|
Post by FannyMare on Jul 3, 2018 16:19:40 GMT
By definition, name dropping is a way to inflate one's stature by linking oneself to a famous person or situation and/or the act of trying to impress someone by saying the names of well-known people that you know or have met. Meghan does this routinely. Ninety percent of the time, I would have no idea Whoopi had a prior association with a guest if it were not for the guest mentioning it. And when the guest mentions their association, Whoopi is generally coy. So again, my point had nothing to do with thanks, gratitude, or the like. This is what we are discussing, if one has a mentor( or more) or not. Good lord, I'm out of here..shaking my head..sheesh I get you dont like Meghan anymore than I like Joy..but at least Meghan has people in her life that she enjoys!
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jul 3, 2018 16:29:13 GMT
You are free to discuss mentors as much as you want, my post from this morning was to redsoxgirl explaining to her that I wasn't commenting about mentors, per say, my point was about name dropping/making oneself relevant, etc.
|
|
lonnie
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,255
|
Post by lonnie on Jul 3, 2018 16:50:14 GMT
Whoopi is humble?
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jul 3, 2018 17:33:11 GMT
On shows like this that are current events-dependent, I wish they would make the cast stagger their time off, except for the holiday day itself. So for example this week, they would all have Wednesday off but not the entire week. Who wants to watch a week of shows based on "hot topics" when the events they're discussing have come and gone? They might as well substitute a game show for that hour all week.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 3, 2018 22:43:22 GMT
On shows like this that are current events-dependent, I wish they would make the cast stagger their time off, except for the holiday day itself. So for example this week, they would all have Wednesday off but not the entire week. Who wants to watch a week of shows based on "hot topics" when the events they're discussing have come and gone? They might as well substitute a game show for that hour all week. But it’s not just about the hosts - there’s all the behind the scenes crew too. I think it works better to have a consistent behind the scenes crew, and in order to give them all the breaks they earn, it’s easier to do a hiatus that rotating vacations with subs in place.
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Jul 5, 2018 2:53:41 GMT
On shows like this that are current events-dependent, I wish they would make the cast stagger their time off, except for the holiday day itself. So for example this week, they would all have Wednesday off but not the entire week. Who wants to watch a week of shows based on "hot topics" when the events they're discussing have come and gone? They might as well substitute a game show for that hour all week. Or, how bout this. What about a week of every EXCEPT the "Hot Topics" segments? They could easily fill an hour with re-runs of past celebrity guest interviews, and all the other 'time fillers' they usually have toward the end of the shows.
|
|
|
Post by annifran on Jul 5, 2018 16:15:53 GMT
I suspect the weeks the panel is given off have to do with contracts, both for panel members and the crew. If the crew particularly is unionized, they're usually quite specific and generous in pay, time off, vacations, sick leave, etc. Actually, I enjoy their breaks--it gives me an extra hour every day for something else.
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 5, 2018 19:24:11 GMT
I feel the same way Annifran! I record The View and Late Night with Seth Meyers every day. On weeks when they are on break, I miss them, but also feel so relieved to not have to watch each episode!
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jul 5, 2018 22:01:09 GMT
I suspect the weeks the panel is given off have to do with contracts, both for panel members and the crew. If the crew particularly is unionized, they're usually quite specific and generous in pay, time off, vacations, sick leave, etc. Actually, I enjoy their breaks--it gives me an extra hour every day for something else. That may be advantageous for at least some viewers, but from the network's and advertisers' point-of-view (no pun intended), they want people to watch the show, vacation week or not.
