# ABC announces mid-season schedule



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Winter Wipeout" will replace the failed series "Charlie's Angels" until March 15 when "Missing," the new 13-episode drama starring Ashley Judd will premier.

On Tuesday, January 3, the comedy "Work It" replace "Man Up" which has had poor ratings.

And on Sunday at 10:00 "GCB", aka "Good Christian Belles" will replace "Pan Am."

The mid-season premiers schedule looks like this:

*Monday, January 2*
8:00 The Bachelor

*Tuesday, January 3*
8:30 "Work It"
9:00 "Celebrity Wife Swap"

*Thursday, January 5*
8:00 "Winter Wipeout"
*
Friday, February 3*
8:00 "Shark Tank"

*Tuesday, February 7*
9:00 "The River"

*Sunday, March 4*
10:00 "GCB"

*Thursday, March 15*
8:00 "Missing"

*Monday, March 19*
8:00 "Dancing with the Stars"

*Tuesday, March 27*
9:00 "Dancing with the Stars the Results Show"

But there are some puzzles. "Cougar Town" is missing. And so are newbies, including Shonda Rhimes' political drama "Scandal" starring Kerry Washington and "Apartment 23" starring Krysten Ritter, Dreama Walker and James Van Der Beek.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

'Charlies Angels' was on ABC? From the quality of the show, I thought it was NBC.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

I thought it was "Good Christian *****es"? Not surprised Pan Am will be gone though.

I was looking forward to the return of Cougar Town and Apartment 23, which I had heard got its name changed back to "Don't trust the ***** in apartment 23" but censored like "$*@% My Dad Says" was.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

So, is PanAm cancelled or just in between seasons?


----------



## BosFan (Sep 28, 2009)

I like Pan Am, I can certainly live without it but hope it stays on for a little while.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I thought it was "Good Christian *****es"? Not surprised Pan Am will be gone though.





SayWhat? said:


> So, is PanAm cancelled or just in between seasons?


 From TheWrap via Reuters:


> ABC announced its midseason premiere schedule Friday, revealing that the new series "GCB" (short for "Good Christian Belles," originally "Good Christian *****es") will occupy the slot following "Desperate Housewives," debuting Sunday, March 4 at 10 p.m.
> 
> ...As for "Pan Am," an ABC spokesperson told TheWrap that the series is "still in production -- it will continue filming and we plan on airing all the episodes."


Apparently this is the new way things get canceled. They show the episodes they've ordered and then go on hiatus until never. TVby theNumbers says:


> ...Pan Am will get one additional episode ordered in addition to the 13 originally ordered for this season.... There's at least one site out there that incredulously quoted ABC as noting that Pan Am was "technically being considered for a second season". I wonder if that line was delivered with a straight face.


Regarding the name of "GBC" the show is based on a book "Good Christian *****es".



RunnerFL said:


> I was looking forward to the return of Cougar Town and Apartment 23, which I had heard got its name changed back to "Don't trust the ***** in apartment 23" but censored like "$*@% My Dad Says" was.


TVby theNumbers says:


> No mention of Scandal or Apartment 23 (also entitled The B**** in Apartment 23), both of which were in ABC's original 2011-12 season line up announcement. No news is unlikely to be good news in this case, but we will have to wait and see.


Variety says the name of the show is "Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23" which will probably become "DTTBIA23".:sure:

Regarding "Cougar Town", James Hibbard of Inside TV says:


> ...Now comes word that the comedy's episode order has been reduced from 22 to 15 half hours this season.
> 
> ABC has been fortunate enough to have launched a couple successful new comedies in the fall, with Suburgatory doing really well and Last Man Standing performing okay. The bigger surprise has been last season's midseason effort Happy Endings, which grew into a solid partner for Modern Family - in Cougar Town's 9:30 p.m. slot.
> 
> Insiders say the reduction is all about managing their inventory needs, and not a slight against the show, and it's true enough that if Cougar Town performs strong for its 15 episode order when it finally does return sometime this season, ABC wouldn't be shy about ordering more.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

phrelin said:


> "Winter Wipeout" will replace the failed series "Charlie's Angels" until March 15 when "Missing," the new 13-episode drama starring Ashley Judd will premier.
> 
> On Tuesday, January 3, the comedy "Work It" replace "Man Up" which has had poor ratings.
> 
> ...


The Bachelor again? Same ole, same ole...some hot stud picks a gorgeous chick, they "fall in love" (cough, cough), then months later we read about in _People _magazine their drama-filled breakup. Puh-leeze! 

Kinda like that Southwest pilot Jake two Januarys ago who just couldn't stick with a girl to save his life. Uh, probably because he's *gay *(or so sayeth a bunch of gals and others with "inside" knowledge). :eek2: :lol:


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

*MISSING INFO*

You can watch the promo for Missing on YouTube, though Ashley Jubb sounds like she's half asleep while reading her lines. If you're willing to sit through a 30 minute panel discussion with Ashley and the production team, you might find this YouTube video interesting. Sounds like all 10 episodes were already done back in the summer.

