CW - how to save this network from extinction?
SFTV_troy
Thomas, et cetera to write more of the shows that made WB memorable.
Steve Newport
------------------------------------
Was it ever?
TMC
> They need to hire Kevin Williamson, J. J. Abrams, Joss Whedon, Rob
> Thomas, et cetera to write more of the shows that made WB memorable.
Fire Dawn Ostroff for one thing!
Anim8rFSK
<3a31e96d-34b4-405d...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
TMC <tmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:14�am, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > They need to hire Kevin Williamson, J. J. Abrams, Joss Whedon, Rob
> > Thomas, et cetera to write more of the shows that made WB memorable.
>
> Fire Dawn Ostroff for one thing!
Isn't "why save" a question that needs to be answered before 'how save'?
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Mac Breck
> In article
> <3a31e96d-34b4-405d...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> TMC <tmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 31, 12:14 am, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> They need to hire Kevin Williamson, J. J. Abrams, Joss Whedon, Rob
>>> Thomas, et cetera to write more of the shows that made WB memorable.
>>
>> Fire Dawn Ostroff for one thing!
>
> Isn't "why save" a question that needs to be answered before 'how
> save'?
Other than for the people who work there, and as long as "Supernatural"
goes to a good home, who cares if The CW is saved?
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
SFTV_troy
> From: SFTV_t...@yahoo.com (SFTV_troy) that made WB memorable.
> ------------------------------------
> Was it ever?
Felicity
Dawson's Creek
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Jamie Foxx Show
Angel
Roswell
Gilmore Girls
Seventh Heaven
Sabrina the Witch
Charmed
Beauty and the Geek
One Tree Hill
Smallville
Supernatural
Veronica Mars
Yeah I'd say it was a memorable network.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Dec 31 2009, 4:51�am, birdpare...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
>> From: SFTV_t...@yahoo.com (SFTV_troy) that made WB memorable.
>> ------------------------------------
>> Was it ever?
>Felicity
>Dawson's Creek
>Buffy the Vampire Slayer
>Jamie Foxx Show
>Angel
>Roswell
>Gilmore Girls
>Seventh Heaven
>Sabrina the Witch
Doesn't count; ABC program for four seasons.
>Charmed
>Beauty and the Geek
>One Tree Hill
>Smallville
>Supernatural
>Veronica Mars
"Veronica Mars" never aired on WB; it was a UPN show. Its third season
ran on CW. It is available on line on thewb.com
>Yeah I'd say it was a memorable network.
Greatest network ever to use a frog as a mascot.
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article
> > <3a31e96d-34b4-405d-bab8-3d6af65e1...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 31, 12:14 am, SFTV troy <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> They need to hire Kevin Williamson, J. J. Abrams, Joss Whedon, Rob
> >>> Thomas, et cetera to write more of the shows that made WB memorable.
>
> >> Fire Dawn Ostroff for one thing!
>
> > Isn't "why save" a question that needs to be answered before 'how
> > save'?
>
> Other than for the people who work there, and as long as "Supernatural"
> goes to a good home, who cares if The CW is saved?
Okay so where is Ian mentioning VD? Aren't there a few other shows on
there that are viewed well by others (Gossip Girl? others).
Mac Breck
I was only speaking for myself. "Supernatural" is the only show on The
CW that I care about.
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 10:59 am, "Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Other than for the people who work there, and as long as
> >> "Supernatural" goes to a good home, who cares if The CW is saved?
>
> > Okay so where is Ian mentioning VD? Aren't there a few other shows on
> > there that are viewed well by others (Gossip Girl? others).
>
> I was only speaking for myself. "Supernatural" is the only show on The
> CW that I care about.
I totally agree.
Dano
> On Jan 2, 3:02 pm, "Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 10:59 am, "Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Other than for the people who work there, and as long as
>>>> "Supernatural" goes to a good home, who cares if The CW is saved?
