Meaningless TV Shows Remain On Air While Good Ones Get the Ax - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Zoneboy · 10-27-2008, 04:26 AM

Link

OK, gang, it is time for some serious business. Of course, when I talk about serious business, I must be referring to television. TV is an incredibly powerful medium — it’s not taken very seriously by most, and yet Americans spend hours and hours watching it. And one would think, with all of the hours of TV that people watch each day, some time could be spent watching good, quality programs.

Alas, that is far too much to ask for.

This is not to say that really good shows don’t become popular — NBC’s “The Office,” Fox’s “House” and HBO’s “Entourage” are all fantastic programs that have proved to be wildly popular in DVD sales, ratings and critical buzz. Most of the best shows on television, however, remain unnoticed by the public at large, and are continually in fear of getting axed by the networks because of it.

The struggle of CBS’s “How I Met Your Mother” is a prime example of this. While it is one of the last remaining traditionally-filmed sitcoms on TV, “Mother” matches any of its contemporaries in cleverness with its creative playing-with-time format and its lovable characters. However, the only reason this show was given a fourth season was because of last year’s stunt casting of Britney Spears in a couple of episodes, which gave the show a big boost in numbers. Nevermind that “How I Met Your Mother” has one of the funniest and most interesting characters on TV today in Neil Patrick Harris’ serial womanizer Barney Stinson, or that it depicts something very rarely seen on American TV — a healthy, realistic and positive marriage. The bottom line is that it does not get the kind of ratings achieved by the unfunny, soulless “Two and a Half Men,” and so each season “Mother” comes up for the chopping block.

CBS isn’t the only network to do it, of course. ABC will probably cancel one of its most charming shows, “Pushing Daisies,” before next fall despite the heavy load of critical praise it has received. NBC has “Friday Night Lights” on its hands, a show that the American Film Institute has deemed “culturally significant” for its highly realistic depiction of small town middle America, and yet they’ve banished its third season to run a mere 13 episodes on a Direct TV satellite channel.

And this most certainly is not a new phenomenon. Does anyone remember a show that ran on UPN called “Veronica Mars”? It was about a high school girl who moonlit as a private investigator in a small, corrupt town in Southern California, and it was probably one of the smartest, darkest and most well-written shows ever created for television (well, for the first two seasons anyway). It got cut after a mere three years of broadcast because everyone was too damn busy watching “American Idol.”

Or how about Phil Hartman’s swan song, “NewsRadio”? Easily one of the best ensemble casts ever assembled, and yet it was tossed around NBC’s schedule for five seasons. It was definitely a much better show than “Friends,” and yet never caught the ratings it deserved because it didn’t feature the linear, drama-filled storylines for which “Friends” was famous. This and other great shows are now lost to history, with few that remember how fantastic they were.

So what can we do about this? Really, there’s only one thing that Americans can do to ensure that they are watching the best programs — turn the TV off for a while.

Seriously.

Cut the thing off, and then you’ll realize that meaningless shows like “Dancing with the Stars” or the many incarnations of “CSI” and “Law and Order” are not just filling your time, they are really killing your time. Once everyone has seen that wasting time in front of the TV is best left for the late night or early morning hours, then primetime television viewing will be viewed as a more precious asset. Watching only three hours of TV per week means that you’ve got to make those three hours count! So watch the best that TV has to offer, not the blandest or the most mindless.

MusicJunkie · 10-27-2008, 04:42 AM

very good article, and I agree with the Veronica Mars namedropping. I remember when a few people here would rip on the show at any opportunity because the ratings sucked, nevermind the fact that it was the best series on television the first two seasons it was on.

JT · 10-27-2008, 02:40 PM

A very childish article, IMO. Interesting, because I am by no means a fan of "Dancing with the Stars" at all. Can't stand the show. And yet I love "Friday Night Lights." But I hate the idea that the author has...that everyone watching the shows that *he* doesn't like are "wasting time" watching "meaningless shows." Whatever happened to having *your* opinion about something and leaving it at that? No need to attack something or someone just because they feel differently.

