Why do genre shows never last?

[voldemort]

And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
February sweeps.

Is there some sort of secret sauce needed to make anything with a
sci-fi/fantasy/supernatural element survive for even one *full* season
on network television?

Let's recap:

Show Fate Score

Surviving

Once Upon a Time So far, so good 1+
Fringe Still going as of mid-S4 4+
The Secret Circle So far, so good 1+


This year

Grimm 11 episodes, then yanked mid-sweeps 0
Terra Nova 13 episodes, but didn't get back nine 1
Once Upon a Time ?
Fringe ?
The Secret Circle ?


Last year

The Event Not renewed after one full season 2
The Cape Canceled a few episodes before end of S1 1
V Not renewed after second season 3
No Ordinary Family Not renewed after one full season 2
Smallville Planned finale after ten seasons 5
Fringe Renewed


2009-2010

Heroes Ended after four seasons 4
FlashForward Not renewed after one full season 2
Dollhouse Not renewed after second season 3
Defying Gravity Canceled after eight episodes 0
V Renewed
Fringe Renewed
Smallville Renewed


2008-2009

Lost Planned finale after six seasons 5
Terminator: TSCC Not renewed after second season 3
Dollhouse Renewed
Fringe Renewed
Smallville Renewed


Scoring rules:

0 Canceled before first 13 episodes aired
1 First 13 episodes aired but not a full season
2 A full first season aired, but not two
3 Did not make it to a full third season
4 Did not make it to a full fifth season
5 At least five full seasons aired

A 5 indicates success, as 100 episodes/five seasons is the generally
accepted threshold for a viable afterlife in syndication.

Of the genre shows ending in the last few years, all but two, Smallville
and Lost, had failed to reach that threshold. Only three currently still
air on network TV, OUaT, Fringe, and The Secret Circle, and none of
those can be considered especially secure. The oldest, Fringe, is in its
fourth season, so none of the current three are especially close to the
syndication threshold either. Most of the genre shows on in recent years
have not only failed, but failed spectacularly without even seeing a
second season, and almost none saw a third.

What is the secret ingredient that makes a Dollhouse or a V manage to
squeak out a second season or a Fringe a fourth? What is the
extra-special ingredient needed to make a Lost or a Smallville, a genre
show that makes it to episode 100?

(Note that I didn't include the various Stargates as they were cable-only.)

One thing does jump out as an anti-special ingredient though: Summer
Glau. Everything up there featuring her was dead after at most two full
seasons, including Terminator, The Cape, and Dollhouse.

[suzeeq]

voldemort wrote:
> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
> February sweeps.

Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight - you'll notice Who Do
you think you are isn't on either. To make room for the awards show.
It's back next week.

[cloud dreamer]

And you called me thick?????

Why do you keep answering Seamus as if the question is legitimate????

Sheesh.


..


--

I told you so. You damned fools.

- H.G. Wells

[Adam H. Kerman]

voldemort <vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote:

>And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of

>February sweeps. . . .

Damn, seamus, you're really putting effort into this. Nice chart!

Some day, I want you to get your ceremony and your fanfare.

[voldemort]

On 17/02/2012 9:31 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> voldemort wrote:
>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>> February sweeps.
>
> Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight

No, there isn't.

> you'll notice Who Do you think you are isn't on either.

No, I won't, since that isn't a show I watch.

> To make room for the awards show.

What awards show? On Grimm's channel I see news, eTalk, Big Bang,
Undercover Boss, an L&O:SVU rerun, and Blue Bloods in primetime. And I
don't see any awards show on any of the other networks either. Nor
anything else "special".

Besides, it's sweeps. The nets are supposed to put their best foot
forward. That means not pre-empting anything, among other things.

> It's back next week.

Nice of them to tell us that ... oh, wait. Instead they just quietly
disappeared it without a word of explanation.

[Dang Franz]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:47:44 -0500, voldemort wrote:

> On 17/02/2012 9:31 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> To make room for the awards show.
>
> What awards show? On Grimm's channel I see news, eTalk, Big Bang,
> Undercover Boss, an L&O:SVU rerun, and Blue Bloods in primetime. And I
> don't see any awards show on any of the other networks either. Nor
> anything else "special".

