About all the N@N posts

[AJ2086]

Everyone seems to be complaining about how N@N is now ruined and that it needs to fix itself, but did you ever think that its not broken and doesnt need fixing? Yes I know that you all enjoyed the classic television that N@N once had, so do I, but N@N seems to be gettign away from the whole "Classic TV" genre and going for just adult TV, I wouldnt be surprised if they soon changed there logo to something not as retro-ey. They are getting all these 80's shows which they think will appeal to adults, most of these shows are very current ending under 10 years ago (95-96sih). I dont think N@N will ever go back to classic TV, they are going just for regular programming that isnt geard towards children. In a way N@N is still classic TV, these shows that they have were major hits when they were on (Cosby, Coach, Cheers, soon to be Roseanne and Full House) and to Nickelodens major demogrpahic they are classic. Let's say that 10 year olds stay up and watch these shows, it is classic to them they were on when they were born and they have never seen them, my 10 year old sister loves Nick at Nite. The people at Viacom are changing all there networks around, they bought out that CTWS's share of Noggin and turned half of the channel into a teen network, TNN has done a complete 180, VH1 is trying to be more cutting edge and they are repeating lots of MTV stuff, UPN is getting lots of stuff done and are doing alot better, MTV 2 has entirly different shows now they are more urban now as before they were more rock. So who is to say that they arent trying to do this to N@N. It must be doing good for them cause they are adding more of these shows and I beleive there ratings are doing good/better than before. If this makes no sense or seems to hop around all over please note that I thought all this through at 2 AM this morning while watchin N@N.

[TVJunkie101]

Originally posted by AJ2086
Everyone seems to be complaining about how N@N is now ruined and that it needs to fix itself, but did you ever think that its not broken and doesnt need fixing? Yes I know that you all enjoyed the classic television that N@N once had, so do I, but N@N seems to be gettign away from the whole "Classic TV" genre and going for just adult TV, I wouldnt be surprised if they soon changed there logo to something not as retro-ey. They are getting all these 80's shows which they think will appeal to adults, most of these shows are very current ending under 10 years ago (95-96sih). I dont think N@N will ever go back to classic TV, they are going just for regular programming that isnt geard towards children. In a way N@N is still classic TV, these shows that they have were major hits when they were on (Cosby, Coach, Cheers, soon to be Roseanne and Full House) and to Nickelodens major demogrpahic they are classic. Let's say that 10 year olds stay up and watch these shows, it is classic to them they were on when they were born and they have never seen them, my 10 year old sister loves Nick at Nite. The people at Viacom are changing all there networks around, they bought out that CTWS's share of Noggin and turned half of the channel into a teen network, TNN has done a complete 180, VH1 is trying to be more cutting edge and they are repeating lots of MTV stuff, UPN is getting lots of stuff done and are doing alot better, MTV 2 has entirly different shows now they are more urban now as before they were more rock. So who is to say that they arent trying to do this to N@N. It must be doing good for them cause they are adding more of these shows and I beleive there ratings are doing good/better than before. If this makes no sense or seems to hop around all over please note that I thought all this through at 2 AM this morning while watchin N@N.

Hmm. Not sure how to respond. But believe me a lot of teens enjoy classic TV shows. They are classic. Being on Nick at Nite does not make a show a classic. Cheers is the closet thing to a real classic, being it's 20 years old (Charles in Charge is close to being considered a classic) I always expected Nick at Nite to move forward into the 80s/90s, but never expected it so soon, you know? Viacom has ruined almost every network they touch. My opinion on that will never change. TNN wasn't broken with the country theme, why change? I would watch Starsky and Hutch over SIX episodes of Real TV anyday. TV Land in my opinion, is the sole exception in this Viacom franchise. I hope they never go away from classic hits.

