Jackie Chiles gets his own show

     You know, this is the one spinoff that makes real creative sense (other
than carrying Jerry's own character forward with a new supporting cast---since
he still had room to grow and the others were pretty much fully developed). We
know about Jackie, but there's still plenty we still DON'T know about him as
well. A character who is both familiar and leaves a lot of added room for
development, is an ideal focus for a TV series.
     They'll actually have to tone down his out-of-court persona a little to
make sure he doesn't wear too fast...but they can crank him up full blast for
the courtroom scense that'll be part of every episode. Phil Morris is a fine
actor, and he should be able to carry it off.  If it's as consistently well
written as Seinfeld was, this should be one hell of a show...maybe it can be
the breakthrough sitcom every network has been looking for since Jerry and co.
packed it in last year.

Bob Smith, afternoons WXXI-AM 1370, Rochester NY

Conspiracy Theory and Clarification on Jerry and Larry involvement with Jackie Chiles at This Early Stage.

In two parts

1. Remember the end of the Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David interview with Bob Costas in March? Bob asked Jerry if he would do another sit com, and Jerry responded: "Why- just to ruin it all?" And then Larry chimes in with: "Hey, I like that idea- the idea of ruining it all -it's all too perfect" And then Jerry goes: "Yeah, that is attractive." Could it be that we are about to see Larry and Jerry pull the ultimate practical joke- and an expensive one -by issuing the worst show in comedy history? By deliberately building a bomb?

If so-  it will probably backfire on them like the finale did,  and will be so
bad everyone will love it. (By the way-  in the March interview it was clear
that Jerry and Larry are aware of the universal consensus that The Finale
sucked.    Really, they already did 'ruin it all"
  It's ironic-  because Jerry tried to control his own fate, by ending early-
and still it was snatched from him.  It's also a little funny.
  Jerry's stated goal by chosing the date of the show's death,  was to get out
on top-   but he just ended up  commiting horrible public suicide, instead of
dying a graceful natural death.   He didn't go out on top,  he just ended up
scheduling the date and hour for the show's collapse.  (In front of its largest
ever audience-  which is also kind of funny).
  Incidentally it's also ironic, in view of all this that Phil Morris'
performance was the only funny and entertaining part of "The Finale".

2. From Studio Briefing (excerpt) ((parentheticals are mine))

"Today's Washington Post quoted Padnick (Castlerock prexy) as saying that while Seinfeld and David had given their blessing to the show, (Jackie Chiles spin off) they have not agreed to be actively involved with it."

Of course it's likely Jerry and Larry and Castlerock are saying this because they are prepositioning themselves with the usual Byzantine strategic maneuvers typical in Hollywood, and everywhere else in America these days. I can't imagine Jerry and Larry letting their legacy fall into the control of others who might let in lesser talents.

I've thought of something else: The prospect for returns of our favorite foursome--either individually or in various permutations. (Occasionally I find myself wondering if on "Frasier" we might see Sam and Diane finally get married. With the Jackie Chiles show we will have a Jerry and Elaine possibility.)

Just reading the articles from the Globe, I can hear Jackie's voice and inflections in everything Phil Morris was quoted on; I'm rolling on the floor, laughing out load.

I think it's a great idea. Who cares if it flops...at present, most sitcoms on the idiot box don't ever see the light of my picture tube anyway...I'll at least give this a chance.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone out there in T.V. land like Eddie Murphy's "The PJ's" on FOX?

Alexande59 wrote in message ...

star,

will

1989 to

comedy,

BET

time,

said

six

still

"I

interested

the

then

Those

star

this

wouldn't

something

If

Just out of curiosity, does anyone out there in T.V. land like Eddie Murphy's "The PJ's" on FOX?

-I do. I REALLY do. totally underrated i think. no one has really given it a chance. at the same time, i agree with the criticism the show has endured. the people who actually live in public housing probably don't find it that amusing.

I don't find it that bad. It's quite good actually. It's just started in the UK on Sky One in a prime-time-ish slot (Sundays after new Simpsons, 30mins before new X Files).

Whilst we are talking about other TV shows, what about 'Cosby'. Has anyone seen this. It is on in the UK on paramount at 00:30 mon-thur. It is an american version of One Foot In The Grave. It even says "Based on the BBC series 'One Foot in the Grave' ". The episode where his brother comes round to get an honour from a university? 90% of an episode of One Foot!!! Even the jokes were the same.

I believe it isn't doing that well in the US. And why has he got the same on-screen wife as The Cosby Show, even though they are different characters.

Regards,

Robert Faulkner

to mail r/m nospam

In article , rob@tsef[nospam].com (Robert Faulkner) wrote:

I don't understand this. I've watched a few episodes, and I can't see the slightest similarity. The two main characters are nothing like the two characters in One Foot; the neighbour character isn't in it at all; there are at least two *extra* major characters who aren't in the British series at all; the storylines are nothing like a typical One Foot storyline... this is based on only seeing three episodes, but I'd have thought I would have noticed some slight similarity, from a programme which claims to be *based* on One Foot In The Grave.

Ollie