LOL Some of you act like you are perfect.... So we dont get aniston, or arquette, maybe the hot chick in the show is the girl next door
i'll say it was way better than i thought it would be. joey's character was pretty good, mateo's wasn't that good, but oh well. it definitely had funny moments. i could see it lasting a few seasons. it certainly won't have a Frasier run, though. Frasier had already become such a huge character (and was such a good character) on Cheers and then the show itself was just brilliantly written. any spinoff (hell, any sitcom) doing what Frasier did is damn hard.
Also (excuse my ignorance here) I thought Joey was suppose to be interested in the blonde (corp. attorney) but she said she's married. Is there another girl about to show up or is her marriage going to fail (yes I'm looking for a spoiler!)
I thought the reason Frasier succeeded was because he was not one of the major characters on Cheers like Norm or Sam or Diane. The fact that he was a little less prominent made him the ideal candidate. Similar things happened with the Jeffersons (All in the Family), Maude (All in the Family), Laverne & Shirley (Happy Days), Mork & Mindy (Happy Days), etc. They turned small roles into bigger one's.
I have to disagree with this part. IMO the Frasier on Cheers was a one note, flat character. He was basically a pompus boob. Nothing about his time on Cheers showed that he could carry his own show. But when they spun him off, they improved him as a character greatly. It was really well written and they changed him a lot. He was still a pompus boob, but he was a pompus boob with added dimension. You're right that Joey will have a very tough time duplicating that kind of success, but it all depends on how they write it from now, not Joey's successes in the past.
when Frasier first came on, he was a very minor character, not even in every episode. but once he got detached from diane he started to grow and once diane left, he pretty much rose up to become the second main character after sam. by the end, he was very prominent, which i think paved the way for the spinoff. now, possibly being in the background for the first half of the series kept us from burning out on him or using his character up too much, but he was big the last few years. at least that's the impression i get from watching Cheers rerurns religiously on nick-at-nite. i love that show which is amazing considering i'm only 22 and i never even saw it during it's original run. i disagree but it's not really something that needs to be argued or anything. between his voice and his delivery, he had proven to be great at getting laughs and his blend of being "a pompous ass" who drank fine wines and went to operas and "one of the guys" who could make fun of his wife and his job made him a great character. he actually dropped a lot of the "one of the guys" thing for Frasier but added in more dating/romantic stuff to compensate. either way, i think he was a great character long before he got his own show and then obviously a great one once he did.
18.5 mill watch joey http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040910/ap_en_tv/tv_joey_and_donald
In case anybody is wondering, this number is considered LOW and a DISSAPOINTMENT. I was suprised to learn that this number was less than the number of viewers for ANY Friends show... including the pilot (before anybody even knew that Friends would be a hit). That can't make NBC all too happy.
It was less than any Friends episode from LAST SEASON. I'm sure there have been some lower rated episodes during it's run, but last season was their "farewell season" so the ratings were probably higher than the average.
Not "any" episode of Friends, just any one from last season. It did do worse than the "Friends" pilot, but the TV landscape was a very different place in 1994. Despite being 20% off the Friends premiere last year, the episode will easily be in the top 5, and has a decent shot at winning the week.
I enjoyed it. It was like one of the poorer episodes of Friends. Good for a chuckle when there's nothing else on.
I don't think network television has gotten significantly better or worse over the last ten years. There is *overall* more crap because you have cable outlets and others spewing out original content that simply didn't exist then. Beyond that, consider that the Internet was barely a consideration. DVR's did not exist. DVDs did not exist. The WB and UPN had just been born. It is still possible to get 25-million-plus eyeballs for a hit network show, but it is no longer as common as it was...
Yeah, and it was also a much more favorable time for sitcoms. Any reasonably-produced sitcom was almost automatically a hit.
