Every day that stupid show with the briefcases & Howie Mandel comes on the TV at work. There's nothing clever about it, just random guessing, and the mystery banker offers.
Friends. I could not relate to that show even when I tried.
Quote from: Big John on January 09, 2020, 11:29:49 PM
Friends. I could not relate to that show even when I tried.
Friends, Seinfeld, Will and Grace, Saturday Night Live post 1993, Late Night with Conan O'Brien... it seemed like NBC had become a local Noo Yawk City station starting in the 1990s, with the rest of the country merely along for the ride.
Sex and the City is something I've always found annoying. My brother used to watch it and now my wife does. It seems like the complain about the exact same thing in every episode.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 09, 2020, 11:16:23 PM
Every day that stupid show with the briefcases & Howie Mandel comes on the TV at work. There's nothing clever about it, just random guessing, and the mystery banker offers.
Choosing the cases is just random guessing. The game strategy is in evaluating whether the bank offers are in line with the mathematically expected value of the final case. The rest is window dressing.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 10, 2020, 02:25:26 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 09, 2020, 11:16:23 PM
Every day that stupid show with the briefcases & Howie Mandel comes on the TV at work. There's nothing clever about it, just random guessing, and the mystery banker offers.
Choosing the cases is just random guessing. The game strategy is in evaluating whether the bank offers are in line with the mathematically expected value of the final case. The rest is window dressing.
I love randomness myself, I use random.org all the time. I could see anyone really loving this show for about 3 episodes, then it is unwatchable.
Saturday Night Live.
Football games
I hate The Office.
I hate Friends
I hate The Walking Dead from season 2 onward.
Friends and Seinfeld are two classics that I had no use for.
Any of the premium channel-only shows that seem to be popular, I've never watched. The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Sex & The City. That type.
And the late-night "comedy" shows. Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel -- I'd rather take a beating than watch those insufferable buffoons. The Daily Show and Colbert Report, back when they aired; big "nopes" here.
Also, I never got the popularity of Duck Dynasty.
Pretty much the only type of TV programming I watch is scripted dramas. I find my TV watching tends to go in ten-year cycles: in the low point I watch almost nothing at all (with Game of Thrones now in the can, Outlander is the only one I am actively following), and at the high point I watch dozens of shows from pilot to series finale (often at a rate of two or three episodes per night) until I reach a sort of saturation point where new shows start failing to hold my attention. I don't think this lack of interest has anything to do with the premise, the writing, the acting, or the production values for any given show; in fact, I suspect it has more to do with the order in which I get to it when I am on a catch-up binge.
It has been estimated that the average American watches five hours and four minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption) of TV a day. Most weeks I typically watch zero hours, though I have some passive exposure to TV at the gym.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2020, 06:37:58 PM
Pretty much the only type of TV programming I watch is scripted dramas. I find my TV watching tends to go in ten-year cycles: in the low point I watch almost nothing at all (with Game of Thrones now in the can, Outlander is the only one I am actively following), and at the high point I watch dozens of shows from pilot to series finale (often at a rate of two or three episodes per night) until I reach a sort of saturation point where new shows start failing to hold my attention. I don't think this lack of interest has anything to do with the premise, the writing, the acting, or the production values for any given show; in fact, I suspect it has more to do with the order in which I get to it when I am on a catch-up binge.
It has been estimated that the average American watches five hours and four minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption) of TV a day. Most weeks I typically watch zero hours, though I have some passive exposure to TV at the gym.
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV. My wife probably watches a solid two hours a night which is just background noise to me. I would have thought that figure would have dropped considerably with the advent of smart phones, streaming services, and things like YouTube. Pretty much the last stand for TV with me is sports.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I'm assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn't have a life that dull.
Conservatively let's assume that a person on a day off doesn't go out to do something or hangs out with people on days off might watch 10 hours of "TV." Assuming that the five work day average is 2 hours a day that still comes out to about 4.28 hours a day. Is that how most people operate and I'm just naive to it?
I'm not a fan of the Real Housewives of ___________ series or shows like 90 Day Fiancee, and Married at First Sight.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I'm assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn't have a life that dull.
Also have to account for the fact that a lot of people, streaming or not, often just leave their TV on while they do other things.
I have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I'm assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn't have a life that dull.
Also have to account for the fact that a lot of people, streaming or not, often just leave their TV on while they do other things.
I have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
Yeah I would think that there would be some accounting for having a TV or other device on in the background as not really watching something. Sometimes I'll leave sports or documentaries on in the background when I do projects in the house, I'm definitely not "intently watching" 90% of the time.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I'm assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn't have a life that dull.
Also have to account for the fact that a lot of people, streaming or not, often just leave their TV on while they do other things.
I have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
The Bureau for Labor Statistics cites an average of 2.8 hours per day for those employed, which seems a bit more believable.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
However, I wonder if we are exposed to a lot more television than that, depending on where you work or at businesses which always have the TV set on (sports, news, for example).
I probably consume about 2-4 hours of television on weekends, usually from something the missus or the kids want to watch. On weekdays, less than 15 minutes catching up on weather, unless something crazy just happened on the news.
So I'm not going to tear into anyone's recent favorites, because I've never bothered.
Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2020, 07:08:04 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I'm assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn't have a life that dull.
Also have to account for the fact that a lot of people, streaming or not, often just leave their TV on while they do other things.
I have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
The Bureau for Labor Statistics cites an average of 2.8 hours per day for those employed, which seems a bit more believable.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
However, I wonder if we are exposed to a lot more television than that, depending on where you work or at businesses which always have the TV set on (sports, news, for example).
I probably consume about 2-4 hours of television on weekends, usually from something the missus or the kids want to watch. On weekdays, less than 15 minutes catching up on weather, unless something crazy just happened on the news.
So I'm not going to tear into anyone's recent favorites, because I've never bothered.
2.8 hours seems like a figure much more in line with reality. Regarding exposure to TV or media, is that really consumption if it is in the background and not being followed intently? I walk by all sorts of popular shows, topics in the news, or other things that tend to get brought up in threads like this. I often can't comment on the content in any of them because I didn't pay enough attention to absorb what was going on. Case and point; my wife is serious about watching certain TV shows. One in particular she watched is "This is Us." I'm generally in the same room and often talk to her while that show is on but I couldn't tell you the name of a single character on it. Usually I'm engaged in; reading, writing, exercise, or even house hold chores. I wouldn't consider the fact that my wife is in the vicinity watching a show to be consumption when I'm not actively engaged in watching it myself. Likewise one could say the same thing about being around TV borne media in the general public.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:53:42 PMI have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
It's a Nielsen report quoted in the New York
Times, and I gather it is intended to be a population average, with younger people watching about 20 hours/week (corresponds to the BLS ~3 hours/day average Formulaone quotes, which is not surprising since younger people tend to be in work) and older people watching more. I don't know if Nielsen is counting "set on" time or "eyeball" time.
