For THIS they cancelled Angel?
him...@animail.net
anything on the WB any more except for GG, and that's mostly for Layne.
But last night I tucked in for 2 hours of TV: Lost and Point Pleasant.
I spent a lot of this time channel surfing or getting up to go to the
bathroom, fix a snack, or pet the cat. Lost wasn't so bad; just a weak
episode and it offered enough hints to keep me modestly pleased. And
Charlie's diary dance still has me giggling.
But PP? I thought I had lowered my expectations enough. Heaven knows
the critics warned me, but they kept nattering on about potential. I
saw no potential, except maybe the initial potential of the premise
which I already knew. The dialogue was pure soap, the characters were
over the top cliches (old time melodrama mustache twirling villains and
innocent maidens with no irony), the plotting episodic and confusing,
the pacing slow, and the actors clearly chosen for their looks rather
their ability to emote in any meaningful way. And before anyone points
this out, I KNOW they need pretty people, but if you've ever lived in
L.A. you know it's full of very pretty people who can also act. It's
not necessary to choose one or the other. Nice swimsuits, I guess.
Altogether, very, very disappointing. :( I want AtS back.
End of tirade. If you bothered to read this far, thank you for
listening. I needed to vent.
himiko
Otha Stubblefield
very excited about the first episode of PP, but in all fairness, you should
launch into a tirade about Whack and Slobby, or The Mountain of Crap. These
are the things that did Angel in.
<him...@animail.net> wrote in message
news:1106255601.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
CSIS Agent (formerly steven blue)
> anything on the WB any more except for GG, and that's mostly for Layne.
> But last night I tucked in for 2 hours of TV: Lost and Point Pleasant.
Umm Point Plesant is on FOX what does this have to do with Angel?
Amy Gray
blue\)" <steve...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>news:1106255601.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> OK, I know it's different channels, but I'm not really watching
>> anything on the WB any more except for GG, and that's mostly for Layne.
>> But last night I tucked in for 2 hours of TV: Lost and Point Pleasant.
>
>Umm Point Plesant is on FOX what does this have to do with Angel?
Also Lost is ABC. Which has what to do with Angel?
James Craine
him...@animail.net wrote:
> But PP? I thought I had lowered my expectations enough. Heaven knows
> the critics warned me, but they kept nattering on about potential. I
> saw no potential, except maybe the initial potential of the premise
> which I already knew. The dialogue was pure soap, the characters were
> over the top cliches (old time melodrama mustache twirling villains and
> innocent maidens with no irony), the plotting episodic and confusing,
> the pacing slow, and the actors clearly chosen for their looks rather
> their ability to emote in any meaningful way. And before anyone points
> this out, I KNOW they need pretty people, but if you've ever lived in
> L.A. you know it's full of very pretty people who can also act. It's
> not necessary to choose one or the other. Nice swimsuits, I guess.
That was pretty much what I thought. The best thing about it
was the young women in bikinis, but that is not enough. (I
used to watch Baywatch with the volume off, it got old too.)
I read that the basic plot here was a basically good girl
given powers to be evil. She then has to resist those powers
and the temptations that go with them. (Allyson Hannigan
guest stars as her mentor ;) ) This is not a bad premise, I
intend to give it one more chance.
Ken from Chicago
From the radio ads I suspected Grant Show had a big bushy handlebar mustache
to twirl.
-- Ken from Chicago
Tammy Stephanie Davis
Amy Gray <JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:41 GMT, "CSIS Agent \(formerly steven
That's what I keep asking myself when I keep seeing Lost articles crossposted
on this newsgroup.
--
him...@animail.net
Tammy Stephanie Davis wrote:
> In article <dpr0v0p9t8ckf4tpo...@4ax.com>,
> Amy Gray <JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:41 GMT, "CSIS Agent \(formerly steven
> :blue\)" <steve...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :
> :>
> :><him...@animail.net> wrote in message
> :>news:1106255601.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> :>> OK, I know it's different channels, but I'm not really watching
> :>> anything on the WB any more except for GG, and that's mostly for
Layne.
> :>> But last night I tucked in for 2 hours of TV: Lost and Point
Pleasant.
> :>
> :>Umm Point Plesant is on FOX what does this have to do with Angel?
> :Also Lost is ABC. Which has what to do with Angel?
I noted the different channel issue. That was a rather broad clue that
I was not discussing the internal politics of the AtS cancellation, but
the general state of television. Apparently it wasn't broad enough, so
here it is, stated even more explicitly:
I am totally disgusted. While I applaud the slow realization of the
networks that scripted drama has a place among their offerings, what
they're offering makes it clear that they have no idea how to do it
well. Someone forgot to tell them that in scripted drama, dialogue,
characterization, acting, direction, and plotting counts. And PP and
Lost are not only both scripted dramas, they are also the same genre:
SF/F. This means they are both seen as catering to the same fans as
AtS, I.E. me. Lost may be. PP definitely isn't. I resent any network
suit thinking s/he can fob me off with garbage aimed at the lowest
common denominator (leaving out any wit and/or complexity that might
confuse) by playing the genre card. It just doesn't work that way.
>
> That's what I keep asking myself when I keep seeing Lost articles
crossposted
> on this newsgroup.
Aside from fan and genre overlaps, there are also writer overlaps. PP
is Marti Noxon's brain(?) child and she also has Ben Edlund on the
team...and is hoping to cast JM. Lost also includes ex-ME writers
including David Fury...I think others too but I can't recall who at the
moment.
Mercifully, this is not a moderated board and those of us who enjoy
making comparisons, cross-referencing, and indulging in generalizations
are able to do so. If you don't care for it, don't bother reading or
responding.
himiko
CSIS Agent (formerly steven blue)
<him...@animail.net> wrote in message
news:1106320992.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
There are A LOT of good new/old shows. Genre wise we have 24, Veronica Mars,
Alias, Lost. Alias & Lost being the best of the two. Alias has two ME
writers - Jeffrey Bell & Drew Goddard while Lost has David Fury. You want
plot, acting, writing you have Wednesdays 2 hours of it. Point Pleasant
isn't even Pleasant some networks are tired of garbage where people can't
even act - I hope Fox cans this show soon. Tru Calling on the other hand was
better.
BTR1701
"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> But PP? I thought I had lowered my expectations enough. Heaven knows
> the critics warned me, but they kept nattering on about potential.
It wasn't ANGEL that was canceled for Point Pleasant. It was Tru Calling
that was canceled for Point Pleasant.
HeKS
"CSIS Agent (formerly steven blue)" <steve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8fId.135364$KO5.51439@clgrps13...
I'm sorry. Did you just say that Lost and Alias are better than 24? I just
watched the first 5 hours of this season's 24 in a row last night (I was
away for the first two 2-hour showings and taped this weeks ep so I could
watch in order). I honestly think that 24 has got to be the best drama on TV
at this particular point. The 5 hours felt like 1 and a half, and I was
riveted every single minute of those 5 hours. The plot is great, the acting
is great (except for the fact that I seem to hate every single female
character this season except for Chloe . . . who was the only female I hated
last season), the pacing is perfect. If I had had the whole season available
to me I would still be watching it from last night without having slept or
worked. It's a good thing they're only showing one ep per week now.
24 is now the only show on television that I'm actually excited about
watching.
HeKS
nimue
> OK, I know it's different channels, but I'm not really watching
> anything on the WB any more except for GG, and that's mostly for
> Layne. But last night I tucked in for 2 hours of TV: Lost and Point
> Pleasant.
>
>
> I spent a lot of this time channel surfing or getting up to go to the
> bathroom, fix a snack, or pet the cat. Lost wasn't so bad; just a
> weak episode and it offered enough hints to keep me modestly pleased.
> And Charlie's diary dance still has me giggling.
I LOVED Charlie's diary dance!
>
> But PP? I thought I had lowered my expectations enough. Heaven knows
> the critics warned me, but they kept nattering on about potential. I
> saw no potential, except maybe the initial potential of the premise
> which I already knew. The dialogue was pure soap, the characters were
> over the top cliches (old time melodrama mustache twirling villains
> and innocent maidens with no irony), the plotting episodic and
> confusing, the pacing slow, and the actors clearly chosen for their
> looks rather their ability to emote in any meaningful way. And
> before anyone points this out, I KNOW they need pretty people, but if
> you've ever lived in L.A. you know it's full of very pretty people
> who can also act. It's not necessary to choose one or the other.
> Nice swimsuits, I guess.
>
> Altogether, very, very disappointing. :( I want AtS back.
>
> End of tirade. If you bothered to read this far, thank you for
> listening. I needed to vent.