Besides which, CSI:NY is missing as well. And that's not on the same (US)
network as Grimm. One's CBS and one's NBC. Even if one of them *did* have
some awards show on it wouldn't explain the disappearance of the other
network's show.

> Besides, it's sweeps. The nets are supposed to put their best foot
> forward. That means not pre-empting anything, among other things.

What he said.

[cloud dreamer]

BTW, Suzeeq....this is Seamus, too.

<plonk>

[Tc43]

On 17/02/2012 9:33 PM, cloud dreamer wrote:
309> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv

309> And you called me thick?????

What does your ambiguous question of suzeeq have to do with television,
dreamer?

309> Why do you keep answering Seamus as if the question is legitimate????

Who is "Seamus", dreamer? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.

309> Sheesh.

What does that have to do with television, dreamer?

309> ..

What do your two dots have to do with television, dreamer?

[Tc43]

On 17/02/2012 9:58 PM, cloud dreamer wrote:
310> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv

310> BTW, Suzeeq....this is Seamus, too.

Who is "Seamus", dreamer? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.

310> <plonk>

Famous Last Word.

310> ..

[Tc43]

On 17/02/2012 9:38 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
41028> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv

41028> Damn, seamus, you're really putting effort into this. Nice chart!

Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.

41028> Some day, I want you to get your ceremony and your fanfare.

What does your veiled and idle threat have to do with television, Kerman?

[Professor Bubba]

In article <jhn2um$b4q$2...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman

Something involving a rope and the roll of a drum, I hope.

[EGK]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:38:14 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
wrote:

>voldemort <vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote:
>
>>And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>February sweeps. . . .
>
>Damn, seamus, you're really putting effort into this. Nice chart!

I bet he masturbates furiously every time he gets someone to reply to one of
his new nyms. It's actually pretty sad to imagine what a lonely life this
guy has to be doing what he does.

[Angela Trachten]

On Feb 17, 9:21 pm, voldemort <voldem...@hogwarts.ie> wrote:
> Of the genre shows ending in the last few years, all but two, Smallville
> and Lost, had failed to reach that threshold. Only three currently still
> air on network TV, OUaT, Fringe, and The Secret Circle, and none of
> those can be considered especially secure. The oldest, Fringe, is in its
> fourth season, so none of the current three are especially close to the
> syndication threshold either. Most of the genre shows on in recent years
> have not only failed, but failed spectacularly without even seeing a
> second season, and almost none saw a third.

Not only that -- out of 16 genre shows occurring at some time in the
past four seasons, only four have made it into a third season. That's
a 75% rate of attrition before episode 45.

On the other hand, all those that made it to a third made it to a
fourth.

Also noteworthy: only three surviving genre shows out of those 16.

Also noteworthy: the chart clearly shows that the networks tended to
renew about three genre shows each year, until the end of 2010-11
season. Then they renewed only ONE (Fringe).

Adding the SyFy channel doesn't help things that much. Stargate and
SG:A running for 10 and 5 seasons, respectively, adds two more
successes, but two-and-out SGU adds another failure to reach that
hundredth-episode syndication threshold. And there's gotta be other
science fiction on cable, most of which has probably done no better
than SGU.

[voldemort]

On 17/02/2012 10:11 PM, Professor Bubba wrote:
> In article <jhn2um$b4q$2...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> voldemort<vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>> February sweeps. . . .
>>

>> Some day, I want you to get your ceremony and your fanfare.
>
> Something involving a rope and the roll of a drum, I hope.

You dare threaten me?

Good luck finding even one of my horcruxes first. It's far more likely
that you'll help me create yet another one than that you will succeed in
defeating me, little worm.

[suzeeq]

cloud dreamer wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 11:01 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> voldemort wrote:
>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>> February sweeps.
>> Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight - you'll notice Who Do
>> you think you are isn't on either. To make room for the awards show.
>> It's back next week.
>
>
> And you called me thick?????
>
> Why do you keep answering Seamus as if the question is legitimate????
>
> Sheesh.
>

I didn't think this one was Seamus.