If it is TV programming, regardless of what device I am actually using to access it, I count it as TV watching time. This seems to me reasonable in terms of gauging the health implications of such a sedentary activity. I still haven't made the digital transition, so nearly all of my TV watching over the past decade has actually been on two laptops, two phones, and one tablet.
Any show that involves anyone connected to the Douchebaggians or Kenny West.
Sure wish there was some kind of puke emoji for this one.
I haven't really watched TV consistently since about 2007 or so. Once in a while but I rarely think "such and such is on tonight, I'm going to watch it." The internet is more fun for me.
Some shows I can think of, although I wouldn't necesarrily say it's love/hate would be those house hunter shows. I like seeing the places they go but all of the talk and specifics just annoy me. The idea that people my age have hundreds of thousands or million dollar budgets for their first home.
And then in most of them, they go into houses that I'd be perfectly happy with, kitchens and bathrooms that I'd love to use, and then declare it is horrible and needs to be ripped out. The whole thing seems to be an HGTV selling point that if your house hasn't been completely remodeled in the last 5 years and have white cabinets with marble tops and shiplap then it all needs to be thrown away. Bullcrap.
The ones like Househunters International aren't so bad because the people tend not to complain about the places being outdated. Buying Alaska is usually alright too, although Log Cabin Living tends to have almost as much outdated comments as Househunters.
Sometimes I've actually watched the show with the sound muted but I still can almost hear them complaining as the camera pans around the kitchen. :-D.
There was one I saw that was actually filmed in the town south of me, and some of the houses they looked at I had seen listings for, which was pretty cool, especially considering how small that town is. There were a few complaints in that one, but I actually agreed with most of the things myself. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 07:26:28 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2020, 07:08:04 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I’ve often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I’m assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn’t have a life that dull.
Also have to account for the fact that a lot of people, streaming or not, often just leave their TV on while they do other things.
I have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
The Bureau for Labor Statistics cites an average of 2.8 hours per day for those employed, which seems a bit more believable.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
However, I wonder if we are exposed to a lot more television than that, depending on where you work or at businesses which always have the TV set on (sports, news, for example).
I probably consume about 2-4 hours of television on weekends, usually from something the missus or the kids want to watch. On weekdays, less than 15 minutes catching up on weather, unless something crazy just happened on the news.
So I'm not going to tear into anyone's recent favorites, because I've never bothered.
2.8 hours seems like a figure much more in line with reality. Regarding exposure to TV or media, is that really consumption if it is in the background and not being followed intently? I walk by all sorts of popular shows, topics in the news, or other things that tend to get brought up in threads like this. I often can’t comment on the content in any of them because I didn’t pay enough attention to absorb what was going on. Case and point; my wife is serious about watching certain TV shows. One in particular she watched is “This is Us.” I’m generally in the same room and often talk to her while that show is on but I couldn’t tell you the name of a single character on it. Usually I’m engaged in; reading, writing, exercise, or even house hold chores. I wouldn’t consider the fact that my wife is in the vicinity watching a show to be consumption when I’m not actively engaged in watching it myself. Likewise one could say the same thing about being around TV borne media in the general public.
Did I write this?
Quote from: texaskdog on January 12, 2020, 09:03:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 07:26:28 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2020, 07:08:04 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I've often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I'm assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn't have a life that dull.
Also have to account for the fact that a lot of people, streaming or not, often just leave their TV on while they do other things.
I have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
The Bureau for Labor Statistics cites an average of 2.8 hours per day for those employed, which seems a bit more believable.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
However, I wonder if we are exposed to a lot more television than that, depending on where you work or at businesses which always have the TV set on (sports, news, for example).
I probably consume about 2-4 hours of television on weekends, usually from something the missus or the kids want to watch. On weekdays, less than 15 minutes catching up on weather, unless something crazy just happened on the news.
So I'm not going to tear into anyone's recent favorites, because I've never bothered.
2.8 hours seems like a figure much more in line with reality. Regarding exposure to TV or media, is that really consumption if it is in the background and not being followed intently? I walk by all sorts of popular shows, topics in the news, or other things that tend to get brought up in threads like this. I often can't comment on the content in any of them because I didn't pay enough attention to absorb what was going on. Case and point; my wife is serious about watching certain TV shows. One in particular she watched is "This is Us." I'm generally in the same room and often talk to her while that show is on but I couldn't tell you the name of a single character on it. Usually I'm engaged in; reading, writing, exercise, or even house hold chores. I wouldn't consider the fact that my wife is in the vicinity watching a show to be consumption when I'm not actively engaged in watching it myself. Likewise one could say the same thing about being around TV borne media in the general public.
Did I write this?
The last quote? No, I did.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 12, 2020, 09:11:51 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 12, 2020, 09:03:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 07:26:28 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 10, 2020, 07:08:04 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:53:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 10, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2020, 06:40:31 PM
I’ve often wondered how that is actually possible to watch that much TV.
I'm wondering if they're not counting those streaming services as "TV," especially since most TVs are now smart TVs that can utilize those services.
It has to be something like that. Either way that average seems excessively high regardless. I’m assuming someone had a full time job how do you average five hours of TV a day? I get that days off might boost that average but I would sincerely hope the average person doesn’t have a life that dull.
Also have to account for the fact that a lot of people, streaming or not, often just leave their TV on while they do other things.
I have to say, though, is there a study somewhere that backs up that number? I'd like to see their methodology, because I agree, that number still seems a bit high.
The Bureau for Labor Statistics cites an average of 2.8 hours per day for those employed, which seems a bit more believable.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
However, I wonder if we are exposed to a lot more television than that, depending on where you work or at businesses which always have the TV set on (sports, news, for example).
I probably consume about 2-4 hours of television on weekends, usually from something the missus or the kids want to watch. On weekdays, less than 15 minutes catching up on weather, unless something crazy just happened on the news.
So I'm not going to tear into anyone's recent favorites, because I've never bothered.
2.8 hours seems like a figure much more in line with reality. Regarding exposure to TV or media, is that really consumption if it is in the background and not being followed intently? I walk by all sorts of popular shows, topics in the news, or other things that tend to get brought up in threads like this. I often can’t comment on the content in any of them because I didn’t pay enough attention to absorb what was going on. Case and point; my wife is serious about watching certain TV shows. One in particular she watched is “This is Us.” I’m generally in the same room and often talk to her while that show is on but I couldn’t tell you the name of a single character on it. Usually I’m engaged in; reading, writing, exercise, or even house hold chores. I wouldn’t consider the fact that my wife is in the vicinity watching a show to be consumption when I’m not actively engaged in watching it myself. Likewise one could say the same thing about being around TV borne media in the general public.
Did I write this?
The last quote? No, I did.
Yes, looks exactly like me and my wife, she decides she's going without TV for 30 days and day one she's watching. This Is Us is one of her many shows. I'm watching Andy Griffith now.
I hated "Friends." I loved "Seinfeld," and "Frasier," but I never connected with "Friends."
I hate every "reality" TV show ever made. I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food. My concept of Hell is never getting voted off the island and being trapped there forever.
