la preferences, but Hollywood
>>patting itself on the back that they'd made a conscious choice about
>>diversity when casting her.

>Whether the studios are patting themselves on the back over how
>enlightened they are is pretty irrelevant.

As they're in the business of self-publicity in order to market what
they offer, their attempts to change how they are perceived are everything.

I'm shocked that it worked with you despite ongoing evidence to the contrary.

[Ian J. Ball]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:03:48 AM UTC-7, NoBody wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT), David <diml...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renewed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/
> >
> >CBS Renews 11 Returning Series, No Decision On 'Criminal Minds',
> >'CSI: Cyber' & All Freshman Shows
> >by Nellie Andreeva
> >
> >CBS has given early renewals to 11 returning series --
> >
> >dramas Blue Bloods, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Hawaii Five-0,
> >Madam Secretary, Elementary and Scorpion; comedies Mom and 2 Broke Girls;
> >and reality veterans Survivor and The Amazing Race.
> >
> >They join flagships NCIS and The Big Bang Theory, which already have
> >deals for next season.
> >
> >CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl,
> >Life In Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.
> >
> >Of the returning players, there are two major omissions, veteran
> >crime procedural Criminal Minds and sophomore CSI: Cyber.
>
> Is it any wonder the networks have such a problem keeping an audience.
> I personally enjoyed Code Black and it had decent ratings. CBS
> stupidly will not renew it.

Assumes facts not in evidence - but I'm pegging its odd of renewal at 50/50.

[NoBody]

Given the silence, I'd say the odds drop by 1% a day.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Or we could just wait till May when we'd expect the rest of the renewals
to be announced, if any. But go ahead, everyone keep arguing about guessing.

[Jim G.]

David sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 06:13 PM:

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:32:05 -0500, "Jim G."
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> David sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 09:41 AM:

>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>>>> what it was for the pilot
>>>
>>> That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
>>> show starts
>>

>> Which tells them that the show had a lot of potential--until the writing
>> or whatnot destroyed a lot of it...while threatening to destroy even more.
>
> You can't blame the writing for it losing so many viewers. There
> weren't any expectations it could hold on to that high a rating. The
> point to remaking movies or adapting known characters is you hope to
> start so high that after losing the typical percentage of viewers you
> still have enough left to look respectable.

Given that people are willing to tune in in the first place and give a
new show a chance to impress them, "losing the typical percentage of
viewers" is a sure sign that most TV writing sucks.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
“What are the chances he just tripped and fell and wrapped himself in a
nice, comfy tarp?” -- Lance Hunter, MARVEL'S AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.

[Jim G.]

anim8rfsk sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 06:38 PM:
> In article <cu5efbtsklku3j8tj...@4ax.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:51:35 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

>> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> 26 Mar 2016 19:32:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> And however they go about it, the networks didn't go from 0 to 60 in
>>>>>> terms of diversity because they've all suddenly become do-gooders.
>>>>>> It's what they think the market is calling for.
>>>

>>>>> With Nancy Drew? Bull and/or shit.
>>>
>>>> A lot of calculations go into who will play a pilot's lead. It's not
>>>> something they did without considering how it helps the show.
>>>
>>> It's like you have your fingers in your ears. Sarah Shahi can play the
>>> character. There's no reason for the character to have the actress's
>>> background. There's no reason for the network to announce "we won't cast
>>> a white girl" and then pretend that they didn't by casting the whitest
>>> dark skinned woman they could find.
>>
>> Umm if what you were getting at is they want to hedge their bets, then
>> sure. In many cases they want to cast someone light-skinned and
>> attractive by American standards.
>>
>> But is that the collective outrage the internet had about the "Nancy
>> Drew" casting, that they didn't go diverse enough? Because that's
>> laughable. It's right in line with the "black Spider-Man" controversy
>> or "Idris Elba as James Bond" or anything else involving colorblind
>> casting.
>

> It's not colorblind when you say "no whites allowed" which is exactly
> what the racist head of CBS programming did.

