From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2001 5:00pm
Subject: Fox Show Refuses Birth Control Ad

Can you say "hypocrisy"? :)

Most of you have probably seen this already, but for those who 
haven't:

http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010201/12/tv-temptation-island

Fox Show Refuses Birth Control Ad 
 
NEW YORK (AP) - The Fox television network turned down a commercial 
for a female contraceptive product that its makers wanted to run 
during the racy hit reality series, "Temptation Island."

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2001 9:31pm
Subject: All the "Jazz" - answering my own question

I had been wondering how the Ken Burns "Jazz" documentary was doing 
in the ratings. I now have an answer:

(from http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010201/18/ent-jazz-surge)

Although final ratings figures haven't been determined, "Jazz" 
doubled PBS' prime-time viewership and averaged about a 3.6 rating, 
said Harry Forbes, a network spokesman. That's lower than Burns' 
baseball series, which averaged a 5.1 rating, and civil war 
documentary, at 9.0. 

Yet "Jazz" was more successful than PBS had predicted, Forbes said, 
considering that other jazz specials over the years - the Newport 
Jazz Festival or "Live from Lincoln Center" - have not done as well. 

"What's extraordinary with these jazz ratings is traditionally jazz 
does not do well on PBS, or presumably anywhere else," he said. 

"Jazz" even did better than a five-part series the network aired a 
few years ago on the history of rock. "Rock 'n' roll is certainly the 
most popular genre ... (yet) that only averaged a 3.3," said Forbes. 



The article also notes that jazz recording sales, web site hits, etc. 
are all up. No knows how long it will last, of course.

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2001 5:39pm
Subject: Re: All the "Jazz" - answering my own question

>The article also notes that jazz recording sales, web site hits, etc. 
>are all up. No knows how long it will last, of course.

Until Debb puts out her first album.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2001 4:49pm
Subject: All that "Jazz" -- answering my own question

I had been wondering how the Ken Burns "Jazz" series was doing in the 
ratings. Today I see the answer:

(from http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010201/16/jazz-surge)

Although final ratings figures haven't been determined, "Jazz" 
doubled PBS' prime-time viewership and averaged about a 3.6 rating, 
said Harry Forbes, a network spokesman. That's lower than Burns' 
baseball series, which averaged a 5.1 rating, and civil war 
documentary, at 9.0. 

Yet "Jazz" was more successful than PBS had predicted, Forbes said, 
considering that other jazz specials over the years - the Newport 
Jazz Festival or "Live from Lincoln Center" - have not done as well. 

"What's extraordinary with these jazz ratings is traditionally jazz 
does not do well on PBS, or presumably anywhere else," he said. 

"Jazz" even did better than a five-part series the network aired a 
few years ago on the history of rock. "Rock 'n' roll is certainly the 
most popular genre ... (yet) that only averaged a 3.3," said Forbes. 


The article also notes increases in recording sales, web site hits, 
etc.

From: entguy1@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2001 0:45pm
Subject: SuperSize "Friends"

What was the worst part about Thursday's 40-minute "Friends"?
a.) NBC's Peacock screen wipes every five minutes, reminding you that 
this was a super-size "Friends"
b.) Blatant Warner Bros. product placement ("Change of Heart" on TV, a 
Marvin the Martian pillow mysteriously appearing on the couch)
c.) Figuring out how incoherent these episodes are going to be when 
they're whacked down for syndication.

Discuss.

David

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2001 4:30pm
Subject: Did Campbell Brown have a sex change operation?

Lisa de Moraes must be watching Dan or Peter or CNN or whatever that show is
on PBS, but she probably isn't watching the news on NBC, or she'd have
gotten the sex of Campbell Brown correct.  From her column in today's
Washington Post:

- - -

 David Gregory and Campbell Brown have been named NBC News White House
correspondents, covering the Bush administration for the NBC news machine
that includes the broadcast network and MSNBC.

 For the past year, Gregory and Brown have reported on the Bush campaign.
Gregory, a correspondent with NBC News since 1995, covered the Clinton
impeachment and the trial of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, among
other stories, before boarding the Bush bus. He also has been an anchor for
MSNBC.

 Brown, who joined NBC News in 1998, was a Washington-based correspondent
before boarding the Bush bus. He covered Clinton's impeachment trial and the
Pentagon, reporting on the war in Kosovo.

- - -

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2001 5:09pm
Subject: Sucking up to the Unabomber

> To view the entire article, go to
> http://washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?articlei
> d=A10354-2001Jan31&pagename=article
> 
> Dearest Unabomber
> 
> 
>  How many ways can esteemed journalists suck up to a serial killer?
> 
>  If the criminal is Ted Kaczynski, a k a the Unabomber, the sky's the
> limit. When Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, Larry King, Dan Rather and
> others want the big "get" -- an interview with a worldwide celebrity,
> notorious or otherwise -- they and their minions often pull out the
> rhetorical stops.
> 
>  To some environmentalists, gushed Shawn Efran of "60 Minutes II," "you
> are a hero and a pioneer."
> 
>  "I hope you decide it's in your better interests to explain yourself to
> the nation . . . the world . . . by using me," wrote "Good Morning
> America" correspondent Don Dahler.
> 
>  Larry Ish, producer for "The Roseanne Show," was more personal: "I
> believe that you and her would definitely 'hit it off' and the
> conversation would definitely be interesting and fulfilling for the both
> of you."
> 
>  These and other pitch letters from 1999 were unearthed by
> TheSmokingGun.com from files donated by Kaczynski to a University of
> Michigan library. They amount to a case study in the art of journalistic
> seduction, even when the person being courted used mail bombs to kill
> three people and injure more than 20.
> 
>  "What was really hard for me was mailing it," says New Yorker staff
> writer Lawrence Wright. "You should have seen the look I got from the
> postal clerk."
> 
>  In his letter, Wright said: "I'm particularly interested in why certain
> people feel the need to act out what they have read in books or seen in
> movies. . . . I am also a screenwriter (my first movie, 'The Siege,'
> starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis, came out last November).
> There is violence depicted in my work -- in particular, terrorists who are
> setting off bombs in New York.
> 
>  "So we have a lot in common," Wright explains with a laugh.
> 
>  CNN legal analyst Greta Van Susteren noted that she  handled death
> penalty cases as a defense lawyer: "I would like to focus on, among other
> things, the issue of whether a mental illness defense can be or should be
> forced on a legally competently accused. . . . Your case is particularly
> fascinating since you reject the findings and no one can dispute that you
> are an extremely smart man," she wrote.
> 
>  "I stand by that letter," Van Susteren says. "The guy's a very bright,
> high-IQ murderer. Remember, I used to represent these despicable people.
> I've walked death row."
> 
>  Some letters were rather straightforward. An interview "would give you a
> chance to explain your experiences to our huge audience and also the
> opportunity to share your views and concerns, which I know you've long
> wanted to do," NBC's Couric wrote, adding: "I'd also be more than happy to
> just come and meet with you, if you think that would be helpful."
> 
>  "Barbara Walters will provide a fair forum for you to express your views,
> and you could reach the most people by appearing on '20/20,' one of the
> most-watched programs on television," wrote ABC producer Katie Thomson.
> 
>  "It is my understanding that this request is next to impossible . . . but
> perhaps the impossible can be overturned by your participation," "Larry
> King Live" producer Bobby Grossman penned in a handwritten note.
> 
>  Dahler, the "Good Morning America" reporter who offered to be used, waxed
> more poetic: "I feel strongly that the only way to truly understand
> someone is to see their eyes, hear their voice, their inflections, their
> passion -- not just read their opinions and explanations. . . . I know I
> represent a form of technology abhorrent to you, but I also know from
> reading excerpts from your journal . . . and descriptions of the
> intricately made explosive devices that you have a talent for using
> anything at hand for your purposes."
> 
>  It can't be easy putting a positive spin on mail bombs.
> 
>  "My point there was to find something in what he does and who he is that
> he would enjoy talking about," Dahler says. "If he's proud of his ability
> to make certain things -- such as those horrible bombs -- perhaps that's a
> way to start a conversation. Then we can talk about the more malevolent
> sides of his character. . . . I wasn't trying to kiss up to him. I was
> just trying to be honest with him about my interest in his philosophies."
> 
>  Efran, the "60 Minutes II" producer, was the most effusive. He told
> Kaczynski he had been talking to people in Oregon about "the movement you
> inspired" and how "your writings awakened in them a desire to smash down
> technological society by whatever means necessary." As for those who say
> he's schizophrenic, "I want to give you the opportunity to respond
> point-by-point to their allegations and to show the American people that
> you are, in fact, rational, clear-headed and sane."
> 
>  Efran also took pains to distance his show from his sister program: "I
> work for our chief CBS anchor Dan Rather. . . . Please understand that '60
> Minutes II' is NOT the program on which your brother and mother appeared.
> They appeared on '60 Minutes' with Mike Wallace and Lesley Stahl. . . .
> Our story will allow you to personally refute what they said about you."
> 
>  CBS spokesman Kevin Tedesco says the letter was "not derogatory at all"
> toward "60 Minutes." "It uses what any journalist would use to entice him
> to come on the program," he says.
> 
>  Bryan Denson of the Portland Oregonian went negative on the opposition:
> "I suspect by now that every blow-dried TV phony has written to beg you
> for an interview. I won't beg. You will find my pitch to you very
> specific. I have no ulterior motives. I don't want to write a book, don't
> want to make a movie. I only want to talk with you for about two hours
> about the environment, the natural world, wild nature . . . deep ecology .
> . . the radical environmental movement . . . the urban anarchist
> movement."
> 
>  Says Denson: "I was hoping to make it sound that I was going to be a bit
> more academically rigorous. . . . Is it hard to get people who have
> murdered people to talk to you? It hasn't been in the past. I did it quite
> frequently when I was writing about the death penalty in Texas."
> 
>  For the record, none of the letter writers got the desired interview.
>

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2001 8:36pm
Subject: Live WIth Regis and...

Kelly Ripa (who?), according to the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/22890.htm

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2001 8:40pm
Subject: Re: SuperSize "Friends"

d.) The waste of a guest star like Jason Alexander, whose brief role 
could have been played by virtually anyone.

Talk amongst yourselves...

--- In tvbarn2@y..., entguy1@y... wrote:
> 
> What was the worst part about Thursday's 40-minute "Friends"?
> a.) NBC's Peacock screen wipes every five minutes, reminding you 
that 
> this was a super-size "Friends"
> b.) Blatant Warner Bros. product placement ("Change of Heart" on 
TV, a 
> Marvin the Martian pillow mysteriously appearing on the couch)
> c.) Figuring out how incoherent these episodes are going to be when 
> they're whacked down for syndication.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> David

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2001 8:42pm
Subject: i'm verklempt

Linda Richman -- the real one that Mike Myers based his SNL "Coffee 
Talk" character on (and who is his mother-in-law) -- is now a self-
help guru:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/522559.asp

Further proof that fact is stranger than fiction.

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2001 7:56pm
Subject: Re: i'm verklempt

>Linda Richman -- the real one that Mike Myers based his SNL "Coffee 
>Talk" character on (and who is his mother-in-law) -- is now a self-
>help guru:
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/522559.asp

And lived a few years with Rosie O'Donnell ... what you didn't know that?




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Sat Feb 3, 2001 3:15pm
Subject: RE: Re: SuperSize "Friends"

> > What was the worst part about Thursday's 40-minute "Friends"?
> > a.) NBC's Peacock screen wipes every five minutes, reminding you 
> that 
> > this was a super-size "Friends"
> > b.) Blatant Warner Bros. product placement ("Change of Heart" on 
> TV, a 
> > Marvin the Martian pillow mysteriously appearing on the couch)

What would you have wanted them to do--get turned down by Universal to use a
clip from "Blind Date" or have them watch a fake relationship show?

Considering how much money they're not paying by using a "Change of Heart"
clip, that one doesn't bother me at all.

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: jsnell@intertext.com
Date: Sat Feb 3, 2001 8:50pm
Subject: Re: SuperSize "Friends"

> c.) Figuring out how incoherent these episodes are going to be 
when 
> they're whacked down for syndication.

In reality, lots of sitcoms run long when they're initially shot, and 
are then edited down. So part of me feels like this is just a 
less-edited-down "Friends," not an expanded episode at all. In 
any event, they're used to editing down sitcoms, so I'm sure the 
syndie versions won't be noticeably cut up.

They may have also added in scenes that are specifically 
padded, so they can yank 'em later.

-jason

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 9:33am
Subject: One Armed Bandits...

Why is anyone allowing NBC to trumpet their movie night offering as "Tommy 
Lee Jones and Harrison Ford in 'The Fugitive'... THE ORIGINAL, THE BEST"... 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: The KJB  <osiris@idir.net>
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 4:45pm
Subject: Re: One Armed Bandits...

