100%
Season one was set at the resort in Hawaii, where they live.
I’m watching Moonlighting for the first time in 40 years.
Great show with fantastic chemistry between Bruce Willis and the beautiful Cybill Shepherd. Hilarious, wacky and well made. And I get to pretend to be Al Jarreau during the opening and closing credits.
3 Likes
Watching Your Friends and Neighbours on Apple……first few episodes hooked me.
Jon Hamm is great.
Yeah the people have spoken.
As much as I wish the people liked “Carnivale” or “Winning Time” as much as I did, they didn’t and the ratings proved it. So those shows got canceled. Happens.
It’s nice escapism just silly fun in a world that is decidedly less fun.
I don’t think it speaks to quality at all. Not in a bad or good way, just good examples of giving peoplewhat the people want. In a fairly affordable package for the studios package.
1 Like
I can tell ya this much.
Ratings and longevity indicate that those shows are the most entertaining to the most people, and in the end, that’s the purpose of commercial television programming: to ENTERTAIN.
I can rationalize that Father Brown (another show I watch) is a “higher quality” show than the Masked Singer in any number of ways.
But in the end…there’s a reason why one show is on PBS, and other other has been on commercial TV for years and years: because the LATTER is obviously a lot more entertaining to a lot more people.
One thing’s for sure. The idea that any one person is somehow the ultimate authority on which shows are good and worthy of discussion on a string about TV shows seems pretty rarefied.
Glad I wasn’t THAT guy.
I’m glad I’m not the guy who called Jerry Springer quality just to support his argument.
In my mind the case has been closed ever since that
1 Like
SOB—-is this still going on?
Obviously that show was entertaining as well.
Maybe not to me, but certainly to a lot of people.
What are YOUR evaluation criteria for program quality?
In the end, tastes are individual Bro.
I can come up with any number of criteria by which Father Brown or Grantchester are higher quality shows than Jerry Springer.
I’d personally watch both over Jerry Springer any day.
But in the end, one was on commercial TV for years and the others weren’t simply because one was a lot more entertaining to a lot more people.
One man’s tastes and preferences hardly amount to much in the grand scheme of things. Not sure why some people seem to think that their individual tastes and preferences are somehow the final authority on which shows are most worthy of discussion on a string about TV shows.
Hell, 3/4 of the shows I’ve heard mentioned here I’ve never watched, and I am guessing that if I did, I wouldn’t like them. Others that have been mentioned here I have watched, and I didn’t really like them, even though some people here might insist that they are good or “high quality” by whatever criteria they have.
But at the very least, I don’t try to tell other people not to discuss them under the theory that if I don’t think they are good, then they must not be good, must be low quality (by whatever criteria they choose) or must be unworthy of discussion on a string about TV shows as a matter of necessity or matter of course.
Some here seem to have a different philosophy in that regard.
Somebody keeps sending it to appeals
I didn’t bring it up again.
East coast and Bryant did.
But if anyone else wants to keep bringing it up, so be it.
Bottom line: tastes are individual.
One man’s masterpiece is another’s stinkbomb.
What one man considers quality another may consider garbage.
But ALL shows and all types of shows are worthy of discussion and consideration, contrary to what one poster suggested.
In the end, ratings determine whose tastes are the most widely agreeable.
Likewise!
I’m not the one writing the same appeal over and over again. Have a little bit of self awareness
I’m also not the guy posting THIS without solicitation…that’s YOU. You’d be a fool to think that that won’t be responded to.
As I said, let it go yourself, and as you say, have a bit of self-awareness.
I’m no fool, i know you will respond to everything and continue to get the same last word in with each post you make. You’ve never met a dead horse you didn’t want to beat
Nor have you apparently, based on that post. I didn’t even respond to East Coast or Bryant, and I wasn’t planning to. I was willing to let sleeping dogs lie…but apparently…YOU weren’t, and were all too happy to start up the debate again.
Hey listen. What is YOUR definition of quality, and what is YOUR measure of quality? I just want to hear it for the record, because, as is true of any measure of excellence…opinions may vary on how valid it is.
I’ve asked you many times, but never gotten an answer. And whatever they may be, fine. Opinions can vary on that. One person might say a show’s success in entertaining (as evidenced by ratings) is one such measure of quality…after all, how high is a show’s quality if it fails to entertain and few like it/want to watch it as a result?
It’s a question worth asking, isn’t it? Likewise, how low is a show’s quality if enough people find it entertaining and tune it to where it leads in ratings and gets renewed for double digit seasons? Maybe not as low as you would say? That doesn’t automatically make it high quality by any means, but could make it better than you’d be willing to rate it. It achieves the purpose of all commercial television which is to ENTERTAIN, get ratings, and sell advertising space. Just sayin’!
Definitions may differ, as might measures of excellence.
But I’ve never heard you say what YOUR definition of quality and YOUR measure of excellence or quality might be.
As I like to say…PLEASE BE CANDID IN YOUR RESPONSE!!!
You can call a show “trash” or “garbage” purely because it’s reality TV, or a game show, or a competition show, etc., all you want. It’s all a matter of individual taste, and those shows may not be to YOUR taste. But remember. One man’s trash is another man’s trash treasure…one man’s garbage is another man’s antique collectable.
Again, these are matters of individual taste, and individual tastes…ALWAYS vary. The idea that any person, including you or pollard or anyone else, are somehow the ultimate, final authorities on what is good or bad programming, what is quality programming, what is garbage/trash, etc., is absurd. Tastes vary and, as a result, opinions vary in that regard.
We can all learn to tolerate differences in taste in that regard. We’ll let the ratings decide which tastes are the most widely shared.
Likewise.
I had let it go. YOU brought it back.
But can you
Or will you
