Teachers.

These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.

I absolutely love this show. I like the relationships between the character's. When your in school you never think about what your teacher's lives are really like and i'm not dumb I know our teacher's lives aren't like that but it makes you think.I like to see the dedication of the teacher's to the student's and it's from the creature of Scrubs so it could never be actually as bad as the others said. I really like the relationship between the male teachers. I also like that there are little clicks between the teachers just like the kids in school. The teachers pretend that they are sort of destroying their students and maybe one of them is. The teachers all have their own lives and it's fun to see that because you never think of your teachers of having a life besides teaching at school. I think it is totally worth a watch and maybe you'll enjoy it as much as I do.

I just watched the pilot, and let me tell you, I never intend to watch this show again. Are TV viewers in general so stupid that they have to be told when to laugh? I swear, if I never hear another laugh track in any TV show, it'll be too soon. Of course, which is not to say I ever laughed anyway. In the pilot we had sexist jokes, racist jokes, and just generally dumb jokes. I miss the days when sitcoms weren't afraid to be smart instead of just giving us one-liner after one-liner after one-liner. Judging this show based on only a half-hour of viewing may be too harsh, but I don't care. Insipid dialogue, completely unlikable (and unbelievable) characters, and nothing resembling any real high school that I've been to make for one sad, sad effort. The one thing I will say in favor of this show is that Ms. Torres is a fox. But that alone is not nearly enough to save what should never have been given life in the first place. Someone on the message board posted the topic "Boston Public for idiots?" and I have to say I disagree. It's just TV for idiots.

I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.

Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.

It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).

In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.

Sounds like the previous reviewer was having a bad night when watching this show's pilot. There's plenty of room for improvement for Teachers, but keep in mind that Cheers faced the same kind of harsh criticism and was almost canceled in its first season. Am I implying that Teachers has the same potential as Cheers? Not necessarily, but I do think it's a diamond in the rough. The main asset on Teachers' side is its host of distinctive characters. The writing is a bit uneven, but occasionally produces biting gems like an attractive female teacher's observation about three leering male co-workers, comparing them to a 'recruitment poster for Lesbians.' Put-down humor may not be genteel, but it scores laughs, and has ever since Sophia's zingers in Golden Girls. The main character seems to be Jeff Cahill(Justin Bartha), a sarcastic, bad-boy English teacher who's hot for Alice Fletcher(Sarah Alexander), a tart-tongued, ex-Brit fellow teacher who would respond well to Jeff's advances if only he'd be more mature. I share her disdain for his attitude and fountain of quips. Enough is enough. Also, the show's wardrobe staff take note: Jeff's jeans are way too tight and the low-riding pair worn in the pilot looked rather, well, feminine. If the writers use other characters more liberally (the slutty substitute, the burned out bald guy, and the uptight African American buddy), good things may happen. And how about involving students more? Will they maximize Teachers' potential, or will we consistently mark its card 'Capable of Doing Better?' We'll see.