I was talking to a friend of mine (who is a fellow "WINGS" fan) and we were discussing NICK's shabby treatment of the series after the initial big build-up.

My buddy said that he heard that NICK was basically shamed into sweeping "WINGS" under the rug after it's marathon showings.

Apparently many loyal NICK viewers (including parents whose children watch NICK during the day and early evening hours) were outraged by certain "WINGS" marathon episodes which either showed or talked about characters taking part in pre-marital sex, and the series' apparent casual attitude toward it.

I shot back with, "That's CRAZY! What about the raunchy 'Three's Company'? NICK shows the HECK out of that!"

Apparently THAT series is acceptable because it just has "naughty leering" in it....Janet, Chrissy and the other female roomates are "nice girls" who don't actually DO anything like what the "WINGS" girls do!

That still leaves "Cheers", with Sam's countless sexual conquests, but again, it must not have bended noses out of shape the way that "WINGS" did.

I find this theory hard to believe, but my friend insists that he heard it from a couple of different sources...and one source actually works in Cable broadcasting!

So is THAT it? Was "WINGS" suddenly labeled a "dirty show" that doesn't really belong on a "family" cable network like Nickleodeon?

Sounds weird to me, but ANYTHING is possible...Has anyone else heard this story?

Well no... I hadn't heard that theory, but then again I haven't been really checking out possible reasons for N@N's treatment of Wings.

But I've never thought of Wings as a "dirty" show... and I'm pretty darn conservative. Granted, it's got more references to sex than "Cosby," but certainly not more than Cheers or Three's Company. In fact, I'd never let my kids watch "Three's Company." For one thing, it plays around with that whole "let's pretend Jack's gay" thing that grates on my nerves.

I don't encourage my kids to watch Wings, but if they wanted to watch I would feel comfortable (except for just a few episodes.)

Love,

Wing<><

Yeah, I've never heard that either, but like wingshock, I haven't really been reading around at other boards or websites or anything.
And I think that doesn't make sense, because I'm pretty conservative too, and at first i was kind of surprised at a couple of things that were said on Wings, but it made me laugh- not get disgusted with the show. Nothing they do on this show really bothers me that much, I mean personally, I don't really believe in pre-marital sex.. but so many TV shows nowadays have a casual attitude towards it, that it doesn't really bother me to see those situations on TV... I'm not THAT much of a prude! lol

I mean, it's entirely possible that people may have complained about that, and that's why Wings is on at 1:30 AM, but that's really lame!
I think it's possible tho, although I haven't actually heard that myself.

~Krista
:cow:

If that's true, then I don't understand it at all, because Cheers has just as many sex jokes as Wings. There are always references to all the women that Sam has been with, and it's mentioned in almost every episode. Plus, there have been episodes about adultery, and Carla is always pregnant with children from different fathers. I think Cheers is a great show, but if people are bothered by Wings, it seems like they'd be even more bothered by Cheers. And Three's Company is filled with sexual innuendo, although most of it's double entendre, so kids probably wouldn't understand the sexual double meanings, and take the jokes at face value (I actually used to watch it when I was a kid!). Plus, an 11:00 time slot is late, so kids really wouldn't be watching tv at that time anyway. Friends is shown every night on a network station (not cable, like Wings), and of course that show is filled with sexual jokes, much more explicit than those on Wings. So if that's true, then maybe those parents should put their kids to bed by 11:00.