Quote from: wxfree on January 14, 2020, 02:30:32 AM
I hated "Friends." I loved "Seinfeld," and "Frasier," but I never connected with "Friends."
I hate every "reality" TV show ever made. I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food. My concept of Hell is never getting voted off the island and being trapped there forever.
I can sit and watch Friends when I'm flipping the dial but I don't think it's a good show, the characters are pretty pathetic, it's not that funny (though better than 90% of what is being produced today). My ex got all 10 seasons on DVD-torture.
Can't handle Frasier at all, or Kristie Alley Cheers either.
What sucks about "reality" shows is they make people think the average people lives like that. My wife would get bored all the time because she watches shows like this. The average person goes to work, goes home, eats dinner with the family watches TV does a couple things on the weekend. I loved the idea of Survivor until they put all those ridiculous challenges in. Every "reality" show is fake. Even some of the most basic ones. Pickers don't really travel together. Judge Judy covers all the rulings anyway, plus she endorsed Bloomburg, 180 from what she supposedly believes about responsibility. Property Brothers don't finish their work and leave messes and make you sign agreements to not disclose this. Are any of them any close to real?
Quote from: wxfree on January 14, 2020, 02:30:32 AM
I hated "Friends." I loved "Seinfeld," and "Frasier," but I never connected with "Friends."
I hate every "reality" TV show ever made. I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food. My concept of Hell is never getting voted off the island and being trapped there forever.
For some reason I always liked Frasier but never liked Cheers. I never liked the cast of characters on Cheers nor the setting.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 14, 2020, 07:42:21 AM
Quote from: wxfree on January 14, 2020, 02:30:32 AM
I hated "Friends." I loved "Seinfeld," and "Frasier," but I never connected with "Friends."
I hate every "reality" TV show ever made. I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food. My concept of Hell is never getting voted off the island and being trapped there forever.
For some reason I always liked Frasier but never liked Cheers. I never liked the cast of characters on Cheers nor the setting.
There are not that many likeable people in Boston, maybe it was fitting.
Quote from: wxfree on January 14, 2020, 02:30:32 AM
I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food.
I'd say it's further away. At least tacos are a Mexican staple and burritos have a regional presence there. The taco and burrito special at Taco Bell at least serves you Mexican menu items–even if those items aren't seasoned, prepared, garnished, or served the same way they would be in Mexico. Reality TV, on the other hand, claims by its very name that it has its basis in reality, when in fact it doesn't.
No, reality TV is more like getting Chinese at a small-town Kansas café: the "sweet and sour chicken" ends up being chicken-fried chicken with a packet of sweet & sour sauce, mixed vegetables, a bread roll, and Country Time lemonade.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2020, 08:23:20 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 14, 2020, 07:42:21 AM
Quote from: wxfree on January 14, 2020, 02:30:32 AM
I hated "Friends." I loved "Seinfeld," and "Frasier," but I never connected with "Friends."
I hate every "reality" TV show ever made. I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food. My concept of Hell is never getting voted off the island and being trapped there forever.
For some reason I always liked Frasier but never liked Cheers. I never liked the cast of characters on Cheers nor the setting.
There are not that many likeable people in Boston, maybe it was fitting.
I never really liked Ted Danson or Kristie Alley all that much which probably didn't help. Having the show confined almost entirely to a bar just didn't do it for me. Granted Frasier mostly took place in an apparent and a radio studio. I do prefer the back drop of Seattle much more over Boston.
I found Friends to be bad. (and hate the theme music)
Seinfeld to be even worse. (and hate the theme music)
Frasier is very stuffy programme. And do not like the dog either. Yes, it is about very eccentric Doctor Frasier Crane losing his marbles over and over again, but this is a programme, as is Murphy Brown ... all ready done with The Bob Newhart Show, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Even The Mary Tyler Moore Show despite being 1970, has a Marker Board in the very far corner. Frasier was married to Lilith. Frasier & Lilith are extreme versions of Robert & Emily.
There is another programme that is in the same universe as Cheers and Frasier. Cheers is fine. (How ever, it is Kirstie Alley.) I all ready told you why I do not like Frasier. But there is also a third programme:
Wings. It was some thing to watch. I love the piano music. It has plenty of really fun guest characters such as Carlton (William Hickey) Sandy (Valerie Mahaffey), and Stuart (John Ritter). The main characters came and went, especially Lowell. Wings is not set on any air craft. It is not any Love Boat. And it is worse than Super Train. (I was expecting the same setting with Wings.) It is set on a tiny air port with two bickering local air lines as well as a diner. Two brothers that work together (the same air line) hate each other are brought together every time they reminisce over an embarrassing photo took during their child hood. Did they even have any other memories to share?! It is set in Nantucket, a very over rated place. The characters are all ways down about how failure their lives are. You are living in Nantucket?? You are not failures.
Most of the N.B.C. programmes in the 1990s are very annoying.
Also, I do not like any thing from Disney. Even now.
As for the Crime Drama, I was a fan of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. But now I think it is silly.
No fan of Late Night Talk Shows. I was a fan of Jay Leno, but he is not a Late Night Talk Show host any more. I miss the Headlines segments. Interesting that Jerry Seinfeld is friends with Jay Leno. I still find Seinfeld a head ache.
I am also going to include Roseanne, The Conners, and The Cosby Show. I will explain why later.
What kept me tuned in is every time Jackie lost her marbles. Today, they have Jackie, Darline, and even Becky as stronger characters. Becky was rarely in episodes previously but is around much more often.
I only liked a few things about The Cosby Show. Here they are: It seems to be the exact opposite of any thing from Norman Lear. Claire is a proud mother with a ban on make up. ... But then they brought in Olivia, a supposedly abandoned child by her biological mother. That can not possibly be true as she ended up being raised by Dr. Huxtable.
As for C.B.S. programmes: I remember a different series of programmes in the same universe. That is why I mentioned The Cosby Show. There is a completely different programme named COSBY that is set in the same universe as Every Body Loves Raymond (and I think Becker also). I found COSBY to be a much more active programme, deserves as much or perhaps more attention as The Cosby Show does.
Every Body Loves Raymond got on my nerves rapidly.
Court Shows are fine. I hate Reality Television. They have many scripts in Reality Television. Even sports are supposed to be for entertainment purposes, not healthy competitions.
Really, Really, Hate De Grassi Street, DeGrassi Junior High, DeGrassi High, DeGrassi The Next Generation, Degreassi The Next Class, and what ever else that they have now ... is a retelling of the same story meant to pit students against each other. Students that all ready hate each other. Also, it is completely unbelievable the school burned down.
I Loathe The Rug Rats.
And I saved the best for last:
I am the only person that does not like this programme:
Family Guy.
A programme that is an extreme version of Wait Till Your Father Gets Home.
And there are more programmes that I do not like either. But I do not want to give them any recognition.
Regarding British TV comedies, many people loved Faulty Towers, but I could never warm up to it (even though John Cleese was in it).
Quote from: wxfree on January 14, 2020, 02:30:32 AMI hate every "reality" TV show ever made. I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food. My concept of Hell is never getting voted off the island and being trapped there forever.
