David Spade ruined this show. I used to watch all the time but bow it's just ridiculous. either David Spade has to go or the show does.

AMEN! Cancel the David Spade show but renew 8 Simple Rules.

AMEN! Cancel the David Spade show but renew 8 Simple Rules.
They can do without David Spade and find someone else who is just as comical as John was. I'm not saying to replace John he's irreplaceable, I'm saying to replace David Spade, he stinks! :thumbsdow
Also, I know this maybe off topic, but does anyone here think the posts that I've been posting on '8SR' board been too much? If so, let me know. If not, than I'll know that someone else on this board (who shall remain nameless) is only looking to bait me into an arguement. For what reason, I have no idea.

AMEN! Cancel the David Spade show but renew 8 Simple Rules.
I think both David Spade and James Garner ruined it.

I think both David Spade and James Garner ruined it.
Sorry, I'm not into witches(referring to 'Charmed'). And anyway, looks like we don't have to worry about James Gardener or David Spade for that matter, they've canceled '8SR'. Not at all surprised, I knew it was coming. Was only a matter of time. Ratings don't lie.

David Spade ruined this show. I used to watch all the time but bow it's just ridiculous. either David Spade has to go or the show does.

Merry Christmas, you got your wish.

This show got so much better after James and David joined the cast. It was the best ABC comedy they had aired in years. I am done watching TGIF on that station.

David Spade did not ruin it - He had a few episodes with the name CJ in them but no more than Bridget had in the first season.
You also have to understand the new executive producers had worked with David before so knew where to use him more etc...

That's why I liked the first season better and from the ratings I think a lot of other people did, too. lol.

The "Spade faction" basically staged a coup d'etat, took over the show and you can see the results for yourself.

Thank you, David. Thanks a lot.

You can't blame David, I think its CJ you don't like.

He did not take over the show, he was featured no more in regular episodes that anybody else (with the exception of Rory and Jim, but Rory never had a big part). He did have a few of 'his own' episodes this season, but still no more than Bridget did in Season 1.

That's why I liked the first season better and from the ratings I think a lot of other people did, too. lol.

The "Spade faction" basically staged a coup d'etat, took over the show and you can see the results for yourself.

Thank you, David. Thanks a lot.

I must have missed when David started writing for the show :rolleyes:

This show got so much better after James and David joined the cast. It was the best ABC comedy they had aired in years. I am done watching TGIF on that station.
I thought I was the only one who felt that way here.

James Garner and David Spade made the show much more enjoyable. In my opinion, it would be kind of boring without them.

I loved when David and James joined the show. It was enjoyable with them.

I liked the show more when John Ritter was on it but JG and DS didn't ruin it. I never even was a fan of DS before but I think the show needed him in order to bring the comedy back to the show. What eventually happened though was that it lost half the audience after JR's death and it was never able to get those people back.

I loved when David and James joined the show. It was enjoyable with them.
Yeah. Oddly enough, they were actually my two favorites. I've always liked David Spade, James Garner too. I used to watch him on The Rockford Files alot, back when it was on TV Land.

When David Spade joined the show, costs went up and ratings went down. It is unrealistic to expect businessmen like the ABC execs or the affiliates and investors they answer to, to allow that to go on forever. After the producers saw after his original three episode contract was up that he would not be able to bring the ratings up, I think it was gross incompetence to sign him for a year. From a business standpoint, I just can't come up with a legitimate justification for that. The only explanation I can come up with is the raw use of power. The new producers must have just had an agenda to get him on the show and make him the star. The original premise for his character joining the show was contrived. How often does a cousin come to live family after the father died? Also, they weren't in the least worried about storyline inconsistency. For example, the CJs dad episode should never have happened because in Let's Keep Going, Pt. 1, Jim says CJ was conceived at Woodstock because his mother did a lot of crazy things in a lot of tents, but in CJs Dad Jim says CJs mother had a one night stand and his father skipped town. If he was conceived at Woodstock, they or he couldn't possibly know the identity of his father. It is unbelievable that no one noticed that. They didn't care about business, storyline consistency or plausibility or anything other than having the show dominated by Spade.

Finally, if they put Bridget in a lot of episodes and the ratings are high, the smart move is to keep putting Bridget in a lot of episodes. Also, if they put CJ in a lot of episodes and the ratings are low, the smart move is to get rid of him and save the money. If the producers had played it smart rather than dumb, I believe the show would have been renewed.

