Canadians give new '90210' a "C" grade, can't find someone who watched to watch it again
Taylor
90210 takes home 'C' grade
Fri, September 5, 2008
The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
About 1.3 million Canadians tuned in on Global, and about 4.9 million
Americans on CW, for the 90210 premiere. That was a record-breaking
number for CW, which is fighting a David vs. Goliath battle with the
big networks in the U.S.
Critically speaking, with all the pre-debut hype -- as well as the
fact that CW did not send screeners to critics, which doesn't affect
you at all but usually is a sign that the show is dull -- 90210
arguably was set up to fall flat on its face. But it didn't.
It wasn't an 'A', but it wasn't an 'F', either. A little bland in
spots, a little busy in others, we'd give it a solid 'C', with an
entire season remaining to improve that grade.
T he great news is that young Canadian actors Shenae Grimes (Annie)
and Dustin Milligan (Evan) were the best parts, and we liked the
Jessica Stroup character (Silver), too.
We also liked Jessica Walters' take on the grandmother, but that could
have something to do with the fact that she basically is playing a
Beverly Hills version of her acidic character (Lucille Bluth) on
Arrested Development.
WQ
Taylor wrote:
> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/Entertainment/2008/09/05/6668426-sun.html
>
> 90210 takes home 'C' grade
>
> Fri, September 5, 2008
>
> The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
>
> We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
> the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
>
> Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
> watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
--- Well, the reason is obvious: it's a soap. Nobody watches an
episode of a soap again.
michael
It takes the original one a bit further. The original 90210 was
somewhat unbelievable in that the teens were in charge and the parents
and other adults were just mere scenery in the background. This one
pushes the envelope of unbelievability even further. I watched it and
enjoyed it as one enjoys a ridiculous comedy. But what I couldn't
stand was all the bleached teeth. Yuck! What is this obsession in
the US with bleaching teeth?! At least when they bleach their anuses
you can't see it. But all those bleached teeth on 90210 are blinding!
One highlight...Jennie Garth just gets more and more beautiful as she
ages. Shannen Doherty, on the hand, well...it's just sad.
doomella
> Well, it is what it is. It's not great drama, more like mindless fun.
> It takes the original one a bit further. The original 90210 was
> somewhat unbelievable in that the teens were in charge and the parents
> and other adults were just mere scenery in the background.
That kind of comes with the territory with these shows. My kids
sometimes watch those Nickolodeon (I think) shows like "iCarly" and
"Drake & Josh" and the parents are basically clueless, one-dimensional
oafs who occasionally make a goofy entrance and say something that the
"tweens" can then roll their eyes over as they're busy ruling and
fixing the world. Anybody over 18 might as well be reduced to a
garbled sound warp like the adults on the Peanuts specials; they're of
no interest to the kids.
What I always got a kick of in the original 90210 (which I ridiculed
mercilessly until I became shamelessly addicted) was the fact that,
from high school through college and beyond, these Beverly Hills kids
stayed in the same incestuous tight-knit group of a dozen or so
friends, rarely venturing outside the pack for anything (and certainly
not for dating). I have no interest in the offshoot and it would be
too depressing to see those kids entering middle age.
Obveeus
"WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Taylor wrote:
>> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/Entertainment/2008/09/05/6668426-sun.html
>>
>> 90210 takes home 'C' grade
>>
>> Fri, September 5, 2008
>>
>> The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
>>
>> We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
>> the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
>>
>> Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
>> watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
>
> --- Well, the reason is obvious: it's a soap. Nobody watches an
> episode of a soap again.
Wow, neither one of you understood what the article said.
Hint: everyone that was interviewed said that they WOULD watch again.
As for watching reruns of soaps, 90210 had plenty of viewers last night in
its second airing, and I'd bet money that they were not all first time
viewers.
WQ
> "WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Taylor wrote:
>
> >> 90210 takes home 'C' grade
>
> >> Fri, September 5, 2008
>
> >> The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
>
> >> We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
> >> the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
>
> >> Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
> >> watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
>
> > --- Well, the reason is obvious: it's a soap. Nobody watches an
> > episode of a soap again.
>
> Wow, neither one of you understood what the article said.
> Hint: everyone that was interviewed said that they WOULD watch again.
> As for watching reruns of soaps, 90210 had plenty of viewers last night in
> its second airing, and I'd bet money that they were not all first time
> viewers.