At 03:33 PM 2/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Why is anyone allowing NBC to trumpet their movie night offering as "Tommy
>Lee Jones and Harrison Ford in 'The Fugitive'... THE ORIGINAL, THE BEST"...

I guess we can conveniently forget David Jansen and Barry Morse when it 
comes to network hype.

Speaking of the *real* Fugitive, I just got the soundtrack for the 60's 
series for review.  Great to hear all of those old themes, reworked in 
digital stereo.


KJB
Editor, Backstage Pass
http://www.backstage-pass.com
Film Writer, FilmForce.Net
http://www.filmforce.net

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 6:19pm
Subject: Whacked Down for Syndication

I like that phrase, David.  That expresses my feelings exactly.  In 
fact, when I see what they do to my favorite shows, I often picture 
the so-called editor as a butcher with a bloody apron and a meat 
cleaver in his hand.  

Jason said:
 
>>In any event, they're used to editing down sitcoms, so I'm sure the 
syndie versions won't be noticeably cut up.<<

I don't know who "they" are, but I'd like to send them over to Comedy 
Central to do a not so noticeably cut up job on my favorite show, 
Sports Night.  Actually, I have a problem with anybody laying a hand -
-or meat cleaver-- on Sports Night, so I may not be the best person 
to speak on this subject.  CC (or whoever) hasn't cut too much, I 
guess.  They've just put the commercials in odd places, throwing off 
the rhythm of Sorkin's dialogue.  And, they cut off odd seconds 
coming and going from commercials so that you don't lose much 
dialogue, but you do lose gestures, looks, nuance.  I guess none of 
that is important since they've also decided to show the episodes out 
of sequence.  

Sue

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 1:32pm
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>> I like that phrase, David.  That expresses my feelings exactly.  In 
> >fact, when I see what they do to my favorite shows, I often picture 
> >the so-called editor as a butcher with a bloody apron and a meat 
> >cleaver in his hand.  
> 
> I seem to recall when it came time to trim the episodes down for 
> "Seinfeld," Jerry himself supervised the specific trimming of the few 
> minutes necessary. (But then... He could.)
> 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 11:21pm
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

IMHO, the worst hacking I know of was done to MASH. I'd watch 
episodes and distinctly remember scenes that were missing. (The 
stills underneath the closing credits also serve as a reminder.) And 
I'm not talking about scenes that I remember from the first run; I 
almost certainly saw them in early syndication, but over time they've 
hacked away more and more.

I seem to recall hearing years ago that there were some MASH episodes 
that Fox no longer had complete versions of. Amazing if true. Kind of 
like the Warner Bros. executive who ordered a warehouse of animation 
cels destroyed rather than contining to pay for storage.

Interesting to hear that Seinfeld supposedly oversaw the syndication 
editing himself. I rarely notice cuts in that show. It's been much 
more subtle than the typical chainsaw approach.

I agree with Jason's comment about moving the commercial breaks in 
Sports Night (and anything else). Why bother to move them at all? 
Just add more commercials in the original spaces if you must...

My other syndication pet peeve is how they'll play some episodes to 
death (and out of order), when there's episodes that haven't been 
shown for a long time. (I'm not talking about the occaisional "theme 
week" trick that usually shows up during sweeps.) That *is* something 
I notice with Seinfeld -- I'll see the same episodes repeatedly over 
the course of several weeks.

I guess all of which can be summarized: syndication is a meat grinder.

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

Sorkin says that Comedy Central is absolutely where Sports Night 
belongs, so maybe he approves of what they've done to it.  Maybe he 
helped.  Maybe he's just busy counting his money from the syndication 
deal and doesn't care what they do.  

The fans are left wishing that someone in charge loved that show as 
much as they do.   

That story about how there are no original tapes left of some 
episodes of M*A*S*H scares me.  My friends keep telling me that can't 
happen to Sports Night, but I know better.  I suppose it's too much 
to ask that one day I'll be able to buy the DVDs of that series,
original, uncut, pristine.  I'd mortgage the farm, really I would.

Oh, well.  Enough obsessing for one day.  

Sue.

From: Jason Snell  <jsnell@intertext.com>
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 11:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

On the topic of MASH, I've heard rumors that at some point here they 
went back and re-did the masters, because the film copies in 
circulation were so bad... not sure if that's true or not, but the 
picture quality appears pretty good, at least on the FX reruns I've 
seen. The sad thing is that, at the same time, they didn't go back to 
the versions of the soundtrack that don't have laugh-tracks added in. 
I read somewhere a while back that in other countries, MASH has no 
laugh-track, but here in the states we were saddled with it because 
U.S. audiences need to be told when to laugh. It's really awful. I 
had forgotten how awful, until I watched a "MASH" the other day. Wow.

Funny how we're talking about Sports Night and MASH. Have I ever 
shared with you my theory about how Aaron Sorkin must've used MASH as 
his template for Sports Night? From the drama-comedy mixture to the 
fights over the laugh track to the "Letter Home" episode, one night 
it all clicked and I realized that Sports Night was trying to be a 
latter-day MASH.

My experience with sitcom editing is basically comparing the 
"NewsRadio" taping I went to to the version that was broadcast. 
Clearly, some stuff was cut out. But given the multi-camera approach, 
it was really hard to tell. Very unobstrusive.

-jason

-- 
Jason Snell:  teevee.org - intertext.com - jsnell@i...

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 6:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>I seem to recall hearing years ago that there were some MASH episodes 
>that Fox no longer had complete versions of. Amazing if true. Kind of 
>like the Warner Bros. executive who ordered a warehouse of animation 
>cels destroyed rather than continuing to pay for storage.

Seemed like one of the more recent pushes of it on video for $20 a month 
after the first trial Columbia home video thingy, was complete uncut with all 
the original footage that might have been hacked ... after all, why else 
would you spend somewhere between $2000-$3000 just to buy them if they're the 
same incomplete versions delighting veterans homes across the nation. 
(seriously ... it was always on when I was dragged to see a biopolar uncle up 
there.)

> >Interesting to hear that Seinfeld supposedly oversaw the syndication 
> >editing himself. I rarely notice cuts in that show. It's been much 
> >more subtle than the typical chainsaw approach.
> 
The better they look, sound etc. the longer they run over and over and over 
and the more billions in syndication $$$ for him. Doesn't take a genius to 
see why he wouldn't want that level of control.

> >I agree with Jason's comment about moving the commercial breaks in 
> >Sports Night (and anything else). Why bother to move them at all? 
> 
> Because they can. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 11:58pm
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>>Because they can.<<

Barbarians.  Philistines.   Suits.

On the subject of Sorkin using MASH as a template, I'm always 
reminded of Les Nessman and the turkeys plummeting to earth (OH, the 
humanity!) when I see the thawing turkey fall onto the anchor desk in 
the Thespis episode of Sports Night.  Beware of falling poultry.  Has 
to be some sort of homage to WKRP. 

But, yes, Dear Louise owes a lot to MASH.

Sue.

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Sun Feb 4, 2001 7:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>>Because they can.
>Barbarians.  Philistines.  Suits.

Otherwise they'd have allowed the reruns of SOAP at 7 AM ET on weekends 
finish a complete run (possibly 2-3 months left) before replacing it with an 
hour of "Don't Forget Your Toothbrush." Darnit I was tuning in for WELL 
WRITTEN tastelessness.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Laurel Krahn  <laurel@windowseat.org>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 3:02am
Subject: Re: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

On 2/5/01 at 5:21 AM pmurray@b... wrote:

>I guess all of which can be summarized: syndication is a meat grinder.

Don't get me started about how badly Court TV has butchered episodes of
Homicide.  Ugh.
 
(Oh alright, I can't resist).

When Homicide aired on Lifetime, there were edits, yes, but they look tame
compared to what Court TV has done to the show.
 
Though I always found it a little suspect that the scenes Lifetime cut
tended to be ones which involved somewhat controversial stuff -- a scene
where Frank adn Tim talk about God and Pembleton says he no longer believes
God exists.  Or a scene where Frank and Tim discuss homosexuality quite,
um, frankly.
 
But Court TV cuts stuff that directly affects the storyline, that would
leave new viewers lost.  Grrr.
 
The first marathon they did of Homicide, right after they acquired the
rights, showed 24 episodes *uncut*.  And I think some subsequent marathons
may have had uncut episodes.
 
But the daily reruns are butchered and it's so sad to behold.  I mean, I'm
grateful the show is airing, but . . . sigh.
 
The Court TV cuts are different than the Lifetime ones.  I suppose a
dedicated fan could piece together the entire episodes if they had
recordings of the show from both networks.
 
Meanwhile . . . in Canada, Bravo airs episodes uncut and with commercials
in the same place they were on NBC.

I still hope and dream that someday more episodes of Homicide will be
released on videotape.  Or DVD. 

--
Laurel Krahn / www.tvpicks.net / www.windowseat.org

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 5:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

In a message dated 2/4/01 10:31:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
pmurray@b... writes:


> IMHO, the worst hacking I know of was done to MASH. I'd watch 
> episodes and distinctly remember scenes that were missing. (The 
> stills underneath the closing credits also serve as a reminder.) And 
> I'm not talking about scenes that I remember from the first run; I 
> almost certainly saw them in early syndication, but over time they've 
> hacked away more and more.
> 
> I seem to recall hearing years ago that there were some MASH episodes 
> that Fox no longer had complete versions of. Amazing if true. Kind of 
> like the Warner Bros. executive who ordered a warehouse of animation 
> cels destroyed rather than continuing to pay for storage.
> 
> Interesting to hear that Seinfeld supposedly oversaw the syndication 
> editing himself. I rarely notice cuts in that show. It's been much 
> more subtle than the typical chainsaw approach.
> 
> I agree with Jason's comment about moving the commercial breaks in 
> Sports Night (and anything else). Why bother to move them at all? 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: John I. Carney  <jicarney@edge.net>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 0:38pm
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

Some years back, late 80s or early 90s, the independent station (now 
a Fox affiliate) in Nashville which was showing "The Andy Griffith 
Show" actually went to the syndicator and requested special prints 
with the little tag scene at the end of each episode which had been 
cut from the other syndication prints.  The station has changed hands 
a couple of times since then, and I believe they've long since gone 
back to using the same prints as everyone else, but I always thought 
that was a wonderful story of customer service.

John I. Carney  |  jicarney@e...  |  http://jicarney.cjb.net

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 3:44pm
Subject: FW: [This Week at the TV Barn] 2/5/01

Sue,

This is just to let you know that my friends at CSICOP (Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and I really
appreciate seeing the lineup for "Crossing Over."  We'll be sure to miss it.

Melissa 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sue Trowbridge [SMTP:trow@s...]
> Sent:	Monday, February 05, 2001 2:09 PM
> To:	tvbarn@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:	[This Week at the TV Barn]  2/5/01
> 
> 
> THIS WEEK AT THE TV BARN
> http://www.tvbarn.com
> February 5-11, 2001
> 
--snip--

> THE LINEUPS
> with Sue Trowbridge <http://www.interbridge.com>
> and Tom Heald
> 
--snip--

> CROSSING OVER WITH JOHN EDWARD, SCI-FI Network
> Mo 2/5 The audience is spellbound
> Tu 2/6 The audience is agog
> We 2/7 The audience is apoplectic 
> Th 2/8 The audience is astounded
> Fr 2/9 The audience was in the wrong line for The Price is Right
> Sa 2/10 The audience made the connection with ease 
> Su 2/11 The audience bought it 
> 
>

From: trow@slip.net
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 3:52pm
Subject: Re: FW: [This Week at the TV Barn] 2/5/01

--- In tvbarn2@y..., "Pollak, Melissa" <mpollak@n...> wrote:
> Sue,
> 
> This is just to let you know that my friends at CSICOP (Committee 
> for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and I 
> really appreciate seeing the lineup for "Crossing Over."  We'll be 
> sure to miss it.

I can't take credit for that particular listing...that was Tom 
Heald's handiwork. I've never even seen the program -- is it the one 
with the guy who "communicates" with dead people? If so, I'll be sure 
to miss it as well. :)

--Sue

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 4:32pm
Subject: RE: Re: FW: [This Week at the TV Barn] 2/5/01

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	trow@s... [SMTP:trow@s...]
> Sent:	Monday, February 05, 2001 4:52 PM
> To:	tvbarn2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:	[tvbarn2] Re: FW: [This Week at the TV Barn]  2/5/01
> 
> --- In tvbarn2@y..., "Pollak, Melissa" <mpollak@n...> wrote:
> > Sue,
> > 
> > This is just to let you know that my friends at CSICOP (Committee 
> > for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and I 
> > really appreciate seeing the lineup for "Crossing Over."  We'll be 
> > sure to miss it.
> 
> I can't take credit for that particular listing...that was Tom 
> Heald's handiwork. I've never even seen the program -- is it the one 
> with the guy who "communicates" with dead people?
> 
	Yep, that's it.  It's bad enough that people like Larry King, Oprah,
and even most of the newsmagazines waste precious air time by giving these
frauds a forum.   Surely, the Sci Fi channel can fill its schedule without
putting on shows like "Crossing Over" that take advantage of an already
gullible audience and contribute to an already astounding amount of
scientific illiteracy in this country.