I think if the problem was Garner or Spade, really they could have been written out, I don't think ABC would cancel a show because of Production Costs if there is a way to cut them. I realized the CJ birth inconsictency. But I would like to note the new producers arrived a long time after David, they arrived Season 3 and David had been here for about 10 episodes.

I don't think Ratings could be pointed to story lines, Episodes would probably attract more people with a big guest star but I don't think whose storyline it is would affect it, I wouldn't see a commerical for an episode and think 'Oh thats a CJ episode, I ain't gonna watch'

I could see the outrage by James Garner fans if they let him go because of money. Getting rid of a veteran actor(not to the series, but a veteran actor as well known as him) is never good for business, I could see them letting Spade go, but Garner, they probably would have had somewhat of a backlash if they had let him go.

I could see the outrage by James Garner fans if they let him go because of money. Getting rid of a veteran actor(not to the series, but a veteran actor as well known as him) is never good for business, I could see them letting Spade go, but Garner, they probably would have had somewhat of a backlash if they had let him go.
I did enjoy James Garner on the show more then David Spade. Maybe some fans didn't like Adam Arkin. Maybe they thought he was trying to replace John Ritter.

Sorry, I'm not into witches(referring to 'Charmed').


:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I don't think James Garner really would have been earning loads, I know nobody would try screw him over (he didn't take it on The Rockford Files so I'm sure he wouldn't take it now), but David Spade probably was.

I don't think anybody could think Adam Arkin was trying to replace John, sure he and Kate had a love interest but the series ended before anything really happend.

I know I've only seen a few episodes, but I like James Garner and David Spade. I use to watch old re-runs of Saturday Night Live when David was on it, and I think that's he's hilarious. Sure, you guys don't like him, but it might just be the character. I also like James Garner too.

I don't think people would be thinking that Adam Arkin would be replacing John. No one could replace John, so why would they even think that?

I think if the problem was Garner or Spade, really they could have been written out, I don't think ABC would cancel a show because of Production Costs if there is a way to cut them. I realized the CJ birth inconsictency. But I would like to note the new producers arrived a long time after David, they arrived Season 3 and David had been here for about 10 episodes.

I don't think Ratings could be pointed to story lines, Episodes would probably attract more people with a big guest star but I don't think whose storyline it is would affect it, I wouldn't see a commerical for an episode and think 'Oh thats a CJ episode, I ain't gonna watch'

Then why did ABC renew shows with lower or about the same ratings if it wasn't costs?

I wasn't saying Spade was the most important factor in the ratings drop (although the timing is uncanny). Probably some combination of being against American Idol on Tuesday then being moved to Friday. What I am saying is that Spade was probably hired to immunize 8SR against competition from American Idol (to keep the winter/spring ratings drop from happening. Though, still why they would think that when 8SR bested Just Shoot Me in the ratings is still a mystery to me). The point is, it didn't work and it is an experiment that should have been abandoned early.

David Spade was added during Season 2, so he couldn't really have helped a winter ratings drop this season.

David Spade was added during Season 2, so he couldn't really have helped a winter ratings drop this season.

No, I meant Season 2, not this season. When they were on Tuesdays ratings always dropped when they went up against American Idol in the winter and spring and the only reason I can think of to add Spade would be to keep that drop from happening in Season 2. Why would competent producers add a high priced "star" if they didn't think he would get them higher ratings? The problem I have with that explanation is that if John Ritter couldn't prevent that drop in Season 1, David Spade sure couldn't in Season 2. So, adding David Spade to the case had no legitmate business justification. The only other alternative is someone in high places was pursuing some kind of a private agenda. You are right about the timing, Spade only added his producers in Season 3, but I don't think he could have pulled off the takeover of 8SR without allies in higher places, maybe Touchstone, I'm not sure at exactly what level those decisions are made.

As to Spade being expendable, according to Hollywood lore, things like amount of screen time, camera angles, closeups, laugh lines, etc. are indicators or power on a show. By that criteria, Spade was the most powerful cast member. It would be a strange state of affairs if the most powerful cast member was one of the two expendable ones.

About the writers, maybe the Spade people replaced some of the writers, maybe the remaining ones were smart enough to figure out which way the wind was blowing and which stories would get shot, or both.

