Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson" data-source="post: 240998" data-attributes="member: 5079">I don&#039;t think I&#039;d ever want to rewatch LIFE WITH LUCY in its entirety so my thoughts on it are based on memories, plus a few clips and one episode I&#039;ve watched on Youtube.&nbsp;&nbsp; It&#039;s certainly not a good show, but the critical scorn leveled against the show was ludicrously out-of-proportion. Take the staleness of HERE&#039;S LUCY and shellac it with some Aaron Spelling genericness and, well, this what you get.&nbsp; Like Lucy&#039;s two previous sitcoms, there&#039;s not much of a premise and little in the way of characterization which leaves, right out of the gate, very little room to grow.&nbsp; Other than Gale Gordon, the supporting cast is uniformly bland or irksome.The aghast reactions to Lucy&#039;s age seems silly in retrospect; she was physically spry for 75 and it&#039;s not like she was doing pratfalls down flights of stairs or dangling from a clock tower like Harold Lloyd.&nbsp; Otherwise, the show seems like a run-of-the-mill 80s sitcom -- kind of corny and empty, with humor ranging from mildly amusing to groan-worthy.&nbsp; I could rattle off a dozen shows of the era that I thought were far worse.&nbsp; Seems like people were inexplicably demanding it be as good as I LOVE LUCY, forgetting just how far Lucy&#039;s shows had declined by the mid-70s.The last episode aired, guest starring Audrey Meadows, is almost good.&nbsp; Rumor is that if the show had continued, Audrey was going to be a regular or recurring cast member.&nbsp; That might have given the series a direction it lacked and Audrey could have been the comedy partner Lucy had been lacking since Vivian&#039;s departure in the mid-60s.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson, post: 240998, member: 5079"] I don't think I'd ever want to rewatch LIFE WITH LUCY in its entirety so my thoughts on it are based on memories, plus a few clips and one episode I've watched on Youtube. It's certainly not a good show, but the critical scorn leveled against the show was ludicrously out-of-proportion. Take the staleness of HERE'S LUCY and shellac it with some Aaron Spelling genericness and, well, this what you get. Like Lucy's two previous sitcoms, there's not much of a premise and little in the way of characterization which leaves, right out of the gate, very little room to grow. Other than Gale Gordon, the supporting cast is uniformly bland or irksome. The aghast reactions to Lucy's age seems silly in retrospect; she was physically spry for 75 and it's not like she was doing pratfalls down flights of stairs or dangling from a clock tower like Harold Lloyd. Otherwise, the show seems like a run-of-the-mill 80s sitcom -- kind of corny and empty, with humor ranging from mildly amusing to groan-worthy. I could rattle off a dozen shows of the era that I thought were far worse. Seems like people were inexplicably demanding it be as good as I LOVE LUCY, forgetting just how far Lucy's shows had declined by the mid-70s. The last episode aired, guest starring Audrey Meadows, is almost good. Rumor is that if the show had continued, Audrey was going to be a regular or recurring cast member. That might have given the series a direction it lacked and Audrey could have been the comedy partner Lucy had been lacking since Vivian's departure in the mid-60s. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?