Just to add to my post, I can see where parents wouldn't want their kids to watch certain Wings episodes. I'm pretty conservative also, and probably wouldn't let my kids (if I had any!) watch some of those Wings episodes either, but I don't think that it's intended for kids. Instead of complaining about Nick at Nite showing Wings, why don't they just not let their kids watch it? And I find the jokes on Cheers much more risque. That's the thing I don't understand...Cheers and Three's Company have been on Nick for years, so people should be used to these kinds of jokes on Nick at Nite. That's why these shows are on later, and why Cosby is on at 9. :rant:

I heard that too, but I really don't understand why parents would complain about Wings when Cheers and Three's Company are both far more risque. I think that Wings is a very tame show compared to most of the stuff that has come out on the tube these past few years. Plus, the marathon aired from 10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern time, and I don't know about you people, but when I was a kid, by the time 10 PM rolled around, I was already in BED, not up watching TV. I'm tired of parents ruining everything for us people who don't have kids, or aren't too conservative about what their kids are watching. If you don't want your kids to see something, then TURN THE SET OFF! My parents were very liberal about my TV watching and I don't think I turned out any worse or immoral because of it.

I personally think the low ratings during the Wings marathon and the week or so after that are because people were obviously more concerned with the war in Iraq. N@N should give the show another chance. Networks in general need to give shows a chance to grow and develop. They are too trigger-happy these days.

What's wild is that if those prudes thought that the WINGS "Marathon" episodes were raunchy, it's a good thing that they didn't see any "Bunny Mather" episodes....

SOMEBODY always ends up "rolling in the hay" whenever SHE shows up! :grineyes:

Parents calling in and complaining is the reason "The Real Ghostbusters" as cancelled. I loved that cartoon. I agree that kids should be in bed by the time "Wings" starts. They act like they're being good parents by getting "dirty" shows off the air, but they're ignoring the fact that they're letting their kids stay up all hours of the night. I guess the parents will be pleased when Full House debuts on N@N. I'm not a parent yet but I wouldn't try to ruin anything for anyone else by removing a showfrom the lineup. Just for the record, my bedtime was 8:00pm. Except on Mondays, I could stay up to watched "ALF." My bedtime changed from year to year, now that I'm 21 I go to bed around 2 in the morning. That's what my parents get for putting me to bed after "Entertainment Tonight."

If this is true, then all the blame for the mistreatment of "Wings" can't go on N@N. I mean, it's not the way we thought where they didn't give it a chance.

If parents are so worried about what their kids watch I am surprised that they have tried to get a show like friends to a later time. They have way more sex in that show than Wings.

yeah, I mean, seriously! There are a LOT of other shows that are more risque than Wings, and are on TV at an earlier time.

I actually watched Wings when I was young, during its first-run. I remember watching it with my mom once in a while. and I was between the ages of 8 and 15 when it was on the air. and watching it now, I don't think I would let my kids (if I had any) watch it if they were younger than 10 or 12, but hey, I watched it, and I had no idea what they were talking about when I was younger, so it didn't hurt me. lol.
and if parents don't want their kids seeing certainthings on TV, then parents need to pay attention to what their kids are watching!! The cable channels shouldn't have to be babysitters.

I have an 11-year old daughter who LOVES "Wings"! (She loves all of the characters, but gets an especially big kick out of feisty Helen).

I show her the videotapes of the episodes that I tape the night before...but I am VERY selective about the ones that I show her.

Episodes like the one where Helen dates the guy with the annoying laugh or the Hackett brothers buy Helen the cello are very tame and can be shown to my daughter with no problem...

However, there are OTHER episodes where I have to tell my daughter, "Sorry honey, Dad can't show you that one....It has some inappropriate stuff in it that you're too young for right now". She's not happy when that happens, but she understands.

May i say something?
I have seen a few episodes of Wings and completely agree that the sexual content in Wings is not over the top, or anything Nick at Nite or parents can't handle. I also agree that Cheers has ALOT more sexual content and references to sex. There is an episode in Cheers where they show Sam and Rebecca getting dressed after they had sex. There are also countless episodes where Sam and Diane are either referring too sex, or on top of each other kissing. I wouldn't really say that about three's company, I think it is a relatively harmless show, I mean sure they did make many references to sex, but they rarely even said the word "sex". Plus in all the years that three's company was on I don't really think anybody slept with anyone, and if they did it wasn't really made the focus of an episode.