>  If so, I'll be sure 
> to miss it as well. :)
> 
	Good.  Too bad everyone isn't missing it.

	Melissa

> --Sue
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tvbarn2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> 
> And sorry for the advertisements ...
> 
>

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 11:44am
Subject: Re: Re: FW: [This Week at the TV Barn] 2/5/01

>> This is just to let you know that my friends at CSICOP (Committee 
>> for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and I 
>> really appreciate seeing the lineup for "Crossing Over."  We'll be 
>> sure to miss it.

>I can't take credit for that particular listing...that was Tom 
>Heald's handiwork. I've never even seen the program -- is it the one 
>with the guy who "communicates" with dead people? If so, I'll be sure 
>to miss it as well. :)

That would be "the man in bleak" his own gosh darn self, appearing next fall 
syndicated on a CBS station near you. 
And even more oddly BOOKED AS A HOLLYWOOD SQUARES GUEST in the near future. 
Gilbert Gotfried must have the day off.
> 
> And Edward, named in this weak's TV Guide as one of TV's MVP EMERGING 
> TALENTS heads to the highly coveted bottom stack with next week's listings.

(I always preferred Jay Mohr's impression of Christopher Walken.)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: The KJB  <osiris@idir.net>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 4:57pm
Subject: RE: Re: FW: [This Week at the TV Barn] 2/5/01

At 05:32 PM 2/5/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>         Yep, that's it.  It's bad enough that people like Larry King, Oprah,
>and even most of the newsmagazines waste precious air time by giving these
>frauds a forum.   Surely, the Sci Fi channel can fill its schedule without
>putting on shows like "Crossing Over" that take advantage of an already
>gullible audience and contribute to an already astounding amount of
>scientific illiteracy in this country.

What's even more amazing is that Sci-Fi has expanded this tripe to an hour!

I actually tried to watch this show and found it to be so insulting to my 
intelligence that I had to watch something more mentally stimulating.

Like "The Jamie Foxx Show".


KJB
Editor, Backstage Pass
http://www.backstage-pass.com
Film Writer, FilmForce.Net
http://www.filmforce.net

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 6:09pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

> On the topic of MASH, I've heard rumors that at some point here they 
> went back and re-did the masters, because the film copies in 
> circulation were so bad... not sure if that's true or not, but the 
> picture quality appears pretty good, at least on the FX reruns I've 
> seen. The sad thing is that, at the same time, they didn't go back to 
> the versions of the soundtrack that don't have laugh-tracks added in. 
> I read somewhere a while back that in other countries, MASH has no 
> laugh-track, but here in the states we were saddled with it because 
> U.S. audiences need to be told when to laugh. It's really awful. I 
> had forgotten how awful, until I watched a "MASH" the other day. Wow.

Actually, the laugh track was less obtrusive in "MASH"'s later years.  For
the first five years, the show, like everyone else in Hollywood, used
Northridge Electronics, or the reason why laugh tracks for almost every
sitcom of the 60s and 70s sound the same.  The company's founder, Charley
Douglass, the inventor of the "Laff Box," was rumored to not have a sense of
humor and had become so numbed by producers telling him to put a big laugh
on every joke that he did it for everyone.

Beginning with the 1977-78 season, "MASH" started using Sound One, a rival
company formed by Carroll Pratt, a former Douglass employee who did have a
sense of humor and took a lot of business away from Douglass (especially
because he constantly updated his tapes, while Douglass stuck to the same
Lucy/Red Skelton/Marcel Marceau performance tapes he'd used for years and
years).  Also, Pratt was allowed to pretty much sweeten the show without
instructions from the producers, which meant that the laugh track was more
subtle and less intrusive than Douglass' endless parade of big laughs.  Of
course, Gene Reynolds and Larry Gelbart, in their compromise with CBS, kept
the laugh track out of the operating room scenes (and eventually did an
entire episode in the operating room).  They also attempted after the first
couple of seasons to do at least one episode a season without a laugh
track--usually, a more serious ep (and in the later years, when Alan Alda
had a lot more power over the show, it was something as soppy as any "Very
Special Episode" of a standard-issue sitcom).

It should be pointed out that if Reynolds and Gelbart were pitching "MASH"
to networks today, they may've gotten away with no laugh track, especially
after the success of "Malcolm in the Middle."  The networks do seem to think
that viewers can tell the difference between a one-camera show and a
multi-camera show and that the contemporary audience would rebel against a
laugh track on a one-camera show, while accepting it on a multi-camera show
(for example, "Buffalo Bill," "Get a Life" and "ALF," all of which were done
multi-camera without an audience but with canned laughter)--which makes me
wonder that Tommy Schlamme might've hurt Aaron Sorkin by wanting to do
"Sports Night" as a multi-camera show.  If Schlamme had wanted to do "SN"
one-camera, ABC might not have pressured for a laugh track.  Something to
think over...

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: Keith Privett  <Keith@PRIVETT.COM>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 6:27pm
Subject: Re: SportsNight

Actually I've been pleasantly suprised how close CC has been to running
order with SportsNight. Taping (well TiVo-ing) from the Thursday 9-10pm
CT or Friday 5-6pm CT run, my episode order is something like
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-9-8-10-11-12 compared to the list at epguides.com; a
pleasant surprise. The flip out of sequence was to make sure more
thoughtful "mountain climbing" episode was at the 2nd half of an hour,
which while not purist, is reasonable for the double run.
understandable. However the other time slots are scatted in the CC
tradition. Although they've been bad about getting episode summaries to
data sources.

BTW Mad TV, as it occasionally does, hit the nail on the head mocking
the Sorkin style last week with a West Wing parody that had Bartlett's
Staff literally running in circles as as they spoke one and two word
sentences en route to the prez.


=====
======= Salsation Spring Season 2001 ==== salsation.com ==

CHI - Mar. 3 & 4 - Salsation & Friends at "Laugh," 
      a benefit for Gilda's Club at ComedySportz
    - May 5 - Chicago Improv Festival
LA  - Feb. 15 - Mar. 29 - check out a trio of Salsationites
      in  "Barrio Speedwagon" Thursdays at IO-West

__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 1:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>> It should be pointed out that if Reynolds and Gelbart were pitching "MASH"
> >to networks today, they may've gotten away with no laugh track, especially
> >after the success of "Malcolm in the Middle."  
> 
> Wish they could have done it for "Grounded For Life." The laugh track all 
> but made me never want to watch again.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 6:58pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

> Wish they could have done it for "Grounded For Life." The 
> laugh track all 
> but made me never want to watch again.

"Grounded" is shot in front of an audience:

http://www.tvtickets.com/FMPro?-DB=Web+Site+Shows&-Format=showdetail.htm&-la
y=Form+View&show=grounded&-Max=1&-Find

Of course, the audience response is manipulated, but it's not a "laugh
track" per se.

It bothers me when critics complain about "canned laughter" without
bothering to check if the show is shot in front of an audience or not.

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: Jason Snell  <jsnell@intertext.com>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 7:03pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>It bothers me when critics complain about "canned laughter" without
>bothering to check if the show is shot in front of an audience or not.

The thing is, even live laughter is canned, because the audience is 
whipped into a frenzy by warm-up comics and told to cheer wildly at 
any possible joke. My two "live audience" experiences -- the old 
Dennis Miller talk show for Tribune (Jinky the Fruit Bat!) and 
NewsRadio -- were disconcerting because we were all trying to laugh 
SO HARD, even at really minor material. It's pretty sad.

Send all the live audiences and laughter away, I say!

Keepin' it real, :-)

-jason

-- 
Jason Snell:  teevee.org - intertext.com - jsnell@i...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 7:08pm
Subject: Re: SportsNight

Some of us have figured out another explanation for the Thespis and 
Quality of Mercy at 29K switch (episodes 8 and 9):  that they were 
shown out of order by ABC because Thespis is set at Thanksgiving and 
they had decided not to show an episode of SN during Thanksgiving 
week, so they had to move Thespis up one spot.  

However, Sally, which was shown after Six Southern Gentlemen (#11) is 
actually #16.  Smoky is #12.  

I know . . . I'm obsessive.   
And who knows?  Chronological order may be overrated.


Sue.

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 7:14pm
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

I've also heard rumors that even with a studio audience they 
sometimes supplement the REAL laughter with CANNED laughter . . .

it's like what CBS Sports did with the canned bird sounds at one of 
their golf tournaments.  The real thing just wasn't chirpy enough, I 
guess.  Thank goodness for all the birdwatchers who phoned in and 
questioned why those particular birds were in that part of the 
country.

Sue.

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 7:17pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

> >It bothers me when critics complain about "canned laughter" without
> >bothering to check if the show is shot in front of an 
> audience or not.
> 
> The thing is, even live laughter is canned, because the audience is 
> whipped into a frenzy by warm-up comics and told to cheer wildly at 
> any possible joke. My two "live audience" experiences -- the old 
> Dennis Miller talk show for Tribune (Jinky the Fruit Bat!) and 
> NewsRadio -- were disconcerting because we were all trying to laugh 
> SO HARD, even at really minor material. It's pretty sad.

My live audience experiences were somewhat different, surprisingly.  You'd
think that a game show would try to hype up the crowd, but when attending
"Jeopardy!", Johnny Gilbert was relatively low-key (of course, "Jeopardy!"'s
a more low-key show than some others).  On "Oprah," the warmup was almost as
long as the actual taping as they let the audience expound on the day's
topic (and moved the more cogent thoughts over to the aisles so Oprah could
get them).  The most oppressive warmup was "Jenny Jones," where they were
hyping us up even in the holding tank before entering the studio.
Interestingly enough, the crowd was very quiet during the first segment (on
the topic of teenage lesbians) and Jones was noticeably pissed during the
first commercial break (when she was away from her slimeball producer
telling her what to say).

Now these are 20 year-old tapings, but there wasn't a feeling of "laugh or
you're dead" about them:  Marc Summers (yeah, the game show host) was upbeat
but not pushy at the 1979 taping of "Alice" and got a very nice feeling from
the crowd without forcing it.  At "WKRP," Hugh Wilson did say, "We've got a
laugh machine and we're not afraid to use it, so laugh it up, folks."
However, he didn't belabor it.  And at NBC Studio 1 for a Carson taping, the
warmup was simply Freddie DeCordova making a lame joke about Doc's clothes,
Doc playing a flashy trumpet solo, Doc making a lame joke about Ed's
drinking, Ed and Doc exchanging some pleasantries (some inside) and Ed
saying "This crowd doesn't need to be warmed up" (cheers).  I guess that's
the confidence that Carson & Co. had in their show.

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k... 
mjsaints@a...

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 7:24pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

> I've also heard rumors that even with a studio audience they 
> sometimes supplement the REAL laughter with CANNED laughter . . .

It's done all the time, some worse than others (which is what I mean by
manipulating the soundtrack).  Since the mid-80s, laugh track guys have been
credited on sitcoms--they're usually the second name under "post-production
audio" or "re-recording mixers" on sitcoms.  It's been said that it's done
in some cases to smooth out edits, although I think that a good sound mixer
could do that without adding something to cover an edit.

I remember watching the "Alice" episode I saw taped in 1979 when it aired
and the audience response sounded pretty much the same on TV as it did
sitting in the Warner Burbank studio where it was taped.  Of course, it's
when the show's a stinker that they lay on the canned laughter with a
trowel--and *that's* when people notice it.

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 10:25pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

Mark Jeffries wrote:

> It's done all the time, some worse than others (which is what I mean by
> manipulating the soundtrack).  Since the mid-80s, laugh track guys have
> been
> credited on sitcoms--they're usually the second name under
> "post-production
> audio" or "re-recording mixers" on sitcoms.  It's been said that it's done
> in some cases to smooth out edits,
> 
	When this subject arose on another list I belong to, someone who had
written for and produced several sitcoms said that that's exactly the
purpose of laugh tracks, that is, they play a crucial role in editing.  Not
having worked on a sitcom myself, I'm not exactly sure how it works, but the
explanation seems to make sense, especially when you consider that having a
larger number of scenes (quick edits) has become increasingly common in
sitcoms in recent years.

