Read More...MLB Network’s exclusive English-language telecast of the 2013 World Baseball Classic in the United States begins this Friday, March 1 at 11:30 p.m. ET and continues with all 39 games of the tournament through the Championship on Tuesday, March 19 at 8:00 p.m. ET. MLB Network’s Bob Costas, Jim Kaat, Joe Magrane, Harold Reynolds, John Smoltz, Matt Vasgersian, Tom Verducci and Matt Yallof are among the group of announcers scheduled to call the tournament, produced by MLB Network in the United ...
Login to Join (0 members)
{/exp:tag:subscribed}Page rendered in 1.2742 seconds, 176 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >BURN!
This is going to be the case for just about any profession portrayed in a sitcom. There have been sitcoms about magazine editors, which is a job I used to have, but they never showed people staring into computer screens all day long, or reading paper manuscripts once in a while to break up the monotony. Then in a moment of real drama, we'd go yell at the art department for giving us space for only 650 words on a feature that had been assigned at 2000. Now those were some highjinks.
The average cable subscriber could see Raymond at least six times a day, so it's exposure may be bigger now than when it was in first run.
I thought the headline was a dated pun about some player named Raymond who's underrated by the media. I didn't think there was any way the article was actually about the show. I can't wait for the follow-ups "NBA Players not Hangin' with Mr. Cooper" or "Who's the Boss? Not Tony Micelli, baseball players say."
"Minor league ballplayers don't always Blossom into Joey Lawrence-type prospects."
I think it was significantly overrated, but the supporting cast -- one note ponies though they were -- was good at what they were to supposed to be (namely, be the cranky Ralph Kramden-as-a-senior father, the doofus younger brother with insecurity issues, and the overbearing mother).
I don't think I ever watched a first-run episode, but I'll admit to occasionally not minding it on as background noise in syndication.
My take is that not only is Ray not much of a working sportswriter -- it's also a got a bit of a "Friends"-vibe in that HTF does a guy on a sportswriter's salary support 3(?) kids and a stayhome mom on Long Island?
Other than that, like most sitcoms of its particular type, all the background is really just scenery for the standup comic lead to do his act -- and from that perspective, it's not half-bad.... Seinfeld was better, but then I think Jerry Seinfeld's act is just funnier.
--an episode where he's trying to get free time to interview Terry Bradshaw about ghostwriting something for him, but has problems getting the chance to do so from home because of distractions.
--an episode where he's sent to cover the Iditarod and calls home from a snowy Alaska.
--an episode where he's going to cover the Super Bowl but has problems deciding which from a limited number of friends/relatives to pick to go along.
--an episode where he's giving love advice to his nerdy sportswriter friend on how to get women interested in him. They're sitting in what looks like some sort of area set aside for the press to gather that looks like it overlooks a stadium.
But yeah, there wasn't much else in this long-running series that I remember that gave much impression he was a sportswriter.
I guess. It just always seemed so depressing to me, like everyone in this family hated each other. And insular. Every time I saw it one, they were in that damn kitchen. Did they ever leave the house?
Heh... well, that was pretty much Arrested Development's schtick, too -- and I will brook no ill words against it. Of course, Michael Bluth was quite often seen 'working', so maybe that rescued it.
Sometimes they went to Cheers. Wait, that's not right.
I'm pretty sure he was supposed to be a columnist, in part because he wrote about the Yankees and Kristi Yamaguchi and Terry Bradshaw.
But I find it hard to think his life as a sportswriter was the unbelievable aspect someone would focus on. That he was a father of three young kids that were visible only once every six episodes was a bit more noticable.
There were some episodes where they shot scenes at "work", which was usually either a stadium or a newsroom of some sort. Also, a couple of episodes where he won or was nominated for awards for sportswriting.
He was a columnist, so YMMV as to how much time he actually needed to spend at the park/office. I would say he was seeing writing about as much as Harry Anderson was seen writing on Dave's World, which is to say, not much. Watching someone write doesn't necessarily make for good TV, I guess unless you're Dick van Dyke.
I think the earlier episodes were more focused on the kids, but they were such bad actors, and Boyle/Roberts/Garrett were so good, that the focus of the show understandably shifted quickly.