I want AtS back, too. This season, the season that never happened, could
have been GREAT! Good lord, there was so much to be explored.
>
> himiko
--
nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater
influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"Education is freedom. It is the answer."
poolnuz
wrong people
Angel was canceled because not enough people watched it
ok, it's a little more complicated than that, it's reasonably obvious that
the WB
had high hopes for AtS after bringing JM on board, since that was a firm
requirement to get the show renewed for S5
whatever it was they were hoping for didn't happen, so they pulled the plug,
plain and simple
if you want someone to bitch at, go find a "Friends" viewer
if you want clever, well written dialog watch "House MD" on the
uber evil Fox
what you are doing now is... wallowing
stop it and move on
theNews
<him...@animail.net> wrote in message
news:1106320992.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
him...@animail.net
poolnuz wrote:
> himko, baby, I grow weary of pointing this out, but you are pissed at
the
> wrong people
> Angel was canceled because not enough people watched it
"Not enough" being defined by the networks, by suits and bean counters.
That's what I'm complaining about exactly. These folks take no pride
in the quality of their product. They don't care about anything except
how much money they can make from it. A small but discriminating
audience for a good quality show is nothing they give a damn about.
Much better to produce a crappy show that doesn't require thought which
will garner a larger audience because stupid casual viewers will go for
the tacky (pretty bodies, some explosions, a few car chases), and also
allow them to cut back on production values and hire inexperienced,
untrained artists since no one will notice anyway.
Or better yet, go with reality shows which are so cheap to produce that
even if they don't attract much of an audience, you still make a
profit. Well, reality TV got a few years before even the stupidest
audiences began to complain, and now they have to go back to scripted
stuff...you know, dramas by real writers. Only they still want to pay
the same amount it cost to produce a reality show, and appeal to the
same purient idiocy as before. Marti Noxon CAN write. I blame her for
selling out, but the entire crapfest cannot be laid at her door. I
doubt she did the casting, for example.
I doubt this is even good business. I suspect it's a quick profit at
the expense of long term gains. Certainly TV viewship keeps dropping,
although the suits vigorously deny that this might be related to the
quality of what's on. It's the Internet, I tells ya.
> if you want clever, well written dialog watch "House MD" on the
> uber evil Fox
House is decently written as far as the dialogue goes, but it's pretty
formulaic and relies heavily on the talent of the lead...not that
Laurie can't carry a show without even breaking into a sweat. He can
and does.
>
> what you are doing now is... wallowing
> stop it and move on
Nah. I'm enjoying a good wallow. And self-destructive stupidity
always annoys me, especially the corporate variety for some reason.
Probably because it's so arrogant.
Most of the other shows mentioned here, you can keep 'em. They are the
best of the bunch, I agree, but it's a crappy bunch and has led to me
cancelling my cable and spending the money saved on DVDs and books. I
still come from the generation who hoped for great things from TV and
sometimes the disappointment is just overwhelming.
himiko
CSIS Agent (formerly steven blue)
"HeKS" <he...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fofId.46467$K03.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
No I wrote that 24 is among the many good shows out there. As for 24 I have
never enjoyed the show up until this season. 24, Lost, Alias are all way up
there. So far THIS season I've been impressed with 24 the most. Overall I
have enjoyed Alias & Buffy the most. But this year alone hands down to 24.
With Alias and Lost close by. At least so far. It is still very early on in
the season.
poolnuz
<him...@animail.net> wrote in message
news:1106354225....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> poolnuz wrote:
> > himko, baby, I grow weary of pointing this out, but you are pissed at
> the
> > wrong people
> > Angel was canceled because not enough people watched it
>
> "Not enough" being defined by the networks, by suits and bean counters.
> That's what I'm complaining about exactly.
well this is America, this is American TV, and that is the way TV works
you have prescribed your own cure
it is a business ONLY, and no they don't care about quality at all,
check out the early days of live broadcast dramma
they killed that as fast as they could, and moved on to game shows
> These folks take no pride
> in the quality of their product. They don't care about anything except
> how much money they can make from it. A small but discriminating
> audience for a good quality show is nothing they give a damn about.
OK, so if you know this, why do you<and others> keep beating your heads
against a brick wall that isn't ever going to break
don't bloddy foreheads bother you?
<the image of tilting at windmills comes up here>
you might try to get a satellite set up that will let you access the BBC
directly
or go for the effectively time delay PBS
> Much better to produce a crappy show that doesn't require thought which
> will garner a larger audience because stupid casual viewers will go for
> the tacky (pretty bodies, some explosions, a few car chases), and also
> allow them to cut back on production values and hire inexperienced,
> untrained artists since no one will notice anyway.
>
> Or better yet, go with reality shows which are so cheap to produce that
> even if they don't attract much of an audience, you still make a
> profit. Well, reality TV got a few years before even the stupidest
> audiences began to complain, and now they have to go back to scripted
> stuff...you know, dramas by real writers. Only they still want to pay
> the same amount it cost to produce a reality show, and appeal to the
> same purient idiocy as before. Marti Noxon CAN write. I blame her for
> selling out, but the entire crapfest cannot be laid at her door. I
> doubt she did the casting, for example.
>
> I doubt this is even good business. I suspect it's a quick profit at
> the expense of long term gains. Certainly TV viewship keeps dropping,
> although the suits vigorously deny that this might be related to the
> quality of what's on. It's the Internet, I tells ya.
>
> > if you want clever, well written dialog watch "House MD" on the
> > uber evil Fox
>
> House is decently written as far as the dialogue goes, but it's pretty
> formulaic and relies heavily on the talent of the lead...not that
> Laurie can't carry a show without even breaking into a sweat. He can
> and does.
yes and YES
I too am concerned about the formulaic nature, but then,
I don't watch it for the "story"
and IMHO, a formulaic House is far better than, well...., any of the above
theNews
BTR1701
"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> poolnuz wrote:
> > himko, baby, I grow weary of pointing this out, but you are pissed at the
> > wrong people Angel was canceled because not enough people watched it
>
> "Not enough" being defined by the networks, by suits and bean counters.
> That's what I'm complaining about exactly.
Yep. TV is a business. They don't put shows on out of the goodness of
the hearts.
> These folks take no pride in the quality of their product.
> They don't care about anything except how much money they
> can make from it.
Again, business. That's really the only goal from the network's
standpoint.
The individual actors and directors and producers may have artistic
pride but FOX or the WB or NBC just don't care. They are in it to make
money for the shareholders.
Just like people who grow apples don't care what they look like so long
as they sell at market.
> A small but discriminating audience for a good quality
> show is nothing they give a damn about.
Because a small audience doesn't make them money. You seem to think
these companies should be motivated to please you at the expense of
their bottom line.
You don't expect the local grocery store to put your happiness ahead of
being profitable. Why would you expect a network to do so?
> > what you are doing now is... wallowing
> > stop it and move on
>
> Nah. I'm enjoying a good wallow. And self-destructive stupidity
> always annoys me, especially the corporate variety for some reason.
You have yet to show that these choices by FOX are either stupid or
self-destructive.
You have only your suppositions and guesses.
> Probably because it's so arrogant.
It's their network. How is it arrogant? Just because they don't use
their property the way you want them to in order to make you happy,
doesn't make them arrogant.
It kinda makes you selfish.
him...@animail.net
put a railroad spike through my own brain so that I will be stupid
enough to appreciate what the networks put out instead of daring to
imagine that things could be different...or even mentioning the
possibility of funding public television adequately or the direct to
DVD option, both of which work in other countries, but not in the US
where corporatism and greed are holy virtues. What's good for the
suits is good for the country and for me, and if I see it otherwise,
well, I'm just selfish and probably unpatriotic. Certainly Anya would
say so, and of course, Hamilton wouldn't care. (I think there's a
reason Joss killed off Anya as well as Hamilton.)
I'm off to be lobotomized now so that I can be happy too and know that
I live in the best of all possible worlds.
himiko
nfway
him...@animail.net says...
but, I learned long ago (from working for the idiots at the WB) that the
WB has a long an infamous history of snatching defeat from the jaws of
victory, of thowing out the baby with the bathwater, of being offered a
choice of filet mignon, prime rib or steak-ums, and choosing the steak-
ums. Probably the best example of this is that the WB fired Ronald Regan
because their audience statistics "proved" that he was incapable of
drawng sufficient viewer recognition and support to become a major
national personality..
The WB's decision to to cancel Ats is one more example of their quality
decision-making skills. The WB can always be counted on to sell off
their best assets for peanuts. There will never be a deal too good for
the WB to spoil.
nfway
him...@animail.net says...