They need some comic to save the show back in Season two they hire David Spade but I don't take he was the right guy I think that they should have had a very funny actor that could do a family sitcom and David Spade is not that kind of actor that could do a family sitcom he is more good like a Seinfeld-Friends Sitcom that why he was good on Just Shoot Me

I don't think there was a "private agenda" or people in high places getting Spade into the show.

Lets look at the timeline

December 2003 - Flody Squarez fired, Spade to guest star in 2 episode arc
January 2004 - Garner joins Cast of 8 Simple Rules, 1 episode later Spade joins.
June 2004 - Judd Pillot and John Peaslee named exec producers of 'rules'.

I IMDB'd David Spade with allot of the 'rules' crew and found nothing, Flody Squarez was reportedly fired because of a growing rift between him and Tom Shadyac, I didn't find anything where David Spade and Tom Shadyac had worked together though.

I know at the time David Spade was set to guest star his agents were talking to Producers, Networks about a full time return to Television, I guess somebody at ABC may have wanted him to be in more than 2 episodes.

I don't think there was a "private agenda" or people in high places getting Spade into the show.

Lets look at the timeline

December 2003 - Flody Squarez fired, Spade to guest star in 2 episode arc
January 2004 - Garner joins Cast of 8 Simple Rules, 1 episode later Spade joins.
June 2004 - Judd Pillot and John Peaslee named exec producers of 'rules'.

I IMDB'd David Spade with allot of the 'rules' crew and found nothing, Flody Squarez was reportedly fired because of a growing rift between him and Tom Shadyac, I didn't find anything where David Spade and Tom Shadyac had worked together though.

I know at the time David Spade was set to guest star his agents were talking to Producers, Networks about a full time return to Television, I guess somebody at ABC may have wanted him to be in more than 2 episodes.

The producers either knew or should have known that Spade wouldn't increase ratings when they originally hired him because if John Ritter couldn't stop the 8SR decline against American Idol, David Spade couldn't either. After the original three episode contract, they clearly knew he wouldn't help 8SR against American Idol. If that wasn't the purpose, what was? 8SR was still a hit in December when he taped his first episode (I don't know exactly when he was hired). Given that, why would they pay all that money for him? What other legitimate business reason for hiring him could there be unless they thought he would increase ratings? The problem is, they either knew or should have known he wouldn't.

And if there were no business reason to hire him, there had to be other non-business reasons.


The issue I'm trying to raise is not why would Spade join 8SR, but why would they want him. James Garner had already "replaced" (I put it in quotation marks because no one could really replace him) John Ritter after his death.
Who's cousin comes to live with a family after their father dies? That was just another unbelievable contrivance to get Spade on the show. The show was 8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter (until they shortened it but it still referred to the same thing). What has their cousin got to do with that?


I already said Spade had to have allies other than the producers to get him on the show in the prior post. I don't know who, but it probably was someone at Touchstone. I seriously doubt it went as high as the ABC VPs because the network has shown such disrespect for the show since Spade joined, reaching it's height this year after his clique achieved domination. Last May, a few months after Spade joined the cast, ABC moves 8SR to Friday, the ratings basement. This February, a month or two after the Spade people achieve total dominance, leaks start that ABC might cancel 8SR and continue throughout the winter and Spring. About a week before upfront, there are constant leaks, apparently from low level people (I thought at the time, but in hindsight I wonder if that was true) that 8SR has been cancelled. In the ultimate act of disrespect, ABC leaks to the Futon Critic that the show has been cancelled 2 days before upfront and apparently this is how the cast, crew and producers find out (this is clearly the case for Katey Sagal) and then the official announcement shows that not only has 8SR been cancelled, but every other comedy, some with lower ratings, were renewed except Complete Savages and My Wife and Kids and that many more new comedies than expected were picked up.

Your "Timeline" or your imdb search proves nothing beyond what I already said earlier. It is obvious by number of storylines, laugh lines, etc. that by this year that the Spade people had taken over 8SR (and his producers were clearly in place this year). Since it's cancellation happened on their watch, while they dominated the show, it is their responsibility. Surely you wouldn't deny Pilot and Pease are responsible and that they are Spade associates. Or that more than half of the titles this year referred to CJ, more than all of the other characters combined.

I know, I was irked sometimes,because they never really seriously focused on Katey.I think the cancellation must have to do with a rift between the parties,or either that it was because the money...

Well, of course Pillot and Peaslee are responsible. They're show-killers, after all. Make them EP of something, and it's guaranteed to leave the air within a year.

lol. The same could be said of Spade. I thought Hollywood people were superstitious. If you are a hit show and looking to add people, you should get people who are "hot" not those walking away from their last disaster.