It sounds like the show has been designed and packaged to be international-sales friendly, something often done in films, but rarely for TV shows.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> From TheWrap via Reuters: Apparently this is the new way things get canceled. They show the episodes they've ordered and then go on hiatus until never. TVby theNumbers says: Regarding the name of "GBC" the show is based on a book "Good Christian *****es".
> 
> TVby theNumbers says:Variety says the name of the show is "Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23" which will probably become "DTTBIA23".:sure:
> 
> Regarding "Cougar Town", James Hibbard of Inside TV says:


hmmmm, all very interesting. Thanks for the info Phrelin.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

It's strange that the Cougar Town cast is doing all the walk-ons on other shows (I saw the blonde chick on the last episode of Happy Endings - weird since that show might have kicked them to the curb), and then gets their episode number reduced.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

At least the kids have Winter WipeOut to look forward to.

As for the rest of the ABC line-up, I pass!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> It's strange that the Cougar Town cast is doing all the walk-ons on other shows (I saw the blonde chick on the last episode of Happy Endings - weird since that show might have kicked them to the curb), and then gets their episode number reduced.


She's been in the background on other shows too. She, and the kid from Cougar Town, were in the crowd of an episode of Community last year. And Abed, from Community, was in the background of a Cougar Town episode too.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Yes, the entire cast of Cougar Town will be on many shows as extras.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

TVline.com is big fans of Cougar Town and Community and has an article listing all the recent appearances of Cougar Town on other shows, with photos.

Cougar Town is one of my favorite shows, so I'm not happy it will be delayed. When it comes back, though, don't look for it to still be called Cougar Town. Even though they had fun playing with the stupid name during the show credits it's supposed to be renamed for the next season...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> Cougar Town is one of my favorite shows, so I'm not happy it will be delayed. When it comes back, though, don't look for it to still be called Cougar Town. Even though they had fun playing with the stupid name during the show credits it's supposed to be renamed for the next season...


ABC isn't letting them rename it, that's why they make fun of themselves in the opening credits. It's also what they get for picking a name that went with a story line and then dropping that story line, but I can live with it.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> ABC isn't letting them rename it, that's why they make fun of themselves in the opening credits. It's also what they get for picking a name that went with a story line and then dropping that story line, but I can live with it.


I haven't read anything recent about the name change, but as of early September Bill Lawrence and company were still planning on changing the name.

http://www.tvline.com/2011/09/cougar-town-name-change-for-season-3/


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I haven't read anything recent about the name change, but as of early September Bill Lawrence and company were still planning on changing the name.
> 
> http://www.tvline.com/2011/09/cougar-town-name-change-for-season-3/


Last year one of the opening titles said something like "We're not allowed to be anything but Cougar Town" or "We're not allowed to change our name from Cougar Town". Then sometime last month I read an article that was an interview with Courtney Cox and she said it would still be Cougar Town per ABC's request. Apparently all the new suggested titles were denied by ABC. She wants it to be "Friends With Beverages". I guess she's still clinging on to Friends. :lol:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Last year one of the opening titles said something like "We're not allowed to be anything but Cougar Town" or "We're not allowed to change our name from Cougar Town". Then sometime last month I read an article that was an interview with Courtney Cox and she said it would still be Cougar Town per ABC's request. Apparently all the new suggested titles were denied by ABC. She wants it to be "Friends With Beverages". I guess she's still clinging on to Friends. :lol:


Yeah, I'd be OK with that! I love the title "Friends with Beverages" - it's a great take on the "with Benefits" glut of titles, so it's both funny and appropriate for this show!

Too bad ABC got cold feet on it. I guess they're worried that if they change the name people won't find it again? Oh wait, this is the same company that is delaying it's next season until who knows when...go figure!


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Okay, here's the plan - tomorrow night at 8:29 pm, 7:29 central we all make absolutely positively sure no one is tuned to ABC. Whatever you do, avoid this channel at all costs - you could burn your eyes out or your brain might even explode.

Don't say you haven't been warned.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

mreposter said:


> Okay, here's the plan - tomorrow night at 8:29 pm, 7:29 central we all make absolutely positively sure no one is tuned to ABC. Whatever you do, avoid this channel at all costs - you could burn your eyes out or your brain might even explode.
> 
> Don't say you haven't been warned.


I keep thinking Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis in Billy Wilder's "Some Like It Hot" (1959). Perhaps I have too high expectations?:sure:


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

mreposter said:


> Okay, here's the plan - tomorrow night at 8:29 pm, 7:29 central we all make absolutely positively sure no one is tuned to ABC. Whatever you do, avoid this channel at all costs - you could burn your eyes out or your brain might even explode.
> 
> Don't say you haven't been warned.


