CBS Official Fall Schedule
Everett Will
----
MONDAY
8 p.m. - ``The King of Queens''
8:30 p.m. - ``Yes, Dear'' (new series)
9 p.m. - ``Everybody Loves Raymond''
9:30 p.m. - ``Becker''
10 p.m. - ``Family Law''
TUESDAY
8 p.m. - ``JAG''
9 p.m. - ``60 Minutes II''
10 p.m. - ``Judging Amy''
WEDNESDAY
8 p.m. - ``The Bette Show'' (new series)
8:30 p.m. - ``Welcome to New York'' (new series)
9 p.m. - ``CBS Wednesday Movie''
THURSDAY
8 p.m. - ``48 Hours''
9 p.m. - ``City of Angels''
10 p.m. - ``Diagnosis Murder''
FRIDAY
8 p.m. - ``The Fugitive'' (new series)
9 p.m. - ``C.S.I.'' (new series)
10 p.m. - ``Nash Bridges''
SATURDAY
8 p.m. - ``That's Life'' (new series)
9 p.m. - ``Walker, Texas Ranger''
10 p.m. - ``The District'' (new series)
SUNDAY
7 p.m. - ``60 Minutes''
8 p.m. - ``Touched By an Angel''
9 p.m. - ``CBS Sunday Movie''
----
SmkMirrors
>
>----
CBS = Crappy Bogus Station
YES!! Its a sweep!!!! All 3 of the old networks have NOTHING for me to watch
this fall. AWESOME!
NBC, CBS, ABC - applause all around for screwing all viewers under the age of
95.
I can permanently set my TV to get those UHF stations.
Randy
> On 17 May 2000 21:01:54 GMT, evw...@aol.com (Everett Will) wrote:
> >
> >THURSDAY
> >8 p.m. - ``48 Hours''
> >9 p.m. - ``City of Angels''
> >10 p.m. - ``Diagnosis Murder''
>
> I've only seen parts of DM, usually as a brief respite while surfing,
> but shouldn't CoA and DM be reversed? I'd think a medical drama (I
> use the term lightly) would fit the ten o'clock hour more than Dick
> Van Dyke. Isn't that usually pretty lightweight?
>
CoA against ER would be suicide, not that there's anything wrong
with that for this show. As for DM, won't its core audience be in
deep REM sleep by 10PM?
Oscar
show. It gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS can't find anything that gets
better on Thursdays, which is sad.
--
Andy Jakcsy <IlGr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fvfam$i30$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39233287....@news.lmi.net>,
> ku...@postmark.net wrote:
> > On 17 May 2000 21:01:54 GMT, evw...@aol.com (Everett Will) wrote:
> > >
> > >THURSDAY
> > >8 p.m. - ``48 Hours''
> > >9 p.m. - ``City of Angels''
> > >10 p.m. - ``Diagnosis Murder''
> >
> > I've only seen parts of DM, usually as a brief respite while surfing,
> > but shouldn't CoA and DM be reversed? I'd think a medical drama (I
> > use the term lightly) would fit the ten o'clock hour more than Dick
> > Van Dyke. Isn't that usually pretty lightweight?
>
> You ask CBS which one they'd rather see slaughered by ER...this is
> their answer.
>
> --
> --
> Deep Thoughts:
> If a bat leaves its cave and flies into Yankee stadium, does it become
> a baseball bat?
> If a fly loses its wings, does it become a walk?
>
> These and other fine abnormalities can be found at:
> http://homepages.go.com/ilgreven/
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
David Levy
> Diagnosis Murder fans should be counting their blessing CBS
> didn't can their show. It gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS
> can't find anything that gets better on Thursdays, which is
> sad.
Does the program's loyal following mean nothing, simply because
they aren't aged 18-49? Geritol and Depends have to advertise
somewhere! Don't they?
David Levy
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
jhc86
stereotyped as a old age geezers show--there are plenty of
people in the 18-49 demo who watch the show, but apparently they
don't have Nielsen boxes.
I personally love watching Victoria Rowell :)
Besides, CBS is thinking to the fact that DM is already been a
long runner for them and its audience may not be the same as ER.