--- But how do you know those were the same viewers who watched the
episode a second time? It'd be more likely they were new viewers who
missed the original airing.
Obveeus
I'll stick with what I wrote above: they were not ALL new viewers. More
likely, it was a mixture of people that wanted to see it again this week and
people that heard about it after Tuesday's airing and wanted to see it for
the first time.
michael
michael
>I have no interest in the offshoot and it would be
>too depressing to see those kids entering middle age.
"Entering" middle age? I think they're right smack in the middle of
it by now.
And you're right, it is depressing. Those of us watching them have
been aging right along with them. :(
doomella
Exactly.
I wonder how "Dylan" looks now. Somehow he managed to be the hunk of
the zip code despite being 4 feet tall and having deep creases and a
receding hairline in high school.
Adam H. Kerman
>90210 takes home 'C' grade
>Fri, September 5, 2008
>The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
>We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
>the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
Duh. Canadians don't even have ZIP Codes, so how could they understand?
Their postal codes are alphanumeric things and would be the basis for
completely different plots.
WQ
--- It wasn't that great of a show to want to watch again. It got
only a 1.5 for the repeat compared to a 3.3 for the debut. That's
quite a drop-off for a repeat from the premiere, especially when you
consider that a show like Reaper would normally get about a 1.8 for an
original airing and about a 1.2 for a repeat airing. That's only a
33% drop for Reaper compared to nearly a 60% drop for 90210. Most of
90210's viewers for its second airing would've been of the targeted
18-34 female demo crowd who would've got word online from their
friends who had seen the original airing that they should catch the
repeat if they missed it. That's the more realistic scenario.
LongRodSilver
wrote:
>Shannen Doherty, on the hand, well...it's just sad.
I said that when I saw the commercial.. YIKES!!
Obveeus
"WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>--- It wasn't that great of a show to want to watch again. It got
>only a 1.5 for the repeat compared to a 3.3 for the debut. That's
>quite a drop-off for a repeat from the premiere, especially when you
>consider that a show like Reaper would normally get about a 1.8 for an
>original airing and about a 1.2 for a repeat airing. That's only a
>33% drop for Reaper compared to nearly a 60% drop for 90210.
Your 'math' is stellar as always...missing the basic premise that Reaper
doesn't air encores 2 days after the original, so none of your math is at
all relevant.
> Most of
>90210's viewers for its second airing would've been of the targeted
>18-34 female demo crowd who would've got word online from their
>friends who had seen the original airing that they should catch the
>repeat if they missed it. That's the more realistic scenario.
More realistic than what? You are pretending to have a point, but you
haven't actually drawn up the scarecrow yet for the pretend counterpoint.
Taylor
Exactly. They were in the mid- to late-20's *back* *then* when the
show first started, it had an 8 year run and now it's been 8 years
since the show left the air. They look old.
It's like watching the brand spanking new Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates
Microsoft ad. Jerry Seinfeld looks old and broken down and proof it's
no longer 1998!
WQ
> "WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >--- It wasn't that great of a show to want to watch again. It got
> >only a 1.5 for the repeat compared to a 3.3 for the debut. That's
> >quite a drop-off for a repeat from the premiere, especially when you
> >consider that a show like Reaper would normally get about a 1.8 for an
> >original airing and about a 1.2 for a repeat airing. That's only a
> >33% drop for Reaper compared to nearly a 60% drop for 90210.
>
> Your 'math' is stellar as always...missing the basic premise that Reaper
> doesn't air encores 2 days after the original, so none of your math is at
> all relevant.
--- Ok, if you want to play that game, then how's this? Reaper's
premiere last year scored a 2.1, its repeat 2 nights later was 1.7.
That's a drop-off of just 20%, not 33% for a typical repeat of a non-
premiere episode of that series. That makes its performance of a
repeat 3 times better than 90210's because it didn't lose that many
viewers from airing to the next.
> > Most of
> >90210's viewers for its second airing would've been of the targeted
> >18-34 female demo crowd who would've got word online from their
> >friends who had seen the original airing that they should catch the
> >repeat if they missed it. That's the more realistic scenario.
>
> More realistic than what? You are pretending to have a point, but you
> haven't actually drawn up the scarecrow yet for the pretend counterpoint.
--- More realistic than yours, that's what. And you yourself haven't
actually drawn up the scarecrow yet for your pretend counterpoint.
