Chris Carter's reaction to Harsh Realm's cancellation (X-Files related)
Dan Tropea
especially Herzog. This is from www.tvguide.com.
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS CARTER BLASTS FOX: Life is harsh for X-Files creator Chris Carter: Fox
just canceled his new series, Harsh Realm, after three airings. "I think in
the end it looks rather misguided to have premiered the show without any
promotional base, certainly when the reviews of it were good" Carter tells
Variety. "I have a feeling we're victim of a much bigger problem at Fox.
When I first met [Fox Entertainment President] Doug [Herzog] I realized he
wasn't a fan of The X-Files, which made me paranoid that he didn't know what
we did over here." The network also canceled the drama Ryan Caulfield: Year
One; no word on what will replace the two shows on Friday nights on Fox.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The interesting part here is if Herzog is not a fan of the
X-Files what does that bode for this season? Would he be
apt to yank X-Files from its timeslot and put it on another
night?
I do think that this season of the X-Files will be the last
one and the very last series Carter does for Fox. I have
a feeling that Fox is through with him.
-**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****-
Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser - FREE -
wherever
dtr...@ctron.com (Dan Tropea) summoned up all their courage and
blurted out:
>Well it seems like Chris Carter is a bit miffed with Fox and
>especially Herzog. This is from www.tvguide.com.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>CHRIS CARTER BLASTS FOX: Life is harsh for X-Files creator Chris Carter: Fox
>just canceled his new series, Harsh Realm, after three airings. "I think in
>the end it looks rather misguided to have premiered the show without any
>promotional base, certainly when the reviews of it were good" Carter tells
>Variety. "I have a feeling we're victim of a much bigger problem at Fox.
>When I first met [Fox Entertainment President] Doug [Herzog] I realized he
>wasn't a fan of The X-Files, which made me paranoid that he didn't know what
>we did over here." The network also canceled the drama Ryan Caulfield: Year
>One; no word on what will replace the two shows on Friday nights on Fox.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The interesting part here is if Herzog is not a fan of the
>X-Files what does that bode for this season? Would he be
>apt to yank X-Files from its timeslot and put it on another
>night?
This guy may not be a fan of the X-Files, but he'd be really dumb to
mess with an existing property like that.
>I do think that this season of the X-Files will be the last
>one and the very last series Carter does for Fox. I have
>a feeling that Fox is through with him.
I'm sure he'd love to be done with FOX as well, but don't they have a
contract with him?
wherever, at primenet dot com
http://listen.to/thex-files
GABAL OBSSE LLL cog8 Sick!Fruitbat
Pam Moss
LA...@la.com
as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
quite a riot in itself.
dtr...@ctron.com (Dan Tropea) wrote:
>Well it seems like Chris Carter is a bit miffed with Fox and
>especially Herzog. This is from www.tvguide.com.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>CHRIS CARTER BLASTS FOX: Life is harsh for X-Files creator Chris Carter: Fox
>just canceled his new series, Harsh Realm, after three airings. "I think in
>the end it looks rather misguided to have premiered the show without any
>promotional base, certainly when the reviews of it were good" Carter tells
>Variety. "I have a feeling we're victim of a much bigger problem at Fox.
>When I first met [Fox Entertainment President] Doug [Herzog] I realized he
>wasn't a fan of The X-Files, which made me paranoid that he didn't know what
>we did over here." The network also canceled the drama Ryan Caulfield: Year
>One; no word on what will replace the two shows on Friday nights on Fox.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The interesting part here is if Herzog is not a fan of the
>X-Files what does that bode for this season? Would he be
>apt to yank X-Files from its timeslot and put it on another
>night?
>
>I do think that this season of the X-Files will be the last
>one and the very last series Carter does for Fox. I have
>a feeling that Fox is through with him.
>
>
>
Jen (is not a potato)
LA...@LA.Com opined pensively:
>Carter also
>completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
>quite a riot in itself.
When and where did HR air in TXF's timeslot? There were rumors that
the premiere would be rerun on a Sunday at 9, but baseball ran long
that night and the show was not aired-- at least not in LA.
Jen
--
XFW1 FEB ggg
www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Atrium/2116
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One never really learns how the witch
became wicked or whether it was the right
choice for her-- is it ever the right
choice? ~Gregory Maguire~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matt Ackeret
>I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
>as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
>know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
Says who? What TV shows have you created?
(I'm not saying necessarily are the best thing in the world, but 'completely
meaningless' is going pretty far.)
--
mat...@area.com
laura capozzola
>
> I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
> as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
> know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
> slot
You're such a doof. The show never aired on Sunday.
Laura
##***************************##***************************##
Visit: "All Things Chris Carter" Updated 10/26/99
http://users.erols.com/lauracap/index.html
"When a show premieres with high ratings and then those
ratings plummet, something is wrong with the show. When
audiences fail to *try* a show, it's the fault of the
network."
-Me 10/26/99 -
##***************************##***************************##
MMoody
MM
<LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
news:381616f2...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
> I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
> as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
> know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
> completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
> slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
> quite a riot in itself.
>
Ford A. Thaxton
related)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:29:58 -0700
From: wnf...@pnyjro.pbz (Jason Borchers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.x-files,alt.tv.harsh-realm,rec.arts.tv
Message-ID: <wnfbazo-ya0240800...@nntp.calweb.com>
References: <QfoR3.183$G.371442@WReNphoon3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.4.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: sac3-216.calweb.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sac3-216.calweb.com
X-Trace: 26 Oct 1999 21:30:01 -0700, sac3-216.calweb.com
Organization: "CalWeb Internet Services Inc. Your affordable ISP."
Lines: 30
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com
Path:
lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!pitt.edu!newsflash.concor
dia.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!herm
es.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!wnfbazo
Xref: lobby rec.arts.sf.tv:225843 alt.tv.x-files:599426 alt.tv.harsh-realm:1395
rec.arts.tv:268265
In article <QfoR3.183$G.371442@WReNphoon3>, dtr...@ctron.com (Dan Tropea)
wrote:
> Well it seems like Chris Carter is a bit miffed with Fox and
> especially Herzog. This is from www.tvguide.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> CHRIS CARTER BLASTS FOX: Life is harsh for X-Files creator Chris Carter: Fox
> just canceled his new series, Harsh Realm, after three airings. "I think in
> the end it looks rather misguided to have premiered the show without any
> promotional base, certainly when the reviews of it were good" Carter tells
> Variety. "I have a feeling we're victim of a much bigger problem at Fox.
