Re: ABC's "V" to follow "Lost" Tuesdays at 10
Rob Jensen
>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/lost-to-be-paired-with-v-starting-march-30.html
>
>�Lost� to be paired with �V� starting March 30
>by Hal Boedeker
>
>�V� returns to the ABC lineup on March 30. It will air in the 10 p.m.
>Tuesday time slot after �Lost.�
>
>ABC promises eight new �V� episodes in a row.
>
>How do you like that scheduling at the Disney-owned network?
OMG! Scheduling that makes sense!
-- Rob
added x-post to alt.tv.v
David
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:10:11 -0500, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/lost...
>
> >‘Lost’ to be paired with ‘V’ starting March 30
> >by Hal Boedeker
>
> >“V” returns to the ABC lineup on March 30. It will air in the 10 p.m.
> >Tuesday time slot after “Lost.”
>
> >ABC promises eight new “V” episodes in a row.
>
> >How do you like that scheduling at the Disney-owned network?
>
> OMG! Scheduling that makes sense!
They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
(really, this is depressing me)
rwgibson13
eh, it's just the lead-in. I dunno if "Lost" fans are gonna stick
around for anything that's not "Lost." It certainly didn't seem to
help "Invasion" back when "Lost" was pulling almost double the numbers
it is now.
I'm assuming you're talking about "FlashForward," here...
RWG (the Thursday night spot is the more prestigious among weeknights
IIRC)
Obveeus
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 19, 7:32 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
>> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
>> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>>
>> (really, this is depressing me)
>
>eh, it's just the lead-in. I dunno if "Lost" fans are gonna stick
>around for anything that's not "Lost." It certainly didn't seem to
>help "Invasion" back when "Lost" was pulling almost double the numbers
>it is now.
I don't recall LOST ever benefitting any show by being its leadin. LOST
viewers seem to cut out of TV en masse to blog/chat/etc... when the episode
ends. That is why ABC would be better off making LOST a 10pm show.
>I'm assuming you're talking about "FlashForward," here...
>
>RWG (the Thursday night spot is the more prestigious among weeknights
>IIRC)
Thursday night may be prestigious, but at 8pm on ABC it is pretty much a
sink hole. David is right to be depressed that FlashForward is still in
that location...especially after the Deep End has expelled the last few
trained viewers from that location.
rwgibson13
> "rwgibson13" <rwgibso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 7:32 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
> >> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
> >> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>
> >> (really, this is depressing me)
>
> >eh, it's just the lead-in. I dunno if "Lost" fans are gonna stick
> >around for anything that's not "Lost." It certainly didn't seem to
> >help "Invasion" back when "Lost" was pulling almost double the numbers
> >it is now.
>
> I don't recall LOST ever benefitting any show by being its leadin.
I thought he was bemoaning the fact that they were somehow "wasting" a
spot by putting "V" after LOST instead of putting something else
behind it.
>LOST
> viewers seem to cut out of TV en masse to blog/chat/etc... when the episode
> ends. That is why ABC would be better off making LOST a 10pm show.<
Well, TV execs don't seem to learn a whole lot about such things.
Heck, they might even restart the old "extra minute or two" trick
again to try and get people to stick around for "V" even though it
didn't work the first time. LOST is a show unlike pretty much
anything else and you'd think that after five years, they'd have
learned.
I just hope they leave it alone for the remainder of the run. Moving
it back would mean it would bump into the local newscasts in case
something comes up that would mean a temporary network interruption.
Not that we need any more bad news this year...
> >I'm assuming you're talking about "FlashForward," here...
>
> >RWG (the Thursday night spot is the more prestigious among weeknights
> >IIRC)
>
> Thursday night may be prestigious, but at 8pm on ABC it is pretty much a
> sink hole. David is right to be depressed that FlashForward is still in
> that location...especially after the Deep End has expelled the last few
> trained viewers from that location.