	Melissa

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Tue Feb 6, 2001 0:54am
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

--- In tvbarn2@y..., "Pollak, Melissa" <mpollak@n...> wrote:
works, but the
> explanation seems to make sense, especially when you consider that 
having a
> larger number of scenes (quick edits) has become increasingly 
common in
> sitcoms in recent years.
> 
> 	Melissa

Yeah, how did we get to sitcoms having 15-second long scenes? That's 
always been something that bugged me about "Friends"... scenes that 
consist of only 2-3 lines of dialogue, preceded and followed by the 
obligatory short music riff and establishing shot of the apartment 
building, etc. (I'm not trying to pick on Friends, necessarily, but 
it's the most vivid example that comes to mind.) As a writer (no, not 
of television), these absurdly short scenes seem like a major 
shortcut, or maybe of pumping up the jokes at the expense of the 
story. (Not that I expect great plotting.)

Which reminds me of Bob Newhart (to Tom Snyder, I think) talking 
about how he cringes when he hears his early comedy albums ("The 
Buttoned-Down Mind of" etc.) because the record company cut out all 
of the pauses in his routines. He said there were times on airplanes 
where he felt liking telling his fellow passengers not to listen to 
it, that he would do the routine for them.

Paul
(who is trying to restrain his overuse of parenthesis)

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 5, 2001 8:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>Yeah, how did we get to sitcoms having 15-second long scenes? That's 
>always been something that bugged me about "Friends" ... scenes that 
>consist of only 2-3 lines of dialogue, preceded and followed by the 
>obligatory short music riff and establishing shot of the apartment 
> 

Which is the perfect segue to my MUCH BETTER plan for "Friends"... Don't make 
them 40 minutes long ... make them only 6. 

Instead of an A-plot, and B-plot, and (with 6 main characters), a C-plot. 
Stop editing them into a half hour and make it a set of three Bugs Bunny 
cartoon-length segments -- "Joey and Chandler hijinks with the Abominable 
snowman" a Ross pursues "Rachel ala Pepe Le Pew" and a "Monica and Phoebe 
CHAAAAAAAAAARGE IT" shopping spree ala Wilma and Betty.)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Tue Feb 6, 2001 2:49am
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

>>Which is the perfect segue to my MUCH BETTER plan for "Friends"... 
Don't make them 40 minutes long ... make them only 6.<< 

Oh, thank you.  The perfect comment to read at 2:30 a.m. (where I am)
I needed a laugh . . . and my favorite kind of laugh . . . the kind 
that comes when someone finally speaks the truth! 

Sue

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Tue Feb 6, 2001 9:48am
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

Paul Murray wrote:

> Yeah, how did we get to sitcoms having 15-second long scenes? That's 
> always been something that bugged me about "Friends"... scenes that 
> consist of only 2-3 lines of dialogue, preceded and followed by the 
> obligatory short music riff and establishing shot of the apartment 
> building, etc. (I'm not trying to pick on Friends, necessarily, but 
> it's the most vivid example that comes to mind.) As a writer (no, not 
> of television), these absurdly short scenes seem like a major 
> shortcut, or maybe of pumping up the jokes at the expense of the 
> story. (Not that I expect great plotting.)
> 
	You've heard of our shortening attention span?  Well, the
next-to-nothing scenes that pepper practically all recent sitcoms are just
another reflection of that, I suppose.

	I know I'm not a kid anymore, but I don't know how kids can watch
music videos these days.  For me, the editing is just plain annoying and
watching just a few seconds makes me dizzy.

	Melissa

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Tue Feb 6, 2001 5:20pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

> Yeah, how did we get to sitcoms having 15-second long scenes? That's 
> always been something that bugged me about "Friends"... scenes that 
> consist of only 2-3 lines of dialogue, preceded and followed by the 
> obligatory short music riff and establishing shot of the apartment 
> building, etc. (I'm not trying to pick on Friends, necessarily, but 
> it's the most vivid example that comes to mind.) As a writer (no, not 
> of television), these absurdly short scenes seem like a major 
> shortcut, or maybe of pumping up the jokes at the expense of the 
> story. (Not that I expect great plotting.)

Take a bow, Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David--"Seinfeld" pioneered having lots
of short scenes in a half-hour multi-camera sitcom.  It also popularized
three-to-four-hour long filmings (although Danny Arnold started those way
back in the days of "Barney Miller") and "standby audiences" for those
dropping out of the soundstage after the first couple of hours.  Way to go,
guys!

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Tue Feb 6, 2001 6:55pm
Subject: Same Old, Same Old

I see that WB is trying to bring back "That's Incredible".  Don't you 
just love all these original ideas?  If the networks aren't copying 
each other, they are reaching back into the past for a revival of 
some show that was once a big hit.  

Fred Allen said it best (at least I think it was Fred 
Allen):  "Imitation is the sincerest form of television."   

What disturbs me the most is the thought of poor Noah Webster 
spinning in his grave over the multiple hits the meaning of the 
word "reality" has taken lately.  We can only hope he hasn't heard 
about "dramedy", "dramamentary", and "dramality".   

Sue.

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 6, 2001 7:48pm
Subject: new title :That's Just Sad

Tuesday, February 6 2:59 AM ET
''Incredible'' return sealed By Michael Schneider and Josef Adalian
HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Attention skydivers, acrobats and other daredevil 
aspirants: the 1980s reality showcase ``That's Incredible'' is returning to 
the small screen this year.
Producers Studios USA and LMNO Prods. are in talks to park the new 
``Incredible'' at the WB.``That's Incredible'' debuted on ABC in March 1980 
during an earlier primetime reality explosion -- it was the network's answer 
to NBC's successful ``Real People.'' Hosted by John Davidson, Cathy Lee 
Crosby and Fran Tarkenton, ``Incredible'' featured a mix of extreme stunts, 
freak show performances and informative segments on topics such as medical 
breakthroughs.
When a writers' strike threatened the networks in 1988, ABC revived 
``Incredible'' -- renamed ``Incredible Sunday'' -- as contingency 
programming. That version, hosted by Davidson, Christina Ferrare and Tracey 
Gold, lasted only a season.
    





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 3:27am
Subject: Re: new title :That's Just Sad

So now the real speculation begins:  Who will replace John, Cathy Lee 
(if only she'd known how to spell her name), and Fran?

The executive producer from the first time around, Alan Landsberg, 
will be back, so one expects the new hosts will be cut from the same 
roll of cookie dough as Davidson/Crosby/Tarkenton.  

Thank goodness . . . I was wondering what I was going to worry about 
now that the Regis and Who? question has been resolved.  

Speaking of which, am I the only person who thinks that Kelly needs 
another syllable in her name?  Regis and Kelly.  Just sort of sits 
there, doesn't it?  Kelly Lee?  Kelly Jo?  Betty Jo?  Bobbie Jo?
(Uncle Joe?)  Sorry . . . I still hate that they canceled that series.
Of course, it wasn't the same once Kate was gone.    

Sue.

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 5:12am
Subject: Re: Re: new title :That's Just Sad

>Speaking of which, am I the only person who thinks that Kelly needs 
>another syllable in her name?  Regis and Kelly.  

AKA "Regis and K____e Lee"




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 5:38am
Subject: Loved by millions, watched by tens

[This would be her second series on the almost-network, having already shown 
how little she knew about computers. "Alt-Delete-Oprah" or something -- Tom]

Hollywood Reporter sayeth:

Winfrey giving Oxygen series
NEW YORK -- Oprah Winfrey, one of the cofounders of Oxygen Media, will bring 
her talents to the year-old network in the summer in the form of 12 episodes 
of a half-hour series that explore the power of giving through Winfrey's 
eyes. "We've always known she was going to be on the network," Oxygen CEO and 
chairman Geraldine Laybourne said. "She pitched this show idea to us, and we 
thought it was perfect because it's the essence of what Oprah cares about -- 
real women using their lives to make a difference." In addition, two movies 
from Winfrey's Harpo Prods. -- "There Are No Children Here" and "Overexposed" 
--- will make their cable premieres on Oxygen this year. They previously 
aired on ABC.   
    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 5:38am
Subject: Caroline, No

Hollywood Reporter sez: 
Par pulls plug on 'Caroline'

"Caroline," one of the most anticipated new syndicated strips for the fall, 
has been dropped by Paramount Domestic Television at the starting line 
despite strong nationwide clearances, including New York and Los Angeles. The 
series, hosted by comedian-actress Caroline Rhea ("Sabrina, the Teenage 
Witch"), was launched before last month's big syndication sales venue NATPE 
and was cleared in more than 70% of the country by last week. Despite that, 
stations that bought the series for next season, including WNBC in New York 
and KCAL in Los Angeles, were contacted Tuesday by Paramount executives who 
said they had pulled the plug on the high-profile show. Sources indicated 
that the beleaguered daytime daypart in broadcast could not generate 
sufficiently strong license fees for the show to be economically viable. 
"Caroline" was being sold on a cash-plus-barter basis. But stations, facing 
declining daytime ad dollars and audiences that are migrating to cable in 
daytime, did not pony up the kind of license fees that Paramount needed to 
make the show work economically, sources said. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 10:42am
Subject: RE: Loved by millions, watched by tens

> [This would be her second series on the almost-network, 
> having already shown 
> how little she knew about computers. "Alt-Delete-Oprah" or 
> something -- Tom]

"Oprah Goes Online."

This is interesting, considering that an article I saw earlier this week
linked on Jim Rozmenko's MediaNews said that Oprah basically "didn't give a
shit" about Oxygen--which is now the number *3* women's cable channel behind
Lifetime and WE (formerly Romance Classics).

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 6:22am
Subject: Re: Loved by millions, watched by tens

>> how little she knew about computers. "Alt-Delete-Oprah" or 
>> something -- Tom]

>"Oprah Goes Online."

In one of my rare moments... I was kidding.

> >This is interesting, considering that an article I saw earlier this week
> >linked on Jim Rozmenko's MediaNews said that Oprah basically "didn't give a
> >shit" about Oxygen--which is now the number *3* women's cable channel 
> behind
> >Lifetime and WE (formerly Romance Classics).
> 
Why do you think they announced this show, THIS week? 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Keith Privett  <Keith@PRIVETT.COM>
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 0:52pm
Subject: Re: Digest Number 174

>    Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:55:45 -0000
>    From: "Sue Howe" <Mh2328@a...>
> Subject: Same Old, Same Old
> 
> I see that WB is trying to bring back "That's Incredible".  Don't you
> just love all these original ideas?  If the networks aren't copying 
> each other, they are reaching back into the past for a revival of 
> some show that was once a big hit.  

1. No matter what they say "incredible" is strike insurance for WB
(which has no Datelines or Millionaires, and is currently doomed to 4th
and 5th repeats of Buffy and 7th Heaven if a strike hits)

2. The funny thing is that the reality kick and last year's game show
kick run against the other trend of repurposing and multiple use.
Scripted series can be milked for 3-4 network airings, next week
repeats on USA, PAX, or Lifetime, several years of syndication before
landing on Nick at Nite or the new TNN.

Few cared to watch KC's BB Anderson wash his clothes in a stew pot on
Palau Tiga the second time, I doubt that Taheed, Ytossie, or the Mole's
victims will ever grace our screens again. (Unless there's an eventual
"Reality Classics" on digital cable to sell us more craftmatic
adjustible beds).

3. If any one insists on reviving an old show and following a trend
then I have two picks....

a) Press Your Luck - ten years after leaving USA reruns, the catch
phrase "Big bucks, no whammies" still resides in pop culture, even on
last week's Survivor II (when a Wheel of Fortune reference was more
apropos). The original show had WWTBAM-like drama's of people winning
or losing big amounts of money in a single pop. And guts was more
important than knowledge, making it accessible to all. just add a 0 to
all the dollar values and roll.

b) Real People - but only if Fred Willard comes back and Byron Allen doesn't.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Wed Feb 7, 2001 3:19pm
Subject: RE: Re: new title :That's Just Sad

> So now the real speculation begins:  Who will replace John, Cathy Lee 
> (if only she'd known how to spell her name), and Fran?
> 
> The executive producer from the first time around, Alan Landsberg, 
> will be back, so one expects the new hosts will be cut from the same 
> roll of cookie dough as Davidson/Crosby/Tarkenton.  

I suspect it'll be WB people--probably Nikki Cox or Caroline Rhea (now that
her talk show's not going through) or Katherine Heigl from "Roswell" or
(fill in names of supporting cast members of WB shows here)--perhaps Steve
Harvey or Cedric the Entertainer.

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 0:26am
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

--- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> Which is the perfect segue to my MUCH BETTER plan for "Friends"... 
Don't make 
> them 40 minutes long ... make them only 6. 
> 
> Instead of an A-plot, and B-plot, and (with 6 main characters), a C-
plot. 
> Stop editing them into a half hour and make it a set of three Bugs 
Bunny 
> cartoon-length segments -- "Joey and Chandler hijinks with the 
Abominable 
> snowman" a Ross pursues "Rachel ala Pepe Le Pew" and a "Monica and 
Phoebe 
> CHAAAAAAAAAARGE IT" shopping spree ala Wilma and Betty.)

Careful... this might give them an idea for a Very Special Episode 
with a clever Theme.

