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.
From Miss Piggy
and Josh Groban to Fozzie and Jay Leno,
discuss all aspects of "The
Muppets on Dancing with the Stars
night don't miss The Muppets return to "Dancing with the Stars" on
ABC beginning at 7 central, 8 eastern.
Their Own Words: Jim Henson
Discuss one of the
best Jim Henson documentaires ever. Featuring new interviews from the
Henson Family, Frank Oz, Dave Goelz, Carroll Spinney, Fran Brill and
more. Miss the show? Order
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by miss kermie, Apr 4, 2012.
That's always going to help your show stay on the air, hahaha!
Yep. Like creator Larry Gelbart said, "I think she went to bed for us all." XD
Oh yeah. I like how Sitcoms became more like 30 minute films. Especially Raising Hope.. I'm kinda disappointed they had to sacrifice My Name is Earl for that, but it's become one of my favorite shows. Especially since it deals exclusively in consequences and owning up to them.
The only person that even has a handle on classic style sitcoms is Chuck Lorre. Once they stopped dealing exclusively in fat jokes in the pilot episode, Mike and Molly has easily become one of the sweetest things on television. Though, I'm kinda worried about them marrying off at the end of the second season. But if it means we get to see a relationship grow before our eyes, it's almost revolutionary.
But stuff like Partners and Whitney... it's gag, laugh track, gag, laugh track, gag, laugh track...that's not how sitcoms are supposed to work. There's supposed to be substance to one liners. Even ALF had more substance in his than Whitney does.
Though I ponder this... how come Whitney's own sitcom sucks so bad, but 2 Broke Girls is actually pretty good? I swear, if there's one show I thought I'd hate last year, it was that, but I really like it.
I dislike the whole mockumentary style for sitcoms... sure, it works well for films, because documentaries are usually films themselves, but trying to bring that concept to television, it's just not a good marriage of two different things right there...
Matter of fact, I wish the television industry would stop trying to make TV more like movies in general anyway.
Yeah, but they make movies look more and more like TV shows. Ever catch anything from Walden Media? How do they get anything made theatrically when 90% of their stuff looks like cheap cable movies from the 90's?
it is called cartoon network for a reason, when are they going to get the point!
They got rid of most of their live action programming. The reality stuff specifically, which no one liked wanted or even watched. It took them forever to get rid of "Dude, What would Happen," and when they did, there was much rejoicing. Other than Level Up (which something tells me, isn't going to last much longer), the only live action programming is adult swim sitcoms.
They finally returned to animated programming, and people are still whining that it's not reruns of Dexter's Lab.
I hope they put on more of their older programming, It's sad that some kids arent able to see good cartoons, but I kinda like adventure time for some reason.
I HATE IT when people whine and complain about channels not showing "good" cartoons. "Good" is really subjective. There are a lot of "good" 90s shows that I cannot stand. Like Angry Beavers. I really don't like the show that much. I'm also not a fan of Nick's live action shows. I;m not trying to attack anyone personally, it's just a huge peeve of mine. Probably ranking just under "I'm X years old and I watch Y"
YES! YES to all of that! Well... except Angry Beavers... I really like that one. Good is extremely subjective. The point is, you have to watch a little bit of everything to get a good feel for it. And I hate the fact matter of taste dictates that a show is good or bad. There are many factors that contribute to true awful that everyone can agree on. And often times, true awful is so bad it's good (Clutch Cargo, again).
And like I've said a thousand times, every generation thinks that... they even praise cartoons that actually are terrible, like Maxie's World. Yeah.... the preachy Barbie knockoff with the worst animation I've ever seen.
Seriously.. it's not that they don't make "good" cartoons anymore. They don't make your favorite show anymore, and as a bunch of TV shows can tell you (Family Guy and Simpsons for example) they don't even make your favorite shows like they used to. Hey... a non-extreme example. Powerpuff Girls season 6.
I'm not a 90's kid, my favourite animation decades were the 20's 30's and 40's I'm not saying that I'm obsessed with the 90's. I'm just saying that they could put better shows on now. btw I'm 13 I can barely remember 2002!
Definitely agree with this point. Everyone has a different point of view as to what's good and what's not. The same thing happens with sports a lot; older fans tend to say that players today are more selfish, aloof, lazy, et al, and that wouldn't have flown back when they were growing up. People only remember the players that impressed them the most, and forget that there always were lazy players, players who didn't make the most out of their talent, players who didn't care if they won or not as long as they got paid. Time allows people to forget the bad shows/players/songs and that makes it seem like everything was so much better back then.