Lest we forget DM has been opposite Seinfeld, Frasier, and the
past two seasons, Friends and it still managed to place second
in households no matter what the competition. And then again,
whose to say, that this is the final CBS schedule--CBS may very
well put back 48 Hours and DM into this past season's slots.
Someone
news:8fvqi5$ahn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Which brings me to
> thinking - [CBS] just shouldn't have prime time television for geezers
> anymore. When you get up at 4 AM, you can't stay awake that late!
Whoa, there, you whippersnapper! I get up early (I prefer to begin
work early) at about 5:30, and I sometimes doze off by 8 or 9, especially
if there's nothing else to do. And I'm only 32! "Diagnosis Murder"
was never my cup of tea anyway.
Maureen Goldman
> Diagnosis Murder fans should be counting their blessing CBS didn't can their
> show. It gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS can't find anything that gets
> better on Thursdays, which is sad.
Diagnosis Murder has been put opposite ER. As murder mysteries go,
this one is a suitable for 8pm show, so I'm not sure of the logic.
Will have to see what they're scheduling earlier (actually view the
shows, I mean), but I'm guessing that DM won't stay at 10pm for long.
Lynn
>
>THURSDAY
>8 p.m. - ``48 Hours''
>9 p.m. - ``City of Angels''
>10 p.m. - ``Diagnosis Murder''
I've only seen parts of DM, usually as a brief respite while surfing,
but shouldn't CoA and DM be reversed? I'd think a medical drama (I
use the term lightly) would fit the ten o'clock hour more than Dick
Van Dyke. Isn't that usually pretty lightweight?
Not that it matters. I probably won't watch any of them.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Change is the essential process of all existence.
-Star Trek
==================================================
Andy Jakcsy
> >
> >THURSDAY
> >8 p.m. - ``48 Hours''
> >9 p.m. - ``City of Angels''
> >10 p.m. - ``Diagnosis Murder''
>
> I've only seen parts of DM, usually as a brief respite while surfing,
> but shouldn't CoA and DM be reversed? I'd think a medical drama (I
> use the term lightly) would fit the ten o'clock hour more than Dick
> Van Dyke. Isn't that usually pretty lightweight?
You ask CBS which one they'd rather see slaughered by ER...this is
Lynn
>The thing is, CBS tried putting a medical drama (Chicago Hope) at 10 PM back
>in 1994, and it got its butt soundly kicked by ER. I think it will be a
>cold day in hell before CBS tries that again.
Good point. I never even thought of "Thursday", I was just looking at
the hours.
Lynn
Lynn
>>
>> I've only seen parts of DM, usually as a brief respite while surfing,
>> but shouldn't CoA and DM be reversed? I'd think a medical drama (I
>> use the term lightly) would fit the ten o'clock hour more than Dick
>> Van Dyke. Isn't that usually pretty lightweight?
>>
>
>CoA against ER would be suicide, not that there's anything wrong
>with that for this show. As for DM, won't its core audience be in
>deep REM sleep by 10PM?
Definitely, by 11.
David
quits. Personally I found it a good distraction show (strangely my favorite
seasons were the 2 Goldberg/Rabkin years, the only thing they've ever done that
I liked) and I'm right in the middle of the demo CBS is looking for. But it's a
better 8 o'clock show, and it's been doing well in that slot. This might be as
big a mistake as "Murder, She Wrote" moving from Sunday years ago. And does
that mean PAX will have to move the repeat airings?
Oscar wrote
>Diagnosis Murder fans should be counting their blessing CBS didn't can their
>show. It gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS can't find anything that gets
>better on Thursdays, which is sad.
>
"I'm fixin' for another homoerotic adventure down the Big Muddy"
-Matthew, "Newsradio"
"The Senator correctly guessed Pork Sausage Link and Veal Chops."
-Mike McIntee, The Wahoo Gazette
Suddenly Scally
> Oscar wrote:
>
> > Diagnosis Murder fans should be counting their blessing CBS
> > didn't can their show. It gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS
> > can't find anything that gets better on Thursdays, which is
> > sad.
>
> they aren't aged 18-49? Geritol and Depends have to advertise
> somewhere! Don't they?
Sure they do. But it might help if they were advertising at an hour before
the Geritol and Depends crowd have all dosed off in front of their TVs!!!!1!