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Jul 5, 2018 22:59:51 GMT
I suspect the weeks the panel is given off have to do with contracts, both for panel members and the crew. If the crew particularly is unionized, they're usually quite specific and generous in pay, time off, vacations, sick leave, etc. Actually, I enjoy their breaks--it gives me an extra hour every day for something else. That may be advantageous for at least some viewers, but from the network's and advertisers' point-of-view (no pun intended), they want people to watch the show, vacation week or not. Great! So if they want people to watch vacation week shows, they should make the vacation shows better, and it's a win-win for everyone! Too bad they don't though. You'd think some 'genius' would come up with that plan, but they don't do that either.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jul 5, 2018 23:37:28 GMT
I think, they should take a month off..
|
|
mamac
FORT Addict
Posts: 539
|
Post by mamac on Jul 6, 2018 4:59:11 GMT
They usually do get a month or so off in the summer. Then they come back in September to start their new season. I think they had this week off as a little vacay due to the 4th being midweek.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jul 6, 2018 15:10:58 GMT
That may be advantageous for at least some viewers, but from the network's and advertisers' point-of-view (no pun intended), they want people to watch the show, vacation week or not. Great! So if they want people to watch vacation week shows, they should make the vacation shows better, and it's a win-win for everyone! Too bad they don't though. You'd think some 'genius' would come up with that plan, but they don't do that either. That was my point. One plan would be not to give them all vacation at the same time. Another would be a previous suggestion to eliminate the outdated hot topics and use only celebrity or author interviews, and perhaps add some other material like prerecorded comedy segments or interesting interviews. I don't need to hear about Samantha B's use of the "c" word again!
|
|
|
Post by annifran on Jul 6, 2018 15:53:23 GMT
If The View ever did away with hot topics, I'd stop watching it. For me, that's the only interesting part of the show--listening to all the gals' opinions. I especially like the show since the hot topics involve politics (unlike The Talk, which avoids that subject entirely). The movie/book/CD/TV show promotions I mostly fast forward through. Most of those guests are people I've never heard of before, nor care about.
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Jul 6, 2018 18:13:24 GMT
If The View ever did away with hot topics, I'd stop watching it. For me, that's the only interesting part of the show--listening to all the gals' opinions. I especially like the show since the hot topics involve politics (unlike The Talk, which avoids that subject entirely). The movie/book/CD/TV show promotions I mostly fast forward through. Most of those guests are people I've never heard of before, nor care about. Well, it looks like you've got a win-win situation on The View's vacation programming, annifran. You win if they keep the hot topics segment in, but show OLD topics (cause they're on vacation - so all they have are old topics to show); And you win if they delete the hot topics segments during vacation week, cause you said (in your post up above) that you wouldn't watch, but you "enjoy the breaks" cause it gives you time to do something else. So, lucky you!
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jul 7, 2018 13:05:05 GMT
If The View ever did away with hot topics, I'd stop watching it. For me, that's the only interesting part of the show--listening to all the gals' opinions. I especially like the show since the hot topics involve politics (unlike The Talk, which avoids that subject entirely). The movie/book/CD/TV show promotions I mostly fast forward through. Most of those guests are people I've never heard of before, nor care about. My post did NOT say they should do away with hot topics when the show is current, only if they are going to take weeks off. It makes no sense to listen to hot topics RERUNS about events that took place weeks or months ago. Hot topics are the reason I watch the show, too. To reiterate, I suggested either they don't let them all take vacations at the same time, or come up with some way to keep the show interesting when they are all gone at the same time. Repeats of "old" hot topics (which by definition are no longer "hot") do not motivate most viewers to watch during those weeks off.
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Jul 7, 2018 14:11:59 GMT
I think there might be an acceptable compromise that would possibly satisfy most of the viewers during vacation weeks. Some (a few) of the "hot topics" are NOT politically related, and are not necessarily only relevant to a very limited time period (like, for example, life style issues, or sensitive topics that are so new to society, that people are still debating how to handle them.) Sooooo, if the show would air only THOSE kinds of hot topics during vacation weeks, it would still keep the show interesting and relevant, but not be 'jarring' because the topics are 'old news.'
