John Ritter's Death Turned into Reality TV? by Succatash

This is the most disrespectful way to treat an honored and beloved actor. Using his death to get ratings for their show is lower than a snake's belly.

I will not watch these upcoming episodes of "8 simple rules" out of respect for John Ritter.

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:27 AM

BRTICK

that interesting. I guess I can see why they'd want to continue the show. hopefully they'll be able to do it in a tasteful, respectful way.

Keep Flying!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:53 AM

TRAGICSTORY

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
This is the most disrespectful way to treat an honored and beloved actor. Using his death to get ratings for their show is lower than a snake's belly.

I will not watch these upcoming episodes of "8 simple rules" out of respect for John Ritter.

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

I could not agree more. The respectable thing to have done would have been to say "He was the heart of the show, he can not be replaced. We will show the remaining episodes then re-runs for the remainder of the season."

But no, they said "He would have wanted us to use his death to get huge ratings early in the season. Then we will destroy the show because it will no longer be funny."

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:46 AM

CAPTBAGGYTROUSERS

Okay, I never watched the show, so I can't comment on how it was before and how Ritter's death will effect the quality. However, the idea that it's somehow disrespectful to continue doesn't necessarily seem to be the cold, mercenary decision it does to some of you. This show is doing well in the ratings, presumably people like it and like the characters. Yes, it's therefore making a lot of money, but it's also employing the cast, production staff and hundreds of crewmembers. I don't want to suggest this is entirely about money, but those people are still alive and still have families to support. Is Ritter's memory so important that they have to shutter this production?

When Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons progressed and he had to leave the sitcom "Spin City"- which was a vehicle created for him- the show continued with his blessing and a new lead actor, Charlie Sheen. In the case of "8 Simple Rules..." I wonder what Ritter would have wanted, but I suspect he'd want the show to go on.

I can't believe I just made a case for keeping "8 Simple Rules..." on the air. Huh?

History repeats the old conceits

http://topshelftvshow.com
Updated! Improved! Shiny!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:28 AM

JOHNNYREB

I have to agree with CBT, John Ritter was the star, but he wasn't the whole show. We're not talking about "Our Town" done in monologue. I'm sure all the actor, actresses, gaffs, lighting techs, etc. need to feed their families too. We can only hope that it is done tastefully.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
"ABC Will Continue John Ritter Sitcom "
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20030916
/ap_on_en_tv/ritter_show

The part that annoys me is the Reality TV reference in the article:

"We will play out the situation as real life."

"Future episodes will take viewers into the Hennessy household as they experience the loss of a father and construct a new life together," said Lloyd Braun, chairman of the ABC Entertainment Television Group.

I don't see the "reality TV" reference. I do understand what they mean by "...play out the situation as real life."
It means that they won't gloss over the situation as if the character merely isn't there. If would be unrealistic if the Dad character just wasn't around after being so involved in his daughter's lives.
I read in an industry publication that the character Ritter played will also have died and the family will be dealing with this in future episodes.
This is still a sitcom (or now, maybe what's called a 'dramedy'). Not "reality TV."
I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.
I admit, I never watched the show, but I feel for Ritter's co-workers and especially for his family.
He will be missed.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
---TllGrrl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallgrrl:
I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

Excuse me? I am not misunderstanding anything, you are telling me old news. I disagree with you. John Ritter deserves better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBaggytrousers:
I can't believe I just made a case for keeping "8 Simple Rules..." on the air. Huh?

History repeats the old conceits

http://topshelftvshow.com
Updated! Improved! Shiny!

Actors live to act.
John Ritter was an actor. Because of his fellow cast members, there's no way he would have wanted this show to stop just because he was no longer there.

I'm very sure that the network is extremely saddened by the death of one of their hit show's stars...but you can bet your behind that the main thing on their minds was The Money.
That's their business, pure and simple.

Most people don't know or understand this concept, so here is your lesson in TV:
Network programming exists for one reason...to make an audience for commercials. Not the other way around. Some shows, you can tell there only in it for the money. Other times you get lucky and get a show like "Firefly".

Anyway, that's how the networks stay alive.
When a network (and this includes their affiliate stations) has a "hit", especially in Prime Time, commercial time during that show is very very expensive.
An advertiser pays a lot of money for a 30 second spot during a hit show. Thousands, sometimes millions (in the case of something huge like the Superbowl) of dollars.
"8 Rules..." is a hit show for ABC.
-**
The advertisers know that a lot of people watch and they pay large money to the network (and local businesses pay hefty ad fees to affiliates)to have their ads run during that show.
ABC does not want to lose this ad revenue.
They hope the writers do a good enough job continuing this story without it's key star, so that people will continue to care about the characters and keep watching.

I hate to sound cold, but ABC would be stupid to cancel this show outright because of the tragic and sudden death of John Ritter. Their stockholders would consider it a bad move to not see if they can salvage the show.

And you are right: there are a lot of people involved in this project.From the cast members to the crew including costumers, grips, prop masters, script supervisors, camera operators...and the list goes on because it takes a lot of people to put a show on every week. I know this to be true because I've worked in the industry for many years and have friends who still do in front of and behind the camera.

