or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 30 Rock in HDTV on NBC!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

30 Rock in HDTV on NBC! - Page 3

post #61 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by ressom View Post


As far as 20GY's... if you have to do a nut-shot to get a laugh in the first 2 minutes of the show, you know it is going to be bad.

It was funny 25 years ago on Caddyshack and has been the "save all" for bad shows/writing/acting ever since then.

Enough with the "nut-shots". I want more gas noises
post #62 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv2chill View Post

Count me in the (apparently tiny) minority that loved it. Even though Arrested Development raised my sitcom bar impossibly out-of-reach for other shows, I still think there is quite a lot of potential in this one. The cast is just great, and I hope they get a chance at a full season to flesh out these characters.

I never did get the Arrested Development thing.

I tried a few times but just fell asleep. Really, I'm not trying to be mean here.

I was really glad when it was gone(twice), I was tired of hearing about it.

must be a "Hollywood" thing.
post #63 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Keep on topic. Personal comments will result in suspensions & ultimately, loss of the ability to participate at AVS.

Ouch!

Stay on topic......STAY ON TOPIC....

I loved Alias!!!


No, NO... 30 Rock, disappointing, yes, disappointing.
post #64 of 1183
I guess I went in with low expectations on the DVR last night after all the bashing on this thread, and was pleasantly surprised. I found it mildly amusing but with potential.
Certainly didn't seem as bad as some made it out to be. If I can stick with the god awful Lucky Louie for 2 months, I can give this another few weeks....

My biggest knock is that I don't like Tracy Morgan.
post #65 of 1183
If you don't like this show, don't let the door bang... Oh sorry I thought this was the "Lost" thread.

The extended lunch with Tracy Morgan was mediocre, but I loved the rest. I actually laughed out loud several times.

After the "five inches line", I thought we were going to get a "You have spunk. I hate spunk." bit, but instead, the brilliant putdown: "I like you. You have the boldness of a much younger woman."
post #66 of 1183
The guy is definitely polarizing, but love him or hate him you have to admit that Alec Baldwin has great comedic delivery. His SNL Schwetty Balls bit was classic. His stuff in the promo piece for the pilot ep was what made me decide to watch the show...


ron
post #67 of 1183
Not sure I get what is "polarizing" about great comedic delivery, unless you think that there might be those who would rise up to challenge that assertion. I would not be among them, Baldwin is great. Dramatically as well.
post #68 of 1183
I was thinking of him in his personal life. Some people do not seem to like him as a person.


ron
post #69 of 1183
I'm guessing "polarizing" outside of his acting work for his outspoken politics?

No doubt...I'm a huge Baldwin fan. He's probably the biggest reason I'm giving this show a chance at all on my already clogged DVR...even with mediocre material he can kill.
post #70 of 1183
Personally, I like the man greatly -- just saw him the other night on Conan. He is personable, funny, direct, able to laugh at himself but you sense great formidability in his presence -- he works on alot of levels. If someone prevents themselves from appreciating the gift he brings to entertainment over something lying outside that consideration, so much the narrower and bleak are their lives.
post #71 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaych View Post

...If someone prevents themselves from appreciating the gift he brings to entertainment over something lying outside that consideration, so much the narrower and bleak are their lives.

There is no possible way to answer this truthfully with explanation without incurring the ever-growing intolerance of forum moderation and threats of banishment. So, I'll simply say I concur with the second (unquoted) sentence of your post, but find the following (quoted) summary to be either naive or have a narrow-minded viewpoint. And I know from the intelligence of your many posts you are absolutely not naive.
post #72 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

There is no possible way to answer this truthfully with explanation without incurring the ever-growing intolerance of forum moderation and threats of banishment. So, I'll simply say I concur with the second (unquoted) sentence of your post, but find the following (quoted) summary to be either naive or have a narrow-minded viewpoint. And I know from the intelligence of your many posts you are absolutely not naive.