>>
>>> Okay so where is Ian mentioning VD? Aren't there a few other shows
>>> on there that are viewed well by others (Gossip Girl? others).
>>
>> I was only speaking for myself. "Supernatural" is the only show on
>> The CW that I care about.
>
> I totally agree.
That's one more than I care about. <shrug>
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 3:02 pm, "Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:
> >>> On Jan 1, 10:59 am, "Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Other than for the people who work there, and as long as
> >>>> "Supernatural" goes to a good home, who cares if The CW is saved?
>
> >>> Okay so where is Ian mentioning VD? Aren't there a few other shows
> >>> on there that are viewed well by others (Gossip Girl? others).
>
> >> I was only speaking for myself. "Supernatural" is the only show on
> >> The CW that I care about.
>
> > I totally agree.
>
> That's one more than I care about. <shrug>
I think that is why there are umpteen million channels now. Something
on for everyone <smile>
Steve Newport
Me, too. And that's retroactive as well.
Stan Brown
<macthe...@yahoo.com>:
> I was only speaking for myself. "Supernatural" is the only show on The
> CW that I care about.
That and, to a lesser extent, /Vampire Diaries/ for me.
/Gossip Girl/ got excellent reviews, and I tried a couple of
episodes, but couldn't get into it.
--
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
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 31 2009, 4:51�am, birdpare...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
>>> From: SFTV_t...@yahoo.com (SFTV_troy) that made WB memorable.
>>> ------------------------------------
>>> Was it ever?
>
>>Felicity
>>Dawson's Creek
>>Buffy the Vampire Slayer
>>Jamie Foxx Show
>>Angel
>>Roswell
>>Gilmore Girls
>>Seventh Heaven
Yes, it was on The WB, but it was never memorably *good,* nor was it
anywhere close to qualifying as what we think of as a "WB Show." "WB
Show," as embodied by the quick, self-referential wit of dramedies
such as Buffy, Dawson's Creek and Gilmore Girls is practically its own
genre.
>>Sabrina the Witch
>
>Doesn't count; ABC program for four seasons.
>
>>Charmed
>>Beauty and the Geek
>>One Tree Hill
>>Smallville
>>Supernatural
and Everwood, the last great, true "WB Show."
>>Veronica Mars
>
>"Veronica Mars" never aired on WB; it was a UPN show. Its third season
>ran on CW. It is available on line on thewb.com
Pretty much everybody agrees that it was a "WB Show" in genre.
Especially since it was developed for The WB, which made the mistake
of passing on it. It's grandfathered in as the exception that proves
the rule *because* it's a "WB Show" in genre without having ever aired
on The WB.
Unless one considers The CW as the continuation of The WB -- which The
CW *is,* and thus, VM really *is* a WB show on all levels but the most
superficial.
>>Yeah I'd say it was a memorable network.
>
>Greatest network ever to use a frog as a mascot.
Greatest network to never have a forensics procedural.
Greatest network to air a show starring Lauren Graham. Or a vampire
slayer.
Greatest network to air a show that blatantly ripped off the movie
"The Craft."
Greatest network to cater to geek culture. (Take *that,* you Skiffy
assholes.) Although I might take that back if Caprica turns out to be
at least as great as Battlestar Galactica . . .
Okay, Greatest network to *respect* geek culture. Yes, there were
moments that it fucked up -- Buffy moving to UPN, cancelling Angel so
abruptly when it was still high in the ratings, the existence of Birds
of Prey -- but still, its record for turning out genre hits over the
past 15 years is probably better than that of any other broadcast
network. And its interest in *sustaining* the genre hits that it had
surpasses that of the Stargate Channel by light-years.
-- Rob
Steve Newport
dramedies such as Buffy, Dawson's Creek and Gilmore Girls... Greatest
network to air a show starring Lauren Graham. Or a vampire slayer.
over the past 15 years
Like I said: who needs it?
Mac Breck
>....And its interest in *sustaining* the genre hits that it had
> surpasses that of the Stargate Channel by light-years.