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 7, 2018 15:28:29 GMT
I like that idea Imperfect! When they are off for a week at a time, I think it would be possible for them to do something similar to what Ryan and Kelly do - pre-tape segments with the hosts around the table talking to open the show. They could discuss topics that are not time sensitive - vacation memories, family issues, etc. They could also talk about the guests that will be replayed on each show, and their memories of the interviews. Do that for an opening segment, and then go into replays of interviews. It would be new content along with reruns and help the audience to connect with the hosts.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jul 9, 2018 16:06:44 GMT
I wish they had a little more time, on the boys rescue in Thailand, this is such good news, and very very hard to do..I'm fascinated by it all. Yay Meghan, I'm with you! Jello shots..lol A couple of Whoopi's book choices I've read. I sent When life gives you lululemons back, I might reorder later in the summer. They all give summer reading suggestions this week..
|
|
|
Post by Gutmutter on Jul 9, 2018 22:11:41 GMT
I just heard on the news that they’re not telling the parents which ones they’ve rescued already. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by Arielflies on Jul 9, 2018 23:00:39 GMT
So as not to distress the others?
Once the parents are notified, they won't be able to physically touch their children until they are cleared of all infections at the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jul 10, 2018 15:43:56 GMT
I was glad that Joy said what she did about DT being under investigation and got the response from the audience that she did about last night's nomination. She was right on the money. He should not have been allowed to make this nomination. What disappointed me was that Sara didn't jump in when the three branches of government were brought up. I thought it was the perfect opportunity for her to insert her BA in Government. I really love her and wish she'd speak up more. Come on, Sara!
Alan D confused me, he was in and then he was out, he was in and then he was out. I had no idea what he believed by the time he was done talking. He certainly agrees that it was shameful that Obama's nomination was blocked, I got that part, but what assurance is there that this new nomination will recuse himself if a case re pardoning powers or indictment makes it to the Supreme Court? So many things we thought DT would never get away with, he has, so why risk yet another opportunity?
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jul 10, 2018 17:53:51 GMT
Joy really needs to listen, the bile she sits with day in, day out is going to eat her alive. For ten years in Canada we had a prime minister that was pro life. The left fear mongered for almost his whole term, and he never overturned the law , that it was a woman's right to choose. Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, he knows the law, like Sunny knows the law. I laughed when he said Joy, you want to lock everyone up. It's her go to, she does not listen. Sara speaking about the new supreme court justice, was in my mind, right on the money...I suppose we'll have to see. I can't believe people were ready with signs, we hate( fill in the blank) what good does that do.
Akan D was also right about Cynthia Nixon!!!shudder.. I have a few books to read, but I'm going to try and go through his, lawyers books can be full of policy wonk stuff, but I do love anything to do with law.
|
|
lonnie
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,255
|
Post by lonnie on Jul 10, 2018 18:00:08 GMT
what has DT gotten away with?
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 10, 2018 18:51:53 GMT
Moving back to the show, it frustrated me that while the women challenged some of what Joy was saying they didn't give her the civics class that she apparently needs. She repeated the point today that she's made a few times now that we believe in a balance of power in this country, and she apparently thinks we don't have that if the same political party is in the majority for each. I'd love to see them bring on a guest who can bring Joy through the basics of the way our government is set up - that each branch of government is given checks and balances powers over the other two branches to keep the three branches equal. It's not about the parties being balanced - it's about the power in each branch. The only thing in our Constitution that addresses who holds that party is provisions for voting ... and truth be told voting is not guaranteed, but rather the power of each state to choose the representatives (or electors) and the states have chosen to make those pics via voting. If there's a lack of balance of power, it's due to the hyper-partisian tone we've come to in this country ... and I'd argue that Joy contributes to that hyper-partisianship (along with Megan, Sunny, and sometimes Whoopi) by judging everything in terms of party instead of principle. The argument she was making about the president not appointing a supreme court justice because he's under investigation also made no sense. Bill Clinton nominated Steven Breyer while under investigation. George W Bush appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito while under investigation. If Joy believes that a president under investigation should not be allowed to nominate a justice to the court, who does she think should do it? Should we just operate with a court that does not have the justices intended? Seems to me that if that were the case, either party would just open investigations to block the president from nominating anyone, and we'd be left with no court! The things she was saying today just did not make sense. I'm glad she was challenged a bit, but I think they should have held her a little more accountable for the things she was saying. Regarding the Dershowitz interview - I admire him for speaking and acting based on principle instead of team. I may read his book - in other interviews I think he's laid out his argument better than in this one. But I think he's looking at the world from a big picture principled view, and it's refreshing to listen to it.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jul 10, 2018 21:30:55 GMT
Sunny stated that Judge Kavanaugh is a moderate conservative, to which Meghan agreed. DT's campaign promise was to overturn Roe v Wade. A sure way to have accomplished that would have been to nominate Judge Barrett but instead he nominated Kavanaugh. Why? Because Kavanaugh wrote that he thinks a president should be impeached not investigated. So Joy's concern is the obvious, there is no balance in the House or the Senate for impeachment. It's not a bipartisan issue - it's a "they won't do it" issue. If a president commits an impeachable offense, he should be impeached. If that is determined, will our current Congress impeach him? It's not looking likely. In fact, they're probably going to confirm a judge who won't even let him be investigated.