Actually it's a great idea... so long as they didn't start each 6-
minute segment with the Friends theme. I can deal with "The Merry-Go-
Round Broke Down" before every Warner Bros. cartoon, but hearing the 
Friends theme over and over might be enough to make me -- oh, I don't 
know, start waving a handgun around near the White House.

Paul

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 0:40am
Subject: Re: Loved by millions, watched by tens

Wouldn't a better headline read something like:

Oprah Gives Artificial Respiration to Oxygen

--- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> [This would be her second series on the almost-network, having 
already shown 
> how little she knew about computers. "Alt-Delete-Oprah" or 
something -- Tom]
> 
> Hollywood Reporter sayeth:
> 
> Winfrey giving Oxygen series
> NEW YORK -- Oprah Winfrey, one of the cofounders of Oxygen Media, 
will bring 
> her talents to the year-old network in the summer in the form of 12 
episodes 
> of a half-hour series that explore the power of giving through 
Winfrey's 
> eyes. "We've always known she was going to be on the network," 
Oxygen CEO and 
> chairman Geraldine Laybourne said. "She pitched this show idea to 
us, and we 
> thought it was perfect because it's the essence of what Oprah cares 
about -- 
> real women using their lives to make a difference." In addition, 
two movies 
> from Winfrey's Harpo Prods. -- "There Are No Children Here" 
and "Overexposed" 
> --- will make their cable premieres on Oxygen this year. They 
previously 
> aired on ABC.   
>     
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 3:29am
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post, naming Friends one of the 
Winners of last week:

>>"Friends." By not editing out about six minutes of stuff that 
normally would've -- and should've -- been, NBC is able to promote 
an "extra-long" episode of "Friends" and demonstrate that about 22 
million suckers were born last Thursday at 8 p.m.<<

While Steve Johnson of the Chicago Tribune calls Friends one of the 
Losers of the first half of the season:

>>"Friends." Just as the show is trying to recoup the enormous 
salaries it agreed to pay the six stars, along comes vital 
competition in "Survivor: The Australian Outback." Worse, the series, 
which had remained funny and fresh long past the usual sitcom 
expiration date, is beginning to show its age. It's not that it's 
unfunny. The cast and writers are too polished for that. But it is 
now funny in a way that is seeming a stale retread of the past and as 
inconsequential as a feather. "Friends" needs to figure out what it 
wants to be about for the next several years, beyond Joey's ignorance 
and Monica's former fatness.<<


Win some, lose some, I guess.  

Sue.

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 9:54am
Subject: RE: Re: Loved by millions, watched by tens

I'm just getting to this string, so I don't know if this particular
subject's come up, but here's my story with regard to the Oxygen network:

I'd like to have the Oxygen network.  In fact, I'm part of the exact target
audience the network wants, female aging baby boomers.

I currently have cable that I've never been happy with, only because the
former owner (Comcast took it over recently) was always slow to upgrade
(here, I live in one of the most prosperous communities in the country, so
it's just incomprehensible to me why I must suffer with a cable system that
is so behind-the-times, e.g., Bravo and E! are still sharing a channel).
However, late last year, Verizon finished wiring my condo building with a
satellite service.  So I had to make a choice whether to switch to the
satellite or stay with the cable company (which is finally giving us an
upgrade).  About a half-dozen factors -- most having to do with cost --
figured into my decision.  One of them was the Oxygen network.  It's offered
by the satellite service -- but for an extra 5 bucks per month, under a
package deal with several other networks I have absolutely no interest in.
Now, I'm wondering who made this stupid decision?  In other words, if Oxygen
wants to increase its viewership, nickel and diming potential customers like
me is a real turn-off and not the way to go. 

The bottom line is that based on cost factors alone (and the promise of the
cable upgrade -- any day now, I hope -- I still have hope that Comcast will
do right by us), I've decided for the time being to stay with the cable.
But if Oxygen knocked off that extra fee, I might make a different decision.

Melissa

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	pmurray@b... [SMTP:pmurray@b...]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 08, 2001 1:41 AM
> To:	tvbarn2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:	[tvbarn2] Re: Loved by millions, watched by tens
> 
> Wouldn't a better headline read something like:
> 
> Oprah Gives Artificial Respiration to Oxygen
> 
> --- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> > [This would be her second series on the almost-network, having 
> already shown 
> > how little she knew about computers. "Alt-Delete-Oprah" or 
> something -- Tom]
> > 
> > Hollywood Reporter sayeth:
> > 
> > Winfrey giving Oxygen series
> > NEW YORK -- Oprah Winfrey, one of the cofounders of Oxygen Media, 
> will bring 
> > her talents to the year-old network in the summer in the form of 12 
> episodes 
> > of a half-hour series that explore the power of giving through 
> Winfrey's 
> > eyes. "We've always known she was going to be on the network," 
> Oxygen CEO and 
> > chairman Geraldine Laybourne said. "She pitched this show idea to 
> us, and we 
> > thought it was perfect because it's the essence of what Oprah cares 
> about -- 
> > real women using their lives to make a difference." In addition, 
> two movies 
> > from Winfrey's Harpo Prods. -- "There Are No Children Here" 
> and "Overexposed" 
> > --- will make their cable premieres on Oxygen this year. They 
> previously 
> > aired on ABC.   
> >     
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tvbarn2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> 
> And sorry for the advertisements ...
> 
>

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 10:06am
Subject: RE: Re: Loved by millions, watched by tens

> I currently have cable that I've never been happy with, only 
> because the
> former owner (Comcast took it over recently) was always slow 
> to upgrade
> (here, I live in one of the most prosperous communities in 
> the country, so
> it's just incomprehensible to me why I must suffer with a 
> cable system that
> is so behind-the-times, e.g., Bravo and E! are still sharing 
> a channel).
> However, late last year, Verizon finished wiring my condo 
> building with a
> satellite service.  So I had to make a choice whether to switch to the
> satellite or stay with the cable company (which is finally 
> giving us an
> upgrade).  About a half-dozen factors -- most having to do 
> with cost --
> figured into my decision.  One of them was the Oxygen 
> network.  It's offered
> by the satellite service -- but for an extra 5 bucks per 
> month, under a
> package deal with several other networks I have absolutely no 
> interest in.
> Now, I'm wondering who made this stupid decision?  In other 
> words, if Oxygen
> wants to increase its viewership, nickel and diming potential 
> customers like
> me is a real turn-off and not the way to go. 

Don't blame Oxygen--blame the cable company.  Most start-up cable networks
don't charge an arm and a leg in subscriber fees to the cable company--in
fact, many of them make all kinds of concessions in order to get in as many
homes as possible.  What Comcast is doing is trying to make as much money
off of the subscribers as possible--which is why cable systems add shopping
and pay-per-view channels before they add anything else and try to put new
offerings in extra-pay tiers rather than just including them with the
regular basic package.

Oxygen can be blamed for one thing--they've demanded placement on analog
tiers only, which is why many of the multiple system operators who have
signed contracts with them have been dragging their feet on formally adding
them, since they'd rather put them on the digital tiers.  AT&T was one of
the first MSOs to sign up with Oxygen, but one year later my Chicago AT&T
cable system has yet to add them.  But that still doesn't excuse the cable
companies for sticking new channels on extra-pay tiers (and don't give me
that "but ESPN charges so much and we can't take them off"--you can make
that back easily on local advertising during ESPN's marquee events and
"SportsCenter").  What you should do is tell Comcast that you want Oxygen on
your regular basic package and have anyone else you know who wants the
channel to do the same thing.  It may take a while, but sooner or later,
they respond.

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 10:23am
Subject: RE: Re: Loved by millions, watched by tens

Actually, it's the satellite service (provided by Verizon), not the
cable company, that's offering Oxygen (and several other networks) for a $5
extra fee.  So, what you're saying is that I should blame Verizon, not
Oxygen.

	Since the cable company -- Comcast -- has not upgraded my building
yet (I think they're working on it today!), I'm not exactly sure what new
networks we will be getting (although I know that Bravo and E! will finally
have their own channels and we will get TVLand and the Game Show network).
But -- I have not seen any plans by Comcast to add Oxygen to our cable
system.  In fact, because the upcoming upgrade seems to me to be much less
than what it should be, I don't expect to see Oxygen on cable in my
neighborhood anything soon.

	Melissa

> Don't blame Oxygen--blame the cable company.  Most start-up cable networks
> don't charge an arm and a leg in subscriber fees to the cable company--in
> fact, many of them make all kinds of concessions in order to get in as
> many
> homes as possible.  What Comcast is doing is trying to make as much money
> off of the subscribers as possible--which is why cable systems add
> shopping
> and pay-per-view channels before they add anything else and try to put new
> offerings in extra-pay tiers rather than just including them with the
> regular basic package.
> 
> Oxygen can be blamed for one thing--they've demanded placement on analog
> tiers only, which is why many of the multiple system operators who have
> signed contracts with them have been dragging their feet on formally
> adding
> them, since they'd rather put them on the digital tiers.  AT&T was one of
> the first MSOs to sign up with Oxygen, but one year later my Chicago AT&T
> cable system has yet to add them.  But that still doesn't excuse the cable
> companies for sticking new channels on extra-pay tiers (and don't give me
> that "but ESPN charges so much and we can't take them off"--you can make
> that back easily on local advertising during ESPN's marquee events and
> "SportsCenter").  What you should do is tell Comcast that you want Oxygen
> on
> your regular basic package and have anyone else you know who wants the
> channel to do the same thing.  It may take a while, but sooner or later,
> they respond.
> 
> Mark Jeffries
> mjeffries@k...
> mjsaints@a...
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tvbarn2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> 
> And sorry for the advertisements ...
> 
>

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 10:27am
Subject: RE: Re: Loved by millions, watched by tens

> 	Actually, it's the satellite service (provided by 
> Verizon), not the
> cable company, that's offering Oxygen (and several other 
> networks) for a $5
> extra fee.  So, what you're saying is that I should blame Verizon, not
> Oxygen.

Yeah, I would say that--sorry for misreading.  I'd also blame DirecTV, which
also sticks Oxygen on a "family tier" with several other start-up and small
channels, including Odyssey (not really start-up, but they haven't been on
satellite until now) and Cartoon Network 2/Boomerang.

Nice to see that the satellite providers play the same games that the cable
companies do, even if they don't leap on every shopping channel that comes
out.

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 5:48am
Subject: Buff, slayed

The Associated Press
Baywatch Hawaii TV Show Canceled
HONOLULU (AP) - The sun is setting on ``Baywatch Hawaii.'' 

After two years of filming on the islands, the TV show featuring lifeguards, 
beaches and tan bodies has been canceled. 

Show publicist Kristin McEntee said the last episode will air the week of May 
21. 

``It's been a great run,'' McEntee said Wednesday. ``It lasted longer than we 
thought. It's sad.'' 

The show has been plagued by poor ratings since it left Los Angeles, where it 
filmed for nine years. Its longtime star, David Hasselhoff, made only 
occasional appearances after the move. 

State government and tourism officials said it contributed tens of millions 
of dollars to Hawaii's economy and provided valuable worldwide exposure for 
the islands. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 10:52am
Subject: RE: Buff, slayed

> HONOLULU (AP) - The sun is setting on ``Baywatch Hawaii.'' 
> 
> After two years of filming on the islands, the TV show 
> featuring lifeguards, 
> beaches and tan bodies has been canceled. 
> 
> Show publicist Kristin McEntee said the last episode will air 
> the week of May 
> 21. 
> 
> ``It's been a great run,'' McEntee said Wednesday. ``It 
> lasted longer than we 
> thought. It's sad.'' 
> 
> The show has been plagued by poor ratings since it left Los 
> Angeles, where it 
> filmed for nine years. Its longtime star, David Hasselhoff, made only 
> occasional appearances after the move. 
> 
> State government and tourism officials said it contributed 
> tens of millions 
> of dollars to Hawaii's economy and provided valuable 
> worldwide exposure for 
> the islands. 

Not to mention exposure for Brandi Roderick's body.  <rimshot>

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: Michael Jones  <spikej555@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 11:24am
Subject: Re: Buff, slayed

<State government and tourism officials said it contributed tens of millions 
of dollars to Hawaii's economy and provided valuable worldwide exposure for 
the islands. > 

I thoroughly enjoyed the exposure of the islands, and will sorely miss this show. 



Michael

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: tomalhe@a... 
  To: tvbarn2@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 8:48 AM
  Subject: [tvbarn2] Buff, slayed


  The Associated Press
  Baywatch Hawaii TV Show Canceled
  HONOLULU (AP) - The sun is setting on ``Baywatch Hawaii.'' 

  After two years of filming on the islands, the TV show featuring lifeguards, 
  beaches and tan bodies has been canceled. 

  Show publicist Kristin McEntee said the last episode will air the week of May 
  21. 

  ``It's been a great run,'' McEntee said Wednesday. ``It lasted longer than we 
  thought. It's sad.'' 

