I watched it the other day and it's not as terrible as I thought it'd be. The title and premise of the show is kind of a turnoff. But my lil sis likes it so I guess Disney's doing something right with it. (I'm just glad it doesn't involve singing tbh.)
I still think Good Luck Charlie is still the best show from the era though.
Do you guys like the show?
No. I'm convinced they came up with the title first and based a show around it. Don't like it. Glad your sis likes it though.
"SHE'S ALLERGIC TO STRAWBERRIES!!!" - Kiefer Sutherland in Touch
I think the chemistry with the family is way off, they all over act... especially Beth Littleford... The Dog's voice is really annoying (this could be direction) and like others said, this show tries to have random side-humor like Wizards of Waverly Place, but it just misses the mark completely.
I never liked G. Hannelius, but was willing to give her a chance. She just does not have any real charisma, or comedic timing which is ironic since that is how she built up her resume within Disney to finally getting her own show. I think she is good in small doses as a co-star, but she can't carry a show, IMO.
So, I am with those that think this show won't last more than a season... And by recent ratings (low two million range per week) it looks like we may be right.
Yeah, I don't think it'll last long either. Granted, I only watched one episode (The one where they were playing an online game and they met the boy or something like that.) so I haven't been keeping up with it.
My biggest turn off is the recycled jokes though. It's like everything's already been said and done. I feel the same with Shake It Up and Austin and Ally and all the rest. I guess It's a Laugh Productions is out of ideas.
I think G was better at playing the annoying little brat. This part just doesn't seem to work for her.
"I do love a civil war. You know, these wars today are so rude and ill mannered."
It's average. Not as bad as the premise suggested, but not all that hot.
I've long thought G. Hannelius could carry her own show. I think she needs a stronger vehicle than this one, something with sass and edge to it. I liked her portrayal of Jo on GLC. Dog With a Blog is a little too sugary for my taste.
Her on this show reminds me of Jason Dolley on "Corey In the House." True he wasn't the star, but he was good on it. But he blossomed on "Good Luck Charlie" and gave PJ serious dimension beyond being a knockoff of the ditzy guy he played on "Corey."
(BTW, I saw Regan Burns this week on "NCIS:L.A." He played a reporter on a reality show. It was hard to take him seriously after all these weeks as the (ditzy) dad on DWAB.)
Yeah, I know filankey is not a word, but it's gonna catch on.
Complaints about "acting" are pretty much automatic when tedious amateur critics go online to rant about a Disney or Nick show they can't stand. The obnoxious part is, the criticism is just random. There isn't a single young performer who's ever appeared in front of a camera, that some know-it-all hasn't blasted for their "horrible acting". It seems to me "the acting is terrible" is just something people think they're supposed to say when they're getting their hate on. The idea that G. Hannelius can't act...takes this to an all new level of crazy.
For me, Dog With a Blog's problem is the character of Stan. He's not likeable. Some of his dimwitted lines are funny, but who would want a dog that's so self absorbed? We at least want to THINK our family dog doesn't share our worst human attributes. But Stan is always jealous, has self esteem issues, and deliberately destroys things. The fact that he can talk and clearly understand instructions makes it worse. Personally I'd much prefer a pet of the non-speaking variety
Stan often sounds like the voice actor is a stand-up comedian channeling his act. The delivery tends to come off a little bland and louder than the other characters, although I do like many of Stan's lines.
(Stan is voiced by Stephen Full, who played Ash, one of the Iron Weasel guys on "I'm In the Band." His IMDb bio doesn't list any background in stand-up.)
ADDITIONAL COMMENT EDITED IN: As for "the acting is terrible" complaints, it seems to me most of the posts in these message boards come from adults. Sometimes we tend to forget that Disney's sitcoms are aimed at children and teens, and not the Academy that votes for the Oscar winners. The producers seldom cast truly horrible actors for these shows. They know what they are doing.
Yeah, I know filankey is not a word, but it's gonna catch on.
I've long thought G. Hannelius could carry her own show. I think she needs a stronger vehicle than this one, something with sass and edge to it.
(BTW, I saw Regan Burns this week on "NCIS:L.A." He played a reporter on a reality show. It was hard to take him seriously after all these weeks as the (ditzy) dad on DWAB.)
In the first quote of me that you cited, I also said, "I liked her portrayal of Jo on GLC. Dog With a Blog is a little too sugary for my taste."