I've never been a "V" fan, but I do watch "FF." Personally, I'd rather
not have to have it on in the background while I'm doing something
more important :-)
RWG (or have to wait until later to watch it)
Obveeus
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 19, 7:53 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "rwgibson13" <rwgibso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 19, 7:32 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
>> >> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
>> >> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>>
>> >> (really, this is depressing me)
>>
>> >eh, it's just the lead-in. I dunno if "Lost" fans are gonna stick
>> >around for anything that's not "Lost." It certainly didn't seem to
>> >help "Invasion" back when "Lost" was pulling almost double the numbers
>> >it is now.
>>
>> I don't recall LOST ever benefitting any show by being its leadin.
>
>I thought he was bemoaning the fact that they were somehow "wasting" a
>spot by putting "V" after LOST instead of putting something else
>behind it.
I think you are right. I think he sees FlashForward as the superior show
and would rather see it get the strong lead-in. Like I said, though, LOST
isn't a good lead-in and hasn't ever been of benefit to any show that
followed it.
>>LOST
>> viewers seem to cut out of TV en masse to blog/chat/etc... when the
>> episode
>> ends. That is why ABC would be better off making LOST a 10pm show.<
>
>Well, TV execs don't seem to learn a whole lot about such things.
I agree. They should know that LOST has whatever audience it will have (and
those people will follow it to 10pm). They should also know that LOST
viewers aren't going to watch the show on after it in any great numbers.
>Heck, they might even restart the old "extra minute or two" trick
>again to try and get people to stick around for "V" even though it
>didn't work the first time.
The timeslot runover trick brings higher ratings to the commercial break at
the top of the hour. That is the goal. I doubt they have any illusion that
those 1-3 minute runovers will trick people into sticking around for another
hour.
David
>"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 7:53 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> "rwgibson13" <rwgibso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 7:32 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
>>> >> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
>>> >> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>>>
>>> >> (really, this is depressing me)
>>>
>>> >eh, it's just the lead-in. I dunno if "Lost" fans are gonna stick
>>> >around for anything that's not "Lost." It certainly didn't seem to
>>> >help "Invasion" back when "Lost" was pulling almost double the numbers
>>> >it is now.
>>>
>>> I don't recall LOST ever benefitting any show by being its leadin.
>>
>>I thought he was bemoaning the fact that they were somehow "wasting" a
>>spot by putting "V" after LOST instead of putting something else
>>behind it.
>
>I think you are right. I think he sees FlashForward as the superior show
>and would rather see it get the strong lead-in. Like I said, though, LOST
>isn't a good lead-in and hasn't ever been of benefit to any show that
>followed it.
I was looking at what it means from ABC's perspective. Yes following
"Lost" is no great thing but clearly of the two shows "V" has become
the one ABC's backing.
rwgibson13
Oh, you're probably right. I'm just thinking that the way FF has
changed showrunners and such, that it might give the network execs bad
vibes about how committed the production staff is.
RWG (that, plus "V" seems to be a concept that can go for a longer run
if it somehow catches on)
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was looking at what it means from ABC's perspective. Yes following
> "Lost" is no great thing but clearly of the two shows "V" has become
> the one ABC's backing.
Is ABC backing 'V' more or is ABC trying to throw a 'hail marry' in hopes of
finding 'V' an audience? I think FlashForward was pretty stable in the
ratings while V was still dropping.
David
Regardless of past results, they still consider it their most prized
slot, since post-"Grey's" and post-"Housewives" are occupied so I'd
say "V" is the show they're betting on.
David
<rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>RWG (that, plus "V" seems to be a concept that can go for a longer run
>if it somehow catches on)
I don't see it. Right now the Vs are manipulating people while there's
an armada hanging over Earth. How long can they maintain that status
quo before either the resistance somehow defeats them or there's a
major war (which I wouldn't trust to be any good done on a tv budget,
especially given what "V" has done so far)?
With "FlashForward" it's impossible to say what its long-term
prospects are since it's unclear what the show will even be beyond
that flash date. But I appreciate that unpredictability. I can't say I
feel like "V" will go anywhere that will surprise me.
Ian J. Ball
Are you seriously backing "FlashForward" over "V"?! 'Cos that's a
joke.
"V" is by no means perfect (I'd actually say it's pretty seriously
flawed, though improving...).
