NBC cans 30 Rock, Community, and Parks and Rec

[Ultra Peanut]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

I think Friends is better than Seinfeld. Seinfeld was certainly quirkier. But Friends was a game changer. I think Friends feels less groundbreaking now because so many sitcoms since have been modeled after it. Seinfeld had a formula that it's almost impossible to copy. In that sense, Seinfeld is one of the best and most original shows I've ever seen.

The downside is that I don't think that brand of humor holds up as well over time. When it worked the humor was untouchable. But it missed as much as it hit. And when that brand of humor misses... yikes. Friends might have been safer (less risky in terms of style of humor), but it was also more consistent for longer.

Having said that, I still think both shows went on a couple seasons too long.

THIS IS THE STUPIDEST OPINION I'VE EVER SEEN.

ON CHIEFSPLANET DOT COM. EVER.

I QUIT

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

THIS IS THE STUPIDEST OPINION I'VE EVER SEEN.

ON CHIEFSPLANET DOT COM. EVER.

I QUIT

That's pretty impressive. I'm strangely kinda proud of this.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

I think Friends is better than Seinfeld. Seinfeld was certainly quirkier. But Friends was a game changer. I think Friends feels less groundbreaking now because so many sitcoms since have been modeled after it. Seinfeld had a formula that it's almost impossible to copy. In that sense, Seinfeld is one of the best and most original shows I've ever seen.

The downside is that I don't think that brand of humor holds up as well over time. When it worked the humor was untouchable. But it missed as much as it hit. And when that brand of humor misses... yikes. Friends might have been safer (less risky in terms of style of humor), but it was also more consistent for longer.

Having said that, I still think both shows went on a couple seasons too long.

I liked Friends, but it went too long.

Seinfeld could have went a few more seasons. Its humor still holds up today.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Dave

I liked Friends, but it went too long.

Seinfeld could have went a few more seasons. Its humor still holds up today.

I would have ended Friends after the 7th season. Which is still probably too long. But some of my all time favorite Friends episodes are in that season.

Let me be clear, I love Seinfeld. It just doesn't have the replay value for me that Friends has. I can watch reruns of Friends all day long. I get wiped out watching too much Seinfeld.

Also, Seinfeld has this odd quality; it's actually better (to me) when I don't see a whole episode. It's the kind of show I like catching 5 to 10 minutes in. I've seen the ends of every episode. I'm not sure I can say the same of the beginnings.

[keg in kc]

I never really liked Seinfeld all that much, and it's always struck me as one of those shows that was popular because it was the 'in' thing at the time.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I never really liked Seinfeld all that much, and it's always struck me as one of those shows that was popular because it was the 'in' thing at the time.

I actually liked it better before it got really huge and had a smaller following. Around 92 or 93? Once they moved it to Thursday Night Must See TV a few yer later it didn't seem as good, but it got huge in popularity.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I never really liked Seinfeld all that much, and it's always struck me as one of those shows that was popular because it was the 'in' thing at the time.

Nah, I just like Larry David's brand of humor. Curb is awesome to me as well.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I never really liked Seinfeld all that much, and it's always struck me as one of those shows that was popular because it was the 'in' thing at the time.

I most certainly have to disagree. I love it today as I did then. It holds up. My 13 yr old son loves it.

[ragedogg69]

I am waiting for NBC and maybe even the CW to give the middle finger to the Nielson company and say they're getting their ad numbers else where so it will include a much broader (and more accurate) rating. I have heard numbers as low as 20,000 people who are counted for Nielson ratings. It makes me sad to think that networks have to fold under them to be successful.

The common trend is people now more than ever are watching less primetime TV with the exception of sports. Something has gotta give, and I am betting it will be the outdated rating system before anything else.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by ragedogg69

I am waiting for NBC and maybe even the CW to give the middle finger to the Nielson company and say they're getting their ad numbers else where so it will include a much broader (and more accurate) rating. I have heard numbers as low as 20,000 people who are counted for Nielson ratings. It makes me sad to think that networks have to fold under them to be successful.

The common trend is people now more than ever are watching less primetime TV with the exception of sports. Something has gotta give, and I am betting it will be the outdated rating system before anything else.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Nielsen's rating system, but sample size isn't one of them. They've got lots of methodological issues, like how to account for multiple TVs in a household, how to avoid double-counting people who watch both online and on TV, and a variety of other issues. However, adding another million people to the mix wouldn't fix any of those issues.

Regardless, the problem is that there's no such thing as "getting their ad numbers elsewhere." No one else really does it because Nielsen is WAY better than anything anyone else has ever come up with. So while it's flawed in some ways, it's better than nothing (and is a lot better than random people on a message board saying "those numbers are too low because I like that show").

[Ultra Peanut]

As well you should be. I'm not saying you're dumb, by the way. I'm just saying you have the taste of a dumb person.

(I'm saying this with the utmost sarcasm if that isn't clear. I'm sure you are swell! But seriously, Friends is trash.)

[Aries Walker]

What Seinfeld did was open the doors for every stand-up comic out there to get their own show. Cosby and Redd Foxx and some others had done it OK before, but Seinfeld (maybe along with Roseanne) was the beginning of the new crop of comedians in a new kind of sitcom, where the plots were based on the comedian's act, and (s)he was the undoubted center of the show. From him, we got Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, Jeff Foxworthy, Drew Carey, George Lopez, King of Queens, Grace Under Fire, Bernie Mac, and probably a whole bunch of others I can't remember.

I never liked Friends, probably because it seemed fabricated to me; I could never get past the fact that those twentysomethings, besides being pretentious and annoying, would never be able to afford that spacious apartment in midtown New York.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

I never liked Friends, probably because it seemed fabricated to me; I could never get past the fact that those twentysomethings, besides being pretentious and annoying, would never be able to afford that spacious apartment in midtown New York.

The apartment was explained. It was a Rent controlled unit.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Dave

The apartment was explained. It was a Rent controlled unit.

2 of them, right across the hall from each other. Yeah.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Brock

2 of them, right across the hall from each other. Yeah.

Well, technically, if one of the apartments in rent controlled, the whole building is probably rent controlled. So, yeah.

But Monica's is the only one they address specifically. But Chandler has always had a real job and made pretty good money. Plus his parents are loaded. So it's logical.