Does anyone work at these studios over the age of 40?

Discussion in 'TV on DVD and Blu-ray' started by Mark To, May 14, 2004.

  1. TheLongshot

    TheLongshot Producer

    Joined:
    May 12, 2000
    Messages:
    4,119
    Likes Received:
    0


    It all has to do with timing. If a show like "The West Wing" was started in the mid-80s, it would probably more resembele a Republican administration. That being said, I think it more shows how tough it is to get things done in government, and how compromises have to be made, whether you like them or not.

    Jason
     
  2. LizH

    LizH Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    0

    My point was that all three shows have intricate plotlines in common (B5 in particular was plotted SO far in advance the writers were not permitted to make changes without consulting with JMS first -- lest they upset events which were to take place several seasons down the road.)
     
  3. Eric Paddon

    Eric Paddon Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2001
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0


    I doubt that very much, especially in light of the political activism of its stars and its creators. The political/social agenda of TV shows have for quite some time been a one way street in favor of one party and ideology, and that unfortunately is a trend I see continuing which makes my devotion to shows from an earlier era all the more inevitable.
     
  4. Carlos Garcia

    Carlos Garcia Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    0


    1. We had a thing called "Syndication" where each episode of the Honeymooners has been shown on TV hundreds of times more than every episode of Friends or the Simpsons. Same is true about the Flintstones though to a lesser extent. Just because something is available on DVD doesn't mean everyone will run out and buy it, however, if it's on TV and you happen to switch to that channel at the right time, if the program interests you, you may watch. Also, how many DVDs do we own, yet when the same show pops up on a TV channel, if we like the show, how often do we leave the channel on and watch? Alot more often than popping the DVD and watching.

    2. The same could be said about a show like the Honeymooners or the Flintstones. They were classics in their day, and the numbers of people watching was also unreal. That means nothing as far as staying power. Like everything else, generations get old, and those who grew up watching today's shows will pass the torch to future generations. And they will mock today's shows just like today's generation mocks shows from the 50s and 60s. It's a generational thing. Time will determine what will be mocked. Ralph is a loudmouth wife abusing husband? That's what you may feel. Future generations may say the same about Homer. Today's generation may complain about Janet Jackson's breast showing up on network TV, 35 yrs from now the next generation may complain because not enough X rated sex is being shown on TV, which might be the norm. This would make shows like Friends and The Simpsons pretty lame and boring to those folks, don't you think? Every show has it's fans, and the way society changes determines what past shows the younger generation may like. While the old fans of the shows are the only real fans who will remain loyal, because they experienced these shows when they were growing up, and times then will be different than times now.
     
  5. Dan Rudolph

    Dan Rudolph Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    0


    And older shows weren't episodic?
     
  6. Ryan Wishton

    Ryan Wishton Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Honeymooners and The Flintstones obviously had staying power seeing as they still air (always have since first aired) and are available on DVD.

    The Simpsons will still be here years from now. It's the number #1 selling TV Show in DVD and just has amazing power. I dont care too much for the show, but many love it to death and would literally die over it.

    Will it be as popular 50 years from now? No. It's not even nearly as popular as it was 10 years ago. But, it will still be here in some form.

    I Love Lucy is from the 50's and has maintained it's popularity to a good extent. It airs everywhere all over the world multiple times everyday. The show in certain ways doesnt even seem dated at all. This show will truly never die. The show continues to gain viewers from every younger generation. People in their childhood, teens, 20's, and 30's still watch it. It's before all of our times, but we dont care. We still like it.

    A true classic has amazing staying power and continues to gain viewers for generations.

    Many past shows have achieved this and will continue to do so. Some even better.

    The Munsters and The Addams Family did not do well when first released in the ratings (Neither made it past Season 2), but both still are known as classics and still air to this day. Many from younger generations love both.

    Many from my generation love Lucy, All in the Family, Three's Company, etc. All of these are from before our time but we still really like and appreciate them.

    I think most sitcoms in general from the 2000's so far have been just awful and this is my generation. So, it's more a personal taste thing.

    The last groundbreaking sitcom was probably Seinfeld in the 90's. That too will remain around for a very, very long time. The DVD's sets are going to be big sellers.

    In 50 years, it will probably have the popularity level that I Love Lucy has right now. It will still exist.
     
  7. Mark To

    Mark To Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here is an article that appeared in Newsday by the great TV columnist we have, Diane Werts, that pretty much sums up my feelings on friends:

    10 years later, I still don't get their appeal


    May 2, 2004


    Flashback to some know-it-all Newsday TV critic writing in September 1994 about a new singles sitcom:

    "NBC tries to skew its Thursdays a little younger with this twentysomething take on the way life unfolds oddly and careens out of control. . . . The creators of "Dream On" focus on six young adults in search of a future and who look for it mostly in a New York coffee house and in acquaintances' beds. If this show doesn't get a whole lot smarter very fast, there's major trouble, although its familiar TV faces could carry it awhile . . . ("Friends") feels too much like a stock sitcom, with predictable situations and a studio audience shrieking to distraction . . .."