I know, I was irked sometimes,because they never really seriously focused on Katey.I think the cancellation must have to do with a rift between the parties,or either that it was because the money...

It's a strange situation when a peripheral character who has nothing whatsoever to do with the central concept of a show gets about twice as many feature episodes as the 1st billed star and the 2nd billed star is shut out completely for about half of the season.

All I can see with any links with Pillot & Peaslee to Cancellation, is maybe they didn't want to be a mid-season replacement (Probably 'rules' only chance of renewal).

Judd Pillot and John Peaslee were obvious choices - they had worked with David Spade before, and James Widdoes now executive producer.

David Spade was a pretty big part of the show when Pillot and Peaslee were signed for "1 Season, with an option for a fourth" so at the point it is clear ABC had plans for a fourth, David Spade did not grow over the last season to a point in making ABC want to cancel.

Blame it on Ratings if you will, but this cannot be blamed to David Spade.

Here may lie one of the key reasons for cancellation :

Network series losing most viewership in the 18-to-49 demographic

Declines on ABC's sitcoms prevented the network from fully enjoying the 'Desperate Housewives' boost. NBC's 'Will & Grace' and 'Apprentice' suffered because of the loss of 'Friends' as lead-in, while Fox's 'That '70s Show' struggled against ABC's island thriller 'Lost.'

-43%: '8 Simple Rules' (ABC)
-41%: 'The Bachelor' (ABC)
-38%: 'Will & Grace' (NBC)
-38%: 'America's Next Top Model' (UPN)
-38%: 'Less Than Perfect' (ABC)
-37%: 'The Apprentice 3' (NBC)
-36%: 'Scrubs' (NBC)
-35%: 'Bernie Mac' (Fox)
-33%: 'That '70s Show' (Fox)
-32%: 'Extreme Makeover' (ABC)


However, a few questions arise from these numbers. The first is 8SR moved from the Tuesday at 8:00 time slot to the Friday at 8:00 time slot, and that is a much worse time slot as far as 18-49 year olds. Also, 8SR for the first five or six episodes last year were very high. That was the last John Ritter episodes and the Goodbye episodes following his death. They drew huge ratings. So when you compare this year to last year, they had a long way to fall off because these huge ratings were averaged in last years ratings.

Also, Less Than Perfect was renewed and it experienced a similar drop off in a much better time slot at 9:30.

Also, if you look closely most of these showed were renewed even though they dropped in the 18-49 category.

All I can see with any links with Pillot & Peaslee to Cancellation, is maybe they didn't want to be a mid-season replacement (Probably 'rules' only chance of renewal).

Judd Pillot and John Peaslee were obvious choices - they had worked with David Spade before, and James Widdoes now executive producer.

David Spade was a pretty big part of the show when Pillot and Peaslee were signed for "1 Season, with an option for a fourth" so at the point it is clear ABC had plans for a fourth, David Spade did not grow over the last season to a point in making ABC want to cancel.

Blame it on Ratings if you will, but this cannot be blamed to David Spade.

I don't see why Pillot and Pease were obvious choices because they had worked with Spade before unless what I was saying was true. The fact is many fewer people watched before Spade joined than after. Then in the season when he dominated storylines the show is cancelled and others with lower ratings are renewed. He is reported signed to a fat contract and ratings do not improve but go down. His producers are in control. How can it be that he had nothing to do with 8SR's cancellation? You make it sound like he wasn't even there. Maybe that is the tactic his people use that always seems to get him rewarded for failure, but I just don't buy it. I guess if people in Hollywood are stupid enough to buy it, that is their problem. As a result of this, his domination of the airwaves will probably only increase, but I am still angry that he and his people took over my favorite show, ruined it and got it cancelled. If it were just low ratings, that would be different. That is just the business, although every show I like seems to get cancelled. lol.

All I can see with any links with Pillot & Peaslee to Cancellation, is maybe they didn't want to be a mid-season replacement (Probably 'rules' only chance of renewal).

Judd Pillot and John Peaslee were obvious choices - they had worked with David Spade before, and James Widdoes now executive producer.

David Spade was a pretty big part of the show when Pillot and Peaslee were signed for "1 Season, with an option for a fourth" so at the point it is clear ABC had plans for a fourth, David Spade did not grow over the last season to a point in making ABC want to cancel.

