Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Way to put down anim! I read his entire review end to end. It was >>snarkilicious.
I watched the freaking thing twice
Once a couple weeks before as a sneak preview and then the final broadcast >version
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Way to put down anim! I read his entire review end to end. It was snarkilicious.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Way to put down anim! I read his entire review end to end. It was
snarkilicious.
I watched the freaking thing twice
Once a couple weeks before as a sneak preview and then the final broadcast version
T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?I have this brilliant idea. As you watched it, start the conversation by posting your own review of it.
I could have sworn that's how these tv newsgroups are supposed to work.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Way to put down anim! I read his entire review end to end. It
was snarkilicious.
I watched the freaking thing twice
Once a couple weeks before as a sneak preview and then the final
broadcast version
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Way to put down anim! I read his entire review end to end. It was
snarkilicious.
I watched the freaking thing twice
Once a couple weeks before as a sneak preview and then the final broadcast >> version
I'm having anim committed.
On 6/6/2022 11:26 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Way to put down anim! I read his entire review end to end. It was
snarkilicious.
I watched the freaking thing twice
Once a couple weeks before as a sneak preview and then the final broadcast >>> version
I'm having anim committed.
Watching it twice is sufficient proof that he is committed to destroying
his brain.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 11:26 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 6/6/2022 7:48 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
I did.
I lasted 5 minutes.
Way to put down anim! I read his entire review end to end. It was
snarkilicious.
I watched the freaking thing twice
Once a couple weeks before as a sneak preview and then the final broadcast >>>> version
I'm having anim committed.
Watching it twice is sufficient proof that he is committed to destroying
his brain.
Ian‘s watching BURIED IN BARSTOW twice.
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
qwrtz123@gmail.com wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
Seeing the trailer was enough to convince me not to see it, the reviews form people who saw it confirmed it.
On 6/7/2022 8:27 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
qwrtz123@gmail.com wrote:Gay black man posturing topless while running an industrial grinder
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
Seeing the trailer was enough to convince me not to see it, the reviews form >> people who saw it confirmed it.
spraying hot sparks everywhere not your thing? :D
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/7/2022 8:27 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:What the hell was he grinding anyway? Wasn’t he making soap? And he probably wasn’t completely topless he always wears his pearls.
qwrtz123@gmail.com wrote:Gay black man posturing topless while running an industrial grinder
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
Seeing the trailer was enough to convince me not to see it, the reviews form
people who saw it confirmed it.
spraying hot sparks everywhere not your thing? :D
On 6/7/2022 5:05 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:I realized after I sent my previous that I forgot to mention that the
On 6/7/2022 8:27 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:What the hell was he grinding anyway? Wasn’t he making soap? And he
qwrtz123@gmail.com wrote:Gay black man posturing topless while running an industrial grinder
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
Seeing the trailer was enough to convince me not to see it, the reviews form
people who saw it confirmed it.
spraying hot sparks everywhere not your thing? :D
probably wasn’t completely topless he always wears his pearls.
grinder was at just about groin level. :D
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/7/2022 5:05 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:I realized after I sent my previous that I forgot to mention that the
On 6/7/2022 8:27 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:What the hell was he grinding anyway? Wasn’t he making soap? And he
qwrtz123@gmail.com wrote:Gay black man posturing topless while running an industrial grinder
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
Seeing the trailer was enough to convince me not to see it, the reviews form
people who saw it confirmed it.
spraying hot sparks everywhere not your thing? :D
probably wasn’t completely topless he always wears his pearls.
grinder was at just about groin level. :D
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
On 6/7/2022 8:27 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
qwrtz123@gmail.com wrote:
Did anyone watch the entire first episode?
Seeing the trailer was enough to convince me not to see it, the reviews
from people who saw it confirmed it.
Gay black man posturing topless while running an industrial grinder
spraying hot sparks everywhere not your thing? :D
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
--
show trial:
noun [ C ]
a trial organized by a government in order to have an effect on public opinion and reduce political opposition, and not in order to find the
truth
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
--
show trial:
noun [ C ]
a trial organized by a government in order to have an effect on public opinion and reduce political opposition, and not in order to find the
truth
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an adaptation? Johnston?