I was just wondering, haven't you guys considered the fact that maybe the ratings for Wings, compared to the ones for Cosby, Cheers, and three's Company, were not that high? Let's face it Tv. Networks are out there to get ratings not to make everybody happy...just a thought.

~Maria

yeah, well that's the thing- the ratings weren't that high, because the week they started the Wings marathon on N@N, was the week that the War in Iraq started.. so people were watching the news more than watching Wings, and then Wings was only on at the 11:00 timeslot for a couple of weeks- while the whole war was going on. so of course ratings were low.. and then BOOM, (haha! that just reminded me of that episode of Wings where Brian's like, "your mother- was it a gradual change? or was it like.. BABOOM!- inflatable raft?")
lol sorry, I got sidetracked. but yeah, the ratings weren't good because they didn't give it a chance, and then they moved the show to 1:00 AM, where not many people are awake and casually flipping through channels. so the only people you get watching the show are the core fan base, and there isn't a huge chance for a lot of new viewers, like there would be at the 11:00 timeslot... so the ratings are lower.

honestly i would have to disagree with you, i mean yes people were watching less tv. because of the War, but nevertheless they still did watch some television, and they tried watching something that might Cheer them up you know...I'm sorry i know this isn't the right board for me to say this, and really this is just my own opinion....I really don't find wings that funny. I mean it's an ok sitcom, but i would rather watch Cheers and maybe some other people would too, or cosby or Threes Company. Again im not trying to insult you guys, im just being honest.... But if you guys want to do something about it, e-mail nick at nite, they really do take it into consideration.

Originally posted by DianeChambers87
Again im not trying to insult you guys, im just being honest....


Well, there's your problem right there....You're being HONEST!

Everyone here KNOWS that honesty has NO place on the "WINGS" message board....

For weeks now I've been saying that people think that I look like Tim Daly....You think THAT'S honest?

Some other guy here keeps denying that Crystal Bernard has a restraining order on him...You think THAT'S honest?

And there are at least TWO college-age girls here who say that they would NEVER date Tim Daly because he's so much older than they are....Come ON now!

No, I'm sorry....If it's honesty you want, you HAVE logged onto the wrong message board! :D

I guess I just have to pipe in on this topic again....I think we all realize measuring a show, and saying what is good, or what is funny is subject to a personal opinion. Everybody has one......

......I beg to differ with Ms. Chambers on the quality of Wings. I think it was top quality for the most of its run. And I don't think you can discount the timing of when the marathon was on and the ratings were being calculated. The war had just begun and the coverage of the war was getting major attention as should be expected. They then dropped Wings from the time slot within a week, or two at the absolute most. I don't see how you can make any credible evaluation of the ratings under those circumstances. Had Wings stayed at that time slot for a month and still didn't get decent ratings I would be more comfortable with that argument.

As for other shows, again this is just my biased opinion, but Wings is a far superior show to Three's Company.

And as Ms. Chambers should recall, ratings should never be the ulitmate criteria, it should only play one of the factors. After all, way back in 1982, the first season of Cheers finished last in the ratings and even the second year the ratings were not that good. Had Cheers come along in 2002, rather then 1982, with ratings like that, it would have never seen a second season. But thank goodness ratings alone didn't drive the decisions for NBC back in those days, and Cheers got a real chance and a quality show survived for many great years.

I know it's all about money today, and nick wants the best advertising dollars they can get, but sometimes quality should be given some of a consideration as well.

But again, I realize some people just don't like Wings, and nothing I write here is going to change an opinion. But Ms. Chambers I welcome you to stop by any time because its always good to get differing perspectives.

Originally posted by losthighway


But again, I realize some people just don't like Wings, and nothing I write here is going to change an opinion. But Ms. Chambers I welcome you to stop by any time because its always good to get differing perspectives.


....and as Roy Biggins would say (and then walk away), "And if she doesn't like the show, the HELL with her!"

(Just kidding, Ms. Chambers....stop by anytime...We have a T-shirt with a picture of the "Wings" cast on the front of it here waiting for you!) :D

Originally posted by pilotguy



And there are at least TWO college-age girls here who say that they would NEVER date Tim Daly because he's so much older than they are....Come ON now!