I dislike reality TV at a conceptual level, and think much of it--especially the shows that have an element of audience participation through voting--is emotionally manipulative. However, it is a cheap way to fill out the programming schedule and allows the industry to serve people who have their TVs playing from waking to sleeping, which is a substantial proportion of viewership. The low production cost also allows expanded coverage of special-interest subject matter areas, such as road transport over winter ice (
Ice Road Truckers).
Ultimately, I think tastes in TV programming are shaped by TV watching style. I am distractible, so ambient TV will pull me in to some degree, but I would never consciously choose to watch TV except on an intentional basis. I don't do appointment TV: if I can't time-shift it, I'll do without it. I hate to divide my attention between multiple tasks--if I'm watching TV, that is all I am doing. I don't do re-runs: they bring back bad memories of early childhood when I didn't yet know original programming usually goes on hiatus over the summer, would tune in to watch a favorite show (when over-the-air was the only easy and cheap option), and would be crushed to discover it was an episode I had already seen before. All of this informs my preference for scripted drama, viewed on devices other than a TV set, with individual episodes never re-watched in full--generally I just replay the scenes I especially like. I realize all of this puts me in a minority, but so does book reading as a primary leisure activity.
Quote from: roadman on January 17, 2020, 10:49:38 AM
Regarding British TV comedies, many people loved Faulty Towers, but I could never warm up to it (even though John Cleese was in it).
Faulty Towers, Monty Python... I grew up on this stuff. My wife just looks at me while I'm cracking up and says, deadpan, "Is that funny? Oh. OK."
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2020, 01:31:06 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 17, 2020, 10:49:38 AM
Regarding British TV comedies, many people loved Faulty Towers, but I could never warm up to it (even though John Cleese was in it).
Faulty Towers, Monty Python... I grew up on this stuff. My wife just looks at me while I'm cracking up and says, deadpan, "Is that funny? Oh. OK."
Absolutely love
Monty Python even to this day (I started watching it in junior high). My other favorite British comedy is the original
Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 17, 2020, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: wxfree on January 14, 2020, 02:30:32 AMI hate every "reality" TV show ever made. I once read a small-time newspaper humor columnist who said that "reality" TV was as close to actual reality as the taco and burrito special at Taco Bell was to actual Mexican food. My concept of Hell is never getting voted off the island and being trapped there forever.
I dislike reality TV at a conceptual level, and think much of it--especially the shows that have an element of audience participation through voting--is emotionally manipulative. However, it is a cheap way to fill out the programming schedule and allows the industry to serve people who have their TVs playing from waking to sleeping, which is a substantial proportion of viewership. The low production cost also allows expanded coverage of special-interest subject matter areas, such as road transport over winter ice (Ice Road Truckers).
Ultimately, I think tastes in TV programming are shaped by TV watching style. I am distractible, so ambient TV will pull me in to some degree, but I would never consciously choose to watch TV except on an intentional basis. I don't do appointment TV: if I can't time-shift it, I'll do without it. I hate to divide my attention between multiple tasks--if I'm watching TV, that is all I am doing. I don't do re-runs: they bring back bad memories of early childhood when I didn't yet know original programming usually goes on hiatus over the summer, would tune in to watch a favorite show (when over-the-air was the only easy and cheap option), and would be crushed to discover it was an episode I had already seen before. All of this informs my preference for scripted drama, viewed on devices other than a TV set, with individual episodes never re-watched in full--generally I just replay the scenes I especially like. I realize all of this puts me in a minority, but so does book reading as a primary leisure activity.
IRT was great because it just showed something interesting. Then they had to make it a competition for a jacket. Eventually it got down to a competition between rival companies. So fake!
I could not stand Dallas after Bobby resurrected in Pam's shower on her honeymoon with Mark Graison. The show was unbelievable after Patrick Duffy returned to his role of Bobby Ewing as they did bad job aligning Season 10 with Season 8 as Season 9 was erased making it a dream Pam had after she reconciled with Bobby. In fact the marriage proposal was in the Season 8 finale to give final closure to Bobby and Pam as Bobby got written off as dying to explain Duffy's departure. If Duffy stayed on they would have not brought back together Pam and Bobby as Pam's character was a pretty strong character being a single mom running a corporation. After the dream she became a housewife which made actress Victoria Principle quit the series because the direction her character went way too weak. Plus the great storylines they abandoned like Ray and Donna adopting a special needs child. Plus JR and Sue Ellen reconciled really swell after Linda Gray giving the performance of her life playing drunken Sue Ellen in the detox ward. Jack played by Dack Ranbow fit in well with the cast that season as after Pam woke up they gave him no interaction with anyone.
Then that one storyline where JR got arrested and sentenced to ten years in prison for rape when the girl he had sex with consented and was indeed over age of 18. Plus his arrest was brought on when JR was about to be murdered by two southern boys who loathes northerners who they said that JR was despite Texas where JR is from is a southern state that was confederate as the fictional town they were all in part of the real Arkansas. Instead the dumb hillbilly Sheriff let the two criminals go and arrested JR instead without allowing him counsel or creating a criminal profile on JR and allowing him to be tried by a kangaroo court in a hotel lobby by a non judge.
Even JR looked weak as he could not figure out to get the girl who helped him escape to call his lawyer as he just tried to bribe people who gave no regard to power or money. Plus how could a lawman allow an escape fellow be under his own nose and not be aware he applied for a marriage license in his jurisdiction? JR was strong and always had almost everyone in check except the hillbillies.
Then the last season was the worst killing April in her honeymoon with Bobby. Miss Ellie giving away her beloved Ranch to travel. Then JR locked in a mental hospital. Yeah right.
They ruined a once popular series and turned it into a joke.
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2020, 01:31:06 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 17, 2020, 10:49:38 AM
Regarding British TV comedies, many people loved Faulty Towers, but I could never warm up to it (even though John Cleese was in it).
Faulty Towers, Monty Python... I grew up on this stuff. My wife just looks at me while I'm cracking up and says, deadpan, "Is that funny? Oh. OK."
It's "Fawlty Towers", which the paperboy can change to "Flowery Twats." I like it, too, but a lot of that British stuff is different. I love it, but you either get it or you don't.
Quote from: wxfree on January 18, 2020, 02:57:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2020, 01:31:06 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 17, 2020, 10:49:38 AM
Regarding British TV comedies, many people loved Faulty Towers, but I could never warm up to it (even though John Cleese was in it).
Faulty Towers, Monty Python... I grew up on this stuff. My wife just looks at me while I'm cracking up and says, deadpan, "Is that funny? Oh. OK."
It's "Fawlty Towers", which the paperboy can change to "Flowery Twats." I like it, too, but a lot of that British stuff is different. I love it, but you either get it or you don't.
Thank You.
Also one of the episodes he changed the sign to "Watery Fowls".
Law and order SVU now is lame. Mariska what's her name is another Pricilla Presley and both can't act. The writers in an earlier season had to get Olivia Benson raped so that her empathy stories to be more believable when comforting rape victims.