  The show has been plagued by poor ratings since it left Los Angeles, where it 
  filmed for nine years. Its longtime star, David Hasselhoff, made only 
  occasional appearances after the move. 

  State government and tourism officials said it contributed tens of millions 
  of dollars to Hawaii's economy and provided valuable worldwide exposure for 
  the islands. 


  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              
              www.  
             
       
       

  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  tvbarn2-unsubscribe@egroups.com

  And sorry for the advertisements ...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 6:36am
Subject: Re: Buff, slayed

>Not to mention exposure for Brandi Roderick's body.  <rimshot>

Well, I believe Showtime is still hiring the occasional odd white male and/or 
female heterosexuals, there's always hope that they'll revive Zalman King's 
Red Thong Diaries...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 6:57am
Subject: give me lesbians or give me death... oh wait we're on comedy central

from Salon.com

And watch out for those corporate-funded postmodernists, too ... 
Opponents of federal arts funding have long held that the market should 
decide which forms of cultural expression see the light of day and which do 
not. 
That's why we have "Temptation Island." 
But Comedy Central has ordered "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey 
Parker to remove all references to the 19-year-old Bush twins from their 
upcoming show, "That's My Bush," a parodic look at first-family life. 
Parker told the Associated Press that he understands the decision while 
disagreeing with it. "[Comedy Central is] a corporation, and as much as we 
like everyone over there and think it's the best place we can possibly be, 
they're still a corporation. The bottom line is it's not about freedom for 
them, it's about making money." 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Jeffries, Mark  <mjeffries@krw.com>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 1:46pm
Subject: RE: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

> --- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> > Which is the perfect segue to my MUCH BETTER plan for "Friends"... 
> Don't make 
> > them 40 minutes long ... make them only 6. 
> > 
> > Instead of an A-plot, and B-plot, and (with 6 main characters), a C-
> plot. 
> > Stop editing them into a half hour and make it a set of three Bugs 
> Bunny 
> > cartoon-length segments -- "Joey and Chandler hijinks with the 
> Abominable 
> > snowman" a Ross pursues "Rachel ala Pepe Le Pew" and a "Monica and 
> Phoebe 
> > CHAAAAAAAAAARGE IT" shopping spree ala Wilma and Betty.)
> 
> Careful... this might give them an idea for a Very Special Episode 
> with a clever Theme.
> 
> Actually it's a great idea... so long as they didn't start each 6-
> minute segment with the Friends theme. I can deal with "The Merry-Go-
> Round Broke Down" before every Warner Bros. cartoon, but hearing the 
> Friends theme over and over might be enough to make me -- oh, I don't 
> know, start waving a handgun around near the White House.

Actually, "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down" wasn't heard before *every* WB
cartoon--just Looney Tunes.  The Merrie Melodies theme was "Merrily We Roll
Along."

What if it was a Carl Stalling leading the Warner Bros. studio
orchestra-style version of "I'll Be There for You"?

Mark Jeffries
mjeffries@k...
mjsaints@a...

From: The KJB  <osiris@idir.net>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 2:21pm
Subject: Friends - only super size ads this week

Caught the satellite feed for Friends this week - the feed was 25 minutes 
long instead of the just over 30 mins from last week.

Guess we're just super sizing the ad breaks this week.


KJB
Editor, Backstage Pass
http://www.backstage-pass.com
Film Writer, FilmForce.Net
http://www.filmforce.net

From: srhodes@well.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Friends - only super size ads this week

On Feb. 15 they are scheduled to have a Friends outtakes special 
with Conan O'Brien instead of a mini-SNL.
-- 
Steve Rhodes                                 http://www.sfbg.com
http://www.well.com/~srhodes         Online Editor
srhodes@w...                           SF Bay Guardian
                                                     520 Hampshire
                                                     San Francisco, CA 94110
                                                     srhodes@s...
                                                     415-487-2547

From: trow@slip.net
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 5:51pm
Subject: WWTBAM producer: We want fewer nerds in the hot seat!

http://www.newsday.com/coverage/current/fanfare/thursday/nd8166.htm

An interesting article on the graying of the "Millionaire" audience, 
and how producer Michael Davies is attempting to bring in younger 
viewers via stunts like the upcoming rock star edition and more 
casting as opposed to strictly phone-in, in order to yield 
contestants "who come from all walks of life."

BTW, my pick for the rock star most likely to succeed on Sunday: 
Sugar Ray's Mark McGrath, who proved himself to be an absolute whiz 
at VH1's "Rock and Roll Jeopardy." Granted, he may not have the 
general knowledge base to succeed on WWTBAM, but he seems to possess 
a great mind for trivia, so I think he'll do well.

--Sue

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 1:29pm
Subject: Re: WWTBAM producer: We want fewer nerds in the hot seat!

>Davies-boss of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"-is 
>bothered by reports that the show's audience is aging.

Duh. With age comes wisdom, they say. 

And the more you know, the more you'll probably enjoy watching Millionaire, 
Jeopardy, and Ben Stein. 

The less you know, the more fun Wheel of Fortune, DJ Games, and (oh it's so 
hard to chose...) let's just say 99% of the UPN network.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 1:30pm
Subject: Re: WWTBAM producer: We want fewer nerds in the hot seat!

...are to watch.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Sue Howe  <Mh2328@aol.com>
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 6:47pm
Subject: Re: WWTBAM producer: We want fewer nerds in the hot seat!

This was at variety.com yesterday.  Maybe there's hope for us 
oldsters yet.  

>>ADMEN BANK ON BOOMERS

>>By PAULA BERNSTEIN 

>>FROM WEEKLY
NEW YORK -- Madison Avenue is rediscovering the Elvis Generation.

>>For years, a small group of network sales execs have touted the 
virtues of the graying viewer. And with the growth of ad categories 
such as financial services, luxury goods and pharmaceutical, 
advertisers, it seems, are beginning to take notice.

>>It's true enough that ratings reports continue to focus on a show's 
ability to draw 18-49-year-olds, but a number of market factors, 
including an economic slowdown and the fact that audiences at the Big 
Three are undeniably aging, have finally forced marketers to pay 
attention to the burgeoning 25-54 demo.

>>Unlike their parents who tuned into Lawrence Welk and out of pop 
culture, Baby Boomers are revising the demographic rule book that 
says older auds are too set in their ways to be much affected by 
advertising. 

>>Alan Wurtzel, president of research and development for NBC, has 
been spreading the gospel of the 25-54 demo for years. Wurtzel says 
few of the long-held assumptions about older viewers still apply.

>>More open-minded and youth-oriented than their predecessors, Baby 
Boomers are more likely to try new products. They are also getting 
married and having kids later, which means that they're buying 
diapers, furniture and fast food into their 50s.

>>"People who are chronologically 50 years old and theoretically out 
of the key demo have buying patterns that reflect not how old they 
are, but their life stage," Wurtzel says.

>>And it doesn't hurt that they've got lots of money to spend.

>>Fears of a recession only make the Boomers more central to media 
buyers. Boomers are in a good position to weather a recession because 
they've got more savings, are generally more secure in their jobs and 
would be entitled to retirement benefits if they were laid off.

>>Younger folks, on the other hand, are more susceptible to the whims 
of the economy. 

>>"People who thought they would be millionaires by the age of 30 are 
realizing they might have to work a few more years and will have to 
retrench a little bit in terms of their lifestyles," says David 
Poltrack, exec VP of research for CBS.

>>Clearly, a shift in demographic focus would be good news for the 
Big Three nets, whose audiences are rapidly graying. 

>>Thanks, in part, to "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," ABC's median 
age jumped from 41.7 to 46.1 during the fourth quarter of 2000, older 
than NBC's median age of 45, but not yet nearing CBS' 52.5.   
  
>>One sign of the new acceptance of older viewers is the increasing 
presence of 40- and 50-year-olds on TV in shows like "Once and 
Again," "The West Wing" and "The District."

>>Poltrack even anticipates a day when advertisers will extend the 25-
54 demo to 64.

>>That said, youth is still a very hot commodity.

>>Advertisers will, no doubt, continue to pay a premium to reach 
younger demos -- especially when it comes to categories like movies, 
videogames and beer.

>>Older viewers watch younger-skewing shows in larger numbers than 
young viewers are willing to watch older-skewing shows. And since 
older people tend to watch more TV in general, they're naturally a 
lot easier to reach.

>>"You don't have to go out and target the older people; you'll get 
them automatically," says John Mattimore, group director of media-
buying firm OMD USA. "You still want to keep your eye on the younger 
people; they're harder to reach."

>>As the population continues to age, the number of younger viewers 
will become more finite and, therefore, even more valuable.

>>And while Baby Boomers may be open-minded when it comes to trying 
new products, it's the young people who will be around longer to use 
the product.

>>"If you're going to look at the future of your product or the 
future of your brand, you've got to focus young," says Fox sales 
prexy Jon Nesvig.

>>In fact, Fox, the WB and UPN have built their businesses on the 
backs of 18-34 year olds.

>>"We're riding the kids of the Baby Boomers," says Jed Petrick, 
president of the WB. "It's the young people in the country who set 
the trends and who drive pop culture. Everyone aspires to be young, 
not old."

>>Maybe so, but accustomed to being the center of attention at every 
age, Baby Boomers refuse to go gently into the demographic night.

>>"There are 75 million people who are 35-54. A person will turn 50 
every eight seconds this decade," says Brad Adgate, senior VP, 
Horizon Media. "They're more active. They're more health-conscious. 
They're in better shape than any previous generation. They can't be 
ignored."<<

[Non-text portions of the article have been removed.]

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 1:10am
Subject: Re: Whacked Down for Syndication

Thanks for the correcton. It was late and I'm ashamed to say that my 
brain could not retrieve "Looney Tunes" from its long-term storage 
location.

Aside from the fact that for obvious reasons it would be a neat trick 
to have Carl Stalling leading an orchestra today, I would *love* that 
idea. I'm sure Stalling's take on "I'll Be There For You" would be 
great.

Paul
(who's fervently hoping there will be a "The Carl Stalling Project, 
Volume 3" CD)

--- In tvbarn2@y..., "Jeffries, Mark" <mjeffries@k...> wrote:
> > --- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> > > Which is the perfect segue to my MUCH BETTER plan 
for "Friends"... 
> > Don't make 
> > > them 40 minutes long ... make them only 6. 
> > > 
> > > Instead of an A-plot, and B-plot, and (with 6 main characters), 
a C-
> > plot. 
> > > Stop editing them into a half hour and make it a set of three 
Bugs 
> > Bunny 
> > > cartoon-length segments -- "Joey and Chandler hijinks with the 
> > Abominable 
> > > snowman" a Ross pursues "Rachel ala Pepe Le Pew" and a "Monica 
and 
> > Phoebe 
> > > CHAAAAAAAAAARGE IT" shopping spree ala Wilma and Betty.)
> > 
> > Careful... this might give them an idea for a Very Special 
Episode 
> > with a clever Theme.
> > 
> > Actually it's a great idea... so long as they didn't start each 6-
> > minute segment with the Friends theme. I can deal with "The Merry-
Go-
> > Round Broke Down" before every Warner Bros. cartoon, but hearing 
the 
> > Friends theme over and over might be enough to make me -- oh, I 
don't 
> > know, start waving a handgun around near the White House.
> 
> Actually, "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down" wasn't heard before 
*every* WB
> cartoon--just Looney Tunes.  The Merrie Melodies theme was "Merrily 
We Roll
> Along."
> 
> What if it was a Carl Stalling leading the Warner Bros. studio
> orchestra-style version of "I'll Be There for You"?
> 
> Mark Jeffries
> mjeffries@k...
> mjsaints@a...

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 1:12am
Subject: Re: Friends - only super size ads this week

It's the TV equivalent of McDonald's adding more ice to the soft 
drink...

--- In tvbarn2@y..., The KJB <osiris@i...> wrote:
> Caught the satellite feed for Friends this week - the feed was 25 
minutes 
> long instead of the just over 30 mins from last week.
> 
> Guess we're just super sizing the ad breaks this week.
> 
> 
> KJB
> Editor, Backstage Pass
> http://www.backstage-pass.com
> Film Writer, FilmForce.Net
> http://www.filmforce.net

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 1:23am
Subject: Re: Friends - only super size ads this week

..plus it solves that pesky issue of "what do we cut out for 
syndication?"

Paul

--- In tvbarn2@y..., The KJB <osiris@i...> wrote:
> Caught the satellite feed for Friends this week - the feed was 25 
minutes 
> long instead of the just over 30 mins from last week.
> 
> Guess we're just super sizing the ad breaks this week.
> 
> 
> KJB
> Editor, Backstage Pass
> http://www.backstage-pass.com
> Film Writer, FilmForce.Net
> http://www.filmforce.net

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 1:35am
Subject: Primetime SNL

Does anyone else think that the primetime SNL indicates that the show 
could be significantly better if they didn't try to do 90 minutes 
each week? (i.e., if they lopped off the least funny 30 minutes)

Primetime SNL certainly hasn't been overwhelming, comedically 
speaking, but from what I can see, this is the best 20 min or so of 
material from a regular show (interpret that as you will). 