Yeah, I feel like I'm making a case for "8 Rules" too, but I'm not. Even though it's not what I like, I'm not about putting people out of work.
Well, except the people who produce the reality-crap like "Joe Millionaire" and people who cancel good, innovative, EMMY WINNING, shows like Firefly.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
---TllGrrl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tallgrrl:
I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.
Excuse me? I am not misunderstanding anything, you are telling me old news. I disagree with you. John Ritter deserves better.

Hey, John Ritter was an really wonderful dramatic actor who deserved better than to be in crap like "8 Rules...", but that's my NSHO.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
---TllGrrl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallgrrl:
here is your lesson in TV:

I think your lesson is ridiculous.

Tallgrrl: "Here's a lesson for you. At night, it gets dark."

The reason this has a Reality TV feel to it, is because they are going to glorify how the cast is suffering. Cast members will take turns before each show to talk about their personal experience with John Ritter. To me, it seems like a celebration of death / reality tv bullshit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tallgrrl:
here is your lesson in TV:
I think your lesson is ridiculous.

Tallgrrl: "Here's a lesson for you. At night, it gets dark."

The reason this has a Reality TV feel to it, is because they are going to glorify how the cast is suffering. Cast members will take turns before each show to talk about their personal experience with John Ritter. To me, it seems like a celebration of death / reality tv bullshit.

Here's a follow-up lesson for you: "In the daytime, the sun shines and it's no longer dark."
Here's some "light" for ya:
There is NO COERSION happening here. (Like in "reality TV".)
There are NO HIDDEN CAMERAS. (Like in "reality TV".

There are NO STUPID STUNTS. (Like in "reality TV".

There is NO ONE COMPETING FOR A PRIZE.(Like in...well, you know.)

Therefore, no one's "suffering" is being "glorified".
What is it, exactly, don't you get?
For crying out loud. A well-liked star of a TV show, in the middle of a very successful comeback, suddenly takes ill on the set...and dies. And it's not a dramatic show...it's a SITCOM.

Excuse me, but from what I've been told, the shows that will have the cast members talk about Ritter are the remaining episodes filmed that have Ritter IN THEM.

These are the last episodes Ritter did. OF COURSE the cast members are going to talk about the guy before the episodes are aired.

This is NOT reality TV, dear heart. It's not a 'celebration of death'. Sheesh.

Being that the show is a sitcom, without these intros and tributes, there are people who would probably think it jarring and even crass to even show the episodes at all. The interviews are a psychological "cushion" for the viewers, who are about to watch the final episodes of this show that John Ritter appeared in.
OK?
Now...the last thing you need to understand is that you don't have to watch this shit. I'm not watching it because I wasn't a fan of the show. But I (unlike some people) understand why they're doing what they're going to do.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
---TllGrrl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:07 PM

Excuse me, but this thread is subjective, hence the question mark in the title. Your lessons are ridiculous, but this thread is not. Good issues have been raised, and it's ultimately a matter of personal opinion.

Truth is, no one on this board has probably seen the show, lol.

In any case, I look forward to your next lesson. I've been wondering for years what happens to caterpillars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:49 PM

I had no problem with cast-members talking before the show, if it's done tastefully. I do have a slight problem with the fact that they are planning on continuing with the sitcom with the dad's (Ritter's) death written into the plot. That seems a bit crass to me.
I understand about people needing to keep their jobs and all, but this show is not going to make it without Ritter anyway, so they should just end it, and not give into the stockholders of the show, who only want to reap money by having Ritter's death played out on their show.
If those people actually cared one whit about John Ritter, they wouldn't take his memory and reduce it to a spectacle... which I sadly feel the episode showing his death will be. They should not be trying to play on my love for John Ritter. I feel they are. It's not right.

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Excuse me, but this thread is subjective, hence the question mark in the title. Your lessons are ridiculous, but this thread is not. Good issues have been raised, and it's ultimately a matter of personal opinion.

Truth is, no one on this board has probably seen the show, lol.

In any case, I look forward to your next lesson. I've been wondering for years what happens to caterpillars.

First of all, Succatash, the "lessons" thing wasn't started by yours truly. That was started with that quote about the dark.
My "lesson" was about how things work in Television. You think I'm lyin'? Then ask Joss Whedon about the Cold Hard Facts. If anyone can give you a chilling lesson about how things are he sure can.
Second, caterpillars ( www.caterpillars.org) turn into butterflies or moths, depending. (Missed a day back in elementary school, eh?

)

And as I stated, I am also not a viewer of "8 Rules" or any of the other stuff that's on the ABC/Disney schedule.
But my post was merely an attempt to give some insight and clarification to the person who seemed to think that the actor's interview/tributes was "reality TV". (Which it is not.)
This person seemed to be concerned that the cast members's suffering was being exploited.
In TV, it's the audiences emotions that are played on....not the employees (the actors).
And I was trying to give some insight as to why the decision was made not to kill Ritter's show too quickly.
Anyway, bottom line (no pun intended) is that the viewers will ultimately determine the fate of that show. If for whatever reason, people stop watching "8 Rules", it will be yanked, and another formulaic sitcom will take its place as quickly as possible so as not to lose revenue. (There are a number of sitcoms that didn't make the cut this season, so there are quite a few 'in the can' ready to be plugged into the schedule.)
And as far as the network is concerned, if Ritter's show peters out, the new replacement will hopefully it will be a hit, will bring in lots of money...and its main star won't have to be replaced.
So...that's it.
No hating was implied. Just shedding a little "light".
If ya learned something ya didn't already know, then it's all good, ain't not?
Don't hate the messenger. Hate the stinkin' networks!!!