> You and poolnuz have convinced me. I have seen the light. I will now
> put a railroad spike
how did you find out about the WB's super-triple secret senior managment
training process?
BTR1701
"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> You and poolnuz have convinced me. I have seen the light. I will now
> put a railroad spike through my own brain so that I will be stupid
> enough to appreciate what the networks put out instead of daring to
> imagine that things could be different.
Your misplaced arcasm aside, no one expects you to like what the network
offers just because they offer it.
It's your naivete that there's anything more than maximizing profits
involved in their decision-making that seems rather odd. Commercial
television is just that: commercial. Why you would expect otherwise is
puzzling.
You can dare to imagine anything you like. You can imagine that the sun
will rise in the east tomorrow but that doesn't mean my living room is
suddenly going to start getting morning light.
> ..or even mentioning the
> possibility of funding public television adequately or the direct to
> DVD option, both of which work in other countries, but not in the US
> where corporatism and greed are holy virtues.
So now it's greed because a company uses its property to do something
other than what would make you happy?
Wow.
Ken from Chicago
"Alicat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:kt65v01cgrn3u2og7...@4ax.com...
> principles when it comes to entertainment. Since she hasn't moved to
> Italy yet (which I remember was her destination since the Bush
> victory) she hasn't had a chance to become disillusioned. Once she
> catches sight of their version of reality shows (and they have lots of
> them, of all kinds, in Europe - in fact, they *invented* the genre),
> plus the inevitable endless homegrown and American-import soaps,
> perhaps she'll be a little less naive.
>
> adios,
> alicat
It's called "show business" for a reason. The show can distract people from
the business and the business can distract people from the show.
-- Ken from Chicago
nimue
himko, keep your lovely self intact, please. Your musings are a light of,
wait, an effulgent gleam of intellectual radiance in the muck and mire that
is this world.
BTR1701
<cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> him...@animail.net wrote:
> > You and poolnuz have convinced me. I have seen the light. I will now
> > put a railroad spike through my own brain so that I will be stupid
> > enough to appreciate what the networks put out instead of daring to
> > imagine that things could be different...or even mentioning the
> > possibility of funding public television adequately or the direct to
> > DVD option, both of which work in other countries, but not in the US
> > where corporatism and greed are holy virtues. What's good for the
> > suits is good for the country and for me, and if I see it otherwise,
> > well, I'm just selfish and probably unpatriotic. Certainly Anya would
> > say so, and of course, Hamilton wouldn't care. (I think there's a
> > reason Joss killed off Anya as well as Hamilton.)
> >
> > I'm off to be lobotomized now so that I can be happy too and know that
> > I live in the best of all possible worlds.
>
> himko, keep your lovely self intact, please. Your musings are a light
> of, wait, an effulgent gleam of intellectual radiance in the muck and mire
> that is this world.
I'm not sure what is particularly intellectual about bemoaning the fact
that a business is interested in making money, then calling it "greed"
as if such an attitude is something to be avoided.
Ken from Chicago
"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-FAAFFB...@news.east.earthlink.net...
It's Romantic in the classical literary sense of visionary, imaginative but
impractical.
-- Ken from Chicago
him...@animail.net
nimue wrote:
>
> himko, keep your lovely self intact, please. Your musings are a
light of,
> wait, an effulgent gleam of intellectual radiance in the muck and
mire that
> is this world.
> >
effulgent! Now I really am happy!
himiko
nfway
says...
> principles when it comes to entertainment. Since she hasn't moved to
> Italy yet (which I remember was her destination since the Bush
> victory) she hasn't had a chance to become disillusioned. Once she
> catches sight of their version of reality shows (and they have lots of
> them, of all kinds, in Europe - in fact, they *invented* the genre),
> plus the inevitable endless homegrown and American-import soaps,
> perhaps she'll be a little less naive.
>
> adios,
> alicat
>
Aussie actors in it (just remembered another otherwise useless trivia
morsel); they didn't say the show had to end, they just refused to let
the non-aussie cast in to continue filming.
nfway
BTR...@ix.netcom.com says...
lost Ats because They wanted to make additional profits more than they
wanted us to get what "we" wanted. As long as "we" were getting what
"we" wanted (ie. Ats) "we" didn't mind that they were making money, so
it wasn't "greed" then, it was just "profit".
HeKS
"nfway" <m...@here.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5cec226...@news.giganews.com...
Could I possibly have been the only one to catch the fact that the sun DOES
rise in the east?
HeKS
David Samuel Barr
>
> but, I learned long ago (from working for the idiots at the WB) that
> the WB has a long an infamous history of snatching defeat from the
> jaws of victory, of thowing out the baby with the bathwater, of being
> offered a choice of filet mignon, prime rib or steak-ums, and choosing
> incapable of drawng sufficient viewer recognition and support to
> become a major national personality..
Neat trick, since The WB didn't exist until 1995.
him...@animail.net
Stewart Vernon wrote:
>
> Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> make profit except at someone else's expense?
>
By selling a product that someone actually wants so that they feel they
got their money's worth. This is in contrast to limiting what's
available so people have to settle for what they can get. Or
cancelling perfectly good products that are making a decent profit in
favor of dreck that you think will make even more.
And when you do this badly, as the networks mostly do, you not only
look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy your
own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is a good
career move for individuals, but it's destroying television as a
medium.
I don't blame the networks for producing crap. I blame them for
producing nothing but crap when they have an option to do otherwise.
The people who drove ME out of TV clearly take no pride in anything
other than the bottom line...which is normal for corporate zombies, but
incomprehensible to anyone who actually takes pride in their work.
Angel and Hamilton did a nice metaphoric riff on this with their "we
won't care" exchange in the AtS finale.
himiko
BTR1701
<m...@here.com> wrote:
Right, which was why I characterized it as selfish, not intellectual.
BTR1701
"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> Stewart Vernon wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> > make profit except at someone else's expense?
> >
> By selling a product that someone actually wants so that they feel they
> got their money's worth. This is in contrast to limiting what's
> available so people have to settle for what they can get. Or
> cancelling perfectly good products that are making a decent profit in
> favor of dreck that you think will make even more.
A corporation has a legal and fiduciary duty to the shareholders to
maximize profits. By leaving a show on the air solely because you like
it when they could show something that would make them more money, they
violate that duty.
And "dreck" is a subjective label which is in the eye of the beholder.
If the "dreck" is making FOX or the WB more money, then by definition
more people are watching it than the show they canceled. Therefore, it's
not "dreck" to those viewers. Just to you. Your aesthetic judgments are
not the objective benchmark by which all television is judged.
> And when you do this badly, as the networks mostly do, you not only
> look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy your
> own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is a good
> career move for individuals, but it's destroying television as a
> medium.
Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
BTR1701
<he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > austrailia killed Lost World because there were too many regular non-
> > Aussie actors in it (just remembered another otherwise useless trivia
> > morsel); they didn't say the show had to end, they just refused to let
> > the non-aussie cast in to continue filming.
>
> Could I possibly have been the only one to catch the fact that the sun
> DOES rise in the east?
I caught that as soon as I hit "send". I was hoping no one would notice.
I of course meant to say "set in the east".
Ken from Chicago
"Lowest common denominator".
We use it often to refer to entertainment that appeal to the "lowest",
"crudest", often the most "prurient" interests. We often argue that
entertainment can be better be "above" that.
It's also implied that such an appeal also generates the most audience by
being "cheap". It's like a kick in the groin for comedy. It's a "cheap"
laugh. As much as we like to criticize TPTB for underestimating the public,
there's also a tendency for many of us to do so also. Then again if it's
what the most people want for entertainment . . . then is it UNDERestimating
them or simply MISunderstanding them, if only partially?
-- Ken from Chicago
Deborah Martin
Reality shows ?
Deborah
Remove "&mizar" to respond
poolnuz
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HcKdnZwMsIt...@comcast.com...
in the words of H. L. Menkin
<who is rememberd, among other things, for his newspaper coverage of the
'Scopes Monkey Trial'>
"So far, no one has ever gone broke by overestimating the poor taste of the
American public"
theNews
>
>
nimue
Check out my sig. I don't know if television is being destroyed (that's
alarmist), but I think reality shows suck -- except for the Surreal Life.
God help me, I like that.
>
> Deborah
>
> Remove "&mizar" to respond
--
nfway
com...@indenter.com says...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:07:03 -0500, nfway <m...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <BTR1702-FAAFFB...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> >BTR...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >>
> >> that a business is interested in making money, then calling it "greed"
> >> as if such an attitude is something to be avoided.
