Alt Tv Rewind

ChristopherOct 9, 2003, 6:03 AM ET

Why is Thursday night the prime ratings spot?

wendygOct 9, 2003, 1:56 PM ET↩ Christopher

In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:

I think because it's the night people are most likely to be home and watching TV, winding down from the long week and looking forward to/getting ready for the weekend.

wg

ThrockmortonPGildersleeveOct 9, 2003, 3:23 PM ET↩ wendyg

It's only a tradition that really goes back to 1984 with the sudden success of "The Cosby Show" and its impact on the NBC line-up. Prior to that, the night may have had hits, but it was a line-up where each show clicked as part of the line-up. Sunday on CBS in the early 1980s was another strong night, where each of the shows was in the Top Twenty and handily won its time slot. "60 Minutes," "Archie Bunker's Place," "One Day at a Time," "Alice," "The Jeffersons," and "Trapper John MD". In the 60s and 70s, Saturday was considered the key night of the week for television programmers, which today, oddly enough, it's a write-off night. "All in the Family," "Mary Tyler Moore", "The Bob Newhart Show," "Carol Burnett" made Saturday on CBS a tradition for most of the 1970s. In radio, NBC had an unstoppable Tuesday night, which was considered the most important night of the week.... "Amos 'n' Andy, " "Fibber McGee and Molly," "Bob Hope," "Red Skelton... which was must-hear-radio from the mid-40s up until the rise of television. Today, no one would really consider Tuesday a key night for television, only because there is not such a strong succession of quality programming. Not that there's all that much on NBC that's "must see" these days beyond "Friends," enough of the tradition there and an increasingly strong CBS line-up have helped keep the night important. If the same programming were on a Friday or Saturday, they would the nights considered important.

KathyOct 9, 2003, 3:41 PM ET↩ ThrockmortonPGildersleeve

Don't forget "Cheers" as a part of that Thursday night line-up that was a HUGE part of "Must-See TV" for NBC! ~~~ Kathy

"ThrockmortonPGildersleeve" wrote in message news:[email]...

success

the

for

radio,

Molly,"

a

succession

beyond

ThrockmortonPGildersleeveOct 9, 2003, 4:35 PM ET↩ Kathy

"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...

Absolutely. "The Cosby Show," "Family Ties," "Cheers," "Night Court," "LA Law." Everything clicked. One of the best line-ups ever.

TerriOct 9, 2003, 7:05 PM ET↩ ThrockmortonPGildersleeve

Still, Thursday night is such a relaxing night because of so much going on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights. That's how I got started watching Friends was because of the night it came on. Other programs I hear about I can never seem to catch because of meetings etc. Mon-Wed. Hardly anything goes on on Thursday night, which is just as well because I wouldn't be there anyway.

"ThrockmortonPGildersleeve" wrote in message news:[email]...

a

wendygOct 11, 2003, 2:28 PM ET↩ ThrockmortonPGildersleeve

In article , [email] (ThrockmortonPGildersleeve) wrote:

I remember that decade. I was living at some friends' house for several months during that run (although the last show of that line-up was Miami Vice, not LA Law), and he would sit down to watch the entire run every Thursday night. Curiously enough, I disliked every one of those shows. I made Thursday night the night I went out to a movie.

wg

SandyOct 10, 2003, 12:07 PM ET↩ ThrockmortonPGildersleeve

"ThrockmortonPGildersleeve" wrote in message news:...

I have an off-topic question. How is David Letterman these days? I stopped watching after the show got too silly for me (ppls arms getting torn off with fake blood, know your cuts of meat). I was wondering why Jay Leno's show seemed better written and presented, and a friend thinks it's because NBC writers are (were?) better. LOL. The last David Letterman show I happened to catch a few months ago was painful to watch, because David Letterman seemed to have lost confidence in his ability to make people laugh. LOL. Maybe with better writing, the show will be better. So, how has Letterman been doing recently, if CBS shows have been getting better? Or should I go to a letterman ng? LOL

cookie dudeOct 10, 2003, 12:59 PM ET↩ Sandy

Sandy wrote:

spot the irony...

