DVDizzy Forum

What do you people think about this new tv show On the Disney Channel? Do you people like it, hate it, or wish it could be better? Do you think it is as good or better then the other tv shows on Disney Channel?

I've only seen the commercials, but they were bad enough. It seems like a (for lack of a better term) stupid version of the Eloise movies.

Elosie Movies, whats that? Is it better than the show? When was it made and by who? Why do you not like the show or watch the show?

DisneyHollywood wrote:Elosie Movies, whats that? Is it better than the show? When was it made and by who? Why do you not like the show or watch the show?

Prince Adam is speeking of these....


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000BWVMO/qid=1114870307/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8996566-3850309?v=glance&s=dvd



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002VEWY2/qid=1114870307/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-8996566-3850309?v=glance&s=dvd they have Julie Andrews & Jeffrey Tambor in these films based on books.

Are those kids the same ones that were in "Big Daddy" with Adam Sandler?

I've seen a couple of episodes. Nothing special.

MissV327 wrote:Are those kids the same ones that were in "Big Daddy" with Adam Sandler?

Yes, they are. Put to far better use in that film, I'd say, but the show seems harmless enough. It'd look nicer if they didn't use the crappy digital video like "That's So Raven", though.

I like the show, but my 9-year old sister LOVES this show, so aparently Disney is getting a good response from their target audience. Some episodes are relatively funny, but some are pointless/gross. But thats how it is with many other shows too (That So Raven- nasty Cheese episode)

Prince Adam wrote:I've only seen the commercials, but they were bad enough. It seems like a (for lack of a better term) stupid version of the Eloise movies.

I've seen a couple of episodes and it isnt that bad. I like it just as much as Phil of the Future. But I hadnt even thought about Eloise, although they are very similar.

DisneyHollywood, you sure do ask a lot of questions! And also in the topic title, it says "Zake and Cody." I believe its "Zack and Cody." You might wanna change it.

I saw a couple of episodes and I didn't like it! The kids were brats and that mom was one of the worst moms I've ever seen in my life. The other characters weren't annoying, but they just weren't funny! Overall it's a good idea done poorly!

The Suite Life of Zake and Cody reminds me of Gilmore Girls but with little brats that ruin the mom's business....

I really think this show is lame and stupid....

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I saw a couple of episodes and I didn't like it! The kids were brats and that mom was one of the worst moms I've ever seen in my life. The other characters weren't annoying, but they just weren't funny! Overall it's a good idea done poorly!

I really like the show. I'll admit, however, that it is very typical of most Disney shows in that it uses the same twin humor and plot setups. The punch lines of some of the jokes are very stock as well (though I can't think of any specifics at the moment).

As for Zack and Cody, they are good actors (Dylan and Cole) but their characters suffer from strong character development, but I didn't expect otherwise. It's just a fun show with a unique premise and shouldn't be looked at through such a critical lens. Of course a nine year old will like it, thinking the twins are either cute or cool-- but that alone doesn't engage the minds of learned viewers who, like myself, are used to stong and interesting characters to carry the story as in Seinfeld, and not formulated plots.

If Disney could learn a lesson, which I see as more and more difficult nowadays, they'd realize that quality, not cutness, sells more. Take Pixar films for example, and the old Disney animations, they all had great characters that we, even children, could identify with on an emotional level. Instead, the characters of Suite Life are bound by situtation, which we can identify with on a very shallow level.

Who knows why I like it. Perhaps it is the mere novelty of watching two kids go crazy in a hotel. I'm a sucker for nostalgia and I would have thought the world was mine if I were set free in a hotel. Well, come to think of it, I was... but that's another story.

I don't, however, get psychological and emotional fulfillment from watching the show. It is cognitively inept and turns me into a TV drone, but it makes me smile. So, somedays it's good to watch

Since this topic was brought up again and I never have said anything on it I'll just say...

I think this show is dreadful. I'm not a fan of 'That's So Raven' or 'Phil of the Future' that much but I can watch those shows but this one I can't stand at all and I thought the premise sounded interesting so I checked it out. Never again will I watch it.

orestes. wrote: I'm not a fan of 'That's So Raven...'

I loathe it. It represents all that is bad in our culture and it just isn't funny, nor is it charming. Suite Life, on the other hand, is full of charm, albiet cliché.

I really enjoy The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. The Disney Channel's programming isn't as stellar today as it has been in the past, or even just a few years ago. Out of all the currently-produced programming, the Suite Life clearly stands out as the best. To me, it's easy to see why it's their 2nd highest rated show (actually, it's not easy to see why it isn't #1... more on that later).