> >>
> >its "greed" if they make a profit at our expense. "we" (the royal "we")
> >lost Ats because They wanted to make additional profits more than they
> >wanted us to get what "we" wanted. As long as "we" were getting what
> >"we" wanted (ie. Ats) "we" didn't mind that they were making money, so
> >it wasn't "greed" then, it was just "profit".
>
> make profit except at someone else's expense?
sometimes you pay for something, and you get what you expected to
receive in return for your payment. sometimes you pay for something, and
you get less than you expected. the later is and example of making a
profit "at your expense".
>
> I can't sell something if no one buys it... By defination of
> buy/sell... someone has to get money from someone else in order to
> profit... which means the other person lost money, though
> presumably got something of perceived value in return.
>
> Last I checked, aside from my Satellite bill, I'm not directly
> paying for the programming like Angel or anything else... so I'm
> not sure the money came out of my pockets.
then you're not understanding your bill. you pay the cable company, who
pays the tv networks to redistribute their signals into your house, thus
you pay for your tv shows.
>
> There is such a thing as greed... but I'm not sure that is what is
> being talked about here.
>
> To me, greed is when... you buy something for $1, and sell it for
> $5 and everyone is happy... and you and all your company's
> employees get rich... so you double the price to $10 because you
> are the only one who can sell it... and you keep raising the price
> just because you can... that starts to be greed...
That's "supply and demand" which is "normal".
when you are
> making more money than you could ever spend and you want to make
> more money not to spend.
>
> -Stewart
>
nfway
him...@animail.net says...
something of no value for as much as you can get, without complaints
from the customer.
nfway
BTR...@ix.netcom.com says...
> In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>
> > Stewart Vernon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> > > make profit except at someone else's expense?
> > >
> > By selling a product that someone actually wants so that they feel they
> > got their money's worth. This is in contrast to limiting what's
> > available so people have to settle for what they can get. Or
> > cancelling perfectly good products that are making a decent profit in
> > favor of dreck that you think will make even more.
>
> A corporation has a legal and fiduciary duty to the shareholders to
> maximize profits. By leaving a show on the air solely because you like
> it when they could show something that would make them more money, they
> violate that duty.
that's a contractual obligation, and is by definition amoral. when
discussing concepts like "greed" we're automatically implying morality.
himiko is saying its her opinion that the network, ie. the WB,
demonstrated poor morals in cancelling Ats and replacing it with "less".
You're saying the network as a corporation has fulfilled its contractual
obligations by replacing Ats with something potentially more profitable
for them. You're both right, and your opinions are not mutually
exclusive.
>
> And "dreck" is a subjective label which is in the eye of the beholder.
> If the "dreck" is making FOX or the WB more money, then by definition
> more people are watching it than the show they canceled. Therefore, it's
> not "dreck" to those viewers. Just to you. Your aesthetic judgments are
> not the objective benchmark by which all television is judged.
>
> > And when you do this badly, as the networks mostly do, you not only
> > look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy your
> > own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is a good
> > career move for individuals, but it's destroying television as a
> > medium.
>
> Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
>
kind of hard to destroy a medium that has such initially low standards.
nfway
kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
apparenlty are not underestimating the public. If they were, the shows
that replaced Ats would have lower ratings and earn the network less
money. It seems that we are a minority, and the majority of TV viewers
are willing to settle for shows which some of us find to be drecht.
nfway
block...@nospam.net says...
(not just of the American public): Jerry Springer even got elected to
office, twice!
nfway
dak_mar@alcor&mizar.concordia.ca says...
tamer versions of MTV's "Jackass". Get people to stop watching, and the
money for the drecht should dry up.
nfway
cup_o...@yahoo.com says...
> Deborah Martin wrote:
> > "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:BTR1702-38B29B...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >> In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Stewart Vernon wrote:
> >>> And when you do this badly, as the networks mostly do, you not only
> >>> look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy
> >>> your own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is
> >>> a good career move for individuals, but it's destroying television
> >>> as a medium.
> >>
> >> Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
> >
> > Reality shows ?
>
> Check out my sig. I don't know if television is being destroyed (that's
> alarmist), but I think reality shows suck -- except for the Surreal Life.
> God help me, I like that.
> >
> > Deborah
> >
> > Remove "&mizar" to respond
>
>
are cheap), and the packaging cost more to make than the Twinkies
themselves. Its one of my vices, but I haven't had one for 20+ years
because I gain weight eating them (and the sugar rush makes me sick).
Reality shows are the Twinkies of TV; I don't watch them on principle,
not because I don't like them (I don't) but because I want to feel
better about myself.
nfway
he...@hotmail.com says...
up they blocked my view of the rising sun...
nfway
older than the tv network entity, and it sets the manegerial culture. I
worked for the publishing divisions, and WB set our corporate culture
also, even though we had more to do with Superman comics than with
movies.
BTR1701
<m...@here.com> wrote:
> In article <BTR1702-38B29B...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> BTR...@ix.netcom.com says...
> > In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Stewart Vernon wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> > > > make profit except at someone else's expense?
> > > >
> > > By selling a product that someone actually wants so that they feel
> > > they
> > > got their money's worth. This is in contrast to limiting what's
> > > available so people have to settle for what they can get. Or
> > > cancelling perfectly good products that are making a decent profit in
> > > favor of dreck that you think will make even more.
> >
> > A corporation has a legal and fiduciary duty to the shareholders to
> > maximize profits. By leaving a show on the air solely because you like
> > it when they could show something that would make them more money, they
> > violate that duty.
>
> that's a contractual obligation, and is by definition amoral. when
> discussing concepts like "greed" we're automatically implying morality.
> himiko is saying its her opinion that the network, ie. the WB,
> demonstrated poor morals in cancelling Ats and replacing it with "less".
"Less" being defined as her own personal aesthetics. himiko is making a
personal judgment and acting as if it's objective fact.
And there's nothing immoral about canceling one show over another.
There's no moral obligation to keep a show on the air merely because a
group of people like it. Conversely, there's nothing immoral or
unethical about canceling a show because some people in the audience
don't want it canceled.
> You're saying the network as a corporation has fulfilled its contractual
> obligations by replacing Ats with something potentially more profitable
> for them. You're both right, and your opinions are not mutually
> exclusive.
> > And "dreck" is a subjective label which is in the eye of the beholder.
> > If the "dreck" is making FOX or the WB more money, then by definition
> > more people are watching it than the show they canceled. Therefore,
> > it's not "dreck" to those viewers. Just to you. Your aesthetic judgments are
> > not the objective benchmark by which all television is judged.
> >
> > > And when you do this badly, as the networks mostly do, you not only
> > > look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy
> > > your own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is a good
> > > career move for individuals, but it's destroying television as a
> > > medium.
> >
> > Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
> >
>
> kind of hard to destroy a medium that has such initially low standards.
Frankly, I think there's some really good stuff coming out on TV these
days. "The Sopranos", "The Shield", "Lost", "Battlestar Galactica",
"Stargate SG-1", etc. Seems like TV as a medium is doing just fine.
BTR1701
<dak_mar@alcor&mizar.concordia.ca> wrote:
Okay, you've named a genre category.
Now shown me how television as a medium is being destroyed.
BTR1701
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Okay, so even if true, how does that equate to television as a medium
being destroyed?
All this bitching about reality shows doesn't seem to address that point.
What I'm getting here is the general consensus that reality shows are
destroying television *the way you guys personally want it to be*.
But, of course, the world doesn't revolve around you (or me).
BTR1701
<m...@here.com> wrote:
> a big part of the problem we're all refering to is that the networks
> apparenlty are not underestimating the public. If they were, the shows
> that replaced Ats would have lower ratings and earn the network less
> money. It seems that we are a minority, and the majority of TV viewers
> are willing to settle for shows which some of us find to be drecht.
>
And some people found "Buffy" and ANGEL to be dreck also.
You'll never please everyone.
Ken from Chicago
So WHO DECIDES what is "poor" and/or "rich" taste is?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Ah, WHO DECIDES that it is "drecht" or even "dreck" or even "settling"?
See how almost subliminally we do it?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
B, psst, I'm agreeing with you that taste is subjective and thus businesses,
*businesses* in the business of catering to said tastes--and not just those
of a select "enlightened" few--no matter how much better if everyone agreed
with every single iota of what I say.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Television as a medium IS being destroyed--and remade. With more
channels, more choice, with DVRs, and the increasing prevalence of broadband
high speed internet, television is being destroyed. It was destroyed when it
went from 2 networks to 3, from VHF to adding UHF, from broadcast to adding
cable, from cable to addiing satellite, from analog to digital. TV has been
destroyed for a very long time--and remade. WE are destroying television and
WE are remaking it. No clearer cut example of that than "Blood Prey",
fanfiction and fanfilms. Don't like STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE? Download STAR
TREK: HIDDEN FRONTIER? Don't like whatever is airing 7pm central, Tuesdays
on UPN or simply miss BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, download the "Eighth Season"
of BTVS from the The Watchers, or "Red vs Blue" or "Strangerhood" or a
countless number of stories, videos or audio stories. WE are many. WE are
mighty. WE are a force to be reckoned with.