> When I first met [Fox Entertainment President] Doug [Herzog] I realized he
> wasn't a fan of The X-Files, which made me paranoid that he didn't know what
> we did over here." The network also canceled the drama Ryan Caulfield: Year
> One; no word on what will replace the two shows on Friday nights on Fox.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
:I think Carter hit the nail on the head. Herzog is totally clueless. He
:seems to cancel shows because he "doesn't get them." Screw promoting :a show,
just cancel it! It's like he's sets out to ruin every network he
:moves to. MTV and Comedy Central (where he cancelled the great MST3K for the
first time) are now nothing but pale imitations of once great networks.
::Now that he's running Fox, it's going downhill too. Goodbye "Brimstone"
and "Harsh Realm"; hello "World's Greatest Police Chases 7" and :"America's
Funniest."
:Jason Borchers
;User "jasonmb" at domain "calweb.com"
As musc as I hate to say it, perhaps Mr. Herzog should have given HARSH REALM
13 episode before pulling the plug.
But would it have made any real difference?
The show was promoted and the audience didn't bite.
And as bad as you and I might think "World's Greatest Police Chases 7" is, will
it get better ratings then HARSH REALM?
The answer I'm sorry to say is that.
And that's the bottomline.
They don't call it SHOW BUSINESS for nothing.
Ford A. Thaxton (for...@aol.com)
LA...@la.com
>Their loss.
Not really, they have a multi-project multi-media deal with him.
LA...@la.com
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:04:53 GMT, in alt.tv.harsh-realm the esteemed
>LA...@LA.Com opined pensively:
>
>>Carter also
>>completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>>slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
>>quite a riot in itself.
>
>When and where did HR air in TXF's timeslot? There were rumors that
>the premiere would be rerun on a Sunday at 9, but baseball ran long
>that night and the show was not aired-- at least not in LA.
You're right. I apologize. They scheduled it but I guess never
actually showed it.
LA...@la.com
>Rumor has it that LA...@LA.Com put forth the following:
>
>>Carter also
>>completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>>slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
>>quite a riot in itself.
>
>Um... you must get a different TV schedule than the rest of North
>America.
Actually the show was scheduled there. As I was not watching it, I
assumed they had aired it and that it was the premiere (as the episode
scheduled WAS the premiere). :)
>--
>
>Hank Vaughn
>Dallas, TX "Religion is a smile on a dog..." (New Bohs)
>ahsv at philipkdickdotcom
>http://ahsv.home.netcom.com/
LA...@la.com
>In article <381616f2...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>, <LA...@LA.Com> wrote:
>>I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
>>as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
>>know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
>
>Says who? What TV shows have you created?
>
>(I'm not saying necessarily are the best thing in the world, but 'completely
>meaningless' is going pretty far.)
I'm a writer and a producer of feature films and it is my opinion
focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
money.
>--
>mat...@area.com
LA...@la.com
>In <381616f2...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>, LA...@LA.Com writes:
>
>>Carter also
>>completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>>slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
>>quite a riot in itself.
>
>Please state *where* HR aired in XF's timeslot, because no one I know
>of saw the scheduled Sunday viewing due to baseball on FOX.
Since I don't watch the show, how was I to know it hadn't aired? :)
In any case, my mistake, sorry. :)
LA...@la.com
>LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>>
>> I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
>> as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
>> know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
>> completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>> slot
>
>You're such a doof. The show never aired on Sunday.
It was programmed on Sunday. Since I don't watch it I assumed it
aired. And it was the premiere.
Jason Seaver
Dan Tropea wrote in message ...
>------------------------------------------------------------
>CHRIS CARTER BLASTS FOX: Life is harsh for X-Files creator Chris Carter:
Fox
>just canceled his new series, Harsh Realm, after three airings. "I think in
>the end it looks rather misguided to have premiered the show without any
>promotional base, certainly when the reviews of it were good" Carter tells
Am I the only one who thought Fox was promoting HR heavily? I probably saw
more ads for it than any other show this fall, both on Fox and in print.
And where did it get good reviews?
Hey
>I think Carter hit the nail on the head. Herzog is totally clueless. He
>seems to cancel shows because he "doesn't get them." Screw promoting a
>show, just cancel it!
Yeah, but they promoted it, and it did poorly. These things happen.
> It's like he's sets out to ruin every network he
>moves to. MTV and Comedy Central (where he cancelled the great MST3K for
>the first time) are now nothing but pale imitations of once great networks.
Comedy Central's ratings went substantially up under his management.
I liked MST3K too, but it wasn't getting ratings for CC and it didn't
for Sci-Fi.
>Now that he's running Fox, it's going downhill too. Goodbye "Brimstone"
>and "Harsh Realm"; hello "World's Greatest Police Chases 7" and "America's
>Funniest."
The former didn't get ratings. The latter are stopgaps. Can you
blame the guy if he has to get big ratings or it's HIS job?
WWS
"Ford A. Thaxton" wrote:
>
> And as bad as you and I might think "World's Greatest Police Chases 7"
> is, will it get better ratings then HARSH REALM?
Hey, the "World's Most Spectacular Explosions" was much better than
"Worlds Greatest Police Chases". I think they should make "The World's
Greatest Police Chases ending in Spectacular Explosions!"
And I still want to see a show that was mentioned on "Diagnosis: Murder"
once, in the TV magician episode: "Murders, Maimings, and Practical Jokes".
>
> The answer I'm sorry to say is that.
>
> And that's the bottomline.
>
> They don't call it SHOW BUSINESS for nothing.
>
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Idiocy abhors a vacuum, but it also abhors a room full of
people it isn't currently in, and so crashes the party. - jdn
laura capozzola
>
> laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >LA...@LA.Com wrote:
> >>
> >> I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
> >> as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
> >> know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
> >> completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
> >> slot
> >
> >You're such a doof. The show never aired on Sunday.
>
> It was programmed on Sunday. Since I don't watch it I assumed it
> aired. And it was the premiere.
Well, it didn't so why are you lying about it doing horribly in The
X-Files timeslot on Sunday. You made it up and you're still a doof.