Since it lost most of its original cast it lost what it originally had. Plus making the two leading ladies both unmarried moms is not a good idea considering the shows premise is about dealing with immoral sex and even though both ladies got pregnant without force many cultures still prefer to promote children being part of full families having two full time parents.
I haven't been watching the first-run SVUs, as I know they will eventually end up on USA or Ion. But Benson's kid is adopted and isn't her own natural child.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 18, 2020, 07:17:43 PM
I haven't been watching the first-run SVUs, as I know they will eventually end up on USA or Ion. But Benson's kid is adopted and isn't her own natural child.
Well figures as I missed quite a few seasons since I ditched cable TV and do not watch anything other than ME or Laff. Besides who would want to do her anyway. :-D
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2020, 12:05:31 PM
No, reality TV is more like getting Chinese at a small-town Kansas café: the "sweet and sour chicken" ends up being chicken-fried chicken with a packet of sweet & sour sauce, mixed vegetables, a bread roll, and Country Time lemonade.
At least that sounds halfway appetizing, unlike most reality TV...
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 17, 2020, 12:20:32 PM
I dislike reality TV at a conceptual level, and think much of it--especially the shows that have an element of audience participation through voting--is emotionally manipulative. However, it is a cheap way to fill out the programming schedule and allows the industry to serve people who have their TVs playing from waking to sleeping, which is a substantial proportion of viewership. The low production cost also allows expanded coverage of special-interest subject matter areas, such as road transport over winter ice (Ice Road Truckers).
The downside of reality programming is it has the tendency to crowd out the previous occupier of that niche–traditional game shows, which I find to be far more enjoyable. Reality programming's draw is to get you attached to the contestants and their interpersonal drama. With a game show, the contestants' personalities are subordinate to their skill at playing the actual game, which I find is usually a more immersive experience (i.e. you can yell your own answers at the TV as the contestants are playing the game). A game show contestant has to be remarkably good or bad at the game for their personality to make any sort of impact upon the viewer (good: Ken Jennings, bad: that girl on
The Price Is Right that attempted to use the digit 1 twice so many times that when she finally won, Bob Barker was so shocked that he sat down on the stage in disbelief).
It baffled me when my peers were all about Friends back when it was still running.
It baffled me even more when these same people were torn between watching Friends or Survivor which aired in the same time slot back then.
I found them both to be unwatchable.
Especially since Family Guy was quietly killing it in the same time slot in the run up to the second cancellation. That third season was dope.
Quote from: roadman on January 17, 2020, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2020, 01:31:06 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 17, 2020, 10:49:38 AM
Regarding British TV comedies, many people loved Faulty Towers, but I could never warm up to it (even though John Cleese was in it).
Faulty Towers, Monty Python... I grew up on this stuff. My wife just looks at me while I'm cracking up and says, deadpan, "Is that funny? Oh. OK."
Absolutely love Monty Python even to this day (I started watching it in junior high). My other favorite British comedy is the original Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister.
Mine is
Peep Show, or really anything else done by Mitchell and Webb. Other favorite British shows of mine, besides those already mentioned, are
QI and
Would I Lie to You?
You wouldn't have paid me to watch American Idol. FOX...ABC...it doesn't matter. None of that singing/competition crap for me. No to The Voice, The Masked Singer, etc. I avoid the garbage that is Kardashian/Jenner like the plague.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 20, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
You wouldn't have paid me to watch American Idol. FOX...ABC...it doesn't matter. None of that singing/competition crap for me. No to The Voice, The Masked Singer, etc. I avoid the garbage that is Kardashian/Jenner like the plague.
The original American Idol on Fox was decent, if only because I enjoyed watching Simon Cowell roast the bad singers. It started going downhill once they started messing around with the judging panel in season 9.
Boomer execs ruined television.
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
Boomer execs ruined television.
Compare sitcoms. 60s & 70s & 80s had some great stuff. Then we got the Friends wave. Now pretty much every network sitcom is completely unfunny.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
Boomer execs ruined television.
Compare sitcoms. 60s & 70s & 80s had some great stuff. Then we got the Friends wave. Now pretty much every network sitcom is completely unfunny.
Boomer Execs:
That is true. They have people behave on television much differently from real life. This also includes Reality Television. There are some things they need to update in television that occurred in the 1990s. I might be wrong but I am remembering earlier episodes of programmes such as Daria and The Secret World Of Alex Mack set in classrooms with marker boards. But later episodes they have chalk boards. I think some executive said "No. That is not what classrooms have. Change it immediately."
At the same time on the air was Murphy Brown. While that is set in a Newsroom, and not a classroom ... There is a marker board in it, visible in the center of the wall. Yes, it (and Frasier) is a rip off of Mary Tyler Moore (and The Bob Newhart Show) ... pretty much exaggerated versions of the respective sitcoms. And despite being in 1970, The WJM Newsroom also has a marker board, but it is located almost off stage to the right of the water and coffee machine.
Comparing Sitcoms:
That is also true. There were a few sitcoms set in New York City, but are completely different from Friends, etc.
In the 1960s and 1970s, they needed programmes to be funny. But now that Show Business is invincible, they do not need to care.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 17, 2020, 04:14:10 PM
IRT was great because it just showed something interesting. Then they had to make it a competition for a jacket. Eventually it got down to a competition between rival companies. So fake!
IRT was really good for the first four seasons because, although they focused on the "principal" drivers and managers, they occasionally would feature other drivers or people as well (this was one of my favorite things about the first season). I stopped watching the show about midway through the initial season with the Polar/VP rivalry, because it was so obviously staged. Although IRT did give us one of the lessons of life TV taught us, which is "Never go to work for Hughie Rowland." (one of the other notable TV life lessons is "Never invite Angela Lansbury to a party.")
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2020, 12:11:39 PM
Law and order SVU now is lame. Mariska what's her name is another Pricilla Presley and both can't act.
Hargitay, aka Jane Mansfield's daughter. She's now doing an
Alan Alda and directs some of the current episodes as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2020, 12:11:39 PMSince it lost most of its original cast it lost what it originally had.
IIRC, Hargitay's the only one that's been on the show since it began. Ice-T's Fin character first appeared in Season 2.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
Boomer execs ruined television.
Compare sitcoms. 60s & 70s & 80s had some great stuff. Then we got the Friends wave. Now pretty much every network sitcom is completely unfunny.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine is hilarious.
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
Boomer execs ruined television.
Compare sitcoms. 60s & 70s & 80s had some great stuff. Then we got the Friends wave. Now pretty much every network sitcom is completely unfunny.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine is hilarious.
watched it once I didn't find it funny at all, or modern family or new girl. Big bang was great. last man standing is okay. Roseanne too.
Roseanne, The Big Bang Theory, and The Conners. Technically are very recent programmes but I like all of them. And they are similar enough to each other.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 04:53:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
Boomer execs ruined television.
Compare sitcoms. 60s & 70s & 80s had some great stuff. Then we got the Friends wave. Now pretty much every network sitcom is completely unfunny.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine is hilarious.
watched it once I didn't find it funny at all, or modern family or new girl. Big bang was great. last man standing is okay. Roseanne too.