But at least "V" is not the ridiculous, over-baked mess that
"FlashForward" is.
The latter I pretty much have only been watching so I can laugh at its
idiotic "conspiracy" storyline and how moronic Fiennes' character
behaves.
David
<ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 5:32�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 8:19�pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:10:11 -0500, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/lost...
>>
>> > >�Lost� to be paired with �V� starting March 30
>> > >by Hal Boedeker
>>
>> > >�V� returns to the ABC lineup on March 30. It will air in the 10 p.m.
>> > >Tuesday time slot after �Lost.�
>>
>> > >ABC promises eight new �V� episodes in a row.
>>
>> > >How do you like that scheduling at the Disney-owned network?
>>
>> > OMG! �Scheduling that makes sense!
>>
>> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
>> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
>> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>>
>> (really, this is depressing me)
>
>Are you seriously backing "FlashForward" over "V"?! 'Cos that's a
>joke.
Yeah but you think "looks like it belongs on weekend afternoons" is a
compliment.
rwgibson13
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:25:44 -0800 (PST), rwgibson13
>
> >RWG (that, plus "V" seems to be a concept that can go for a longer run
> >if it somehow catches on)
>
> I don't see it. Right now the Vs are manipulating people while there's
> an armada hanging over Earth. How long can they maintain that status
> quo before either the resistance somehow defeats them or there's a
> major war (which I wouldn't trust to be any good done on a tv budget,
> especially given what "V" has done so far)?
Not all that familiar with what's going on with "V," but the original
did spawn a series, lousy as it was. There were still shows that could
make for individual episodic-type morality plays if, by some reason,
they did go with the "invaders" vs "rebels" route after a successful
invasion.
Although I personally think that particular mine was tapped out fairly
well by my generation, I dunno about the next one. I understand that
the new BSG did it as well, though I gave up on the show before then.
> With "FlashForward" it's impossible to say what its long-term
> prospects are since it's unclear what the show will even be beyond
> that flash date. But I appreciate that unpredictability. I can't say I
> feel like "V" will go anywhere that will surprise me.
I just don't see "Flashforward" going anywhere after the flash date,
except maybe clean-up work. I'd certainly bail if it looked like they
were going to do another "event." It just doesn't hold any appeal to
me - they've strained credibility enough with the slow follow-up to
the first one. Having a "world event" that isn't even investigated by
the world, but by a bunch of FBI types in California (whose boss won't
even let them investigate stuff like the China or Samalia angles) just
pushes the wrong buttons with me. I can ignore such idiocy on LOST
because it gives me oh, so much other stuff besides the plot to care
about. Not so much with FF.
RWG (I care about two, maybe three characters on that show)
Obveeus
rwgibson13
eh, I like Cho's character, and I think Zachary Knighton and ADA
Carver...err, Courtney Vance are really good, even if their characters
aren't all that - yet. And I think Brian O'Byrne rocks every scene
he's in. I just can't see his character ever getting into the "meat"
of the series, since it's all about the FBI guys/scientists and the
three leading roles (the "love triangle") are especially
unsympathetic.
RWG (not unlike LOST in that, strangely enough)
record hunter
> David is right to be depressed that FlashForward is still in
> that location...especially after the Deep End has expelled the last few
> trained viewers from that location.
Hey, I like The Deep End. I'd wondered what happened to Matt Long.
Ian J. Ball
<c8d3dd0f-c38d-434c...@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
record hunter <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
I actually also somewhat like "The Deep End" - I certainly like all of
the actors and actresses involved with the show. It's definitely a
flawed show. But if they tone town the cutesy-cutesy, obviously
derivative of "Grey's" aspects of the show, I think it has potential.
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
windowwasher
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote in message
news:ijball-NO_SPAM-9F0...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> In article
> <c8d3dd0f-c38d-434c...@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> record hunter <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 8:53 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > David is right to be depressed that FlashForward is still in
>> > that location...especially after the Deep End has expelled the last few
>> > trained viewers from that location.
>>
>> Hey, I like The Deep End. I'd wondered what happened to Matt Long.