Laura
##***************************##****************************##
Visit: "All Things Chris Carter" Updated 10/26/99
http://users.erols.com/lauracap/index.html
"When a show premieres with high ratings and then those
ratings plummet, something is wrong with the show. When
audiences fail to *try* a show, it's the fault of the network.
FOX should be ashamed of what they did to Harsh Realm."
-Me 10/26/99 -
##***************************##***************************##
Jen (is not a potato)
LA...@LA.Com opined pensively:
>"Jen (is not a potato)" <jenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:04:53 GMT, in alt.tv.harsh-realm the esteemed
>>LA...@LA.Com opined pensively:
>>
>>>Carter also
>>>completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>>>slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
>>>quite a riot in itself.
>>
>>When and where did HR air in TXF's timeslot? There were rumors that
>>the premiere would be rerun on a Sunday at 9, but baseball ran long
>>that night and the show was not aired-- at least not in LA.
>
>You're right. I apologize. They scheduled it but I guess never
>actually showed it.
That's a lovely little apology, but as you got such a simple fact
wrong, it is hard to take any of the rest of your argument seriously.
You essentially called Chris Carter an idiot based on an airing of an
episode that never happened.
I think the "they scheduled it but I guess never actually showed it"
comment is very telling. This is what happened to Harsh Realm. The
show wasn't promoted at all. It premiered at a time when TXF had not
even begun for the season and, in fact, hadn't been shown in reruns
for several weeks. HR should have been heavily promoted during TXF.
It isn't surprising that casual Carter fans were unaware of the
premiere of HR; these people are also confused about the season
premiere of TXF, a show of which they are fans and may have watched
for 6 years.
God of Tapes
> I do think that this season of the X-Files will be the last
>
> one and the very last series Carter does for Fox. I have
>
> a feeling that Fox is through with him.
>
Unfortunately, that could say the same thing for his career as well. He
and JMS might soon be found drinking at the local watering hole,
remembering the " good old days ".
LA...@la.com
James Cassell
<laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>>
>> laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
>> >> as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
>> >> know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
>> >> completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>> >> slot
>> >
>> >You're such a doof. The show never aired on Sunday.
>>
>> It was programmed on Sunday. Since I don't watch it I assumed it
>> aired. And it was the premiere.
>
>Well, it didn't so why are you lying about it doing horribly in The
>X-Files timeslot on Sunday. You made it up and you're still a doof.
>
>Laura
I have a hazy recollection of having once seen HR on a Saturday or
Sunday while flipping through the channels. I didn't watch it, since
I'd already seen that episode. At the time I thought the local
affiliate had rescheduled it or something.
James
who has no idea whether or not LAGuy is a doof
--
James Cassell <cas...@irss.unc.edu>
Rainey
<LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
news:3816b137...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
> laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >LA...@LA.Com wrote:
> >>
> >> I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
> >> as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
> >> know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
> >> completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
> >> slot
> >
> >You're such a doof. The show never aired on Sunday.
>
> It was programmed on Sunday. Since I don't watch it I assumed it
> aired. And it was the premiere.
>
How do you presume to back up your arguments then? You claimed that the
show did horribly in XF's timeslot. As the show didn't air because of the
playoffs how can it generate ANY numbers? It can't do horribly or well for
that matter if it's not on the air. So your assertion that HR did terribly
was pulled out of your ass. Do you seriously expect anyone to take any of
your arguments seriously? You can't even get a simple fact right in the
making of your argument. When it comes to sports, especially the playoffs,
being scheduled doesn't equal being aired.
--
Rainey (That's the person not the weather condition!)
"All in good time"
Alex Krycek to A.D. Skinner in S.R. 819
http://members.tripod.com/La_Reina_2/
Cheryl Deering
God of Tapes wrote:
Someone else wrote:
> > I do think that this season of the X-Files will be the last
> >
> > one and the very last series Carter does for Fox. I have
> >
> > a feeling that Fox is through with him.
Hmmm, and what lessons can we take from his fate today, folks?
1) No one creates and keeps a long-running hit on by him/herself.
_No_ one.
2) Corollary to #1--treat your writers like crap under the
excuse of imposing your "vision" on them, and the subsequent
losses when they keep on hittting the road will do your show
damage like you will not believe. As well, you will have a
strangely hard time getting writers-with-true-chops to come work for you.
3) A network's patience does _not_ last forever, especially when
a) you inevitably prove you aren't a lone genius; and b) start
treating the folks at the net. as badly as you do your writers and general
talent.
4) An audience's patience lasts even less, especially once they
catch on that you are essentially manipulating them for no good reason,
out of bad faith/low regard for their intelligence and loyalty to your
work--
and with even less narrative rewards.
> Unfortunately, that could say the same thing for his career as well. He
> and JMS might soon be found drinking at the local watering hole,
> remembering the " good old days ".
Nah. JMS just needs a rest. Carter has shot his bolt. Unless he gets
smart and gets talent who will help him execute his work. . .but that
is something he most likely is incapable of learning.
C.
**
Dan Tropea
<dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Nah. JMS just needs a rest. Carter has shot his bolt. Unless he
> gets
> smart and gets talent who will help him execute his work. . .but
> that
> is something he most likely is incapable of learning.
> C.
JMS and Carter have pretty much ruined their careers. Your points
were well taken but one extra point is neither man understood
how to play the game. Today DEK got a gigantic contract with
Fox. DEK and Aaron Spelling are as successful as they are today
because on one factor - they produce hits, bring in viewers and
bring in money for the networks - they know how to play the game.
Publicly bad mouthing the network is not playing the game.
I do think JMS's career is damaged probably beyond repair with
his antics with TNT - his antics were very public and i am sure
other networks must now be leerry. Carter needs to back off - Harsh
Realm is dead - he should say "ok i am sure i can create another show
and i understand what Fox had to do - yes i am disappointed but
thats the tv business". Instead he laid blame on Fox's doorstep
so to speak. If Carter had to say something negative he should
have told Fox execs to their face definately not to the public.
> **
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Matt Ackeret
>mat...@area.com (Matt Ackeret) wrote:
>
>>>I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
>>>as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
>>>know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
>>
>>
>>(I'm not saying necessarily are the best thing in the world, but 'completely
>>meaningless' is going pretty far.)
