to the Muppet Central Forum!
are viewing our forum as a guest. Join
our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please
contact us if
you need help with registration or your account login.
Muppet Central Radio
Within days Muppet
Central Radio could be off the air. Show your support and save the station
via Radionomy's website and apps. We're also on iTunes and Apple TV. Learn
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Drtooth, Jan 14, 2012.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote here!
I'm sure given enough time, the show would have came into its own. Some shows have very weak first seasons anyway, and they don't hit their stride until sometime around the second. Of course, there are shows that start out too strong and manage to get weaker the longer they're on too. Not to mention that animated comedies are better left to cable or Fox. I'm nothing but happy that Fox keeps giving Bob's Burgers a chance, because it's a cult hit. Frankly better than their other two cartoons at the moment. But ABC pretty much didn't care about The Critic when they had it. Capital Critters was pretty much dumped to a death slot as soon as it possibly could. There have been so many misfires since other networks wanted their own personal The Simpsons since the 90's. Some were actually good, some just couldn't go beyond their premise to become anything lasting.
Apparently, rotten cartoon series Brickleberry's been cancelled. I've never seen it, nor do I have the desire to, but it's pretty much one of the most hated cartoons out there. From those who trashed it, it seems it was only on because Comedy Central loooooves Daniel Tosh. Totally can understand that. Dude's not funny. And it sounds like this is one of those adult cartoons where there's nothing but tired offensive "jokes" and no substance. No Prude. I enjoy a good offensive joke now and then, but like every adult cartoon played as many offensive jokes as possible back in the last decade that they're no longer shocking or taboo enough to be funny. They're pretty tired. That's why Rick and Morty's such a sleeper hit. It tempers its vulgar humor with character development, well done commentary, sharp writing, and shockingly deep moments. Otherwise, you're just a five year old at a playground yelling "POOP!! teee hee hee."
And another note, what the frag is up with NBC's "The Slap?" The big, powerful, dramatic miniseries about someone seeing someone slap a child? I'm no fan of child abuse/violent disciplining, but a whole series to anviliciously point out how terrible hitting a kid is when The Simpsons has been playing strangling Bart for laughs for years and still is? That's kind of a strange thing to take seriously and wrap my head around. And Zachary Quinto somehow signed on to that, but refused to go on the new Heroes revival. Sure, I can't really blame him for distancing himself from that, even though he was the best character in the show. But to sign on to the dumbest sounding dramatic miniseries I've ever freaking heard of? Really?!?
Ah, so it's like every cartoon Seth MacFarlane has ever cranked out.
My kind of TV !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. Not even that high bar. Something a really untalented college kid could fart out. Family Guy at least started out as something, and American Dad became something. Brickleberry was just "let's give Daniel Tosh even more money." Yeah, I didn't actually see it, but I haven't heard anything remotely positive about it.
Of course, I still think the worst adult's cartoon show out there is Stone Quackers. Just awful and ugly and abominable on every level. And they roped John C Reily into it for some reason. From what I heard, it's by the same guys behind Problem Solverz.
Ah, David Alan Greer is getting a new show this fall.
Too bad all modern television sucks, otherwise I'd check it out as I've been a fan of his since I was a kid.
Why not give it a chance? Worst thing that happens is you lose out on 30 minutes of your life if the first episode stinks.
To be perfectly honest, there's nothing new (Muppets side, but that goes without saying) on the fall schedule on broadcast TV that excites me. ABC's returning favorites, sure. I'm highly excited for those sitcoms and SHIELD and the return of Agent Carter. But the previews I'm seeing are more of the same. I'm very happy with the shows that were cancelled this season (minus The Millers which CBS screwed because their pwecious Scorpion was losing ratings, as if we need another 30 year old hackers fighting terrorism show). Unlike last year where everything was a sad disappointment, and decisions were made on cheapness.
I hate to be the "I have cable and can watch 'Better Call Saul'" elitist (and I'm on pins and freaking needles on that), but broadcast still has to get a mainstreamer audience.
That said, I couldn't be less excited about Supergirl. I never understood the appeal of "make a girl version of man hero" instead of making an original female super hero. I hate Batgirl. Every time she pops up in a Batman series or it's terrible... maybe not Batman:TAS, but certainly The Batman, the awful third season of the '66 show (where it stopped being purposely so bad it's good and became so bad it's actually bad), and need I mention her theatrical debut? Even those who find Batman Forever as a disappointing but forgivable follow up to "Returns" have no patience for that one.
Plus, Dean Cain is in it. I don't care if he was Superman before, he's a terrible person.
EDIT: I just forgot the most important news of all time. American Idol finally got cancelled after years of no one giving a rat's fez. Good riddance.
First off, can we get the Mods to rename this the "Schadenfreude for cancelled shows Thread" or something?