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an adaptation? >Johnston?
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday
By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW’s Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000 >total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating.
On 6/8/2022 11:14 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is
an adaptation? Johnston?
It sounds like an adaptation.
...of gay porn.
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday
By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW’s Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000 total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating.
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read post mortem) was steady week-to-week.
NBC’s America’s Got Talent (6.1 mil/0.7) dipped a bit but still dominated Tuesday across the board. Dancing With Myself (2.3 mil/0.4) was pretty steady.
Over on ABC, Holey Moley (2.3 mil/0.3) is looking at lows, while The Chase (2.1 mil/0.3) and Who Do You Believe? (1.5 mil/0.2) were steady.
In article <t7qour$2hv$3@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an adaptation? >Johnston?
That would be "A Friend", who isn't familiar with it.
On 6/8/2022 1:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/GAHK! There are YouTube channels that do better than that!
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday
By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW’s Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000 >> total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating.
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read post >> mortem) was steady week-to-week.
See above. I'm amazed the CW is still operating with those kinds of
ratings.
NBC’s America’s Got Talent (6.1 mil/0.7) dipped a bit but still dominated
Tuesday across the board. Dancing With Myself (2.3 mil/0.4) was pretty
steady.
Over on ABC, Holey Moley (2.3 mil/0.3) is looking at lows, while The Chase >> (2.1 mil/0.3) and Who Do You Believe? (1.5 mil/0.2) were steady.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/8/2022 1:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/GAHK! There are YouTube channels that do better than that!
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday
By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW’s Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000 >>> total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating.
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read post >>> mortem) was steady week-to-week.
See above. I'm amazed the CW is still operating with those kinds of
ratings.
NBC’s America’s Got Talent (6.1 mil/0.7) dipped a bit but still dominated
Tuesday across the board. Dancing With Myself (2.3 mil/0.4) was pretty
steady.
Over on ABC, Holey Moley (2.3 mil/0.3) is looking at lows, while The Chase >>> (2.1 mil/0.3) and Who Do You Believe? (1.5 mil/0.2) were steady.
Early on Nancy Drew actually achieved a rating of 0.00 and yet they still renewed it.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in news:t7r0vd$3lm$1@dont-email.me:
On 6/8/2022 11:14 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:Chuck Tingle?
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is
an adaptation? Johnston?
It sounds like an adaptation.
...of gay porn.
In article <t7r51c$ov$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <t7qour$2hv$3@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an adaptation?
Johnston?
That would be "A Friend", who isn't familiar with it.
That would not be me, since I don't intend to discuss episodes of a
series I'm never going to watch. Tom Swift was originally described as
an adaptation by its producers, who'd bought the rights to adapt it.
All complaints --> them.
On 6/8/2022 8:22 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:*facepalm*
On 6/8/2022 1:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/GAHK! There are YouTube channels that do better than that!
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday
By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW’s Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000 >>>> total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating. >>>>
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read post >>>> mortem) was steady week-to-week.
See above. I'm amazed the CW is still operating with those kinds of
ratings.
NBC’s America’s Got Talent (6.1 mil/0.7) dipped a bit but still dominated
Tuesday across the board. Dancing With Myself (2.3 mil/0.4) was pretty >>>> steady.
Over on ABC, Holey Moley (2.3 mil/0.3) is looking at lows, while The Chase >>>> (2.1 mil/0.3) and Who Do You Believe? (1.5 mil/0.2) were steady.
Early on Nancy Drew actually achieved a rating of 0.00 and yet they still
renewed it.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/8/2022 1:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW's Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000 >>> total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating.
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read post >>> mortem) was steady week-to-week.
See above. I'm amazed the CW is still operating with those kinds of
ratings.
Early on Nancy Drew actually achieved a rating of 0.00 and yet they still >renewed it.
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <t7qour$2hv$3@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an
adaptation?
Johnston?
That would be "A Friend", who isn't familiar with it.
