Originally posted by vansmack:COASTAL BIAS ALERT
We're not talking about Wisconsin, we're talking about NYC.
Not all states in the middle are the same
:D
That would by WYOMING
Not all states in the middle are the same
:D
That would by WYOMING
Will we buy in to "Love Monkey"?
Not all states in the middle are the same
:D
That would by WYOMING
Why is it obvious that it has become the exception rather than the rule? Do your own personal life experiences really give you that much confidence such that you can comment for all of urbania? How do you know that for every guy out of the closet, there's not three more who are in the closet?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:See, now why didn't you just say that the first time because that is a valid point? Making the Matthew Shepard reference was completely missing the point. We're not talking about Wisconsin, we're talking about NYC.
I'm willing to bet there are plenty of gay men in NYC or other urban centers who don't go around advertising their homosexuality.
I agree, not everybody is "out of the closet" so to speak. But I think the key point you made is similar to my point - "advertise it." While most gays do not advertise the fact, but your closest friends would/could/should know. Sometimes I'm still surprised when an acquantance tells me that they're gay when I didn't know before, but they tell me or it comes up in conversation, mostly because they don't advertise it and rightly so. Maybe SF has watered me down a bit, but I think it actually does a disservice to make a character like the character in Love Monkey live in an urban center like NY and hide his sexual orientation when that has become the exception and not the rule in 2006.
Originally posted by pdx pollard:Yes, I do have a coastal bias.
COASTAL BIAS ALERT
Originally posted by pdx pollard:Yes they are.
Not all states in the middle are the same
:D
Originally posted by pdx pollard:And I stand corrected. It was the other W state in the middle of the country - Wyoming. Thanks for catching that.
That would by WYOMING
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:I was the first to classify my opions by stating that perhaps SF has skewed my view, but I don't think I'll be alone in stating that being openly gay in NY is no longer a rare occurence.
Why is it obvious that it has become the exception rather than the rule? Do your own personal life experiences really give you that much confidence such that you can comment for all of urbania? How do you know that for every guy out of the closet, there's not three more who are in the closet?
But remember what I'm talking about here - close friends. While in a professional setting it may not be as obvious, I think it's even more rare among close friends. We're not talking about someone who hasn't realized he's gay, (again, had you seen the show) we're talking about someone who is going to painstaking measures to hide his sexual orientation from his close friends and as far as we can tell has told a female friend he doesn't appear to be as close he is to his male friends. I, personally, feel this is TV distorting reality for the sake of a story that has been beaten to death and it goes hand in hand with the many other weaknesses of the writers of the show that I pointed out.
You can pick it apart with a fine toothed comb all you want because you're bored on a Friday afternoon, but I'll comment with authority on urbania all day long and leave suburbia to you.
So you're saying that every fictional tv character must fit (your perception of) reality in order to make the show strong? Whatever happened to depicting characters that don't fit the norm or match the stereotype?
I mean, it's a fictional tv show. I watch and love Lost, but no way do I think that there would be a host of survivors if a plane crashed in the manner that the plane on Lost did.
I mean, it's a fictional tv show. I watch and love Lost, but no way do I think that there would be a host of survivors if a plane crashed in the manner that the plane on Lost did.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:I was the first to classify my opions by stating that perhaps SF has skewed my view, but I don't think I'll be alone in stating that being openly gay in NY is no longer a rare occurence.
Why is it obvious that it has become the exception rather than the rule? Do your own personal life experiences really give you that much confidence such that you can comment for all of urbania? How do you know that for every guy out of the closet, there's not three more who are in the closet?
But remember what I'm talking about here - close friends. While in a professional setting it may not be as obvious, I think it's even more rare among close friends. We're not talking about someone who hasn't realized he's gay, (again, had you seen the show) we're talking about someone who is going to painstaking measures to hide his sexual orientation from his close friends and as far as we can tell has told a female friend he doesn't appear to be as close he is to his male friends. I, personally, feel this is TV distorting reality for the sake of a story that has been beaten to death and it goes hand in hand with the many other weaknesses of the writers of the show that I pointed out.
You can pick it apart with a fine toothed comb all you want because you're bored on a Friday afternoon, but I'll comment with authority on urbania all day long and leave suburbia to you.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:Lost doesn't pretend to be hip.
So you're saying that every fictional tv character must fit (your perception of) reality in order to make the show strong? Whatever happened to depicting characters that don't fit the norm or match the stereotype?
I mean, it's a fictional tv show. I watch and love Lost, but no way do I think that there would be a host of survivors if a plane crashed in the manner that the plane on Lost did.
If you're going to pretend to be hip, then know what's going on and actually be hip. Don't do the 90's stereotype, do the 06 stereotype that doesn't actually exist yet.
I would have figured that any show co-starring Jason Priestly would automatically be totally unhip, and would be smart enough to not even attempt to pretend to be hip. But I guess I would have figured wrong.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:Lost doesn't pretend to be hip.
So you're saying that every fictional tv character must fit (your perception of) reality in order to make the show strong? Whatever happened to depicting characters that don't fit the norm or match the stereotype?
I mean, it's a fictional tv show. I watch and love Lost, but no way do I think that there would be a host of survivors if a plane crashed in the manner that the plane on Lost did.
If you're going to pretend to be hip, then know what's going on and actually be hip. Don't do the 90's stereotype, do the 06 stereotype that doesn't actually exist yet.
You know what would have actually made this an interesting show? If the main character quit his corporate job to open a music venue (like 9:30 or Black Cat or smaller, whatever). The record industry just isn't cool or interesting right now. Recorded music is more and more being turned into a commodity, rather than art. But live music remains cool. Someone should have pitched the show about "a young Seth Hurwitz."