It is true, as you said, that G's character Avery displays some sass. My point was that "Dog With a Blog" overall is a little too sweet. G needs an edgier, sassier show. But maybe she's deliberately playing against type. When she played brats on other shows, most people remarked how nice she is in person.
Yeah, I know filankey is not a word, but it's gonna catch on.
It is true, as you said, that G's character Avery displays some sass. My point was that "Dog With a Blog" overall is a little too sweet. G needs an edgier, sassier show.
"If you recall during the introductions in the first episode the cast revealed that Kuma was a rescue dog, and unless I see evidence to the contrary, so was Mick."
I was going back through the comments in this post and I saw you mentioned two names for the dog who plays Stan. Have there been two? Wondering because one of the earliest episodes aired again this week (where Stan crashes Ellen's car and Tyler gets the blame): Stan's fur looked different — light tan areas on his back looked much darker. At first it looked like darker overall video quality of the episode.
Yeah, I know filankey is not a word, but it's gonna catch on.
I must be the only person who likes this show.
Yes, the chemistry needs work. As does the acting. And the writing at the beginning left a LOT to be desired. But I think this show can be pretty funny. Not a very good premise, but the humour makes up for it. The dog can be pretty funny at times, but the sarcasm and self-deprecating humor (for lack of a better word) are also pretty good.
It needs work, for sure. But this could be a good show. Really, it's a decent show which has gradually gotten a little better as it goes on. However, if people don't warm up to the premise of a talking dog, then it won't last anyway.
I still can't stand the dog's voice or personality. But the family is great, if it was just them then it would be a fantastic show.
It's my least favorite Disney show but it took me a year or two to warm up to GLC. Dog With a Blog might grow on me if the dog stops being so obnoxious.
---
"Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame."
Complaints about "acting" are pretty much automatic when tedious amateur critics go online to rant about a Disney or Nick show they can't stand. The obnoxious part is, the criticism is just random. There isn't a single young performer who's ever appeared in front of a camera, that some know-it-all hasn't blasted for their "horrible acting". It seems to me "the acting is terrible" is just something people think they're supposed to say when they're getting their hate on. The idea that G. Hannelius can't act...takes this to an all new level of crazy.
"I wish you kids would learn how to disagree with others in a respectful manner online, but then again that is something that hopefully comes with age and maturity... Something you are seriously lacking at the present, bucko."
_______________________________________________________________________-
Your sermon about "respectfully disagreeing" would be less silly if you weren't "seriously lacking" a sense of irony. Practically every sentence of your post was sarcastic, insulting and dripping with hurt little feelings. You can lecture me AFTER you add a few layers to that thin skin.
Anyway, you did eventually make a decent point at the end, so I'll admit I probably hit some innocent bystanders with my earlier post. But I do think the "bad acting" complaint is tossed around too much. Austin & Ally and A.N.T Farm have both been dissed for bad acting, which really confirms what I said
No, I don't need to add layers to a thin skin
I just get sick of egomaniacs like you who think they can insult anybody they want and not expect a reaction. Your post was pretentious, arrogant, disrespectful and you knew it. I just responded in kind. The whole tell-it-like-you-think-it-is approach is not new, so who are you trying to impress?
I think it's good myself. G Hannelius and Beth Littleford are the best of the series stars.
shareI agree with you on all of the above. I feel like people are being pretentious in their critiques of this this show. Before I saw the show, I was afraid to watch simply because of the story line. I've never been a fan of Disney's tendency to combine the impossible with the possible...but I am one of their oldest viewers so I decided to let that slide and give the show a shot. Perhaps the only reason I like the show is because the main character is so easy for me to relate to with her overachiever-perfectionistic personality type. But I don't think that's the show's only charm. Beth Littleford is hilarious and she did a great job in that episode with the pet parrot. Also, I think the dog is funny...perhaps I am the only one who thinks they did a pretty good job predicting what a dog would say if he could talk? But honestly, if I weren't a fan of G. Hannelius, I probably wouldn't watch the show. But I am a fan...and so I hope this show lasts. She seems like a sweet kid and she's definitely talented.
shareTotally agree with you and a few other posts here. First off, the premise of Mr. Ed probably seemed weird to everyone in the 50's or 60's or whenever it was made, and it worked, it's a classic. Secondly, if you think the acting is bad, consider this. Disney currently seems to be a training ground for many could-be future stars. Combine that with the fact that comedy is one of the hardest genres to do. Robert De Niro even said that is why he sometimes does comedies like Analyze This or That.