(FYI: By the way, I have to admit...I work in the Industry and "8 Rules" was one of 5 pilots I saw before they aired. Of the 10 minutes I saw, I didn't think it was funny...but Ritter made it somewhat appealing.)
Peace

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
---TllGrrl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:20 AM

SomeGirl wrote: "But my post was merely an attempt to give some insight and clarification to the person who seemed to think that the actor's interview/tributes was "reality TV". (Which it is not.)"

I mentioned a reference to Reality TV, which it is. You are wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:21 AM

Place yer bets! Place yer bets! Our next fight in the ring will be Succatash versus Tallgirl. This will be a 12 round fight. If your opponent gets knocked down, go to your corner and wait till I tell you to come out.
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:37 AM

MELEAUX

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Place yer bets! Place yer bets! Our next fight in the ring will be Succatash versus Tallgirl. This will be a 12 round fight. If your opponent gets knocked down, go to your corner and wait till I tell you to come out.
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

My bet goes to tallgirl. Watch out Tallgirl goes in my expeirence Sauccatash can fight dirty

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:35 AM

This thread is turning into a bigger insult to John Ritter than "8 Simple Rules."

I don't care who disagrees with me, and I don't intend to spend any further energy on this subject. I think it is VERY likely that the success of Reality TV was a factor in their decision to "play out the situation as real life."

The thing that bothers me about TallGirl is not her opinion but the way she assumes my opinion is a misunderstanding. Her "lessons" are stupid and uninformative.

She has a flair for the obvious which is irrelevant when it comes to personal opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:27 AM

OOOOF!
(Succatash lands an uppercut)
That came out of nowhere folks.
Tallgirl must be stunned still.

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 19, 2003 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
This thread is turning into a bigger insult to John Ritter than "8 Simple Rules."

I don't care who disagrees with me, and I don't intend to spend any further energy on this subject. I think it is VERY likely that the success of Reality TV was a factor in their decision to "play out the situation as real life."

The thing that bothers me about TallGirl is not her opinion but the way she assumes my opinion is a misunderstanding. Her "lessons" are stupid and uninformative.

She has a flair for the obvious which is irrelevant when it comes to personal opinion.

Dearheart, there was absolutely NO assumption. Not MY part anyway.
Let's see, you make a statement that John Ritter's death is being turned into something akin to "reality TV". I read that statement and wrote, "Well, no. Not really and here's why..."
You, then, reacted is if someone has personally attacked you.
My reply, in turn, was made as an attempt to drop a little bit of knowledge onto your dome.
You, then, chose to go off.
Look...Let's get this straight: I never insulted John Ritter. I also didn't imply that his cast members's "suffering" was being exploited by having them interviewed.
And I didn't liken said interview to "reality TV."
I also never called your opinion or any statements you made "stupid". Though I could have.
In my opinion, humble tho' it may be, you didn't quite get what the network was doing. OK?
Your concern with ABC's move gave me the impression that, like so many people, you didn't understand why this was being done. (You'd probably be surprised how many people don't know how TV--and the minds behind it--works. What? You do?? Well, congrats! But everyone isn't as smart as you, now are they? What is "obvious" to you, isn't to everyone. Sheesh.)
When you answered with your little "lesson" about it being dark at night etc., I figured I'd answer with my own little "lesson." OK? Are we clear up to this point?
I took what I thought was the High Road and figured I'd throw in my contribution with an explaination (that's one of the good things about message boards: ideas and info are freely exchanged): In fact, MY answer to your post started with "I don't see the "reality TV" reference. I do understand what they mean by "...play out the situation as real life."
Which means they will write the episodes having the characters deal with the death of their loved one as any real family would, suffering the death of a family member.
Your answer was when the "lesson" thing started, and you went off.
Look. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Apparently you felt insulted that I took your "opinion" for a misunderstanding and offered explaination not just for you, but anyone else.
I, too, have written my last on this subject and will end by continue to take the High Road by never once referring to you, or your misunderstanding, as "stupid".

Peace.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
---TllGrrl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 19, 2003 6:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by meleaux:
Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Place yer bets! Place yer bets! Our next fight in the ring will be Succatash versus Tallgirl. This will be a 12 round fight. If your opponent gets knocked down, go to your corner and wait till I tell you to come out.
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

My bet goes to tallgirl. Watch out Tallgirl goes in my expeirence Sauccatash can fight dirty

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

Usually one resorts to fighting dirty when one lacks the skills, the means or the tools to fight (or win) fairly.
I have no fear.
Oh, and sorry about the late reply.
I have a job and can't always sign on and play while I'm at work.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
---TllGrrl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:28 PM