That would not be me, since I don't intend to discuss episodes of a
series I'm never going to watch. Tom Swift was originally described as
an adaptation by its producers, who'd bought the rights to adapt it.
All complaints --> them.
In article <080620222204149141%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <t7qour$2hv$3@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an
adaptation?
Johnston?
That would be "A Friend", who isn't familiar with it.
That would not be me, since I don't intend to discuss episodes of a
series I'm never going to watch. Tom Swift was originally described as
an adaptation by its producers, who'd bought the rights to adapt it.
All complaints --> them.
Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!
You made the claim that the chnages made to the show ares OK because
Tom Swift isn't a real person.
. . .
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think
that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point
at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached
here.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom
is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a >supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line,
then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
On 6/8/2022 11:03 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/8/2022 8:22 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:*facepalm*
On 6/8/2022 1:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/GAHK! There are YouTube channels that do better than that!
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday >>>>> By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CWs Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000
total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating. >>>>>
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read >>>>> post
mortem) was steady week-to-week.
See above. I'm amazed the CW is still operating with those kinds of >>>> ratings.
NBCs Americas Got Talent (6.1 mil/0.7) dipped a bit but still
dominated
Tuesday across the board. Dancing With Myself (2.3 mil/0.4) was pretty >>>>> steady.
Over on ABC, Holey Moley (2.3 mil/0.3) is looking at lows, while The >>>>> Chase
(2.1 mil/0.3) and Who Do You Believe? (1.5 mil/0.2) were steady.
Early on Nancy Drew actually achieved a rating of 0.00 and yet they still >>> renewed it.
A friend of mine who writes about series books and who follows this stuff for the behind-the-scenes information says that the margin of error on the ratings is so high that to achieve 0.00 Nancy Drew probably statistically somehow had negative people watching it.
Does that mean the CW has to pay the advertisers to air their commercials?
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/8/2022 8:22 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:*facepalm*
On 6/8/2022 1:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/GAHK! There are YouTube channels that do better than that!
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday
By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW’s Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000
total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating. >>>>>
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read post
mortem) was steady week-to-week.
See above. I'm amazed the CW is still operating with those kinds of
ratings.
NBC’s America’s Got Talent (6.1 mil/0.7) dipped a bit but still dominated
Tuesday across the board. Dancing With Myself (2.3 mil/0.4) was pretty >>>>> steady.
Over on ABC, Holey Moley (2.3 mil/0.3) is looking at lows, while The Chase
(2.1 mil/0.3) and Who Do You Believe? (1.5 mil/0.2) were steady.
Early on Nancy Drew actually achieved a rating of 0.00 and yet they still >>> renewed it.
A friend of mine who writes about series books and who follows this stuff
for the behind-the-scenes information says that the margin of error on the ratings is so high that to achieve 0.00 Nancy Drew probably statistically somehow had negative people watching it.
. . .
Like any other broadcaster, the CW has to issue a make-good if the
audience for an ad isn't as large as the CW told the advertisers it
would be. Conversely, the network misses a chance to make money if the >audience turns out to be huge.
When I was at ABC, there was a special called The Missiles of October,
about JFK and Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It
introduced William Devane (as JFK) to the mass audience. The wiser
heads at the network didn't think anybody would watch, so the ads went
for peanuts. The show turned out to be a gigantic hit. This was in
1974 and nobody had a VCR. Our unit said we gotta rerun this thing
right away because everybody's talking about it. No, no, no, said >management. They had a slot available, but they chose instead to run a >circus special starring Soupy Sales. Nothing against Soupy, but wha'?
On 6/8/2022 11:03 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:Does that mean the CW has to pay the advertisers to air their commercials?
On 6/8/2022 8:22 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:*facepalm*
On 6/8/2022 1:34 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
https://tvline.com/2022/06/08/ratings-tom-swift-episode-2-cw/GAHK! There are YouTube channels that do better than that!
