|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 7, 2024 21:08:44 GMT
Nah, you weren't triggered at all. You are the one who made a big deal out of it. I just pointed out that the Cosby Show was being propped up by three other shows that had little diversity. It's like the claim that the A-Team was successful due to Mr. T being in it and not Peppard and the others. It wasn't called The T-Team.
I didn't make a big deal. I proved you wrong, which is incredibly easy to do. All one has to do is post actual facts instead of racially charged fever dreams. Why did they pay Cosby so much if he wasn't the main draw? Why was his show rated #1 for years if nobody actually wanted to watch it? Flash forward a few years and Thursday night on NBC (which featured Friends, Seinfeld and ER, all top ten programs in the ratings) is led off by Mad About You, which was not a top ten show. Can you explain that? If people were just lazily tuning in to Cosby because they were waiting for the shows they really wanted to see, why didn't that trend continue? |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 7, 2024 21:21:14 GMT
You are the one who made a big deal out of it. I just pointed out that the Cosby Show was being propped up by three other shows that had little diversity. It's like the claim that the A-Team was successful due to Mr. T being in it and not Peppard and the others. It wasn't called The T-Team.
I didn't make a big deal. I proved you wrong, which is incredibly easy to do. All one has to do is post actual facts instead of racially charged fever dreams. Why did they pay Cosby so much if he wasn't the main draw? Why was his show rated #1 for years if nobody actually wanted to watch it? Flash forward a few years and Thursday night on NBC (which featured Friends, Seinfeld and ER, all top ten programs in the ratings) is led off by Mad About You, which was not a top ten show. Can you explain that? If people were just lazily tuning in to Cosby because they were waiting for the shows they really wanted to see, why didn't that trend continue? We should start a rock band and call it Racially Charged Fever Dreams |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 7, 2024 21:22:45 GMT
or making Cosby himself the highest paid actor on tv?
Step N Fetch It was a millionaire in the 1930s. Bo Jangles was too.
So--we are to believe--f you believe in the supply-demand myth of Hollywood-- that in the early days of cinema, either white folk were really keen on seeing black dancers and comedians--even more than white ones,
or black audiences had a lot of coin.
Either that or the media companies promoted what they wanted to promote--regardless of audiences because they had financial resources to do that. Subsidies. Big Hollywood can never go out of business because they will channel money from governments if they have to and they also dominate advertising. But they can become so disliked or irrelevant as to be ignored or seen as a nuisance--which is where it is today. The Soviet Union was similar.
In the middle of the Ukrainian famine, and with all the secret police stuff happening--they still had time to morally preach about diversity:
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 7, 2024 21:33:28 GMT
or making Cosby himself the highest paid actor on tv?
Step N Fetch It was a millionaire in the 1930s. Bo Jangles was too.
So--we are to believe--f you believe in the supply-demand myth of Hollywood-- that in the early days of cinema, either white folk were really keen on seeing black dancers and comedians--even more than white ones,
or black audiences had a lot of coin.
Either that or the media companies promoted what they wanted to promote--regardless of audiences because they had financial resources to do that. Subsidies. Big Hollywood can never go out of business because they will channel money from governments if they have to and they also dominate advertising. But they can become so disliked or irrelevant as to be ignored or seen as a nuisance--which is where it is today. The Soviet Union was similar.
In the middle of the Ukrainian famine, and with all the secret police stuff happening--they still had time to morally preach about diversity:
Well, to some extent. Elsewise white folks wouldn't be putting on blackface or doing minstrel shows. I noticed you sidestepped the Jewish question. Who do you mean by "media companies" and "Big Hollywood"? |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 7, 2024 22:03:33 GMT
I didn't make a big deal. I proved you wrong, which is incredibly easy to do. All one has to do is post actual facts instead of racially charged fever dreams. Why did they pay Cosby so much if he wasn't the main draw? Why was his show rated #1 for years if nobody actually wanted to watch it? Flash forward a few years and Thursday night on NBC (which featured Friends, Seinfeld and ER, all top ten programs in the ratings) is led off by Mad About You, which was not a top ten show. Can you explain that? If people were just lazily tuning in to Cosby because they were waiting for the shows they really wanted to see, why didn't that trend continue?
Cosby premiered in 1984 and Cheers and Family Ties and Hill Street blues premiered in 1982--so that means those shows had built in audiences before the Cosby Show. Seinfeld premiered in 1989. The other shows in 1994. Seinfeld was likely propping up those other shows.
So the claim that the Cosby Show was the reason people tuned into Thursday night Must See TV is not reliable. I think most people came into the Cosby show because of the other shows--not primarily because everyone loved Cliff and Theo.