At that time, all networks will be running election coverage of the Iowa caucuses.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

According to the ABC website, this is what's on at 8:30 tonight:


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

mreposter said:


> According to the ABC website, this is what's on at 8:30 tonight:


It's just the new version of Bosom Buddies, nothing to fear.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

phrelin said:


> But there are some puzzles. "Cougar Town" is missing.


First thing I looked for and it was not there.


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

Before I left Australia, 7 Network was running promos for GCB and calling it "Good Christian *****es". They're a little less concerned with being PC there 

I love Cougar Town and wouldn't mind the change to "Friends with Beverages". I had to rely on my Apple TV to watch it down there. 7 had the rights to air the show but it didn't catch on. They didn't even give it a shot on their digital subchannels like the networks there tend to do for shows they don't feel will fit on the main channel.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Brace yourselves... *Work It* has been cancelled after two episodes.
Another tragedy of epic proportions 

And sadly, NBC would kill for the ratings this show got...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

mreposter said:


> Brace yourselves... *Work It* has been cancelled after two episodes.
> Another tragedy of epic proportions
> 
> And sadly, NBC would kill for the ratings this show got...


Man, and I found the show to be hilarious. It's one of the few shows, maybe 3, that I actually was laughing out loud at.

Looks like Cougar Town is coming back after all and they can quit putting their actors on other ABC shows. :lol:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Man, and I found the show to be hilarious. It's one of the few shows, maybe 3, that I actually was laughing out loud at.
> 
> Looks like Cougar Town is coming back after all and they can quit putting their actors on other ABC shows. :lol:


Yes we laughed out loud also but I knew that "2 Cross-dressing Men, One a Puerto Rican" was never going to survive on broadcast TV. It offends too many sensibilities and to put it after Tim Allen, well I'm not sure his viewers will even carry well into "Cougar Town."

It took a lot of courage for Amaury Nolasco and Benjamin Koldyke to take on those roles and "Work It" had a good cast and comedy writing.

On the other hand, nothing is going to get great ratings opposite "NCIS" and Fox has slated in March to air a new season of "Breaking In" with Christian Slater, Bret Harrison and new series regular Megan Mullally at that sitcom death time slot. Since nobody will remember "Breaking In" very well, it might draw a viewer or two away from "Cougar Town" if Fox promos it well during "AI" and hires some new writers.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Yes we laughed out loud also but I knew that "2 Cross-dressing Men, One a Puerto Rican" was never going to survive on broadcast TV. It offends too many sensibilities and to put it after Tim Allen, well I'm not sure his viewers will even carry well into "Cougar Town."


I have to disagree there. Bosom Buddies was a huge hit in the 80's and it featured 2 cross-dressing men. It lasted several years and launched the careers of several people, one of them being Tom Hanks.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

"RunnerFL" said:


> I have to disagree there. Bosom Buddies was a huge hit in the 80's and it featured 2 cross-dressing men. It lasted several years and launched the careers of several people, one of them being Tom Hanks.


Phrelin is absolutely correct. Cross-dressing men today just isn't acceptable. Referencing "Bosum Buddies" from the '80s isn't a valid comparison because society today is not as accepting of stereotypes and such humor. Political incorrectness and hypersensitivity are the norm these days. Example: All in the Family would NEVER be allowed on TV today.


----------



## dogs31 (Feb 27, 2006)

Hey Vader,

How did those Star Wars burgers taste? Also, how do you feel about the re-release of Star Wars in 3D?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Just another way for Lucas to line his pockets.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Only _Missing_ and _The River_ will have my attention.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Phrelin is absolutely correct. Cross-dressing men today just isn't acceptable. Referencing "Bosum Buddies" from the '80s isn't a valid comparison because society today is not as accepting of stereotypes and such humor. Political incorrectness and hypersensitivity are the norm these days. Example: All in the Family would NEVER be allowed on TV today.


If anything today's society is MORE accepting....


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

"RunnerFL" said:


> If anything today's society is MORE accepting....


Not for such television shows that deal with stereotypes like Bosom Buddies or All in the Family did. I'll bet you any amount of money that All in the Family would never be allowed on the air. Blacks, Asians, Poles--just to name a few groups--would be protesting like you wouldn't believe. Charges of racism and bigotry would he rampant.

No, society is far LESS accepting of such humor these days. How sad, too.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

When I watched All In The Family, my take (mind you I was a LOT younger then) was that the white guy was a jerk. Since I am white, I would guess that the other minority groups you mention would have come away with the same conclusion. It was a sarcastic show, and anyone that understands or recognizes sarcasm would not be protesting at all, they would be cheering.

The problem today is everything is "reality", and I use the word very loosely. I think TV was a lot better when we only had 15 or 20 channels to watch. How many versions of CSI:EVERYWHERE do we really need?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

No, these groups would be protesting, demanding the show be canceled and network honchos be fired.

