Why did Kelsey Grammar make that awful "Christmas Carol"

[LisaM]

that I tried to watch last night? I kept thinking it would improve. I gave it half an hour and it proceeded to get worse by the second (I'm sorry, Jason Alexander as a New Yorkish Jacob Marley was ridiculous - he sounded like Barbra in "Funny Girl") and then I realized I'd missed half of "Desparate Housewives" and I freaked out.

[xultar]

1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ n/t

[Benhurst]

2. As I said last night, Bad Grammer ruins adaptation of English Classic.

[GreenArrow]

4. beat me to it...

There's no other reason that matters.

[LisaM]

3. Yeah, but Jason Alexander can't need the money

after "Seinfeld" and he got roped into it too.

[Merlot]

5. Maybe because Kelsy Grammar is awful?

I watched Fraiser for the supporting cast. Loved the Niles character, he is so talented. In fact, the whole cast was more talented than Kelsey, and yes, I'm including the dog!

Good writing saved him. He's only played one character for 20 years - Frasier Crane. Scrooge must have been to much of a stretch.

[WI_DEM]

14. I agree, yet on "Cheers" I thought Kelsey was the standout

maybe his character is more well suited in support rather than as a lead.

[Spinzonner]

6. Should have played it as Sideshow Bob

[DenverDem]

9. The only way I can stand that self consumed, pompus, coke head. . .

animated.

[newscaster]

7. The show was made because

at the time, they thought it was a good idea. It certainly had a good cast. Before that show ever hit the small screen, it went before TV executives, critics, and testing audiences to gain reaction which obviously was favorable. Were it not, you would not have been able to watch it.

And remember, you considered it a bad show but a lot of people didn't.
It is strictly....beauty in the eye of the beholder. What is terrific to you may not be to someone else and vice versa.

Oh yeah, there was another reason to make that show. Money.

[asjr]

8. That was shown to make you wish to see the original

again.

[Enraged_Ape]

10. I miss the George C. Scott version...

with David Warner, Susannah York, and that dude from "The Equalizer" as the Ghost of Christmas Present.

TV screws almost everything up, but somehow they got that one right.

[Pepperbelly]

11. who cares what that gop asshole does?

Kelsey can fuck himself.

:D

[Piperay]

12. Yeah, I can't stand him

and when I saw he was in it I didn't even bother watching. I try to avoid most anything that has a GOOPer in it. :puke:

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. Cash. Cold hard cash. I didn't see it, but I guess if it sucked,

I won't bother. The Patrick Stewart one was cool, though.

[jobycom]

15. Royalties from a Christmas classic can set an actor for life

Same with songs. Everyone puts out Christmas albums and movies because if they happen to strike a chord with people, they will be played over and over every year for a generation. The thing about Christmas performances, too, is that they cannot be bad enough. Good, heartfelt, original stories fade quickly, while the dumb ones hang around forever. There are some exceptions.

This one will play for a few years, too, no matter how bad it is. Whichever network owns that film now gets to run it every year, without ever paying again to make it. They can replace another classic, so they don't have to pay royalties to someone else for that time slot. It's free money from now on, even if it sucks. That's why they stuff a dozen famous actors into it, even if they are completely unsuited. People will remember the names, and it will add credibility to the film, so in five years when they show it again, people will remember Alexander and Grammar and watch it again. At least, that's the hope.