I agree with your point that many of the SL plots are recycled staples of Disney Channel plots, which are themselves used in just about every sitcom. Still, two shows can use the same gyst and one come off as a success while the other fails. And while twins are a recurring theme in family entertainment, you can compare this show to Sister, Sister or even some of the Olsen shows and see where it distinguishes itself... every episode doesn't have to involve them pretending to be one another. And thank God for that.

The premise is interesting. Even if it isn't entirely original, it's still fresh and not overdone. The characters blend well -- both the real characters like the twins and their mom and Maddie, and the semi-charicatures like Paris and Arnie and the red-haired lady (forget her name). There is some really amusing comedy; this show is perhaps more prone to make me laugh out loud than anything else the network is making right now. The Sprouse twins are really good at what they do.

I have to (once again) take issue with all the vitriolic spewing over That's So Raven. Yes, it's flawed, and no, it isn't among their best output, but surely it isn't the worst? I don't think anything else the channel has done has gotten this much flack from fans. Is it just because it's hyped ad nauseum? If so, I can get on board with that complaint, but it isn't enough to write it off altogether, and certainly not enough to call it "everything that's wrong with our culture."

-Aaron

Count me in as another fan of Suite Life. It's over-the-top humor with characters so out there you can't believe they're real, which makes it all the more interesting. The show isn't trying to be the greatest one on TV, it's just trying to be fun. And the cast seems to get along really well onscreen.

Took me awhile to figure out that London Tipton is a wacky kiddified version of Paris Hilton, though, she's probably the least sane one on the show!

I think though, that if they focused more on characterization as opposed to story and gags, the show could do better.

Escapay or Zulu or Frodo

AwallaceUNC wrote: If so, I can get on board with that complaint, but it isn't enough to write it off altogether, and certainly not enough to call it "everything that's wrong with our culture."

-Aaron

Your thoughts on Suite Life are well established. However, I can't see how you can possibly defend That's So Raven, especially after you concede to the show's blatant use of nausea-inducing material. It lacks any type of intelligence, both in writing, acting, and directing. It is, quite simply, a formula devised to tickle the brains of pre-pubescents who haven't quite developed the ability to consciously discern quality television from crude, gratuitous humor.

Suite Life is a move in the right direction. Though I think it too needs some intelligence in the writing. Disney should be in the business of substance, not fluff. Thereby making it timeless, as it once was.

Escapay wrote:Took me awhile to figure out that London Tipton is a wacky kiddified version of Paris Hilton, though, she's probably the least sane one on the show!

Yeah, I definitely had to be told that. I felt dumb for not getting it. It's clever, though, and proof that the show gets ever-so-slightly edgy*, sort of like Lizzie McGuire.

ckdish wrote:However, I can't see how you can possibly defend That's So Raven, especially after you concede to the show's blatant use of nausea-inducing material.

Its hype/promotion/overexposure induces nausea- not the show itself! Yes, it's formulaic, but Raven boasts some of the best comedic timing and most commanding stage presence on TV. She's funny and larger than life (in a good way), and that's enough to keep the show entertaining, even if only in occasional doses, which is how I digest it.

[shameless plug] For more on my take on the show, check out my review of this 4-episode compilation: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/thatssora ... guise.html [/shameless plug]

*"edgy" relative to other Disney Channel stuff

-Aaron

ckdish wrote:It lacks any type of intelligence, both in writing, acting, and directing. It is, quite simply, a formula devised to tickle the brains of pre-pubescents who haven't quite developed the ability to consciously discern quality television from crude, gratuitous humor.

Awfully harsh there. Do you regularly watch the show to make sure it's bad or are you basing it on a few viewings?

I enjoy Raven for what it is, a half-hour where I don't have to be emotionally connected to the characters or worry about what happens. It's a fun escape from what's otherwise on TV. The bulk of broadcast television these days seem to be hourlong forensic dramas usually dealing with dead bodies or soon to be dead bodies. So it's refreshing to see a show so full of life, so full of physical slapstick humor. Raven's not trying to be I Love Lucy or Friends or Seinfeld or Three's Company. It's not produced in the mindset of "Let's be the best sitcom the people have ever seen!" It's produced simply as a romp in the wacky world of a teenage psychic.

Escapay or Zulu or (insert name here)

Escapay wrote: Awfully harsh there. Do you regularly watch the show to make sure it's bad or are you basing it on a few viewings?

Nope, I'm judging it-- and I feel quite capable of doing so. I do understand why you can like it though. However, don't you think that many people sit in front of the television to have their minds numbed, even if they're not aware they are doing so? Is this what you're doing? Because Raven does the trick. As for other television, you're absolutely right: it too is formulated, bland, and full of ostentatious titillation. Raven may be lacking the titillation, I don't know for sure, but it scores high marks on bland.