You and I might find this kind of humor sarcastic. You and I may realize that Archie Bunker's comments and attitude actually illustrate his ignorance and stupidity, but in today's society, it wouldn't come across as that. It would come across as outright racism and bigotry. 

Too many people today can't see the irony in Archie's attitude and comments. Instead, people today are extremely hypersensitive and claim to be victims. 

All in the Family and similar shows would not be permitted today.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> I have to disagree there. Bosom Buddies was a huge hit in the 80's and it featured 2 cross-dressing men. It lasted several years and launched the careers of several people, one of them being Tom Hanks.


"Huge hit" might be exaggerating things a bit. From the ratings I've found online, it was never a top-20 show and it only lasted two seasons. You may also recall that for the second season they dropped the drag act entirely.

To be fair, the Wiki page notes that the show was moved around the schedule numerous times and may have suffered as a result.

Even on MASH, Klinger eventually gave up the dresses as the joke got old. When Radar left they moved the character into the Colonel's assistant slot and toned him down.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> No, these groups would be protesting, demanding the show be canceled and network honchos be fired.
> 
> You and I might find this kind of humor sarcastic. You and I may realize that Archie Bunker's comments and attitude actually illustrate his ignorance and stupidity, but in today's society, it wouldn't come across as that. It would come across as outright racism and bigotry.
> 
> ...


 Unfortunately that is true. On the one hand, some comedians can get away with sarcastic humor even against the Politically Correct crowd. But sitcoms run into rough seas these days.

"2 Broke Girls" is getting crap for its humor but CBS is not only sticking by it, it is allowing the show's multiracial cast and crew to attack back. Of course it helps to have good ratings and not be on a Disney owned network.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Seriously, how can anyone here believe that a show where the central character called black people "colored" or "******," referred to Asians as "******," and called Polish people "Polack" (pronounced "Poe-lock" for those who might not know) would be allowed to be on the air today?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Seriously, how can anyone here believe that a show where the central character called black people "colored" or "******," referred to Asians as "******," and called Polish people "Polack" (pronounced "Poe-lock" for those who might not know) would be allowed to be on the air today?


All in the Family is still on the air today, in reruns. Have not heard any complaints about it.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

That's because it's not on nationwide in prime time or even nationwide on a cable channel where the whole country can see it. Consequently, your statement doesn't mean a thing, unfortunately.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Well, if you watch Comedy Central, you will still see sarcastic humor involving minorities. Not network tv though, so probably still doesnt mean anything.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

You will also see profanity on Comedy Central. That isn't allowed on network TV. When I refer to shows like All in the Family, I refer to them not being permitted on network TV. The same rules don't apply to cable/satellite, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> You will also see profanity on Comedy Central.


Dont know what Comedy Central you are watching, but the one I watch still BEEPS out just about every profanity there is. Most notably, on the two shows I watch Daily Show, and Cobert Report.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Some shows, probably the later night ones, do have profanity, at least profanity that isn't allowed on the networks. It's the same thing for most cable/satellite channels. 

Network TV = nothing racially insensitive, profane, derogatory, etc. 
Cable/satellite = some nudity, profanity, etc. OK


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

And keep in mind that ABC, the subject of this thread, is owned by the folks at Disney. I figured someone at ABC thought "Work It" would be a cool, edgy show and slipped it in the schedule because the suits at Disney didn't pay any attention and thought anything with "work" in the title would be good for business.

I'm also sure that if the title of the show had been "2 Crossing-Dressing Men, 1 Puerto Rican", the show wouldn't have gotten to pilot purchase in the Disney organization.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Seriously, how can anyone here believe that a show where the central character called black people "colored" or "******," referred to Asians as "******," and called Polish people "Polack" (pronounced "Poe-lock" for those who might not know) would be allowed to be on the air today?


Ummm, you're the one who brought up those examples. My example was cross-dressing men. That's CLEARLY more widely accepted now than it was when Bosom Buddies was on the air in the 80's.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> And keep in mind that ABC, the subject of this thread, is owned by the folks at Disney. I figured someone at ABC thought "Work It" would be a cool, edgy show and slipped it in the schedule because the suits at Disney didn't pay any attention and thought anything with "work" in the title would be good for business.
> 
> I'm also sure that if the title of the show had been "2 Crossing-Dressing Men, 1 Puerto Rican", the show wouldn't have gotten to pilot purchase in the Disney organization.


Why do you always have to chime in with "1 Puerto Rican"? The show made no reference to his race, only you do. His race was never brought up, not an issue and not a selling point of the show. Only you are singling in on his race.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Ummm, you're the one who brought up those examples. My example was cross-dressing men. That's CLEARLY more widely accepted now than it was when Bosom Buddies was on the air in the 80's.


No it's not, unless it's intentionally done as a comedic farce, like in that TV show or in several movies, like Gene Hackman's scene at the end of _The Birdcage_.