Ratings: Tom Swift Audience Wanes in Week 2, AGT Dominates Tuesday >>>>>> By Matt Webb Mitovich / June 8 2022, 9:25 AM PDT
Tom Swift CW
Courtesy of The CW
In the latest TV show ratings, The CW’s Tom Swift in Week 2 drew 350,000
total viewers (down 20 percent from its debut) and a 0.1. demo rating. >>>>>>
Leading into the Nancy Drew offshoot, Superman & Lois (710K/0.1, read post
mortem) was steady week-to-week.
See above. I'm amazed the CW is still operating with those kinds of >>>>> ratings.
NBC’s America’s Got Talent (6.1 mil/0.7) dipped a bit but still dominated
Tuesday across the board. Dancing With Myself (2.3 mil/0.4) was pretty >>>>>> steady.
Over on ABC, Holey Moley (2.3 mil/0.3) is looking at lows, while The Chase
(2.1 mil/0.3) and Who Do You Believe? (1.5 mil/0.2) were steady.
Early on Nancy Drew actually achieved a rating of 0.00 and yet they still >>>> renewed it.
A friend of mine who writes about series books and who follows this stuff
for the behind-the-scenes information says that the margin of error on the >> ratings is so high that to achieve 0.00 Nancy Drew probably statistically
somehow had negative people watching it.
In article <t7smhp$f9b$14@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <080620222204149141%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <t7qour$2hv$3@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an
adaptation?
Johnston?
That would be "A Friend", who isn't familiar with it.
That would not be me, since I don't intend to discuss episodes of a
series I'm never going to watch. Tom Swift was originally described as
an adaptation by its producers, who'd bought the rights to adapt it.
All complaints --> them.
Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!
You made the claim that the chnages made to the show ares OK because
Tom Swift isn't a real person.
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think
that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point
at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached
here.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom
is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line,
then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
A Friend wrote:
. . .
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think
that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point
at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached
here.
Making changes for reasons of political correctness has nothing to do
with making the adaptation work well for other media. That's politics.
It's not even an attempt to please an audience.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom
is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a
supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line,
then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
No one but Rich cared about black.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
A Friend wrote:
. . .
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think >>>that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for >>>purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point >>>at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached >>>here.
Making changes for reasons of political correctness has nothing to do
with making the adaptation work well for other media. That's politics.
It's not even an attempt to please an audience.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom
is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a >>>supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line, >>>then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
No one but Rich cared about black.
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >went racist against Asians.
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
. . .
Like any other broadcaster, the CW has to issue a make-good if the
audience for an ad isn't as large as the CW told the advertisers it
And what they offer you is another running of your same ad. When you ask >about it they’ll tell you that they just showed it at three in the morning >already. Of course there’s no way to verify or disapprove that. So that’s >basically the end of it.
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
A Friend wrote:
. . .
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think >>>> that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point >>>> at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached >>>> here.
Making changes for reasons of political correctness has nothing to do
with making the adaptation work well for other media. That's politics.
It's not even an attempt to please an audience.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom >>>> is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a
supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line,
then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
No one but Rich cared about black.
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >> went racist against Asians.
This is truly an amazing achievement in unwatchable television, isn't it.
On 6/9/2022 11:18 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
A Friend wrote:
. . .
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think >>>>> that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point >>>>> at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point >>>>> in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached >>>>> here.
Making changes for reasons of political correctness has nothing to do
with making the adaptation work well for other media. That's politics. >>>> It's not even an attempt to please an audience.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom >>>>> is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a >>>>> supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line, >>>>> then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
No one but Rich cared about black.
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >>> went racist against Asians.
This is truly an amazing achievement in unwatchable television, isn't it.
But blacks can't be racist! ;)
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 6/9/2022 11:18 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:But blacks can't be racist! ;)
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
A Friend wrote:
. . .
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think >>>>>> that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for >>>>>> purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point >>>>>> at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point >>>>>> in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached >>>>>> here.
Making changes for reasons of political correctness has nothing to do >>>>> with making the adaptation work well for other media. That's politics. >>>>> It's not even an attempt to please an audience.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom >>>>>> is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a >>>>>> supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line, >>>>>> then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
No one but Rich cared about black.
