Chronicles, Litanies, and Fanboy Obsessions:

The Wardwell(?!) Usenet Chronicles.

Assuming you got here from this Gretchen Egolf Chronicle, you know what's going on. If not, I'd suggest reading it.

The Not-Very Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. I am not responsible for them in any way. Except my own, but I'll deny fathering those little monsters without proof.


Leap Of Faith (<20020301015133.15509.00000665@mb-fi.aol.com>)
by dominik500@aol.com (Dominik500) on 01 Mar 2002 06:51:33 GMT


Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and unlikeable
characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack
there of)  Any other comments?

Dominik
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<a5n9ul$k1o$1@og1.olagrande.net>)
    by griffith@olagrande.net (Jim Griffith) on Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:17:41 +0000 (UTC)

  
  In article <20020301015133.15509.00000665@mb-fi.aol.com>,
  Dominik500  wrote:
  >Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and unlikeable
  >characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack
  >there of)  Any other comments?
  
  Yeah.  I think you were watching the wrong channel.  
  
  				Jim
  
  -- 
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jim Griffith  /--OO--\     | Two great powers are on our side: the power of
  griffith@olagrande.net     | Love and the power of Arithmetic.  These two are
  BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | stronger than anything else in the world.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<3c7f34b0.18204227@news.prodigy.net>)
    by M. V.L. M. on Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:56:51 GMT

  
  griffith@olagrande.net (Jim Griffith) wrote:
  
  >In article <20020301015133.15509.00000665@mb-fi.aol.com>,
  >Dominik500  wrote:
  >>Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and unlikeable
  >>characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack
  >>there of)  Any other comments?
  >
  >Yeah.  I think you were watching the wrong channel.  
  >
  
  I liked it.
  
  Her frizzy-haired friend is probably my favorite.  She does 'Frasier's
  "Roz" even better than Peri Gilpin does.
  
  
  -- Michelle
  
  
  ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
  m_v_l_m@yahoo.com
  
  Name that tune!
  "...How sometimes life can be so unpredictable
  and if they had to do it all again..."
  
  
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<a5ns91$q83$4@opus.pdx.net>)
    by "m. Halbrook" on Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:30:26 +0000 (UTC)

  
  dominik500@aol.com (Dominik500) wrote in
  news:20020301015133.15509.00000665@mb-fi.aol.com: 
  
  > Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and
  > unlikeable characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall
  > unpleasant plot (or lack there of)  Any other comments?
  > 
  > Dominik
  
  It's got more potential than any of the other comedies NBC's put out with 
  the exception of Scrubs.  Of course I liked Inside Schwartz, Emirl and The 
  Fighting Fitzgeralds too.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020301081744.23799.00001022@mb-fr.aol.com>)
    by amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) on 01 Mar 2002 13:17:44 GMT

  
  dominik500@aol.com said:
  
  >Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and unlikeable
  >characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack
  >there of)  Any other comments?
  
  i'm just gonna guess that we weren't watching the same show.
  
  i didn't see anything particularly smarmy or unlikeable about any of the
  characters. unless you're offended by casual sex, i can't find anything
  particularly wrong with them other than them just not being very well written
  this first time out. i was under the impression that the friends were going to
  be more equal with faith taking on the carrie bradshaw role of the group. but,
  they didn't really introduce us to ken or regina's characters at all. i can't
  fault any of the actors, though...they all did a fine job with what they were
  given. 
  
  it wasn't the best show i've ever seen, but it shows a lot of promise. as
  always, it was a pilot, so i cut them some slack. besides that, it's structural
  similarities to "sex and the city" (and the fact that they've been beating it
  into viewers' heads that jenny bicks is the woman behind it) distracted me a
  bit as i sat there deciding who was who. but, now that i've gotten that out of
  my system if they can make some small improvements, i'll really like this show.
  
  
  whatever happens, it's certainly not worse than "inside swartz". it might be
  the best post-"friends" show they've given us yet. 
  
  amy
  chas: "is it dark?"
  richie: "of course it's dark...it's a suicide note."
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020301122352.17491.00001444@mb-cr.aol.com>)
    by twc6@aol.com.org (Twc6) on 01 Mar 2002 17:23:52 GMT

  
  <>
  
  Yeah, it's the first new NBC sitcom in a long time that I actually WANT to
  watch again. There are certain things about it that are a little forced, such
  as the group of friends is obivously a Sex in the City thing, though they are
  obviously trying to downplay that, which it more obvious -- "okay, it's like
  the Sex and the City group, but one is black, one's a straight guy and they are
  all more quirky."
  
  The shocking thing is that the actor playing the new romantic interest is
  actually interesting as an actor! Can't believe it!
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<ws21-0103021412420001@128.253.187.23>)
    by ws21@cornell.edu (Bill Steele) on Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:12:42 -0500

  
  In article <20020301122352.17491.00001444@mb-cr.aol.com>, twc6@aol.com.org
  (Twc6) wrote:
  
  > There are certain things about it that are a little forced, such
  > as the group of friends is obivously a Sex in the City thing, though they are
  > obviously trying to downplay that, which it more obvious -- "okay, it's like
  > the Sex and the City group, but one is black, one's a straight guy and
  they are
  > all more quirky."
  
