Being a kid in the 70s in the UK meant growing up with the "Doctor" shows/movies as part of the landscape along with Python etc. I remember it well!Sounds a little like they're doing what LWT did with "Doctor in the House" back in the 70s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_in_the_House_(TV_series)
This show turned me on to British comedy well before most Americans had ever heard of Monty Python. In fact, prior to Python's "birth", Graham Chapman and John Cleese were on the writing staff of the first two incarnations of "Doctor in the House". Also, Douglas Adams was one of the writers on "Doctor on the Go" (the 4th incarnation of the show).
It's hard to dispute his logic though; in this economic climate he can't justify laying off a whole bunch of people in order to "protect the legacy" of the show. I don't like the idea that there will be a ninth season without Braff and I feel the finale was the perfect way the end the show, but ultimately he is probably right to keep going and keep maybe a hundred people in work.Seems to me Bill Lawrence is trying to beat a dead horse at this stage by keeping it going any way he can.
Well, I now can say I have no interest in watching any more seasons of Scrubs, I'm happy with the eight we got, and how they wrapped it up. Seems to me Bill Lawrence is trying to beat a dead horse at this stage by keeping it going any way he can.
Well, I now can say I have no interest in watching any more seasons of Scrubs, I'm happy with the eight we got, and how they wrapped it up. Seems to me Bill Lawrence is trying to beat a dead horse at this stage by keeping it going any way he can.
Umm... you do realize he has no choice in the matter? He was going to leave Scrubs, going to end it last year by ABC picked it up for another season. So he stayed on and is trying to make a spinoff that will be really good or really bad. He also sees no point in firing 126 people he has worked with for 8 years.
Yes! The employment situation is horrible at the moment even in the television industry. I might find it understandable for him to have ended the show 2 years ago when things were going good and people were more likely to find a job, but right now there is very few jobs available. Are you saying that he should just fire over a hundred people, many of whom he is friends with and knows their families, just because you don't want to watch a TV show you are in no way obligated to watch anyway?It would hardly be a horrible crime towards them if the show ended now and they had to find more work would it?
^ If your boss gathered everyone tomorrow told told the whole staff that he was letting you all go because he doesn't think it right for your company to keep going, would you agree with him? If it was me (and it was me almost a year ago) I'd think he was a complete bastard.
The employment situation is horrible at the moment even in the television industry. I might find it understandable for him to have ended the show 2 years ago when things were going good and people were more likely to find a job, but right now there is very few jobs available. Are you saying that he should just fire over a hundred people, many of whom he is friends with and knows their families, just because you don't want to watch a TV show you are in no way obligated to watch anyway?
Would you like him to come out and say "I think it's a terrible idea because it will piss off the loser fans?" because he's not even going to say that.
Another update from Ausiello:
http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/06/scrubs-moving-from-hospital-to-med-school.htmlScrubs boss Bill Lawrence said his cancellation-defying comedy would undergo an extreme makeover in its ninth season, and, man, he wasn't kidding. When the show returns next winter, the action will shift from the hospital to the classroom and make med-school professors of John C. McGinley's Dr. Cox and Donald Faison's Turk.
Pretty much a complete sea change, it seems.
Nobody is saying that it's a crime against nature, that's your wording and its made from a straw-like substance. What I'm saying is that he is a man who is responsible for the income of over a hundred families and he doesn't want to fire all those people in the middle of a recession because he's worried about the legacy of his show. Creatively it might be the wrong decision, but as a human being he is looking out for the welfare of his people and he's going to be the one taking the hit if the new season ends up being rubbish. I find that very respectable.Your contention is that the show should keep going because people are employed by it, I am saying, this is showbusiness, no one involved in any way in show business expects anything to last forever, so saying to them after eight years, "we are ending the show" is not a crime against nature.
Nobody is saying that it's a crime against nature, that's your wording and its made from a straw-like substance. What I'm saying is that he is a man who is responsible for the income of over a hundred families and he doesn't want to fire all those people in the middle of a recession because he's worried about the legacy of his show. Creatively it might be the wrong decision, but as a human being he is looking out for the welfare of his people and he's going to be the one taking the hit if the new season ends up being rubbish. I find that very respectable.Your contention is that the show should keep going because people are employed by it, I am saying, this is showbusiness, no one involved in any way in show business expects anything to last forever, so saying to them after eight years, "we are ending the show" is not a crime against nature.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.