Which poses the question: will Saturday's regular version be even 
worse, since they presumably had to use up material/potential 
material for the primetime version? I mean, the writing has been so 
weak for so long. I think there's only a finite amount of (actual) 
humor they're capable of writing, and they used up some of it in 
primetime.

Of course, they can always resort to seeing how many dirty jokes they 
can work in, although that presumbly has less effect late at night 
than in primetime. Yawn.

Paul

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 1:43am
Subject: WP article about MTV's "Undressed"

I've often wondered why no one in TV criticism has written about this 
before... I've stumbled across this while channel surfing and been 
taken aback... but then again, I'm an old fogey of 37, and I remember 
when MTV was new and interesting.

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/television/A35780-2001Feb6.html

The Naked Facts About 'Undressed' 
For Four Hot Seasons, MTV Has Lured Teen Voyeurs 
     
By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 7, 2001; Page C01

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 8, 2001 9:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Friends - only super size ads this week

>It's the TV equivalent of McDonald's adding more ice to the soft 
>drink...

It's the TV equivalent of McDonald's adding more fryer grease to the soft 
drink... 

And pretty much the admission that NBC doesn't ever plan to have anything on 
that can even adequately fill the 8:30 timeslot ... which history buffs will 
recall is where Friends STARTED on the lineup.

The new Must See TV 1994 being : 
    8:00 Mad About You
    8:30 Friends (new)
    9:00 Seinfeld
       9:30 Madman of the People (new)
       10:00 ER (new)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Laurel Krahn  <laurel@windowseat.org>
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 9:07am
Subject: Re: Re: Friends - only super size ads this week

On 2/9/01 3:11 AM, tomalhe@a... at tomalhe@a... wrote:


> And pretty much the admission that NBC doesn't ever plan to have anything on
> that can even adequately fill the 8:30 timeslot ... which history buffs will
> recall is where Friends STARTED on the lineup.
> 
> The new Must See TV 1994 being :
> 8:00 Mad About You
> 8:30 Friends (new)
> 9:00 Seinfeld
> 9:30 Madman of the People (new)
> 10:00 ER (new)

I remember that.
 
And I remember really liking Friends when it debuted and telling my friends
about it and they either hadn't heard of it or had tried it and were
underwhelmed.  It didn't become popular 'til summer reruns if I recall
correctly.
 
I remember how people turned off their TVs or changed the channels as soon
as Seinfeld ended, to avoid Madman of the People.
 
--
Laurel Krahn / www.tvpicks.net
[wow, was it that long ago?  time flies]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 6:18am
Subject: Re: Re: Friends - only super size ads this week

>And I remember really liking Friends when it debuted and telling my friends
>about it and they either hadn't heard of it or had tried it and were
>underwhelmed.  It didn't become popular 'til summer reruns if I recall
>correctly.

And let's not forget it was on opposite that other Gen-X show, "My So Called 
Life" (stomp) and Due South (stomp stomp stomp).

> >I remember how people turned off their TVs or changed the channels as soon
> >as Seinfeld ended, to avoid Madman of the People.
> 
When Madman bombed they put Friends after "Seinfeld," and suddenly the 
ratings picked up ... and Friends pushed "Mad About You" out of the fall 
Must-See lineup and onto a disastrous Sunday comedy slate: Brotherly Love 
(The Lawrence Brothers), Minor Adjustments (Rondell Sheridan), Mad About You, 
and Hope & Gloria.

Meanwhile: Thursdays became the hit-miss-hit-miss-ER schedule we've come to 
know and hate: 

       Friends
       The Single Guy (there's no saving Silverman)
       Seinfeld
       Caroline in the City (watch perky cartoonist Lea Thompson be slowly 
"seduced" by the sullen openly gay Malcolm Gets)
       ER.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 6:19am
Subject: ABC - the owl network

The Washington Post: 

       That rumbling noise is the rearranging of the deck chairs on the 
Titanic known as ABC's prime-time schedule. When the work is done, the weekly 
lineup will feature not only four editions of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" 
but also three editions of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
       Wednesday's "Millionaire" is going away and Tuesday's edition coming 
back, starting March 6, when "The Mole" will have finished its run.
(ABC isn't saying so, but later in March Tuesday night's "Geena Davis Show" 
will probably be pulled to make room for Joan Cusack's new sitcom, which has 
finally, after much delay, been given a name: "What About Joan?")
       The Wednesday 8 p.m. "Millionaire" hole will be filled, starting March 
14, with Damon Wayans's new sitcom, "My Wife and Kids," and that third 
edition of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
       "The Drew Carey Show" sticks at 9 p.m. Wednesday, but Denis Leary's 
new, randy cop comedy half-hour, "The Job," will replace "Spin City" at 9:30 
p.m. ABC has ordered only six episodes of "The Job," after which "Spin City" 
will be back.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: trow@slip.net
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 11:29am
Subject: Re: Primetime SNL

--- In tvbarn2@y..., pmurray@b... wrote:
> Which poses the question: will Saturday's regular version be even 
> worse, since they presumably had to use up material/potential 
> material for the primetime version? I mean, the writing has been so 
> weak for so long. I think there's only a finite amount of (actual) 
> humor they're capable of writing, and they used up some of it in 
> primetime.

It seems to me that last night's minishow was filled with the kind of 
material the writers can come up with in their sleep: George W acting 
really dumb; Celebrity Jeopardy with foulmouthed Sean Connery; etc. 

Personally, I think Saturday's show will be worth tuning into just 
for the Puffy jokes. And as always, I beseech the writers: please, 
please, please, no Mango. Please.

--Sue

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 9:42am
Subject: Spoofermodel of the weird

From Variety...

Updated: 2/9/01 RICHTER PROJECT FLIES
By JOSEF ADALIAN 
        
Pilot season buzzed along Thursday, ... Big Ticket Television is producing a 
sitcom starring RuPaul, in which the crossdressing diva would play a 
transsexual nanny to three kids. The proposed title? "The Tranny." 

UPN has ordered a script for the project from scribe-exec producer Mort 
Nathan ("The Golden Girls," "Benson," "The Secret Diary of Desmond 
Pfeiffer"). Rob Lee and Jordan Kerner are also exec producers.Script has 
RuPaul playing a cross-dressing wannabe entertainer who takes the nanny gig 
to support his career dreams. His character is expected to be the most 
down-to-earth member of a dysfunctional family.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Ken Payne  <kpayne@sprint.ca>
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 6:02pm
Subject: Television Preview

Has anyone here heard of a company called Television Preview? They are a
television research service that is based in Hollywood, California. They
have just sent me 4 tickets to go to a viewing of some pre-recorded
television shows and to participate in a survey. I'm loooking for some
advice on whether I should attend or not.

Thanks
Ken Payne

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 1:20pm
Subject: Re: Television Preview

>Has anyone here heard of a company called Television Preview? They are a
>television research service that is based in Hollywood, California. They
>have just sent me 4 tickets to go to a viewing of some pre-recorded
>television shows and to participate in a survey. I'm looking for some
>advice on whether I should attend or not.

Yes, yes I have: 

<http://www.unionrecord.com/arts/display.php?ID=604>
Arts & Entertainment 2000-12-04 

Kay McFadden: They say it’s TV research, but don't buy it
By Kay McFadden
Seattle Union Record

It was billed as a "natural viewing environment." It was anything but. 

Dozens of be-fleeced, easily perspiring Northwesterners sat on hard, upright 
chairs jammed elbow-to-elbow in an airless trap of our own devising. Lured by 
the vague opportunity to wield our opinions like righteous swords, we had 
succumbed to the world's oldest racket: flattery. 

"YOU have been selected to participate in a survey whose findings will 
DIRECTLY INFLUENCE what you see on television in the future," promised the 
sheet of paper now secured in my pocket. "We are TELEVISION PREVIEW, a 
nationwide television research service, and we need your help!" 

This appeal, accompanied by four admission tickets, actually had arrived 
about a week earlier in the Factoria mailbox of a friend, Steve Lardieri. 
Although I am baffled as to precisely what Steve does, it's something with 
computers and he therefore makes an ideal target for Television Preview. 

Television Preview itself had come to my attention before. From time to time, 
worried readers asked about the organization and wondered if they would 
attend a session and be forced to buy something — maybe time shares in a new 
sitcom. 

I assured them Television Preview was nothing more lethal than an 
opinion-research company and, at worse, it would be like an evening spent 
watching UPN. 

I now would like to apologize to those readers and for that matter, to UPN. 

It turns out there is a fate more ignoble than being hot-wired to a 30-inch 
Sony for two hours: learning that your true worth as a viewer is measured by 
the kind of tire cleaner, tampons and social-anxiety-disorder treatment you 
buy. 

On some level, everybody knows this. Shows are designed with demographics in 
mind to cultivate audiences most attractive to advertisers. The relationship 
has gotten even tighter lately as networks like The WB have started 
co-developing TV scripts with Procter & Gamble and other consumer-products 
companies. 

Nevertheless, having your entire value reduced to a container of dental floss 
in less time than it takes to slog through a Hallmark Hall of Fame special is 
humbling. It probably wouldn't have hurt so much if we'd seen more actual TV. 

As per the letter's instructions, four of us arrived on a Saturday night at 
the Doubletree Hotel in Bellevue, and at 7:45 we were ushered into a 
conference room along with a group of obedient fellow suckers. 

The crowd was diverse in gender and race, though Asian Americans seemed 
underrepresented and African Americans overrepresented for the region. 
Age-wise, people skewed younger. All of this tallied with what the TV 
industry typically is after: groups who watch a lot of television and/or who 
buy lots of stuff. 

Steve's party included two ringers. I was there as an, uh, investigative 
journalist. The other secret agent was a friend of Steve's who once worked in 
data mining, an occupational cousin to audience research. 

A jovial emcee named Dave set us at ease. He explained we would see two 
shows, discussed them briefly, then said, "Okay, now we're ready to get you 
started as television critics." 

Not quite. Before getting to see any shows, we first had to fill out a 
booklet that had everything to do with consumer products and nothing to do 
with TV. 

Page after page — 40 pages in all — carried grouped images of different 
mouthwashes, different diapers, different drugs for different ailments. On 
each page, we had to circle what we used, might use or didn't use. An 
alarming number asked about treatments for depression, weight loss and 
moodiness. 

Apparently our foremost task was not, as the letter had said, "to help 
represent the television viewing preferences of the ENTIRE COUNTRY." 

Confirmation of the main mission came with commercials sandwiched between the 
two actual 22-minute sitcoms we did eventually see. These ads leaned heavily 
toward products that required a prescription. Another 40-page booklet of 
product-circling plus prizes followed, and you couldn't help but notice some 
of the products had just been featured in commercials. 

In comparison, questions about the two TV pilots — a bad old one with Valerie 
Harper and a new funny one with Patrick "Puddy" Warburton — were rushed and 
minimal. If there was any polling about reviving Harper's career, it clearly 
took back seat to sales of Meridia, Paxil and Claritin. 

Later that night, Steve's data-mining friend snickered politely over dessert 
when I asked what he thought was going on. 

"I loved it!" he screamed. Then, "The whole thing was market research for 
pharma-companies. The bit about the TV shows was just a story that they 
wrapped the real research in." 

This struck me as needlessly sneaky. After all, we're in America; It's not 
like there aren't tons of folks who'd love to chat about their 
anti-depressants. 

But apparently telling people what the topic is really about would mess up 
what Steve's friend creepily kept calling "social research." 

So the next time Television Preview asks your assistance to "evaluate 
not-yet-released television material that is being considered for NATIONAL 
BROADCAST," forget you ever read this column. 

It's the only safe and reliable way that you, too, can help mold the future 
of pill-popping — or maybe disposable-bib wearing — in America. 


When she's not on strike, Kay McFadden is the TV critic for The Seattle 
Times. Readers may contact her at tvseattle@h...








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 9, 2001 3:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Primetime SNL

>It seems to me that last night's minishow was filled with the kind of 
>material the writers can come up with in their sleep: George W acting 
>really dumb; Celebrity Jeopardy with foul-mouthed Sean Connery; etc. 

And they've had two weeks off ... so really only the Fallon/Fey WU seg is all 
that timely ... and even so... Letterman, Bill Maher, and SNL all pretty much 
lead with "Hey the shooter at the White House was Al Gore --HA!" 