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >>>> went racist against Asians.
This is truly an amazing achievement in unwatchable television, isn't it. >>
I’ve been waiting for somebody to bring that up so I could fish bitch slap them.
On 6/8/2022 4:46 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote inAs usual, its worse than you think.
news:t7r0vd$3lm$1@dont-email.me:
On 6/8/2022 11:14 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:Chuck Tingle?
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is
an adaptation? Johnston?
It sounds like an adaptation.
...of gay porn.
"These adventures and more await you in The Tingleverse: The
Official Chuck Tingle Role-Playing Game, which thrusts you
directly into the middle..."
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in news:t7rpgk$o8v$1@dont-email.me:
On 6/8/2022 4:46 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:I have occasionaly been tempted to pick up a copy, but it's
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote inAs usual, its worse than you think.
news:t7r0vd$3lm$1@dont-email.me:
On 6/8/2022 11:14 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:Chuck Tingle?
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is
an adaptation? Johnston?
It sounds like an adaptation.
...of gay porn.
"These adventures and more await you in The Tingleverse: The
Official Chuck Tingle Role-Playing Game, which thrusts you
directly into the middle..."
apparently little more than d20 clone.
On 6/9/2022 9:43 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote inIts not like the target audience would notice if the game itself
news:t7rpgk$o8v$1@dont-email.me:
On 6/8/2022 4:46 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:I have occasionaly been tempted to pick up a copy, but it's
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote inAs usual, its worse than you think.
news:t7r0vd$3lm$1@dont-email.me:
On 6/8/2022 11:14 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:Chuck Tingle?
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this
is an adaptation? Johnston?
It sounds like an adaptation.
...of gay porn.
"These adventures and more await you in The Tingleverse: The
Official Chuck Tingle Role-Playing Game, which thrusts you
directly into the middle..."
apparently little more than d20 clone.
was good or bad.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
A Friend wrote:
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think
that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point
at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached
here.
Making changes for reasons of political correctness has nothing to do
with making the adaptation work well for other media. That's politics.
It's not even an attempt to please an audience.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom
is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a
supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line,
then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
No one but Rich cared about black.
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >went racist against Asians.
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
A Friend wrote:
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think >>>> that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point >>>> at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached >>>> here.
Making changes for reasons of political correctness has nothing to do
with making the adaptation work well for other media. That's politics.
It's not even an attempt to please an audience.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom >>>> is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a
supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line,
then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
No one but Rich cared about black.
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >> went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self identified as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
[Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.]
--
Let's go Brandon!
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >>> went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self identified >> as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much everybody's least favorite.
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his mother >>>> went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self identified >>> as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much
everybody's least favorite.
Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his wealth?
--
Let's go Brandon!
“
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his
mother went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self
identified as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much
everybody's least favorite.
Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball.
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his >>>>> mother went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self
identified as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much
everybody's least favorite.
Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his
wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball.
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
In article <t8cim1$gjk$11@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his >>>>>>> mother went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self
identified as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much >>>>> everybody's least favorite.
Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his
wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball.
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black nerds
who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
Perhaps it's a reference to everybody assuming Tom Swift is rich
because he'd been some sort of superstar athlete.
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his >>>>>> mother went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self
identified as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much
everybody's least favorite.
Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball.
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
--
Let's go Brandon!
“
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
In article <t8cim1$gjk$11@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his >>>>>>> mother went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self
identified as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much >>>>> everybody's least favorite.
Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his >>>> wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball. >>
nerds
who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
Perhaps it's a reference to everybody assuming Tom Swift is rich
because he'd been some sort of superstar athlete.
Nope, he never was that theyve mentioned. I think what theyre trying to
say is people assume the only way blacks can be successful is as Ballers. Whereas Tom is busy raping his brother.
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of blackWas his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his >>>>> wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball. >>>
nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
Perhaps it's a reference to everybody assuming Tom Swift is rich
because he'd been some sort of superstar athlete.
