| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> Sure third season was bad... but bad Trek is better than good anything-else
Maybe before Babylon 5, but the only Trek that even began to compare was
DS9. Everything else was Status Quo Trek. And Voyager was Status Quo Trek with
at least two seasons riddled with Bad Hair-liens.
> Dunno if you know, but Sports Night wasn't a 'highlight sports show', it was
> a half hour sitcom
Yup, I knew that. As I said, though, the target audience would probably
prefer something with actual sports coverage. Like "Coach" before it, it was a
sitcom aimed at sports nuts. I originally thought it was a sports highlight
show of some sort, but I heard at some point that it was a sitcom (and that most
people were watching something else for the same reason), so I checked out a
couple of episodes (I think RG had just returned after his stroke). I wasn't
terribly impressed. It came across as a bunch of boring people doing supposedly
funny things every once in a while. Geez, I wish they'd DVD Newsradio
already...
> written and produced by Aaron Sorkin, the guy who went on to make a
> relatively unknown show called 'The West Wing'...
I hadn't realized that. While it's a bit too unrealistically pro-Democrat
(which might change now that Sorkin has left the show), it's mildly
entertaining, but not enough that I make a point of watching it every week.
> Yeah, see, times have changed. Seinfeld and Cheers both did remarkably
> poorly in their first few *seasons*, not just the first few eps. Hill Street
> Blues as well.. and they went on to be 'television's best' (at least,
> according to some)
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Gilligan's Island was
doomed from the start. The network execs never understood anything about it
except that it was popular and that the cast foolishly thought that entitled
them to more money. M*A*S*H would have been cancelled if the network CEO's wife
hadn't forced him to keep it on the air long enough for the 1st season reruns to
utterly squash the competition. It really all depends on whether the boss likes
the show enough to give it a chance, or hates it enough to find excuses to can
it. Moving a show to Friday nights is usually a sign that the latter is taking
place.
> So it's the *potential* of the series that I look at. Firefly was awesome.
I was unimpressed. I watched it, but only because bad sci-fi is better
than no sci-fi. Still, it leaned more towards Western than Sci-Fi. I didn't
mind the genre mix so much, but Western wasn't the reason I was watching it.
> if there was some 'stick-to-it-iveness', like there was for Cheers and such,
> (and if Fox advertised it better--I mean, I didn't even know about it until I
> stumbled across episode 5 whilst channel surfing one night, and I watch Fox
> (sometimes, like the Simpsons and Cops) and yet, nothing...)
Really? My local Fox station was pumping it for all it was worth (and some
that it wasn't), with ads about "what if Joss Whedon did the same for Outer
Space that he did for Vampires" and such running for at least a month prior to
the premiere. Granted, they pretty much pulled the ads once it hit the air, but
lately they seem to do that to any show that isn't both a critical and Nielson
success from day one.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Drew Carey
|
| (...) Gamesters of Trikskelion (can't remember exact spelling...) Sure third season was bad... but bad Trek is better than good anything-else Fans did letter writing campaign for 2nd and 3rd season... and it's just not that big a deal--I know suits (...) (21 years ago, 22-Aug-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