Obviously, CBS finally got themselves what they were looking for - a
justified reason to cancel "Diagnosis Murder". All the smelly old people I
know are all asleep by 10:00. Hell, some of them are even asleep before
8:00, and never got to see it in the first place. Which brings me to
thinking - they just shouldn't have prime time television for geezers
anymore. When you get up at 4 AM, you can't stay awake that late!
> David Levy
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Suddenly Scally
101 Things I Hate:
# 44. Rosie O'Donnell - "I'm so obnoxious! I don't know how anyone enjoys
me...!" Don't worry, Rosie. Nobody else knows either.
Suddenly Scally's Golden Shower Site of the Month for May, 2000:
"Smegma" (It's pinga-lickin' good!)
http://www.foreskin.org/smegma.htm
"Laura, look at how nasty and cynical Scally's sig is. He's pretending to
be a teenaged fan of Friends, but I know for a fact that he's a middle-aged
grump who absolutely hates Friends, used to make fun of it in his sig, and
deliberately came here to see who he could upset. I've come across this
fellow in several tv forums and he's pretty unpleasant. He has adopted the
writing patterns of a young person in order to mock the teenaged fan base
and called the plot twists"suspensful" and "fresh" in order to be sarcastic.
He spoiled the final for you on purpose, and he's really enjoying the
protests. I'm really sorry. Avoid reading his posts. He's not a
well-intentioned person."
- claire abraham <abra...@earthlink.net>
Harlowec
>"Oscar" <oscaris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Diagnosis Murder fans should be counting their blessing CBS didn't can their
>> show. It gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS can't find anything that gets
>> better on Thursdays, which is sad.
>Diagnosis Murder has been put opposite ER. As murder mysteries go,
>this one is a suitable for 8pm show, so I'm not sure of the logic.
>Will have to see what they're scheduling earlier (actually view the
>shows, I mean), but I'm guessing that DM won't stay at 10pm for long.
I am looking at the bright side of DM being at 10. Now they can do
all of the gory and racy plots that were taboo at an earlier spot.
Just think of it: Dick Van Dyke love scenes a la NYPD Blue, more cases
involving rape and incest like L&O:SVU, and lots more bloody shootouts.
It is going to be great! It is the dark gritty DM I've longed for.
CH
--
Annie Keitz
<d_levyN...@mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Oscar wrote:
>
>> Diagnosis Murder fans should be counting their blessing CBS
>> didn't can their show. It gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS
>> can't find anything that gets better on Thursdays, which is
>> sad.
>
>Does the program's loyal following mean nothing, simply because
>they aren't aged 18-49? Geritol and Depends have to advertise
>somewhere! Don't they?
Yea but it's a lot cheaper to reach them via the CBS Evening News with
Dan Rather <g>....
Maureen Goldman
> I am looking at the bright side of DM being at 10. Now they can do
> all of the gory and racy plots that were taboo at an earlier spot.
> Just think of it: Dick Van Dyke love scenes a la NYPD Blue, more cases
> involving rape and incest like L&O:SVU, and lots more bloody shootouts.
> It is going to be great! It is the dark gritty DM I've longed for.
There are some things one doesn't want to envision.
The Munificent but tortured Mr. Hole
>David Levy
><d_levyN...@mail.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>>Oscar wrote:
>>>Diagnosis Murder fans should be counting
>>>their blessing CBS didn't can their show. It
>>>gets hideous 18-49 numbers, but CBS
>>>can't find anything that gets better on
>>>Thursdays, which is sad.
>>Does the program's loyal following mean
>>nothing, simply because they aren't aged
>>18-49? Geritol and Depends have to
>>advertise somewhere! Don't they?
>Sure they do. But it might help if they
>were advertising at an hour before the
>Geritol and Depends crowd have all dosed
>off in front of their TVs!!!!1!
>Obviously, CBS finally got themselves
>what they were looking for - a justified
>reason to cancel "Diagnosis Murder". All
>the smelly old people I know are all
>asleep by 10:00.
I'm trying to remember, if you stole this from me? Or did you came to
the conclusion that old people were smelly on your own?
>Hell, some of them are even asleep
>before 8:00, and never got to see it in the
>first place. Which brings me to thinking -
>they just shouldn't have prime time
>television for geezers anymore. When you
>get up at 4 AM, you can't stay awake that
>late!