>
>I'm a writer and a producer of feature films and it is my opinion
>focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
>money.
Wow, no wonder he hides who he is.
--
mat...@area.com
Akakan
LA...@LA.Com wrote in article
> I'm a writer and a producer of feature films and it is my opinion
> focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
> money.
Translation:
His films do badly in focus groups and test screenings.
Mortis
which WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> typed:
>"Ford A. Thaxton" wrote:
>
>>
>> And as bad as you and I might think "World's Greatest Police Chases 7"
>> is, will it get better ratings then HARSH REALM?
>
>Hey, the "World's Most Spectacular Explosions" was much better than
>"Worlds Greatest Police Chases". I think they should make "The World's
>Greatest Police Chases ending in Spectacular Explosions!"
YM "The World's Greatest Police Chases involving Nude Womyn ending in
Spectacular Explosions!"[1]
[1] No nude womyn were hurt in the filming of this episode.
Mortis
Master of the Unknown, KPS
Nebulosis Defunctus
"Oh, who shall from this dungeon raise
A soul enslaved so many ways?
With bolts of bones, that fettered stands
In feet, and manacled in hands;
Here blinded with an eye, and there
Deaf with the drumming of an ear;
A soul hung up, as 'twere, in chains
Of nerves, and arteries, and veins;
Tortured, besides each other part,
In a vain head, and double heart."
-Andrew Marvell, "A Dialogue Between the Soul and Body"
Gary J. Weiner
>
> In article <38174838...@primenet.com>, Cheryl Deering
> <dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > Nah. JMS just needs a rest. Carter has shot his bolt. Unless he
> > gets
> > smart and gets talent who will help him execute his work. . .but
> > that
> > is something he most likely is incapable of learning.
> > C.
>
> JMS and Carter have pretty much ruined their careers. Your points
> were well taken but one extra point is neither man understood
> how to play the game. Today DEK got a gigantic contract with
> Fox. DEK and Aaron Spelling are as successful as they are today
> because on one factor - they produce hits, bring in viewers and
> bring in money for the networks - they know how to play the game.
Does anyone know if JMS is having money troubles? All he seems to do
these days is hawk B5 and Crusade junk and push his comic book.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
--
Gary J. Weiner \ "We've got a blind date with Destiny...and
webm...@hatrack.net \ it looks like she's ordered the lobster."
http://www.hatrack.net \ -The Shoveler, "Mystery Men"
"Hang Your Web With Us!"\
P.H. Van broekhoven
Jason Borchers <wnf...@pnyjro.pbz> wrote:
>In article <QfoR3.183$G.371442@WReNphoon3>, dtr...@ctron.com (Dan Tropea)
>wrote:
>
>Funniest."
perhaps CC should have called the show "When Virtual Reality Goes Bad 1",
"When Virtual Reality Goes Bad 2", ...
i bet that would've grabbed the fox demographic
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
peter van broekhoven
vanb...@mcmaster.ca http://studentweb.mcmaster.ca/vanbroph/index.html
Invid Fan
<webm...@hatrack.net> wrote:
> Dan Tropea wrote:
> >
> > In article <38174838...@primenet.com>, Cheryl Deering
> > <dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nah. JMS just needs a rest. Carter has shot his bolt. Unless he
> > > gets
> > > smart and gets talent who will help him execute his work. . .but
> > > that
> > > is something he most likely is incapable of learning.
> > > C.
> >
> > JMS and Carter have pretty much ruined their careers. Your points
> > were well taken but one extra point is neither man understood
> > how to play the game. Today DEK got a gigantic contract with
> > Fox. DEK and Aaron Spelling are as successful as they are today
> > because on one factor - they produce hits, bring in viewers and
> > bring in money for the networks - they know how to play the game.
>
> Does anyone know if JMS is having money troubles? All he seems to do
> these days is hawk B5 and Crusade junk and push his comic book.
>
First, I assume WB gets the lions share of the money from B5 stuff :)
His comic is the only thing of his avalible at the moment, and is on
sale monthly, so it's what he's going to talk about. He's mentioned
other projects, and at the very least we'll probably see a novel from
him soon. I'm sure he has enough money set aside to last awhile.
--
Chris Mack "You do NOT, I repeat, do NOT ask a guest in my
'Invid Fan' home to make a PILLAR OF FIRE!!"
"I asked him IF he knew how!! IF! IF! IF!!"
In...@localnet.com -Cerebus:Jaka's Story
Ronnie Coffin
Jason Seaver <JayS...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:b5BR3.2976$IT5.1...@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> Dan Tropea wrote in message ...
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >CHRIS CARTER BLASTS FOX: Life is harsh for X-Files creator Chris Carter:
> Fox
> >just canceled his new series, Harsh Realm, after three airings. "I think
in
> >the end it looks rather misguided to have premiered the show without any
> >promotional base, certainly when the reviews of it were good" Carter
tells
>
> Am I the only one who thought Fox was promoting HR heavily? I probably
saw
> more ads for it than any other show this fall, both on Fox and in print.
>
> And where did it get good reviews?
>
>
I taped the premiere and watched it on tape BECAUSE of all the advertising
and promotion for it!. And I truly didn't like the show plus it was up
against very tough competition with better writing, i.e. Now and Again.
Maybe in a different time slot it would have given them a chance to refine
the show and make it better...
-Ronnie
LA...@la.com
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:58:22 GMT, in alt.tv.harsh-realm the esteemed
>LA...@LA.Com opined pensively:
>
>>"Jen (is not a potato)" <jenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:04:53 GMT, in alt.tv.harsh-realm the esteemed
>>>LA...@LA.Com opined pensively:
>>>
>>>>Carter also
>>>>completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>>>>slot and still thinks XF fans don't know about the show, which is
>>>>quite a riot in itself.
>>>
>>>When and where did HR air in TXF's timeslot? There were rumors that
>>>the premiere would be rerun on a Sunday at 9, but baseball ran long
>>>that night and the show was not aired-- at least not in LA.
>>
>>You're right. I apologize. They scheduled it but I guess never
>>actually showed it.
>
>That's a lovely little apology, but as you got such a simple fact
>wrong, it is hard to take any of the rest of your argument seriously.
Oh please LOLROTF.
>You essentially called Chris Carter an idiot based on an airing of an
>episode that never happened.