Blame it on Ratings if you will, but this cannot be blamed to David Spade.

I don't see why Pillot and Peaslee were obvious choices because they had worked with Spade before unless what I was saying was true. Spade in no way dominated the second half of Season 2 the way he did the second half of Season 3. The idea of Spade domination never even occurred to me or anyone else I know of back then.

If the producers are not responsible for what happens on their shows, I don't know who is. I'm sorry, but that argument strikes me as, on its face, ludricous.

The argument that no one in the cast has anything to do with ratings is a bit less ludricous, but not much. Think about it this way: who is it all of these people were NOT watching? Spade, mostly, because he dominated the plot lines. Another way of thinking about it is to ask how people decide what to watch. I ask myself two questions: Who is in it? and What is it about? Maybe I'm a minority of one in doing that, but I suspect that is a pretty common thought process.

The ratings were clearly a part of it, but not all, because lower rated shows were renewed. No one on this board that whose posts I read would have thought ABC would pick up that many comedies and not 8SR.

There are 3 theories I have heard and only one of them makes any sense.

1. MacPherson and Bader are evil and irrational. I think that's just the anger from disappointed 8SR fans talking. There has to be a more logical explanation.

2. One or more of the cast didn't want to continue. Katey Sagal and Kaley Couco both said publicly that they did. It has been argued that James Garner and David Spade were expendable (though for reasons I have already explained I don't buy that as to Spade. I think he would have to be forcibly removed from the set.). It would not seem that Amy Davidson or Martin Spanjers would want to quit, that would seem to clearly be bad for their careers. That leaves no one.

3. The show was not getting high enough ratings TO JUSTIFY ITS COSTS. The main increase in costs this season over last is paying Spade about a half a season's worth of episodes, assuming raises were evenly distributed (James Garner was paid for about a couple more episodes in Season 3 than 2).

I could have donw w/o CJ. He seems a little old to be Cate's nephew.(I have no idea how old David is) I did like the addition of James Garner. That seemed fitting Cate's dad would move in after such a tragedy.

I could have donw w/o CJ. He seems a little old to be Cate's nephew.(I have no idea how old David is) I did like the addition of James Garner. That seemed fitting Cate's dad would move in after such a tragedy.

I actually like James Garner. I can't think of anyone better to join the cast after John Ritter's death. He is a man, not a punk juvenile middle aged boy (Spade is 40, playing a 35 year old. That is another contrivance so he could join the cast. We don't know how old Cate is, but Katey Sagal is 46. I can't imagine Cate is much older than that. Assuming Cate is in her mid-forties that would mean that she is only about 10 years older than her nephew. Her sister would need to be 25 years older, assuming she had CJ at 15 and even older if she had him later). James Garner is a class act and genuinely funny rather than always going for the cheap, stupid laugh. He is also an actor, which is more than I can say for anyone who plays basically the same role at different ages and circumstances throughout his career.

I actually like James Garner. I can't think of anyone better to join the cast after John Ritter's death. He is a man, not a punk juvenile middle aged boy (Spade is 40, playing a 35 year old. That is another contrivance so he could join the cast. We don't know how old Cate is, but Katey Sagal is 46. I can't imagine Cate is much older than that. Assuming Cate is in her mid-forties that would mean that she is only about 10 years older than her nephew. Her sister would need to be 25 years older, assuming she had CJ at 15 and even older if she had him later). James Garner is a class act and genuinely funny rather than always going for the cheap, stupid laugh. He is also an actor, which is more than I can say for anyone who plays basically the same role at different ages and circumstances throughout his career.
I don't mean to correct cast ages,but Katey Sagal is 49. David Spade was okay,but I would have prefered they focused on Katey.After all,she was the original star...

I don't mean to correct cast ages,but Katey Sagal is 49. David Spade was okay,but I would have prefered they focused on Katey.After all,she was the original star...

According to IMDB, Katey Sagal is 51. This database is usually very accurate. See here :

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0005408/

According to IMDB, Katey Sagal is 51. This database is usually very accurate. See here :

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0005408/

You're right. I could have sworn Katey was 46. I should check my facts more carefully from now on before I post. I withdraw that objection to CJ and Spade but stand by all of the others. lol.

Those stats are incorrect. Katey is listed as having 3 different birth years,and the years 1957,and 1956 show up more commonly. IMDB sometimes is a bit inaccurate.