The Munificent but tortured Mr. Hole. Callously fighting for miserable
bastards everywhere.
"I'm sexy. Admire Me. Touch Me. Taste Me. And Take Me Home."
"Here's a little story I've never told in public before and it's
ABSOLUTELY TRUE! When I was in my early twenties I used to take a lot of
pride in strapping one on." - Blackhawk in aft-s
SPECIAL BONUS: MR. HOLE NOW COMES WITH INTERNAL RATCHET ACTION!!!
How's your hole..............family?
semiliquidity Cronan
Suddenly Scally
I'm not certain, but my personal belief is that I did not steal it from
Rustle B.
P.S. I thought you "quitted" alt.fan.mrclean?
> >Hell, some of them are even asleep
> >before 8:00, and never got to see it in the
> >first place. Which brings me to thinking -
> >they just shouldn't have prime time
> >television for geezers anymore. When you
> >get up at 4 AM, you can't stay awake that
> >late!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Munificent but tortured Mr. Hole. Callously fighting for miserable
> bastards everywhere.
>
>
> "I'm sexy. Admire Me. Touch Me. Taste Me. And Take Me Home."
>
> "Here's a little story I've never told in public before and it's
> ABSOLUTELY TRUE! When I was in my early twenties I used to take a lot of
> pride in strapping one on." - Blackhawk in aft-s
>
> SPECIAL BONUS: MR. HOLE NOW COMES WITH INTERNAL RATCHET ACTION!!!
>
> How's your hole..............family?
> semiliquidity Cronan
>
Suddenly Scally
Suddenly Scally
> "Suddenly Scally" <nofreesp...@reporttoISPhere.net> wrote in message
> news:8fvqi5$ahn$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > Which brings me to
> > thinking - [CBS] just shouldn't have prime time television for geezers
> > anymore. When you get up at 4 AM, you can't stay awake that late!
>
> work early) at about 5:30, and I sometimes doze off by 8 or 9, especially
> if there's nothing else to do. And I'm only 32! "Diagnosis Murder"
> was never my cup of tea anyway.
Yeah, but do you have a weak sphincter and need to wear adult diapers?
Well?? Do you??
WRabkin
>better 8 o'clock show, and it's been doing well in that slot. This might be
>as
>big a mistake as "Murder, She Wrote" moving from Sunday years ago.
Actually, when I was on DM, we always did better at nine than at eight. And
when we showed a two-hour from nine to eleven, we did better against ER than
anything else ever did. If nothing else, putting DM against ER is clear
counter-programming, as opposed to City of Angels, which would be suicide.
Matt Ackeret
jhc86 <jhc86N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Since the Nielsen boxes give a scientifically accurate
>representative sampling
>>of the general public, it's much more believable than your
>belief that there
>>are "plenty" of young people watching it.
>>
>Scientific??? LOL!!
Take a statistics class. Yes, it is scientifically valid sampling.
>No, I just was going by what I have seen at DM message boards
>filled with lots of young girls(and maybe a few older ones)
>posting lust messages for Charlie Schlatter and the Van Dyke
>grandkids and some for dear old dad--Barry. :)
Big deal. Those are anecdotal references that have no base in reality.
Do you really think that the old geezers that are watching the show are
reading and posting to Usenet?
--
mat...@area.com
Maureen Goldman
> [Diagnosis Murder]
> Do you really think that the old geezers that are watching the show are
> reading and posting to Usenet?
I recall referring to my elders in the same terms (and thinking of
them as though they originated from a different planet or at least a
different culture). That sort of thing comes back and gets you in
another 20-30 years when you yourself reach geezerdom..
So, yes, I watch Diagnosis Murder, and I also take part in newsgroups
on a regular basis as well as doing various other net-tish things..
Robert James
Matt Ackeret wrote:
>
> In article <347992d0...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>,
> jhc86 <jhc86N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
(SNIP)
> >No, I just was going by what I have seen at DM message boards
> >filled with lots of young girls(and maybe a few older ones)
> >posting lust messages for Charlie Schlatter and the Van Dyke
> >grandkids and some for dear old dad--Barry. :)
>
> Big deal. Those are anecdotal references that have no base in reality.