P.P.S. "The power is yours."--CAPTAIN PLANET & THE PLANETEERS.
P.P.P.S. We also often disagree, but that's what cliques do and what niches
are for.
him...@animail.net
BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > We use it often to refer to entertainment that appeal to the
"lowest",
> > "crudest", often the most "prurient" interests. We often argue that
> > entertainment can be better be "above" that.
>
> Okay, so even if true, how does that equate to television as a medium
> being destroyed?
>
> All this bitching about reality shows doesn't seem to address that
point.
>
> What I'm getting here is the general consensus that reality shows are
> destroying television *the way you guys personally want it to be*.
Not just us. Them too. Network bigwigs regularly hold meetings to
discuss the steadily dropping number of people, especially young
people, who watch TV at all. These get reported in the press along
with statistics and other evidence, compiled by their own marketing
divisions, to demonstrate that there actually is a problem. Then, of
course, they discuss the probable causes and solutions. Usually such
discussion focus on the Internet and genres. I have never yet read of
anyone in this group mentioning that declining quality might be a
problem, but IMO, it's their main problem.
Yes, they have a responsibility to their shareholders too, but that
responsibility, like the one they have to company, isn't just for a
quick profit. It's for a sustained profit, which they are not
achieving so they're failing their shareholders too. This is not only
bad entertainment, it's bad business.
What they need to be producing is a mix of faddish dreck (very well
defined by BTR1701 whose attribution I accidentally snipped...sorry)
with higher quality stuff. They can exist simultaneously and for most
of history they have. Shakespeare, for example, vied for audiences
with bear baiters (the Elizabethan version of reality shows). This
occured naturally, because those who backed the bear baiters (most
often the bear baiters themselves or sometimes inn-keepers), and those
who backed the theaters (nobles) were entirely different groups with
entirely different aims. The bear baiters were out for a quick buck,
while the nobility was in it for status and prestige.
In the early days of Hollywood and television, this balance was
maintained by two factors: a number of different studios specializing
in different kinds of entertainment, and personal pride. Show
business, although a business, was seen as a bit different from other
businesses and riskier too because it involved "art." Those who went
into it did so not only to make money, but because they wanted to make
money that way. Many of them took personal pride their products,
especially if their names were on them. Even Sam Goldwyn, hardly known
for his aestheticism, sometimes showed a shy pride when his studio
produced a film that garnered more critical acclaim than cash.
Corporatism, however, put an end to that (it did this in many
businesses, but I'll stick to television) in two ways. First, by
taking over more and more aspects of the market until now 3
corporations essentially dictate what we see, and employing MBAs
trained in business for all occasions who don't much care (and
frequently don't even know) what the product they're manufacturing is,
corporatization means that the bear baiter mentality rules supreme.
Artists, who are not really a part of the corporate world, have to con
these guys into supplying them with the money, air time, scheduling,
and other stuff they need to do their jobs. This frequently involves
and enormous amount of compromise and often outright selling out. It
also means that many serious artists who can afford to simply avoid the
whole medium.
And second, corporatism affords a climate in which no one is ever
personally responsible for anything. No one's name is actually on
anything; the original Warner Brothers are all dead and their name
isn't even used any more, having been reduced to initials. We still
don't really know who cancelled AtS, or even it was a single person.
Jordan Levin's name gets kicked around a lot, but when he got sacked,
AtS did not return...so who knows how much he really had to do with it.
And yes, eventually a new order will emerge from all this, but by then,
I and probably TV will be old and senile. I think TV may already be
senile. I don't think I am yet. If I were, I'd be enjoying what they
produce.
himiko
him...@animail.net
nfway wrote:
> >
> Warner Bros started way before 1995. The parent corporate entity is
much
> older than the tv network entity, and it sets the manegerial culture.
I
> worked for the publishing divisions, and WB set our corporate culture
> also, even though we had more to do with Superman comics than with
> movies.
Warner Brothers was founded in 1923 by four brothers named, not
surprisingly, Warner.
himiko
him...@animail.net
nimue wrote:
> Check out my sig. I don't know if television is being destroyed
(that's
> alarmist), but I think reality shows suck -- except for the Surreal
Life.
> God help me, I like that.
Nimue! I am shocked! ;)
himiko
BTR1701
"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > What I'm getting here is the general consensus that reality
> > shows are destroying television *the way you guys personally
> > want it to be*.
>
> Not just us. Them too. Network bigwigs regularly hold meetings to
> discuss the steadily dropping number of people, especially young
> people, who watch TV at all.
You're not being accurate again. The number of people watching TV isn't
dropping. The number of people watching network TV is dropping.
People are migrating to other outlets: HBO (Sopranos, 6 Feet Under,
Unscripted), FX (The Shield, Nip/Tuck), SciFi (Battlestar Galactica,
Stargate), etc.
> What they need to be producing is a mix of faddish dreck (very well
> defined by BTR1701 whose attribution I accidentally snipped...sorry)
> with higher quality stuff. They can exist simultaneously and for most
> of history they have. Shakespeare, for example, vied for audiences
> with bear baiters (the Elizabethan version of reality shows).
Shakespeare was considered the lightweight fare of the day.
Entertainment for the masses. It's only now that we revere his stuff as
high art. It certainly wasn't at the time.
> And second, corporatism affords a climate in which no one is ever
> personally responsible for anything. No one's name is actually on
> anything; the original Warner Brothers are all dead and their name
> isn't even used any more, having been reduced to initials. We still
> don't really know who cancelled AtS, or even it was a single person.
> Jordan Levin's name gets kicked around a lot, but when he got sacked,
> AtS did not return...so who knows how much he really had to do with it.
It didn't return because the sets have been struck and all the cast and
crew have moved on to other things. Mutant Enemy itself has closed its
doors as a going concern. Even if Levin was solely responsible and his
departure paved the way for a return, the show still couldn't return
because it's a practical impossibility at this point.
BTR1701
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> WE are destroying television
> and WE are remaking it. No clearer cut example
> of that than "Blood Prey",
Which has achieved its 80th page this past weekend, by the way.
[Don't bother looking for an update on the download site, though. That
one's holding at about page 63 and will be for some time. I've reached a
point where I can't keep posting updates because I have to keep going
back and changing things. The longer the story gets, the harder it is to
tell it in a serialized fashion. Now I know why Stephen King gave up on
"The Plant." Not that I forgive him, mind you, but I understand.]
Also, as time goes on, I've decided that not only am I telling *a* Faith
story, it's quite possible that I'm telling *the* Faith story.
I've already gone back and detailed her origin. A beginning needs an
ending to balance out the karmic scales, no?
BTR1701
inboxof-alica...@yahoo.com wrote:
> And if you add in "Deadwood" and "Carnivale", then its clear that TV
> is doing more that just fine (others would add other shows, I'm sure)
> - we are seeing a level of TV drama that is significantly better than
> most of what is being offered in the movie theaters nowadays.
Completely agree. The "Battlestar" mini-series was easily as good as
just about any movie I've seen in the last year.
BTR1701
com...@indenter.com wrote:
> Good example... When I was a young boy, I once ate an entire box
> of Twinkies by myself... we (my family) were staying in a hotel on
> a trip that night... they kept telling me it wasn't a good idea to
> eat the whole box like that...
>
> I ended up awake half the night in the bathroom sick as you might
> imagine... and don't think I have eaten a Twinkie since.
With me it was peanut butter. Can't even look at the stuff now without
wanting to hurl.
David Brewer
Why is TV an "art form"? Are other media art forms? Newspapers?
Junk mail? Town Criers?
I liked Angel-the-series, but I've got to admit that the idea that
the cancellation of Buffy's grumpy vampire spin-off is causing any
soul searching about the relation of art to commerce seems a bit
comic.
If the show had not been a spin-off it never would even have been
conceived let alone successfully pitched to a network (David
Boreanaz! Vampire! Doesn't like lawyers! Grumpy! etc). The show
exists only because of the desire to further exploit the Buffy
phenomenon, to pad the audience out to cover two shows. It seems
kind of miraculous that it even lasted a whole year beyond BtVS.
--
David Brewer
David Brewer
> Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> make profit except at someone else's expense?