[suzeeq]

cloud dreamer wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 11:01 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> voldemort wrote:
>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>> February sweeps.
>> Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight - you'll notice Who Do
>> you think you are isn't on either. To make room for the awards show.
>> It's back next week.
>
>
> And you called me thick?????
>
> Why do you keep answering Seamus as if the question is legitimate????
>
> Sheesh.

Notice I didn't answer the other one about CSI NY because I know that
one's a seamus.

[Tc43]

On 18/02/2012 12:12 AM, suzeeq wrote:
414> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv

414> I didn't think this one was Seamus.

Who is "Seamus", suzeeq? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.

[Tc43]

On 18/02/2012 12:14 AM, suzeeq wrote:
415> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv

415> Notice I didn't answer the other one about CSI NY because I know that
415> one's a seamus.

What's a "seamus", suzeeq, and what does it have to do with television?

[cloud dreamer]

And the guys all trash me for telling people BEFORE they start to answer
the guy???? Notice that once I brought it up....no one else replied to him.

In fact, he's replying to himself in this thread.

Here's a hint: if it's a complaint about a show not being on AND from a
name you haven't seen before, it's 95% chance it's him. All you have to
do is check the source. He uses giganews and aoie almost all the time
and google sometimes. You can check the IP with google and see he's
Canadian. If it's any of those, that would make it 99.9% sure it's him.

As you can see, if no one engages him, he talks to himself. This guy is
either seriously mentally ill/victim of head injury or one persistent
troll. And I've never seen a troll last as long as he has, so I'm
leaning towards the former.

Time to plonk this thread and let him go off talking to himself.

..


--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us

[Tc43]

On 18/02/2012 8:15 AM, cloud dreamer wrote:
311> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv

311> And the guys all trash me for telling people BEFORE they start to
answer
311> the guy???? Notice that once I brought it up....no one else replied
to him.

Who is "the guy", dreamer? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.

311> In fact, he's replying to himself in this thread.

Classic ambiguity.

311> Here's a hint: if it's a complaint about a show not being on AND
from a
311> name you haven't seen before, it's 95% chance it's him. All you
have to
311> do is check the source. He uses giganews and aoie almost all the time
311> and google sometimes. You can check the IP with google and see he's
311> Canadian. If it's any of those, that would make it 99.9% sure it's him.

Who is "him", dreamer? You failed to name anybody.

311> As you can see, if no one engages him, he talks to himself. This
guy is
311> either seriously mentally ill/victim of head injury or one persistent
311> troll. And I've never seen a troll last as long as he has, so I'm
311> leaning towards the former.

Who is "this guy", dreamer? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.

311> Time to plonk this thread and let him go off talking to himself.

Famous Last Words.

311> ..

What do your two dots have to do with television, dreamer?

[Stan Brown]

I think you've been Seamused.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
"Children -- so adorable. In a way they're like people."
-- Veronica, on /Better Off Ted/

[suzeeq]

cloud dreamer wrote:
> On 18/02/2012 1:42 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> cloud dreamer wrote:
>>> On 17/02/2012 11:01 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> voldemort wrote:
>>>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>>>> February sweeps.
>>>> Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight - you'll notice Who Do
>>>> you think you are isn't on either. To make room for the awards show.
>>>> It's back next week.
>>>
>>> And you called me thick?????
>>>
>>> Why do you keep answering Seamus as if the question is legitimate????
>>>
>>> Sheesh.
>>>
>> I didn't think this one was Seamus.
>
>
> And the guys all trash me for telling people BEFORE they start to answer
> the guy???? Notice that once I brought it up....no one else replied to him.
>
> In fact, he's replying to himself in this thread.
>
> Here's a hint: if it's a complaint about a show not being on AND from a
> name you haven't seen before, it's 95% chance it's him.

Exactly, voldemort's posted before. He's apparently recycling nyms now
instead of coming up with a new one for every 'where is' thread.