SandyOct 11, 2003, 7:06 AM ET↩ cookie dude

cookie dude wrote in message news:...

Huh? I don't get it. LOL. Do you mean that David Letterman wasn't funny in the first place? LOL

cookie dudeOct 11, 2003, 7:40 AM ET↩ Sandy

Sandy wrote:

I'll rephrase it to make it more obvious for you then:

"He lost his ability to make people laugh. LOL"

- do you get it now? And you don't have to add LOL to every sentence by the way ;)

SandyOct 12, 2003, 3:57 AM ET↩ cookie dude

cookie dude wrote in message news:<3f87ec17$0$6589gt; I'll rephrase it to make it more obvious for you then:

Oooh, now I get it. Thanks! I guess I was insecure about not having gotten the joke. (my answer to Tennant) Sorry about the er, preponderance of LOLs. I will make sure not to LOL all the time.

cookie dudeOct 12, 2003, 10:01 AM ET↩ Sandy

Sandy wrote:

unfortunately those things aren't funny anymore when you have to explain them :(

I don't want to come off as a big jerk telling you how to write your posts, it's just that sometimes it seems as though you get carried away with LOL'ing all the time. For example my bad habit to finish every other sentence with either a smilie or "..." :) (see, I did it again...)

Andrï¿½

SandyOct 14, 2003, 10:17 AM ET↩ cookie dude

cookie dude wrote in message news:...

explain

Yes I guess explaining them does kinda take the fun away. Never mind, there are plenty more opportunities to use humor. *g*

I hardly noticed your ...s or your :)s, so hopefully it isn't distracting. Some people end every single sentence or fragment of a sentence with ...s Now that's going overboard with the whateveryoucallits. The term for the ...s escapes me LOL. I guess most ppl have their own habits in posting. Mine is to LOL all the time and lots of ppl have pointed it out. I'm too silly I guess. Hehe. Oh and you didn't sound like a jerk. *G* It's nice that this ng is not too hostile.

ChristopherOct 11, 2003, 9:05 AM ET↩ Sandy

On 11 Oct 2003 04:06:35 -0700, [email] (Sandy) wrote:

Why do you have to keep laughing? It makes your posts hard to read.

Tennant StuartOct 11, 2003, 8:30 AM ET↩ cookie dude

In article , cookie dude wrote:

Yes indeed, but some people use "LOL" due to feelings of insecurity.

Tennant

ChristopherOct 11, 2003, 1:52 PM ET↩ Tennant Stuart

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:30:05 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Well Sandy is an American. ;)

Tennant StuartOct 11, 2003, 1:11 PM ET↩ Christopher

In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:

And?

Tennant

ChristopherOct 12, 2003, 4:27 AM ET↩ Tennant Stuart

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:11:15 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Americans are insecure.

SandyOct 12, 2003, 9:33 AM ET↩ Christopher

[email] (Christopher) wrote in message news:...

Oops sorry, I'm Korean (and proud of it). Sandy Stern is a character in a Scott Turow novel. Using that as my handle was my attempt at being creative. ;)

ChristopherOct 12, 2003, 12:57 PM ET↩ Sandy

On 12 Oct 2003 06:33:21 -0700, [email] (Sandy) wrote:

North or South? >:->

SandyOct 13, 2003, 12:12 PM ET↩ Christopher

[email] (Christopher) wrote in message news:...

South. :)

ChristopherOct 13, 2003, 1:53 PM ET↩ Sandy

On 13 Oct 2003 09:12:21 -0700, [email] (Sandy) wrote:

Phew, you had me worried there.

SandyOct 14, 2003, 8:40 AM ET↩ Christopher

[email] (Christopher) wrote in message news:...

Not sure why an English person would be worried about chatting with a North Korean, (terrorism maybe?) but according to the Economist, North Koreans aren't allowed access to the Internet. LOL.

KathyOct 12, 2003, 11:30 AM ET↩ Christopher

That's quite a broad statement to make about one billion plus people.... Also, you're wrong. ~~~ Kathy

"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...