I also think he sounded like an idiot for taking focus groups
seriously and arguing that HR had not had adequate promotion (at least
level-wise).
>
>I think the "they scheduled it but I guess never actually showed it"
>comment is very telling. This is what happened to Harsh Realm. The
>show wasn't promoted at all.
In my experience that wasn't true. I saw countless promos for it and
I dont even watch Fox much. On the other hand, you have a point that
there was very little outside of Fox promos, which would be a genuine
beef.
>It premiered at a time when TXF had not
>even begun for the season and, in fact, hadn't been shown in reruns
>for several weeks. HR should have been heavily promoted during TXF.
>
>It isn't surprising that casual Carter fans were unaware of the
>premiere of HR;
I think it is extremely surprising and actually not quite credible.
I'm not even a fan anymore and I was very aware of it. But then
again, your experience was different...
>these people are also confused about the season
>premiere of TXF, a show of which they are fans and may have watched
>for 6 years.
If they're confused about that, they should go see a doctor, get that
nasty mind confusion probe out of their skull ;)
LA...@la.com
>LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>>
>> laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
>> >> as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
>> >> know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
>> >> completely ignored the fact that HR did horribly on Sunday in TXF's
>> >> slot
>> >
>> >You're such a doof. The show never aired on Sunday.
>>
>> It was programmed on Sunday. Since I don't watch it I assumed it
>> aired. And it was the premiere.
>
>Well, it didn't so why are you lying about it doing horribly in The
>X-Files timeslot on Sunday. You made it up and you're still a doof.
Oh goody, the other half of the Chris Carter Fan Club Enforcement
Group. I guess you never make mistakes. I read the numbers for the
premiere and thought they were for Sunday as that's when I had seen
the promos for the show last.
But I doubt very much that anything other than conversion to the Cult
of CC would suffice to please you. The rest of his comments were the
same kind of disconnected sour grapes that you get when people are
surrounded by yes-men. He's convinced the lack of quality of his
output has nothing to do with the lack of success of HR. I think not.
LA...@la.com
>
>
>God of Tapes wrote:
>
>Someone else wrote:
>
>> > I do think that this season of the X-Files will be the last
>> >
>> > one and the very last series Carter does for Fox. I have
>> >
>> > a feeling that Fox is through with him.
>
>Hmmm, and what lessons can we take from his fate today, folks?
>
>1) No one creates and keeps a long-running hit on by him/herself.
>_No_ one.
>
>2) Corollary to #1--treat your writers like crap under the
>excuse of imposing your "vision" on them, and the subsequent
>losses when they keep on hittting the road will do your show
>damage like you will not believe. As well, you will have a
>strangely hard time getting writers-with-true-chops to come work for you.
When you know how CC hires writers, it's not surprising. Friends and
Family (way) preferred.
>
>3) A network's patience does _not_ last forever, especially when
>a) you inevitably prove you aren't a lone genius; and b) start
>treating the folks at the net. as badly as you do your writers and general
>talent.
>
>4) An audience's patience lasts even less, especially once they
>catch on that you are essentially manipulating them for no good reason,
>out of bad faith/low regard for their intelligence and loyalty to your
>work--
>and with even less narrative rewards.
>
>
>> Unfortunately, that could say the same thing for his career as well. He
>> and JMS might soon be found drinking at the local watering hole,
>> remembering the " good old days ".
>
>Nah. JMS just needs a rest. Carter has shot his bolt. Unless he gets
>smart and gets talent who will help him execute his work. . .but that
>is something he most likely is incapable of learning.
>
>C.
>**
>
LA...@la.com
>In article <38174838...@primenet.com>, Cheryl Deering
><dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>> Nah. JMS just needs a rest. Carter has shot his bolt. Unless he
>> gets
>> smart and gets talent who will help him execute his work. . .but
>> that
>> is something he most likely is incapable of learning.
>> C.
>
>JMS and Carter have pretty much ruined their careers. Your points
>were well taken but one extra point is neither man understood
>how to play the game. Today DEK got a gigantic contract with
>Fox.
It's very sad. I mean it's great for his pocketbook, but it means
he'll keep pounding the word processor and churn out incredibly tired
screenplays. The man needs a rest.
>DEK and Aaron Spelling are as successful as they are today
>because on one factor - they produce hits, bring in viewers and
>bring in money for the networks - they know how to play the game.
>
LA...@la.com
wrote:
I've never had any focus groups or test screenings of any project I
was associated with. Fortunately, we didn't have the money :) But if
we had had the money, I'd have argues tooth and nails to instead make
some donation to a worthy cause in the name of the project. At least
we'd have gotten some goodwill out of it instead of useless data.
Test screenings and focus groups are a monstrously bad idea if you
want to evaluate a film project.
LA...@la.com
>In article <3816b0e0...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>, <LA...@LA.Com> wrote:
>>mat...@area.com (Matt Ackeret) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <381616f2...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>, <LA...@LA.Com> wrote:
>>>>I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
>>>>as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
>>>>know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
>>>
>>>Says who? What TV shows have you created?
>>>
>>>(I'm not saying necessarily are the best thing in the world, but 'completely
>>>meaningless' is going pretty far.)
>>
>>I'm a writer and a producer of feature films and it is my opinion
>>focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
>>money.
>
>Wow, no wonder he hides who he is.
Indeed, I would never put that on the internet under my own name (and
I'm sure that Lee would think it's cowardly, but I see no point in
getting potential backers upset).
>--
>mat...@area.com
LA...@la.com
>I blame him for cancelling promising shows without giving them a chance,
>and introducing short-term ratings grabbers to replace them. Everyone uses
>the example of The X-Files, and I will too: if it premiered this year on
>Fox and got the same ratings it did back in 1993, how many episodes would
>it have lasted? Two? Three?
My memory of it is that it didn't do that poorly. It was tittering on
the edge the whole season. HR doing worse than Millenium which had
been cancelled for bad ratings IS doing poorly. If TXF had done that
poorly they'd have been cancelled by mid-season.
>
>--
>Jason Borchers
>User "jasonmb" at domain "calweb.com"
Flagg
>Since I don't watch the show, how was I to know it hadn't aired? :)
>In any case, my mistake, sorry. :)
Then HOW could you POSSIBLY have known it allegedly did "horribly" in
the XF timesflot? You're full of shit.
hubci...@earthlink.net
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
> Indeed, I would never put that on the internet under my own name (and
> I'm sure that Lee would think it's cowardly, but I see no point in
> getting potential backers upset).