Which is pretty standard sitcom stuff since the days of the Honeymooners. Big doofus of a husband married to a beautiful woman who has to put up with all his stupidity.
That whole era of sitcoms, followed that same script(yes I saw McCoy's point) I like sitcoms, I think they are perfectly cromulent background material, and once in a while actually interesting enough to focus attention on, and at the same time, not so engrossing, that if I have to do something, I feel like I'm missing out on something. But that time frame (where you had King of Queens, Frasier, According to Jim etc) was a poor time for sitcoms. It's like they wanted to combine the crappy human beings from Seinfeld/Frasier and mix it into a sitcom that evokes Roseanne, and it ended up producing bland sitcoms, where you as the viewer couldn't fathom how in the heck was this couple still together, at least Married with Children had the absurdist aspect of the show, that pretty much made it easy for you to suspend your disbelief. Roseanne worked, because all the main characters were ultimately decent people that you somewhat rooted for.
Yes, I would love to be able to show up in court or at a deposition, with no preparation work (reading through hundreds if not thousands of pages of documents, legal research, witness interviews etc), just completely wing it- and yet still elicit that Perry Mason type moment every single time...
WRT that Raymond show- the supporting cast- Mother, Father, Younger Brother, were very good- I wouldn't want them to be my family- but entertaining, basically they carried Romano who is an unfunny one trick pony, his wife, played by Heaton- well that was a terrible character, I'm not sure anyone could play her as written, in an entertaining or sympathetic fashion - I assume her character was written to generate sympathy for Ray's character...
Plus Romano is an absolutely awful actor- Seinfeld is a "stiff," but he makes it work- in the show within a show episodes they even made fun of that fact- Romano can't seem to come across as anything other than a whiny moper- ever see Welcome to Mooseport? It's interesting in a slo mo trainwreck kind of way- Gene Hackman is actually pretty decent - but Ray Romano- who "acts" in a fashion that indistinguishable to his ELR character, just sucks the life out of every single scene he's in
I think this demonstrates the power of sit-coms. Pretty much all my relationships have followed that pattern, (including the abrupt series cancellations!) mostly because I have difficulty imaging any other way to operate. Similarly, all of my friendships are fairly closely modeled on those of "Seinfeld".
They really work with a low bar over there. You consider the show to be good despite having run out of material after its first season, which consisted of 7 episodes.
I said Chef's first season was pretty good. I did not say the whole show over its entire run was pretty good.
ftfy
In the early days they would open with Seinfeld on stage and I believe close with him on stage as well. I can't recall how long they stuck with that setup.
Plus they had several shows where he is going to a show or coming back from a show or is at the place he was going to do the show.
I think by midway through the show the deal was supposed to be that he was already pretty successful (bought dad the Cadillac and all).
First four or so seasons before they abandoned it in favor of the cold open. It seemed like they made fewer references to Jerry's stand-up w/r/t him actually working in later seasons, but I thought they skirted it believably by acknowledging that he was a pretty successful stand-up (within the realm of the show) that he was compensated very well when he did perform. You'll recall that episode where he buys his dad the Cadillac with the money he made from a weekend gig. Granted, that was implied to be an anomaly of a pay-off, but the ensuing storyline with Elaine showing gold-digging tendencies toward Jerry hinted that he made good money. I always kind of took that to mean he didn't need to be out there every night, grinding away his act in front of a bunch of drunks.
"Raymond" was a well-done series, but, like "Friends," it simply never appealed to me. "Seinfeld" at least had some bite to it, and as sitcoms go, "Frasier" was charming and erudite. (When "Hot In Cleveland" returns, watch Jane Leeves portray the sexy antithesis of her demure "Frasier" character; like the rest of that show's ensemble, she's terrific.)
I know, I suck.
I would say Raymond had some bite to it. The family members were legitimately pretty awful, and they didn't feel the need to tack "but we all still love each other" feel-good crap at the end of each episode.
I seem to remember them saying he was on Letterman or whatever the NBC late night show at the time was as an indicator of his popularity.
they did regular bits about him being ont he tonight show. His parents came and visited him in the dressing room, etc
England has a some politics workplace shows that we don't really have, where the interaction between civil servants and political appointees provides the backdrop of the show.
Page 1 of 6 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.