    So I didn't see it coming. "Friends"-mania was a shock to me. That was the season of "Seinfeld" knockoffs with young adult pals hanging out and doing essentially "nothing" - Fox's "Living Single" and "Wild Oats," ABC's "Blue Skies" and "These Friends of Mine" (renamed "Ellen"), and, finally, NBC's "Friends" ensemble. TV critics were frankly much more interested in 1994's face-off of freshman medical dramas - Michael Crichton's "ER" vs. David E. Kelley's "Chicago Hope." (I got that one right, bucking the critical tide to favor "ER" over its "strangely unmoving" competitor.)

    Yet "Friends" was a quick cultural phenomenon, a fast Top 10 Nielsen draw, its stars instant supermarket- tabloid fodder. Could it be any bigger a hit in syndication, too, where before long it started airing seemingly around the clock? (It's now on weeknights at 7 and 11 on WPIX/11, as well as 7:30 on TBS.) "Friends"-themed books, CDs and eventually DVDs have sold like crazy. Fans don't seem to get enough.

    And I still don't get it.

    Even rewatching the series pilot recently on DVD (seven seasons are out from Warner Home Video) hasn't enlightened me to the overwhelming affection for a sort of satisfactory show. Since the characters now are so familiar, I can certainly appreciate how that initial half hour nailed their basic characteristics in efficient fashion. Lisa Kudrow's Phoebe is not only cleaning friends' auras, she's already got that off-center clarity, reaching beyond New Age stereotype. Rachel's dithery bride-not-to-be is rich enough to establish Jennifer Aniston's offbeat charm. Matthew Perry's Chandler confidently spits sardonic one-liners.

    But Courteney Cox Arquette is forced to spit coffee in a spit-take that probably wasn't fresh when Danny Thomas did it in the 1950s. Matt LeBlanc, despite glimmers of sweetness, is handed one dim, lascivious note to play. David Schwimmer gets only a short-shrift chance to moon over Aniston amid lots of standard moping. The actors do a valiant job selling the set-up, their timing unusually sharp, yet the episode doesn't take off for me. The series' start is by no means dreadful. But it's no great shakes, either.

    That's pretty much how I've felt about "Friends" as a whole. It's never been a show I'd go out of my way to watch. If it happens to be on, it's a pleasant enough way to pass the time. The actors and their characters are likable. The writing is bright, but I wouldn't say clever. This just isn't a hugely distinctive show.

    But maybe that's the point. It's shrewdly comfortable. Amusing. Unchallenging. And so dexterously delivered you feel you aren't wasting your time. Thursday has definitely been the right night for these friends, as you're sliding toward the weekend and wondering what yours might be up to. And if you've got too many adult responsibilities to focus on playtime, this sitcom can take you back to a time when you didn't.

    The same reason "Friends" never impressed me may be the reason why it's such a favorite of so many. The characters are of adult age, yet they never seem grown up. Where it's hard for me to feel engaged by their travails, it's easy for others to feel entertained, and even empathetic, free from real-world consequences. For these six unshakable friends, even life-changing events exist on essentially the same storyline level as poofy hair, drunken dinners and bad eyebrow waxings.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not the kind of TV that fascinates me.

    So I still don't get it. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.
     
  8. Andy Sheets

    Andy Sheets Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    1

    Heh. I took a class on tv in college a few years ago and when we were studying sitcoms, we sampled a few popular sitcoms. I think we watched I Love Lucy, Friends, The Simpsons, All in the Family, and Dick Van Dyke. I don't remember the particular episodes, but despite the early 20's age of the audience, Lucy absolutely murdered every other show in terms of the reaction it got. That's why it endures - when it's good, it's really #@#!ing funny [​IMG]
     
  9. David Von Pein

    David Von Pein Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,750
    Likes Received:
    10

    That almost must CERTAINLY indicate you were watching the one & only "Vitameatavegamin" episode. (THE funniest "Lucy" ever, IMO. With the
    "Bill Holden / Nose catches fire" ep. ranking a close #2, in my Lucy book.) [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    "Do you poop out at parties?"
     
  10. LizH

    LizH Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about "Job Switching"?

    Lucy and Ethel working in that candy factory ... PRICELESS! [​IMG]
     
  11. Carlos Garcia

    Carlos Garcia Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love the episode where they dress like Martians and go to the top of the Empire State Building!
     
  12. Andy Sheets

    Andy Sheets Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    1

    Yup, that's the one [​IMG]
     

Share This Page