[voldemort]

On 18/02/2012 9:35 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> Exactly, voldemort's posted before. He's apparently recycling nyms now
> instead of coming up with a new one for every 'where is' thread.

Er, what? Yes, I've posted before, but as for this "recycling nyms now"
and "every where is thread" I have no idea what you're talking about.

[candida]

On 18/02/2012 9:28 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
48> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv

48> I think you've been Seamused.

Who is "Seamus", Brown? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.

[suzeeq]

Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:31:25 -0700, suzeeq wrote:
>> voldemort wrote:
>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>> February sweeps.
>> Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight - you'll notice Who Do
>> you think you are isn't on either. To make room for the awards show.
>> It's back next week.
>
> I think you've been Seamused.

So I've been told. I didn't think this was one of his nyms since it
wasn't a new one; he's posted with it quite a lot for a while - and not
starting one of his 'where is' threads.

[Stephen Newport]

I'd be thrilled if GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME were really going away.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[suzeeq]

of course you don't.

[Heike Svensson]

On 18/02/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen Newport wrote:
> I'd be thrilled if GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME were really going away.

asshole

[Mason Barge]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:21:27 -0500, voldemort <vold...@hogwarts.ie>

wrote:

>And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>February sweeps.
>

>Is there some sort of secret sauce needed to make anything with a
>sci-fi/fantasy/supernatural element survive for even one *full* season
>on network television?

A "genre" show is not synonymous with a "fantasy/sci-fi". Sci-fi is a
genre. So are police procedural, private detective, and situation comedy.

Of course, in the broad sense every work of art or entertainment has a
genre. But in fiction, it's used as an adjective to describe something
other than straight adult drama or mainstream comedy. Genre shows have a
very noticeable set of assumptions and pattern.

There are very few non-genre shows on television. I suppose Parenthood
would be one. Friday Night Lights maybe, although the heavy sports angle
might put it into a "sports fiction" genre.

[Mason Barge]

If we left it up to you and WQ, we'd have eight hours of total programming
per week :)

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:usjvj7dp3kmsmscfg...@4ax.com...

===============================

Family fare isn't a genre? Or "soap operas" if you prefer? Both of those
could be placed in that category really. Just because they are good doesn't
disqualify them. I know some consider that a nasty term for a genre...but
what IS a soap after all but a continuing drama about the personal lives of
the characters? Nothing wrong with that if well written and acted. As long
as we're placing labels that is...

[shawn]

When you have a thousand pseudonyms you can get confused on which nym
serves which purpose.

[Michael Black]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Stan Brown wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:31:25 -0700, suzeeq wrote:
>>
>> voldemort wrote:
>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>> February sweeps.
>>
>> Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight - you'll notice Who Do
>> you think you are isn't on either. To make room for the awards show.
>> It's back next week.
>
> I think you've been Seamused.
>

Watch your language!

Michael

[suzeeq]

yes.

[EGK]

I've probably replied to him before too. It's obvious he can put together a
cogent thought when he wants to. That's why it's so sad to imagine what
his life is like that he needs to constantly cry for attention.

[Michael Black]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mason Barge wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:21:27 -0500, voldemort <vold...@hogwarts.ie>
> wrote:
>
>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>> February sweeps.
>>
>> Is there some sort of secret sauce needed to make anything with a
>> sci-fi/fantasy/supernatural element survive for even one *full* season
>> on network television?
>
> A "genre" show is not synonymous with a "fantasy/sci-fi". Sci-fi is a
> genre. So are police procedural, private detective, and situation comedy.
>
> Of course, in the broad sense every work of art or entertainment has a
> genre. But in fiction, it's used as an adjective to describe something
> other than straight adult drama or mainstream comedy. Genre shows have a
> very noticeable set of assumptions and pattern.
>

Yes. Some cities have science fiction bookstores, others have mystery
bookstores, both types cater to a specific genre.