HEY! How am I supposed to make unchallenged pronouncements which make me appear quite self-possessed and brilliant (therefore unassailable), if you keep patrolling these boards?!!
post #73 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emaych View Post

Personally, I like the man greatly -- just saw him the other night on Conan. He is personable, funny, direct, able to laugh at himself but you sense great formidability in his presence -- he works on alot of levels. If someone prevents themselves from appreciating the gift he brings to entertainment over something lying outside that consideration, so much the narrower and bleak are their lives.

I usually like all of the acting work he does as well. Too bad he's a wife-beater cause unfortunately that does stick in my mind everytime I see him...
post #74 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpennin30 View Post

I usually like all of the acting work he does as well. Too bad he's a wife-beater cause unfortunately that does stick in my mind everytime I see him...

Don't believe everything you read. There's two sides to every story, and in the case of high-profile celebrities, you're never going to hear all the details.

He's a very smart guy, and very outspoken in his beliefs, which I find quite refreshing. If more people with high visibility weren't afraid to speak truth to power, things might look a little different right now. And, no question, he's a terrific actor.
post #75 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by R11 View Post

I was thinking of him in his personal life. Some people do not seem to like him as a person.

ron

I don't like him as a person on many levels.

As an actor though, that is a different story. And he is, to me at least, just about the lone bright spot in "30 Rock".

If we only appreciate artists whose personal life, political views, social outlook or readiung habits we agree with, we could find a very small number of them to enjoy.
post #76 of 1183
I thought it was mediocre, but my wife's comment was "but it seems better than Studio 60"...

Hong.
post #77 of 1183
OK.I hated it. But I did "get it". Why do you guys who liked it, seem to think those of us who didn't, missed the joke? We got the joke but the joke just wasn't funny.
post #78 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

I don't like him as a person on many levels.

As an actor though, that is a different story. And he is, to me at least, just about the lone bright spot in "30 Rock".

If we only appreciate artists whose personal life, political views, social outlook or readiung habits we agree with, we could find a very small number of them to enjoy.

I totally agree fred, which is why I posted that, while I don't generally like Baldwin, I found him to be the best thing about 30 Rock. There's no denying he has comic talent. And I often watch actors I don't personally like or agree with. But sometimes you can draw a line of protest and not watch despite the talent (not the case for me in this instance) - these public actors occasionally cross lines that they themselves openly criticize in others (Baldwin once called for the "stoning" of Rep H. Hyde during the Clinton impeachment as I recall, simply because he disagreed politically with Hyde - an example). So, if some people take a position that they will not support an actor's work out of whatever principle, that is their right. Just like the actor has the right to openly make controversial statements, realizing he may jeopardize his appeal to some part of his audience. Both sides make a judgment and who's to say who is right?

emaych = succinct, on target and well said. Quite a combination for you!
post #79 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

emaych = succinct, on target and well said. Quite a combination for you!

Just do not grow accustomed to such concision! -- I literally had about two minutes to throw that response up before bounding out of the house, hence the uncharacteristic brevity. Ordinarily I will prefer to allow grand expanses of time to unspool to allow maximum discursive meanderings full opportunity to find fruition.


Yeah, certainly any individual can register their disapproval of a public figure with something of a boycott protest -- that is as American as America gets I suppose. I personally might have a problem venturing anything that would assist in the advancement of OJ's good fortune, and generally find the folks willing to profit from the singular morbid circus spectacle OJ can lend to a media event, somewhat appalling and reprehensible, but Baldwin calling for stoning someone? Come on.

No one can seriously believe that Alec Baldwin was advocating a public execution through a return to cruel and unusual New Testament techniques. You might call his jesting hyperbole (if he even said such a thing), in bad taste or ill-advised given that he is a public figure and in consideration of his respected status and the fact that there are crazies out there who might act on even absurd suggestions, but to bristle and fume that that possible impropriety rises to a level surpassing even the relatively tepid "ill-advised," I would call an extreme over-reaction.