If a show today was on network TV featuring a true transvestite, it wouldn't get as warm a reception, although I submit that it might not face the vitriol that an All in the Family show would face, primarily because it's not politically correct to protest transvestites/gays/etc.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Why do you always have to chime in with "1 Puerto Rican"? The show made no reference to his race, only you do. His race was never brought up, not an issue and not a selling point of the show. Only you are singling in on his race.


Pick your story.


Fox News:


> As if dismal ratings weren't bad enough, the show, which aired its pilot episode on January 3, has been receiving a wave of criticism from a Puerto Rican grassroots campaign and GLAAD - the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.



Variety:


> Women's advocacy groups and members of the Puerto Rican community have also criticized the show's premise and jokes.



Huffington Post:


> A pair of Puerto Rican members of Congress, Jose Serrano and Nydia Velasquez, issued statements condemning the show and demanding a network apology.



Or my favorite headline in the Latin American Herald Tribune: ABC Pressed to Apologize for Joke About Puerto Rican Drug Dealers
Yeah, it's only me and my closest friends in the press.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

See, what did I tell you? Different groups and different people all *****ing about the show, demanding apologies, organizing opposition, etc. 

Hypersensitivity and political correctness run amuck.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Yeah, if you want to see just how far Archie Bunker would make it today, read this account of the assault on "2 Broke Girls" at the Television Critics Association get together with the networks this week. What had me rolling with laughter was this exchange:


> Later in the session, when the reporter persisted in trying to find out whether or not King had made changes to the show at the behest of CBS, King asked the reporter his name (it was Tim Molloy of TheWrap.com). "So you're Irish," King said. "I'm Irish. We've identified your sexual problem."


 Being of Irish heritage myself, I found it hilarious but I'm sure some of my uptight relatives would not - older ones because they are "ethnically sensitive" (meaning they're Archie Bunkers) and younger ones because everything just must be politically correct.

Keep in mind that every broadcast network made a presentation to these clowns at the Television Critics Association and instead of dealing with the multitude of economic problems facing broadcast TV, this is what they devoted time to - political correctness.

Apparently the critics don't watch FX, AMC, HBO, Showtime, etc. Oh wait, those are the channels that have all the shows they shower with praise using words like "smart" and "edgy."

At least Archie Bunker was portrayed simply as a bigot which is different from a hypocrite like the critics, by which in this context I mean "a person who pretends to have principles but whose actions belie stated beliefs."

Sorry, I get irked whenever I think about the "politically correct" movement.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Too many people in this country are just so damn uptight. Everyone's a victim. People should just loosen up and laugh a little--or a lot--including at themselves. Hell, I do it all the time.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> No it's not, unless it's intentionally done as a comedic farce, like in that TV show or in several movies, like Gene Hackman's scene at the end of _The Birdcage_.
> 
> If a show today was on network TV featuring a true transvestite, it wouldn't get as warm a reception, although I submit that it might not face the vitriol that an All in the Family show would face, primarily because it's not politically correct to protest transvestites/gays/etc.


I disagree 110%. We live in a day and age where transvestites and transgender people openly walk down the street and nothing happens to them. We also live in a day and age where same-sex marriages take place and there are gays in the military. Our society is FAR more accepting now of a show like "Work It!" than it was "Bosom Buddies" in the 80's and you can't convince me otherwise.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Yeah, it's only me and my closest friends in the press.


I don't get where one actor being Puerto Rican has anything to do with anything. We weren't even told he was actually Puerto Rican. The words "Puerto Rican" didn't even come up! For all we know he's Mexican or Cuban or Dominican. And there certainly were NO jokes directed at Puerto Ricans or anything that was funny just because he was Hispanic at all. And really, WHO CARES what race he may or may not be?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> See, what did I tell you? Different groups and different people all *****ing about the show, demanding apologies, organizing opposition, etc.
> 
> Hypersensitivity and political correctness run amuck.


No, not political correctness. Use the real word, discrimination.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Lord Vader" said:


> Too many people in this country are just so damn uptight. Everyone's a victim. People should just loosen up and laugh a little--or a lot--including at themselves. Hell, I do it all the time.


Maybe that's one reason all the good Mel Brooks movies are older ones. I actually did come across someone that thought he was an anti-Semite because of the jokes in his movies. That really surprised me.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> I disagree 110%. We live in a day and age where transvestites and transgender people openly walk down the street and nothing happens to them. We also live in a day and age where same-sex marriages take place and there are gays in the military. Our society is FAR more accepting now of a show like "Work It!" than it was "Bosom Buddies" in the 80's and you can't convince me otherwise.


In that context, for this show to have been as risky as Bosom Buddies was in the early 80s, shouldn't it have featured actual trans-gendered or cross-dressing characters, rather than just explicitly straight guys dressing up?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I don't get where one actor being Puerto Rican has anything to do with anything. We weren't even told he was actually Puerto Rican. The words "Puerto Rican" didn't even come up! For all we know he's Mexican or Cuban or Dominican. And there certainly were NO jokes directed at Puerto Ricans or anything that was funny just because he was Hispanic at all. And really, WHO CARES what race he may or may not be?