With all that out of the way, I still think they do a good if not great job. Its a dysfunctionally unbalanced family that would be lost without Stan. If the family chemistry was good, it wouldn't be funny at all.
True, Stan can be self-absorbed, the mom is sometimes Hammy, and c'mon he has a blog, many people can see a talking animal, but one who types, can lift weights, and drive a car is hard to believe. But that's some of what makes it hilarious. And its also the little things too. I might be the only one on the forum who thinks the dad is funny but he truly is. Tyler and Chloe have their moments too.
Avery is another topic all together. But she helps make the show. True, they can sometimes drop an anvil of a lesson in most episodes, but I'm fine with that since many fans look up to her and can learn from her problems. And that's as close to educational as any show normally will ever get on these types of networks. G does a good job, and she reminds of Miranda Cosgrove in a good way. Miranda started off as the horrible Megan, then transitioned into the nice and lovable Carly. Although Carly isn't as sweet as Avery, Carly had a sidekick that was poison and they had a great dynamic. Since its more of a family show, they made Avery sugary sweet with a rebellious streak that shows here and there and a best friend who is similar. G has been put on a similar path as Miranda, I don't think this show will be iCarly but that might be a good thing. And while I'm not a good judge of acting talent, I think she is a better actress than Miranda, Depending on who you talk to, that might not be saying much, but still.
Hats off to the writers for making it work, because this is a premise that most of us wouldn't get pass the pilot phase or even consider for fear of killing our careers. I can't believe I want to see the newest episode a little more than the season premiere of GLC. And they haven't even mentioned the B-plot, which might be funnier that Avery's cheerleader plot, which is understandable, since it seemed serious.
Lastly, most of the writers of Disney shows used to work on shows from the 70's-90's, So they know what is funny and isn't and what works. Shake It Up was created by a guy who worked on Laverne and Shirley, and that's some of why it works. The same is true for all Disney shows. I can't wait to see who writes for this show. Whoever it is knows how to get the most out of cutaway gags while not overusing them.
Disney is kicking Nick's but because Disney is ran by the same people who run ESPN, ESPN learned from the NFL and other successful leagues and teams on how to run a business. It trickles down to Disney or might even be the other way around. While Nickelodeon had Nick Cannon as an exec. This show wouldn't work on Nick or anywhere else except Disney.
Bottomline: Good show, compare episode quality with that of Nick shows in the past 6 months like Victorious or Marvin Marvin. And Stop Hatin. They work harder on this show than most of the negative "amateur critics" have worked on anything in their life. I say give it a chance, probably not the best show on Disney (yet), but far from the worst and the worst still ain't bad.
The tone of the show is Schizophrenic.
It doesn't know if it wants to be a comedy, or a melodrama and does not balance those elements well, IMO.
That's the shows Achilles Heel, and they need to work on either making the comedy actually funny and not forced, or tone down the melodrama because it overshadows what little comedy there is nine times out of ten.
Also, no need for personal insults like...
They work harder on this show than most of the negative "amateur critics" have worked on anything in their life.
I apologize for the negativity. to be fair I did say most, not all. And while I do like the show, I don't think it's gonna be the next big thing. It will more than likely last at least another year or two. And while you said "negative" things about the show, you made many smart points, You mentioned many bad things about the show in a good constructive way. I'm not grouping you into that category. But I could've still kept that to myself.
I don't like the posts that basically say " I don't like the show because it's stupid, etc" And that said, I like the show for its "stupidness" I was mainly saying, that the writers of the show didn't pull this out of their 'you-know-where' . Lots of effort goes into these type of shows, even if it doesn't seem like it. But I still could've left out what I said, even if it might be true.
It's not a bad show, but there is a lot of room for improvement. But it's a fairly low-concept sitcom about a troubled family, not Breaking Bad or Mad Men, I agree that they need to handle the sadness better, but the show also can make you smile even if it doesn't always make you laugh. Just the fact that this topic is this long with mixed reviews says their doing something write.
Sorry again for showing that I am also an amateur critic. It's a good thing for people to voice negative opinions, but hating on a show that you barely watch isn't cool. I'm putting you in the hater category, but you know a lot about the show for someone who doesn't like. You must like it a little bit. Or you would make suggestions on how it can be better.
Again sorry about being immature in my earlier post. I'm new to this, and I hope that sentence didn't ruin the post.
It's a very high concept show because the premise is the story.
Also, it can't be cheap to animate (CGI) all the shots with the dog "talking" to the kids. I know computer technology has become very affordable, but they also have to plan each and every shot to allow for post-production CGI, the correct lighting, ADR, etc., for the desired effect(s).