>
What an iron-clad defense you have. I don't buy it.
C'mon man, put your money where your mouth is. Who are you? What films
have you produced? Fess up or stop it with the fantasies.
-Jeff
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jason Seaver
Jason Borchers wrote in message ...
>In article <38170690.3364079@news>, x...@xxx.net wrote:
>
>> The latter are stopgaps. Can you
>> blame the guy if he has to get big ratings or it's HIS job?
>
>I blame him for cancelling promising shows without giving them a chance,
>and introducing short-term ratings grabbers to replace them. Everyone uses
>the example of The X-Files, and I will too: if it premiered this year on
>Fox and got the same ratings it did back in 1993, how many episodes would
>it have lasted? Two? Three?
A good rating for Fox in '93 is different than a good rating for Fox in '99,
in part _because_ of the success of "The X-Files". You have to postulate
another breakout hit for Fox in the '93-94 season, and then, yes, TXF gets
canned now.
Michael P. Walsh
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
> wnf...@pnyjro.pbz (Jason Borchers) wrote:
>
> >I blame him for cancelling promising shows without giving them a chance,
> >and introducing short-term ratings grabbers to replace them. Everyone uses
> >the example of The X-Files, and I will too: if it premiered this year on
> >Fox and got the same ratings it did back in 1993, how many episodes would
> >it have lasted? Two? Three?
>
> My memory of it is that it didn't do that poorly. It was tittering on
> the edge the whole season. HR doing worse than Millenium which had
> been cancelled for bad ratings IS doing poorly. If TXF had done that
> poorly they'd have been cancelled by mid-season.
>
> >
> >--
> >Jason Borchers
> >User "jasonmb" at domain "calweb.com"
------
---
There are two credible ways to rate shows for a particular network.
1. Compare the ratings with competitive shows in the same timeslot
on competing networks. If your show is beating the competition
then you are a winner regardless of whether or not you have a
good time slot.
2. Check the comparitive standing of the show against other shows for
the same network. If it has a high relative rating and the networks
isn't about to go down the tubes then things are OK. Fox Network
still has fewer outlets than NBC, CBS, or ABC but when you
program gets ratings lower than WB or UPN and is also near
the bottom of your own network you are in real trouble. Fox
axed the two shows right at the bottom of their own network
and I find it hard to fault them for doing that as a business
decision.
Mike Walsh
LA...@la.com
>In article <38180205...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>,
> LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>
>> Indeed, I would never put that on the internet under my own name (and
>> I'm sure that Lee would think it's cowardly, but I see no point in
>> getting potential backers upset).
>>
>
>What an iron-clad defense you have. I don't buy it.
>
>C'mon man, put your money where your mouth is. Who are you? What films
>have you produced? Fess up or stop it with the fantasies.
Believe me, don't believe me. It's the same to me. You're not going
to bully me into doing something I don't want to do :)
Mr. Hole
>In article
><38180205...@newsproxy.pacific
>net.net>, LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>>>Indeed, I would never put that on the
>>>internet under my own name (and I'm sure
>>>that Lee would think it's cowardly, but I
>>>see no point in getting potential backers
>>>upset).
>>>What an iron-clad defense you have. I
>>>don't buy it.
>>C'mon man, put your money where your
>>mouth is. Who are you? What films have
>>you produced? Fess up or stop it with the
>>fantasies.
>Believe me, don't believe me. It's the >same to me. You're not going to
bully me
>into doing something I don't want to do :)
As long as you`re NOT Michael Bay! If you are then I will never take
anything you say seriously. :~)
Mr. Hole: The Imperial Wizard,
King of Righteous Thought
This post may cause DROWSINESS,
ALCOHOL may intensify this effect, use
care when operating dangerous machinery.
"It is indeed a dark and bitter time on the
Usenet, when innocent little stupid
threads are morphed and twisted by
passing ruffians with no respect or regard
for common decency.
Oh, when will it all end?" -WWS
How's your hole..........family?
williwaw
Chris 'Coz' Costello
>"Akakan" <NOSPAM...@ziplink.INVALID replace invalid with net>
>wrote:
>>LA...@LA.Com wrote in article
>>
>>> focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
>>> money.
>>
>>
>>His films do badly in focus groups and test screenings.
>
>I've never had any focus groups or test screenings of any project I
>was associated with. Fortunately, we didn't have the money :) But if
>we had had the money, I'd have argues tooth and nails to instead make
>some donation to a worthy cause in the name of the project. At least
>we'd have gotten some goodwill out of it instead of useless data.
>
>Test screenings and focus groups are a monstrously bad idea if you
>want to evaluate a film project.
As a member of the research community, I have to disagree. Poorly
executed focus groups are singularly unhelpful, and perhaps that's
the problem in Hollywood. If you don't recruit the right people
or ask the right questions, you're going to have lousy data.
And when you consider how often Hollywood copies a good idea
but without any of the underlying parts that made it a good
idea in the first place, it's not too much of a stretch to
imagine execs doing the same to industry focus groups. They've
probably been stripped of their usefulness over time through
a deterioration of the intelligence and forethought that should
accompany any research project.
Hollywood just may not be able to focus on the right things.
Later,
COZ
NP: Nine Inch Nails, _The Fragile_
--
Chris 'Coz' Costello :: c...@enteract.com
Signal to Noise :: http://www.enteract.com/~coz/
URT :: http://www.urt.net/
"Hipness is transient" -- Vinnie Colaiuta
WWS
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
>
> hubci...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >In article <38180205...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>,
> > LA...@LA.Com wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed, I would never put that on the internet under my own name (and
> >> I'm sure that Lee would think it's cowardly, but I see no point in
> >> getting potential backers upset).
> >>
> >
> >What an iron-clad defense you have. I don't buy it.
> >
> >C'mon man, put your money where your mouth is. Who are you? What films
> >have you produced? Fess up or stop it with the fantasies.
>
> Believe me, don't believe me. It's the same to me. You're not going
> to bully me into doing something I don't want to do :)
Well, if I'd worked with Hypatia Lee, I'd be proud to tell
people about it!