  Theory: in order to sell it to NBC, they had to pitch it as being "like
  Sex and the City," and deliberately make the pilot in that mold. Now that
  it's on, hopefully they can take a different direction. The show is, after
  all, called "Leap of Faith" and not "More Sex in the Same City," so I
  expect more concentration on the central character than in SatC.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<nwRf8.83411$JZ.10552641@news20.bellglobal.com>)
    by I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com (Len P.) on Fri, 01 Mar 2002 20:32:19 GMT

  
  Dominik500 wrote:
  
  (Disclaimer: I don't watch much TV. But I had several reasons to tune this one 
  in.) 
  
  >Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz. 
  
  Didn't see it, so I can't say.
  
  >Smarmy and unlikeable characters, 
  
  I'll buy that one. Some of the actors handled things well, but the characters 
  were just... eugh. Only Faith really didn't grate against me (though Paulson 
  doesn't strike me as the perfect choice of actress - too young-looking to be 
  entirely believeable as someone running behind on her life-schedule - 
  Paulson's not far off of the age where some actors play teenagers). 
  
  My big problem with the environment was how misogynistic it felt. The women at 
  the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus - 
  way to perpetuate the stereotype that a woman can be distracted from anything, 
  even a marriage collapsing in front of her, by simply invoking the image of 
  something cute).
  
  Faith must've had a helluva childhood with a mom and sister like that.
  
  >REALLY REALLY lame jokes, 
  
  Pretty much all of 'em fell flat, didn't they? I was grateful for the lack of 
  a laugh track - I dislike being told what's funny when I don't think it is.
  
  >and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack there of)
  
  Plot was a cookiecutter pilot thing, obvious start/middle/end even if you 
  didn't know the setup. Fiance is set up to be grating from the first scene he 
  was in, so when the Hunky Actor Guy comes along you can sit back and watch the 
  dominoes fall. 
  
  But the sub-sub-plot that seemed to do nothing but assert that Faith's male 
  pal wasn't gay struck me as fighting against the obvious assumption a little 
  *too* heavily.
  
  >Any other comments?
  
  About as mean-spirited and aggravating as most of the sitcoms I've seen. While 
  this is not a horrible sin no one's ever committed before - it has a long and 
  venerable(?) tradition - it's not the greatest foot to get started on. 
  
  At a guess, you don't like Sex and the City. I get the feeling that there's an 
  overlap between the targetted fanbases and therefore a similar overlap between 
  people who dislike them. I don't like either, obviously. Though, I admit, I 
  had a far better reaction to LoF than SatC. I managed to make it through LoF 
  without turning off the TV (even if I'm not turning it back on again). So 
  they're doing something right, at least.
  
  Len
  
  --
  Pointless sig file.
  http://archonrealm.cjb.net/ | http://archonrealm.tripod.com
  Replace "Doom!" with "Hotmail" to send e-mail.
  End pointless sig file.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020301154841.12729.00001221@mb-bj.aol.com>)
    by amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) on 01 Mar 2002 20:48:41 GMT

  
  I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com said:
  
  >My big problem with the environment was how misogynistic it felt. 
  
  other than what you posted here, what did you find misogynistic? 
  
  >The women at 
  >the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  >self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus -
  >
  >way to perpetuate the stereotype
  
  as if women like that don't exist. i can't count the number of showers i've
  been to that were full of those exact women. 
  
  >But the sub-sub-plot that seemed to do nothing but assert that Faith's male 
  >pal wasn't gay struck me as fighting against the obvious assumption a little 
  >*too* heavily.
  
  it wasn't that obvious since i never assumed he was gay. 
  
  i am annoyed, however, by the fact that all i know about him is what i read in
  a review in one of the weekly entertainment mags. if i'd gone into this show
  with no knowledge of it at all, i'd have no idea what his deal was. i still
  wouldn't have made any natural assumption that he was gay, though. 
  
  >About as mean-spirited and aggravating as most of the sitcoms I've seen. 
  
  what was mean spirited, exactly? 
  
  by the way...what exactly was your reason for tuning into this in the first
  place? 
  
  amy
  chas: "is it dark?"
  richie: "of course it's dark...it's a suicide note."
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<3c7fe701.51890201@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net>)
    by rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) on Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:33:34 GMT

  
  On 01 Mar 2002 20:48:41 GMT, amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) wrote:
  
  >>About as mean-spirited and aggravating as most of the sitcoms I've seen. 
  >
  >what was mean spirited, exactly? 
  >
  >by the way...what exactly was your reason for tuning into this in the first
  >place? 
  >
  
  I watched it because it was half an hour long.  Maybe he did, as well.
  
  
  Personally I didn't find it very funny, but I was far from sure that
  it was supposed to be very funny in the first place.  
  