But that's different!™

[BTR1701]

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> anim8rfsk sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 06:38 PM:
>> In article <cu5efbtsklku3j8tj...@4ax.com>,
>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But is that the collective outrage the internet had about the "Nancy
>>> Drew" casting, that they didn't go diverse enough? Because that's
>>> laughable. It's right in line with the "black Spider-Man" controversy
>>> or "Idris Elba as James Bond" or anything else involving colorblind
>>> casting.
>>
>> It's not colorblind when you say "no whites allowed" which is exactly
>> what the racist head of CBS programming did.
>
> But that's different!™

I love how "color-blind" has become synonymous with not-white, the same way
"diverse" has become synonymous with not-white.

[chicagofan]

anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <93592d0b-0e14-4dd7...@googlegroups.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renew

>> ed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/
>>
>> CBS Renews 11 Returning Series, No Decision On 'Criminal Minds', 'CSI: Cyber'
>> & All Freshman Shows
>> by Nellie Andreeva
>>
>> CBS has given early renewals to 11 returning series --
>>
>> dramas Blue Bloods, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Hawaii Five-0,
>> Madam Secretary, Elementary and Scorpion; comedies Mom and 2 Broke Girls; and
>> reality veterans Survivor and The Amazing Race.
>>
>> They join flagships NCIS and The Big Bang Theory, which already have deals
>> for next season.
>>
>> CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl, Life In
>> Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.
>>
>> Of the returning players, there are two major omissions, veteran crime
>> procedural Criminal Minds and sophomore CSI: Cyber.

> Okay, so, anything here that would make me change my mind and keep CBS?
>
> Blue Bloods - don't hate it, but don't keep current
> NCISLA - don't care
> NCISNO - hate it
> H5.1 - hate hate hate hate hate it
> Madam Secretary - okay, it's better than 'State of Affairs' but still
> Elementary - I watch it as a Holmes completist, but as we've been saying
> we don't even remember who did it by the end of an ep
> Scorpion - bailed after the pilot
> Mom - hate it hate it hate it
> 2 Broke Girls - I adore Kat, but if I had to get my Kat fixed, I could
> watch horrible Thor movies
> Survivor - it's a struggle to slog through it any more
> The Amazing Race - never more than sampled it
> NCIS - I've not been watching it regularly since Bland Blonde came on
> board. Without Tony, and maybe with Sarah Clarke? There's nothing
> there calling to me at all.
> The Big Bang Theory - watching it on momentum, it's been a loooong time
> since it made me belly laugh
> Life in Pieces - never seen it
> Limitless - gave up
> Code Black - never seen it
> Criminal Minds - that's interesting ... get rid of a regular and then
> not get renewed anyway?
> CYBER!!! - hate it hate it hate it
> and finally
> STUPIDGIRL - oh, please, please PLEASE cancel it!!!!!
>
I'm sad to say [since CBS is my No.1 channel], that there are only 3
shows on this list that I would really miss if they disappeared. We
had similar reactions to many of these shows.
bj

[Obveeus]

Yikes....didn't expect that sentiment from you. Maybe you should ask
Shawn to give you a CBS booster shot?

[Irish Ranger]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 1:42:57 PM UTC-4, David wrote:
> http://deadline.com/2016/03/blue-bloods-ncis-los-angeles-madam-secretary-renewed-criminal-minds-csi-cyber-supergirl-1201726406/

>
> CBS Renews 11 Returning Series, No Decision On 'Criminal Minds', 'CSI: Cyber' & All Freshman Shows
> by Nellie Andreeva
>
> CBS has given early renewals to 11 returning series --
>
> dramas Blue Bloods, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Hawaii Five-0, Madam Secretary, Elementary and Scorpion; comedies Mom and 2 Broke Girls; and reality veterans Survivor and The Amazing Race.
>
> They join flagships NCIS and The Big Bang Theory, which already have deals for next season.
>
> CBS opted not to address its freshman series, including Supergirl, Life In Pieces, Limitless and Code Black, which bowed in the fall.
>
> Of the returning players, there are two major omissions, veteran crime procedural Criminal Minds and sophomore CSI: Cyber.

Of all the shows you listed the only one I watch faithfully is "Blue Bloods". I occasionally watch
"Big Bang Theory" but it seems to be going down hill fast. The others I've never watched.

Irish Mike

[David]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:36:11 -0500, "Jim G."