In any event, it would seem you have not taken this stance vis a vis Baldwin, which I might adduce as evidence of your eminent level-headedness, flint350.
post #80 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by emaych View Post

...(if he even said such a thing)...

He did say it and was applauded/cheered (not laughed at or giggled at- it was taken seriously by some) and he in no way indicated it was jest. There are other examples, but you get the idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emaych View Post

...in bad taste or ill-advised given that he is a public figure and in consideration of his respected status and the fact that there are crazies out there who might act on even absurd suggestions

That's the point. I don't suggest he truly meant to stone Hyde to death. Still, he should/does recognize celebrity influence and still willingly crossed that line in a very inflammatory way. Hence, some may decide to disagree with him by not watching him or supporting his rich lifestyle - not an untenable or even unreasonable stance in my view, despite your initial postulation to the contrary. Why fame and celebrity are seen as lending substantive credibility in non-related matters has always intrigued me - beyond the simple explanation that those so affected are less...substantive.

Nonetheless, he was the best thing in 30 Rock, without question. And often is similarly good on SNL. And yes, I watched and enjoyed the performance, despite my misgivings on his "outside" life.
post #81 of 1183
Now I adore Tina Fey. I am not Alec Baldwin fan but after watching this I have to say the only funny thing about the show was Alec Baldwin.
post #82 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

He did say it....some may decide to disagree with him by not watching him or supporting his rich lifestyle - not an untenable or even unreasonable stance in my view, despite your initial postulation to the contrary.

Now here is where I must take exception to your attribution. What I said was (post 70):

"If someone prevents themselves from appreciating the gift he brings to entertainment over something lying outside that consideration, so much the narrower and bleak are their lives."

This merely asserts that in my view, those whose moral or principled stance impels them to banish Baldwin from their entertainment prospectus, even were this stance and resultant excommunication quite understandable, justifiable -- maybe downright admirable -- are rendering their lives just a little less rich, as they are missing out on his considerable entertainment gifts.

In that, there is no judgment rendered one way or another on the position they take, it only addresses my postulation as to the byproduct of Baldwin privation -- a life which is by just that perhaps infinitesimal measure (in the grand scheme of things), a little less full.

I thought you must have misread that by your first response, but I see we are not that far apart on this one -- the only substantive distinction being that I find I am mostly alarmed at the rantings of folks of a conservative bent along the lines of the Hyde comment -- O'Rielly railing on a professor or judge, "religious" elements unleashing the most vindictive and corrosive condemnations of Doctors performing certain procedures -- there was in fact at least one notable incident where inflammatory rhetoric did seem to lead more or less directly to murder, so the danger is definitely out there, but I somehow find those cases much more serious than the Baldwin comment.
post #83 of 1183
What a disapointment. I was hoping for a really funny show - but this was terrible.
When Tracy Morgan tries to be funny he just ends up being stupid.
post #84 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emaych View Post

Now here is where I must take exception to your attribution. What I said was (post 70): ... but I somehow find those cases much more serious than the Baldwin comment.

you're trying too hard...
post #85 of 1183
OK the show was pretty mediocre and not particularly funny. But I think Tina Fey is cute so I'll keep watching it like an idiot. Alec Baldwin's performance reminds me a little bit of his intense character in "Glengarry Glenn Ross".
post #86 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie_d_lopez View Post

you're trying too hard...