Michael

[jack]

On Feb 18, 11:37 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Mason Barge"  wrote in message
>
> news:usjvj7dp3kmsmscfg...@4ax.com...
>

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:21:27 -0500, voldemort <voldem...@hogwarts.ie>

FWIW at this stage of the conversation, is the sci-fi triage rate on
TV any worse than that of the other genre series shown on TV? The
fact that the networks and major cables keep putting on sci-fi series
[and shouldn't TWD be on this list?] shows there's an audience for
them. It's just like any other audience though, a genre has its hard-
core fans who'll watch most anything, even if only to tear it apart in
the newsgroups, and there's the rest of the audience, the part you
need to attract to keep a show on the air, and they respond to sci-fi
just like any other genre: they'll watch and if they think it's crap
after a couple of shows they turn it off. Sometimes, you have to
wonder what the suits are thinking: taking a beloved mini-series like
V and trying to turn it into an ongoing series. The whole point of
the mini-series was that they were mini: they lasted just as long as
it took for the amusement of lizards hiding inside human skin to wear
off. And Grimm at Friday night at 10, what do you expect? Terra
Nova: we were led to believe it would be some sort of time-travel
adventure show with dinosaurs, and it turns into Swiss Family Robinson
with time-traveling pirates and not enough dinosaurs and some
belaboring ecological message that never made quite enough sense: how
could that one portal ever supply enough goods to 22nd-century Earth
to make any difference?

[cloud dreamer]

My newsreader goes back a year. There's only one post by voldemort in
all that time.

The point is that it's not an easily recognizable nick. It's not W/Q or
Dano or David etc.

It takes all of two seconds to check the source. The subject matter
should direct you to check that first. Not all his posts are constructed
the same way, but you get the "wtf" moment with most of them.

In doubt, don't respond at all. Simple.

..

--

I told you so. You damned fools.

- H.G. Wells

[voldemort]

On 18/02/2012 12:49 PM, jack wrote:
> FWIW at this stage of the conversation, is the sci-fi triage rate on
> TV any worse than that of the other genre series shown on TV? The
> fact that the networks and major cables keep putting on sci-fi series
> [and shouldn't TWD be on this list?] shows there's an audience for
> them.

"TWD"?

... all it shows is that the networks are willing to experiment now and
again. Once in a while each network will float a sci-fi show, then after
a while declare it a failure because it doesn't get the huge audiences
of a CSI or an NCIS and cancel it. :P

> And Grimm at Friday night at 10, what do you expect?

When they schedule something for Friday nights, I consider that almost
equivalent to canceling it. So you're begging the question.

> Terra Nova: we were led to believe it would be some sort of time-travel
> adventure show with dinosaurs, and it turns into

a time-travel adventure show with dinosaurs.

[Stan Brown]

When it becomes a common noun and loses its capital letter, then
we'll *really* know we're in trouble.

[Dano]

"jack" wrote in message
news:7d7b0d8d-7a33-4806...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 18, 11:37 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Family fare isn't a genre? Or "soap operas" if you prefer? Both of those
> could be placed in that category really. Just because they are good
> doesn't
> disqualify them. I know some consider that a nasty term for a genre...but
> what IS a soap after all but a continuing drama about the personal lives
> of
> the characters? Nothing wrong with that if well written and acted. As
> long
> as we're placing labels that is...



FWIW at this stage of the conversation, is the sci-fi triage rate on

TV any worse than that of the other genre series shown on TV? <snip>
============================================


Define genre. Aren't "cop shows" a "genre"? Because yeah...the "triage
rate" as you call it is far worse for sci-fi versus those shows to pick just
one. Certainly would seem to be many other genres that much better thrive
these days.

[Angela Trachten]

On Feb 18, 12:49 pm, jack <j...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Terra Nova: how could that one portal ever supply enough goods to

> 22nd-century Earth to make any difference?

The series finale strongly implied that the bad guys have additional
portals, or the means to build them.

[Mark G. Habermann]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:26:21 -0330, cloud dreamer wrote:

> It takes all of two seconds to check the source. The subject matter
> should direct you to check that first. Not all his posts are constructed
> the same way, but you get the "wtf" moment with most of them.

I don't find that. Just because you can't understand most of someone's
posts doesn't mean they're not making sense. If it happens to you a lot
it may mean you're just a bit duller than average instead.