But at least I deliverd comparative numbers to make a likely point
that stands to obvious reason.
Thanatos
michael <wat...@gonnawatch.huh> wrote:
> One highlight...Jennie Garth just gets more and more beautiful as she
> ages.
From the waist up, yeah, but the one long shot of her walking in the
parking lot in a skirt revealed her legs to be way to pudgy for her
frame. It was kinda jarring. She kinda had Hillary Clinton cankles.
Thanatos
<6dfdaa32-8a41-4e94...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Taylor <lukeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 5:39 pm, doomella <Doomell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 5:26 pm, michael <wat...@gonnawatch.huh> wrote:
> >
> > > doomella <Doomell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >I have no interest in the offshoot and it would be
> > > >too depressing to see those kids entering middle age.
> >
> > > "Entering" middle age? I think they're right smack in the middle of
> > > it by now.
> >
> > > And you're right, it is depressing. Those of us watching them have
> > > been aging right along with them. :(
> >
> > Exactly.
> > I wonder how "Dylan" looks now. Somehow he managed to be the hunk of
> > the zip code despite being 4 feet tall and having deep creases and a
> > receding hairline in high school.
>
> Exactly. They were in the mid- to late-20's *back* *then* when the
> show first started, it had an 8 year run and now it's been 8 years
> since the show left the air. They look old.
I think that girl who played Andrea actually turned 30 before the show
ended.
argento32
Of course canadians are going to give 90210 a C. they grew up with
higher quality more serious teen show Degrassi. That came back in a
new version and still kept the quality at the level of the original.
hell even Americans that got PBS and knew about the series ala Kevin
Smith knew that Degrassi was the show to watch. Looking back at the
old reruns of 90210 is a painful experience. They ran a marathon of
the old series the night before they started the new one here. I had
recently watched Degrassi: The Next generation with my 13 year old and
was impressed so I figured seeing this bit of nostalgia would be a fun
evening. I was embarrassed before they got hald way through the first
ten minutes of the old 9010. If the new series is anything like it
it'll be a sad show. However if they put enough attractive people and
hype it and showcase up and coming new bands each week I am sure they
can force it on the masses who watch anything of this ilk.
Bill Crapkin
> In article
> <6dfdaa32-8a41-4e94-848c-ccbe2ca6b...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> I think that girl who played Andrea actually turned 30 before the show
> ended.
Beverly Hills 90210 launched in 1990. Gabrielle Carteris who played
Andrea was born 1961 making her the age of 29 when 90210 launched with
her playing a teenager in high school.
manitou
> Shannen Doherty, on the hand, well...it's just sad.
She's ready to star in a TV biopic as Tallulah Bankhead.
CPJ
Ian J. Ball
> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/Entertainment/2008/09/05/6668426-su...
>
> 90210 takes home 'C' grade
>
> Fri, September 5, 2008
>
> The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
>
> We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
> the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
>
> Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
> watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
>
> About 1.3 million Canadians tuned in on Global, and about 4.9 million
> Americans on CW, for the 90210 premiere. That was a record-breaking
> number for CW, which is fighting a David vs. Goliath battle with the
> big networks in the U.S.
>
> Critically speaking, with all the pre-debut hype -- as well as the
> fact that CW did not send screeners to critics, which doesn't affect
> you at all but usually is a sign that the show is dull -- 90210
> arguably was set up to fall flat on its face. But it didn't.
>
> It wasn't an 'A', but it wasn't an 'F', either. A little bland in
> spots, a little busy in others, we'd give it a solid 'C', with an
> entire season remaining to improve that grade.
>
> T he great news is that young Canadian actors Shenae Grimes (Annie)
> and Dustin Milligan (Evan) were the best parts, and we liked the
> Jessica Stroup character (Silver), too.
Nice article - what?! Does Jessica Lowndes not count as Canadian
too?!
Sheesh...
Ian J. Ball
Whoa! I like D:TNG, but I'd hardly call it "higher quality" (on
balance), and it's certainly gotten to be of lesser quality as time
has gone on.
Michael Black
>> Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
>> watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
>
> --- Well, the reason is obvious: it's a soap. Nobody watches an
> episode of a soap again.
>
But Global here in Canada reran the two episodes for a second time
last night (ie Thursday). It was even scheduled enough in advance
that it was in what's left of the "tv listings magazine" that
comes with the paper.