If you read my links you would know why there was a big kerfluffle. From The Latin American Herald:


> In one scene, a character portrayed by Puerto Rican actor Amaury Nolasco says: "I'm Puerto Rican... I'd be great at selling drugs."
> 
> "That wasn't a joke, that was an insult and we want an apology," activist Julio Pabon, one of the organizers of the protest called Thursday by Boricuas for a Positive Image, told Efe.


Thus we end up with reports about Nolasco having to Tweet about it:


> Puerto Rican actor Amaury Nolasco says via Twitter that his line suggesting that Puerto Ricans are "great at selling drugs" on the ABC sitcom "Work It" should be seen in a comedic context and that he's always tried to "uphold the positive image of my beautiful island and our people."
> 
> "Seems like a few of you felt uncomfortable with a line my character said on #Workit," he wrote Wednesday. "I understand your feelings. The show is a comedy and is meant to be viewed in that context. Soy Boricua de pura sepa. I am proud of our culture and I've always strived to uphold the positive image of my beautiful island and our people in both my career and personal lives. Pa'lante mi gente."


It is irrelevant to me that he's Puerto Rican. That his line referred to "Puerto Rican" was irrelevant to me. But it apparently wasn't irrelevant to others and, though they didn't need it, the others gave ABC/Disney more "you see" reasons to cancel the show.

Cross-dressing sexuality implications was also irrelevant to me. But apparently not to others.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> I disagree 110%. We live in a day and age where transvestites and transgender people openly walk down the street and nothing happens to them. We also live in a day and age where same-sex marriages take place and there are gays in the military. Our society is FAR more accepting now of a show like "Work It!" than it was "Bosom Buddies" in the 80's and you can't convince me otherwise.


Then why is there so much opposition to _Work It_? Why is there complaining by different groups?

Society is more accepting in every day lives, but not on network television. It is a fact that society is far more politically correct and hypersensitive than it was in the 1970s when _All in the Family _was on.



RunnerFL said:


> No, not political correctness. Use the real word, discrimination.


I'm not going to use that word because it would be an incorrect use of it. It's called political correctness. Period.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> RunnerFL said:
> 
> 
> > No, not political correctness. Use the real word, discrimination.
> ...


Discrimination and political correctness are two distinct very different things.

One is rooted in hate.

The other is rooted in a desire to not offend.

Two very different things.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Except that political incorrectness goes beyond a desire to not offend. It's actually less of that than it is a desire to control what one says and does. It is contrary to the First Amendment and stifles speech and thought.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Except that political* incorrectness* goes beyond a desire to not offend. It's actually less of that than it is a desire to control what one says and does. It is contrary to the First Amendment and stifles speech and thought.


Political *incorrectness*?

My choice to carefully select my words and not use words I consider offensive to a group, what many call political correctness, to me is just common courtesy, and in no way infringes on anyone else's free speech right.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Then why is there so much opposition to _Work It_? Why is there complaining by different groups?


You're talking about a HANDFUL of people. Not millions as your "so much" comment implies.



Lord Vader said:


> Society is more accepting in every day lives, but not on network television. It is a fact that society is far more politically correct and hypersensitive than it was in the 1970s when _All in the Family _was on.


I still disagree with you.



Lord Vader said:


> I'm not going to use that word because it would be an incorrect use of it. It's called political correctness. Period.


You may not use the word but what you are throwing around is pure discrimination.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> Discrimination and political correctness are two distinct very different things.


Not always.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Drew2k said:


> Political *incorrectness*?
> 
> My choice to carefully select my words and not use words I consider offensive to a group, what many call political correctness, to me is just common courtesy, and in no way infringes on anyone else's free speech right.


Oh it does, indeed. Political correctness is an attempt to control what others think. It's a form of power and control. Hell, even someone whom I otherwise don't particularly like, Bill Maher, has explained this rather well. His show once had this title.

BTW, I am not talking about avoiding offensive words, like the "n" word to refer to blacks, or the "f" word to refer to gay people. There are words and labels that are purely offensive, and there are other words and terms that are simply considered politically incorrect by people (almost always a group of liberals) who relish the chance to control what others can think and say.



RunnerFL said:


> You're talking about a HANDFUL of people. Not millions as your "so much" comment implies.


No, I'm talking about a LOT of people.



> You may not use the word but what you are throwing around is pure discrimination.


No it's not. Learn what the word "discrimination" means first, then come back and claim it's what I'm saying. The word requires actively practicing biased against one or more particulart groups of people. Just because someone calls an Asian a "*****" doesn't mean that person is discriminating against Asians, as insulting as that word may be.