Secondly, I found some news that, I have to admit I was mixed about. Apparently, with no fan fare and having it just disappear from the network before the final episodes even air, Mike and Molly ends in its abbreviated sixth season. Now, while Chuck Lorre usually gets a lot of crap for his shows, I have to admit Mike and Molly was one of the best shows he was associated with (and I actually like Big Bang Theory). I had real trouble with the first few episodes and the first episode even did the "fat people are all cannibals" joke. I'm not in good shape and I barely feel great about eating the most banal of societally acceptable forms of meat (not enough to become vegan, I have a very weak will). But I felt the idea of a show about not sexy not 20 year olds who actually want a real relationship and following the stages of said relationship was something unique and enjoyable enough as a series. Something about the series had a more classic, gentle feel to it than most current laugh track style sitcoms. Plus, I loved that sarcastic African cook, as well as Mike's partner, and even the middle aged guy who was in a relationship with Molly's mother grew on me.
However, I feel the characters were married off too soon, and that kinda hurt the "let's explore the relationship" aspect of the show. I would have hated if it went the Rhoda route and just have them divorce halfway through. While I did lose some interest, the fact it was also opposite Gotham the last season made me not catch up on it. I find Gotham to be decent enough to see it through, and I do like the guy playing The Penguin. Then they dumped it on Wednesday Night, opposite ABC's stronger sitcoms for SuperGirl's time slot. Though I have to roll my eyes at the decision to air a DC comics show opposite another DC comics show, maybe I should give SG a go one of these days. Looks better than I thought it did. And of course "Scorpion" which, blehhhh. I just don't get it. I don't see why CBS loves the show so much to kill a perfectly good Will Arnett and JB Smoove sitcom in its second season because it wasn't a good enough lead in for another "hackers fight terrorists" show. But the point I'm making is, M&M didn't make it interesting enough to keep the show in the viewers interests and it just faded off like it never happened.
That show Of Kings and Prophets just got cancelled off of ABC after 2 episodes, every show that airs Tuesdays at 10pm on ABC is basicilly screwed.
Doesn't help that it was compared negatively to Game of Thrones, either.
Hey, not every show can rip off another show and then be more successful than the show it ripped off like NEW GIRL did.
Probably has too big a budget for anything lower than stellar ratings as well. I'd admit it doesn't look bad, just not the sort of thing I'd watch.
I'm guessing New Girl actually has an audience, and mostly because Zoey Deschanel is the show's star. I admit, I did sort of like it first 2 seasons, but I just felt that other than whatever show D'Snowth is talking about, it was tonally identical and inferior to "Happy Endings." Heck, they shared Daiman Wayans Jr.! That should tell you something.
And frankly, he was better on Happy Endings anyway. Still think that show should have got a TBS rescue like Cougar Town did. I love how they portrayed the gay character as a sloppy, masculine dudebro instead of the no longer funny mincing queen type. That was a pretty progressive attitude for this series.
The show I'm refering to is that short-lived TBS sitcom that flopped called MY BOYS: it was essentially the same show. A girl who's "one of the boys" and has a bunch of male friends she hangs out with . . . Jim Gaffigan was even one of those male friends. But again, it flopped and lasted only a couple of seasons or so, then a year or two later, NEW GIRL came out, and people were like, "Really? MY BOYS all over again?"
TBS can't ever seem to hold onto an original sitcom, but then again, much like TV Land, all of their original sitcoms are terrible . . . they try promoting the heck out of them all the time, and even keep attaching big names as executive producers to lure people in, but the shows are just crap. TBS is essentially the all-BBT network anymore anyway.
I'm really surprised Matthew Perry's ODD COUPLE did well enough to get renewed for a second season, but then again, I'm surprised Matthew Perry's ODD COUPLE did well, period. Then again, THE ODD COUPLE has gone through many adaptations from Neil Simon's original play, and we've had a number of different Felix's and Oscar's, that I suppose it's easy for people to adjust to another new pair of them.
Interestingly enough, I read one article a while back that explained why the concept of THE ODD COUPLE wouldn't work today, and that's mainly because divorce isn't as sensitive an issue today as it was back in the 60s and 70s, so the idea of two divorced men sharing an apartment doesn't really seem like such an odd (no pun intended) and unusual concept.
Although I haven't actually seen the new show, I've seen glimpses of it in promos and such, and I really have to wonder, why, exactly, does Felix and Oscar live in such a swanky apartment? Is this version's Oscar well-off or something? In the original, Oscar was always struggling because a majority of his income went to paying his ex-wife's alimony (as did Felix's), and they were lucky enough that Oscar was able to afford the apartment he did have . . . but I mean to say, in this version, Oscar's apartment looks like it's in the same building as Frasier's apartment.