....and FOX. That _certainly_ rules out FOX.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>SFTV_troy <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Dec 31 2009, 4:51 am, birdpare...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
>>>>From: SFTV_t...@yahoo.com (SFTV_troy) that made WB memorable.
>>>>------------------------------------
>>>>Was it ever?
>>>Felicity
>>>Dawson's Creek
>>>Buffy the Vampire Slayer
>>>Jamie Foxx Show
>>>Angel
>>>Roswell
>>>Gilmore Girls
>>>Seventh Heaven
>Yes, it was on The WB, but it was never memorably *good,* nor was it
>anywhere close to qualifying as what we think of as a "WB Show." "WB
>Show," as embodied by the quick, self-referential wit of dramedies
>such as Buffy, Dawson's Creek and Gilmore Girls is practically its own
>genre.
Uh, Rob? The WB wasn't known for quick wit nor "dramedy" (stop using
unwords) but angst. A WB program was an hour of teen angst.
"Seventh Heaven" was in its own category, just that it was always there.
I managed to miss every season of it.
>>>Veronica Mars
>>"Veronica Mars" never aired on WB; it was a UPN show. Its third season
>>ran on CW. It is available on line on thewb.com
>Pretty much everybody agrees that it was a "WB Show" in genre.
>Especially since it was developed for The WB, which made the mistake
>of passing on it. It's grandfathered in as the exception that proves
>the rule *because* it's a "WB Show" in genre without having ever aired
>on The WB.
Fooey! Spit! Never would have been the well-loved show it was ever on The WB.
>Unless one considers The CW as the continuation of The WB -- which The
>CW *is,* and thus, VM really *is* a WB show on all levels but the most
>superficial.
I do not consider CW (THE CW? Give me a break) as a continuation of either
The WB or UPN, but yet another attempt at a fifth network, even though it
renewed a handful of shows that had previously aired on the two defunct
networks.
>>Greatest network ever to use a frog as a mascot.
>Greatest network to never have a forensics procedural.
>Greatest network to air a show starring Lauren Graham. Or a vampire
>slayer.
>Greatest network to air a show that blatantly ripped off the movie
>"The Craft."
>Greatest network to cater to geek culture. (Take *that,* you Skiffy
>assholes.) Although I might take that back if Caprica turns out to be
>at least as great as Battlestar Galactica . . .
Snarf. "Battlestar Galactica" had some greatness, but overall, wasn't great.
I don't expect "Caprica" to be as good.
>Okay, Greatest network to *respect* geek culture. Yes, there were
>moments that it fucked up -- Buffy moving to UPN, cancelling Angel so
>abruptly when it was still high in the ratings, the existence of Birds
>of Prey --
I don't agree with any of that. Letting "Buffy" go was necessary for business.
That licensing fee demanded by the studio was sure to sink the network that
was suckered into paying it. "Angel" went out on a high note and had a most
enjoyable final episode (not just because Wesley was killed). Many more series
should do that. "Birds of Prey", um, well, the idea was good, the actresses
were pleasing eye candy, the sets were excellent. I swear the same sets are
still used on "Smallville". Not one script that didn't rise above mediocre.
However, when the producers understood that the show had no chance of being
renewed, they tied up most of the loose threads. Not ending on a cliffhanger
wins lots of points from me.
>but still, its record for turning out genre hits over the past 15 years
>is probably better than that of any other broadcast network.
That The WB was willing to renew shows that were never appropriate for Fox
nor the Big 3 networks isn't relevant. They catered to a very narrow audience
that quite frankly neither you nor I are in. If the show was viewed by that
audience, they kept it, no matter how small that viewership was. If not, they
dumped it. It's not comparable.
That a show got renewed is crap criterion for calling it a hit, Rob. Shows
get renewed or canceled on logic-defying basis irrelevant to any logical
business model that can be applied to programming decisions.
>And its interest in *sustaining* the genre hits that it had surpasses that
>of the Stargate Channel by light-years.