Katey Sagal is for sure at least 50. I remember on ET she celebrated her 50th.

I just watched 8SR lastnight,and I just realized the reason 8SR was cancelled may after all have to do with David Spade. Pillot and Peaslee had worked with him before, and I think they made a point of focusing on him WAYtoo much. I remember after John's death,the original plan was to make Katey Sagal the star,NOT David. I think that abc thought that Katey Sagal couldn't handle being the focus,even though she is one of the original castmembers,and a show veteran. That could possibly be part of the reason.

I just watched 8SR lastnight,and I just realized the reason 8SR was cancelled may after all have to do with David Spade. Pillot and Peaslee had worked with him before, and I think they made a point of focusing on him WAYtoo much. I remember after John's death,the original plan was to make Katey Sagal the star,NOT David. I think that abc thought that Katey Sagal couldn't handle being the focus,even though she is one of the original castmembers,and a show veteran. That could possibly be part of the reason.

In general, if Pillot and Peaslee were the CEOs of any major corporation and it's stock performed the way 8SRs ratings did while they were in charge, they would have been gone a long time ago. If they were President of the United States and the economy performed like 8SRs ratings they would lose reelection in a landslide.

8SR underperformed in the 18-49 age group, the group that is closer to Spade's age and is more likely to identify with him and is more likely to have grown watching him. I think since Katey Sagal is more likeable, and a lot of people in this group grew up watching Married With Children, so the smart play might have been more Katey and less Spade. In a time of ratings hemorhage, I would worry that Spade is so obnoxious that he would repel more viewers than he would attract. Katey Sagal is pretty much universally liked and at least wouldn't drive viewers away.

Also, 8SR overperformed with either people under 18 or over 49 or both, so more Kaley and James Garner might have played to the shows' strength and helped.

One thing I noticed by listening to the commentary,watching events unfold and even reading these posts is that I think Katey and Kaley are underrated and don't get their proper respect because of stereotypical thinking. Spade's people and defenders engage in all this name dropping and what I consider to be bloviation about what he's gonna do. As best I can tell, he hasn't done jack. He hasn't delivered. He didn't keep Just Shoot Me from getting cancelled and he didn't keep 8SR's ratings from falling and getting cancelled. He is vastly overrated, mostly due to his and his people's genius for blame shifting and self-promotion.

David Spade is so funny! Its not his fault that 8 Simple Rules got the sack. I think it boosted its ratings when he and James Garner joined the cast. He was also nominated for an emmy for his role in Just Shoot Me. I think the reason why that show got canned was when it got moved around so much and the writers started to give that stupid character Kevin more air time then he deserved. Don't blame David for the cancellation of these shows. David is a very funny person and if he wasn't, he wouldn't have lasted this long in show biz~!

In general, if Pillot and Peaslee were the CEOs of any major corporation and it's stock performed the way 8SRs ratings did while they were in charge, they would have been gone a long time ago. If they were President of the United States and the economy performed like 8SRs ratings they would lose reelection in a landslide.

8SR underperformed in the 18-49 age group, the group that is closer to Spade's age and is more likely to identify with him and is more likely to have grown watching him. I think since Katey Sagal is more likeable, and a lot of people in this group grew up watching Married With Children, so the smart play might have been more Katey and less Spade. In a time of ratings hemorhage, I would worry that Spade is so obnoxious that he would repel more viewers than he would attract. Katey Sagal is pretty much universally liked and at least wouldn't drive viewers away.

Also, 8SR overperformed with either people under 18 or over 49 or both, so more Kaley and James Garner might have played to the shows' strength and helped.

One thing I noticed by listening to the commentary,watching events unfold and even reading these posts is that I think Katey and Kaley are underrated and don't get their proper respect because of stereotypical thinking. Spade's people and defenders engage in all this name dropping and what I consider to be bloviation about what he's gonna do. As best I can tell, he hasn't done jack. He hasn't delivered. He didn't keep Just Shoot Me from getting cancelled and he didn't keep 8SR's ratings from falling and getting cancelled. He is vastly overrated, mostly due to his and his people's genius for blame shifting and self-promotion.





It did go from the John Ritter Show to the David Spade Show and David Spade is no John Ritter.

Its TGIF its supposed to over peform in under 18.

I do have to agree with David Spade, you either love him or you hate him. In 8SR he wasn't as obnoxious as in Just Shoot Me, but either way I like him.

8SR just isn't the same w/o John. May he rest in peace.