Michael
mike...@gmail.com
> Taylor wrote:
> >http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/Entertainment/2008/09/05/6668426-su...
>
>
> > Fri, September 5, 2008
>
> > The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
>
> > We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
> > the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
>
> > Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
> > watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
>
> --- Well, the reason is obvious: it's a soap. Nobody watches an
> episode of a soap again.
>
Actually, they are saying that they haven't run into anyone who won't
watch it again, so in other words everyone they've run into has said
they'd watch it again (again meaning keep watching it week after
week).
Michael Black
It has higher production values, presumably because being on the more
commercial CTV, there is more of a budget.
Really, from the start, the latest version was much closer to 90210
than the original.
The original would have poor Caitlin worried that she dreamed about
her teacher, the woman with the really long hair.
The new one has one character involved in a lesbian relationship
that then seems to stall for reasons I never really saw. But in
their case, Kevin Smith guest starred to give his blessing to
the relationship, so the hesitant one wouldn't back away from it.
Michael
argento32
I mean higher quality than 90210. Which was lets face it about as
realistic as a Dsiney knock-off Fairy tale without the good acting.
I grew up in high schools like the one in Degrassi and went through a
lot of those experiences. Hell one of the main characters was even an
epileptic like me. I doubt very much anyone had the 90210 high school
experience.
Adam H. Kerman
I don't think the wrasslin' fans know who she was.
NA
<86ba7ef0-4849-447a...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
WQ <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --- Ok, if you want to play that game, then how's this? Reaper's
> premiere last year scored a 2.1, its repeat 2 nights later was 1.7.
> That's a drop-off of just 20%, not 33% for a typical repeat of a non-
> premiere episode of that series. That makes its performance of a
> repeat 3 times better than 90210's because it didn't lose that many
> viewers from airing to the next.
Anyways Reaper is different than 90210. With Dish I couldnt watch
Reaper because I would already have 2 programs taping. So when it came
to reruns I would watch Reaper. With 90210 their is nothing else taping.
SFTV_troy
Taylor wrote:
>
>can't find someone who watched to watch it again
Poor subject line/summary. If you read the article it clearly states
that people will be watching the second episode.
SFTV_troy
michael wrote:
> doomella <Doome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have no interest in the offshoot and it would be
> >too depressing to see those kids entering middle age.
>
> "Entering" middle age? I think they're right smack in the middle of
> it by now.
>
???. Middle age is 40 to 60. None of the Original 90210 cast are
"in the middle" of that range, aka 50 years. In fact Jenny Garth is
still in her 30s - still in her child-bearing years.
Don't write them off as "old" so quickly.
SFTV_troy
WQ wrote:
>
> --- It wasn't that great of a show to want to watch again. It got
> only a 1.5 for the repeat compared to a 3.3 for the debut. That's
> quite a drop-off for a repeat from the premiere...
No actually it's quite good. For syndicated shows like the old Star
Trek DS9, it would premiere at 3.0 with the secondary same-week reruns
earning around 1.0. (Ditto babylon 5, hercules, xena, et cetera.)
In other words one-third the audience. So for 90210 to retain one-
half of its initial audience is actually ABOVE average.
Anthony
news:4626661c-3b3a-4929...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> michael wrote:
>> doomella <Doome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have no interest in the offshoot and it would be
>> >too depressing to see those kids entering middle age.
>>
>> "Entering" middle age? I think they're right smack in the middle of
>> it by now.
>>
>
> ???. Middle age is 40 to 60.
Only in the mind of someone who is in denial about getting old.
Middle age starts at 30.
You must be one of those who say "60 is the new 20."
Hahahahahaaa...
WQ
--- You're comparing it to syndicated shows, which is a different
ratings beast and doesn't count. Compared to network shows, 90210's
repeat was within the drop-off range normally expected for soaps, 60%
or more. If it hadn't been a premiere episode, then its drop-off rate
would've likely been in the same range as other non-premiere repeats
for soaps, about 75% - i.e. Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy,
etc. You'll see that'll be the case as the season progresses.
WQ
> "SFTV_troy" <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4626661c-3b3a-4929...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > michael wrote:
> >> doomella <Doomell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I have no interest in the offshoot and it would be
> >> >too depressing to see those kids entering middle age.
>
> >> "Entering" middle age? I think they're right smack in the middle of
> >> it by now.
>
> > ???. Middle age is 40 to 60.