No, I'm sorry....If it's honesty you want, you HAVE logged onto the wrong message board! :D

lol pilotguy. you crack me up. hehe

but to specify, No I definately would not date Tim Daly right NOW. since right now, in 2003, he's old enough to be my dad. hehe. Personally, I could not date anyone who was old enough to be my Dad. ew.
But on Wings, as Joe.. if it were 10 years earlier, and I was still 21 like I am now, but he was still 33 like he was then (i think Tim was older than that in real life tho at the time).... hmm.. yeah, maybe I was lying when I said I wouldn't. hahaha! 12 years older.. hmmm... i guess that's not THAT much. lol.
heeee...

~Krista
:)

Originally posted by losthighway
I guess I just have to pipe in on this topic again....I think we all realize measuring a show, and saying what is good, or what is funny is subject to a personal opinion. Everybody has one......

......I beg to differ with Ms. Chambers on the quality of Wings. I think it was top quality for the most of its run. And I don't think you can discount the timing of when the marathon was on and the ratings were being calculated. The war had just begun and the coverage of the war was getting major attention as should be expected. They then dropped Wings from the time slot within a week, or two at the absolute most. I don't see how you can make any credible evaluation of the ratings under those circumstances. Had Wings stayed at that time slot for a month and still didn't get decent ratings I would be more comfortable with that argument.

As for other shows, again this is just my biased opinion, but Wings is a far superior show to Three's Company.

And as Ms. Chambers should recall, ratings should never be the ulitmate criteria, it should only play one of the factors. After all, way back in 1982, the first season of Cheers finished last in the ratings and even the second year the ratings were not that good. Had Cheers come along in 2002, rather then 1982, with ratings like that, it would have never seen a second season. But thank goodness ratings alone didn't drive the decisions for NBC back in those days, and Cheers got a real chance and a quality show survived for many great years.

I know it's all about money today, and nick wants the best advertising dollars they can get, but sometimes quality should be given some of a consideration as well.

But again, I realize some people just don't like Wings, and nothing I write here is going to change an opinion. But Ms. Chambers I welcome you to stop by any time because its always good to get differing perspectives.

Thank you for the invitation! :D , On the Cheers point you made earlier, true the ratings were ghastly first and second season, but NBC wasn't getting any good ratings for any of it's shows. Plus they had 3 creative geniuses backing the show up. Which were ofcourse were James Burrows, Glen Charles, and Les Charles. Which the three of them were responsible for that classic show called Taxi, and James Burrows directs for shows such as Friends, Fraiser, Will and Grace etc. The network also recognized the quality of Cheers and so did the critics. Cheers won 5 emmy awards for their first season including Best Comedy series, and lead actress in a comedy series. So Cheers had a little bit of foundation and credibility backing it up. It was a different situation that can't be compared to the one on nick at nite, and again I encourage you guys to e-mail nick @ nite and tell them you want wings. Im not a fan of Three's Company OR Cosby (I personally cannot stand the Cosby Show).

Again thank you for the invitation!

That's true Diane, but there have been other shows that still saw the scrap heap, even after good cirtical acclaim, when they got ratings like that. Cheers was lucky to have a guy in charge (Brandon Tarikoff sp?) that was willing to take a chance and stick with a show. Because today if your ratings stink like that, it doesn't matter who is producing the show, it will be dropped.

I was just trying to make a general comparison. Obviously what NBC did back in 1982 is different then what nick is targeting and trying to do with a cable channel. It's a different ballgame all together. I was just trying to point out that ratings should not be the ultimate criteria.

Several of us have e-mailed nick and the moderator of this board has started a petition, but the odds of that making a lick of difference, are minimal to say the least. Still, we can only hope Wings gets the respect it deserves. Have you gotten the Cheers DVD yet? A friend of mine has it, I was a little disappointed with the limited special features, but of course its always great to have all the episodes.