You have no soul.
Roseanne, Friends, Big Bang Theory
Quote from: In_Correct on January 21, 2020, 06:21:25 PM
Roseanne, The Big Bang Theory, and The Conners. Technically are very recent programmes but I like all of them. And they are similar enough to each other.
How does this fit the topic of conversation?
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2020, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 04:53:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2020, 04:49:46 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 21, 2020, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2020, 06:55:29 PM
Boomer execs ruined television.
Compare sitcoms. 60s & 70s & 80s had some great stuff. Then we got the Friends wave. Now pretty much every network sitcom is completely unfunny.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine is hilarious.
watched it once I didn't find it funny at all, or modern family or new girl. Big bang was great. last man standing is okay. Roseanne too.
You have no soul.
Andy Griffith had a laugh track. If it was good enough for him...
I never got into the Friends thing. But many people like it! Saved by the Bell is another one that people loved and to me I could not get into it.
When it comes to cartoons, I could never get why so many people think Scooby Doo is so great. Sure, the first season of the original series had some merit because it was new and unique, as well as a radical departure from most of the more 'traditional' Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the time (Johnny Quest being the notable exception). But IMO it wore out pretty quickly and has become just another example of milking a tired franchise - and IMO - the beginning of the decline of H-B.
I never really watched Friends. I never watched Seinfield...until it was in reruns. I never watched Big Bang Theory for several years. I never watched Modern Family for several years. Ridiculousness & PD Live - Same thing.
This is a running theme for me. Many times, I only start watching a show because my wife watches it every week, then I become addicted.
9*1*1 - The show on Fox, I can't stand. Most of their scenarios are incredibly unbelievable. If you're with a fire department where the entire fire team applauds because you hooked up a hose to a fire hydrant to get water flowing, I would want you all to sit down, get out of the way, and don't destroy my house any more than it already is.
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 09:15:51 AM
When it comes to cartoons, I could never get why so many people think Scooby Doo is so great. Sure, the first season of the original series had some merit because it was new and unique, as well as a radical departure from most of the more 'traditional' Hanna-Barbera cartoons of the time (Johnny Quest being the notable exception). But IMO it wore out pretty quickly and has become just another example of milking a tired franchise - and IMO - the beginning of the decline of H-B.
I do not like Scooby-Doo Where Are You? ... it looked tired and kinda cheap. The song even more annoying. The instrumental theme is just fine. They improved a little with The New Scooby-Doo Movies, and again another new theme song. My favourite was The Scooby-Doo Show. But when they added Scrappy-Dappy-Doo was bad and the other two characters disappeared (without even a mention of where
they went or how Shaggy ended up with Daphne's red R.V. also)
I used to watch A Pup Named Scooby Doo.
I am a fan of the four anime style movies of the 1990s, especially Scooby-Doo And The Witch's Ghost. But after that the movies aren't the same any more. The last one that I watched regularly is What's New Scooby-Doo, which I find is the most outdated one ever made. The only other one made after that I am familiar with is Scooby-Doo, Mystery Incorporated.
The first Live Action cinema is great. The other one(s) not so much.
If Scooby-Doo is not good (or bad) enough for you, there is also Dyno-Mutt Dog Wonder. And of course any thing that Joe Ruby And Ken Spears made by them selves is going to have a dog at least in one episode of their programmes. Even though the music is usually Dean Elliott, they are annoying.
And a few years before Scooby-Doo, they have Astro from The Jetsons. He is also in his own mini series Space Ace, Astro, And The Space Mutts or just Astro And The Space Mutts (from Space Stars, not Saturday Supercade)
Also I am going to bust two myths about The Jetsons: They have brown skin characters in some of the episodes, some of them with speaking roles. Laser Jack and Skata Hara. (and Moleculad if you count Teen Force / Space Stars)
And yes you can see The Ground in like every other episode.
And since Hanna-Barbera is brought up I did not really like The Flintstones. They have been around as often as Scooby-Doo. On top of that they have famous cereals.
Some of the issues I just can not watch are the inconsistencies. The cars that they have are not the same. I think The Flintstones have an Orange car. The Rubbles have a Fuschia car and also a Blue car. The Blue car has no roof. And of course there is the Red car that Fred drives, but this car conveniently has no back seat some times and other times has a back seat. Perhaps these are two different cars. And the other cars I mentioned were around for like only one episode. Most episodes Barney and Betty have no car, and a lot of times have no job.
It is interesting that the opening and closing segments change a few times. My favourite is the first one, but they changed it in the middle of season 3 be cause of Looney Tunes "On With The Show This Is It".
Their houses are never the same. Fred has two bosses, a Mister Slate resembling Mister Spaceley. A Mister Rockhead, the tall bald guy with glasses. And then Mister Rockhead is renamed Mister Slate?!
Barney's Voice.
Some of the episodes (such as the Guest Star episodes with "Stoney Curtis" and "Ann Margrock") are higher quality.
Also, these numerous goofs stopped during The Pebbles And Bamm Bamm Show and The Flintstone Comedy Show, which deserve more appreciation. Only The Flintstones of the 1960s have been rebroadcast endlessly.
It is fun when Fred looses his temper, but other things such as all the various animals running the machines with perfection gets on my nerves ... and again, that goes back to the inconsistencies. How many "Vacuum Cleaners" does Wilma go through??
I guess I will keep going with Hanna-Barbera. ...
They had many usually low quality programmes in the 1960s ... the predecessors to Yogi's Gang and a few cinemas. My favourite "Yogi's Gang" cinema is Hey There, It's Yogi Bear.
@In-Correct All valid points about H-B cartoons, and I generally agree with you. However, the reason I singled out Scooby Doo is because, when discussions about favorite H-B cartoons come up, inevitably the majority of people identify Scooby Doo or the later spinoffs (like the dreadful "Scooby Doo and the gang meet a different guest star every week" series) as their all time favorite.
FWIW, with the exception of the original Yogi's Ark Lark special (as opposed to the later Yogi's Gang series), I never cared for any of the later "updates" of the 1960s 'classic' Hanna-Barbera cartoons. I liked the original Yogi's Ark Lark because it was a neat reunion of most of the 1960s Hanna-Barbera characters that established H-B as a force in TV animation.
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
My friends and I knew a couple of people who were absolutely fascinated by
Survivor for the first two or three seasons. Occasionally after a new episode aired, we'd say to them "So, how was
Gilligan's Island last night?"
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
A few weeks ago, a friend of ours educated us about
House Hunters.
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 11:13:46 AM
@In-Correct All valid points about H-B cartoons, and I generally agree with you. However, the reason I singled out Scooby Doo is because, when discussions about favorite H-B cartoons come up, inevitably the majority of people identify Scooby Doo or the later spinoffs (like the dreadful "Scooby Doo and the gang meet a different guest star every week" series) as their all time favorite.