<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>David sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 06:13 PM:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 15:32:05 -0500, "Jim G."
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> David sent the following on 03/26/2016 at 09:41 AM:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:24:49 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't renew SUPERGIRL. The audience has fallen to about half of
>>>>> what it was for the pilot
>>>>
>>>> That argument doesn't make sense. It puts unwarranted value on how a
>>>> show starts
>>>
>>> Which tells them that the show had a lot of potential--until the writing
>>> or whatnot destroyed a lot of it...while threatening to destroy even more.
>>
>> You can't blame the writing for it losing so many viewers. There
>> weren't any expectations it could hold on to that high a rating. The
>> point to remaking movies or adapting known characters is you hope to
>> start so high that after losing the typical percentage of viewers you
>> still have enough left to look respectable.
>
>Given that people are willing to tune in in the first place and give a
>new show a chance to impress them, "losing the typical percentage of
>viewers" is a sure sign that most TV writing sucks.

A lot of those people had little to no intention of watching the
actual series. They fell for the hype or the event status. I've been
guilty of this for a different reason with shows like "Hawaii Five-O"
and "Scorpion," with the pilots having big-time directors and
resembling action movies, knowing that there's almost no chance I'll
keep watching.

Also, it's being ignored that the pilot followed a new "Big Bang
Theory," which automatically makes everything after it bigger. After
that "Supergirl" aired without a lead-in and against 3 popular shows
("Gotham," "The Voice," "Dancing"/"Bachelor") and Monday Night
Football.

[David]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:44:50 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >27 Mar 2016 18:11:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> >>I don't have a problem, David. I objected to your abuse of the term
> >>"free market", then claiming that Hollywood is doing pro-race casting
> >>in support of some sort of market. You failed to identify the market,
> >>or make any argument that that's what Hollywood was doing.
>
> >The circumstancial evidence of TV becoming diverse at an extraordinary
> >rate that can't be a coincidence of every network suddenly becoming
> >conscientous speaks for itself.
>
> I further object to your abuse of the term "evidence", when you mean
> "attempts to pat themselves on the back publicly".
>
> There really isn't a lot of difference between attempts to appease this
> year versus past era. You refuse to recognize appeasement for what it is.

No... I keep saying the results matter, not their motivation. And you keep bringing it back to motivation.

> The variation is the way they declare the appeasement of decades past to
> be evidence of racism in those eras, oblivious to the fact that in future,
> everything they're doing right now will be laughed at.

Obviously it can and will get better. But it's clear that society's progressed very far very quickly.

> I'd rather corporations stopped polluting (directly and by their main
> vendors) and stopped taking advantage of outrageous labor practices in
> the third world by their vendors. That would be real.

But if they did that because of public pressure and not out of the goodness of their hearts you would be fuming mad?

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:44:50 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>27 Mar 2016 18:11:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>I don't have a problem, David. I objected to your abuse of the term
>>>>"free market", then claiming that Hollywood is doing pro-race casting
>>>>in support of some sort of market. You failed to identify the market,
>>>>or make any argument that that's what Hollywood was doing.

>>>The circumstancial evidence of TV becoming diverse at an extraordinary
>>>rate that can't be a coincidence of every network suddenly becoming
>>>conscientous speaks for itself.

>>I further object to your abuse of the term "evidence", when you mean
>>"attempts to pat themselves on the back publicly".

>>There really isn't a lot of difference between attempts to appease this
>>year versus past era. You refuse to recognize appeasement for what it is.

>No... I keep saying the results matter, not their motivation. And you
>keep bringing it back to motivation.

You're seeing "results" that aren't there because you've bought the
self-congratulatory publicity. If you're not suspicious of the motives,
then you've already been poisoned with the Kool-Aid.

>>The variation is the way they declare the appeasement of decades past to
>>be evidence of racism in those eras, oblivious to the fact that in future,
>>everything they're doing right now will be laughed at.

>Obviously it can and will get better. But it's clear that society's
>progressed very far very quickly.

It's not better, David. It's just different, what with Hollywood believing
it's offering appeasement in ways that reflect contemporary society. It
simply varies from era to era.

Because Hollywood has a vast publicity aparatus unlike any other major
business in America, it can proclaim that it leads societal change.
This is beyond bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for buying in.

Hollywood lags social change. Always has, always will. Hollywood would
very much prefer several years notice before anything has changed, otherwise
you get middle-aged men composing allegedly rock 'n' roll music and
dialogue with slang from the writer's youth in a contempoary movie.