  
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020301165057.15050.00001105@mb-bk.aol.com>)
    by amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) on 01 Mar 2002 21:50:57 GMT

  
  rgorman@telusplanet.net said:
  
  >I watched it because it was half an hour long.  Maybe he did, as well.
  
  i was asking specifically because he/she stated at the beginning of the post
  that there were reasons for watching it, yet never mentioned what those reasons
  were.
  
  amy
  chas: "is it dark?"
  richie: "of course it's dark...it's a suicide note."
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<b6Uf8.27562$q47.3594254@news20.bellglobal.com>)
    by I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com (Len P.) on Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:29:07 GMT

  
  AMYSA wrote:
  >I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com said:
  >
  >>My big problem with the environment was how misogynistic it felt. 
  >
  >other than what you posted here, what did you find misogynistic? 
  
  Edelstein's character (Patty?) not knowing "Coffee Guy's" real name, despite 
  both having sex with him/talking to him for hours nightly. It was a stretch 
  for one joke, and IMHO took her character out of the realm of someone who 
  enjoys casual sex and into the area where the word "tramp" applies. It's also 
  more caricature than character.
  
  If they passed this show off as light drama, they might not need to resort to 
  that sort of level of humor, where the characters suffer for the joke. Unless 
  they *want* the character to be like that, of course, which is part of a 
  bigger problem.
  
  >>The women at 
  >>the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  >>self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus -
  >>
  >>way to perpetuate the stereotype
  >
  >as if women like that don't exist. 
  
  Oh, they do, certainly, and I do my darnested to try avoid them.
  
  But there was such a... *uniformity* about it. The Stepford wedding party. 
  Made worse by the quick and jarring string of cuts involving Patty in that 
  scene, which just shook up my suspension of disbelief.
  
  >i can't count the number of showers i've
  >been to that were full of those exact women. 
  
  Shame, that. I've never been to one, but I've heard of some good ones. 
  
  >>But the sub-sub-plot that seemed to do nothing but assert that Faith's male 
  >>pal wasn't gay struck me as fighting against the obvious assumption a little 
  >>*too* heavily.
  >
  >it wasn't that obvious since i never assumed he was gay. 
  
  I personally didn't care either way. Several reporters did, though, which must 
  influence at least some of the audience. I've read at least one rundown - long 
  story, but I've been keeping an eye on this show since August - which was of 
  the sort "One guy hanging around with a bunch of women, he must be gay!" Just 
  the first scene struck me as a reply to that sort of criticism. The criticism 
  wasn't fair but the subplot just seemed to be left sitting there as some 
  response, since it served no other real purpose. 
  
  Let me phrase it another way: Removing his subplot moments - which were really 
  variations on the same joke - what did he have? About one scene, where he 
  talks to Faith about her fiance. It was one of the better scenes of the show 
  but even then it got bookended in his subplot.
  
  Could be a coincidence. But they've filmed two pilots, presumably the same 
  script twice. No room for punching-up in the four(ish) months in between?
  
  >i am annoyed, however, by the fact that all i know about him is what i read in
  >a review in one of the weekly entertainment mags. if i'd gone into this show
  >with no knowledge of it at all, i'd have no idea what his deal was. 
  
  Well, both he and Regina King were short-changed in setting up the pilot plot. 
  Since they don't work at the ad agency, all their scenes will have to be 
  outside of that. Patty, on the other hand, is convenient, so she got coverage 
  second only to Faith.
  
  >>About as mean-spirited and aggravating as most of the sitcoms I've seen. 
  >
  >what was mean spirited, exactly? 
  
  General feeling. Made worse every time the fiance was onscreen, since he was 
  both dislikeable and also clearly written as such (it's that "written as such" 
  that got me). Maybe I'm just too fond of light escapism in my television 
  programming, not something I've seen much of since... hmm... the 90's.
  
  >by the way...what exactly was your reason for tuning into this in the first
  >place? 
  
  Long story made short - I mentioned in a public forum that I intended to watch 
  at least the pilot. And I dislike going back on such a statement unless I have 
  to.
  
  Len
  
  --
  Pointless sig file.
  http://archonrealm.cjb.net/ | http://archonrealm.tripod.com
  Replace "Doom!" with "Hotmail" to send e-mail.
  End pointless sig file.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020301191110.16955.00001486@mb-dd.aol.com>)
    by twc6@aol.com.org (Twc6) on 02 Mar 2002 00:11:10 GMT

  
  <<>The women at 
  >the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  >self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus -
  >
  >way to perpetuate the stereotype>>
  
  This bothered me too -- why would Faith have these people to her party? They
  obviously weren't people she was FRIENDS with.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<a5p70a$7la$1@og1.olagrande.net>)
    by griffith@olagrande.net (Jim Griffith) on Sat, 2 Mar 2002 00:39:38 +0000 (UTC)

  
  In article <20020301191110.16955.00001486@mb-dd.aol.com>,
  Twc6  wrote:
  ><<>The women at 
  >>the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  >>self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus -
  >>
  >>way to perpetuate the stereotype>>
  >
  >This bothered me too -- why would Faith have these people to her party? They
  >obviously weren't people she was FRIENDS with.
  
  This didn't bother me a bit, and I suspect you two are thinking like guys.
  First off, it's highly doubtful that Faith organized the party herself, as
  you never throw yourself a bridal shower.  Second, it seemed clear that
  Faith's mother is being portrayed as a New York socialite (as is Faith's
  sister), while Faith is being portrayed as decidedly uninterested in the
  socialite scene.  That explains the New York Times reference.  It seemed
  obvious to me that Faith's mother organized the shower in traditional
  socialite style and that Faith was more or less forced to endure it, when
  she'd rather have gone off and gotten rowdy with her two or three close
  "normal" friends.
  