> Do you really think that the old geezers that are watching the show are
> reading and posting to Usenet?
Old geezer number 1. Present and accounted for.
Yup, I'm one of those old geezer baby boomers. In my 50's, enjoy Dick
Van Dyke and his show, and yet with a little physical therapy, and some
help from a young whipper-snapper like yourself, I'm able to work a
mouse and a keyboard.
--
Bob James, Milwaukee, employed at
Medical College of Wisconsin
bo...@post.its.mcw.edu
jhc86
sampling.
>Big deal. Those are anecdotal references that have no base in
reality.
>Do you really think that the old geezers that are watching the
show are
>reading and posting to Usenet?
Gee, what 16-25 year olds post on the internet have no basis in
reality?
We are going to be "old geezers" one day--hope those young
whippersnappers don't give you a rough time then.
I like the show and I'm not an old geezer :)
Maureen Goldman
> Yup, I'm one of those old geezer baby boomers. In my 50's, enjoy Dick
> Van Dyke and his show, and yet with a little physical therapy, and some
> help from a young whipper-snapper like yourself, I'm able to work a
> mouse and a keyboard.
Eh? What's that? You're going to have to speak up - I'm a pre-boomer.
Can't even hear that computer mouse thing squeak, that's how bad
things are.
jhc86
boomer.
>Can't even hear that computer mouse thing squeak, that's how bad
>things are.
>
>
Keep up the good posting, kiddo!
Jake
> In article <347992d0...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>,
> jhc86 <jhc86N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>Since the Nielsen boxes give a scientifically accurate
> >representative sampling
> >>of the general public, it's much more believable than your
> >belief that there
> >>are "plenty" of young people watching it.
> >>
> >Scientific??? LOL!!
>
> Take a statistics class. Yes, it is scientifically valid sampling.
Sorry but it was established years ago the Nielsens are heavily skewed
towards white and upper middle class. That's hardly a valid (i.e., random)
sample.
Attmay
> Sorry but it was established years ago the Nielsens are heavily skewed
> towards white and upper middle class. That's hardly a valid (i.e., random)
> sample.
True. Friends, one of the least-watched shows among non-whites, wouldn't
have lasted one whole season if the Nielsens didn't have this kind of
"skewing."
Corwin2
>Jake wrote:
>
>> Sorry but it was established years ago the Nielsens are heavily skewed
>> towards white and upper middle class.
Wasn't it fixed years ago? Like before the 80's?
>>That's hardly a valid (i.e., random) sample.
Back then, no.
>True. Friends, one of the least-watched shows among non-whites, wouldn't
>have lasted one whole season if the Nielsens didn't have this kind of
>"skewing."
You are wrong.
(J)
Attmay
Oh, am I? Of all the people of color I know, none of them watch Friends;
even most of my white friends don't watch Friends. How can you people
like this show?
pi...@antispam.ca
I've been wondering that for years. Unfortunately, I got family that likes the show, can't say
much. Then again, I still wonder why people watched Seinfeld.
---
To send email replace "antispam" with "sprint"
Maureen Goldman
> Of all the people of color I know, none of them watch Friends;
> even most of my white friends don't watch Friends. How can you people
> like this show?
Is that a trick question? If you don't watch a show, you don't like it
because you are unfamiliar with it. Neither can you dislike it.
I wasn't wild about the last season of Friends, but I laughed often
enough that I'm staying with it.
Maureen Goldman
> Unfortunately, I got family that likes [Friends], can't say
> much. Then again, I still wonder why people watched Seinfeld.
I never figured out the appeal of Seinfeld, at least to that extent.
Saw a few episodes that I thought were okay with one being downright
hillarious (a hunt for a car through a parking garage). On the whole,
though, I found the characters too annoying for me to continue
watching.
Corwin2
>I never figured out the appeal of Seinfeld, at least to that extent.
>Saw a few episodes that I thought were okay with one being downright
>hillarious (a hunt for a car through a parking garage). On the whole,
>though, I found the characters too annoying for me to continue
>watching.
I started watching Seinfeld when it was after Cheers. It became
funnier when you had watched a critical mass of the episodes.
Partly because you got the jokes referring to previous episodes
and partly because you knew what to expect.