>
> I actually also somewhat like "The Deep End" - I certainly like all of
> the actors and actresses involved with the show. It's definitely a
> flawed show. But if they tone town the cutesy-cutesy, obviously
> derivative of "Grey's" aspects of the show, I think it has potential.
There's plenty worse shows. This is at least somewhat entertaining at times.
David E. Powell
I left "Lost" for a couple years but came back this season.
All I can say after a couple shows is that Terry O'Quinn deserves at
the very least a Best Actor Emmy Nomination this year. He's amazing.
He always has been on that show, but right now, wow.
rwgibson13
wrote:
Well, all I can say is you're preaching to the choir here when it
comes to Terry O'Quinn. If anything, he was at his best LAST year
when he was playing a different character and DIDN'T KNOW IT.
Seriously, the producers didn't tell him that he wasn't playing John
Locke for the second half of the season. But I think his most amazing
scene (and probably the one that won Mike Emerson his Emmy last year)
of the entire series came last year...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBVOZo5x7Q
It helps put into perspective the scene in the first episode this year
where notLocke is needling Ben about Locke's last thoughts being "I
don't understand."
"Isn't that about the saddest thing you ever heard?"
Really, really powerfull stuff, in my obviously biased opinion :-)
The only reason O'Quinn wasn't nominated for an Emmy last year (IMO,
of course) is that his name mysteriously wasn't entered for
nomination. Actors have to actually submit their names for
consideration and it's thought that he didn't do so last season for
whatever reason. But he's on record as saying he thinks one award is
enough...and he won his Emmy for "Lost" a couple years back.
RWG (so I wouldn't be surprised if his name "mysteriously" doesn't get
entered again this year)
Ken from Chicago
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:467477aa-294e-4838...@u20g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 8:19 pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:10:11 -0500, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/lost...
>>
>> >�Lost� to be paired with �V� starting March 30
>> >by Hal Boedeker
>>
>> >�V� returns to the ABC lineup on March 30. It will air in the 10 p.m.
>> >Tuesday time slot after �Lost.�
>>
>> >ABC promises eight new �V� episodes in a row.
>>
>> >How do you like that scheduling at the Disney-owned network?
>>
>> OMG! Scheduling that makes sense!
>
> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>
> (really, this is depressing me)
Now, now, don't lash out at V because FLASHFORWARD has been doing so poorly
ratingswise.
-- Ken from Chicago
David
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:467477aa-294e-4838...@u20g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
>> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
>> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>>
>> (really, this is depressing me)
>
>Now, now, don't lash out at V because FLASHFORWARD has been doing so poorly
>ratingswise.
"FlashForward" wasn't doing that poorly. Its last episode got 7.29
million viewers, 2.2 18-49s in a tough slot where "Deep End" is
currently being killed.
"V"s last episode got 9.2 million viewers and 3.1 18-49s but that was
only its fourth episode. "FlashForward"s fourth episode got an almost
identical 9.12 million and 3.1 18-49s. Except FF premiered to 12
million viewers and "V" to 16 million. So let's see where "V" ends up
when it finally finishes dropping before deciding it's the stronger
show.
Stan Brown
<kwicker1...@comcast.net>:
>
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:467477aa-294e-4838...@u20g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 19, 8:19 pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:10:11 -0500, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/lost...
> >>
> >> >by Hal Boedeker
> >>
> >> >?V? returns to the ABC lineup on March 30. It will air in the 10 p.m.
> >> >Tuesday time slot after ?Lost.?
> >>
> >> >ABC promises eight new ?V? episodes in a row.
> >>
> >> >How do you like that scheduling at the Disney-owned network?
> >>
> >> OMG! Scheduling that makes sense!
> >
> > They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
> > belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
> > but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
> >
> > (really, this is depressing me)
>
> Now, now, don't lash out at V because FLASHFORWARD has been doing so poorly
> ratingswise.
"Has been doing"? Don't you mean "was doing"?
As ABC keeps pushing the return date further out, I think our chances
of ever seeing another episode diminish further, and our chances of
seeing *all* the episodes are already approximately nil.