That's the trademark, or you not been payin ttenshun?
post #87 of 1183
emaych,

"...rendering their lives just a little less rich" vs. "...so much the narrower and bleak are their lives" is the defining line I see and find quantatively different - thus my continued disagreement. Missing the "entertainment" value of 1 B-list actor in your life (if one went to that extreme) could be considered trivial or "a little less rich", but far from narrow and bleak - as compared to suggestions (intended or not) of violent acts of death to a man and his children (how that is trumped by O'Reilly/religion, etc, I'm not sure - violent death is pretty total and final). Also, just curious, but would your opinion change at all if the offending words were racist, sexist, misogynistic or the polar opposite political view? Likely not worth dwelling on as we don't disagree much, just matters of degree and even semantics.
post #88 of 1183
Acknowledged: the semantic softening for enhanced access to message. However, "so much the narrower and bleak," should never be confused with "narrow and bleak." It is the "so much the..." modifier which renders the statement one of degree -- possibly even negligible. But also too, I would assume someone willing to boycott a Baldwin might be inclined to draw boundaries on a good deal of our fertile cultural product, entertainment and otherwise, which might then at a point be rather more indicative of narrow and bleak.

As to publicly calling for the death of someone of merely opposing persuasion, I think generally the humorous value of that is limited enough to be the kind of thing one should avoid. It probably does coarsen the debate on some level and certainly leaves a little bad taste in my mouth. If Baldwin said such a thing, then the context is known to be for pointed humorous effect, therefore we may be amused or unamused, or disappointed, but anything beyond that I think would just be so much faux umbrage.

I think the reason a good O'Rielly rant seems more threatening is that he purports to be serious. Now you and I and others of refined sensibilities may easily recognize the schtick O'Rielly is performing nightly, and it does have its certain charms, but when he intimates that children are in imminent peril if a certain judge were to sit on the bench one day longer, he can be very shrill and seeming to appeal to a mob mentality to rise up.

Of course religious groups do in fact even up the ante on that and call people murderers. The political left has its radicals as well of course, who may call animal experiments torture performed by the most abominable sadists who must be stopped by ANY means.

That type of thing does not echo or reflect the type of off-handed type pseudo-nasty jest attributed to Baldwin, it is of another genus altogether. And to answer how I react to racism, sexism, misogyny -- I'm all for 'em! -- in a humorous context of course.

The operative element here is intention and effect -- I, for the most part, might applaud those who JOKE of such things -- always happy to see those issues shed taboo status through the elucidation of humor -- humor would be the active ingredient missing from the examples adduced above. But when Limbaugh mocks FemiNazis for instance, I find that perfectly fun.

Grant it is a sensitive tightrope to walk, I'm not likely I suppose to find alot of it funny, maybe because it seems kindof obvious, possibly a little juvenile, probably a one-note approach, like Lisa Lampenelli's act, but I appreciate that it is cast out into the light of day. Sometimes I'm sure it is done crudely or even seems to represent the actual sentiments of the presenter, and sometimes we are uneasy if we are unsure, as with Sarah Silverman (is that her name?)

There is a noted conservative commentator who has shone the spotlight on a seemingly growing phenomenon of feigned outrage. I would call the overreaction to Baldwin of that variety, and I agree, overblown bogus offense-taking is occupying an increasingly prominent place in our body politic, and I generally abhor grandstanding insincere pronouncements done for effect or to inflame -- not particularly helpful.
post #89 of 1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emaych View Post

That's the trademark, or you not been payin ttenshun?

no, I've noticed your crap in the past, it's just in that particular post, it was noticeably more crappy...
post #90 of 1183
Thread Starter 
Well this thread is gotten out of hand, who the hell started this thing anyway.

Cnn.com has a link to an interview with Tina Fey where she talks about the GE tie-in.

in the premiere, she had Donaghy (who introduces himself as the new Vice President of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming) present a sales pitch to Liz for "his" breakthrough, the Trivection oven -- a real-life GE appliance. Much of his spiel, which sounds preposterous thanks to Baldwin's droll delivery, was taken word-for-word from the real-life GE Web site.

No, this wasn't a strategic marketing ploy, Fey says.

"I was trolling GE's Web Site when I was writing," she recalls, "trying to figure out where this guy's area of expertise was. I found that oven in there, and I liked it. There was no GE product integration -- it was all done without their knowledge. Though now, maybe somebody's taking credit for it."

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 30 Rock in HDTV on NBC!