The last few years weren't as good but it was one of the
top three shows in the ratings. But Friends was in its
third and fourth year slump and next to any of the rest of
NBC's comedies it still seemed very good.
(J)
Scalfucious say: sol plonk me long time
I missed the pilot when it originally aired. I didn't even know until years
later that it did air. So my first exposure to "Seinfeld" was a couple of
the first season episodes that were sandwiched in between "Cheers" and "LA
Law." Suffice it to say, I thought it was absolutely unwatchable, thoroughly
unfunny, and I begged for the show's cancellation. Just like everybody who
gets pissed off at NBC for airing "Jesse" and "Veronica's Closet" after
their fave Must(n't) See hits, I was actually pissed off at NBC for putting
this unfunny crap after "Cheers".
But "Seinfeld" stuck around because Littlepants loved it and so it was
renewed and sent off to Wednesday - out of my way.
Flash forward three years and "Seinfeld" was back on Thursday - after
"Cheers" again. I guess out of the goodness of my heart or something I
decided to give it a second chance, rather than doing what all the "Friends"
' viewers did when "Union Square" came on - the dishes. And I found out that
somewhere in the interim, "Seinfeld" 's cast and crew found their voice
around the same time as "Cheers" had lost theirs. It was like a classic
changing of the tides. "Cheers" wasn't funny or well-written anymore (so
thank God it left the air before it could get worse) and "Seinfeld" was
suddenly hysterical, charismatic and clever!
And just like "Cheers", it didn't last either. By the last season,
"Seinfeld" too was hopeless, culminating in the 70 minute series finale we
all know and love. Sure, Jerry. Sure you went out on top.
Like "Roseanne" and "The Simpsons", "Seinfeld" clearly peaked in the middle.
P.S. The episodes I thought were unfunny in first-run are the episodes I
still find unfunny in syndication.
> (J)
Scalfucious
101 Things I Hate:
# 46. Newsgroup posters who write just to tell you that you're not adhering
to proper Usenet protocol. Or, should we say, their Adolfesque mindset of
what proper Usenet protocol should be.
Scalfucious' Golden Shower Site of the Month for June, 2000:
"BigBriefs" (If less is more, think of how gross and disgusting more would
be.)
http://www.gay-town.com/bigbriefs/index.html
"I think Bill Maher is very brave. Anyone who is that unfunny and still has
the guts to go out night after night shouldn't be labelled a coward."
- Trotsky
Ann Keitz
<inksl...@FOGsunshine.net> wrote:
>> Attmay <3s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Of all the people of color I know, none of them watch Friends;
>> even most of my white friends don't watch Friends. How can you people
>> like this show?
>
>Is that a trick question? If you don't watch a show, you don't like it
>because you are unfamiliar with it. Neither can you dislike it.
I can see this to a certain extent -- if in your own circle of friends
you none of you watch Friends or even know anyone who watches Friends,
then you might find it unfathomable that it's a hit show. Remember
that Friends' audience is very segregated -- it might be the #1 comedy
among white audiences but is on of the least watched comedy among
African American audiences. I don't think it's that Attmay hates the
show, but that he can't imagine anyone liking the show....
Annie Keitz
ke...@his.com
Alan Sepinwall
Ann Keitz <ke...@his.com> wrote:
>Remember
>that Friends' audience is very segregated -- it might be the #1 comedy
>among white audiences but is on of the least watched comedy among
>African American audiences.
Seinfeld was even starker in this contrast: number one among whites and
dead last among blacks. I don't think Friends is quite in last place. (If
there's any justice, Two Guys and a Girl is.)
-Alan Sepinwall
Alan Sepinwall
Scalfucious say: sol plonk me long time <Igotp...@plonkedisme.net> wrote:
[Seinfeld]
>I missed the pilot when it originally aired. I didn't even know until years
>later that it did air. So my first exposure to "Seinfeld" was a couple of
>the first season episodes that were sandwiched in between "Cheers" and "LA
>Law." Suffice it to say, I thought it was absolutely unwatchable, thoroughly
>unfunny, and I begged for the show's cancellation.
[Scally discovers the show got better]
>P.S. The episodes I thought were unfunny in first-run are the episodes I
>still find unfunny in syndication.