Chocoholic · 10-27-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT

But I hate the idea that the author has...that everyone watching the shows that *he* doesn't like are "wasting time" watching "meaningless shows." Whatever happened to having *your* opinion about something and leaving it at that? No need to attack something or someone just because they feel differently.

I agree. There are some shows I really can't stand, but if people like them, then that's fine with me. I'll be watching something I enjoy.

Adamantium · 10-27-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoneboy

Or how about Phil Hartman’s swan song, “NewsRadio”? Easily one of the best ensemble casts ever assembled, and yet it was tossed around NBC’s schedule for five seasons. It was definitely a much better show than “Friends,” and yet never caught the ratings it deserved because it didn’t feature the linear, drama-filled storylines for which “Friends” was famous. This and other great shows are now lost to history, with few that remember how fantastic they were.

Yay, "NewsRadio" gets a mention. NBC was always trying to get the writers to put more story archs in the show, but Paul Simms for the most part refused. He wanted it to be more like "Barney Miller" and "Taxi".

The best example of this for me is "Andy Richter Controls the Universe." I LOVED this show. It was hilarious. It made only two half seasons and I was devastated when it ended (it was actually canceled twice). That was the main reason I was very careful of what shows I got into after that. The early 2000s was just a bad time for all the shows I liked. Then I resented the shows that were hits. To this day I can't laugh at "Will & Grace" and "Two and a Half Men", but those are some of the biggest shows of this decade.

ekkostar · 10-27-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

To this day I can't laugh at "Will & Grace" and "Two and a Half Men", but those are some of the biggest shows of this decade.

I never liked Will and Grace aside from Jack and Karen's B-stories and that Michael Douglas episode.
I honestly don't understand the slagging off over Two and a Half Men at all. Why does comedy always have to be intelligent or have a soap box these days? Some of the best comedy is dumb buffoonery. I'm also a Chuck Lorre fan and tend to get a little defensive when it comes to hating on his work. I feel the same way about American Dad because most of the people slagging on it judge by Family Guy comparisons when it reality, it is very different from Family Guy. Even the character design and coloring are beginning to stray from the Family Guy look.

MusicJunkie · 10-27-2008, 05:36 PM

I've seen a handful of Two And A Half Men episodes, my mom was still alive and liked it during its first season, but I think people bash it because it's completely generic and everything that people love to make fun of about US sitcoms. Granted, it gets ratings, but it's in Everybody Loves Raymond's old timeslot and was geared to take its spot.

People love to bash the ratings of The Office and 30 Rock but look at it this way, those two shows are up against CSI and Greys Anatomy, two shows that combined get nearly 40 million. In ten years when all is said and done, The Office will be a cult classic while Two And A Half Men will be a forgotten sitcom like Grace Under Fire is now. Mark my words. The Office and 30 Rock are "hip" and the shows have been springboards to bigger things for many of the cast members (Steve Carell, Rainn Wilson, John Krasinski, etc... have all starred in major movies). It's just like how Arrested Development was poorly rated and ended 2 1/2 years ago, but it's still wildly popular and is seen as a springboard for Michael Cera and giving Jason Bateman's career a second wind. Can't say that about Yes Dear, a "traditional sitcom" which got better ratings and ended the same time, can ya?

JT · 10-27-2008, 07:02 PM

Personally, it really doesn't matter one way or another. It's such a gigantic problem that everything has to be competitive. Why can't the traditional format of sitcoms exist in the same world as the more modern format? Can they not exist at the same time without there being constant comparison of why this type is better than the other? People just need to stop being uptight about something as simple as what they enjoy to watch on TV. Watch what you like, and that's all that should matter.

I don't watch a show thinking that it's better than everything else on TV. I watch it and think, I really enjoy this show. And that's it. There's no need for competition when there's hundreds of channels. Nowadays, a show can get canceled after five episodes and still find a slot on cable in reruns.

dawsongirl · 10-27-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoneboy

Cut the thing off, and then you’ll realize that meaningless shows like “Dancing with the Stars” or the many incarnations of “CSI” and “Law and Order” are not just filling your time, they are really killing your time.