FWIW, with the exception of the original Yogi's Ark Lark special (as opposed to the later Yogi's Gang series), I never cared for any of the later "updates" of the 1960s 'classic' Hanna-Barbera cartoons. I liked the original Yogi's Ark Lark because it was a neat reunion of most of the 1960s Hanna-Barbera characters that established H-B as a force in TV animation.
Continuing with Hanna - Barbera ...
They created Tom & Jerry (half the time with Fred Quimby) which is a very high quality cinema programme. However, I do not like when they forget every body in the credits which Hanna - Barbera's Tom and Jerry did for a long time. (until The Tom And Jerry Show) ... Believe It Or Not my favourite character is Mammy Two Shoes. No body else will agree but I think she was not a stereotype. (The Black Faces And Red Bows appearing during mud splashed from a car, how ever ... is ) and the actress Lillian Randolph was probably treated worse (paid less, if paid any thing) than Mammy Two Shoes. I mean there were times when she got so fed up with Tom & Jerry fighting that she threw
both of them out of the house.
Randolph was uncredited, but so was every body else.
... When Chuck Jones took over for 5 years, there were many more credits. Several cards filled with names.
And this apparent lack of credits is why I did not warm up to any of the early 1960s Hanna - Barbera shorts on Television.
When Cartoon Network was launched, they reinvented the wheel with all of these "new" programmes. They removed all the credits to every thing. This also includes Bird Man, The Herculoids, Space Stars, Saturday Supercade's Space Ace (both Saturday Supercade's Space Ace and Space Stars' Space Ace, Astro, And The Space Mutts packaged together on the same programme "Super Adventures") and none of them with credits either. The Pebbles And Bamm Bamm Show, The New Fred And Barney Show, The Flintstones Comedy Show are now known as "Back To Bedrock" and again some thing else now has no credits.
I was shocked to see all of these programmes and then some unedited for the first time.
Also going to bring up Filmation now ... be cause they also did Tom And Jerry ...
I used to like any thing Filmation, Spock Trek The Animated Series, but just as what happened to Hanna Barbera's Josie And The Pussy Cats' Valerie ... brown eye balls ... Interesting Filmation stopped doing that with Fat Albert And The Cosby Kids, and also The Fat Albert Halloween Special ... and BraveStarr are the only programmes I still watch.
Be cause Filmation used numerous times the same sound effects over and over again ... even on different programmes. The same screeching monster sounds over and over again with the production staff just pushing the button every second.
As for The Tom And Jerry Comedy Show ... Much better than Rembrant (William L. Snyder and Gene Deitch) with an attempt to stay faithful to classic Tom & Jerry ... Too faithful ... be cause they kept playing the same synthesized instrumental "Don't Sit Under The Apple Tree With Any One Else But Me." over and over again.
If I did not type it earlier, I am a fan of Dean Elliott, so bad music is another reason why I do not like Filmation so much.
Taking it back to Hanna - Barbera lol be cause they did Tom and Jerry Kids, an era of different "kids" shows. Just retire all ready.
And then they did The Tom And Jerry Movie, which they spoke and sung show tunes fluently, retconning all the times that they mumbled, talked, and even sang previously. This movie seems to be based on The Tom And Jerry Show.
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
A few weeks ago, a friend of ours educated us about House Hunters.
It has not been the same for years. At least not for me. Ever since they changed the theme music to electric guitar (Devine Design also) I stopped watching them.
The "next generation" concept was applied to several classic cartoon characters in the 1990s. Most notable of these was Steven Spielberg's Tiny Toon Adventures, which many have described as "Looney Tunes for the MTV Generation."
Filmation was never involved Had forgotten that Filmation was involved with Tom and Jerry at one point. You're Was thinking of the Gene Dietch era cartoons, which were animated by a Russian company.
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 09:15:51 AM
the beginning of the decline of H-B.
I think it started when I graduated from high school and picked an unprofitable college major. It's been downhill ever since for 40+ years.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2020, 03:27:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 09:15:51 AM
the beginning of the decline of H-B.
I think it started when I ...
They weren't talking about the decline of
you, HB. :-P
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2020, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2020, 03:27:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 09:15:51 AM
the beginning of the decline of H-B.
I think it started when I ...
They weren't talking about the decline of you, HB. :-P
... but bonus points for that, all the same ... :bigass:
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 03:06:00 PM
The "next generation" concept was applied to several classic cartoon characters in the 1990s. Most notable of these was Steven Spielberg's Tiny Toon Adventures, which many have described as "Looney Tunes for the MTV Generation."
Filmation was never involved with Tom and Jerry. You're thinking of the Gene Dietch era cartoons, which were animated by a Russian company.
What Do You Mean?!
In the 1960s they adapted theatrical Tom & Jerry for television, heavily censored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9haRrw35gI0
In the 1970s (1975) they switched completely to television with Hanna - Barbera producing The Tom & Jerry Show. (This is completely different from the 2014 programme.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27JIbZ6E-BA
In the 1980s (1980) Filmation produced The Tom & Jerry Comedy Show. A Tom & Jerry Kids opening segment (After Season One) is based off of the opening segment from Filmation. Both are building a very large sign with the mice causing every body to crash in to each other. The Tom & Jerry Comedy Show opening has everybody trying to paint a bill board. Tom & Jerry Kids opening has them using cranes to construct the sign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWCrzb7qMHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLavsYfgut4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzYajnd0njo
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
A few weeks ago, a friend of ours educated us about House Hunters.
Probably the fakest of all
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
They may be "real" but are heavily edited
Quote from: US71 on January 26, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
They may be "real" but are heavily edited
no, scripted. House Hunters they use people that have already bought a house. Pickers they don't travel together and work out deals in advance. Pawn Stars they work out deals in advance. Judge Judy pays the fees for the losers. Restaurant Stakeout they bring changes of clothes to pretend it's a different day. Ice Road Truckers they have that fake competition. Apparently reality itself is not exciting enough.
Re Judge Judy, People's Court et al
via Quora
Is the show Judge Judy scripted? It's not scripted per se, she IS prepared by the producers, BUT, a judge that's not on TV is always prepared before going out to preside over the case.
Quote from: US71 on January 26, 2020, 01:44:18 PM
Re Judge Judy, People's Court et al
via Quora
Is the show Judge Judy scripted? It's not scripted per se, she IS prepared by the producers, BUT, a judge that's not on TV is always prepared before going out to preside over the case.
I don't believe JJ is scripted but they pay any judgments so she's not really making anyone pay anything. I still watch but it does make it not so authentic.
Quote from: US71 on January 26, 2020, 01:44:18 PM
Re Judge Judy, People's Court et al
via Quora
Is the show Judge Judy scripted? It's not scripted per se, she IS prepared by the producers, BUT, a judge that's not on TV is always prepared before going out to preside over the case.
And it's arbitration technically, not exactly a good analog for how a court proceeding works. I do like the People's Court theme, it's by far the only watchable part of the show.