  				Jim
  
  -- 
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jim Griffith  /--OO--\     | Two great powers are on our side: the power of
  griffith@olagrande.net     | Love and the power of Arithmetic.  These two are
  BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | stronger than anything else in the world.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<3c80159e.63824646@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net>)
    by rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) on Sat, 02 Mar 2002 00:52:01 GMT

  
  On 02 Mar 2002 00:11:10 GMT, twc6@aol.com.org (Twc6) wrote:
  
  ><<>The women at 
  >>the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  >>self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus -
  >>
  >>way to perpetuate the stereotype>>
  >
  >This bothered me too -- why would Faith have these people to her party? They
  >obviously weren't people she was FRIENDS with.
  
  It wasn't Faith's party.  It was her bridal shower, and the bride
  doesn't pick who comes to the shower.  The organiser does.  
  
  
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020301201228.15034.00001201@mb-bk.aol.com>)
    by snostormdansr@aol.com (Snostormdansr) on 02 Mar 2002 01:12:28 GMT

  
  Yes, a bad rip-off of SATC/Friends, but I may give it one more try, only
  because it doesn't have a laugh track.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020301220106.03239.00000180@mb-cv.aol.com>)
    by corwin2@aol.comamber (Corwin2) on 02 Mar 2002 03:01:06 GMT

  
  
  >Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and unlikeable
  >characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack
  >there of)  Any other comments?
  
  A PG version of Sex in the City.  I thought the setup/pilot was very 
  likeable but I think the pilot will be the best episode of the series.
  (With not quite a big a gap as there was between the pilot and the 
  regular episode of Dharma & Greg, however.)  I also don't think a 
  PG version of Sex in the City is sustainable, but we'll see.
  
  BTW, NBC may be re-running it (and Watching Ellie) Sunday??
  night after Law & Order: Criminal Intent.  (Or it may have
  switched gears and run Dateline.)
  
  This is not a recommendation of Watching Ellie.  I started watching
  the timer and telling myself it was only another 9 minutes.  Only
  another 6 minutes.  Only another 3 minutes.  I'm not likely to be
  watching Ellie again.
  
  (J)
  
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<HdXf8.83671$JZ.10760146@news20.bellglobal.com>)
    by I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com (Len P.) on Sat, 02 Mar 2002 03:01:57 GMT

  
  Jim Griffith wrote:
  >In article <20020301191110.16955.00001486@mb-dd.aol.com>,
  >Twc6  wrote:
  >><<>The women at 
  >>>the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  >>>self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus -
  >>>
  >>>way to perpetuate the stereotype>>
  >>
  >>This bothered me too -- why would Faith have these people to her party? They
  >>obviously weren't people she was FRIENDS with.
  >
  >This didn't bother me a bit, and I suspect you two are thinking like guys.
  
  Thank you.
  
  >First off, it's highly doubtful that Faith organized the party herself, as
  >you never throw yourself a bridal shower.  
  
  But then, you don't try to do something like this at the expense of a family 
  member. Unless... (see below).
  
  >Second, it seemed clear that
  >Faith's mother is being portrayed as a New York socialite (as is Faith's
  >sister), while Faith is being portrayed as decidedly uninterested in the
  >socialite scene.  That explains the New York Times reference.  It seemed
  >obvious to me that Faith's mother organized the shower in traditional
  >socialite style 
  
  (Snip)
  
  Ah, a "socialite". As in, the kind of woman prone to inviting her own 
  "friends" almost exclusively to the sort of thing that shouldn't include more 
  than one or two at the most? Kind of woman who'd do nothing but gossip about 
  the quality of the gifts once their givers have left? Kind of woman who sees 
  blood ties as something to be exploited? 
  
  That's part of the reason I do so like the word "estranged" when speaking of a 
  family tree in desperate need of pruning. It either finalizes things or it 
  makes it obvious to the person that things will be final if they don't shape 
  up. Of course, then you wouldn't have a TV show.
  
  Len
  
  --
  Pointless sig file.
  http://archonrealm.cjb.net/ | http://archonrealm.tripod.com
  Replace "Doom!" with "Hotmail" to send e-mail.
  End pointless sig file.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<b85819de.0203012048.42df6f@posting.google.com>)
    by carmenlee23@yahoo.com (Jule) on 1 Mar 2002 20:48:11 -0800

  
  I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com (Len P.) wrote in message news:...
  > AMYSA wrote:
  > >I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com said:
  > >
  > >>My big problem with the environment was how misogynistic it felt. 
  > >
  > >other than what you posted here, what did you find misogynistic? 
  > 
  > Edelstein's character (Patty?) not knowing "Coffee Guy's" real name, despite 
  > both having sex with him/talking to him for hours nightly. It was a stretch 
  > for one joke, and IMHO took her character out of the realm of someone who 
  > enjoys casual sex and into the area where the word "tramp" applies. It's also 
  > more caricature than character.
  