This wasn't a terrible article until this douche dissed one of my favorite shows. I certainly don't feel like I'm wasting my time when I'm watching CSI:NY, tyvm. And I certainly wouldn't lump it into the same catergory as DWTS and all its reality-ilk.

dawsongirl · 10-27-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

To this day I can't laugh at "Will & Grace"

Me either...probably because the show wasn't the least bit funny.

Two and a Half Men can be funny. It can be crude, but it is what it is. It's not meant to be a thinking-man's show; it's escapist comedy. And so was W&G, which is prob one reason it was popular. No one wants to think on a Thursday night.

Adamantium · 10-27-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekkostar

I honestly don't understand the slagging off over Two and a Half Men at all. Why does comedy always have to be intelligent or have a soap box these days? Some of the best comedy is dumb buffoonery. I'm also a Chuck Lorre fan and tend to get a little defensive when it comes to hating on his work.

There are many shows that are dumb comedy that I quite enjoy. Heck, I'm a fan of "Saved by the Bell ...(wait for it).... The New Class." And I've tried to like "Two and a Half Men." There was one episode I saw that made me laugh. Maybe it's the fact that it's so high rated, I judge it a little harsher than I should. I expect more out of the number one comedy show on television.

At work, most of my co-workers love "Two and a Half Men" and think I'm crazy for not liking it.

As for Chuck Lorre's work, I actually love his latest show "The Big Bang Theory." So in my mind he's done some good to the world of sitcoms.

Schmoopie · 10-28-2008, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

To this day I can't laugh at "Will & Grace" and "Two and a Half Men", but those are some of the biggest shows of this decade.

I cannot STAND Will and Grace. I've tried to watch it numerous times (Really I have), but it just doesn't work for me. I don't like Debra Messing at all, however, I would like to check out "The Starter Wife" sometime. I never got to see all of the miniseries, so I think I'll check that out first.

What's very strange about my opinion on W&G is that I am a HUGE Harry Connick Jr fan and I simply cannot watch him on this show! It's not his acting; it's the writing or something. It's just not funny to me. The characters are so annoying; yes, even Leo and I can't believe I'm saying that!

Andrea

Schmoopie · 10-28-2008, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

To this day I can't laugh at "Will & Grace" and "Two and a Half Men", but those are some of the biggest shows of this decade.

I cannot STAND Will and Grace. I've tried to watch it numerous times (Really I have), but it just doesn't work for me. I don't like Debra Messing at all, however, I would like to check out "The Starter Wife" sometime. I never got to see all of the miniseries, so I think I'll check that out first.

What's very strange about my opinion on W&G is that I am a HUGE Harry Connick Jr fan and I simply cannot watch him on this show! It's not his acting; it's the writing or something. It's just not funny to me. The characters are so annoying; yes, even Leo and I can't believe I'm saying that!

I've tried to watch "Men" as well and I have the same reaction towards it. Not funny; I've laughed a few times, but the only reason I even watched is for lack of ANYTHING better!

Andrea

MusicJunkie · 10-28-2008, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT

Personally, it really doesn't matter one way or another. It's such a gigantic problem that everything has to be competitive. Why can't the traditional format of sitcoms exist in the same world as the more modern format? Can they not exist at the same time without there being constant comparison of why this type is better than the other? People just need to stop being uptight about something as simple as what they enjoy to watch on TV. Watch what you like, and that's all that should matter.

I don't watch a show thinking that it's better than everything else on TV. I watch it and think, I really enjoy this show. And that's it. There's no need for competition when there's hundreds of channels. Nowadays, a show can get canceled after five episodes and still find a slot on cable in reruns.

I agree with that, I think I was defending the single-camera shows since a lot of "purists" who *need* a laugh track to find something funny always love to point out that Two And A Half Men is a bigger ratings hit than The Office or 30 Rock. But the truth is, Two And A Half Men doesn't have half the competition those NBC shows do. CSI is the #1 scripted show on television and Grey's Anatomy is still in the top 5 scripted shows, and they're on at the exact same timeslot, so it's not really fair to bash The Office's ratings when 9-10 million up against two shows that combined is like being against the Academy Awards ON A WEEKLY BASIS is rather respectable. Plus IMO, The Office and 30 Rock will live on after it is cancelled through it's fanbase and DVD's like Arrested Development has, while I foresee Two And A Half Men going the way of Yes Dear after the series finale.