I'm 100 Polish. The word "Polack" is supposed to be a slang, derogatory term (the proper word being "Pole"). However, I'm not offended if someone calls me a Polack, and even if I was, it sure as hell isn't discrimination!

The ability of some people to grasp the obvious is but one reason why there are so many ridiculously hypersensitive people in today's society.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> No, I'm talking about a LOT of people.


In the grand scheme of things you're not. You may be talking thousands but that's nothing compared to millions.



Lord Vader said:


> Just because someone calls an Asian a "*****" doesn't mean that person is discriminating against Asians, as insulting as that word may be.


That's exactly what discrimination is... I'm done arguing though. Clearly your from a generation where that was tolerated.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I cannot fathom that a racial nickname was even used in this thread. There is nothing more to say.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> In the grand scheme of things you're not. You may be talking thousands but that's nothing compared to millions.
> 
> That's exactly what discrimination is... I'm done arguing though. Clearly your from a generation where that was tolerated.


Hardly, but whatever you say. I can't discuss it with someone who lacks the basic comprehension of what a word's definition is. Like I said, go learn its definition, then come back and discuss it.



Drew2k said:


> I cannot fathom that a racial nickname was even used in this thread. There is nothing more to say.


Oh, brother! 

Now one can't even quote an example of a certain type of derogatory speech to make a point? Thanks for proving my point about society being ridiculously, overly sensitive. :nono2::nono2:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Now one can't even quote an example of a certain type of derogatory speech to make a point? Thanks for proving my point about society being ridiculously, overly sensitive. :nono2::nono2:


I'm not society - I'm an individual who sees no call for the word you used. You say I'm over sensitive and I could respond that you are insensitive, but this can go on forever so that would be a pointless exchange. I have my opinions, you have yours. Now I really have nothing left to say on this topic.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Thank God, because when one cannot explain something when intentionally illustrating a certain word's use, well, then society has plummeted into the depths of irreversible political correctness.

Your type is the same type that complains about the use of the "n" word in _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn._


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Phrelin is absolutely correct. Cross-dressing men today just isn't acceptable.


Guess you missed Rock Center tonight. Brian Williams not only did a story, but the interviewee did the whole end of the interview in drag. It was hilarious.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I actually caught part of that and laughed. Like I said, it's analogous to Gene Hackman wearing a dress in The Birdcage.

Now, a show that featured an actual transvestite character? THAT would garner some complaints (not that I'd want it to, however).


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Thank God, because when one cannot explain something when intentionally illustrating a certain word's use, well, then society has plummeted into the depths of irreversible political correctness.
> 
> Your type is the same type that complains about the use of the "n" word in _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn._


Fine. Let's continue the fun. 

First, you mean to say that you couldn't find a way to discuss this topic without using an offensive word? I think that says much more about you than me. I'm sure you can do better. 

Next, you tend to generalize. You don't know me, or you'd know that I am a fan of Huck Finn and wouldn't change a word. This is also why I have no problem with All In the Family - it's a reflection of its times.

Finally, your fears are necessary. The dinosaurs and bigots will die off and leave the land to the enlightened. :up:

Enjoy your night!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I don't have a problem with All in the Family, either. When a person quotes someone, it's approriate to use the exact quote for accuracy and honesty, which is what I did when I used the word "******" and "Polack" to discuss Archie's bigotry, because those are the exact words he used, the latter when he often referred to his son-in-law, whom he also called "meathead."


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> I don't have a problem with All in the Family, either. When a person quotes someone, it's approriate to use the exact quote for accuracy and honesty, which is what I did when I used the word "******" and "Polack" to discuss Archie's bigotry, because those are the exact words he used, the latter when he often referred to his son-in-law, whom he also called "meathead."


You were not discussing Archie's bigotry when you used the word "*****".


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

When I put it in quotes, it was because it was a word said on TV, by Archie Bunker, a word I used to illustrate a point, and a word that today would never be allowed to even get past the censors.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> When I put it in quotes, it was because it was a word said on TV, by Archie Bunker, a word I used to illustrate a point, and a word that today would never be allowed to even get past the censors.


So, even though nowhere else in your post did you even mention Archie Bunker, readers are supposed to know that because you used quotes, you must be talking about something he said? Really?

And even though that same post never talked about TV or Censors, we're supposed to understand that you were talking about a term that might have been used on TV years ago, but wouldn't fly today?

Do you even read what you post after you post it? Because clearly, whatever your brain is thinking is not being transferred to the keyboard.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> So, even though nowhere else in your post did you even mention Archie Bunker, readers are supposed to know that because you used quotes, you must be talking about something he said? Really?


Do you even read all of my posts, or just the ones you decide to selectively critique? Anybody with reading comprehension can see pages ago that I brought up the example of All in the Family and have been alluding to it since then. It serves as a classic example of a character who frequently used off-color remarks, bigoted language, etc. This illustrative theme has been consistently present in my line of discussion here. I can't help it if you [strike]can't[/strike] don't want to see that.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'll accept the general Wikipedia explanation of PC:


> *Political correctness* (adjectivally, *politically correct*; both forms commonly abbreviated to *PC*) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.