Are there Fox alumni in the programming department at ABC?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"You may be the Universe's butt puppet, but I'm its right-
hand fist of fate." -- /Wonderfalls/
Rob Jensen
IMO, all scripted shows should look like they belong in any timeslot
of any day of the week.
-- Rob
Rob Jensen
wrote:
You make it sound like you're not talking about "V."
-- Rob
Rob Jensen
<rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 7:32�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 8:19�pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:10:11 -0500, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/lost...
>>
>> > >�Lost� to be paired with �V� starting March 30
>> > >by Hal Boedeker
>>
>> > >�V� returns to the ABC lineup on March 30. It will air in the 10 p.m.
>> > >Tuesday time slot after �Lost.�
>>
>> > >ABC promises eight new �V� episodes in a row.
>>
>> > >How do you like that scheduling at the Disney-owned network?
>>
>> > OMG! �Scheduling that makes sense!
>>
>> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
>> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
>> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>>
>> (really, this is depressing me)
>
>eh, it's just the lead-in. I dunno if "Lost" fans are gonna stick
>around for anything that's not "Lost." It certainly didn't seem to
>help "Invasion" back when "Lost" was pulling almost double the numbers
>it is now.
I think ABC is starting to learn -- partly because of Invasion -- that
SF/F shows are just as much slow-build shows as any other show in any
other genre. It's simply rare when a show pops as big as Lost or
Alias, period. The fact that the net stuck with Pushing Daisies for
two seasons signals to me a bit of willingness on the net's part -- if
the SF/F show is creatively solid but low-rated *and* it looks like
the ratings *could* improve, they're going to try to find enough
reasons to renew it for a second season.
However, FlashForward is a creative disaster, with its third
showrunner in one season. IMO, it's turning out to be waaaay better
than most shows with this much creative turmoil, but given how
stressed out the net and the show's peeps are getting behind the
scenes, they all might not be capable of being objective enough about
it to get the feeling that despite tehdisagreements, it *is* working.
The show only needs one or two white knights at the network to say,
"Hey, chill out, programming chief!"
Meanwhile, V's one showrunner switch is more typical -- the original
showrunner was in over his head and they figured it out soon enough
that the change is not in and of itself reason to be concerned.
Especially not when ABC semi-inexplicably decided to move up the
premiere of the first four episodes from January to November, thus
preventing the show's creative staff from doing any more fine-tuning
of those episodes. And I'm sure that two more months would have been
great for them to have just in case.
Also, V scored really well in female demos in its November run, which
bodes well for the show as a lead-out from Lost and potential new
permanent resident of the 10pm Tuesday timeslot (and ABC needs to find
a permanent resident for the slot). If part of the arrangement for
the new show was Warner allowing ABC to buy part-ownership of this
incarnation of the concept, that will probably work in the show's
favor regarding getting picked up for next season.
-- Rob
David
David
> I think ABC is starting to learn -- partly because of Invasion -- that
> SF/F shows are just as much slow-build shows as any other show in any
> other genre. It's simply rare when a show pops as big as Lost or
> Alias, period. The fact that the net stuck with Pushing Daisies for
> two seasons signals to me a bit of willingness on the net's part -- if
> the SF/F show is creatively solid but low-rated *and* it looks like
> the ratings *could* improve, they're going to try to find enough
> reasons to renew it for a second season.
With heavy serial shows attrition starts with the second episode and
never stops. It worked for "Lost" because it started out high enough
where it could afford to shed viewers and I think "FlashForward" and
"V" both said that they have plans to run 3-4 seasons, so they could
get a final season bump soon enough where the numbers may not sink too
low. They'd only be worth renewing for ABC if they think there'll be a
sweeping wave of positive word-of-mouth over the Summer.
I personally love to see tv attempt long-form storytelling but for the
networks it's not a very good gamble.
> However, FlashForward is a creative disaster, with its third
> showrunner in one season. IMO, it's turning out to be waaaay better
> than most shows with this much creative turmoil, but given how
> stressed out the net and the show's peeps are getting behind the
> scenes, they all might not be capable of being objective enough about
> it to get the feeling that despite tehdisagreements, it *is* working.