>
> Only in the mind of someone who is in denial about getting old.
>
> Middle age starts at 30.
--- Try convincing a 30-year-old of that.
> You must be one of those who say "60 is the new 20."
--- Since life expectancy - the average among males and females - is
now 78 years, that would mean middle-age is at 39.
argento32
> "SFTV_troy" <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4626661c-3b3a-4929...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > michael wrote:
> >> doomella <Doomell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I have no interest in the offshoot and it would be
> >> >too depressing to see those kids entering middle age.
>
> >> "Entering" middle age? I think they're right smack in the middle of
> >> it by now.
>
> > ???. Middle age is 40 to 60.
>
> Only in the mind of someone who is in denial about getting old.
>
> Middle age starts at 30.
>
> You must be one of those who say "60 is the new 20."
>
> Hahahahahaaa...
Thats pretty stupid. You do realize that middle age is actually about
39 not 30. Apparently you are one of those who is too young to
understand the basic concepts of math???
Obveeus
If you want to make it about math, then do the math. If the average person
lives to 78 then:
0-26 young aged
27-52 middle aged
53-78 old aged
The other poster was being kind to suggest that people aren't middle aged
until 30.
WQ
--- But 39 is right in the middle of middle-aged.
Obveeus
Common sense will tell you that people don't define 'middle aged' as a 1
year period between youth and old age.
You can feel good about this age debate, though. Being that you only have a
2 digit odometer, you will be young again in no time. ;-)
If you want to start gearing up, Total Drama Island has a marathon on
Cartoon Network Sunday (tomorrow). The show is a funny parody of
Survivor...or at least anyone that isn't old finds it funny.
argento32
No read the post he was just trolling...
I already have Total Drama Island...funny show with a couple twists.
Anthony
news:g9uta9$bpi$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "argento32" <aaron...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 11:34 am, "Anthony" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> Middle age starts at 30.
>>>
>>> You must be one of those who say "60 is the new 20."
>>>
>>> Hahahahahaaa...
>
>>Thats pretty stupid. You do realize that middle age is actually about
>>39 not 30. Apparently you are one of those who is too young to
>>understand the basic concepts of math???
>
> If you want to make it about math, then do the math. If the average
> person lives to 78 then:
>
> 0-26 young aged
> 27-52 middle aged
> 53-78 old aged
I was actually going to post this very thing but I figured why destroy
their ignorance when it's all they have?
Personally, I group the ages as follows:
0-30 young
30-60 middle age
60+ old age
> The other poster was being kind to suggest that people aren't middle aged
> until 30.
I usually challenge people to tell me if they have the same stamina and
strength at 35 as they did at 15 and if they can do everything at 35 they
did at 15 and if they can recover as fast from a day of exertion (say,
moving or playing sports all day) or a night of partying but inevitably
there's always an idiot who answers yes. There's just no winning with
people who live to argue so I just don't feed their mental disease by
arguing with them.
Same goes for the idiots who think that middle age is one single point, say
age 39, instead of a range of years. There's just no winning with these
mental midgets.
Anthony
news:25rskv....@news.alt.net...
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:g9uta9$bpi$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "argento32" <aaron...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 11:34 am, "Anthony" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>> Middle age starts at 30.
>>>>
>>>> You must be one of those who say "60 is the new 20."
>>>>
>>>> Hahahahahaaa...
>>
>>>Thats pretty stupid. You do realize that middle age is actually about
>>>39 not 30. Apparently you are one of those who is too young to
>>>understand the basic concepts of math???
>>
>> If you want to make it about math, then do the math. If the average
>> person lives to 78 then:
>>
>> 0-26 young aged
>> 27-52 middle aged
>> 53-78 old aged
>
> I was actually going to post this very thing but I figured why destroy
> their ignorance when it's all they have?
>
> Personally, I group the ages as follows:
>
> 0-30 young
> 30-60 middle age
> 60+ old age
Small correction:
0-29 young
30-59 middle age
60 and over old age
>> The other poster was being kind to suggest that people aren't middle
>> aged until 30.
Indeed. I used to say middle age starts at 25!
(Unless you're gay. I'm informed in the gay community anything over 20 is
old age. I'm sure that'll touch off yet another round of hysterical
knee-jerk replies! lol)
WQ
> "WQ" <WQi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 5:39 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "argento32" <aaronpyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 6, 11:34 am, "Anthony" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Middle age starts at 30.