When Hollywood is confronted with social change, it acts in terror and
responds by eating its own. How is AMPAS's dumping of long-time members
in response to (barf) Will Smith's talentless wife not a small-scale
implementation of the Blacklist during the entirely phony Red Scare?

>>I'd rather corporations stopped polluting (directly and by their main
>>vendors) and stopped taking advantage of outrageous labor practices in
>>the third world by their vendors. That would be real.

>But if they did that because of public pressure and not out of the
>goodness of their hearts you would be fuming mad?

If they finally did the right thing because they lost a lawsuit, that would
be fine by me.

You are being fooled by the unreality of Hollywood P.R. You know better.

[David]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:41:11 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:44:50 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>27 Mar 2016 18:11:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>There really isn't a lot of difference between attempts to appease this
>>>year versus past era. You refuse to recognize appeasement for what it is.
>
>>No... I keep saying the results matter, not their motivation. And you
>>keep bringing it back to motivation.
>
>You're seeing "results" that aren't there because you've bought the
>self-congratulatory publicity. If you're not suspicious of the motives,
>then you've already been poisoned with the Kool-Aid.

I have no idea how you can say results aren't there. And "motives" are
explicitly irrelevant in a free market situation.

It could even be reasonably concluded that, once the market played
catch-up over the past decade or so, the divesity is exactly where the
market dictates it. This is still a majority-white country and it's
made up of roughly 15% bigots.

>>>The variation is the way they declare the appeasement of decades past to
>>>be evidence of racism in those eras, oblivious to the fact that in future,
>>>everything they're doing right now will be laughed at.
>
>>Obviously it can and will get better. But it's clear that society's
>>progressed very far very quickly.
>
>It's not better, David. It's just different, what with Hollywood believing
>it's offering appeasement in ways that reflect contemporary society. It
>simply varies from era to era.

I'm certain black or gay people, for example, would say it's both
different and better. Not that they should necessarily feel appeased
now, but how society reacts on a massive scale and whether it sends a
message through studio profits will determine what happens next.

>When Hollywood is confronted with social change, it acts in terror and
>responds by eating its own. How is AMPAS's dumping of long-time members

It's not a grave injustice that AMPAS members are losing meaningless
privileges based on rules that should have never been written that
way. The moronic lifetime appointments got them to being 95% white and
75% male.

>in response to (barf) Will Smith's talentless wife

It wasn't a response to one person. What a callous dismissal of an
opposing side.

>not a small-scale
>implementation of the Blacklist during the entirely phony Red Scare?

Seriously? Relax. Billy Mumy will find it no more or less difficult to
find a job.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:41:11 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:44:50 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>27 Mar 2016 18:11:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>There really isn't a lot of difference between attempts to appease this
>>>>year versus past era. You refuse to recognize appeasement for what it is.

>>>No... I keep saying the results matter, not their motivation. And you
>>>keep bringing it back to motivation.

>>You're seeing "results" that aren't there because you've bought the
>>self-congratulatory publicity. If you're not suspicious of the motives,
>>then you've already been poisoned with the Kool-Aid.

>I have no idea how you can say results aren't there.

If you take off the rose-colored lenses, you'll stop seeing things
that aren't there.

>And "motives" are explicitly irrelevant in a free market situation.

You're still abusing the term "free market".

>It could even be reasonably concluded that, once the market played
>catch-up over the past decade or so, the divesity is exactly where the
>market dictates it. This is still a majority-white country and it's
>made up of roughly 15% bigots.

I have no idea how you came up with such a number, but bigotry is
close to 100%, so you're spewing nonsense here.

>>>>The variation is the way they declare the appeasement of decades past to
>>>>be evidence of racism in those eras, oblivious to the fact that in future,
>>>>everything they're doing right now will be laughed at.

>>>Obviously it can and will get better. But it's clear that society's
>>>progressed very far very quickly.

>>It's not better, David. It's just different, what with Hollywood believing
>>it's offering appeasement in ways that reflect contemporary society. It
>>simply varies from era to era.

>I'm certain black or gay people, for example, would say it's both
>different and better.

Feel free to compare their responses to responses from contemporaries of
social justice attempts in the past that certain movies were aired at. Then
tell me if it's better or just same old same old.

