Worst Show Never to be Cancelled

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

f16harm must have another college research project due in a week.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I don't know why I'm feeding the troll, but...

Crap like Two and a Half Men is no different than something like Three's Company, which was #1 for years. Its something people watch when they want to turn their brains off. Its mindless "fun", and usually every episode is the same recycled storyline/jokes spit out in a slightly different arrangement or setup.

Gtfo with your "hidden psychology" and secret quality behind garbage tv. Just because you sit with a bowl of popcorn and laugh hysterically "haha John Cryer is so bad with women!", doesn't mean you need to justify it with your psycho babble. You like a shitty show, nobody cares. Move on, weirdo.

 

[killgod]

No, Plato, the people who watch that shit just want to laugh at the same simple, boring, recycled "OMG, Charlie Sheen is oversexed! Ha!" Jokes over and over, because they seek simple, mindless entertainment. There is no hidden quality. It is what it is-junk.

Nobody is arguing that mindless junk can't pull numbers. I think that's fairly obvious. Nobody is playing drama queen. Well, except you actually.

Stupid people hate to think. Most people are stupid.

 

[f16harm]

I don't know why I'm feeding the troll, but...

Crap like Two and a Half Men is no different than something like Three's Company, which was #1 for years. Its something people watch when they want to turn their brains off. Its mindless "fun", and usually every episode is the same recycled storyline/jokes spit out in a slightly different arrangement or setup.

Gtfo with your "hidden psychology" and secret quality behind garbage tv. Just because you sit with a bowl of popcorn and laugh hysterically "haha John Cryer is so bad with women!", doesn't mean you need to justify it with your psycho babble. You like a shitty show, nobody cares. Move on, weirdo.

many would say there is some "hidden psychology" behind that post right there.

 

[BrntO4Life]

^^ and that's what I am talking about. Smart as replies are OK and fine when done in jest and poking fun and such in the NFL area, etc. Doing them like this is just being a fucking asshole. Why did you edit the post quickly to remove the part saying "I am working my way into the industry, I'm sure I know infinitely more than you."?

Because it didn't really fit into the post. Not that I'm ashamed of it. I do know more than you on this subject, CLEARLY.

And what's the difference between being a smartass in the NFL forum and this one?

If I stated that all ratings are directly correlated to quality, then I misspoke, but to say that ratings ARE NOT correlated to a show's quality is simply hogwash. Now, to thoroughly examine that theory we'd have to get into a deep, serious conversation on the psychology of viewers and the fact that if a show is pulling consistently high numbers, even if it isn't produced in the likes of a Lord of the Rings, Silence of the Lambs, etc type quality...they MUST be finding SOME kind of quality in that. it may not be the "quality" many of us would be thinking of on the surface, but there is definitely a high "quality" to all of those viewers since it can pull solid numbers regularly. Will some terrible shows slip through with good ratings? Sure. But to think that every single one, or even a majority will, is simply naive. I have an extensive background in psychology, and not the Freud and Jung bullshit, trust me, it's too deep a fucking debate to have in this thread. Furthermore, I don't really give a shit about posturing on why or how a large group of people find quality in X show. I will stand by this though, if a show pulls large numbers, there has to be something in a show of "quality" to viewers. You may not see it, but obviously an overwhelming majority does or else they wouldn't be tuning in. People tuning in for "mindless drivel" is not that important to people. This can be seen in the disappearance of Sat and soon to be Friday programming. People are now doing other things than watching TV.

Spare your "Critical Studies in Television" for someone who hasn't been annoyed by the classes they already had to take.

Also, don't use examples from film to try and prove a point about TV. Lord of the Rings and Silence of the Lambs don't pull ratings until 4-5 years after they were in theaters.

Why do you continue to toss around points that are completely moot in this argument?

RATINGS AND PROGRAM QUALITY ARE IN NO WAY CORRELATIVE. I don't know how I can state it more definitively than that.

EDIT: Also, if you want to change the definition of "quality", then so be it. Just don't expect us to play along with you.

 

[BrntO4Life]

To add on to my previous post without editing again, just because I watch Jersey Shore does not make it a program I consider quality.

Personally, I hate watching something and then not seeing it through to its conclusion. Therefore, I will watch Jersey Shore until it gets canceled or becomes so uninteresting that my brain can't take it anymore.

Once again, this means the only thing it is "good" at is being "sticky" (to reference Gladwell's Tipping Point again). "Sticky" is NOT a determinant of storyline, setting, or any other qualities of the creative side of a program.

Now, if you said that ratings and marketing/advertising quality were correlative, you'd have a discussion on your hands.

 

[killgod]

is f16harm a woman?

I expect him to next try and tell us that the more expensive the product, the better it is.

