"darius" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:36742422015.8554256396.38491@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Rob Jensen <ShutUpRob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:1116491008.695d5d817817876f6a368cb3fa0a6ddd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > And I suppose it didn't occur to Moonves and CBS that the reason that
> > JoA's demos skewed older is because *the damn show was scheduled on
> > one of the two nights of the week where young people are out getting
> > laid." IMO, this is a case where young people weren't avoiding it --
> > they were simply doing what they always do, avoiding *all* TV on
> > Friday nights. In that light, CBS's unwillingness to give JoA a new
> > timeslot on a different night just looks all the more moronic.
>
> well, the timeslot sure didn't help.
No it didn't - but I don't think we can blame the timeslot.
IMHO - JoA was best in the early days esp the first ep, which is very
unusual,
generally speaking, shows get better as they...mature?
for me, the S1 finale was the beginning of the end. I always felt the
direction they
went was more and more away from what drew viewers in the first place,
their attempt to appeal to a wider audience, mostly failed,and actually
turned away many who had been enthusiastic at one time
also, there is the possibility that the premise _was_ just too limiting,
perhaps it was a great idea for a TV movie, or a miniseries, but just not
sustainable for the long haul
Otto<sad in seatle>
I think though that JoA's problem
> is it's stuck in the same no-man's land as Jack and Bobby. They're both
> intelligent and thoughtful shows that mix teen drama with serious and
> potentially off-putting themes. Too serious for kids, but too readily
> overlooked by adults.
|