Like "Sabrina", "Stargate SG-1" doesn't count. They ordered additional
seasons after Showtime refused to renew it. SciFi Channel never would have
developed it in a million years.
Every high quality show that lasted more than one season on SciFi Channel
was developed on another network or was jointly developed for pre-sold
international distribution like "Farscape". There are no exceptions to
this. They wouldn't know how to develop an original idea into an excellent
series for an American audience by themselves. They have never nurtured
a program till it found an audience. More likely, even with a cheaply
licensed syndicated show, they judge a show's long-term potential based
on ratings for one or two weeks, then yank it from the schedule without
airing all episodes ("Tracker") or banish it to overnight ("Charlie Jade").
Anim8rFSK
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> "Seventh Heaven" was in its own category, just that it was always there.
> I managed to miss every season of it.
I got as far as the opening credit "and Happy as Happy"
>
> I don't agree with any of that. Letting "Buffy" go was necessary for business.
> That licensing fee demanded by the studio was sure to sink the network that
> was suckered into paying it. "Angel" went out on a high note and had a most
> enjoyable final episode (not just because Wesley was killed). Many more series
yes
> should do that. "Birds of Prey", um, well, the idea was good, the actresses
here's where Ian comes in screaming about the one(s) that couldn't act.
And who decided it was a good idea to take Dina Meyer, who has two of
the best legs in showbiz, one right there on either side, the way I like
'em, and put her in a wheelchair??? And much as I like Mia Sara, cast
as Harley Quinn? Really?? When Arleen Sorkin is available???
> were pleasing eye candy, the sets were excellent. I swear the same sets are
> still used on "Smallville". Not one script that didn't rise above mediocre.
> However, when the producers understood that the show had no chance of being
> renewed, they tied up most of the loose threads. Not ending on a cliffhanger
> wins lots of points from me.
No discussion of BoP can go by without mentioning again the real reason
for it's failure, Laeta Kalogridis. The network had a press conference
and NAMED HER as the problem, and said they were going to napalm the
entire series if that's what it took to get rid of her -- I mean, when
was the last time you ever saw THAT happen? She hid for 5 years, and
then rose from the ashes to destroy BIONIC WOMAN.
SFTV_troy
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:29:10 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>On Dec 31 2009, 4:51 am, birdpare...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
> >>> From: SFTV_t...@yahoo.com (SFTV_troy) that made WB memorable.
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>> Was it ever?
>
> >>Felicity
> >>Dawson's Creek
> >>Buffy the Vampire Slayer
> >>Jamie Foxx Show
> >>Angel
> >>Roswell
> >>Gilmore Girls
> >>Seventh Heaven
>
> Yes, it was on The WB, but it was never memorably *good,* nor was it
> anywhere close to qualifying as what we think of as a "WB Show."
Perhaps not a "WB show" but it was like the "Family" or "Little House"
of the 90s. It provided good family values for its first 3-4 seasons
before devolving to crap.
Plus it was WB's highest rated show, which is why it was carried-over
to CW. You don't cancel the show that pays your bills.
> Unless one considers The CW as the continuation of The WB -- which The
> CW *is,*
Not really. Although CW *claimed* to be targeting the same audience
WB targeted (tweens and teens and college-aged), they dramatically
dumbed-down their lineup. Their shows remind me of the cheap
telenovels MyNetworkTV used to air. T he only show CW ever developed
which reminds me of the old WB is Vampire Dairies.
Steve Newport
for quick wit nor "dramedy" (stop using unwords)
SN: Oh, take the stick out of your ass.
------------------------------------
Steve Newport
targeting the same audience WB targeted (tweens and teens and
college-aged), they dramatically dumbed-down their lineup.
How low can they go?
SFTV_troy
> From: SFTV_t...@yahoo.com (SFTV_troy)
Well Gossip Girl and 90210 are just soap operas. They are higher-
budget than MyNetTV's old telenovels but not much better storywise.
WB rarely dived that low.