Why ofcourse! I had it pre-ordered since February..hehe! Waiting on the second season. Yeah the special Features aren't out of this world great but they're not bad. Plus the episodes are soooo great it completely makes up for it. Cheers has one of the best, strongest first seasons i have ever seen! I love it!

Yeah, the writing on the first season of Cheers is fantastic. I thougt the first year of MASH with Larry Gelbart being the head writer, was exceptional as well. And of course David Angell, Peter Casey and David Lee had a superb first year with Frasier. But if I had to pick my favorite first year, it would probably be Cheers.

I was sorry the Special Features section that had the interview with Ted didn't include other cast members, but I guess George and Rhea etc...weren't available? I enjoyed listenig to Ted, I just would have liked hearing perspectives from other cast members as well.

By the way, I'm also a big Frasier fan so I have another question for you. (Maybe you don't watch Frasier so maybe you won't have an opinion?)......I was disappointed when Frasier finally went back to Boston last season he didn't visit the Cheers bar. Frasier and his family ended up going to a retirement party for Cliff and it was fun to see Norm and Carla and Cliff again, but I would have enjoyed seeing him back at his old stomping grounds, the bar! Would you have liked to see that, or are you glad Cheers has never been seen since the end of the show?

I heard a rumor that the Charles brothers didn't give the OK to do that. I'm hoping during the final year of Frasier that Sam Malone shows up in at least one episode. Since Ted isn't doing Becker anymore maybe he'll be available.

Originally posted by DianeChambers87
Why ofcourse! I had it pre-ordered since February..hehe! Waiting on the second season. Yeah the special Features aren't out of this world great but they're not bad. Plus the episodes are soooo great it completely makes up for it. Cheers has one of the best, strongest first seasons i have ever seen! I love it!

I bought the Cheers DVD, too. I'm a new fan to that show as I resented it's popularity for years.

Another show that was on NBC was "NewsRadio." Some of the early episodes were directed by James Burrows and he once said that the cast was as great a cast as "Friends." The ratings were terrible. But the critics loved it. I know I say a lot of bad things about NBC for their treatment of NewsRadio, giving it over nine different time slots in four and a half years. But at least they kept it on for four and a half years.

I love Wings and find it funnier than Cheers. Which Wings is also done by the same people behind "Cheers". But honestly the two shows are completely different types of comedy. I can't explain it,
but they just are. I found Wings alot more like "Taxi."

Originally posted by Krista2882




but to specify, No I definately would not date Tim Daly right NOW. since right now, in 2003, he's old enough to be my dad. hehe. Personally, I could not date anyone who was old enough to be my Dad. ew.
But on Wings, as Joe.. if it were 10 years earlier, and I was still 21 like I am now, but he was still 33 like he was then (i think Tim was older than that in real life tho at the time).... hmm.. yeah, maybe I was lying when I said I wouldn't. hahaha! 12 years older.. hmmm... i guess that's not THAT much. lol.
heeee...




I'm with you there, Krista! I wouldn't date him now (I think he actually is almost my dad's age, though he still looks pretty darn good I must say), but at the age that Joe (you're right, I think the real Tim was actually older) was on Wings, hmmmm....:loveya: The episode where he dated a 19 year old kind of grossed me out, but I'm 23, so, hey, that's 4 years different! lol :)

Originally posted by losthighway
Yeah, the writing on the first season of Cheers is fantastic. I thougt the first year of MASH with Larry Gelbart being the head writer, was exceptional as well. And of course David Angell, Peter Casey and David Lee had a superb first year with Frasier. But if I had to pick my favorite first year, it would probably be Cheers.

I was sorry the Special Features section that had the interview with Ted didn't include other cast members, but I guess George and Rhea etc...weren't available? I enjoyed listenig to Ted, I just would have liked hearing perspectives from other cast members as well.

