Hated by critics. Not a single Emmy nomination - Full House (1987) Discussion

[–] Owlnut73 7 years ago

I never followed critics. The public loved it. Otherwise, it wouldn't have lasted 8 seasons.

reply

[–] samosler 7 years ago

It's a good show for what IT IS, a cutesy cheest sitcom aimed at kids but it's HARDLY a classic sitcom that changed TV in the vein of MASH,All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Golden Girls, Cheers, Seinfeld, Frasier, Taxi etc all QUALITY critically acclaimed sitcoms that won tons of Emmy awards.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12453) 5 years ago

Critics hate good tv shows and movies. They like all the terrible stuff and either ignore or dump on things the public loves. I usually don't put much stock in what they have to say anymore.

reply

[–] Purplecover101 7 years ago

It's a family show, it may not have won many Emmys but it's still well known and cherished by many people:

Take Leonardo Dicaprio for example........... He's a huge well known actor with huge roles (Jack from Titanic) however, he didn't win and Oscar until just recently. The reasoning for that is beyond me!! However, it doesn't make him a bad actor does it?!?!?!?

reply

[–] punkgirly 7 years ago

Please sign this petition to keep the imdb message boards!

https://www.change.org/p/imdb-stop-imdb-from-disabling-the-message-boards

reply

[–] Wesley93 (164) 6 years ago

Critics should not decide what's good and what's bad - audiences should.

reply

[–] wilson24 (62) 6 years ago

Critics are part of the audience. They watch the show same as anyone else.

reply

[–] Wesley93 (164) 6 years ago

I'm talking about the audience of the common people. Ordinary moviegoers like you and me who don't get paid to review films. We frequently disagree with critics as to whether a film is good. Movie reviews should be in the hands of the people, not the elite.

reply

[–] wilson24 (62) 6 years ago

Many reviewers don't get paid. They do it because they just enjoy it. And audiences do get a say in reviewing a movie. You can review movies on imdb. They have star ratings. Every movie or show has an audience rating.

reply

[–] Wesley93 (164) 6 years ago

This is actually part of my point. My point is that sites like IMDB, which get reviews from ordinary movie-goers, should be the reviews that Hollywood pays the most attention to, as opposed to sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which feature reviews from mostly professional critics.

reply

[–] wilson24 (62) 6 years ago

Being a professional critic doesn't mean your opinion is any less valid. Stop acting like it does.

Also, imdb can be flawed. Badly. People can rate a movie as many times as they want. Just keep making new accounts and rating it. How is that better than Rotten Tomatoes? And many fans have agendas and biases. They'll attack a movie and purposely give it a 1 star rating over and over and over. That happened with The Last Jedi.

Ordinary movie goers are more often worse than critics. Much worse.

reply

[–] Wesley93 (164) 6 years ago

I didn't say being a professional critic makes one's opinion less valid. I just pointed out that people often act like critic's opinions are more important than the opinions of common audiences, which they are not. I am against critic-oriented film snobbery, and believe what is a good film or a bad film should be decided in a "democratic" fashion, by the people.

reply

[–] wilson24 (62) 6 years ago

Because often according to common audiences the best movie of the year is something like the Transformers series. Which are some of the worst movies ever.

reply

[–] Wesley93 (164) 6 years ago

I have never heard an audience member praise Transformers. In fact, it is the audiences that have criticized those films the most, if I'm not mistaken. (By the way, I count online , independent YouTube critics as part of the audience, not part of the critics). Of course, I admit Full House was a corny show despite its popularity. At least it was clean, and what it lacked in humor, it made up for in tear-jerking, rip-your-heart out emotional moments.

reply

[–] wilson24 (62) 6 years ago

Each movie makes a billion dollars. Clearly mass audiences like them.

Come on. Tear jerking, rip your heart out moments? Like what? There wasn't a single rip your heart out moment on the entire show. The closest one was when Papouli died, and that isn't sad because Papouli was such a minor character. We only saw him once before. This is an example of the show having terrible writing. If they wanted that moment to be sad, they should have had Jesse's dad die, since he was in numerous episodes and the girls were all close with him. Or have Papouli be a recurring character during the season so the audience is more familiar with him. Seeing them all cry over a guy they met one single time isn't sad to me.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12453) 5 years ago

Critics are not part of the real audience. They are drones who work for Hollywood and only say what their employers tell them to. Either that, or they judge tv shows/movies based on the same groupthink and values as the people in Hollywood do. In essence, they are part of a tiny section of the audience that the public isn't privy to.

reply

[–] KD637 (488) 6 years ago

In the principle, i disagree. But problem with a lot of the modern critics is their lack of objectivity, lack of credentials, corruption and political bias. Ideally, there should be an educated cast separate from ordinary audiences who are professionals and whose job is to be objective. The problem with casual audiences on the other hand is that many of them are often unable to appreciate some really good movies while being perfectly happy with being served shit as long as it's somewhat entertaining.

In a capitalist society, money decides what's good or bad, at least from the perspective of production companies. And who else votes with their money but ordinary audiences? And what do they consider good? What movies are financially the most successful? It's the movies like Superfast and Ultrafurious.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10419) 6 years ago

I don't think any of the TGIF shows were ever taken seriously. It's only in the nostalgic era we live in now that this programming's value is finally showing.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12453) 5 years ago

Easy. The critics were either fags that hated seeing a successful, heternormative family; or they came from broken homes and despised the sight of a happy, large family. Either that or the little club that runs the Emmy's hated the people in charge of making the show. That's why Lucas hasn't won an Oscar since "A New Hope" in '77. The Academy hates him, sci-fi, and good movies in general.

reply

[–] zachattack2 (28) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12453) 5 years ago

You prove my point exactly.

reply

[–] zachattack2 (28) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Most of today's kids are unaware that Full House even exist lol. It is WAY before their time lol.

Most full house fans are former kids/teens who grew up watching it in the late 80s and early 90s.

So technically you can say that this is a 80s/90s kid show, making it suitable for those adults.

reply