ABC's 'Joe' brings up baby alone
Oct. 25, 2002 (Hollywood Reporter)

In the original concept, Touchstone TV's " Regular Joe" was to center on a soon-to-be empty nester (Daniel Stern) and his wife, who wind up raising their 18-year-old daughter's baby. When the pilot was picked up in July, network brass decided to recast the role of the wife, originally played by Lisa Ann Walter. After an extensive search for Mrs. Right, ABC's casting gurus came up empty-handed, so the producers decided to change the concept and make Stern a widower. (Nellie Andreeva)

What sense does that make? Is it really that hard to find someone to play his wife? Is he that good of an actor? The only TV success he’s had is doing voice-overs for "Wonder Years" and "Dilbert." He’s had two failed series -- one never made the air on UPN, and the other one was canned by CBS during the second commercial on the first episode. If anyone knows how it ended, let me know.

Lisa Ann Walter was so bad that she killed the character. They'd rather not have anyone than her. Was Ruth Buzzi not available?
I think they’re not hiring a wife because they know the show will be off the air really quickly and they want to save money on actors. They should light the show with office lamps and candles.

That’s what ABC needs, another show about a wacky father. Besides Ritter, Lopez, Belushi, and Wayans, they don’t have any.

"ABC: Our fathers love their kids, does yours?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS's Morning show debuts with four hosts on Monday.
'Early' rises to challenge Oct. 25, 2002
NEW YORK -- Although it remains a distant third in the national morning show derby behind NBC's "Today" and ABC's "Good Morning America," CBS' "Early" is a money-maker for the network. But many news executives -- inside and out of CBS -- feel that the launch of the new format Monday could be the division's last chance to save the show before CBS brass decide to give up and hand the weekday 7-9 a.m. slot back to its O&O and affiliate stations. The stakes are huge. Even after being buried in third place for more than 20 years, the show is estimated to earn $20 million-$40 million a year, which helps finance much of the news department's activities. (Andrew Grossman)


If the show is making money, then who cares? The 7-9 slot will just become a graveyard of syndicated talk shows and Matlock re-runs. But the stations themselves will get the money.

Although I applaud them for trying something different in the morning, why would adding more hosts help? Craig Kilborn said: "That’s what a sinking ship needs, four anchors." (Did I just quote Kilborn? Call a doctor.)

But why 4 anchors? Why do shows, when they are dying, add more hosts? If the audience hates two hosts, they’re gonna hate four just as much.
Plus, there's more hosts, but are they any good? One great person who people want to see can replace 100 shitty guys.

Why are they copying a low-rated show like "The View?" The show barely gets a million viewers. Their days are numbered as well. What can they do to boost the ratings? They can fire another host. Or fire Debbie again? Like David Lee Roth. That helped them last time. The whole host search was a real ratings grabber. But after they found a host, the ratings fell.

You can’t say it’s because the audience just wants a stunt.
When "Live! With Regis" looked for a new host, the ratings spiked up. When Kelly Ripa joined, the ratings climbed even more.

Maybe "The View" should add more hosts. Lisa Ann Walter is available.