You won't admit it, but even hiring black actors to play servants, even
in movies with gawd-awful stereotyping, was an attempt at social justice:
A few excellent actors were employed even though they weren't white.

>Not that they should necessarily feel appeased now, but how society
>reacts on a massive scale and whether it sends a message through studio
>profits will determine what happens next.

If they're not appeased, then Hollywood failed. Whoops.

>>When Hollywood is confronted with social change, it acts in terror and
>>responds by eating its own. How is AMPAS's dumping of long-time members

>It's not a grave injustice that AMPAS members are losing meaningless
>privileges based on rules that should have never been written that
>way. The moronic lifetime appointments got them to being 95% white and
>75% male.

The term your looking for is "contract violation" and bylaws violations.
If they're current in their dues and comply with the rules and bylaws,
then they've been treated unfairly.

Of course you've conveniently ignored all the discussion from those who
pointed out that women were the ones largely dumped from membership to
make room for minorities.

>>in response to (barf) Will Smith's talentless wife

>It wasn't a response to one person. What a callous dismissal of an
>opposing side.

I apologize. That wasn't meant callously. I was trying to express contempt
for her utter hypocrisy. I'll try to write more clearly in future.

>>not a small-scale implementation of the Blacklist during the entirely
>>phony Red Scare?

>Seriously?

You really do pick and choose history to support your absurd position,
don't you. Yes, the Blacklist was Hollywood reacting to demands for
social justice in that era. Hollywood's track record isn't just bad;
it's the worst. You're wrong to not only let them off the hook but
to praise them.

>Relax. Billy Mumy will find it no more or less difficult to find a job.

I made no comment on Billy Mumy who apparently isn't in show business
any more. I was thinking of various women who have written about being
kicked out of AMPAS even though they remain in show business for the
"sin" of working on projects that weren't ultimately completed.

Feel free to pretend that's meaningful.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 4/3/2016 10:24 AM, David wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 15:41:11 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:44:50 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> 27 Mar 2016 18:11:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>> There really isn't a lot of difference between attempts to appease this
>>>> year versus past era. You refuse to recognize appeasement for what it is.
>>
>>> No... I keep saying the results matter, not their motivation. And you
>>> keep bringing it back to motivation.
>>
>> You're seeing "results" that aren't there because you've bought the
>> self-congratulatory publicity. If you're not suspicious of the motives,
>> then you've already been poisoned with the Kool-Aid.
>
> I have no idea how you can say results aren't there. And "motives" are
> explicitly irrelevant in a free market situation.
>

Not really. In a free market situation the motive is to make a/more profit.

> It could even be reasonably concluded that, once the market played
> catch-up over the past decade or so, the divesity is exactly where the
> market dictates it. This is still a majority-white country and it's
> made up of roughly 15% bigots.
>
>>>> The variation is the way they declare the appeasement of decades past to
>>>> be evidence of racism in those eras, oblivious to the fact that in future,
>>>> everything they're doing right now will be laughed at.
>>
>>> Obviously it can and will get better. But it's clear that society's
>>> progressed very far very quickly.
>>
>> It's not better, David. It's just different, what with Hollywood believing
>> it's offering appeasement in ways that reflect contemporary society. It
>> simply varies from era to era.
>
> I'm certain black or gay people, for example, would say it's both
> different and better.

*ahem* #OscarSoWhite

> Not that they should necessarily feel appeased
> now, but how society reacts on a massive scale and whether it sends a
> message through studio profits will determine what happens next.
>
>> When Hollywood is confronted with social change, it acts in terror and
>> responds by eating its own. How is AMPAS's dumping of long-time members
>
> It's not a grave injustice that AMPAS members are losing meaningless
> privileges based on rules that should have never been written that
> way. The moronic lifetime appointments got them to being 95% white and
> 75% male.
>
>> in response to (barf) Will Smith's talentless wife
>
> It wasn't a response to one person. What a callous dismissal of an
> opposing side.
>

She is the one who started it. Others just jumped on the bandwagon
after she started it rolling. And it deserves to be callously dismissed
because racism wasn't her real motive.

