Not a good sign for Numbers.

Ameer | February 11, 09:17 CET

Oooh, interesting. I've never seen "Numb3rs," but I quite like David Krumholtz. And Ron Howard's "Arrested Development" is still the best damn sitcom I've ever seen, so his involvement has me even more excited. An "Office" mate on board is definitely a good.

Though, it said "multi-camera." Doesn't that mean it'll be a sitcom less like "Community," "Malcolm in the Middle," and "Modern Family," and more like "Friends," "Cheers," and "I Love Lucy"? At least in look. Right? "Multi-camera" means, like A, B, C, and X cameras, yes? So, does that mean they're kind of bringing back traditional sitcoms? Neat! Or do I have that completely backwards?

XanMan | February 11, 09:51 CET

You're right on the money, XanMan, though it's still a somewhat commonly-used format. Hopefully this is better than most contemporary multi-camera sitcoms, though. Frankly, I'm almost won over just by the idea of a "Ron Howard IRS pilot."

sumogrip | February 11, 09:58 CET

*Is* it still a commonly-used format? I'm trying to think of some. Oh! I guess, like, "Big Bang Theory," "Two and a Half Men," "How I Met Your Mother," right? Hmmm... any shows that aren't on CBS?

Oh, wait! "Rules of Engagement," "Gary Unmarried"! Huh. I guess there's just a lot of shows I don't watch. This is fun. Which others?

Okay, this... this is only fun for me, isn't it? I'll slowly retreat now.

XanMan | February 11, 10:16 CET

Yes it is and his "Sports Night" is one of my favourites too. So I'm looking forward to this.

ETA:

And on a related note: anyone looking forward to Howard's "Parenthood" remake? I think the cast looks pretty amazing (Peter Krause, Lauren Graham), the trailers less so.

[ edited by the Groosalugg on 2010-02-11 11:03 ]

the Groosalugg | February 11, 11:00 CET

Not particularly. Didn't see the series but the film was enjoyable fluff without much substance beyond the fairly obvious "Life, eh ? Blimey. It's like a box of chocolates or something" - don't see much point in a remake.

Not a good sign for Numbers.

Nope. Pity but then season 6 is a bit unexpected too (the buzz was it'd probably stop after 5) and it could still return (his contract for the new show will have "If 'Numb3rs' doesn't return ..." in there somewhere). And at least they have time to finish it properly, always a bonus.

Saje | February 11, 12:40 CET

I thought Numbers was cancelled.

electricspacegirl | February 11, 18:32 CET

Not yet, electricspacegirl, but the writing has been on the wall for a while now. I still enjoy the show. Probably won't miss it, but I have enjoyed it.

IrrationaliTV | February 11, 18:39 CET

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel too. It's a fun show but 6 seasons is a good run and if they manage to end it well then i'll be happy.

Saje | February 11, 19:54 CET

I think it's entirely speculative and an over reaction to suggest that David Krumholtz' involvement in a pilot means that Numb3rs is doomed. According to both Ausiello and TV By the Numbers, David Krumholtz' first priority is Numb3rs. He will only ink a deal with Fox if a) Numb3rs is canceled and b) Fox picks up the pilot, which it may not.

Even if Fox picks up the pilot, Krumholtz will not leave CBS if it renews Numb3rs. And it's unlikely that Fox will pick up the pilot without having seen it, so both networks' decisions will fall around May.

Personally, I hope for another season of Numb3rs.

the ninja report | February 11, 20:50 CET

According to both Ausiello and TV By the Numbers, David Krumholtz' first priority is Numb3rs.

Well yeah according to Ausiello since the linked article for the thread is that same piece ;), no-one's claiming otherwise.

I don't think it's either entirely speculative OR an overreaction though considering the season has been cut from 22 to 16 episodes (which news BTW Ausiello thinks means "This is most likely the show’s final season.") and that the actors/creators themselves didn't think it'd even be back for a 6th season. If it comes back then great, if not then, so long as it ends well, also great (IMO).

[ edited by Saje on 2010-02-11 21:21 ]

Saje | February 11, 21:20 CET