Re: "Gilmore Girls" negotiations stall again

In article <f1l0ah$2la$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <2gur33hvlhghj17kkdk7e6mr8j2a37ja80@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>David  <dimlan17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
>>I would argue that athletes are more im****tant to their s****t's
>>success than actors are to a movie's. People go see movies with
>>average actors but only want to watch the world's best athletes. If
>>NFL players go on strike people aren't going to watch scabs or turn to
>>arena football. 
>
>Funny.  I see it just the opposite.  Probably because I enjoy movies and
>TV and think s****ts are stupid (though I certainly see the point that
>actors and athletes are doing the same thing - as one poster put it,
>"entertaining the m*****"), but it certainly seems to me that athletes
>are a lot more interchangeable than are actors.

I am ambivalent about this. I can appreciate a good tennis player or a
good golfer, because I play both, and the professionals are *way* better
than me. I don't act, and shows are much more "team s****ts" than tennis or
golf, but it is intriguing how few actors can do comedy. (I know, dying is
easy, comedy is hard).
I appreciate a show like My Name is Earl because it has four leads who can
do comedy. Most shows can't manage one.

-- 
Edward McArdle