>
> I can't sell something if no one buys it... By defination of
> buy/sell... someone has to get money from someone else in order to
> profit... which means the other person lost money, though
> presumably got something of perceived value in return.
They received something that they value more than the money and
you received money that you value more than the something. Through
exchange, the total value of stuff just increased by a tiny amount.
> Last I checked, aside from my Satellite bill, I'm not directly
> paying for the programming like Angel or anything else... so I'm
> not sure the money came out of my pockets.
Your attention is sold by the network to advertisers. That's what
networks are in the business of selling, you. The advertisers get
money from the people they represent, who factor the expences of
marketing into the prices of goods and services.
I wonder what proportion of the cost of a can of Coke to the
consumer is spent on convincing the consumer to buy the nasty
stuff in the first place? How much to buy into the spurious values
that the brand image has been linked to?
--
David Brewer
James Craine
BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <1106509369.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>
>
>>BTR1701 wrote:
>
>
>>>What I'm getting here is the general consensus that reality
>>>shows are destroying television *the way you guys personally
>>>want it to be*.
>>
>>Not just us. Them too. Network bigwigs regularly hold meetings to
>>discuss the steadily dropping number of people, especially young
>>people, who watch TV at all.
>
>
> You're not being accurate again. The number of people watching TV isn't
> dropping. The number of people watching network TV is dropping.
>
> People are migrating to other outlets: HBO (Sopranos, 6 Feet Under,
> Unscripted), FX (The Shield, Nip/Tuck), SciFi (Battlestar Galactica,
> Stargate), etc.
>
Let us remember also that the WB network IS one of those
other outlets, and if it werent for that we would have had
at most 12 episodes of Buffy.
Back towards the end of Buffy's first season the WSJ had an
article about how it would almost certainly be renewed even
though it had low ratings. They were so low that it would
have almost certainly been cancelled if it had been on one
of the big 3 networks. The increased nuber of outlets
fragments the audience. Some of it races to the bottom
(Who's Your Daddy) and some of it to the top (the stuff we
watch). Without that fragmentation we would not have had
Buffy/Angel/Firefly at all.
him...@animail.net
BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <1106509369.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > > What I'm getting here is the general consensus that reality
> > > shows are destroying television *the way you guys personally
> > > want it to be*.
> >
> > Not just us. Them too. Network bigwigs regularly hold meetings to
> > discuss the steadily dropping number of people, especially young
> > people, who watch TV at all.
>
> You're not being accurate again. The number of people watching TV
isn't
> dropping. The number of people watching network TV is dropping.
>
> People are migrating to other outlets: HBO (Sopranos, 6 Feet Under,
> Unscripted), FX (The Shield, Nip/Tuck), SciFi (Battlestar Galactica,
> Stargate), etc.
Yes they are, and the networks are hurt the most. But the overall
number of people who watch TV is decreasing and aging too.
>
> > What they need to be producing is a mix of faddish dreck (very well
> > defined by BTR1701 whose attribution I accidentally
snipped...sorry)
> > with higher quality stuff. They can exist simultaneously and for
most
> > of history they have. Shakespeare, for example, vied for audiences
> > with bear baiters (the Elizabethan version of reality shows).
>
> Shakespeare was considered the lightweight fare of the day.
> Entertainment for the masses. It's only now that we revere his stuff
as
> high art. It certainly wasn't at the time.
That's my point. He co-existed with the bear baiters and other dreck
type entertainment. He wasn't driven out by them as ME pretty much
was.
>
> > And second, corporatism affords a climate in which no one is ever
> > personally responsible for anything. No one's name is actually on
> > anything; the original Warner Brothers are all dead and their name
> > isn't even used any more, having been reduced to initials. We
still
> > don't really know who cancelled AtS, or even it was a single
person.
> > Jordan Levin's name gets kicked around a lot, but when he got
sacked,
> > AtS did not return...so who knows how much he really had to do with
it.
>
> It didn't return because the sets have been struck and all the cast
and
> crew have moved on to other things. Mutant Enemy itself has closed
its
> doors as a going concern. Even if Levin was solely responsible and
his
> departure paved the way for a return, the show still couldn't return
> because it's a practical impossibility at this point.
That came out six months later, and we have no way of knowing how true
it is. Certainly no one attempted to correct the error while it still
could have been corrected. No one has yet corrected the error of
cancelling Firefly either, although the DVD sales and movie interest
has made it even more clear that this was one mondo stupid move.
I think many TV execs actually fear good shows. They think it will
raise expectations and tastes and result in audiences who get all
demandy.
himiko
BTR1701
Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Stewart Vernon wrote:
>
> > Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> > make profit except at someone else's expense?
> >
> > I can't sell something if no one buys it... By defination of
> > buy/sell... someone has to get money from someone else in order to
> > profit... which means the other person lost money, though
> > presumably got something of perceived value in return.
>
> They received something that they value more than the money and
> you received money that you value more than the something. Through
> exchange, the total value of stuff just increased by a tiny amount.
>
> > Last I checked, aside from my Satellite bill, I'm not directly
> > paying for the programming like Angel or anything else... so I'm
> > not sure the money came out of my pockets.
>
> Your attention is sold by the network to advertisers. That's what
> networks are in the business of selling, you.
Well, then they've got a fundamental problem because they are selling
something they don't own in the first place.
peachy ashie passion
*makes a note*
how unfortunate
--
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of
scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."
~ Mary Ellen Kelly
AFPslave to Mistress Stacie
ashes...@verizon.net
poolnuz
> In article <tvQId.16926$8u5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> block...@nospam.net says...
> >
> > news:HcKdnZwMsIt...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:BTR1702-38B29B...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > > > In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >
> > > > > Stewart Vernon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> > > > > > make profit except at someone else's expense?
> > > > > >
> > they
> > > > > got their money's worth. This is in contrast to limiting what's
> > > > > available so people have to settle for what they can get. Or
> > > > > cancelling perfectly good products that are making a decent profit
in
> > > > > favor of dreck that you think will make even more.
> > > >
> > > > A corporation has a legal and fiduciary duty to the shareholders to
> > > > maximize profits. By leaving a show on the air solely because you
like
> > > > it when they could show something that would make them more money,
they
> > > > violate that duty.
> > > >
> > > > And "dreck" is a subjective label which is in the eye of the
beholder.
> > > > If the "dreck" is making FOX or the WB more money, then by
definition
> > > > more people are watching it than the show they canceled. Therefore,
it's
> > > > not "dreck" to those viewers. Just to you. Your aesthetic judgments
are
> > > > not the objective benchmark by which all television is judged.
> > > >
only
> > > > > look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy
> > your
> > > > > own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is a
good
> > > > > career move for individuals, but it's destroying television as a
> > > > > medium.
> > > >
> > > > Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
> > >
> > >
> > > We use it often to refer to entertainment that appeal to the "lowest",
> > > "crudest", often the most "prurient" interests. We often argue that
> > > entertainment can be better be "above" that.
> > >
by
> > > being "cheap". It's like a kick in the groin for comedy. It's a
"cheap"
> > > laugh. As much as we like to criticize TPTB for underestimating the
> > public,
> > > there's also a tendency for many of us to do so also. Then again if
it's
> > > what the most people want for entertainment . . . then is it
> > UNDERestimating
> > > them or simply MISunderstanding them, if only partially?
> > >
> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> >
> > <who is rememberd, among other things, for his newspaper coverage of the
> > 'Scopes Monkey Trial'>
> >
> > "So far, no one has ever gone broke by overestimating the poor taste of
the
> > American public"
> >
> > theNews
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> I don't think its possible to overestimate the poor taste of the public
> (not just of the American public): Jerry Springer even got elected to
> office, twice!
but in fairness to the people of Cincinnati(he was the mayor, a position of
basicly
no power in those days), he wasn't the REAL Jerry Springer yet.
theNews
>
poolnuz
> In article <HcKdnZwMsIt...@comcast.com>,
> kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
> >
> apparenlty are not underestimating the public. If they were, the shows
> that replaced Ats would have lower ratings and earn the network less
> money. It seems that we are a minority, and the majority of TV viewers
> are willing to settle for shows which some of us find to be drecht.
Bingo!
theNews
>
Ken from Chicago
It's that's blasted computer's fault! It makes it so easy to make changes.
Back in the old days, you put pen to paper and it was done.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Aside from pencils, liquid paper, editing, revisions, drafts, etc.
nfway
says...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:23:14 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.1c5db0a21...@news.giganews.com>, nfway
> ><m...@here.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BTR...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >> > In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Stewart Vernon wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ok... I'm confused at something here... how else does a company
> >> > > > make profit except at someone else's expense?