> The show only needs one or two white knights at the network to say,
> "Hey, chill out, programming chief!"
I don't know what you mean by "creative disaster." If it's because of
showrunner changes then it's only a potential disaster since so far FF
hasn't made any shifts in tone or content or made any egregious
mistakes. At the least people should see how the season turns out
before judging since it's been one long story.
rwgibson13
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:46:50 -0800 (PST), rwgibson13
>
Well, any exec trying to compare "Lost" to any other genre show is
just being pretty dumb at this point IMO. It started with a hugely
expensive pilot episode that looked absolutely GREAT, with Hawaian
scenery and a big budget, directed by a director who treated it like a
feature film, and no one pegged it as a genre show until AFTER it
aired. And even as that first season progressed, they didn't lose a
lot of the buzz because of the sheer quality of most of those early
episodes. It was a kind of perfect storm during that first year. I
dunno is such a thing can be repeated.
So, yeah, few shows in general "pop" that big, regardless of genre.
"Pushing Daisies" had a lot of critics behind it. I was kind of
surprised they did cancel it, considering it wasn't all that
expensive. "V" and "FF" really have lost most of their critical
support, even from critics known for supporting genre work
enthusiastically. Alan Sepingwall springs immediately to mind. Unlike
when I was growing up, TV critics now are just as likely to be nerds
as the rest of us :-) Sooner or later, the same will happen with TV
execs. I hope.
> However, FlashForward is a creative disaster, with its third
> showrunner in one season. IMO, it's turning out to be waaaay better
> than most shows with this much creative turmoil, but given how
> stressed out the net and the show's peeps are getting behind the
> scenes, they all might not be capable of being objective enough about
> it to get the feeling that despite tehdisagreements, it *is* working.
> The show only needs one or two white knights at the network to say,
> "Hey, chill out, programming chief!"
It just needs to come back really strong. I dunno if they can do
anything at this point to get an immediate renewal unless the numbers
for the first two episodes are killer. Even if it doesn't, getting a
second chance as a January/Febuary release next year might be in the
cards. IMO, the concept works best as a limited series anyway.
That said, I'm really not all that confident, for reasons I've stated
here. I just don't see anywhere for this thing to go once the "event
date" arrives. But, hey, I like being surprised.
> Meanwhile, V's one showrunner switch is more typical -- the original
> showrunner was in over his head and they figured it out soon enough
> that the change is not in and of itself reason to be concerned.
> Especially not when ABC semi-inexplicably decided to move up the
> premiere of the first four episodes from January to November, thus
> preventing the show's creative staff from doing any more fine-tuning
> of those episodes. And I'm sure that two more months would have been
> great for them to have just in case.
>
> Also, V scored really well in female demos in its November run, which
> bodes well for the show as a lead-out from Lost and potential new
> permanent resident of the 10pm Tuesday timeslot (and ABC needs to find
> a permanent resident for the slot). If part of the arrangement for
> the new show was Warner allowing ABC to buy part-ownership of this
> incarnation of the concept, that will probably work in the show's
> favor regarding getting picked up for next season.
Well, if that's what it takes, I guess :-)
RWG (but if they're expecting to benefit from being behind "Lost," I
hope they aren't betting the house)
David
<rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 21, 3:47�pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Pushing Daisies" had a lot of critics behind it. I was kind of
>surprised they did cancel it, considering it wasn't all that
>expensive.
I believe PD was expensive.
>> However, FlashForward is a creative disaster, with its third
>> showrunner in one season. �IMO, it's turning out to be waaaay better
>> than most shows with this much creative turmoil, but given how
>> stressed out the net and the show's peeps are getting behind the
>> scenes, they all might not be capable of being objective enough about
>> it to get the feeling that despite tehdisagreements, it *is* working.
>> The show only needs one or two white knights at the network to say,
>> "Hey, chill out, programming chief!"