Nope, he never was that they've mentioned. I think what they're trying to
say is people assume the only way blacks can be successful is as Ballers.
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball.
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black
nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
They also have live video feeds from Saturn. It's not like the people that >write this are any less stupid than the people that wrote Supergirl.
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
The black didn't particularly concern me until episode two when his >>>>>> mother went racist against Asians.
I noticed it near the second sentence in the show when Tom self
identified as a "not a nerd, a _black_ nerd".
Amongst the few people that are watching it that line is pretty much >>>> everybody's least favorite.
Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his
wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball.
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
They also have live video feeds from Saturn. It's not like the people that write this are any less stupid than the people that wrote Supergirl.
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black >>>> nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball. >>>>
They also have live video feeds from Saturn. It's not like the people that >>> write this are any less stupid than the people that wrote Supergirl.
Things like that don't bother me because it would be boring to see them
waiting 20 minutes between exchanges.
More like an hour each way.
But come on. These are the worlds greatest inventors who built the
spaceship. They have a TV screen with Text on it screaming LIVE FEED FROM >SATURN! All the need to do is have one of the women say to the other “Tom >invented that!”
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of blackI'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball. >>>
nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.
They also have live video feeds from Saturn. It's not like the people that >> write this are any less stupid than the people that wrote Supergirl.
Things like that don't bother me because it would be boring to see them waiting 20 minutes between exchanges.
--
Let's go Brandon!
“
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Or maybe only Tom assumes that?But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black >>>>> nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his >>>>>>> wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball. >>>>>
Perhaps it's a reference to everybody assuming Tom Swift is rich
because he'd been some sort of superstar athlete.
Nope, he never was that they've mentioned. I think what they're trying to >>> say is people assume the only way blacks can be successful is as Ballers. >>
Well, sure, he's an obnoxious murdering idiot but he must think we assume
it as well or why would he be telling us this?
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
But that doesn't make sense because he said they were a family of black >>>> nerds who got rich from selling inventions and businesses.Was his line about not being "a baller" the second least fav?
I'm not sure what a "baller" is, but isn't it someone who flaunts his >>>>>> wealth?
I took it to mean that they didn't make their money playing sports ball. >>>>
Perhaps it's a reference to everybody assuming Tom Swift is rich
because he'd been some sort of superstar athlete.
Nope, he never was that they've mentioned. I think what they're trying to
say is people assume the only way blacks can be successful is as Ballers.
Or maybe only Tom assumes that?
--
Let's go Brandon!
A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <080620222204149141%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <t7qour$2hv$3@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
That might explain the title of episode three:
Tom Swift and his 9 inches of danger
No
Really
I am not making that up
DON'T MAKE ME TROLL-O-METER YOU, BRO!!!
They just dropped the title for episode four
TOM SWIFT And his Chocolate Cowboys
Oooh, you are asking for it! :-D
No metering the messenger!
Is anyone in this newsgroup still going to claim that this is an
adaptation?
Johnston?
That would be "A Friend", who isn't familiar with it.
That would not be me, since I don't intend to discuss episodes of a
series I'm never going to watch. Tom Swift was originally described
as an adaptation by its producers, who'd bought the rights to adapt
it. All complaints --> them.
Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!
You made the claim that the chnages made to the show ares OK because
Tom Swift isn't a real person.
I was discussing it here, yes. The show is not biographical. I think
that, generally speaking, making changes to the source material for
purposes of TV and film adaptation is okay. There is of course a point
at which the material can be so changed that there seems little point
in calling it an adaptation. I don't think that point has been reached
here.
Making Tom Swift black is not a betrayal of basic Tom Swiftiness. Tom
is supposed to be a genius inventor who has amazing adventures with a
supporting cast of loyal friends. If they stick to that bottom line,
then they're sticking to Tom Swift.
Well this guy is an arrogant jerk who has no friends, only people on the >payroll. His adventures are incredibly less than amazing so far. He's a >criminal who should be up for felony murder charges. So they've missed
every point you brought up except for “genius inventor“
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 109:28:33 |
| Calls: | 6,701 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,348,534 |