It got a mid-mid-mid season slot. Like just before everything's May finale. Something tells me it's not quite as successful as they state.
The remake felt like something from an alternate 1990's. It isn't so much for me that it's a remake of The Odd Couple, it's just a lousy sitcom on all counts without needing to be a remake. I've been stating for a while that the problem with modern laugh tracky type sitcoms is that they essentially write to the reaction instead of writing story and characters. Like what was wrong with every forgotten 90's sitcom (usually ones on NBC in between Friends and Seinfeld or something on Tuesdays). It's trying to imitate a lot more than just Odd Couple. Their version of Felix is a poor man's Niles Crane, for example.
And frankly, it's one of those shows that is so badly written, no one is funny. It's the big beef I've always had with Will and Grace. For the longest time I wasn't a fan of Megan Mullaly, until I saw her in things that weren't Will in Grace (Bob's Burgers, Children's Hospital, and her guest shots on Parks and Rec especially). I mean, that show made John Cleese unfunny. John "doesn't even have to do much and still gets an uproarious laugh" FREAKIN' Cleese. Eric Idle can swing wildly based on the quality of the project (I liked Casper's live action first film, but felt he was utilized poorly), but the only time Cleese didn't make me laugh was in freakin' Will and Grace. And seriously, I'm so programmed to laugh at Cleese, I can guffaw at something as simple as a picture of him.
Which brings me back to the New Odd Couple. While I've never been a fan of Friends, I have sort of a begrudging respect for the fact it has an audience and sometimes it did have a good bit or two in there. Anyway, I did like Mathew Perry in some of his other projects. I liked him in Mr. Sunshine and while I didn't like the one about group therapy he was at least good in it. Not so much here. Thomas Lennon has actually been funny in some other projects, but again, just not so much here. I can see the appeal of almost every CBS sitcom currently in production, just not this one. I mean, it's hard to get the same quality of the original TV cast. I mean, I do like Walter Mathau and Jack Lemmon, but somehow I feel Tony Randal and Jack Klugman just did the roles better justice. But even if I distance the play, movie, and prior show, I just see Standard Mismatch Comedy #452.7B.
Y'know, I actually have similar feelings about the first season of the 70s sitcom. Granted, I usually have a stronger preference for those kind of single-camera, laugh track-only sitcoms of the 60s because of the artistic and cinematic look they have to them that multi-camera sitcoms lack, but that first season of the 70s version that was single-camera with only a laugh track, it falls kind of flat, and it feels like some left-over 60s sitcom that wasn't even good enough to make it to air in the 60s. Once they went multi-camera with a live audience the following season, the show really started to pick up then.
The thing about Tony and Jack is that they worked very much in the same fashion that Jim and Frank did as Ernie and Bert: they developed such a rapport with one another - on and off camera - that they often would just do the scene their own way, rather than go by what the script said, and even in many cases, the writers wouldn't even bother writing dialogue, they'd maybe write a skeleton of a scene (to wit: "Oscar teaches Felix how to play football"), give that to them, and they'd just do their own way before the audience. That's pretty much another reason why, as I say, the show did better when it went multi-camera in front of an audience, but Tony and Jack were really able to do so much more with what they were working with - both of their performances really improve and have a lot more gusto (Tony especially) as opposed to doing the lines off the script pages during the first season. As for the movie cast, while Jack Lemmon's Felix didn't do much for me, I will agree that Walter Matthau was actually a pretty good Oscar, if only because if other movies like THE BAD NEWS BEARS and DENNIS THE MENACE are anything to go on, he's just really good at playing those types of grumpy, curmudgeonly characters that Oscar is. Then there was that black version in the 80s that had Demond Wilson, a.k.a. Lamont Sanford, as Oscar . . . that was painful to watch - even Demond didn't like it.
There's just something special about the two. I almost wish they reunited for a Grumpy Old Men sitcom remake (considering who played them in the movie). Most shows tend to improve after the first season, yet shows that have stronger first seasons than subsequent ones don't last too long. And trust me, there are some that have that "we know what we're all about" down pat at the beginning but can't quite capture that lightning in a bottle. Shows need room to grow, or it'll be like Heroes where even the show runners don't know what they're doing.
Still, it's telling that CBS withheld The Odd Couple for so long if it was considered successful enough to renew yet not successful enough to put in either the September premiere slot or even a Mid-Season winter debut. Not to mention the fact that when a new series premiered in winter it lasted a good 2 episodes before it was canned. They did try comedy shows on Wednesday night, but that's probably the reason why Mike and Molly wasn't just cancelled, but removed from the schedule. It just didn't work because the only ones still watching CBS that night are the holdouts that keep Survivor on even though it lost its relevance before Bush left office.
Why is Patrick Warburton already starring in a new sitcom that looks just like his previous sitcom?
Separate names with a comma.