So, this is why I find it odd they are putting all of this effort into the show, but the overall writing is inconsistent and just feels like the show is trying to be something more than it should be, IMO.
If they treated this show with a more whimsical, less serious approach... Since the premise is so over the top... And didn't veer into melodrama every episode then I probably would have no problem with the show whatsoever.
I like "ANT Farm" because it is like a live-action cartoon, but it still has good messages/lessons for its young audience that aren't so in-your-face. If the DWAB producers would let this show be a full-on comedy with underlying lessons I would probably like the show more, but...
The "lessons" are so obvious and heavy-handed... And maybe too grown up?... As it stands, and they often ruin the flow/tone of the show. It literally feels like two different shows whenever they try and "teach", or give "depth" to the characters.
BTW, I don't care what you label me ("hater") because it doesn't mean a damn thing to me. This is a discussion board, not a fans-only forum.
My bad, I agree. I even feel the same way about ANTFarm being a live action cartoon. I like ANT Farm because it knows what type of show it should be. DWAB is challenged because they have to find ways to be different since a few other things are "borrowed".
I don't think you're hating, but every show can't be all laughs no seriousness. The show does, sometimes, come out nowhere with that seriousness, or sometimes makes a big deal out of small issues. But that goes back to the premise discussion. I noticed since my first post that the whole blogging dog thing isn't the true premise. If it was, everyone would know that he can do what he does. 'The real premise is how he helps Avery and the family through problems. And it might not even be that, its kinda the Avery show in disguise of a talking animal show. Good Luck Charlie is their only other family show, so they have to either be more serious or more silly than that show. I think they chose to do both. I can see how it's not exactly loved by everyone, but they compensate or at least try to.
What I find clever that might have been done on accident, is since he is retelling stories, they may or may not be in order except in obvious cases. There were mentions in previous episodes Tyler working on a food truck and Avery being a cheerleader before the episodes premiered. Unless some episodes are out of order on purpose, then they are highly inconsistent. If its on purpose, then they are still a little inconsistent, but they counter the seriousness with being one of the silliest shows on tv.
But at least the made fun of the mood whiplash when Avery went from having fun to crying in the Freaky fido episode. If this show can find out which way they want to go, it will be fine. But I will say it takes a serious tone more than it has to. Not sure if they use sentimental music, but I hope not.
It's really not as bad as it may have been in the first few episodes.
I've pretty much gotten used to Stan talking and all that. It does take all the realistic-ness out of this family show, which is too bad.
One of the few things that I like about this show is that some episodes happen to teach you something - which is something GLC lacks.
Like in that one episode they strongly stressed the theme of not to live in the past. I think the Christmas episode had a theme but I'm not sure. Tyler working at the food truck was a good one too.
I like the sentimental music-touch to it. It makes it a little more serious and less for the jokes, like other shows would when they're constantly replaying the laugh track. Not saying this show doesn't do the same, but still. It reminds me of Boy Meets World where every episode was so freaking sad even though it was a comedy show.
All in all, some episodes are worth watching, others are just really bad.
I didn't know when i first voiced my opinion on this thread, that the producers and writers are from shows like That 70's show, Frasier, South Park, The Steve Harvey Show, Roc, Roseanne, and even Girlfriends, which I personally didn't watch, but it lasted 8 seasons. I'd bet on a producer writer or creator with that resume over Dan Schneider most of the tie, although he is proven to make good shows, Nick puts way too much stock into him, while Disney seems to have found some of the best out of work writers and such from great shows.
The way they address lessons is so obvious and straight out of shows from the '90s, though.
The other current Disney shows also teach kids life lessons, but they do it in more subtle ways where the lesson (theme) is woven seamlessly into the story line and they don't have/need a big, melodramatic "here is the lesson of the week" scene complete with sad music.
This is what I mean when I say the show has an uneven flow and tone sometimes.
Yeah, I agree, they do have a habit of slamming a lesson on you then make a joke out of nowhere. And Stan is always seems to find a complaint about being a dog. But those are probably my only gripes.
shareI agree I thought it would be terrible but I love it its my fav show on Disney right now
shareI love this show. I watched one episode a few weeks ago and just found it again. As you watch more episodes, you really get to understand all of the characters. It is very entertaining, especially Stan.
share[deleted]
I like it as well.... the mother-in-law episode was fantastic. Glad my daughter is in to this show....
share[deleted]