Stop it. You boys just stop it now, immediately. I've always respected the opinions shown on this board. But Jesus-rollerskating-Christ, I DO NOT want to see (what seems to be) educated, respectable music fans analyzing a cheesy-ass network sitcom called "Love Monkey". Its retarded. Its not like I'm some anti-social freak who refuses to watch TV out of respect for some hip moral code. But "Love Monkey" is exactly the reason why 99.9% of television is so embarrassingly bad. And to be honest, I haven't even seen it. But the ads that I saw for this show (and I saw loads last weekend during a three hour span) were so mindblowingly grueling to get through that I can come to the conclusion that I'd rather shove the remote control up my ass than sit through thirty seconds of it.
If 99.9% of tv is embarassingly bad, how did you manage to sit there and watch it for three straight hours?
Originally posted by PigIron:
Stop it. You boys just stop it now, immediately. I've always respected the opinions shown on this board. But Jesus-rollerskating-Christ, I DO NOT want to see (what seems to be) educated, respectable music fans analyzing a cheesy-ass network sitcom called "Love Monkey". Its retarded. Its not like I'm some anti-social freak who refuses to watch TV out of respect for some hip moral code. But "Love Monkey" is exactly the reason why 99.9% of television is so embarrassingly bad. And to be honest, I haven't even seen it. But the ads that I saw for this show (and I saw loads last weekend during a three hour span) were so mindblowingly grueling to get through that I can come to the conclusion that I'd rather shove the remote control up my ass than sit through thirty seconds of it.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:The football playoffs were on, champ.
If 99.9% of tv is embarassingly bad, how did you manage to sit there and watch it for three straight hours?
Originally posted by PigIron:
Stop it. You boys just stop it now, immediately. I've always respected the opinions shown on this board. But Jesus-rollerskating-Christ, I DO NOT want to see (what seems to be) educated, respectable music fans analyzing a cheesy-ass network sitcom called "Love Monkey". Its retarded. Its not like I'm some anti-social freak who refuses to watch TV out of respect for some hip moral code. But "Love Monkey" is exactly the reason why 99.9% of television is so embarrassingly bad. And to be honest, I haven't even seen it. But the ads that I saw for this show (and I saw loads last weekend during a three hour span) were so mindblowingly grueling to get through that I can come to the conclusion that I'd rather shove the remote control up my ass than sit through thirty seconds of it.
This has been a fabulous thread to read on a Saturday. Thanks, guys! ;)
Originally posted by PigIron:Yes, there's crap on TV. But I disagree that it's 99.9%. There are quite a few excellent shows on TV right now.
But "Love Monkey" is exactly the reason why 99.9% of television is so embarrassingly bad.
Originally posted by kurosawa-b/w:There are a million channels and you may have a point. Its a matter of opinion I suppose. I'm sure there are shows out there that can be called quality programming. Maybe I'm just getting old and bitter and cynical, I don't know. But the shows that have gotten the publicity - they just look like crap to me. I don't see any good premises out there. Just alot of ridiculous reality stuff and rehashed sitcom ideas.
Originally posted by PigIron:Yes, there's crap on TV. But I disagree that it's 99.9%. There are quite a few excellent shows on TV right now.
But "Love Monkey" is exactly the reason why 99.9% of television is so embarrassingly bad.
Originally posted by PigIron:I don't know what you're talking about...
But "Love Monkey" is exactly the reason why 99.9% of television is so embarrassingly bad.
Originally posted by PigIron:you must have never watched veronica mars! now there's quality programming :D
Originally posted by kurosawa-b/w:There are a million channels and you may have a point. Its a matter of opinion I suppose. I'm sure there are shows out there that can be called quality programming. Maybe I'm just getting old and bitter and cynical, I don't know. But the shows that have gotten the publicity - they just look like crap to me. I don't see any good premises out there. Just alot of ridiculous reality stuff and rehashed sitcom ideas.
Originally posted by PigIron:Yes, there's crap on TV. But I disagree that it's 99.9%. There are quite a few excellent shows on TV right now.
But "Love Monkey" is exactly the reason why 99.9% of television is so embarrassingly bad.
Originally posted by xneverwherex:January 24, 2006
you must have never watched veronica mars! now there's quality programming :D
UPN and WB to Combine to Form New Network
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK (AP) – Two small, struggling television networks, UPN and WB, will merge to form a new network called The CW, executives from them companies that own them said Tuesday.
The announcement was made by executives from CBS Corp., which owns UPN, and Warner Bros., a unit of Time Warner Inc., which owns WB.
Both UPN and WB had struggled to compete against larger rivals in the broadcast TV business, including Walt Disney Co.'s ABC, News Corp.'s Fox and CBS Corp.'s CBS.
The new network will launch in the fall, the executives said, and both UPN and WB will shut down. It will be a 50-50 partnership between Warner Bros. and CBS, and the network will be carried on stations owned by the Tribune Co., which is a minority owner of the WB network.
Leslie Moonves, chief executive of CBS Corp., said the new network will air 30 hours of programming seven days a week aimed in part at young audiences.
Barry Meyer, the head of Warner Bros., said the network would be run by the current executives of UPN and WB.
Thank goodness these two little networks will be able to combine and have a chance… I was so worried about CBS and Time Warner!
Joking aside, the only show I watched on UPN was "Veronica Mars," which will now share a network with "Gilmore Girls" – woo hoo.
Joking aside, the only show I watched on UPN was "Veronica Mars," which will now share a network with "Gilmore Girls" – woo hoo.
I wonder how it will work from a technical standpoint in terms of time slots?
holy shit is this a bad show!