> >> > > >
> >> > > By selling a product that someone actually wants so that they feel
> >> > > they
> >> > > got their money's worth. This is in contrast to limiting what's
> >> > > available so people have to settle for what they can get. Or
> >> > > cancelling perfectly good products that are making a decent profit in
> >> > > favor of dreck that you think will make even more.
> >> >
> >> > A corporation has a legal and fiduciary duty to the shareholders to
> >> > maximize profits. By leaving a show on the air solely because you like
> >> > it when they could show something that would make them more money, they
> >> > violate that duty.
> >>
> >> discussing concepts like "greed" we're automatically implying morality.
> >> himiko is saying its her opinion that the network, ie. the WB,
> >> demonstrated poor morals in cancelling Ats and replacing it with "less".
> >
> >"Less" being defined as her own personal aesthetics. himiko is making a
> >personal judgment and acting as if it's objective fact.
> >
> >And there's nothing immoral about canceling one show over another.
> >There's no moral obligation to keep a show on the air merely because a
> >group of people like it. Conversely, there's nothing immoral or
> >unethical about canceling a show because some people in the audience
> >don't want it canceled.
> >
> >> You're saying the network as a corporation has fulfilled its contractual
> >> obligations by replacing Ats with something potentially more profitable
> >> for them. You're both right, and your opinions are not mutually
> >> exclusive.
> >
> >> > And "dreck" is a subjective label which is in the eye of the beholder.
> >> > If the "dreck" is making FOX or the WB more money, then by definition
> >> > more people are watching it than the show they canceled. Therefore,
> >> > it's not "dreck" to those viewers. Just to you. Your aesthetic judgments are
> >> > not the objective benchmark by which all television is judged.
> >> >
> >> > > And when you do this badly, as the networks mostly do, you not only
> >> > > look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy
> >> > > your own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is a good
> >> > > career move for individuals, but it's destroying television as a
> >> > > medium.
> >> >
> >> > Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >Frankly, I think there's some really good stuff coming out on TV these
> >days. "The Sopranos", "The Shield", "Lost", "Battlestar Galactica",
> >"Stargate SG-1", etc. Seems like TV as a medium is doing just fine.
>
> And if you add in "Deadwood" and "Carnivale", then its clear that TV
> is doing more that just fine (others would add other shows, I'm sure)
> - we are seeing a level of TV drama that is significantly better than
> most of what is being offered in the movie theaters nowadays.
>
> alicat
>
>
I don't think its especially fair to lump cable networks in with the
broadcast networks: cable has relatively guaranteed annual income base
and a different "season" (its shorter), and probably finds it easier to
fund experimental dramas. Broadcast network income is much more
dependent upon ratings, and can't take as many chances by funding
experimental drama shows.
I would group cable networks like HBO and SHO in with movie studios.
nfway
kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
Everything else is probably an opinion (although if it smells like
drecht, and tastes like drecht...., well if it smells like drecht I
don't need to taste it, so that's usually good enuf for me..)
nfway
> > In article <tvQId.16926$8u5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > block...@nospam.net says...
> > >
> > > news:HcKdnZwMsIt...@comcast.com...
> > > <who is rememberd, among other things, for his newspaper coverage of the
> > > 'Scopes Monkey Trial'>
> > >
> > > "So far, no one has ever gone broke by overestimating the poor taste of
> the
> > > American public"
> > >
> > > theNews
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I don't think its possible to overestimate the poor taste of the public
> > (not just of the American public): Jerry Springer even got elected to
> > office, twice!
> >
>
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
>
This year the Republicans do.
nfway
david...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> nfway wrote:
> > In article <ct0jbe$19l$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>,
> > dak_mar@alcor&mizar.concordia.ca says...
> >
> >>"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >>news:BTR1702-38B29B...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>>In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Stewart Vernon wrote:
> >>>>And when you do this badly, as the networks mostly do, you not only
> >>>>look greedy, but like an idiot. It's not good business to destroy your
> >>>>own industry in order to make a quick profit. It probably is a good
> >>>>career move for individuals, but it's destroying television as a
> >>>>medium.
> >>>
> >>>Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
> >>
> >>Reality shows ?
> >>
> >>Deborah
> >>
> >>Remove "&mizar" to respond
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > as an art form, its being diminished by reality shows which are just
> > tamer versions of MTV's "Jackass". Get people to stop watching, and the
> > money for the drecht should dry up.
>
> Why is TV an "art form"? Are other media art forms? Newspapers?
> Junk mail? Town Criers?
why not? Tabloid journalism is deffiniately an art. Town Criers also.
Anything created where the author(s) put something of their personality
into their product. TV commercials are definiately an art (I love
watching the foreign entries for the Cleo awards). I prefer to consider
everything someone creates "personally" to be an "art form" of some
sort.
>
> I liked Angel-the-series, but I've got to admit that the idea that
> the cancellation of Buffy's grumpy vampire spin-off is causing any
> soul searching about the relation of art to commerce seems a bit
> comic.
>
> If the show had not been a spin-off it never would even have been
> conceived let alone successfully pitched to a network (David
> Boreanaz! Vampire! Doesn't like lawyers! Grumpy! etc). The show
> exists only because of the desire to further exploit the Buffy
> phenomenon, to pad the audience out to cover two shows. It seems
> kind of miraculous that it even lasted a whole year beyond BtVS.
>
>
fiction is often a story about which the audience and writers mutually
agree to temporarily suspend the constrainsts of "reality" (assuming we
at least agree upon what is real anyway). stories about a vampire with a
soul who fathers a somewhat normal son, with another vampire, is
therefore at least as believable as a story about a bunch of non-vampire
humans fleeing extinction by some robots the humans originally created,
but who have since evolved into independent lifeforms, yet these humans
cannot distill water from salt-water in space.... who cares about the
details as long as the dramatic sub-plots are captivating?
nfway
him...@animail.net says...
wouldn't be able to sufficiently command an audience's attention...
shows how good they are at judging an actor's (or a show's) "Q".
nfway
James...@Hotmail.com says...
nude Buffy episode and it would still only draw a 6 or 7 share" (and I'm
glad they never did - I don't think I could take a nude Andrew on the
screen). Sometimes a 6 or a 7 is good enough. Market and media
fragmentation insure that the days of being able to draw a 30 share
(like Carson used to) are gone (just like Johnny - BiBi Johnny!)
nfway
BTR...@ix.netcom.com says...
BTR1701
<res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article <db08v05gbvaiho3g5...@4ax.com>,
> > com...@indenter.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Good example... When I was a young boy, I once ate an entire box
> >>of Twinkies by myself... we (my family) were staying in a hotel on
> >>a trip that night... they kept telling me it wasn't a good idea to
> >>eat the whole box like that...
> >>
> >>I ended up awake half the night in the bathroom sick as you might
> >>imagine... and don't think I have eaten a Twinkie since.
> >
> >
> > With me it was peanut butter. Can't even look at the stuff now without
> > wanting to hurl.
>
> *makes a note*
>
> how unfortunate
I used to love the stuff. Then my mom made the mistake of leaving me
alone with a brand new jar and I ate it until I nearly put myself into a
peanut butter coma. It was a bellyache of spectacular proportions.
BTR1701
<m...@here.com> wrote:
> In article <p8u7v0lllov4rmche...@4ax.com>, m...@privacy.net
> says...
> > On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:23:14 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <MPG.1c5db0a21...@news.giganews.com>, nfway
> > ><m...@here.com> wrote:
> > >> kind of hard to destroy a medium that has such initially low
> > >> standards.
> > >
> > >Frankly, I think there's some really good stuff coming out on TV these
> > >days. "The Sopranos", "The Shield", "Lost", "Battlestar Galactica",
> > >"Stargate SG-1", etc. Seems like TV as a medium is doing just fine.
> >
> > And if you add in "Deadwood" and "Carnivale", then its clear that TV
> > is doing more that just fine (others would add other shows, I'm sure)
> > - we are seeing a level of TV drama that is significantly better than
> > most of what is being offered in the movie theaters nowadays.
> I don't think its especially fair to lump cable networks in with the
> broadcast networks: cable has relatively guaranteed annual income base
> and a different "season" (its shorter), and probably finds it easier to
> fund experimental dramas. Broadcast network income is much more
> dependent upon ratings, and can't take as many chances by funding
> experimental drama shows.
Sure. All that is true but they all still fall under the umbrella of
"TV" which means that TV as a medium is not being destroyed, as was
originally asserted.
peachy ashie passion
I see.