Meghan didn't think it through when she brought up the signage. If it is true, and we don't know that it is, it's really of no consequence. The field of four was given to us days ago. If you don't support one, you're probably not going to support any of them as they're all leaning the same way. And if you did, you wouldn't have been there protesting. So for Meghan to say that they haven't even looked at him but yet they are saying they already don't like him, she only opened up the door for Joy to say, "They're taking a page from Mitch McConnell's book!" acookertv you ask, "Should we just operate with a court that does not have the justices intended?" I believe that was Joy's point - we already did.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jul 10, 2018 21:34:24 GMT
Clothing comment - I LOVED Joy's blouse today. It was so soft and flowy with that tiny print. Looked so pretty with her red hair. Oh my gosh, so so pretty. That's one of those blouses where I would buy two just so I could have a backup when the first one wore out!
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jul 10, 2018 21:42:07 GMT
I don't even remember Joy's blouse! I do notice that she and Whoopi wear much the same clothing over and over, while the other three always seem to wear something we haven't seen before every day. BTW, not to bring up the same subject as I did last week (well, I guess I am bringing it up again), today Wendy Williams on her show questioned why The View should ever show a week of reruns instead of alternating their weeks off one by one ... just what I said!
|
|
|
Post by acookertv on Jul 10, 2018 21:46:32 GMT
Sunny stated that Judge Kavanaugh is a moderate conservative, to which Meghan agreed. DT's campaign promise was to overturn Roe v Wade. A sure way to have accomplished that would have been to nominate Judge Barrett but instead he nominated Kavanaugh. Why? Because Kavanaugh wrote that he thinks a president should be impeached not investigated. So Joy's concern is the obvious, there is no balance in the House or the Senate for impeachment. It's not a bipartisan issue - it's a "they won't do it" issue. If a president commits an impeachable offense, he should be impeached. If that is determined, will our current Congress impeach him? It's not looking likely. In fact, they're probably going to confirm a judge who won't even let him be investigated. Meghan didn't think it through when she brought up the signage. If it is true, and we don't know that it is, it's really of no consequence. The field of four was given to us days ago. If you don't support one, you're probably not going to support any of them as they're all leaning the same way. And if you did, you wouldn't have been there protesting. So for Meghan to say that they haven't even looked at him but yet they are saying they already don't like him, she only opened up the door for Joy to say, "They're taking a page from Mitch McConnell's book!" acookertv you ask, "Should we just operate with a court that does not have the justices intended?" I believe that was Joy's point - we already did. That's where I think that Alan Dershowitz points are so valuable on the question of impeachment. He said in his interview, when a president SHOULD be impeached, the evidence against him is so strong that it has majority support regardless of party. He used the example of Nixon - Nixon stepped down because he knew he was going to be impeached because it was the members of his own party who were telling him he no longer had support.
|
|
|
Post by MFWalkoff on Jul 10, 2018 21:47:40 GMT
I don't even remember Joy's blouse! I do notice that she and Whoopi wear much the same clothing over and over, while the other three always seem to wear something we haven't seen before every day. BTW, not to bring up the same subject as I did last week (well, I guess I am bringing it up again), today Wendy Williams on her show questioned why The View should ever show a week of reruns instead of alternating their weeks off one by one ... just what I said! Because then the crew never gets any time off at all. Plus they already rotate the hosts and bring in guest hosts all the time.
|
|