Heading into the way back machine...but Friends from the 90s
Not so much that I hate it, but I simply never found the show entertaining, let alone funny. I have trouble suspending the disbelief of the cast's living quarters and lifestyles in relation to their professions, in Manhattan
I guess Friends has been mentioned before on this thread, but I'll continue the echo
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 26, 2020, 02:29:34 PM
Heading into the way back machine...but Friends from the 90s
Not so much that I hate it, but I simply never found the show entertaining, let alone funny. I have trouble suspending the disbelief of the cast's living quarters and lifestyles in relation to their professions, in Manhattan
I guess Friends has been mentioned before on this thread, but I'll continue the echo
The problem that I had with it was that I found it something that I couldn't relate to. I didn't know anyone who acted like the characters in the show did nor lived as they did. For perspective we had a lot of family and friends in NYC at the time, none them even struck me as close to what Friends was portraying. I actually kind of found closer analogs to Seinfeld, especially the devious nature a lot of them carried. Granted Seinfeld has come up in this thread a lot lately. I noticed that my wife loves Friends but she has a circle of people around her that more closely resemble the characters. Having watched the show kind of by proxy my opinion would be that a backdrop like the West Coast would have been more fitting.
Friends has that Seinfeld thing. Seinfeld had that ending because the characters were pathetic. There was nothing particular enduring with the Friends cast either. I'll watch it if it's on but it's nowhere near my top 100.
Quote from: texaskdog on January 26, 2020, 01:40:24 PM
Quote from: US71 on January 26, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
They may be "real" but are heavily edited
no, scripted. House Hunters they use people that have already bought a house. Pickers they don't travel together and work out deals in advance. Pawn Stars they work out deals in advance. Judge Judy pays the fees for the losers. Restaurant Stakeout they bring changes of clothes to pretend it's a different day. Ice Road Truckers they have that fake competition. Apparently reality itself is not exciting enough.
At least the court programmes (such as Judge Judy) have qualified people to play the part of Judge. They have experience with the legal field usually as a Judge and / or a District Attorney. They probably also have qualified Bailiffs also.
Quote from: In_Correct on January 27, 2020, 07:11:47 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 26, 2020, 01:40:24 PM
Quote from: US71 on January 26, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
They may be "real" but are heavily edited
no, scripted. House Hunters they use people that have already bought a house. Pickers they don't travel together and work out deals in advance. Pawn Stars they work out deals in advance. Judge Judy pays the fees for the losers. Restaurant Stakeout they bring changes of clothes to pretend it's a different day. Ice Road Truckers they have that fake competition. Apparently reality itself is not exciting enough.
At least the court programmes (such as Judge Judy) have qualified people to play the part of Judge. They have experience with the legal field usually as a Judge and / or a District Attorney. They probably also have qualified Bailiffs also.
For sure, they just pretend that the losers pay other than a small disclaimer at the end.
Quote from: In_Correct on January 27, 2020, 07:11:47 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 26, 2020, 01:40:24 PM
Quote from: US71 on January 26, 2020, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on January 24, 2020, 02:05:08 PM
Any reality show. . .because they aren't real.
They may be "real" but are heavily edited
no, scripted. House Hunters they use people that have already bought a house. Pickers they don't travel together and work out deals in advance. Pawn Stars they work out deals in advance. Judge Judy pays the fees for the losers. Restaurant Stakeout they bring changes of clothes to pretend it's a different day. Ice Road Truckers they have that fake competition. Apparently reality itself is not exciting enough.
At least the court programmes (such as Judge Judy) have qualified people to play the part of Judge. They have experience with the legal field usually as a Judge and / or a District Attorney. They probably also have qualified Bailiffs also.
Reminds me of SNL's old skit about Aaron Neville (Horatio Sanz) hearing court cases without being a judge and spending most of the time vocalizing about the merits of cocoa butter.
Quote from: In_Correct on January 24, 2020, 06:22:05 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 03:06:00 PM
The "next generation" concept was applied to several classic cartoon characters in the 1990s. Most notable of these was Steven Spielberg's Tiny Toon Adventures, which many have described as "Looney Tunes for the MTV Generation."
Filmation was never involved with Tom and Jerry. You're thinking of the Gene Dietch era cartoons, which were animated by a Russian company.
What Do You Mean?!
In the 1960s they adapted theatrical Tom & Jerry for television, heavily censored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9haRrw35gI0
In the 1970s (1975) they switched completely to television with Hanna - Barbera producing The Tom & Jerry Show. (This is completely different from the 2014 programme.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27JIbZ6E-BA
In the 1980s (1980) Filmation produced The Tom & Jerry Comedy Show. A Tom & Jerry Kids opening segment (After Season One) is based off of the opening segment from Filmation. Both are building a very large sign with the mice causing every body to crash in to each other. The Tom & Jerry Comedy Show opening has everybody trying to paint a bill board. Tom & Jerry Kids opening has them using cranes to construct the sign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWCrzb7qMHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLavsYfgut4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzYajnd0njo
Interesting. I don't recall seeing any of those series. Which is probably just as well, given Flim - er - Filmation's quality (or lack thereof). Whenever Filmation is mentioned in discussions about animation, I'm reminded of
The Simpson's parody of
Fat Albert (
Obese Orson). In one scene, a character utters "Let's go get em guys." Another character immediately replies "Can't do that. We're limited to six new scenes per show. And we used those up just getting here."
I hate when they retro fit a cartoon after a lifestyle is established. Flintstones are one as one episode of the original series showed Fred and Wilma (along with Barney and Betty)meeting as young adults at a resort they both worked, and then the Flintstones Kids made it all out to be that they all knew each other as children and grew up together.
Now the Flintstones are all self contained in each episode as was Tom and Jerry (Tom even died in one cartoon in the end) was in a different universe. The Odd Couple was very much another as one particular episode showed Felix and Oscar meeting for the first time while serving on a jury yet other episodes implied they met as kids. Then Oscar's mother was played by two completely different actresses in the third season with one story line about Oscar not telling his mom he was divorced while the other implied his mom was at his divorce hearing.
The whole concept is popular of writers not following up on previous episodes and stuff, but to me I prefer more consistency in shows even Dallas which was to be a soap opera with continuing stories.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2020, 11:27:11 AM
I hate when they retro fit a cartoon after a lifestyle is established. Flintstones are one as one episode of the original series showed Fred and Wilma (along with Barney and Betty)meeting as young adults at a resort they both worked, and then the Flintstones Kids made it all out to be that they all knew each other as children and grew up together.
Now the Flintstones are all self contained in each episode as was Tom and Jerry (Tom even died in one cartoon in the end) was in a different universe. The Odd Couple was very much another as one particular episode showed Felix and Oscar meeting for the first time while serving on a jury yet other episodes implied they met as kids. Then Oscar's mother was played by two completely different actresses in the third season with one story line about Oscar not telling his mom he was divorced while the other implied his mom was at his divorce hearing.
The whole concept is popular of writers not following up on previous episodes and stuff, but to me I prefer more consistency in shows even Dallas which was to be a soap opera with continuing stories.
King of the Hill: Peggy's mom was in her life and fun, then she became a mean rancher she was estranged from. since when do you recast moms in cartoons?