Wow. To struggle to be politically correct, I have to worry about words in order to minimize the possibility of someone - apparently anyone - taking offense, because I use words related to occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts.

To put it another way, we must placate the fanatics in society - cater to anyone who might find offensive the _mention_, within the context of gaining some perspective, of their job, gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, religion or other belief or ideological structure, disability or age.

The only safe pronoun to use when referring to another human being is "it" but never with any adjectives. "The suspect was a human. It used a gun." The problem here is who gets to decide when adding any more information might be allowed? The most easily offended person or the person with thickest skin?

Can I say that "gee it's a surprise that the only eligible candidates for President in 2012 in the U.S. - that great Melting Pot - appear to be heterosexual married Christian males raised by white parents and white grandparents?" It's true, you know. Why, one might ask, except can you ask?

Is it wrong to say these words out loud because one or more might offend someone? If it is wrong, we have no way of talking about our politics, society, and culture. And to not be able to use humor to ease the difficulty of talking about these things is downright scary to me.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I find your use of the word "it" offensive and dehumanizing. That word has been used to justify the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn babies and to justify the slaughter of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust. Once you use "it" to refer to a human, you relegate that human to something less than human and can therefore use it as an excuse to do what you want with said "human."

There, have I covered "it" enough?


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I disagree 110%. We live in a day and age where transvestites and transgender people openly walk down the street and nothing happens to them. We also live in a day and age where same-sex marriages take place and there are gays in the military. Our society is FAR more accepting now of a show like "Work It!" than it was "Bosom Buddies" in the 80's and you can't convince me otherwise.


Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

"Work It!" was horrendously unfunny. If it was "offensive" and funny, it would still be on TV. (I expect "Rob" to fail to be funny as well because, well, Rob is not funny at all. But we'll see.)

2 Broke Girls routinely manages to offend TV critics and some small number of humorless Asians, Eastern Europeans and their self-proclaimed defenders (and perhaps even Williamsburg hipsters). But the stereotyped characters on it are actually humorous most of the time and in their own strange way are loveable.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Do you even read all of my posts, or just the ones you decide to selectively critique? Anybody with reading comprehension can see pages ago that I brought up the example of All in the Family and have been alluding to it since then. It serves as a classic example of a character who frequently used off-color remarks, bigoted language, etc. This illustrative theme has been consistently present in my line of discussion here. I can't help it if you [strike]can't[/strike] don't want to see that.


Dude, you have so many issues, I don't even know where to begin.

Yes, you mentioned All in the Family at some point, but then the conversation CHANGED (as often happens in forums) and you began to talk about the definition of discrimination and politically correct (with no context of TV) in general. It had nothing to do with All in the Family and that was never mentioned again - until you decided to try and state that your use of a derogatory word was in reference to something a TV character (that you had alluded to several posts earlier) might have said, even though the conversation was no longer about that.

Seriously, read your posts. I don't know if you're trying to backpedal or what (and don't really care), but you clearly did not write what you think you did.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I did, indeed, but I cannot help someone who lacks reading comprehension.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> I find your use of the word "it" offensive and dehumanizing. That word has been used to justify the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn babies and to justify the slaughter of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust. Once you use "it" to refer to a human, you relegate that human to something less than human and can therefore use it as an excuse to do what you want with said "human."
> 
> There, have I covered "it" enough?


Hmmmm. Well, golly, I guess there is no safe politically correct pronoun. Do you think anybody has dreamed up a substitute for the he/she dilemma?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Dunno :shrug:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It is also always about context. The issue really lies in people today letting kids watch shows they have no business watching before they are taught about context and can actually truly understand when something is contextually meant to be a joke based on stereo types vs something that can actually be offensive if not used in the right context in general conversation. 

An adult with a brain won't take any offense to work it IMHO because they will see it for what it is, using (mostly old) stereo types to create a funny situation for entertainment on TV! Not that it is an actual commentary on what people should think, and influence anyone into knowing or understand anything to do with stereo types.

Just because a character says something on a tv show doesn't mean its meant for anything more than entertainment anymore than something written on the internet.

People complain because they think a show influences people to reinforce stereo types. If that's the case, they need to worry far more about why those people are so easily influenced by anything they watch on TV in the first place, and realize the real problem is people all to long ago stopped thinking they need to filter what their kids see in terms of entertainment until they have reach the maturity level to understand the difference between entertainment and reality. I get so annoyed every time I see parents bring their little kids to r rated movies to 10pm shows on a Saturday night. Unfortunately that goes hand in hand with the big entitlement problem with people today, as well as the complete lack of discipline that to many parents are afraid of for fear of crushing their child's little ego.


----------