  Yeah, that was a bit heavy-handed.  Maybe the half-hour format makes
  them have to characterize at a speedier pace, or something.  But I
  didn't buy it, and I agree that the actors all did a good job with
  what they were given.  It's not a good sign when you're watching a
  show and you get the impression that reading the script must have been
  a bit of an eye-roller for the actors.
  
  > 
  > If they passed this show off as light drama, they might not need to resort to 
  > that sort of level of humor, where the characters suffer for the joke. Unless 
  > they *want* the character to be like that, of course, which is part of a 
  > bigger problem.
  > 
  > >>The women at 
  > >>the bridal shower (save Faith and her two pals) were all portrayed as 
  > >>self-important/manipulative (Faith's family) or morons (the "Awwww!" chorus -
  > >>
  > >>way to perpetuate the stereotype
  > >
  > >as if women like that don't exist. 
  > 
  > Oh, they do, certainly, and I do my darnested to try avoid them.
  
  Yep, the pastel blue headband and matching cardigan of Faith's sister
  were a dead giveaway. :)  She's what Bridget Jones would have called a
  Smug Married.  But I guess that's another case of the misogyny.  One
  character's a tramp, the other is a Stepford wife.  Combined with the
  crappy writing, the show wasn't all that fun to watch.
  
  > 
  > But there was such a... *uniformity* about it. The Stepford wedding party. 
  > Made worse by the quick and jarring string of cuts involving Patty in that 
  > scene, which just shook up my suspension of disbelief.
  > 
  > >i can't count the number of showers i've
  > >been to that were full of those exact women. 
  > 
  > Shame, that. I've never been to one, but I've heard of some good ones. 
  
  Gosh, those parties must have been scary.  I did like it when Faith
  said she'd slept wtih someone else and told everyone to take their
  gifts back.  Someone in the foreground did just that, and Faith saw it
  and made this little "well, there ya go" hand gesture.  And I liked
  the Kruschev line, too.  I've heard the "I think you're jealous" line
  before from smarmy women armed with occupied Snuglis and I wanted to
  hurl.  Wish I'd thought of that retort. :)  I HATE when women are
  b*tchy to women.  But I won't get started on that can o' worms. :)
  
  > 
  > >>But the sub-sub-plot that seemed to do nothing but assert that Faith's male 
  > >>pal wasn't gay struck me as fighting against the obvious assumption a little 
  > >>*too* heavily.
  > >
  > >it wasn't that obvious since i never assumed he was gay. 
  > 
  > I personally didn't care either way. Several reporters did, though, which must 
  > influence at least some of the audience. I've read at least one rundown - long 
  > story, but I've been keeping an eye on this show since August - which was of 
  > the sort "One guy hanging around with a bunch of women, he must be gay!" Just 
  > the first scene struck me as a reply to that sort of criticism. The criticism 
  > wasn't fair but the subplot just seemed to be left sitting there as some 
  > response, since it served no other real purpose.
  
  Well, he was all jerkazoid and kept waving at women like he had
  something to prove.  Eh.  Whatever.
  
  I didn't like it very much.  My main beef was the bad and shallow
  writing and the attempts at humor, the slapping the slut label on
  Patty, the strangely cruel mom (the bastard child of a bathmat? 
  Geez!).  But the basic problem came through, that everyone outside of
  work treats Faith like a child and she deserves better than that and
  needs to be allowed to be herself, etc.  When Faith goes to the
  actor's apartment and says she wanted to kiss him I went, oh, brother!
   And almost didn't watch the rest of it.  But I did.  It got a little
  better the second half, but not much.  Eh, I gave it a look.  Probably
  won't watch the next episode.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<barmar-88DD9D.10263402032002@lrnws01-hme1.ne.mediaone.net>)
    by Barry Margolin on Sat, 02 Mar 2002 15:23:33 GMT

  
  In article <20020301122352.17491.00001444@mb-cr.aol.com>,
   twc6@aol.com.org (Twc6) wrote:
  
  > Yeah, it's the first new NBC sitcom in a long time that I actually WANT to
  > watch again. There are certain things about it that are a little forced, such
  > as the group of friends is obivously a Sex in the City thing, though they are
  > obviously trying to downplay that, which it more obvious -- "okay, it's like
  > the Sex and the City group, but one is black, one's a straight guy and they 
  > are
  > all more quirky."
  
  Everyone seems to be saying this is a SatC thing, but I think it's just 
  a "TV thing".  Ensemble sit-coms have been around for years.  Why isn't 
  it a "Seinfeld thing" -- it also had four friends who got together every 
  episode in their regular hangout.  The main similarity with SatC is that 
  the primary topic of conversation seems to be sex; on Seinfeld they were 
  just as likely to discuss a quirk of language (e.g. "yadda-yadda").
  
  -- 
  Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
  Genuity, Inc., Woburn, MA
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<cbastian-83BC47.13074002032002@nntp.acedsl.com>)
    by Chris Bastian on Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:07:40 -0500

  
  In article ,
   Barry Margolin  wrote:
  
  > Everyone seems to be saying this is a SatC thing, but I think it's just 
  > a "TV thing".  Ensemble sit-coms have been around for years.  Why isn't 
  > it a "Seinfeld thing" -- it also had four friends who got together every 
  > episode in their regular hangout.  The main similarity with SatC is that 
  > the primary topic of conversation seems to be sex; on Seinfeld they were 
  > just as likely to discuss a quirk of language (e.g. "yadda-yadda").
  