>
> >> >> You must be one of those who say "60 is the new 20."
>
> >> >> Hahahahahaaa...
> >> >Thats pretty stupid. You do realize that middle age is actually about
> >> >39 not 30. Apparently you are one of those who is too young to
> >> >understand the basic concepts of math???
>
> >> If you want to make it about math, then do the math. If the average
> >> person
> >> lives to 78 then:
>
> >> 0-26 young aged
> >> 27-52 middle aged
> >> 53-78 old aged
>
> >> The other poster was being kind to suggest that people aren't middle aged
> >> until 30.
> >--- But 39 is right in the middle of middle-aged.
>
> Common sense will tell you that people don't define 'middle aged' as a 1
> year period between youth and old age.
--- Common sense will tell you that middle age is the mid-point range
between your birth and your death, meaning if you only live till 30,
then middle age for you is 11-20.
argento32
> "Anthony" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:25rskv....@news.alt.net...
>
>
>
> >news:g9uta9$bpi$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
I wouldnt know but I'll take your extensive gay knowledge at face
value... I'll ask you if i need anymore information about gayness you
seem pretty..informed..
Adam H. Kerman
You pro-wrestling idiots...
Middle age starts well above whatever age I happen to be currently.
29fan
about Jessica Walter, fabulous actress, "The Group". How did she get
to this? It's a "turn the TV off time" in the evening. There's so
much else to do, and so much better to watch. A million channels, and
not much on. TV shouldn't be go-to time, it's discretionary, you can
turn the thing off. This is turn-off worthy, apparently.
On Sep 5, 4:05 pm, Taylor <lukebenw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/Entertainment/2008/09/05/6668426-su...
>
> 90210 takes home 'C' grade
>
> Fri, September 5, 2008
>
> The teen show has a whole new season to bump that mark to an 'A'
>
> We've noticed something very interesting about the general reaction to
> the new 90210, which debuted Tuesday on Global and CW.
>
> Despite mixed reviews, we have not run into a single person who
> watched it who didn't confirm that they probably will watch it again.
>
> About 1.3 million Canadians tuned in on Global, and about 4.9 million
> Americans on CW, for the 90210 premiere. That was a record-breaking
> number for CW, which is fighting a David vs. Goliath battle with the
> big networks in the U.S.
>
> Critically speaking, with all the pre-debut hype -- as well as the
> fact that CW did not send screeners to critics, which doesn't affect
> you at all but usually is a sign that the show is dull -- 90210
> arguably was set up to fall flat on its face. But it didn't.
>
> It wasn't an 'A', but it wasn't an 'F', either. A little bland in
> spots, a little busy in others, we'd give it a solid 'C', with an
> entire season remaining to improve that grade.
>
> T he great news is that young Canadian actors Shenae Grimes (Annie)
> and Dustin Milligan (Evan) were the best parts, and we liked the
> Jessica Stroup character (Silver), too.
>
> We also liked Jessica Walters' take on the grandmother, but that could
> have something to do with the fact that she basically is playing a
> Beverly Hills version of her acidic character (Lucille Bluth) on
> Arrested Development.
SFTV_troy
Anthony wrote:
> "SFTV_troy" <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >
> > ???. Middle age is 40 to 60.
>
> Only in the mind of someone who is in denial about getting old.
> Middle age starts at 30.
And middle age ends at what point? 50? That's not logical. 50 is
too early to start calling someone "elderly".
It's more logical to divide the human lifespan into equal segments.
Even advertisers consider "35" to still be a desirable target for
their brain-washing (i.e. young and malleable brains).
0-20 - youth
20-40 - young adult
40-60 - middle-age adult
60-80 - old adult
80 and up - dead or almost-dead
SFTV_troy
Anthony wrote:
>
> 0-29 young
>30-60 middle aged
You can't lump children and adults in the same category. This is more
logical:
0-20 immature member of the species (i.e. still growing)
20-40 mature member of the species (young adult at peak condition)
40-60 middle-aged adult (declining)
60 and up - elderly adult (dying)
By the way, a lot of you seemed to have missed the Dara Torres
phenomenon.... 41, and yet still setting world records with the young
adults. The human body doesn't really start breaking-down until circa
40 years old, and it is at that point "middle age" occurs.
In fact, numerous studies have shown the fastest response time
actually happens at age 31... an age you would incorrectly call
"getting old".