JT · 10-28-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MusicJunkie

I agree with that, I think I was defending the single-camera shows since a lot of "purists" who *need* a laugh track to find something funny always love to point out that Two And A Half Men is a bigger ratings hit than The Office or 30 Rock. But the truth is, Two And A Half Men doesn't have half the competition those NBC shows do. CSI is the #1 scripted show on television and Grey's Anatomy is still in the top 5 scripted shows, and they're on at the exact same timeslot, so it's not really fair to bash The Office's ratings when 9-10 million up against two shows that combined is like being against the Academy Awards ON A WEEKLY BASIS is rather respectable. Plus IMO, The Office and 30 Rock will live on after it is cancelled through it's fanbase and DVD's like Arrested Development has, while I foresee Two And A Half Men going the way of Yes Dear after the series finale.

I see. And I think you're right...and it ties right back into what I was saying. Those "purists" who *need* a laughtrack, for whatever reason (jealousy? envy? who knows), resent the more popular single-camera shows, when they should just watch the shows they like and let that be the beginning and end of it.

I think "Two and a Half Men" will live longer than "Yes, Dear." YD was never as well-known and received as TAAHM, and YD was never an Emmy show at all. Do I think TAAHM will be around on cable and such for years and years? Nah, but I'm sure it'll stick around in syndication for a good while.

10-27-2008, 04:26 AM	#1
Zoneboy RIP, I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU :( Moderator Forum Superstar Join Date: Jul 13, 2003 Location: AT HOME WISHING ALL THIS WAS JUST A DREAM AND THAT I'LL WAKE UP FROM THIS NIGHTMARE. Posts: 34,438	Meaningless TV Shows Remain On Air While Good Ones Get the Ax Link OK, gang, it is time for some serious business. Of course, when I talk about serious business, I must be referring to television. TV is an incredibly powerful medium — it’s not taken very seriously by most, and yet Americans spend hours and hours watching it. And one would think, with all of the hours of TV that people watch each day, some time could be spent watching good, quality programs. Alas, that is far too much to ask for. This is not to say that really good shows don’t become popular — NBC’s “The Office,” Fox’s “House” and HBO’s “Entourage” are all fantastic programs that have proved to be wildly popular in DVD sales, ratings and critical buzz. Most of the best shows on television, however, remain unnoticed by the public at large, and are continually in fear of getting axed by the networks because of it. The struggle of CBS’s “How I Met Your Mother” is a prime example of this. While it is one of the last remaining traditionally-filmed sitcoms on TV, “Mother” matches any of its contemporaries in cleverness with its creative playing-with-time format and its lovable characters. However, the only reason this show was given a fourth season was because of last year’s stunt casting of Britney Spears in a couple of episodes, which gave the show a big boost in numbers. Nevermind that “How I Met Your Mother” has one of the funniest and most interesting characters on TV today in Neil Patrick Harris’ serial womanizer Barney Stinson, or that it depicts something very rarely seen on American TV — a healthy, realistic and positive marriage. The bottom line is that it does not get the kind of ratings achieved by the unfunny, soulless “Two and a Half Men,” and so each season “Mother” comes up for the chopping block. CBS isn’t the only network to do it, of course. ABC will probably cancel one of its most charming shows, “Pushing Daisies,” before next fall despite the heavy load of critical praise it has received. NBC has “Friday Night Lights” on its hands, a show that the American Film Institute has deemed “culturally significant” for its highly realistic depiction of small town middle America, and yet they’ve banished its third season to run a mere 13 episodes on a Direct TV satellite channel. And this most certainly is not a new phenomenon. Does anyone remember a show that ran on UPN called “Veronica Mars”? It was about a high school girl who moonlit as a private investigator in a small, corrupt town in Southern California, and it was probably one of the smartest, darkest and most well-written shows ever created for television (well, for the first two seasons anyway). It got cut after a mere three years of broadcast because everyone was too damn busy watching “American Idol.” Or how about Phil Hartman’s swan song, “NewsRadio”? Easily one of the best ensemble casts ever assembled, and yet it was tossed around NBC’s schedule for five seasons. It was definitely a much better show than “Friends,” and yet never caught the ratings it deserved because it didn’t feature the linear, drama-filled storylines for which “Friends” was famous. This and other great shows are now lost to history, with few that remember how fantastic they were. So what can we do about this? Really, there’s only one thing that Americans can do to ensure that they are watching the best programs — turn the TV off for a while. Seriously. Cut the thing off, and then you’ll realize that meaningless shows like “Dancing with the Stars” or the many incarnations of “CSI” and “Law and Order” are not just filling your time, they are really killing your time. Once everyone has seen that wasting time in front of the TV is best left for the late night or early morning hours, then primetime television viewing will be viewed as a more precious asset. Watching only three hours of TV per week means that you’ve got to make those three hours count! So watch the best that TV has to offer, not the blandest or the most mindless.
	__________________ 'Twas The Night Before Christmas And All Through The Full House Not A Creature Was Stirring, Not Even Mighty Mouse. All My Children We're Nestled All Snug In Their Beds While Visions Of Sugarbakers Danced In Their Heads.