Do you still have this problem? Overindulgence? With recognizing
when you've had enough of a good thing?
peach
just curious, really.
David Samuel Barr
>
> in the words of H. L. Menkin
> <who is rememberd, among other things, for his newspaper coverage of
> the 'Scopes Monkey Trial'>
>
> "So far, no one has ever gone broke by overestimating the poor taste
> of the American public"
His name was H[enry].L[ouis]. Mencken, and the phrase attributed to him
is generally quoted as "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public", although various other versions
show up, the longest one I've seen being "No one in this world, so far
as I know--and I have researched the records for years and employed
agents to help me--has ever lost money by underestimating the
intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone
lost public office thereby." Still, since this is only an attributed
quotation, and no one seems to be able to authoritatively cite a
specific published source thereof, all such variants should be taken
with a grain of salt.
David Samuel Barr
>
> In article <41F359...@mindspring.com>, dsb...@mindspring.com
> > says...
> > nfway wrote:
> > >
> > > but, I learned long ago (from working for the idiots at the WB)
> > > that the WB has a long an infamous history of snatching defeat
> > > from the jaws of victory, of thowing out the baby with the
> > > bathwater, of being offered a choice of filet mignon, prime rib or
> > > steak-ums, and choosing the steak-ums. Probably the best example
> > > of this is that the WB fired Ronald Regan because their audience
> > > statistics "proved" that he was incapable of drawng sufficient
> > > viewer recognition and support to become a major national
> > > personality..
> >
> > Neat trick, since The WB didn't exist until 1995.
> >
> > > The WB's decision to to cancel Ats is one more example of their
> > > quality decision-making skills. The WB can always be counted on to
> > > sell off their best assets for peanuts. There will never be a deal
> > > too good for the WB to spoil.
>
> Warner Bros started way before 1995. The parent corporate entity is
> much older than the tv network entity, and it sets the manegerial
> culture. I worked for the publishing divisions, and WB set our
> corporate culture also, even though we had more to do with Superman
> comics than with movies.
I was a senior executive with one of the other Warner Communications
divisions for years, as well as regularly working with yet another
division in the decade before that. Neither the film studio, nor the
corporate entity (which didn't exist until 1969 when it was created out
of National Kinney), set the "culture" of any of those operations. In
fact, there was very little influence between divisions of WCI until
after the Time Warner merger, at which point a specific effort was begun
to try to create some synergy between the many fiercely independent
entities under that umbrella. In any event, "The WB", a 75% TWI joint
venture with Tribune for which you did not work, didn't fire Ronald
"Regan", and the 50-year-old actions of a completely different operation
have no bearing on the network's behaviour.
Deborah Martin
> In article <ct0jbe$19l$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>, "Deborah Martin"
> <dak_mar@alcor&mizar.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:BTR1702-38B29B...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>> > Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
>>
>> Reality shows ?
>
>
> Now shown me how television as a medium is being destroyed.
As someone else wrote in this thread: "lowest common denominator". TV seems
overrun by one reality show after another each featuring a pack of brainless
cretins who would do anything, and I do mean *anything*, so they could see
themselves on TV. Needless to say, each of these shows is designed to
illicit the absolute worst in human behaviours. May not offend everyone but
it does offend me as I expect better from television programs. It is
getting to a point where the three main networks and their affiliates spew
nothing but an endless stream of infomercials run by con men and over the
hill actors and revolting reality shows. Cable seems the only escape.
peachy ashie passion
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-D448A5...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
>>In article <ct0jbe$19l$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>, "Deborah Martin"
>><dak_mar@alcor&mizar.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:BTR1702-38B29B...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>In article <1106489840.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>"him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>>>>Cite? Any evidence that television as medium is being destroyed?
>>>
>>>Reality shows ?
>>
>>Okay, you've named a genre category.
>>
>>Now shown me how television as a medium is being destroyed.
>
>
> As someone else wrote in this thread: "lowest common denominator". TV seems
> overrun by one reality show after another each featuring a pack of brainless
> cretins who would do anything, and I do mean *anything*, so they could see
> themselves on TV. Needless to say, each of these shows is designed to
> illicit the absolute worst in human behaviours. May not offend everyone but
> it does offend me as I expect better from television programs. It is
> getting to a point where the three main networks and their affiliates spew
> nothing but an endless stream of infomercials run by con men and over the
> hill actors and revolting reality shows. Cable seems the only escape.
>
> Deborah
>
> Remove "&mizar" to respond
>
>
Yeah. But on cable you get to see what the rest of the world
runs as reality tv.
Scary stuff.
Ken from Chicago
"Stewart Vernon" <com...@indenter.com> wrote in message
news:jes8v0hllp6fqhscd...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:29:34 -0500, nfway <m...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >the only things I state as facts, are definitions and mathematics.
> >Everything else is probably an opinion (although if it smells like
> >drecht, and tastes like drecht...., well if it smells like drecht I
> >don't need to taste it, so that's usually good enuf for me..)
>
> definitions of some commonly used words in the English language
> for a few years to see how meaning, and sometimes spelling and
> how-to-pronounce change because enough people use it a different
> way to make it acceptable.
>
> Also, mathematics is a human construct (at least as far as we
> know, since we are the only ones we know to use it)... and as such
> is subject to many of our human flaws as well.
>
> -Stewart
X divided by 0 = Infinity with a remainder of X
X divided by Infinity = 0 with a remainder of X
X times Infinity = Infinity
X times 0 = 0
Thus Infinity = 0.
And the house of cards that is Mathematics collapses.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. In Calculus, X / 0 approaches Infinity, X / Infinity approaches 0.
Ken from Chicago
> In article <mtednQd4gpb...@comcast.com>,
> kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > "nfway" <m...@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c5db1c58...@news.giganews.com...
> > > In article <tvQId.16926$8u5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > block...@nospam.net says...
> > > >
> > > > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:HcKdnZwMsIt...@comcast.com...
<snip>
> > > I don't think its possible to overestimate the poor taste of the
public
> > > (not just of the American public): Jerry Springer even got elected to
> > > office, twice!
> > >
> >
> > So WHO DECIDES what is "poor" and/or "rich" taste is?
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago
> >
> >
> >
> This year the Republicans do.
Please, not even they have that much power. Same was true when the Democrats
were in power.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
It could be done Austin Powers style, with conveniently (or inconveniently,
depending on your POV) placed obstacles.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<him...@animail.net> wrote in message
news:1106526825....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <1106509369.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > > > What I'm getting here is the general consensus that reality
> > > > shows are destroying television *the way you guys personally
> > > > want it to be*.
> > >
> > > Not just us. Them too. Network bigwigs regularly hold meetings to
> > > discuss the steadily dropping number of people, especially young
> > > people, who watch TV at all.
> >
> > You're not being accurate again. The number of people watching TV
> isn't
> > dropping. The number of people watching network TV is dropping.
> >
> > People are migrating to other outlets: HBO (Sopranos, 6 Feet Under,
> > Unscripted), FX (The Shield, Nip/Tuck), SciFi (Battlestar Galactica,
> > Stargate), etc.
>
> Yes they are, and the networks are hurt the most. But the overall
> number of people who watch TV is decreasing and aging too.
Thus the rise of the internet and video and computer games.
THE FALL GUY was a commercial success for years at 7pm Central Wednesday
then some genius moved it to Thursday where ratings fell--and instead of
moving it back, they cancelled it.
> I think many TV execs actually fear good shows. They think it will
> raise expectations and tastes and result in audiences who get all
> demandy.
>
> himiko
/
How do you MARKET "good" shows? "good" writing?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> On 23 Jan 2005 16:33:45 -0800, "him...@animail.net"
> <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>
> >BTR1701 wrote:
> >> People are migrating to other outlets: HBO (Sopranos, 6 Feet Under,
> >> Unscripted), FX (The Shield, Nip/Tuck), SciFi (Battlestar Galactica,
> >> Stargate), etc.
> >
> >Yes they are, and the networks are hurt the most. But the overall
> >number of people who watch TV is decreasing and aging too.
>
> increasing? And doesn't that help to increase the number of TV
> viewers?
>
> -Stewart
But there are more options than broadcast tv, more tv channels, as well as
the internet, video and computer games--and DVDs.
-- Ken from Chicago
poolnuz
"David Samuel Barr" <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41F47E...@mindspring.com...
well, thank you Dr Attribution
I'll take one grain of salt to clarify that it was the IDEA expressed in the
phrase
that was relevant
recall, George Bernard Shaw is widely credited with the observation
about it being a shame to waste such a wonderful thing as youth on the young
it is inconceivable he was the first person to voice that particular
sentiment
theNews
>
>