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Idiocy abhors a vacuum, but it also abhors a room full of
people it isn't currently in, and so crashes the party. - jdn
Cheryl Deering
Chris 'Coz' Costello wrote:
> <LA...@LA.Com> had this to say:
>
> >Test screenings and focus groups are a monstrously bad idea if you
> >want to evaluate a film project.
>
> As a member of the research community, I have to disagree. Poorly
> executed focus groups are singularly unhelpful, and perhaps that's
> the problem in Hollywood. If you don't recruit the right people
> or ask the right questions, you're going to have lousy data.
> And when you consider how often Hollywood copies a good idea
> but without any of the underlying parts that made it a good
> idea in the first place, it's not too much of a stretch to
> imagine execs doing the same to industry focus groups. They've
> probably been stripped of their usefulness over time through
> a deterioration of the intelligence and forethought that should
> accompany any research project.
The big problem as well is that Hollywood too often
uses focus groups to take the uncertainty out of presenting
something new to the public. Sure, that saves you money
and trouble when you need to fine-tune a work (or see if
the thing works at all--g!). But in the long run, it not only
kills good ideas, but condescends to the audience by assuming
up-front they can't handle or won't like anything outside their
sphere of experience. (IIRC, back when ALIENS was being test-
marketed, it was reported that studio folks picked out people
off the street they thought would be an "appropriate" test audience
for it--urban, non-white, guys.) And given how little the industry
knows how truly multicultural and diverse this country is
getting--or attempting to get--one can see that process
easily being misused. Test screenings are often used as a substitute
for a real love of movies and the instincts as to what will work, as
well, and at some point, no matter how many ace marketers you
have staffing your studio, not having anyone with those instincts
is going to tell big-time.
C.
**
Ian J. Ball
<dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
> ...Test screenings are often used as a substitute
> for a real love of movies and the instincts as to what will work, as
> well, and at some point, no matter how many ace marketers you
> have staffing your studio, not having anyone with those instincts
> is going to tell big-time.
I tend to think that focus groups are used primarily when the filmmakers
involved have no hard-core, overriding vision for their project. It's kind
of, "Well, wouldn't it be cool if we killed some of the lead characters at
the end of the movie? Let's do a focus group..." (Focus group votes "No";
wants happy ending.) "Well, I say we have everybody *live* at the end
then!"
If you *have* a vision, focus groups would be almost entirely unhelpful to
your project. (OK, so maybe focus groups could help... in picking out the
wardrobe!) But let them fiddle with your plot or story, and look out!
Ian (wondering how "The Sixth Sense" would have turned out if 'focus
groups' had been used...)
--
Ian J. Ball | "Wanna be bad?..." - Evil vampire Willow,
Ph.D. Chemist, | from "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"
& TV lover | Want to get my FAQs or TV episode guides? Try:
IJB...@aol.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Akakan
Chris 'Coz' Costello <c...@enteract.com> wrote in article
> As a member of the research community, I have to disagree. Poorly
> executed focus groups are singularly unhelpful, and perhaps that's
> the problem in Hollywood. If you don't recruit the right people
> or ask the right questions, you're going to have lousy data.
Well, focus groups aren't really designed to generate any actual data, as
you know.
At their best, they feed ideation (a word only a researcher could love).
That is, they add insights you might never have thought of, which can be
validated only through subsequent quantitative studies.
Or focus groups can put flesh on the bones of an already existing
quantitative study, if you have the data but they're not sure what it
means.
There is no way a bunch of people in a room, dominated by one or two
loudmouths as most focus groups are, replicates the effect of showing a
film to thousands or millions of people across the country.
Whatever the industry, focus groups these days are most often used to tell
executives what they want to hear.
LA...@la.com
>
>As a member of the research community, I have to disagree.
I'm not surprised :)
>Poorly
>executed focus groups are singularly unhelpful, and perhaps that's
>the problem in Hollywood. If you don't recruit the right people
>or ask the right questions, you're going to have lousy data.
That's one of the problems with focus groups (and also opinion polls).
They're about how the question is asked. You can change the question
to obtain data that fits what you're trying to prove. I just read an
article that highlighter this by showing that when asking an unclear
question about whether the Holocaust really happened 25% of Americans
questioned it. Yet when asked a clear, direct question, 98% did not
question it.
>And when you consider how often Hollywood copies a good idea
>but without any of the underlying parts that made it a good
>idea in the first place, it's not too much of a stretch to
>imagine execs doing the same to industry focus groups. They've
>probably been stripped of their usefulness over time through
>a deterioration of the intelligence and forethought that should
>accompany any research project.
>
>Hollywood just may not be able to focus on the right things.
It's true of Hollywood, but also of many other industries. How many
studies are commissioned to cover the butts of the higher-ups?
LA...@la.com
>As long as you`re NOT Michael Bay! If you are then I will never take
>anything you say seriously. :~)
>
I can assert with 95% certainty that I am not Michael Bay (but wish I
had his clout) :)
Klyfix
<te...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>Unfortunately, that could say the same thing for his career as well. He
>and JMS might soon be found drinking at the local watering hole,
>remembering the " good old days ".
>
>
Hmm, and then they'll get together produce something Really Strange....
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
Renovations underway, Aug. 22, 1999
Angel C. Little
news:3816b0e0...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net...
> mat...@area.com (Matt Ackeret) wrote:
>
> >In article <381616f2...@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>, <LA...@LA.Com>
wrote:
> >>I read the article in Variety where Carter cites focus group research
> >>as showing the show was good. What a riot! As a creator, he should
> >>know that focus groups are completely meaningless. Carter also
> >
> >Says who? What TV shows have you created?
> >
> >(I'm not saying necessarily are the best thing in the world, but
'completely
> >meaningless' is going pretty far.)
>
> focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
> money.
Actually you dumb ass test screening are very helpful for a LOT of major
feature films.
--
Angel C. Little
"No matter how many Ally's Fox can create,
they still suck if they cancel shows like Harsh Realm,
Brimstone, and out of all of them, Millennium." -Me
Planet Angel http://planetangel.cjb.net
Robert Jerome http://robertjerome.cjb.net
Fellennium.Com http://www.fellennium.com
LONG LIVE FRANK BLACK! This is who we are!
Jason Seaver
Angel C. Little wrote in message <3_LS3.170$Pf3....@news.uswest.net>...
