The Game Show Forum > Game Show Channels & Networks
Bob Boden Left!
PeterMarshallFan:
--- Quote ---This is coming from the same person that says I can't make an informed opinion about Bullseye without seeing a civilian episode.
--- End quote ---
No one can draw a complete conclusion about a show without seeing an episode, and the civilian episodes were better than the celeb eps by a longshot.
But considering you've changed your name to "antibullseye," isn't that a little TOO harsh?
clemon79:
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 04:51 PM\']
--- Quote ---This is coming from the same person that says I can't make an informed opinion about Bullseye without seeing a civilian episode.
--- End quote ---
No one can draw a complete conclusion about a show without seeing an episode, and the civilian episodes were better than the celeb eps by a longshot.
But considering you've changed your name to "antibullseye," isn't that a little TOO harsh? [/quote]
I think Don's point is, and I back him up on this, that he is free to come to any conclusion he damn well pleases, whether someone else likes it or not. Now, whether you choose to AGREE with that conclusion, or REJECT it, that is your option.
melman1:
Edited to remove my comments about Bullseye because they aren't really relevant, and quite frankly I can't figure out who's bitching at whom, about what. Never mind.
Don, did you really change your name to antibullseye? Just between us, it might be time to adjust the medication.
Brandon Brooks:
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Dec 12 2003, 06:51 PM\'] No one can draw a complete conclusion about a show without seeing an episode, and the civilian episodes were better than the celeb eps by a longshot.
But considering you've changed your name to "antibullseye," isn't that a little TOO harsh? [/quote]
Yeah, I can... the show's boring. I saw how it was played with celebs, and I didn't like it. Sharper contestants may hold my interest for longer. But that show's just not that interesting to me, and I don't know why.
Brandon Brooks
TimK2003:
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Dec 10 2003, 01:36 PM\']
Because Viacom owns VH-1 and Nickelodeon, which *do* have advertising and *do* make tons of money, Viacom can use those channels as leverage to get cable companies to carry channels like VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS. The existence of the latter two can also be justified as promotional vehicles for, and brand extensions of, the first two. Sony doesn't own lots of different channels (at least here in the USA), and I haven't seen Liberty use its other properties to promote GSN or vice versa -- so it has to justify its own existence, and that means making money through advertising. (Where would Liberty promote GSN, anyway? On Starz/Encore? Doubtful.)
And I wouldn't necessarily count on VH-1 Classic and Nick GAS remaining commercial-free... remember TV Land, also from our friends at Viacom? It was commercial-free at its inception (save for the "Retromercials"), but it isn't now.
[/quote]
The one channel that I am very surprised that it has remained commercial-free since it's onset is Boomerang -- the classic cartoon channel.
And especially now with Time-Warner spinning off some of their properties (AOL and Warner Music), I'm curious to see what happens with that channel....
...But if the addition of 'real' commercials reduces the amount of times I see the same freakin' spots with the marching cartoon figurines to that grandioso fanfare music, that would even make the network a lot more bearable to watch -- not to mention the shows might just start at :00 and :30 on a more predictable schedule.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version