Talk:Anger Management (TV series)

Show in Latin America

There is no TBS here in Latin America, but there is a cable channel equivalent to FX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.50.10.42 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is now. TBS (Latin American TV channel) — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Executive producers

Per the show's own website and its press releases: "Bruce Helford serves as Executive Producer/Showrunner. Joe Roth, Mark Burg, Dave Caplan, Bob Kushell and Vince Totino are Executive Producers. Anger Management is produced by Lionsgate Television and distributed by Debmar-Mercury." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the film? Really?

I see here and on the opening/closing titles of the show itself that it says it's based on the film of the same name. I don't see that at all. Charlie's character shares nothing with Jack Nicholson's other than their job title. Jack's character was something of a nutjob with wild ideas and methods and underhand tactics. Charlie's is as normal as you can imagine an anger management therapist being. The film has the therapist living in his patient's house and engulfing himself in the life of his patient, Charlie just does his job. Weird they'd say it was based on the film. I think the most credit that would be due is something like "having watched the film about a crazy anger management therapist, we decided to make a sitcom about one who wasn't in any way crazy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.185.236 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:NPOV such sentiments cannot be expressed in a Wikipedia article unless it is stated in a professionally published review. Regardless of one's opinions, the movie is acknowledged on screen, therefore the series is based on the movie, full stop. 70.76.69.162 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the lead to match the cited sources, which clearly state the TV series is based on the movie. If you can find published material contradicting this, feel free to add it to the article. Ollie B.C. (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Yeah to answer the original point, the term "based on" in tv and film more usually means takeing a given original film/book or other and makeing your own version of the basic premise or indeed throwing the whole original premise out completely and makeing something vaguely similar or totally diferent, if your lucky some original character names may be retained. An adaptation is what most people confuse with based on, an adaptation will be usually what you expect and will mostly be fairly close to the original source, based on usually 'aint, okay???.86.5.134.132 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Record?

The fact Season 2 officially is to have 90 episodes should in theory be some sort of record for a non-soap opera American series, considering that in the past it was not uncommon for TV series to air 30 or even 40 episodes in a season, but never 90. Any source out there support this? 70.76.69.162 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Unaired episode

Wattlebird has changed "The status of "Charlie and Kate Have Sex for Science" is unknown as all episodes with production codes up to, and including, 1040 (Blair's final episode) have aired" to "The episode was never filmed".[1] This episode was advertised at multiple websites but was withdrawn because of Selma Blair's "departure" from the series and its eventual disposition is unknown. There has never been a statement that it was not filmed at all so that is an unsourced claim and constitutes original research. Wattlebird's summary stated "episode was never filmed as has been stated over and over that the series filmed exactly 100 episodes", however a 90 episode order does not preclude production of additional episodes that have not been aired so I reverted noting that in my summary. Wattlebird has since reverted claiming "if the episode was merely just unaired, there would be a discrepency with the production codes, but there isn't".[2] This too constitutes original research, as the episode's production code was never stated. It was listed simply as "#10??" and no other episode used that production code. The situation is that we have no idea what happened to that episode so any statement as to what happened to it constitutes OR. The original text in the article says that the status of the episode is unknown and that is the most neutral way of addressing the mystery. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There are more fundamental problems with this paragraph. It says the episode's status is "unknown". Unknown by who? Everyone? Have even the producers totally lost track of it? Did it just vanish from their production notes? Or is the problem just that Wikipedia editors have not been told? Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't report what its editors don't know, as gaps in their knowledge are of no significance. If there are reliable sources, or authorities that can be cited stating that there is a mystery here, then they should be cited. Otherwise this observation is, in itself, original research. All that can be said is that the named episode did not air, end of explanation. Similarly, Wikipedia doesn't report on what hasn't happened unless sources have. An infinite number of things don't happen. So care should also be taken with any mention of no explanation being given, as that could be taken as expressing the opinion that an explanation should have been given.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

LGBT cathegory?

Is the category appropriate for this show? Because I don't think one secondary character is enough for it. My opinion is if some show dives deeper into such issues, only then it should have the category. So when is a show considered LGBT-related? --Batman tas (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)