> On Oct 4, 12:35 pm, "Starword" <starw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Anyone else see last night's BTY? I would rank it on the level of
"Joey"
> > from 2 seasons ago. A sitcom that had some good acting and some funny
bits
> > here and there, but ultimately fell short. Oddly enough, the ep. even
had a
> > joke on it I remember from "Joey". Not sure why it felt this way, but
last
> > night's ep. seemed to me to strain a lot harder than the first two for
a
> > laugh, and just to come together. Didn't feel like it worked real
well. I
> > wish I could be more positive...I'd love to see Kelsey have another
hit.
On Oct 4, 4:03 pm, manitou <manitou...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Pretty much my thoughts, Nat.
> Kelsey, Patricia and Ty are way better than the material this show
> gives them.
> Part of the problem, at least compared with FRASIER, is the characters
> are nowhere near as intersting and exotic as _all_ the main characters
> for FRASIER were. [snip]
> Charles
I second - sorry, third - those comments. Kelsey, Patty, Fred Willard
and Ty are so professional and so good at comedy they elevate what
otherwise is a run-of-the-mill sitcom to a program I now watch (or
tape) every week. It's the writing that chafes me - overly heavy on
***ual innuendo, predictable and unimaginative. They drag out comic
situations, like last week's goldfish mass slaughter. By contrast
Frasier's comic scenes flash by quickly, then they're into something
new. (There are exceptions, like the wonderful scene of Niles torching
Frasier's couch - they let it run its delightful course.)
But there have only been three (?) episodes so far, so the writing may
improve and the characters may flesh out. Back-stories would help,
aside from Chuck getting fired at his previous station. Here's hoping,
for the sake of that great cast.
|