Nick at Nite has ALWAYS taken TBS' hand-me-downs, and that won't stop. That's the sole reason for all these shows to be going there. Yes, they bring ratings. But in 20 years from now, what then? Nick at Nite went strong on Classic TV Hits from 1985-2001. That's a long time. I didn't see why the needed to change so quickly. But do you see where we classic tv fans are coming from? All of the networks (TNN, Nick at Nite, etc) offer less of what we want to see, of course we're going to be unhappy. And besides, if the schedule were less double takes, I would probably stop complaining. Back-to-Back airings were the biggest programming mistake ever, IMO. It's just like all variety in television is gone. If you like Nick at Nite in it's current state, I have to say, good for you, because I can't stand watching that network anymore.

Would you mind giving some reasons why you like it? I mean, honestly, I want to know. Don't get me wrong, I get a chuckle out of Cheers, and constantly watched Cosby Show back when it came to TBS, but I'm so burnt out on Bill Cosby it's not even near funny.

[AJ2086]

I never said that the shows are classic, but to the youger demographic that N@N get due to the lead in programing it is, they never saw this its all from a time 12-20 years before they were born. I agree with you Cheers is the closest thing to a Classic that they have, they still have Three's Company though and All In The Family. And I agree with you on the double airing, they air the shows twice in a row 2-3 times a night just waste the time, but it is extremely cheaper for them and thats why they do it. But I enjoy some of there shows Coach, Cosby, Cheers I watched them all growing up and its nice to see them. Charles In Charge doesnt need to be on N@N it is a horrible show. I also miss the old N@N Bewitched, I Dream of Jeanie, all the good shows they had in the early 90's.

[TVJunkie101]

Originally posted by AJ2086
I never said that the shows are classic, but to the youger demographic that N@N get due to the lead in programing it is, they never saw this its all from a time 12-20 years before they were born. I agree with you Cheers is the closest thing to a Classic that they have, they still have Three's Company though and All In The Family. And I agree with you on the double airing, they air the shows twice in a row 2-3 times a night just waste the time, but it is extremely cheaper for them and thats why they do it. But I enjoy some of there shows Coach, Cosby, Cheers I watched them all growing up and its nice to see them. Charles In Charge doesnt need to be on N@N it is a horrible show. I also miss the old N@N Bewitched, I Dream of Jeanie, all the good shows they had in the early 90's.

Hmm. I dunno, I just can't seem to look at Nick at Nite the same way anymore, you know? Charles in Charge isn't THAT bad, but it's not the greatest either. It's only on their through probably April of next year (The rights expire in May). Yeah, AiTF and TC are on there, but I guess I just don't think of them as Nick at Nite shows anymore, LOL. I think with Wings (maybe), Full House and Roseanne coming, Nick will definitely need to stop the early evening double takes. I think the real reason I can't enjoy Nick at Nite anymore is because they just changed too fast, like overnight. All the shows (besides AITF and TC) that came in 2000 were gone less then a year later, and TVLand has to carry the weight. Again, I just don't know why I feel the way I do. I like the modern shows, I just prefer the classics. I'm not in highschool, in fact, I'm out of school, but in a way, I grew up with the modern hits too, I just prefer shows more "rare", you know?

[¤I Love Clay Aiken¤]

I can see where you are coming from totally..but I hate N@N so much and the only shows I watch on it are Brady Bunch & Happy Days- because those are the *classic* shows that used to make up N@N.

[DarleneIllyria]

I agree 100% with Shawn's first post.

[Arfies]

Originally posted by TVJunkie101


Hmm. Not sure how to respond. But believe me a lot of teens enjoy classic TV shows. They are classic. Being on Nick at Nite does not make a show a classic. Cheers is the closet thing to a real classic, being it's 20 years old (Charles in Charge is close to being considered a classic) I always expected Nick at Nite to move forward into the 80s/90s, but never expected it so soon, you know? Viacom has ruined almost every network they touch. My opinion on that will never change. TNN wasn't broken with the country theme, why change? I would watch Starsky and Hutch over SIX episodes of Real TV anyday. TV Land in my opinion, is the sole exception in this Viacom franchise. I hope they never go away from classic hits.