You quoted the alleged popularity of the series by saying the co-stars had big careers outside of it. No they didn't. Lisa Bonet, Malcolm Jamal Warner, etc...what the hell did they do? Woody Harrelson and Michael J Fox had the biggest career boosts out of their shows.
So why didn't they claim Mad About You was as allegedly popular as the Cosby Show? Is that what you are asking?
Because Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt weren't selling Cola or Jello, or promoting multicultural immersion the way the Cosby Show was intended to.
The Cosby Show was a big propaganda event-supposedly Cosby was "America's Dad." TM.
Presenting a wealthy black guy in a stable family who has white patients was some kind of propaganda theme for the owners. Don't ask me to interpret the fine details of that.
They knew Cosby had a reputation for drugging people before the Cosby show was made-the fact that they were not worried about the scandal coming into the open says a lot about media control of the news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 7, 2024 22:16:55 GMT
Well, to some extent. Elsewise white folks wouldn't be putting on blackface or doing minstrel shows. I noticed you sidestepped the Jewish question. Who do you mean by "media companies" and "Big Hollywood"? Yeah the first talking movie--the Jazz Singer--had a blackface image--but it was Al Jolson. Did he identify as white?
Media companies and Big Hollywood--those cultural product companies that dominate and have the capital to keep going no matter how many flops they have. To be contrasted with Walt Disney Co. from the 1960s and before.
Disney was running entirely on its own audience before the 1980s mergers. Once they had merged--they had unlimited money-somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 7, 2024 23:35:24 GMT
I didn't make a big deal. I proved you wrong, which is incredibly easy to do. All one has to do is post actual facts instead of racially charged fever dreams. Why did they pay Cosby so much if he wasn't the main draw? Why was his show rated #1 for years if nobody actually wanted to watch it? Flash forward a few years and Thursday night on NBC (which featured Friends, Seinfeld and ER, all top ten programs in the ratings) is led off by Mad About You, which was not a top ten show. Can you explain that? If people were just lazily tuning in to Cosby because they were waiting for the shows they really wanted to see, why didn't that trend continue?
Cosby premiered in 1984 and Cheers and Family Ties and Hill Street blues premiered in 1982--so that means those shows had built in audiences before the Cosby Show. Seinfeld premiered in 1989. The other shows in 1994. Seinfeld was likely propping up those other shows.
So the claim that the Cosby Show was the reason people tuned into Thursday night Must See TV is not reliable. I think most people came into the Cosby show because of the other shows-
So why didn't they claim Mad About You was as allegedly popular as the Cosby Show? Is that what you are asking?
Because Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt weren't selling Cola or Jello, or promoting multicultural immersion the way the Cosby Show was intended to.
They didn't claim anything, genius. Those are the ratings. So let's get this straight. The other shows were already popular, which is why people tuned in early to watch Cosby? And yet later on, those other incredibly successful Thursday night shows couldn't get people to tune in early to watch Mad About You? Why not? And again, why was Cosby the highest paid actor on tv? Why not have Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt sell soda and jello? Here we go. This is what has you so pissed off. This show had the balls to cast black people in a positive light as a well to do family. That just won't stand in your world. You will literally say anything to try to explain the success of this show as some kind of fluke, fraud or corporate agenda, because the very thought of people tolerating, much less celebrating a black family is too much for your feeble mind to comprehend. You'll use inverse logic, dance around questions you can't answer and make up zany subplots such as NBC giving a shit about jello sales. Hilarious! You can't even make up a way for this bullshit story to make any sense, so you won't bother. Don't ever ask a kook to explain the fine details of a conspiracy theory. It only works if you can't explain it. "For reasons unknown, NBC pissed money away by making Bill Cosby the highest paid actor on tv, despite knowing nobody was actually watching his show. Don't ask me to explain why!" "The shows in the top ten in the ratings were carrying The Cosby Show to the #1 rating the whole time, but a few years later, the shows in the top ten could not carry Mad About You to a top ten finish. Don't ask me to explain why!" You're a trip, man. You really are. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 7, 2024 23:58:04 GMT
Well, to some extent. Elsewise white folks wouldn't be putting on blackface or doing minstrel shows. I noticed you sidestepped the Jewish question. Who do you mean by "media companies" and "Big Hollywood"? Yeah the first talking movie--the Jazz Singer--had a blackface image--but it was Al Jolson. Did he identify as white?
Media companies and Big Hollywood--those cultural product companies that dominate and have the capital to keep going no matter how many flops they have. To be contrasted with Walt Disney Co. from the 1960s and before.
Disney was running entirely on its own audience before the 1980s mergers. Once they had merged--they had unlimited money-somehow.
And are these cultural product companies run by a certain ethnic or religious group by chance? Especially when contrasted with Walt Disney? |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 7, 2024 23:58:29 GMT
"For reasons unknown, NBC pissed money away by making Bill Cosby the highest paid actor on tv, despite knowing nobody was actually watching his show. Hollywood Accounting means "we lie about business."