 

[wingsfan77]

The first few seasons of Bones were halfway decent, then I got into season I think 5 and they started doing a lot of politically-themed episodes (JFK assassinations, abortion, etc.) and it completely lost me at that point.

 

[Palooza]

Anything that tells me when to laugh should be canceled.

 

[f16harm]

Because it didn't really fit into the post. Not that I'm ashamed of it. I do know more than you on this subject, CLEARLY.

And what's the difference between being a smartass in the NFL forum and this one?



Spare your "Critical Studies in Television" for someone who hasn't been annoyed by the classes they already had to take.

Also, don't use examples from film to try and prove a point about TV. Lord of the Rings and Silence of the Lambs don't pull ratings until 4-5 years after they were in theaters.

Why do you continue to toss around points that are completely moot in this argument?

RATINGS AND PROGRAM QUALITY ARE IN NO WAY CORRELATIVE. I don't know how I can state it more definitively than that.

EDIT: Also, if you want to change the definition of "quality", then so be it. Just don't expect us to play along with you.

CLEARLY you do. After all, you did use big letters.

is f16harm a woman?

I expect him to next try and tell us that the more expensive the product, the better it is.

I'd never attempt that excuse. Canada has been a perfect example for so many years. Although I did appreciate going up to the "Canadian Ballet" on a whim to drink beer and see tits at the fine young age of 19.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Not mentioned in this thread...

Beauty and the Beast with Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman. My mom loved that show and it was god awful.

 

[f16harm]

Not mentioned in this thread...

Beauty and the Beast with Linda Hamilton and Ron Perlman. My mom loved that show and it was god awful.

Once again, more bullshit....and from Larry of all people. I'm disappointed. That show was a beast during its time and had a killer following. Surely many found some kind of "quality" in it.

 

[SethMode]

Anything that tells me when to laugh should be canceled.

Great point, although Seinfeld is the sole exception to the rule.

 

[BrntO4Life]

CLEARLY you do. After all, you did use big letters.

Well, hell. It seems like it finally got you to read seeing as how you didn't muster up another idiotic, half-baked response.

Although I did appreciate going up to the "Canadian Ballet" on a whim to drink beer and see tits at the fine young age of 19.

I had heard Canada was much more welcoming to lesbians. Thanks for the first-hand account.

 

[f16harm]

Well, hell. It seems like it finally got you to read seeing as how you didn't muster up another idiotic, half-baked response.



I had heard Canada was much more welcoming to lesbians. Thanks for the first-hand account.

nobody still has an answer for this though

If young people (identical to those here) "liked" these shows....then their demo numbers wouldn't suck moose cock.

If these shows are "quality", and you, the Jambi of TV, represent that which is true and correct in your age ranges thoughts, why aren't more people watching. The physical numbers show no one is tuning in to this God forsaken horseshit on NBC save The Office.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Once again, more bullshit....and from Larry of all people. I'm disappointed. That show was a beast during its time and had a killer following. Surely many found some kind of "quality" in it.

I guess.

That shit was awful, to me. Loathed that junk.

 

[f16harm]

I guess.

That shit was awful, to me. Loathed that junk.

Would it have changed your opinion if he was wearing the Hellboy getup when being portrayed as The Beast? Or vice versa, would the Hellboy movies have been good if Linda Hamilton would have been his love interest?

 

[BrntO4Life]

If these shows are "quality", and you, the Jambi of TV, represent that which is true and correct in your age ranges thoughts, why aren't more people watching. The physical numbers show no one is tuning in to this God forsaken horseshit on NBC save The Office.

I didn't say that I represent my demo as a whole. Clearly I don't.

The majority of my demo also has a horrible understanding of what is quality programming and what isn't. They only understand the things that are easiest to find, which is a testament to great marketing, not great content.

Please don't respond until you grasp the difference between marketing and actual content.

 

[f16harm]

I didn't say that I represent my demo as a whole. Clearly I don't.

The majority of my demo also has a horrible understanding of what is quality programming and what isn't. They only understand the things that are easiest to find, which is a testament to great marketing, not great content.

Please don't respond until you grasp the difference between marketing and actual content.

Who's changing definitions now? Sorry, but we aren't talking marketing up in this bitch. We're talking ratings and "quality". If I want to talk marketing I'll bust out the article on the Verizon guy who finally lost his job after 9 years of say listening to "Can you hear me now"...all while being queer.

You talked up the NBC comedies, and now you respond with a cop out post like that throwing your fellow cronies under the bus as not being able to understand the importance of quality because they were duped by "marketing." Which is it? NBC comedies are quality? Or no one is watching because they don't know quality because they were duped by marketing. Personally, I'm losing faith in your ability to tell me how to STFU.

 

[SethMode]

I'm really baffled that someone can argue for so long that popularity = quality. Seriously, it's stunning.