Nick at Nite has ALWAYS taken TBS' hand-me-downs, and that won't stop. That's the sole reason for all these shows to be going there. Yes, they bring ratings. But in 20 years from now, what then? Nick at Nite went strong on Classic TV Hits from 1985-2001. That's a long time. I didn't see why the needed to change so quickly. But do you see where we classic tv fans are coming from? All of the networks (TNN, Nick at Nite, etc) offer less of what we want to see, of course we're going to be unhappy. And besides, if the schedule were less double takes, I would probably stop complaining. Back-to-Back airings were the biggest programming mistake ever, IMO. It's just like all variety in television is gone. If you like Nick at Nite in it's current state, I have to say, good for you, because I can't stand watching that network anymore.

Would you mind giving some reasons why you like it? I mean, honestly, I want to know. Don't get me wrong, I get a chuckle out of Cheers, and constantly watched Cosby Show back when it came to TBS, but I'm so burnt out on Bill Cosby it's not even near funny.

I'm a classic-TV-loving teen who HATES mainstream junk. Britney Spears, boy bands- ugh. Most of the people I know and friends I have do as well. Why don't the major corporations ever get it?

It's kind of like that episode of the Simpsons when the Rad, Cool, Totally Awesome, whatever dog, voiced by Homer, ends up on Itchy & Scratchy. In attempts to be "hip", the cartoon centers on the dog's "coolness" instead of the content that pleased viewers for so long. The execs just don't understand why kids hate the new character.

Unfortunately, N@N has seemed to fall into this trap of "keeping up with the times" instead of showing the classic TV that has worked so well for it for decades. Sure, the new programming will get high ratings for a while, but soon, viewers will get sick of seeing shows that can be seen in reruns on practically EVERY CHANNEL ALREADY.

In The Simpsons, the dog is finally taken off the cast. Chances are it won't be the same for the once-great Nick at Nite.

I have no problem with newer shows, as long as they're GOOD. But PLEASE don't show them simply in hopes of getting higher ratings!!! Whatever happened to the N@N motto of "preserving the history of classic TV?"

[DarleneIllyria]

Originally posted by Arfies


I'm a classic-TV-loving teen who HATES mainstream junk. Britney Spears, boy bands- ugh. Most of the people I know and friends I have do as well. Why don't the major corporations ever get it?

This is just my guess, but these corporations think all teenagers don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. I'm sure some have seen my teenage explanations before, but this is for the ones that haven't seen it yet.

How are teenagers portrayed in most new tv shows and movies? Clueless, we don't know anything past the day we were born, we always have a telephone glued to our ears, and we go around speaking those quirky little catch phrases such as 'Whatever', 'As if' etc.

These corporations think that all teenagers are alike. No teenager likes to watch something before their time. They buy stuff like MTV, Friends, and shows and movies that revolve around teenagers. I guarantee if we formed a line and marched to N @ N's official office, they would probably think we were all space aliens because we like classic stuff.

They really need to get a clue and wake up and realize not all young people think alike. We don't all share a brain through a telephone. We have brains of our own and can think by ourselves.

[Arfies]

Amen to that.

[Brian Damage]

Originally posted by TVJunkie101
Viacom has ruined almost every network they touch.

I don't want to be the guy who defends N@N or TNN, but the reality is these networks are doing much better than they were previously. Sometimes change sucks I realize that, but if the country TNN and the classic N@N were doing so great, they wouldn't be changed.

TNN is now up there with the likes of USA and TNT for most watched basic cable channels. As for N@N, they probably figured why have two classic channels? Let TVLand carry the older classics, while N@N carry the more modern ones.

As the audiences change, so will the programming. Cheers and Cosby will one day be pushed off the time slot for something new and different. It's just going to happen. If shows like Gilligan's Island, Facts of Life, The Brady Bunch and Diff'rent Strokes did really well on N@N, don't you think they'd keep 'em?

[Central Perk]

Personally the only reason I watch N@N is for Cheers, and if they do add Wings that will be my other reason. Classic does not matter on how old a show is or anything like that, its just personal preference. I think that N@N is treating shows unfairly, and yea it would be great if all of our favorite sitcoms could be shown frequently, better yet on video and dvd, but that isn't going to happen sadly.