  The distinction is two-fold: first, LOF is a show that focuses on sex 
  and relationships, while Seinfeld was the "show about nothing": yes 
  there was a group of friends, but that was largely incidental to the 
  plots.  Second, I would argue that Seinfeld was a "show about funny 
  people" as opposed to LOF which is a "funny show about people": e.g. 
  Seinfeld's characters were more likely to be exagerated personalities, 
  as opposed to fairly normal people-typese with some slightly exagerated 
  quirks.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<cbastian-032C0B.13100202032002@nntp.acedsl.com>)
    by Chris Bastian on Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:10:02 -0500

  
  BTW, does anyone know the name of the song that was playing in the last 
  5 minutes of the episode?  I couldn't find any listing in the closing 
  credits.
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<4f628u4ngq7c91sdg9eaaiuhdtko5jn8lr@4ax.com>)
    by Maureen Goldman on Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:14:18 -0800

  
  snostormdansr@aol.com (Snostormdansr) wrote:
  
  >Yes, a bad rip-off of SATC/Friends, but I may give it one more try, only
  >because it doesn't have a laugh track.
  
  I appreciate shows not having laugh tracks, but at the same time it
  throws me off somewhat because I'm used to them. Don't notice the
  absence at all with Malcolm in the Middle or Bernie Mac, but with
  others like these two new ones I kept waiting for the canned laughter.
  
  I didn't think "Faith" was awful, but I'm not sure if the personable
  actor character is ongoing cast and he's the one I liked best. Got
  tired of listening to her pal go on and on about her fling with the
  energetic younger man.
  
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<a5sinh$1j6$1@pyrite.mv.net>)
    by mem@geezer.org (Mark E. Mallett) on 3 Mar 2002 07:18:09 GMT

  
  In article <3c7fe701.51890201@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net>,
  David Johnston  wrote:
  >
  >I watched it because it was half an hour long.  Maybe he did, as well.
  
  Me too--
  
  But it sure seemed longer than that.  I kept thinking: man, when will
  this be over?  OTOH the pilot for Ellen was worse, and subsequent
  episodes of that were very good.  It's hard to judge from a pilot.
  
  The main problem for me was that every event in these peoples' lives,
  no matter how important, was significant to them only in what kind of
  lame quip they could make out of it.  I found that very unsettling and
  certainly not very interesting or amusing.
  
  mm
  --
  Mark E. Mallett                  |    geezer at http://www.geezer.org/
  MV Communications, Inc.          |    http://www.mv.com/
  NH Internet Access since 1991    |    (603) 629-0000 / FAX: 629-0049
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<barmar-DC022B.18133903032002@lrnws01-hme1.ne.mediaone.net>)
    by Barry Margolin on Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:10:37 GMT

  
  In article <4f628u4ngq7c91sdg9eaaiuhdtko5jn8lr@4ax.com>,
   Maureen Goldman  wrote:
  
  > I appreciate shows not having laugh tracks, but at the same time it
  > throws me off somewhat because I'm used to them. Don't notice the
  > absence at all with Malcolm in the Middle or Bernie Mac, but with
  > others like these two new ones I kept waiting for the canned laughter.
  
  I know what you mean.  This isn't an unconventional show like Malcolm or 
  The Job, so it seemed strange that it was lacking this typical element.
  
  -- 
  Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
  Genuity, Inc., Woburn, MA
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020305091001.01313.00001378@mb-de.aol.com>)
    by amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) on 05 Mar 2002 14:10:01 GMT

  
  Chris Bastian cbastian@acdesl.com said:
  
  >BTW, does anyone know the name of the song that was playing in the last 
  >5 minutes of the episode?  I couldn't find any listing in the closing 
  >credits.
  
  it's called "everything's all right" and it's by jude. he's an excellent singer
  and musician. the song is off his latest album "king of yesterday" which, due
  to record company nonsense, is pretty uneven. his record before that, though
  ("no one is really beautiful") is excellent. 
  
  amy
  chas: "is it dark?"
  richie: "of course it's dark...it's a suicide note."
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020305091510.01313.00001380@mb-de.aol.com>)
    by amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) on 05 Mar 2002 14:15:10 GMT

  
  barry said:
  
  >Everyone seems to be saying this is a SatC thing, but I think it's just 
  >a "TV thing".  Ensemble sit-coms have been around for years.
  
  but, there are many different kinds of ensemble sitcoms, thus breaking them
  down and comparing them to each other in different ways. 
  
  this show didn't have much of a resemblance to "seinfeld" at all. it didn't
  much look like "cheers" or "night court", either. it's closest relative is "sex
  and the city". if jenny bicks didn't spend the last couple of years of her life
  working on that show this would be considered a huge rip off. 
  
  on paper one might not see the similarities between the two, but the strolls on
  the street, the lunch, the bar they met in, the baby shower...this was all in
  the same style as "sex and the city". 
  