>> Personally, I think Saturday's show will be worth tuning into just 
> >for the Puffy jokes. And as always, I beseech the writers: please, 
> >please, please, no Mango. Please.
> 
> We don't want-a da Mango! 
> 
> SPRING 2001 IN THEATERS: MANGO GOES HAWAIIAN on a double bill with Mena 
> Suvari & Maya Rudolph in "IF YOU PUT UP A FIGHT, YOU AIN'T GETTIN' ON DA 
> FLIGHT : The New Adventures of the security wenches at Total Bastard 
> 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 5:00am
Subject: Happy Valentines Day (aka happy V.D.) from Mr. Floppy

From the Associated Press:

Nikki Cox Engaged to Goldthwait
NEW YORK - Nikki Cox has played sexy characters on television, but in real 
life she only has eyes for one man - Bob ``Bobcat'' Goldthwait. 

The 22-year-old star of the WB sitcom ``Nikki'' is engaged to the caffeinated 
comedian, who is 16 years her senior. The two met on the set of ``Unhappily 
Ever After,'' the defunct WB comedy in which Cox got her big break and 
Goldthwait was the voice behind a puppet named Mr. Floppy. 

``I had a mad crush on him and told him so,'' she says in the March issue of 
Gear magazine. ``He's a really shy, sweet-natured fellow. It's not like he's 
so boisterous and outgoing.'' 

Cox says she knows the tight, skimpy outfits she wears on television give her 
the image of being a vixen, but that doesn't bother her. 

``I would be completely ignorant to act like I'm here because I'm so ... 
talented,'' she says. ``I know it's because I fit the clothes.'' 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 0:16pm
Subject: Re: Television Preview

Yours truly fell for this a number of years ago. I will vouch for the 
accuracy of the newspaper story. They showed a couple of pilots that 
were years old. They said the commercials were to make the viewing 
realistic -- they were right of course, but it was the old pilots 
designed to make viewing the commercials more realistic.

Of course, if you have plenty of time on your hands and are inclined 
to respond on kind, you could always go anyway and answer exactly the 
opposite of how you really feel, just to mess with their data. :) 
Personally I don't have the time for that now, but in college I might 
very well have done that.

Paul


--- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> >Has anyone here heard of a company called Television Preview? They 
are a
> >television research service that is based in Hollywood, 
California. They
> >have just sent me 4 tickets to go to a viewing of some pre-recorded
> >television shows and to participate in a survey. I'm looking for 
some
> >advice on whether I should attend or not.
> 
> Yes, yes I have: 
> 
> <http://www.unionrecord.com/arts/display.php?ID=604>
> Arts & Entertainment 2000-12-04 
> 
> Kay McFadden: They say it’s TV research, but don't buy it
> By Kay McFadden
> Seattle Union Record
> 
[snip]

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 0:22pm
Subject: AP version of Letterman's missing Top 10

Not too much new in this account, if you saw the NYPost or TVBarn. 

But it does claim that a show where Dave likened Dr Pepper to "liquid 
manure" will not be rerun (too bad, I remember that one as being 
amusing), and that CBS gave Dr Pepper a free or heavily discounted ad 
slot.

http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010209/17/tv-letterman

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 0:26pm
Subject: Re: Happy Valentines Day (aka happy V.D.) from Mr. Floppy

De gustibus non disputandum est...

--- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> From the Associated Press:
> 
> Nikki Cox Engaged to Goldthwait
> NEW YORK - Nikki Cox has played sexy characters on television, but 
in real 
> life she only has eyes for one man - Bob ``Bobcat'' Goldthwait. 
> 
> The 22-year-old star of the WB sitcom ``Nikki'' is engaged to the 
caffeinated 
> comedian, who is 16 years her senior. The two met on the set of 
``Unhappily 
> Ever After,'' the defunct WB comedy in which Cox got her big break 
and 
> Goldthwait was the voice behind a puppet named Mr. Floppy. 

[snip]

From: pmurray@bigfoot.com
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 0:31pm
Subject: Re: AP version of Letterman's missing Top 10 [story, not the list]

Whoops. After I posted I realized that the subject line could 
inadvertently be misleading. Sorry about that.

I'm curious to see the missing list; I saw what replaced it, and if 
they actually thought the "J Lo" list was funnier... well, I'd be 
nervous.

--- In tvbarn2@y..., pmurray@b... wrote:
> Not too much new in this account, if you saw the NYPost or TVBarn. 
> 
> But it does claim that a show where Dave likened Dr Pepper 
to "liquid 
> manure" will not be rerun (too bad, I remember that one as being 
> amusing), and that CBS gave Dr Pepper a free or heavily discounted 
ad 
> slot.
> 
> http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010209/17/tv-letterman

From: thumbsup3@aol.com
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 0:42pm
Subject: NBC star, CBS late night guest: two separate things

Does anyone else find it interesting that "Ed" star Tom Cavanagh has been a 
guest on Craig Kilborn's show and is scheduled to make a second appearance on 
Letterman this Tuesday, but he has yet to appear on either Leno or Conan?

Is it possible that even though NBC airs the show, Worldwide Pants holds 
booking rights to its star?

Christine

From: Pollak, Melissa  <mpollak@nsf.gov>
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 10:07pm
Subject: RE: Re: Television Preview

I, too, got suckered into this scheme.    Both before and after I attended
the "television preview," friends, and even my boss, kept giving me tickets
they had received.  Since I am the only person they know who is a real
television fan, they naturally thought of me after they opened the envelope.
Oddly enough, I myself have never received tickets.  

Anyway, I went several years ago.  I was so curious, I traipsed out to a
hotel in Bethesda.  My first solid clue that this event wasn't what the
letter said it was the first pilot we were shown, a family drama starring
Season Hubley and Tom Wopat, a very young Tom Wopat.  He must have just
ended his stint as a Duke of Hazzard; the General Lee was probably still
warm.  Anyway, a much older Wopat had, at that time, a recurring role on
Cybill, so the evening had definitely begun to take on a fishy smell.   That
smell became even stronger when we were asked to complete another lengthy
survey, not about the show, but about various products (I don't remember any
more).  Then we were shown a second pilot, a odd (and, again, ancient)
sitcom starring Sally Kellerman and Gail Strickland.

Then came the real stink, the point when I knew for sure that I had been
had.  Another member of the audience asked a question:  "I went to one of
these last year in Tyson's Corner, and we were shown the same shows.  What's
going on here?"  For the only time that evening, I felt sorry for the M.C.
But not for long.  After that helpful bit of information, I started looking
for an opportunity to escape.  I found one a few minutes later when we were
handed yet another questionnaire.  Fortunately, the only things I wasted
that evening  were my time and subway fare (hey, getting to Bethesda during
rush hour ain't cheap!).

Melissa

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	pmurray@b... [SMTP:pmurray@b...]
> Sent:	Saturday, February 10, 2001 1:16 PM
> To:	tvbarn2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:	[tvbarn2] Re: Television Preview
> 
> Yours truly fell for this a number of years ago. I will vouch for the 
> accuracy of the newspaper story. They showed a couple of pilots that 
> were years old. They said the commercials were to make the viewing 
> realistic -- they were right of course, but it was the old pilots 
> designed to make viewing the commercials more realistic.
> 
> Of course, if you have plenty of time on your hands and are inclined 
> to respond on kind, you could always go anyway and answer exactly the 
> opposite of how you really feel, just to mess with their data. :) 
> Personally I don't have the time for that now, but in college I might 
> very well have done that.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> --- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> > >Has anyone here heard of a company called Television Preview? They 
> are a
> > >television research service that is based in Hollywood, 
> California. They
> > >have just sent me 4 tickets to go to a viewing of some pre-recorded
> > >television shows and to participate in a survey. I'm looking for 
> some
> > >advice on whether I should attend or not.
> > 
> > Yes, yes I have: 
> > 
> > <http://www.unionrecord.com/arts/display.php?ID=604>
> > Arts & Entertainment 2000-12-04 
> > 
> > Kay McFadden: They say itâEUR(tm)s TV research, but don't buy it
> > By Kay McFadden
> > Seattle Union Record
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tvbarn2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> 
> And sorry for the advertisements ...
> 
>

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Sat Feb 10, 2001 5:45pm
Subject: bad news sue...

from Sean Bradley's Sketch Spoilers

The following are sketches that are planned for tonight's episode of 
"Saturday Night Live," with host and musical guest Jennifer Lopez.
<snip>
a Mango sketch, in which he contests Lopez's popularity 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Sun Feb 11, 2001 2:44pm
Subject: FUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBLE!

From The HollXwood RepoXer
NBC gets sacked in XFL ratings
       Viewership of the XFL sank in the football league's second NBC outing 
Saturday, relegating the peacock to fourth place for the night. Saturday's 
primetime XFL telecast averaged a 4.8 overnight household rating and 8 share 
in Nielsen's local metered markets, down sharply from last weekend's 10.3/17. 
The coverage was beset by technical difficulties that forced the network to 
substitute the San Francisco-Orlando matchup for the planned Chicago-Los 
Angeles game during the first hour. Preliminary estimates had the telecast 
averaging about 6.4 million viewers from 8-11 p.m., compared with 15.7 
million last weekend. Fox returned to the No. 1 spot in key demos Saturday 
with its regular lineup of "Cops" and "America's Most Wanted," while ABC was 
tops in total viewers (11.8 million).   
    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: trow@slip.net
Date: Mon Feb 12, 2001 3:28pm
Subject: Re: bad news sue... / Rock Star WWTBAM

--- In tvbarn2@y..., tomalhe@a... wrote:
> from Sean Bradley's Sketch Spoilers
> 
> The following are sketches that are planned for tonight's episode 
> of "Saturday Night Live," with host and musical guest Jennifer 
> Lopez.
> <snip>
> a Mango sketch, in which he contests Lopez's popularity 

Just my luck that I was out late that night, and missed the show! 
Were there any good Puffy jokes?

I watched the Rock Star WWTBAM last night, and surprise surprise -- 
rock stars is dumb. (Actually, I think Lars Ulrich is fairly smart, 
but the American idioms the WWTBAM writers love to ask about in the 
early rounds can be confusing to people for whom English is not their 
first language.) 

Low point: probably the easiest Fastest Finger question of all time 
(Put these states in geographical order, starting in the west: 
Oklahoma, Washington, Delaware, Ohio) and only half of 'em got it 
right. Rock 'n Roll Jeopardy whiz kid Mark McGrath was tripped up on 
a question involving the film "Room with a View," because he had 
confused it with the Duran Duran video, "View to a Kill." Former 
schoolteacher Gene Simmons missed the $16,000 question; luckily, all 
the celebs are guaranteed at least $32K for their favorite charities.

There are probably plenty of SMART musicians out there, but they may 
not be as demographically desirable as the Backstreet Boys and Sisqo. 
How about, say, Brian Eno or Elvis Costello? :)

--Sue

From: tomalhe@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 12, 2001 11:02am
Subject: Re: Re: bad news sue... / Rock Star WWTBAM

Just my luck that I was out late that night, and missed the show! 
Were there any good Puffy jokes?

None at all ... given they'd already savaged the couple with a therapy 
sketch, I'd imagine they were asked to only make fun of her ass, her Grammy 
dress, and not her other ass.

>> I watched the Rock Star WWTBAM last night, and surprise surprise -- 
> >rock stars is dumb. (Actually, I think Lars Ulrich is fairly smart, 

I couldn't quite tell if Lars was playing dumb for the benefit of his fans or 
not. Of course, owning the collected CDs of Sandra helps. 

>> Low point: probably the easiest Fastest Finger question of all time 
> >(Put these states in geographical order, starting in the West: 
> >Oklahoma, Washington, Delaware, Ohio) and only half of 'em got it 
> >right. 
> 
> I'm betting more on the REMEMBER TO HIT THE ENTER button scenario, the 
> celebs always manage to complain about. Sisqo may just be wanting to pimp 
> his own album and get the longest screentime of anyone, as this tourney's 
> "Norm"/"Ray." 

>Rock 'n Roll Jeopardy whiz kid Mark McGrath was tripped up on 
> >a question involving the film "Room with a View," because he had 
> >confused it with the Duran Duran video, "View to a Kill." 
> 
> And its been too long since I saw the video, but as I recall, the video 
also went globe-trotting Bond style with San Francisco scenes, if they 
weren't just movie clips.  

>> schoolteacher Gene Simmons missed the $16,000 question; luckily, all 
> >the celebs are guaranteed at least $32K for their favorite charities.
> 
Well, he didn't think long enough that PACHYDERM was Greek for thick + Skin. 
Derma skin ... you'd think that with all the effects of KISS makeup, Gene 
Simmons is one of them himself. 

>> There are probably plenty of SMART musicians out there, but they may 
> >not be as demographically desirable as the Backstreet Boys and Sisqo. 
> >)

How about this for a circle of ten: Dolly Parton, Tori Amos, John Flansberg, 
Weird Al Yankovic, Billy Joel, Laurie Anderson, Michael Stipe, Harry Shearer &
 Michael McKean, and Eric Clapton?




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]