><LA...@LA.Com> wrote in message
> I'm a writer and a producer of feature films and it is my opinion
>> focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
>> money.
>
>Actually you dumb ass test screening are very helpful for a LOT of major
>feature films.
Name three.
William December Starr
"Angel C. Little" <angel...@uswest.net> said:
>> I'm a writer and a producer of feature films and it is my opinion
>> focus groups and test screenings are a complete waste of time and
>> money. [LAGuy]
>
> Actually you dumb ass test screening are very helpful for a LOT of
> major feature films.
Whoa! He called the other guy a "dumb ass" -- he must be right!
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Chris 'Coz' Costello
>> executed focus groups are singularly unhelpful, and perhaps that's
>> the problem in Hollywood. If you don't recruit the right people
>> or ask the right questions, you're going to have lousy data.
>
>you know.
It's still data, just qualitatitve data.
> At their best, they feed ideation (a word only a researcher could love).
Not all researchers. Of course, I work for a company that speaks of
"analytics" and "componentization." We won't even get into "Real
Stats, Real Easy."
>There is no way a bunch of people in a room, dominated by one or two
>loudmouths as most focus groups are, replicates the effect of showing a
>film to thousands or millions of people across the country.
Right, but showing a film to thousands or millions of people isn't
exactly cost-effective research, either.
>Whatever the industry, focus groups these days are most often used to tell
>executives what they want to hear.
Absolutely. As LAGuy mentioned elsewhere, research is oftentimes
commissioned as a CYA maneuver in lots and lots of industries. As
a relatively young practitioner, I'm still enough of an idealist to
think research can be used for *good*, and *not* for evil. ;-P
Research doesn't make bad decisions. *People* make bad decisions.
<eg>
Later,
COZ
NP: Nine Inch Nails, _The Fragile_ (Wow! This kid might have a future
in this business!)
LA...@la.com
>Whatever the industry, focus groups these days are most often used to tell
>executives what they want to hear.
>
I believe you've got that right :)
LA...@la.com
>
>The big problem as well is that Hollywood too often
>uses focus groups to take the uncertainty out of presenting
>something new to the public.
The problem is that focus groups and test screenings do not take any
of that uncertainty away. They're tools used by suits armed with MBAs
trying to apply what they learned in business school to a very
different kind of endeavor.
One of today's TV evils comes from the same breed of people, the MBA
suits who've learned about "branding" in school and think it means
buggin every frame of a TV show...
>Sure, that saves you money
Actually, since you don't learn anything of value, it really costs you
money.
>and trouble when you need to fine-tune a work (or see if
>the thing works at all--g!).
Again, it's impossible to know based on those test screenings and
focus groups. Even comedies, if you show them in different
neighborhoods... will get a different response and you won't learn if
anything really works.
>But in the long run, it not only
>kills good ideas, but condescends to the audience by assuming
>up-front they can't handle or won't like anything outside their
>sphere of experience. (IIRC, back when ALIENS was being test-
>marketed, it was reported that studio folks picked out people
>off the street they thought would be an "appropriate" test audience
>for it--urban, non-white, guys.) And given how little the industry
>knows how truly multicultural and diverse this country is
>getting--or attempting to get--one can see that process
>easily being misused. Test screenings are often used as a substitute
>for a real love of movies and the instincts as to what will work, as
>well, and at some point, no matter how many ace marketers you
>have staffing your studio, not having anyone with those instincts
>is going to tell big-time.
>
>C.
>**
>
LA...@la.com
>In article <381A12E4...@primenet.com>, Cheryl Deering
><dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>> ...Test screenings are often used as a substitute
>> for a real love of movies and the instincts as to what will work, as
>> well, and at some point, no matter how many ace marketers you
>> have staffing your studio, not having anyone with those instincts
>> is going to tell big-time.
>
>I tend to think that focus groups are used primarily when the filmmakers
>involved have no hard-core, overriding vision for their project.
It's used mainly when the suits (wittingly or not) want to squeeze
every ounce of interesting storytelling out of a project.
>It's kind
>of, "Well, wouldn't it be cool if we killed some of the lead characters at
>the end of the movie? Let's do a focus group..." (Focus group votes "No";
>wants happy ending.) "Well, I say we have everybody *live* at the end
>then!"
>
>If you *have* a vision, focus groups would be almost entirely unhelpful to
>your project. (OK, so maybe focus groups could help... in picking out the
>wardrobe!) But let them fiddle with your plot or story, and look out!
I don't think they're worth a penny myself. :)
Cheryl Deering
LA...@LA.Com wrote:
> Cheryl Deering <dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >
> >The big problem as well is that Hollywood too often
> >uses focus groups to take the uncertainty out of presenting
> >something new to the public.
>
> The problem is that focus groups and test screenings do not take any
> of that uncertainty away. They're tools used by suits armed with MBAs
> trying to apply what they learned in business school to a very
> different kind of endeavor.
>
> One of today's TV evils comes from the same breed of people, the MBA
> suits who've learned about "branding" in school and think it means
> buggin every frame of a TV show...
As well, most of them got into the business not because they love movies,
or have instincts for what works and what doesn't. You need people around
who have those kinds of instincts as much as you need the MBA boys.
> >Sure, that saves you money
>
> Actually, since you don't learn anything of value, it really costs you
> money.
Depends. Test marketing is nothing new--back in the 30's and 40's
studios held sneak previews to see how a movie played with an audience
and what needed to be fine-tuned. Even more recently, test screenings
that were done on Kevin Smith's CLERKS showed him/the producers that
the happier ending was a much better one artistically. The problem comes
in when test screenings are used as the "word of God" (g!) instead of as
a tool. You can't abdicate artistic judgement in exchange for tests and
stats alone.
> >and trouble when you need to fine-tune a work (or see if
> >the thing works at all--g!).
>
> Again, it's impossible to know based on those test screenings and
> focus groups. Even comedies, if you show them in different
> neighborhoods... will get a different response and you won't learn if
> anything really works.
Relatedly, I have real problems with that wisdom that things should
be marketed and aimed solely towards a specific audience. If you
have erroneous notions as to what a certain group of people are like
and you do nothing but give them what you think they would want to
see, you aren't showing them anything new--as well, given that
people change and grow, you are given them something they may have
wanted years ago, but are tired of now.
C.
**