  i was just happy that the interviews with the men turned out to be a part of
  the casting process at the agency. i was worried that they were bringing back
  what i found to be the most annoying parts of early "sex..." episodes. 
  
  amy
  chas: "is it dark?"
  richie: "of course it's dark...it's a suicide note."
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020305092231.01313.00001382@mb-de.aol.com>)
    by amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) on 05 Mar 2002 14:22:31 GMT

  
  I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com  (Len P.) said:
  
  >But then, you don't try to do something like this at the expense of a family 
  >member. Unless... (see below).
  
  who says that it was at the expense of faith? she was forced into a shower the
  way a lot of women are forced into a shower. she had to endure sitting there
  with friends of her mother and sister and with, most likely, a couple of
  relatives. it was probably painful for her (it would certainly be painful for
  me) but there's nothing to indicate that there was anything mean spirited in
  the motivation. mom obviously wants to have the family in the paper (and the
  times' wedding announcements are big leauge). sister is a bit arrogant in
  thinking that faith should be like her. but, there was nothing out of the
  ordinary about that party. there was nothing to indicate that anyone was
  working with malice. they were throwing faith what they thought any young bride
  would both want and need...a nice, by the book shower. 
  
  >Ah, a "socialite". As in, the kind of woman prone to inviting her own 
  >"friends" almost exclusively to the sort of thing that shouldn't include more
  >
  >than one or two at the most? 
  
  you only invite "the best" to a shower. 
  
  
  
  with all due respect, the entire concept of the who, what, when and where of a
  baby shower seems to be a bit beyond your understanding. 
  
  amy
  chas: "is it dark?"
  richie: "of course it's dark...it's a suicide note."
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<7gaa8u0e0orb8o6lg0cf914cobm2qn57bp@4ax.com>)
    by Maureen Goldman on Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:44:19 -0800

  
  
  >on paper one might not see the similarities between the two, but the strolls on
  >the street, the lunch, the bar they met in, the baby shower...this was all in
  >the same style as "sex and the city". 
  
  T'was a bridal shower.
  
    Re: Leap Of Faith (<a640pb$1fc$1@vax.hanford.org>)
    by mattack@vax.hanford.org on 5 Mar 2002 19:00:59 -0800

  
  In article <20020301122352.17491.00001444@mb-cr.aol.com>,
  Twc6  wrote:
  >The shocking thing is that the actor playing the new romantic interest is
  >actually interesting as an actor! Can't believe it!
  
  Ken Marino is "the new guy", right?  i.e. I checked the names on imdb, 
  and don't remember the character names.
  
        Re: Leap Of Faith (<a640pb$1fc$1@vax.hanford.org>)
        by mattack@vax.hanford.org on 5 Mar 2002 19:00:59 -0800

    
    I think he looks incredibly like someone on one of the "Real World" seasons,
    I just can't think of who.   (I also just watched "A Town without Christmas",
    yes kind of late huh..  and the main guy in that seemed familiar but 
    can't think of what I've seen him in.)
    -- 
    mattack@area.com
            Re: Leap Of Faith (<20020305224410.29908.00001486@mb-fa.aol.com>)
            by amysa@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) on 06 Mar 2002 03:44:10 GMT

      
      mattack@vax.hanford.org said:
      
      >Ken Marino is "the new guy", right?  i.e. I checked the names on imdb, 
      >and don't remember the character names.
      
      ken marino is the male friend in the foursome. brad rowe plays the new love
      interest. 
      
      >From list listed credits, it doesn't seem like he's been in anything I 
      >watched regularly (except for guest spots), but he looks REALLY familiar.
      
      check brad's listings and you'll probably find something you know him from. he
      was jimmy's nephew on a handful of "newsradio" episodes. that was the first
      time i noticed him. after that he seemed to pop up everywhere. 
      
      > (I also just watched "A Town without Christmas",
      >yes kind of late huh..  and the main guy in that seemed familiar but 
      >can't think of what I've seen him in.)
      
      was that the one with patricia heaton? if so, the main guy in that was one of
      the doctors on "la doctors". i've seen him in many things, but that's the show
      i always instantly associate him with. 
      
      of course, i can't even think of his name right now...
      
      amy
      chas: "is it dark?"
      richie: "of course it's dark...it's a suicide note."
            Re: Leap Of Faith (<OVgh8.9955$7Y4.1897328@news20.bellglobal.com>)
            by I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com (Len P.) on Wed, 06 Mar 2002 04:29:37 GMT

      
      AMYSA wrote:
      >>But then, you don't try to do something like this at the expense of a family 
      >>member. Unless... (see below).
      >
      >who says that it was at the expense of faith? she was forced into a shower the
      >way a lot of women are forced into a shower. 
      
      Which doesn't make it right. Nor does it make entertaining television 
      programming. I suppose if you're subjected to it regularly, it'd be a 
      different matter. Downright depressing, though.
      
      >she had to endure sitting there
      >with friends of her mother and sister and with, most likely, a couple of
      >relatives. it was probably painful for her (it would certainly be painful for
      >me) but there's nothing to indicate that there was anything mean spirited in
      >the motivation. 
      
