1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Back In The Game

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by TomCat, Oct 7, 2013.

  1. Oct 7, 2013 #1 of 13
    TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    100
    Aug 31, 2002
    I went into this with some skepticism. I thought maybe the writers would be lazy or untalented and rely on every Bad News Bears cliche making this a low-rent bush-league (no pun) affair.

    But they are apparently wonderfully talented writers. And the cast is great as well. Don't know the lead actress although I have apparently seen her in a few things, just nothing she was ever in for more than once or twice. But she's pretty sweet and I warmed up to her pretty quickly.I get the feeling she could carry this show in her sleep if need be.

    And the worst thing you can say about James Caan is that his son is a talentless 4-ft. troll and is no James Caan. But few are. From Vegas to The Gambler to his iconic portrayal as hot-headed Sonny (who actually broke the actor playing his bro-in-law's ribs in that scene in The Godfather as was admitted by Caan on Howard Stern last week) he is pretty hard to beat, and he really brings it here. It's worth it just to watch this guy work.

    If they can keep this up, they have a bona fide diamond in the rough here, on the level of Malcolm In The Middle. If any show can reach the high bar set by Modern Family, this one just might be it.
     
  2. Oct 8, 2013 #2 of 13
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL DIRECTV A-Team

    17,039
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    She's been on "Psych" for 7 years now. She's a really good actress and she can carry a show.
     
  3. Oct 8, 2013 #3 of 13
    TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    100
    Aug 31, 2002
    I know, but I did not want to tick everyone off by saying it was unwatchable. Oops, too late.
     
  4. Oct 8, 2013 #4 of 13
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL DIRECTV A-Team

    17,039
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    Psych is far from "unwatchable", as you call it. If it were it would not still be on the air, much less for 7 years now.
     
  5. Oct 8, 2013 #5 of 13
    TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    100
    Aug 31, 2002
    Please. There are tons of unwatchable shows that get healthy runs they don't deserve. Just like there are tons of excellent shows that never make it past 4 eps. The ratings system is fixed, and is not a reliable indicator of quality and never has been. And there are a lot of shows that deteriorate into mush in the 5th year but still stay on simply for syndication purposes.

    And it is getting even more ridiculous; News Directors at local stations used to be under pressure to get ratings. now they are under pressure to get tweets. Seriously; I am not making that up. Neilsen even announced just this week that they were changing their system to regard tweets as a major factor.

    If ever there was a business built on a false front it is television. Set design in TV is literally a false front.

    If the best defense you can give a show is that "it's still on the air", well then good luck with that. So is Honey Boo Boo, I think.
     
  6. Oct 9, 2013 #6 of 13
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,884
    282
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The problem with complaining about ratings is that you're really complaining about the broadcast TV economic model. The HBO and Netflix economic models are the polar opposite of broadcast TV. But in both cases, the "channels" need money to make it work and the money comes from "viewers like you" as they say on PBS.

    In the case of broadcast TV, today viewers pay directly but still most of the money comes from the networks selling the viewers to advertisers. Using 21st Century web language, ratings are simply a means of trying to measure the number of hits a show gets which means that viewers are exposed to the ad. HBO and Netflix depend directly on subscribers' fees, but the only way they can be sure they will continue to appeal to existing subscribers is to count the number of views each show gets.

    The problem is, it doesn't matter what any one person thinks about a show. It only matters what a lot of persons think about a show. Being in a minority of the few means you aren't likely to see much you like unless you have a spare billion to spend.

    Other options exist, of course. Read books, watch movies, go to live stage plays, etc.

    I do watch the highest rated scripted show on broadcast TV - "NCIS". I also think that "Parenthood" is one of the better dramas to have appeared on broadcast TV in recent years - it gets very, very marginal ratings. I never could get into the American version of "The Office" though I loved the UK version - I don't know why since so many viewers liked it.