CarolineOct 12, 2003, 11:52 AM ET↩ Kathy

Kathy wrote:

I think you need to re-count ... there are 280 Million people in America ... long way short of one billion. The only country that fits the one billion plus profile is China.

Caroline

KathyOct 12, 2003, 12:28 PM ET↩ Caroline

Whatever.....it's still a broad statement to make about the people of America. ~~~ Kathy

"Caroline" wrote in message news:HMeib.107548$[email]...

Paul WeaverOct 12, 2003, 12:41 PM ET↩ Caroline

And India

ChristopherOct 12, 2003, 12:59 PM ET↩ Caroline

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:52:07 GMT, Caroline wrote:

and India.

Tennant StuartOct 13, 2003, 1:14 PM ET↩ Caroline

In article , Caroline wrote:

You're thinking of the USA, America is much larger.

Tennant

ChristopherOct 13, 2003, 1:58 PM ET↩ Tennant Stuart

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:14:44 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Still not 1 billion, South Americas population is approx 302 million, USA is approx 280 million, Canada is apporox 28 million.

302m + 280m + 28m = 610m

p r i y aOct 13, 2003, 9:32 PM ET↩ Christopher

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:58:42 GMT, [email] (Christopher) wrote:

You forgot Mexico and that's roughly 100 million.

Priya

ChristopherOct 14, 2003, 10:53 AM ET↩ p r i y a

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:02:52 +0530, p r i y a wrote:

I included Mexico.

Tennant StuartOct 14, 2003, 8:11 PM ET↩ Christopher

In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:

You forgot Central America & the Caribbean.

According to mid-1999 statistics, the populations are...

    303m  North America
    135m  Central America
     37m  Caribbean
    339m  South America

814m Total

..and in the four years since, the total must have neared a billion.

BTW, both you & the statistics I quoted do not regard Mexico as being part of North America, with which I would disagree.

Tennant

ChristopherOct 15, 2003, 10:19 AM ET↩ Tennant Stuart

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:11:26 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

I got my figures from the latest Readers Digest book, Guild to places of the World, and the figures include central and latin america.

Tennant StuartOct 16, 2003, 7:45 PM ET↩ Christopher

In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:

Mine came from the Population Reference Bureau.

In that case, they were even more inaccurate.

Tennant

cookie dudeOct 15, 2003, 2:51 PM ET↩ Tennant Stuart

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Why? It's definitely more a central American country than it is a northern American country - purely based on its position on the globe

Andrï¿½

Tennant StuartOct 16, 2003, 7:46 PM ET↩ cookie dude

In article , cookie dude wrote:

Parts of Mexico are further north than the southern USA - Tijuana is further north than Tucson, El Paso, Houston, New Orleans & Florida.

Tennant

ChristopherOct 12, 2003, 12:58 PM ET↩ Kathy

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:30:30 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:

You should see how American's are viewed from this side of the big pond.

KathyOct 12, 2003, 1:15 PM ET↩ Christopher

Why do you think Brits have it better than Americans? ~~~ Kathy

"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...

CarolineOct 12, 2003, 2:19 PM ET↩ Kathy

Kathy wrote:

I'm not speaking for all Britons or making a generalised statement to cover everything, but one thing springs instantly to mind; when watching Friends in Britain they don't cut to commercial immediately after the opening credits have run, and they don't squash in three more commercial breaks before the end. The show starts, there is ONE break right in the middle, then you watch the show right to the closing credits at the end (and the closing credits aren't jammed up on one side of the screen flashing past at triple speed whilst they desperately plug the next programme in the main area of the screen).

Plus, Friends was available on video and then DVD long, long before it was here. I bought my Friends Seasons 1 & 2 boxsets *seven* years ago. When I moved here I couldn't believe there was *nothing* out on video.