So if you think Nielsen was ever reliable--there's a bridge to sell you.
I never said people weren't watching the show--it just didn't resonate very much after it ended for being so allegedly popular.
At the time it aired, I assumed there was a large black tv audience--I had no idea it was aimed at white people mainly. Did it cause a lot of black college kids to become pediatricians?
I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 7, 2024 23:59:26 GMT
And are these cultural product companies run by a certain ethnic or religious group by chance? Especially when contrasted with Walt Disney? Wait a minute. Are you saying that certain groups should not be allowed to be represented by media companies? Sure sounds like it! |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 8, 2024 0:07:07 GMT
And are these cultural product companies run by a certain ethnic or religious group by chance? Especially when contrasted with Walt Disney? Wait a minute. Are you saying that certain groups should not be allowed to be represented by media companies? Sure sounds like it! Your restraint in saying what you mean is remarkable. You're talking about Jews: yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Apr 8, 2024 0:11:12 GMT
A lot of rap music seems to have proven an expiry date for how long it's 'dangerous to kids'.
In the 1980's, The Beastie Boys were under the gov't microscope yes?... in 2023, it was the needle drop for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, because family fun.
Joe Lieberman's recent passing made his stances seem quite expired.
Video games too - Mortal Kombat, pretty much akin an R rated movie at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 8, 2024 0:18:17 GMT
Hollywood Accounting means "we lie about business."
So if you think Nielsen was ever reliable--there's a bridge to sell you.
I never said people weren't watching the show--it just didn't resonate very much after it ended for being so allegedly popular.
At the time it aired, I assumed there was a large black tv audience--I had no idea it was aimed at white people mainly. Did it cause a lot of black college kids to become pediatricians?
I don't know.
Translation: "Whatever I don't want to accept as fact, I'll just pretend it isn't true to help myself feel better." You can't even decide on a bullshit story. "Nielsen is unreliable. Also, I never said people weren't watching the show." Which you absolutely were insinuating up until this point. Your entire argument was based on other shows propping up Cosby. But whatever, man. It's a hoot at first, but when you start talking in circles, your act gets tired. The good news is knowing the world will keep moving forward in a progressive manner, pissing you off the whole time. We'll be here to help you work through your multitude of neuroses as best we can. But I need a break for now. Have a better one. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 8, 2024 0:46:06 GMT
Your restraint in saying what you mean is remarkable. You're talking about Jews: yes or no? I am talking about the media companies. The makeup of the ownership is only of importance if one wants to analyze patterns of behavior and taste. If you can show that jewish media owners are fixated on representing black interests (instead of black interests representing themselves) then by all means, go ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 8, 2024 0:49:20 GMT
The good news is knowing the world will keep moving forward in a progressive manner, pissing you off the whole time. But the fact that the Cosby Show is forgotten is not a sign of progress by your definition. It should be well-remembered. The big show of the 80s.
If it is true that black folk don't believe he is guilty that is even worse because it means all those white fans of the show are not talking about it for fear of alienating the women in the case.
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 8, 2024 5:55:30 GMT
Your restraint in saying what you mean is remarkable. You're talking about Jews: yes or no? I am talking about the media companies. The makeup of the ownership is only of importance if one wants to analyze patterns of behavior and taste. If you can show that jewish media owners are fixated on representing black interests (instead of black interests representing themselves) then by all means, go ahead.
 |
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Apr 10, 2024 10:56:48 GMT
Dane Cook - What happened to this guy? He was on the brink to superstardom and then suddenly disappeared! Okay, I'm exaggerating a little bit, and the guy always came over as a bit of a douchebag, but still ...
Mark Wahlberg - He went from being Clooney's best mate in the late 90s to Oscar-nominated actor in the 2000s before his career kind of nosedived in the 2010s.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 10, 2024 13:05:07 GMT
Dudley Moore. All over the place through much of the Eighties, but after his illness (initially misdiagnosed in the press as alcoholism) curtailed his ability to work he pretty much vanished without a trace.
As a footnote to the Prime thing: yeah, he means The Jooz. They're at the root of every rightie conspiracy theory in the known universe. Arguing with him is pointless, because, like matter and energy, intractable stupid is indestructible.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Apr 11, 2024 12:30:42 GMT
George W. Bush. 45, January 6th, & all the rest has pretty much let him walk around in public at least as the doofus he was pre-9/11. Most of the middle east stuff has been tabled on his staff & cabinet, mostly Rumsfeld I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Apr 12, 2024 7:14:09 GMT
Larry King Live? All the dead OJ stuff reminded me how much of a mass cultural portal that show was.
|
|