    But it's my personal taste which is equally valid with any other person's taste. It's just that I don't have the billion, so at times I have to accept the fact that the taste of others may determine what new programming is available for me to watch. Unfortunately, while Darlene Shiley of San Diego recently contributed $1 million to the Masterpiece Trust, "viewers like me" can't really contribute comparable amounts. And we aren't a Nielsen family and I don't even watch local news much less tweet about it. So we're pretty much stuck with what's out there to watch.

    It's really all about the money.
     
  7. Oct 9, 2013 #7 of 13
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL DIRECTV A-Team

    17,039
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    Blah blah blah... You lost me midway through the first sentence, as usual.

    You may want to look up the definition of "unwatchable", oh wait it's not a word... If it were an actual word though it would mean no one watches it. If the show has made it 7 years clearly someone is watching it.
     
  8. TomH

    TomH Legend

    125
    2
    Jun 11, 2005
    Well, at least I know how much stock not to put into your opinions if you think Psych is unwatchable.
     
    2 people like this.
  9. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    100
    Aug 31, 2002
    I was really sorry to hear about your recent head injury. We're all pullin' for ya.
     
  10. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    100
    Aug 31, 2002
    And I know how much to put into yours if you think is isn't.

    This is an opinion-based forum. We live in a world obsessed with opinion-based social media. USA Today for 30 years used to have four sections, Life, News, Sports, and Money. Now they have an entire section just about opinion.

    You can't get upset, assuming you are a well-adjusted adult, just because you may have a different subjective point of view about the world than someone else. You also can't take insult because someone doesn't agree with you, at least not after graduating the 3rd grade. Even the best shows have people who will not watch them, and the worst shows still have people who will never miss an episode.

    But what there is for me and my definition of "unwatchable" is when one character is acting out and attempting to be funny when they just aren't, or when the writing just isn't up to snuff, and of course that is entirely based on my opinion, like it or don't. There is a fixed Mendoza line there, and your show is either on one side of the line or the other. There is too much watchable stuff out there to waste time with that which is not. All "unwatchable" shows have some redeeming qualities and even the best shows have problems. And the definition depends on who is doing the defining.

    And opinions can change. I watched Criminal Minds for 4 or 5 seasons, always enjoying it, never understanding why, and a little disturbed that I liked and actually found comfort in something that sensationalizes subjects that dark and depressing. Now I think it is completely unwatchable. I don't think the show changed all that much, and it still gets pretty stellar ratings. That means I changed. I probably outgrew it, essentially. People still enjoy it. But it's just not for me, anymore. Go figure.

    Entertainment is subjective and not created in a perfect world. Some of us like chocolate ice cream and some like vanilla. Some like both, some like neither.

    Deal with it.
     
  11. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,884
    282
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    You are right. Much we write about here is opinion.
    The problem is no unwatchable show gets a healthy run. There are hundreds of shows I don't watch because I don't enjoy them but apparently somebody watches them. That's ok.
     
  12. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL DIRECTV A-Team

    17,039
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    Cool, a personal attack. I was wondering how long it would take you.
     
  13. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    100
    Aug 31, 2002
    C'mon. I love you, but please. I know that one person's vanilla favorite can also be another person's chocolate un-favorite, but one person's concept of a "personal attack" being equated to another person's concept of good-natured ribbing (especially when righteously provoked) shows just how far apart some of us are.

    Chillax. You'll get over it. You never would have survived this far into the internet with thin skin, anyway. You didn't laugh? Not even a little bit? I'll bet some did. (Hmmm. Tough room.)

    OK, enough. Don't ever change, FL.

    I'm not upset by that. What I am mildly upset by is that ABC, in it's infinite wisdom, chose what I consider the best and most promising of their new sitcoms to cancel. I get it, its a judgment call. But this time, not really; other news shows on ABC produced by ABC that are far worse, survived, while this show, produced by FOX studios, did not. Go figure.
     

Share This Page