Just one reason, and my opinion only. ;)

Caroline

Paul WeaverOct 12, 2003, 4:20 PM ET↩ Caroline

Indeed, I have to replace my scratched S1 Disc 2 and S5 disc 2 disks - play.com have them at two for ï¿½14. I'm waiting until the 27th to get Series 7, 8 and 9, which were twice the price of the first 6 series', but in a couple of weeks will be ï¿½38. Unfortunatly the season 10 box set isn't out yet.

ChristopherOct 12, 2003, 3:42 PM ET↩ Kathy

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:15:31 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:

English.

KathyOct 12, 2003, 5:34 PM ET↩ Christopher

bwahaha.....too funny. Is that ALL you could come up with?? ~~~ Kathy

"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...

ChristopherOct 13, 2003, 4:46 AM ET↩ Kathy

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:34:49 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:

Thats all I need to come up with.

iphigeniaOct 14, 2003, 11:02 AM ET↩ Christopher

This from the man who wrote the subject line with a grammatical error? ; )

I'm an admitted Anglophile, but I wouldn't say that England is far and away better than the US. Your cost of living is higher, for one thing. And I hear you can't get proper salsa over there.

cookie dudeOct 14, 2003, 12:00 PM ET↩ iphigenia

iphigenia wrote:

I noticed that too :)

This could be fun... Americans can't brew beer at all, or to say it Monty Python stylee: "American beer is like making love in a canoe: fucking close to water" ;)

Andrï¿½

ChristopherOct 15, 2003, 10:22 AM ET↩ cookie dude

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:00:41 +0200, cookie dude wrote:

And you ask for tea in America, and they give you a cup of warm water and a tea bag, or bucks pee and pepper as it's refered to over here.

CarolineOct 14, 2003, 12:51 PM ET↩ iphigenia

iphigenia wrote:

Oh no it ain't - and I speak as an English person who's now lived in the USA for five years.

English salaries have two taxes taken out of them: income tax (self explanatory, pays for government) and national insurance (pays for pensions and healthcare).

American salaries have *three* basic taxes taken out of them: federal tax (pays for government etc), state tax (pays for local government) and city tax (goes to the City you live/work in and pays for city government). Then there's FICA/Medicare (no, Rachel wasn't kidding when she sees her first paycheck) and retirement ... gee we're up to *five* now ...

*Then*, on top of this quintuple (sp?) tax, you have to either pay for your own private health insurance ($400 per month, bottom line absolute minimum) or have a chunk of your pre-tax salary taken as an insurance premuim by your employer who provides you with health insurance (and most health insurance plans don't cover 100% expenses, so you're looking at out of pocket deductibles every time you visit a Doctor or Hospital).

Then if that wasn't enough, the American eqiuvalent of rates/council tax, property taxes, are sky high. My parents in law own a modest three bedroomed property built in the 1950s, and they pay $1600 per year in property tax (and this gets hiked every year, as the school systems bid for more money, or some other civic project the town fathers deem appropriate) - so more gets added on every year.

I would say that food costs about the same (although restaurants are cheaper in the US). House prices are higher here. Cars are cheaper, but insurance costs more, and also American cars aren't built to last, so you replace them more frequently. Gas/petrol is cheaper, which of course encourages a lot of unnecessary driving and the building of cars that resemble Sherman tanks.

Utilities are higher in America, as all the utility companies bill monthly, so you're paying connection charges/gas supply/whatever fixed charges every month, not just every three months, on top of your electricity/gas/phone usage.

Sure, consumer durables/electronics/CDs/DVDs etc are cheaper, but they're not things that you actually need to live, are they?

Also, in Britain, if you lose your job, you don't lose your health insurance. A job loss coupled with a family member's illness can mean instant bankruptcy over here. Who can pay thousands of dollars in medical bills when they've no income?

Sorry to go on about it, but I wanted to correct what seems to be a common misconception. Life in America is expensive, and there are too few safety nets for the disadvantaged. There is not a single zip code in the entire United States where a single adult, working full time at a minimum wage job, could affort to rent or buy even the most basic one bedroom home.

Soapbox mode off. ;)

Caroline

ChristopherOct 15, 2003, 10:20 AM ET↩ iphigenia

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:02:33 -0600, "iphigenia" wrote:

True.