>
>It just needs to come back really strong. I dunno if they can do
>anything at this point to get an immediate renewal unless the numbers
>for the first two episodes are killer. Even if it doesn't, getting a
>second chance as a January/Febuary release next year might be in the
>cards. IMO, the concept works best as a limited series anyway.
If FF can come back at the level it left, 7.2 million viewers plus
whatever it picks up with DVRs, and that's a big if, ABC would lean
heavily towards renewing it.
Not Sure
> "rwgibson13" <rwgibso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 7:32 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> They're backing the wrong sci-fi show, the one that looks like it
> >> belongs on weekend afternoons instead of the one that may be flawed
> >> but has a fascinating premise and high aspirations.
>
> >> (really, this is depressing me)
>
> >eh, it's just the lead-in. I dunno if "Lost" fans are gonna stick
> >around for anything that's not "Lost." It certainly didn't seem to
> >help "Invasion" back when "Lost" was pulling almost double the numbers
> >it is now.
>
> viewers seem to cut out of TV en masse to blog/chat/etc... when the episode
> ends.
No they don't. Better luck lying next time :)
That is why ABC would be better off making LOST a 10pm show.
>
> >I'm assuming you're talking about "FlashForward," here...
>
> >RWG (the Thursday night spot is the more prestigious among weeknights
> >IIRC)
>
> Thursday night may be prestigious, but at 8pm on ABC it is pretty much a
> sink hole. David is right to be depressed that FlashForward is still in
rwgibson13
> On Feb 21, 4:47 pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I think ABC is starting to learn -- partly because of Invasion -- that
> > SF/F shows are just as much slow-build shows as any other show in any
> > other genre. It's simply rare when a show pops as big as Lost or
> > Alias, period. The fact that the net stuck with Pushing Daisies for
> > two seasons signals to me a bit of willingness on the net's part -- if
> > the SF/F show is creatively solid but low-rated *and* it looks like
> > the ratings *could* improve, they're going to try to find enough
> > reasons to renew it for a second season.
>
> With heavy serial shows attrition starts with the second episode and
> never stops. It worked for "Lost" because it started out high enough
> where it could afford to shed viewers and I think "FlashForward" and
> "V" both said that they have plans to run 3-4 seasons, so they could
> get a final season bump soon enough where the numbers may not sink too
> low. They'd only be worth renewing for ABC if they think there'll be a
> sweeping wave of positive word-of-mouth over the Summer.
LOST actually bumped its ratings during Season Two. IIRC, the best
ratings the show ever got was the first couple episodes of the second
season IIRC. I'd have to go back and check, but I think they actually
drew 22+ million at one point. They actually picked up viewers during
the first summer hiatus due to the tremendous buzz and the cliffhanger
ending to that first season.
But, again, I think comparing LOST to just about any other show,
serial or otherwise, is pretty dumb for any number of reasons, so I'll
be shutting up about it now :-)
RWG (but, yeah, ratings for serials generally don't trend upwards)
Obveeus
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:32:36 -0800 (PST), rwgibson13
> <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 21, 3:47 pm, Rob Jensen <ShutUp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"Pushing Daisies" had a lot of critics behind it. I was kind of
>>surprised they did cancel it, considering it wasn't all that
>>expensive.
>
> I believe PD was expensive.
The pilot was very expensive. I believe the expenses went down considerably
after that as they realized that they couldn't take the time to do
theatrical style movie shots.
Obveeus
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> IMO, all scripted shows should look like they belong in any timeslot
> of any day of the week.
Sure...and end up with the uniform 'dead body shows' that air on CBS every
night of the week? Yuck!
Merrick Baldelli
>"FlashForward" wasn't doing that poorly. Its last episode got 7.29
>million viewers, 2.2 18-49s in a tough slot where "Deep End" is
>currently being killed.
Thank god for that... "The Deep End" is as entertaining as
watching paint dry -- without getting high on the paint fumes. Not to
mention that there are already enough crime-drama and court-tv shows
in prime time as it is.
Although I cannot get into "Flash Forward" no matter how hard
I try... Probably the principle of it being produce by Brannon "I'm
not a Sci-Fi Fan" Braga whoring himself out to more sci-fi.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity