What is the name of the Matt Leblanc spinoff? I think it will last one season or less. I just have a feeling.
Joey
Oct 4, 2003, 12:03 AM ET55 posts by 19 postersalt.tv.friends
55 posts
Joey ~~~ Kathy
Jesus, that must have taken hours to think up!
i think they should have called it "Friend."
"Rach" wrote in message news:[email]...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:50:08 -0400, trisha gg wrote:
Or "Billy no mates"
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 14:56:47 +0100, "Rach" wrote:
I think the producers were thinking of the success of *Frasier* and are hoping for a similar result.
message news:GErfb.9917$[email]...
If they stick with the ensemble cast the way Frasier did when Cheers ended maybe not. I didn't think Frasier would do well, but it's still on. They need to stick with the ensemble format and not try to have Matt LeBlanc try to carry it on his own.
Christina in GA
Kelsey Grammer carried "Frasier" just fine on his own with the correct ensemble cast. Matt LeBlanc will do the same with "Joey" if they give him the right cast members. ~~~ Kathy
"Christina in GA" wrote in message news:[email]...
try
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 14:18:36 -0400, "Kathy" waxed lyrical:
How can he carry the show and have a fine ensemble cast?
Yes, Kelsey was a strong lead - but it was the strong ensemble that allowed the show to go the distance.
I think the ensemble will prove the make or break. Frasier probably would have lasted a year or two just on the strength of Kelsey's performance. Matt Le Blanc as Joey with a weak ensemble just doesn't sound like a good bet.
Anyway... who else thinks Gunther should follow Joey to L.A.? He was an aspiring actor too.
-- Keith Gow --
I said he did FINE on his own BECAUSE he had an ensemble cast that made the character of Fraiser work. Matt LeBlanc can do the same thing IF the producers put together the correct supporting cast for him. ~~~ Kathy
"Keith Gow" wrote in message news:[email]...
why are you so rude?
Why do you care? ~~~ Kathy
"mona" wrote in message news:[email]...
the
"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...
Just don't read her posts - she's always that way.
No, I'm not. Plus, I don't think anything I posted about the original question was rude, either. You're probably a hardcore R&R fan that can't see past that. ~~~ Kathy
"Terri" wrote in message news:[email]...
nah i'm pretty unbiased. i've been reading this group since before you started posting and it seems like you're always angry about something.
Well, you'd be angry too if you'd been unemployed since April 1. ~~~ Kathy
"mona" wrote in message news:[email]...
started
Did Mona sack you or something? lol
"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...
can't
Did she do what to me?? ~~~ Kathy
"vix" wrote in message news:ISygb.5296$[email]...
original
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:20:19 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Sack you.
vix wrote:
What the fuck has that got to do with us??? AFAIK none of us fired you
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 22:11:15 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Hey sweetie, Ive been unemployed for a lot longer then you, and I'm not angry.
Well, I am. Never in my entire adult life have I had so much trouble finding a job. ~~~ Kathy
"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...
can't
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:10:38 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Yep, ditto, it's called ageism. And I even went through university--1999 - 2003--to see if getting an IT degree would help-I was the oldest person on the course, and at times I was the oldest person in the lecture hall.
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:49:32 -0500, "Terri" wrote:
Yeah, PMT is a bitch. ;-)
On 05 Oct 2003 17:20:12 GMT, [email] (mona) wrote:
That reply was rude? Must have missed something. K isn't rude...except to me, and I can handle her.
"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...
There is a big difference. With the exception of the brief time he was dating Diane, Frasier was never really a major player on Cheers. There were many aspects of his personality that we never found out about until the spinoff. We probably know a lot more about Joey from his 10 years on Friends than we did about Frasier from the seven years he was on Cheers. Also, Frasier was and is a much more complex character than Joey. I just don't see a lot of things they can realistically do with Joey that they haven't already done. And yeah, they can try to do it as an ensemble series, but I just don't think Joey is the right kind of character to anchor such an ensemble.
I believe Matt LeBlanc will surprise all of us and do this spinoff with the success that Kelsey Grammer had with his show. But the success will have to be because of the right cast. That part is crucial. The character of Joey is well-loved by the viewers, but even the best actor/actress can't carry a show alone. ~~~ Kathy
"Rick" wrote in message news:W8fgb.3212$[email]...
him
were
anchor
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:49:23 -0400, "Kathy" wrote:
Plus the script's will have to be right, as no more Chandler to sound off.
"Kathy" wrote in message news:...
i'd really like to see joey's spinoff do well, but i just have a feeling that it won't make it--the seinfeld curse type thing. And even though he's playing the same character, i just have a really bad feeling about this.
Let's not jump to conclusions about this so soon! "Friends" isn't even over, yet! The build-up at the end of this "Friends" season for the "Joey" spin-off may be just the springboard the show needs to carry the audience with it. I don't have a bad feeling about it at all. I like to try and give something the benefit of the doubt before casting premature opinions. ~~~ Kathy
"hotmamasita" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
the
have
of
On 7 Oct 2003 10:34:17 -0700, [email] (hotmamasita) wrote:
Nobody ever went poor by underestimating the depths that the American public would decend to, or something like that.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:00:39 +0000, Christopher wrote:
assuming you meant 'overestimating'...
being american, i should probably take offense, but, being realistic, i tend to agree...
having said that, i'll still watch 'joey' and give it a chance. or maybe two or three chances. eh, who am i kidding. i'll probably watch it even if it's bad. guess i'm a fair example of your 'american public,' eh?
-brian
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:03:00 GMT, "Brian J. Tarricone" wrote:
Yeah, we must all have our crosses to bear. ;) Me being English, will have to wait at least a year before we get to see it.
In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:
How so? We don't wait at least a year before we get to see "Friends".
We might start the season a few months behind, but that's because we get a new episode every week, unlike America. We finish only a few weeks later.
Tennant Stuart
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:31:29 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
Terrestrial TV not E4.
In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:
"Friends" was shown on terrestrial TV *one*day* after it was shown on E4.
Tennant
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:12:24 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
Yeah, but E4 shows the new series before its shown on terrestrial, which is a year after its shown on American TV's.
In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:
No no no Christopher, you're wrong, and you're not listening to me.
E4 shows the new season *ONE*DAY* before it's shown on terrestrial C4.
The delay begins as a few MONTHS not a year, then the Americans have lots of gaps when a rerun is shown; Britain does not, so we catch up. By the end of the season, the delay is a few WEEKS.
Here are the airdates for last season...
NBC (USA) E4 (UK) C4 (UK) Delay (weeks)
901 26-Sep-2002 09-Jan-2003 10-Jan-2003 15
902 03-Oct-2002 09-Jan-2003 10-Jan-2003 14
903 10-Oct-2002 16-Jan-2003 17-Jan-2003 14
904 17-Oct-2002 23-Jan-2003 24-Jan-2003 14
905 31-Oct-2002 30-Jan-2003 31-Jan-2003 13
906 07-Nov-2002 06-Feb-2003 07-Feb-2003 13
907 14-Nov-2002 13-Feb-2003 14-Feb-2003 13
908 21-Nov-2002 20-Feb-2003 21-Feb-2003 13
909 05-Dec-2002 27-Feb-2003 28-Feb-2003 12
910 12-Dec-2002 06-Mar-2003 07-Mar-2003 12
911 09-Jan-2003 06-Mar-2003 07-Mar-2003 8
912 16-Jan-2003 20-Mar-2003 21-Mar-2003 9
913 30-Jan-2003 27-Mar-2003 28-Mar-2003 8
914 06-Feb-2003 03-Apr-2003 04-Apr-2003 8
915 13-Feb-2003 10-Apr-2003 11-Apr-2003 8
916 20-Feb-2003 17-Apr-2003 18-Apr-2003 8
917 13-Mar-2003 24-Apr-2003 25-Apr-2003 6
918 03-Apr-2003 01-May-2003 02-May-2003 4
919 17-Apr-2003 08-May-2003 09-May-2003 3
920 24-Apr-2003 15-May-2003 16-May-2003 3
921 01-May-2003 22-May-2003 23-May-2003 3
922 08-May-2003 29-May-2003 30-May-2003 3
923 15-May-2003 05-Jun-2003 06-Jun-2003 3
924 15-May-2003 12-Jun-2003 13-Jun-2003 4Tennant
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:37:08 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
C4 has changed it's showing schedule then, as I remember with Series 4 - 7 we had to wait nearly a full year before C4 got to show it, as there was no E4 then.
In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:
Nope, these are the airdates of season premieres since S4...
NBC Sky/E4 C4
S4 25-Sep-1997 08-Jan-1998 10-Jul-1998 S5 24-Sep-1998 07-Jan-1999 09-Jul-1999 S6 23-Sep-1999 13-Jan-2000 14-Jul-2000 S7 12-Oct-2000 18-Jan-2001 13-Jul-2001 S8 27-Sep-2001 10-Jan-2002 05-Jul-2002 S9 26-Sep-2002 09-Jan-2003 10-Jan-2003
..the NBC-C4 delay at the beginning is less than 10 months; and as I said before, once the season gets going, NBC starts skipping weeks, then the UK channels catch up quite rapidly. It's never a full year.
Maybe you're thinking of "Star Trek: Enterprise", which is running on C4 at a full year behind the USA; or even "Will & Grace", 2� years behind.
S7 was shown on E4, not Sky.
Tennant
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:19:30 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
Fair enough, it just seems a long time to wait between series if you are restricted to terrestrial TV channels.
In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:
It's still one season per year, wherever you watch.
Tennant
In alt.tv.friends on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 at 17:43:56, Christopher wrote :
Not for S9 - it was shown the day after E4.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:30:32 +0100, Vidcapper wrote:
How long after American TV did E4 show it, and did C4 show episodes as the E4 episides finish or did C4 wait till all the episodes had finished on E4?
In alt.tv.friends on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 at 16:43:05, Christopher wrote :
The gap drops throughout the season - it starts off at 3-4 months, but drops to a couple of weeks by season end.
The former.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:30:06 +0100, Vidcapper wrote:
Cool, that makes a change for the usual C4 arrangement.
In alt.tv.friends on Mon, 13 Oct 2003 at 08:44:16, Christopher wrote :
How come you didn't notice that last season, anyway?
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:22:01 +0100, Vidcapper wrote:
I don't have E4, and couldn't be arsed to get Sky, as Rupert Murdock as enough money without me giving him any more.
In alt.tv.friends on Wed, 15 Oct 2003 at 14:15:49, Christopher wrote :
Fair enough - but how come you didn't notice the new season started on C4 in January, rather than July as previously?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:12:52 +0100, Vidcapper wrote:
Didn't take any notice, as my uni finals were on and I was to busy with them.
In alt.tv.friends on Thu, 16 Oct 2003 at 09:20:55, Christopher wrote :
So you didn't watch S9 then, anyway?
In article , Vidcapper writes
I wonder if E4 will show it later this time, to make up for the fewer new eps, this season?
In article , [email] (hotmamasita) wrote:
I'd agree. To be sure, we don't know what the producers of the spin-off have in mind for the character, but it seems safe to assume it's going to be a sitcom about an actor. Presumably a soap star working in LA. We already know Joey's not married, so he's not going to have a wife and kids, at least not the first year. So either he's going to have housemates, or the sitcom is going to revolve around his work place. Housemates would be more like Friends...
One problem I think is that Joey is sort of the village idiot on Friends. As in: in almost all sitcoms there's a character who is so wacked out or so dumb that the most clueless of audience members can still get the jokes. On Friends, the wacked out one is Phoebe, and the dumb one is Joey. Roughly. (Newsradio - the Andy Dick character; 3rd Rock - the French Stewart character; Seinfeld -- Kramer; etc) That character does not usually make a good lead.
wg
In alt.tv.friends on Tue, 7 Oct 2003 at 10:34:17, hotmamasita wrote :
You're not the only one.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 07:19:34 +0100, Vidcapper wrote:
Wasn't the same thing said about Frasier?