[TVJunkie101]

Originally posted by briandamage
I don't want to be the guy who defends N@N or TNN, but the reality is these networks are doing much better than they were previously. Sometimes change sucks I realize that, but if the country TNN and the classic N@N were doing so great, they wouldn't be changed.

TNN is now up there with the likes of USA and TNT for most watched basic cable channels. As for N@N, they probably figured why have two classic channels? Let TVLand carry the older classics, while N@N carry the more modern ones.

As the audiences change, so will the programming. Cheers and Cosby will one day be pushed off the time slot for something new and different. It's just going to happen. If shows like Gilligan's Island, Facts of Life, The Brady Bunch and Diff'rent Strokes did really well on N@N, don't you think they'd keep 'em?

I understand that. But the fact is, Diff'rent Strokes and Facts of Life WERE doing well for Nick at Nite. At least from what Pav has said, and others on the boards here. I don't know where TNN was in the ratings while they were airing country programming. I just think the changes came way too fast and way too soon. I also don't see why TV Land would have to carry the weight of all classic TV (besides GoodLife and Hallmark). TNN's ratings are probably CSI, Wrestling and Star Trek. And now probably James Bond Movies. Well, now we have TWO modern hits channels (TBS and Nick at Nite). If I wanted modern, I'd watch TBS. Simple as that. And I still believe Nick @ Nite was doing well with the classic programming. Just ask Pav. They changed simply because of the reason you said: the exces probably thought: why have two classic TV channels?

[Czas na Zywiec]

For the most part, it's not the type of shows they play that's the problem, it's the way they have their schedule set up. I mean sure, I would rather have the older classics playing on N@N than this new stuff, but if they just rearranged their schedule, at least that would be an improvement. Like for example, I'll use all of N@N's shows that they have now (Except Kids Say cause that isn't a sitcom) and just rearrange the sked.

9:00 - Charles in Charge
9:30 - Coach
10:00 - Family Ties
10:30 - Three's Company
11:00 - The Cosby Show
11:30 - Cheers
12:00 - The Brady Bunch
12:30 - Happy Days
1:00 - All in the Family
1:30 - Charles in Charge
2:00 - Coach
2:30 - Family Ties
3:00 - Three's Company
3:30 - The Cosby Show
4:00 - Cheers
4:30 - The Brady Bunch
5:00 - Happy Days
5:30 - All in the Family

So you have each show on there at least 2 times a night and one airing is at a decent time. Now if it was me running N@N, I'd show diff'rent shows, but I think that at least this would be a reasonable schedule for then, having the newer shows airing earlier and the ones that have been on N@N longer airing later into the night. But of course, the programmers at N@N would need brains before this could be accomplished.

[TVJunkie101]

Originally posted by Original Prankster
For the most part, it's not the type of shows they play that's the problem, it's the way they have their schedule set up. I mean sure, I would rather have the older classics playing on N@N than this new stuff, but if they just rearranged their schedule, at least that would be an improvement. Like for example, I'll use all of N@N's shows that they have now (Except Kids Say cause that isn't a sitcom) and just rearrange the sked.

Now if it was me running N@N, I'd show diff'rent shows, but I think that at least this would be a reasonable schedule for then, having the newer shows airing earlier and the ones that have been on N@N longer airing later into the night. But of course, the programmers at N@N would need brains before this could be accomplished.

Yeah, that's how the sched SHOULD be. I wouldn't mind that at all. LOL at "But of course, the programmers at N@N would need brains before this could be accomplished" - so true.

[Impressions]

Originally posted by TVJunkie101


Yeah, that's how the sched SHOULD be. I wouldn't mind that at all. LOL at "But of course, the programmers at N@N would need brains before this could be accomplished" - so true.

If only they could change the schedule for viewers not the way they want to see it, for the most part Nick-at-Nite does the deciding for their shows, FOL and DS were two very powerful shows on their network, until they decided they should take it off, for their own good, so they could get stronger ratings. By then they were looking for modern sitcoms to enhance their audience and they accomplished that, in the end. By result they are currently earning some of the best ratings ever, which is very hard to believe because they are excluding their classic line-up they maintained for nearly a decade.