I am so frustrated right now! I applied for a bursary sometime in the summer holidays and I'm still waiting for the letter to come through! I need it so I can get my art pack from college and I started my new term at the end of August! I've already had two urgent reminders from the council saying that I need to renew my housing benefits, oh but guess what I need for that! Also, the council was informed that I was awaiting my bursary after the first reminder and they said that was ok. How the heck did I get a second one?!
And the worst part is, the true awful is usually more fun than something really good. That's what MST3k taught a generation.
I'm not really talking about the 90s specifically. I'm just saying in general. It's ok to think that certain shows are better than others, its when people cry and complain that there are no "good" shows anymore it grates my nerves because no one can dictate what is "good" to someone else
I know I've ranted about this before, but I'm the mood for ranting about it again, so here it goes...
Everything being shot digitally now.
Why exactly is it so superior? Because it's newer? Because it's cheaper? Because the entertainment industry told us it was? I don't really think so. Especially, considering TV shows and movies shot digitally are supposed to have better quality right? Well, if that's the case, let's take a look at, say, SST for example: now for a while there, up until 2008, the show looked pretty great, and it was recorded on video tape, which came a LONG way since the 60s and 70s, the picture was pretty clear (of course, depending on the reception of your PBS station, that was a whole different matter)... then, once 2008 came along, and they switched to "HD", all of the sudden, there was a certain blur to the picture that wasn't there before, you can even tell this when you go through disc two of the 40 Years of Sunny Days DVD set.
Of course, not just SST, but other things as well... take some of today's modern TV series shot digitally, even when it's preserved on DVD, there's still a slight blur to the picture, and there's quite a bit of pixelation whenever there's a lot of movement in the picture... but then, you compare that to something that was shot on, say, 35mm film, properly restored/remastered and preserved, and you get a MUCH better and clearer picture.
And again, even video tape has improved greatly over the years: you look at a video taped show from the 70s, like All in the Family or Sanford and Son, and no, they don't exactly look great, even on DVD or anything, but then, look at a video taped show from much recently like Whose Line Is It Anyway?, and it looks pretty good.
And even from my own personal experience, I used to shoot my videos on video tape... of course, that was back when YouTube DIDN'T offer playback quality over 360p (or in a lot of cases, even 240p), so they mostly got compressed all to heck in really poor quality, but ignoring that, looking at my older videos shot on video tape, and compared to the more recent videos that are recorded digitally, again, there's just a slight blur to the digital videos that doesn't exist on the taped videos.
And not only that, but what's so great about everything having to be in widescreen anyway? With the exception of Muppet movies for some reason, I find that whole "you lose 25% of your picture in 4:3" to be bull cookies... I mean, I've compared a bunch of movies in both formats, and I find it to be the other way around, it's when the movie is in widescreen that you lose 25% of the picture: in both formats, all that stuff that's off to the sides of the picture is still there, but when you look at widescreen, the tops of people's heads, or the bottom portion of the picture is cropped out.
So yeah... digital ain't so great.
You really can't go on promos or trailers for, really, anything anymore, because the ads always make them out to be something different from what they really are. Take three popular current series for example: Modern Family is about three little families that are all linked to one another, yet the promos make it out to be about reverse-gendered polygamy (the show was even used as a reference to a news story about a woman with two live-in boyfriends, one of whom she has a child with, "Just like the hit ABC sitcom"); The Big Bang Theory is about four stereotypical nerds, but you see the ads, and it's Kaley Cuoco who's plastered all over them with the nerds in the background as if they're just supporting characters; and I really picked up on a vibe from the promos for 2 Broke Girls that they were a "couple", but as it turns out, they're not.
I know it's all mind games though... they know if they make it seem dirtier than it really is, people are going to check it out... heck, Billy Graham unwittingly did that for Sid & Marty Kroffts' old stage show that was a marionette burlesque when he told people, "Whatever you do, don't see a show called Le Poupe de Paris, because the women don't wear bras"... not even mentioning the fact that they were puppets, and needless to say, the show sold out.
No, no no.... that NEVER happened in the show. Never, not at all, no never ever ever. Uh Uh! I've never seen that episode and I've seen every one produced. It's three related families... who the heck even said that?
Again, it's the false advertising that's at fault for making it out to seem like that's what it's about.
EDIT: Or do you mean who was it that compared the show to that girl with the two live-in boyfriends? Inside Edition did the story quite some time ago, calling it a "real-life Modern Family, just like the popular TV series".
Yeah. They didn't do the research and never actual bothered to see the show.
HOWEVER, there was a reverse gender polygamy episode of Raising Hope. But it was played for laughs because a Chuck Cunningham type character disappeared in the second episode, and down the line, they explained the character joined a cult.
Separate names with a comma.