The Seinfeld Chronicles pilot and the first few episodes to follow are
pretty bad, yeah, even if the second or third one did introduce the world
to Art Vandelay. By the second season, which is when I discovered it, the
show had already started to find itself; the episodes that either David or
David & Seinfeld wrote are almost all very good, except for "The
Busboy," and "The Chinese Restaurant" is great. On the other hand, the
shows written by the other staffers are still too sitcommy; it wasn't
until around "The Boyfriend" when the show really hit its stride and never
looked back.
-Alan Sepinwall
Scalfucious say: sol plonk me long time
Alright, the first season episodes I saw when the first aired were "The
Stakeout", "Male Unbonding" and "The Robbery". I seem to remember turning
"Male Unbonding" (written by David & Seinfeld) off half of the way through
because I just couldn't take it anymore. It was so awful. Ironically, the
only episode of this season I found semi-decent later was the 1 that I
missed then - "The Stock Tip". But, like I wrote, I ignored the second
season at the time - even with half of them airing after "Cheers" again.
Looking back on them now, "The Chinese Restaurant" and "The Pony Remark" had
good scripts and were pretty amusing, but there was out-and-out sludge like
"The Heart Attack", "The Deal" and definitely the-almost-worthy-of-TGIF "The
Busboy" that were (and still are) as bad as the first season episodes I
hated.
I remember when I gave it a second chance, the episode I saw was "The
Outing" with Paula Marshall. Later, there was "The Implant" and "The Junior
Mint". This was when I got hooked. So I spent the rest of 1993 catching up
with what I missed and wondering just when it was that the show stopped
sucking. (I pinpointed that in syndication - it was the third season,
earlier than "The Boyfriend", for anybody who's curious).
Still, even the good early episodes showed their penny-ante budget, their
lack of production expertise and their awkward acting. Everything improved
in time.
Well, until it tanked anyway.
> -Alan Sepinwall
Ian J. Ball
sepi...@force.stwing.upenn.edu (Alan Sepinwall) wrote:
> The Seinfeld Chronicles pilot and the first few episodes to follow are
> pretty bad, yeah, even if the second or third one did introduce the world
> to Art Vandelay. By the second season, which is when I discovered it, the
> show had already started to find itself; the episodes that either David or
> David & Seinfeld wrote are almost all very good, except for "The
> Busboy," and "The Chinese Restaurant" is great. On the other hand, the
> shows written by the other staffers are still too sitcommy; it wasn't
> until around "The Boyfriend" when the show really hit its stride and never
> looked back.
I'm really hoping the same thing happens with "Titus". It is just *this*
close to being really good. But, right now, it's still too "sitcomy", like
early "Seinfeld".
--
Ian J. Ball | "I'm not going to have somebody probing my mind,
Ph.D. Chemist, | looking for things that aren't there!"
& TV lover | - Tricia Dennison McNeil, CBS's Y&R
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Alan Sepinwall
Ian J. Ball <iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I'm really hoping the same thing happens with "Titus". It is just *this*
>close to being really good. But, right now, it's still too "sitcomy", like
>early "Seinfeld".
Now, I really like "Titus," so much so that if it somehow manages to
survive the RATTY nomination process (not likely), I'm gonna vote for it
for Best Comedy. And I like it because it reminds me of "Seinfeld," not
that it's a clone, but that it has its own very distinct and funny point
of view. And Titus is already more of an actor than Jerry Seinfeld can
ever hope to be.
What's especially neat about is how, aside from the flashbacks and Titus'
monologues, each episode I've seen takes place entirely in one setting,
like a play: Papa Titus' house, the car, the body shop, Erin's office,
etc. It's very hard to sustain the same situation in the same setting for
a really long time in a comedy, but they've usually managed to do it. The
breakup and intervention episodes are already in my permanent library.
-Alan Sepinwall
Sarah
Don't forget the police station one, I loved that one and I'm not sure
why, but I just laughed so hard at that one. My favorite, however, is
the one where they think his dad is dead. The way Erin thinks her dad is
dead and catches her parents, how there was a pool, and of course, the
sound of the beer can opening behind Titus. The one in the car was also
really, really good.
sarah
God of Tapes
pi...@antispam.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:52:57 -0500, Attmay <3s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Corwin2 wrote:
> >>
> >> Attmay <3s...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >Jake wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry but it was established years ago the Nielsens are heavily skewed
> >> >> towards white and upper middle class.
