[lancer1993]

Oh well, as they say on GA, "Adulthood is seriously overrated."

Well he should fit right in the

[Javalava86]

Thanks for all the latest tid bits everyone

[pimbolina]

I can't say that I'm really looking forward to see DS on PP.
From all the cast of GG, why is it him that has to get a role for PP.
Now I want to see Kelly Bishop as Addie's mom!

[Eternal Flame]

thnx for the news gjoni!
and congrats to David S.!

Is it weird that Scott P., one of the lead actors on GG got a role on a show on the CW, and the supporting cast of GG like Melissa, Edward (i'm calling him supporting because he wasn't always in each episode) and now David get roles on shows on the bigger networks. Even if Edward's is just a small guest arc.. and I think for David it all depends on how much he's liked by the audience.

[perrygraham]

First Amy Brenneman, now David Sutcliffe, that's it, I'm trying to watch the show let's hope it isn't as lame as GA

Thanks for the news, I like that almost everyone got a new (and maybe better) job. The cast deseves that!

[lancer1993]

There are not small roles, just small actors

Do we know how big DS part is (yes I know dirty) or how many eps? Melissa has a real chance to get known by a much bigger audience now on her new show and it's still too early to see how AiA will do. I did like Ed on GA but it was a bit weird seeing him in such a roll.While he was old he looked younger to me.

[jensinger]

Is it weird that Scott P., one of the lead actors on GG got a role on a show on the CW, and the supporting cast of GG like Melissa, Edward (i'm calling him supporting because he wasn't always in each episode) and now David get roles on shows on the bigger networks. Even if Edward's is just a small guest arc.. and I think for David it all depends on how much he's liked by the audience.

I believe Scott had a contract after the show ended to stay with the same network, and the show they put him in happened to be on the CW. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, it's just what I've read). I don't find it weird at all, honestly I think it's good that a lot of them are finding work anywhere. I am looking forward to seeing David in another role because I think he's a good actor. Actually, I just hope all of the cast members are successful if they continue acting.

[agiepagie07]

Originally Posted by gjoni (View Post) From Ausiello's blog:

Good, im happy for him!

Hes not CHRISTOPHER.. so im fine with it... unless his name will be christopher on the show

[lancer1993]

Originally Posted by agiepagie07 (View Post) Good, im happy for him! Hes not CHRISTOPHER.. so im fine with it... unless his name will be christopher on the show

Or he wears flannel and a backward baseball cap LOL

Jenny yes Scott has a contract, he signed on for S8 of GG but part of it included a clause where they would find him another how for this season or I think they would have to pay him out.

I'm liking AiA so far and I have hopes the parents continue to play a big part. It would have been nice to see him in something else but this is good for now.

[jensinger]

Jenny yes Scott has a contract, he signed on for S8 of GG but part of it included a clause where they would find him another how for this season or I think they would have to pay him out. I'm liking AiA so far and I have hopes the parents continue to play a big part. It would have been nice to see him in something else but this is good for now.

Oh, good I'm glad I interpreted it right.

As for AiA.... Gary is soooooo different from Luke... it's hard for me to get used to him acting all goofy and smiley, but I think the show is hilarious.

[fox24]

AIA is pretty funny I like Justin and Raj

[lancer1993]

Originally Posted by jensinger (View Post) Oh, good I'm glad I interpreted it right. As for AiA.... Gary is soooooo different from Luke... it's hard for me to get used to him acting all goofy and smiley, but I think the show is hilarious.

But you didn't mind him lifting the door wearing the t-shirt

Oh and why is it Gary is always eating, in so many scenes he has something in his mouth!

[gjoni]

From Matt Roush's blog, TV Guide.com, today, Oct. 19:

Question: In another blog on TVGuide.com, someone was bemoaning having Jim and Pam together on The Office, saying, "Did we learn nothing from the Moonlighting debacle?" Not being a viewer of The Office, I cannot weigh in on the specifics of this situation. But I'm tired of Moonlighting being cited as the reason no couple has been allowed to get together on a TV show for the last 20 years. In my opinion, the reason Moonlighting failed to work once they put Dave and Maddie together is because by that point, Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd couldn't stand to be in the same room with each other. Their chemistry was gone and their loathing was evident. After a while, manufactured excuses to maintain sexual tension take their own toll on an audience. Add that fact to everyone claiming that, post-Moonlighting, couples must be kept apart at all costs, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the couple finally gets together, people look for what they were told was going to be there: a loss of chemistry, a loss of drama, etc., and, of course, they find it, whether it's really there or not. I can think of any number of shows — Lois & Clark and Gilmore Girls leap to mind — where the real problem wasn't what to do once the couple got together, but rather the ridiculous attempts to keep them apart, which destroyed all audience goodwill. If writers can't figure out what to do when a couple get together, maybe they shouldn't try to tell us those couples belong together in the first place. Personally, I feel cheated if I am not given time to enjoy a relationship that I have been rooting for for months or years. That's one advantage of TV over movies: getting to see what happens after the happily ever after. What do you think — is it time to retire the assumption that a show must necessarily die once a relationship is allowed to live?— Ryan P., Valley Village, Calif. Matt Roush: With all due respect to whoever wrote the comment that inspired this question, I agree that the Moonlighting yardstick should be retired. The problem with the Dave-Maddie consummation was that there was no joy in it (either on screen or behind the scenes), whereas with Jim and Pam, there is only joy and continued good humor in their now-open relationship. It is a great payoff for viewers, and I don't understand the backlash — not that I've been seeking it out (why would I?). I'm lucky that way, in that it has to come to me before I respond, and so far, I'm only hearing about it secondhand. Gilmore Girls is a terrific example of how people could misconstrue the results of bringing beloved characters together. Lorelai and Luke were doing just fine and were delightful company before the April incident and the Christopher incident spoiled things in such ridiculously contrived ways that it helped ruin the final seasons of the series. No fault of Lorelai or Luke (or the actors, for that matter). Let's just hope the Office producers aren't planning similar miseries for Jim and Pam anytime soon.

[jensinger]

Thanks for that! It's sooooo true!

[lancer1993]

Originally Posted by gjoni (View Post) From Matt Roush's blog, TV Guide.com, today, Oct. 19:

I just read that elsewhere and ITA with Matt, wow did I just say that LOL