By the way, I'm also a big Frasier fan so I have another question for you. (Maybe you don't watch Frasier so maybe you won't have an opinion?)......I was disappointed when Frasier finally went back to Boston last season he didn't visit the Cheers bar. Frasier and his family ended up going to a retirement party for Cliff and it was fun to see Norm and Carla and Cliff again, but I would have enjoyed seeing him back at his old stomping grounds, the bar! Would you have liked to see that, or are you glad Cheers has never been seen since the end of the show?

I heard a rumor that the Charles brothers didn't give the OK to do that. I'm hoping during the final year of Frasier that Sam Malone shows up in at least one episode. Since Ted isn't doing Becker anymore maybe he'll be available.

I don't really watch Fraiser, the few episodes i've seen are ones where Cheers cast members appear in it. I mean I like the show Fraiser but it's a different kind of comedy and chemistry. Ted didn't want to do the show, and I completely agree with him, because it would not be a "Cheers" reunion if it was done on Fraiser. Fraiser is a seperate show, and he says that if they do a reunion it should be a special for Cheers. Which they deserve it. Another thing is that i don't really think that the cast members from Fraiser should be in the reunion, as much as i like Roz, Niles, Daphne, and the Dad they were never part of Cheers. Although John Mahoney, and the actress that plays Roz both guest starred in Cheers, but not as kin or friends to Fraiser just for small roles. Fraiser acts differently when he's in Cheers or surrounded by the people of Cheers than when he's with his Seatle crew. Also the story in Fraiser conflicts a little bit to the Cheers one regarding the Father. In Cheers Fraiser's father had died, and in Fraiser obviosly he's alive. Plus in Cheers we even got to see Fraiser's mother and i don't remember them mentioning that she had died.

Fraiser's a nice show, but the character was only one piece of the entire pie in Cheers. Not even a main character, and so I agree with Ted that if they do a reunion it should be focused on Cheers and not Fraiser.

Originally posted by Kris10m


I'm with you there, Krista! I wouldn't date him now (I think he actually is almost my dad's age, though he still looks pretty darn good I must say), but at the age that Joe (you're right, I think the real Tim was actually older) was on Wings, hmmmm....:loveya: The episode where he dated a 19 year old kind of grossed me out, but I'm 23, so, hey, that's 4 years different! lol :)

I just realized something.... am I the youngest person who posts on this board?! hehehe.

and this thread has truly evolved into many different tangents. lol

You might be the youngest here, Krista. I'll just add to the age thing that before I was married when I was 28 I dated a 44 year old blonde tennis instructor. he relationship didn't last long mainly because she was Catholic and I wasn't. But I'm of the opinion tht age should never be a factor in a relationship. Now when I have a daughter of my own someday I may change my tune... until then, pthbbbbbbbbbb!

Oh and as for N@N's treatment of Wings, let's just agree that the people in charge of scheduling there suck. Their dogs suck. Their cars suck. Heck their clothes even suck. If they came to live with me my house would always be clean because they all suck. Look up SUX in the thesaurus and you'll find "Nick at Night program directors". Their vaccum cleaners are envious of how much they suck. Did I mention that they suck?

Originally posted by Ice Cream Man
Their vaccum cleaners are envious of how much they suck.

HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! That will someday also be in my AIM profile's "Random quote of the week".

Yeah, I think you might be the youngest, though I'm not sure of everyone's age...are you going to be a senior in college? Snoopy just graduated, so she's pretty young, and I graduated from college in 2002. But yeah, you're right, that's hilarious how this board started with the discussion of people complaining about sexual jokes on Wings, to dating Tim Daly, to a Cheers reunion, to who's the youngest on the board! lol :lol:

Originally posted by Kris10m
But yeah, you're right, that's hilarious how this board started with the discussion of people complaining about sexual jokes on Wings, to dating Tim Daly, to a Cheers reunion, to who's the youngest on the board! lol :lol:

Oops, I should have said "this thread" instead of "this board"...
:doh:

No, I think i beat all of you when it comes to age! Im turning 16 in July! in september i'll be a junior in highschool