> >>
> >> Wasn't it fixed years ago? Like before the 80's?
> >>
> >> >>That's hardly a valid (i.e., random) sample.
> >>
> >> Back then, no.
> >>
> >> >True. Friends, one of the least-watched shows among non-whites, wouldn't
> >> >have lasted one whole season if the Nielsens didn't have this kind of
> >> >"skewing."
> >>
> >> You are wrong.
> >
> >Oh, am I? Of all the people of color I know, none of them watch Friends;
> >even most of my white friends don't watch Friends. How can you people
> >like this show?
>
> I've been wondering that for years. Unfortunately, I got family that likes the show, can't say
> much. Then again, I still wonder why people watched Seinfeld.
>
> ---
I always thought networks combine their dependence on ratings with demographics, so that they can
make a show like BUFFY or VOYAGER, which doesn't topple its competition in the ratings, more
paltable to advertisers as far as target audiences go.
I stull can't believe ER rates as high as it does. I mean, who's awake at 10 on a Thursday? :-)
Attmay
>
> I've been wondering that for years. Unfortunately, I got family that likes the show, can't say
> much. Then again, I still wonder why people watched Seinfeld.
>
instead!
Attmay
>
> The last few years weren't as good but it was one of the
> top three shows in the ratings. But Friends was in its
> third and fourth year slump and next to any of the rest of
> NBC's comedies it still seemed very good.
>
Oh, so that's why people like it, you're comparing it to the other
sitcoms on NBC. That clears up a lot. Maybe if I compared it to the
Holocaust, I'd find it funny too!
Attmay
> Like "Roseanne" and "The Simpsons", "Seinfeld" clearly peaked in the middle.
Are we talking about the same Simpsons? We can't be, unless your sense
of humor has been taken over by those dateless wonders at
alt.tv.simpsons who give REAL Simpsons fans like me a bad name.
Attmay
>
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:24:12 -0700, Maureen Goldman
> <inksl...@FOGsunshine.net> wrote:
>
> >> Attmay <3s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> even most of my white friends don't watch Friends. How can you people
> >> like this show?
> >
> >because you are unfamiliar with it. Neither can you dislike it.
>
> I can see this to a certain extent -- if in your own circle of friends
> you none of you watch Friends or even know anyone who watches Friends,
> that Friends' audience is very segregated -- it might be the #1 comedy
> among white audiences but is on of the least watched comedy among
> show, but that he can't imagine anyone liking the show....
>
> Annie Keitz
> ke...@his.com
Actually, I do hate it, which is why I can't imagine anyone liking it.
I'd watch it next season to see if I still hate it, but I get enough
torture from my dominatrix.
Attmay
>
> > Attmay <3s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Of all the people of color I know, none of them watch Friends;
> > even most of my white friends don't watch Friends. How can you people
> > like this show?
>
> Is that a trick question? If you don't watch a show, you don't like it
> because you are unfamiliar with it. Neither can you dislike it.
I have seen enough of the show to judge it. It sucks. It peaked in
quality when Courteney Cox was still shining on Misfits of Science, that
great classic NBC show that most people consider the Citizen Kane of
sci-fi shows <sarcasm>. By the time Courteney Cox was on Family Ties,
the show was so bad that NBC lost 5 peacock feathers worrying over it
(Friends, that is, not Family Ties).
They're spoiled brats who get everything they want. Now they're getting
$750k per episode?!?!?!?!? Give me a friggin' break, people! Matthew
Perry can buy 100 new livers and 50 new Porsches for that moola! But
does he deserve it? Nooooooooooooo! Just because they get high ratings
doesn't mean they should be given that kind of money to put on the worst
show in history.
Corwin2
>They're spoiled brats who get everything they want. Now they're getting
>$750k per episode?!?!?!?!? Give me a friggin' break, people! Matthew
>Perry can buy 100 new livers and 50 new Porsches for that moola! But
>does he deserve it? Nooooooooooooo! Just because they get high ratings
>doesn't mean they should be given that kind of money to put on the worst
>show in history.
The high ratings say otherwise. Anyways "A Different World" was
far worse.
(J)