10-27-2008, 02:40 PM	#3
JT Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 29, 2001 Location: USA Posts: 7,223	A very childish article, IMO. Interesting, because I am by no means a fan of "Dancing with the Stars" at all. Can't stand the show. And yet I love "Friday Night Lights." But I hate the idea that the author has...that everyone watching the shows that he doesn't like are "wasting time" watching "meaningless shows." Whatever happened to having your opinion about something and leaving it at that? No need to attack something or someone just because they feel differently.
	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk

10-27-2008, 04:42 AM	#2
MusicJunkie Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 23, 2008 Location: where I live Posts: 791	very good article, and I agree with the Veronica Mars namedropping. I remember when a few people here would rip on the show at any opportunity because the ratings sucked, nevermind the fact that it was the best series on television the first two seasons it was on.

10-27-2008, 05:36 PM	#7
MusicJunkie Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 23, 2008 Location: where I live Posts: 791	I've seen a handful of Two And A Half Men episodes, my mom was still alive and liked it during its first season, but I think people bash it because it's completely generic and everything that people love to make fun of about US sitcoms. Granted, it gets ratings, but it's in Everybody Loves Raymond's old timeslot and was geared to take its spot. People love to bash the ratings of The Office and 30 Rock but look at it this way, those two shows are up against CSI and Greys Anatomy, two shows that combined get nearly 40 million. In ten years when all is said and done, The Office will be a cult classic while Two And A Half Men will be a forgotten sitcom like Grace Under Fire is now. Mark my words. The Office and 30 Rock are "hip" and the shows have been springboards to bigger things for many of the cast members (Steve Carell, Rainn Wilson, John Krasinski, etc... have all starred in major movies). It's just like how Arrested Development was poorly rated and ended 2 1/2 years ago, but it's still wildly popular and is seen as a springboard for Michael Cera and giving Jason Bateman's career a second wind. Can't say that about Yes Dear, a "traditional sitcom" which got better ratings and ended the same time, can ya?

10-27-2008, 07:02 PM	#8
JT Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 29, 2001 Location: USA Posts: 7,223	Personally, it really doesn't matter one way or another. It's such a gigantic problem that everything has to be competitive. Why can't the traditional format of sitcoms exist in the same world as the more modern format? Can they not exist at the same time without there being constant comparison of why this type is better than the other? People just need to stop being uptight about something as simple as what they enjoy to watch on TV. Watch what you like, and that's all that should matter. I don't watch a show thinking that it's better than everything else on TV. I watch it and think, I really enjoy this show. And that's it. There's no need for competition when there's hundreds of channels. Nowadays, a show can get canceled after five episodes and still find a slot on cable in reruns.