You mean belly ache music. ;)

iphigeniaOct 15, 2003, 3:30 PM ET↩ Christopher

Not that kind, the kind you eat on tortilla chips : ) It is -not- meant to have sugar in it!

CarolineOct 15, 2003, 5:52 PM ET↩ Christopher

Didn't you read my reply to iphegenia's post? It's *not* higher in England.

Caroline

ChristopherOct 16, 2003, 5:23 AM ET↩ Caroline

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:52:28 GMT, Caroline wrote:

Yes, but the yes went out before I read it. But if the cost of living isn't as high as in America why is blighty refered to as treasure island. ;)

Tennant StuartOct 13, 2003, 1:13 PM ET↩ Christopher

In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:

I think you'll find *some* Americans are insecure, same as elsewhere.

Tennant

ChristopherOct 13, 2003, 1:59 PM ET↩ Tennant Stuart

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:13:40 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

OK a lot of American's are insecure.

Erich WiseNov 1, 2003, 8:27 PM ET↩ Christopher

"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...

A lot of American's what?

wendygOct 11, 2003, 2:28 PM ET↩ Sandy

In article , [email] (Sandy) wrote:

Letterman came back from his bout with shingles really fired up, and lately the show has I think been much better.

If Leno seems better written, it's because his writers steal from the Letterman staff, and so have time to improve on the work the Letterman folk have to create from scratch. :)

wg

SandyOct 12, 2003, 4:03 AM ET↩ wendyg

[email] wrote in message news:<bm9i58gt; Letterman came back from his bout with shingles really fired up, and

Thanks! I might watch Letterman's show again if it's been better recently. I've always preferred Letterman to Leno (the person, not the show) for some reason.

ChristopherOct 12, 2003, 4:28 AM ET↩ Sandy

On 12 Oct 2003 01:03:44 -0700, [email] (Sandy) wrote:

FWIW I hate talk shows.

KathyOct 12, 2003, 11:31 AM ET↩ Christopher

Wow.....big surprise! ~~~ Kathy

"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...

ChristopherOct 12, 2003, 1:00 PM ET↩ Kathy

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:31:18 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:

Why?

cookie dudeOct 12, 2003, 10:02 AM ET↩ wendyg

[email] wrote:

Neither of them come even anywhere near Conan O'Brien

hotmamasitaOct 9, 2003, 8:45 PM ET↩ wendyg

[email] wrote in message news:...

no i believe it is because of seinfeld which was the big ratings hit while it was on. Then when seinfeld ended, friends became the big hit. So thursday became a prime ratings spot b/c of the tv shows, not b/c of the night

KathyOct 9, 2003, 8:58 PM ET↩ hotmamasita

Thursday night for NBC started in the early 80's -- not with Seinfeld. ~~~ Kathy

"hotmamasita" wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

MibbitmakerOct 9, 2003, 9:54 PM ET↩ Kathy

The basic chronology works like this: Cheers started on Thursday at 9 in 1982, then Cosby was on at 8 starting in 1984, which made the night "Must-See", also elevating Cheers at 9. Then, when Cheers ended in '93, Seinfeld took its spot. Already popular, it kept the slot going. Meanwhile, Friends came on at 8 while Seinfeld was still going strong at 9. By the time Seinfeld ended, Friends kept it going at its 8 o'clock slot. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------

"If there were more men like you, there'd be less men like you"

"...Because Buckwheat would've wanted it that way." ;-)

ChristopherOct 10, 2003, 5:10 AM ET↩ Christopher

Thanks for the info. FWIW over here in Britain IMHO Mondays are good for TV programs, Wednesday's are not bad if you like programs about house interior design, Thursdays are shite [only Time Commanders worth watching], as is Tuesday, Friday is good with Channel 4 as all the American sitcoms are on, Friends, Will and Grace, Scrubs and Sex and the City in that order. Saturday is usually crap theses days except most of England will be watching the football match with Turkey tommorow, Sunday is okish at times.

For all American's here?