>> not a small-scale
>> implementation of the Blacklist during the entirely phony Red Scare?
>
> Seriously? Relax. Billy Mumy will find it no more or less difficult to
> find a job.
>

--
Privacy IS Security

[A Friend]

In article <6ab1f370-058e-4a57...@googlegroups.com>,

Irish Ranger <ace...@att.net> wrote:

> I occasionally watch "Big Bang Theory" but it seems to be going down
> hill fast.

It's actually gotten much better this season. I don't know what
happened.

[EGK]

Sheldon finally got laid so he's not so mean-spirited any longer?

[anim8rfsk]

In article <svu2gblt6jljv98sm...@4ax.com>,

No, he's worse than ever. It's just that everybody *else* is getting
laid so they put up with him.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[Dimensional Traveler]

Weasels chewed off Penny's hair.

--
Privacy IS Security

[Obveeus]

On 4/3/2016 5:56 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <svu2gblt6jljv98sm...@4ax.com>,
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 15:15:58 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <6ab1f370-058e-4a57...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Irish Ranger <ace...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I occasionally watch "Big Bang Theory" but it seems to be going down
>>>> hill fast.
>>>
>>> It's actually gotten much better this season. I don't know what
>>> happened.
>>
>> Sheldon finally got laid so he's not so mean-spirited any longer?
>
> No, he's worse than ever. It's just that everybody *else* is getting
> laid so they put up with him.

He wasn't the 'mean spirited one' back in the days I watched. he may
have been self involved or introverted, but it was the cast of
characters around him that were mean spirited; constantly making
jokes/attacks at his expense.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <ndsa34$g4g$1...@dont-email.me>,

Actually that was last season wasn't it? It's growing out some. Notice
they never put a picture of her with weasel hair in the series open.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <ndsc6q$liq$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

He's been mean spirited for a long time. He admits to making his
friends jump through ridiculous hoops because he enjoys watching then
suffer.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 4/3/2016 6:03 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <ndsa34$g4g$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/2016 12:15 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <6ab1f370-058e-4a57...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Irish Ranger <ace...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I occasionally watch "Big Bang Theory" but it seems to be going down
>>>> hill fast.
>>>
>>> It's actually gotten much better this season. I don't know what
>>> happened.
>>>
>> Weasels chewed off Penny's hair.
>
> Actually that was last season wasn't it? It's growing out some. Notice
> they never put a picture of her with weasel hair in the series open.
>

I have no idea, I never watch the show.

--
Privacy IS Security

[anim8rfsk]

In article <ndsibk$57n$1...@dont-email.me>,

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 4/3/2016 6:03 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > In article <ndsa34$g4g$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/3/2016 12:15 PM, A Friend wrote:
> >>> In article <6ab1f370-058e-4a57...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Irish Ranger <ace...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I occasionally watch "Big Bang Theory" but it seems to be going down
> >>>> hill fast.
> >>>
> >>> It's actually gotten much better this season. I don't know what
> >>> happened.
> >>>
> >> Weasels chewed off Penny's hair.
> >
> > Actually that was last season wasn't it? It's growing out some. Notice
> > they never put a picture of her with weasel hair in the series open.
> >
> I have no idea, I never watch the show.

Good call.

[chicagofan]

HA HA! I may have to do that, if things don't improve sometime soon.
;) Imagine how I feel!!!
bj

[David]

They made jokes. He just said mean things bluntly.

But while the show's become less funny, since adding girlfriends to
the main cast and letting the characters grow up the last few seasons,
it's developed a credible heart. Penny and Sheldon especially have a
fond, caring relationship now.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I always thought they did. Even in first season, they had some pleasant
scenes together, alone, no Leonard. They had to show Sheldon as a human
being on rare occassions.

Among the four, if Raj ends up happy in love, there's no way to make it
funny or true to the show, but I'm sure the writers will tell themselves
that the audience demands "closure".

No, I watch comedies for humor.

[Obveeus]

I stopped watching many years ago...before half the cast became female.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <ndtodl$49g$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

I assume Raj will end up with Comic Book Guy.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Please don't give the overpaid writers any bad ideas; they are quite
capable of coming up with them without help.

[Obveeus]

Even better if it is done as a crossover with THE SIMPSONS.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <ndu094$kj4$1...@news.albasani.net>,

As far as they have Raj out of the closet at this point ...

[Adam H. Kerman]

That rather ruins the gag they were trying to do. The writers don't
actually understand this.