      The mother's gift choice was. Anything backed with the sentiment "The bastard 
      child of a bathmat." is not meant in a good way. 
      
      >mom obviously wants to have the family in the paper (and the
      >times' wedding announcements are big leauge). 
      
      Even if it means Faith getting married to someone she no longer cares for? 
      Again, it might make good comedy fodder if one enjoys that sort of thing, but 
      if one doesn't it "better to lose a year of your life than admit a 
      mistake" is off-putting. 
      
      >sister is a bit arrogant in
      >thinking that faith should be like her. but, there was nothing out of the
      >ordinary about that party. there was nothing to indicate that anyone was
      >working with malice. they were throwing faith what they thought any young bride
      >would both want and need...a nice, by the book shower. 
      >with all due respect, the entire concept of the who, what, when and where of a
      >baby shower seems to be a bit beyond your understanding. 
      
      If you say so. But my understanding of it - and I know enough women who have 
      been to bridal showers - was that you threw a party with a bit of gift-giving 
      and maybe some other semiorganized entertainment. If everyone had a good time 
      and possibly got an alcohol buzz going, you had a success. Certainly, I've 
      heard of ones like the show demonstrated - sans confessions of trysts, natch - 
      but as soon as someone insults someone else's taste in clothing/food/etc., 
      they usually get chalked up as "bad" ones. 
      
      Len
      
      --
      Pointless sig file.
      http://archonrealm.cjb.net/ | http://archonrealm.tripod.com
      Replace "Doom!" with "Hotmail" to send e-mail.
      End pointless sig file.
            Re: Leap Of Faith (<9Bjh8.347697$n73.11315301@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com>)
            by "Kim M" on Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:33:56 -0600

      
      
       wrote in message
      news:a640pb$1fc$1@vax.hanford.org...
      > In article <20020301122352.17491.00001444@mb-cr.aol.com>,
      > Twc6  wrote:
      > >The shocking thing is that the actor playing the new romantic interest
      is
      > >actually interesting as an actor! Can't believe it!
      >
      > Ken Marino is "the new guy", right?  i.e. I checked the names on imdb,
      > and don't remember the character names.
      >
      > From list listed credits, it doesn't seem like he's been in anything I
      > watched regularly (except for guest spots), but he looks REALLY familiar.
      >
      > I think he looks incredibly like someone on one of the "Real World"
      seasons,
      > I just can't think of who.
      
      He was never on the Real World, but he was on MTV.  He was on The State
      (which ought to be airing somewhere right now - funny stuff!).  Maybe
      that's what you're thinking of....
      
      Kim
      
      
      
            Re: Leap Of Faith (<a66877$aa9$1@vax.hanford.org>)
            by mattack@vax.hanford.org on 6 Mar 2002 15:20:07 -0800

      
      In article <20020301015133.15509.00000665@mb-fi.aol.com>,
      Dominik500  wrote:
      >Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and unlikeable
      >characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack
      >there of)  Any other comments?
      
      Though this is absolutely irrelevant about my opinion of the show, the
      main actress looks a lot better on the show than she did on the Tonight Show
      I was FFing through.  I didn't even recognize her until they showed the 
      clip.  (Amazing, since I remember thinking "wow, she's beautiful" while 
      watching the show.)
      -- 
      mattack@area.com
                Re: Leap Of Faith (<p2yh8.15450$7Y4.2270077@news20.bellglobal.com>)
                by I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com (Len P.) on Wed, 06 Mar 2002 23:59:17 GMT

        
        mattack wrote:
        >In article <20020301015133.15509.00000665@mb-fi.aol.com>,
        >Dominik500  wrote:
        >>Mind numbingly bad.  Even worse the Inside Schwartz.  Smarmy and unlikeable
        >>characters, REALLY REALLY lame jokes, and an overall unpleasant plot (or lack
        >>there of)  Any other comments?
        >
        >Though this is absolutely irrelevant about my opinion of the show, the
        >main actress looks a lot better on the show than she did on the Tonight Show
        >I was FFing through.  I didn't even recognize her until they showed the 
        >clip.  (Amazing, since I remember thinking "wow, she's beautiful" while 
        >watching the show.)
        
        NBC being nigh impossible to get here without committing grievous acts 
        involving dead chickens, I missed it. I don't suppose anyone here was bored 
        enough to grab a screencap or two? I'm mildly curious.
        
        Len
        
        --
        Pointless sig file.
        http://archonrealm.cjb.net/ | http://archonrealm.tripod.com
        Replace "Doom!" with "Hotmail" to send e-mail.

Go back to the pit from whence you came!
Everything copyright its respective owner. Including the polychromatic NBC turkey below. Used without permission.

You're visitor number:
Current URL: http://www.archonrealm.com/mlaw/lofslash.htm
Main URL: http://www.archonrealm.com/mlaw/lofslash.htm
Tripod URL: http://archonrealm.tripod.com/mlaw/lofslash.htm
Backup URLs: http://s91291220.onlinehome.us/mlaw/lofslash.htm http://archonrealm.cjb.net/mlaw/lofslash.htm
Crisis URL, only updated if the others are down: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/len.P./mlaw/lofslash.-->