> In doubt, don't respond at all. Simple.

Terrible advice.

[Dano]

"Mark G. Habermann" wrote in message news:jhopmt$t9b$1...@dont-email.me...

=================================

I don't understand.

[suzeeq]

I've seen it in the last month or two. Perhaps you've got posts
killfiled by newsserver.

> The point is that it's not an easily recognizable nick. It's not W/Q or
> Dano or David etc.

Yeah, but I recognized it.

[erilar]

In article <jhoqpf$4q8$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Nor do I. If I see a simple question that might just come from an
unobservant person that only needs a simple answer, I give it. I don't
research the questioner's entire life and posting history.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article
<7d7b0d8d-7a33-4806...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

jack <jr...@columbia.edu> wrote:

> Terra
> Nova: we were led to believe it would be some sort of time-travel
> adventure show with dinosaurs, and it turns into Swiss Family Robinson
> with time-traveling pirates and not enough dinosaurs and some
> belaboring ecological message that never made quite enough sense: how
> could that one portal ever supply enough goods to 22nd-century Earth
> to make any difference?

That's exactly why I gave up on it right away. If they had been living
in quarters they constructed themselves from materials present there in
the past(wood, stone, etc.) instead of moving into modern houses with
all the modern conveniences, and dealing with life based on what could
have been sent back through that one portal, I might have watched more.
There are major limits to my willing suspension of disbelief despite the
fact that I really like GOOD sf.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Jim G.]

EGK sent the following on 2/17/2012 9:14 PM:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:38:14 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"<a...@chinet.com>
> wrote:

>
>> voldemort<vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of

>>> February sweeps. . . .
>>
>> Damn, seamus, you're really putting effort into this. Nice chart!
>
> I bet he masturbates furiously every time he gets someone to reply to one of
> his new nyms. It's actually pretty sad to imagine what a lonely life this
> guy has to be doing what he does.

No kidding. And after yesterday's manic activities, in particular, I'm
guessing that he's due to have his meds adjusted.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
NoCLoDS Founding Member (No Cop, Lawyer or Doctor Shows)

[anim8rfsk]

It's Brannon Braga - seriously, you had to know it wasn't by any objective
measure going to be good.

--
sent from a borrowed ipad

[anim8rfsk]

Plus the entire continent - and there *is* only the one continent - is only
like 20 miles across, so how big a portal can they need?

[anim8rfsk]

jack <jr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:37 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Mason Barge" wrote in message
>>
>> news:usjvj7dp3kmsmscfg...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:21:27 -0500, voldemort <voldem...@hogwarts.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
>>> February sweeps.
>>
>>> Is there some sort of secret sauce needed to make anything with a
>>> sci-fi/fantasy/supernatural element survive for even one *full* season
>>> on network television?
>>
>> A "genre" show is not synonymous with a "fantasy/sci-fi". Sci-fi is a
>> genre. So are police procedural, private detective, and situation comedy.
>>
>> Of course, in the broad sense every work of art or entertainment has a
>> genre. But in fiction, it's used as an adjective to describe something
>> other than straight adult drama or mainstream comedy. Genre shows have a
>> very noticeable set of assumptions and pattern.
>>
>> There are very few non-genre shows on television. I suppose Parenthood
>> would be one. Friday Night Lights maybe, although the heavy sports angle
>> might put it into a "sports fiction" genre.
>>
>> ==============================>

And why does the prettiest girl on the planet have man hands?

[shawn]

Oh, now you've gone and done it. Hunter will be along shortly to give
his detailed explanation of why you are wrong and how the writers have
considered everything that we might bring up and put solutions to
those questions into the show if only we were smart enough to see it.

[Stephen Newport]

From: mason...@gmail.com (Mason Barge) eight hours of total
programming per week
------------------------------------
SN: Watching more than about 14 is excessive.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Stephen Newport]

[Stephen Newport]

From: mason...@gmail.com (Mason Barge) There are very few non-genre

shows on television. I suppose Parenthood would be one.

------------------------------------
SN: Why?

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Obveeus]

"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If we left it up to you and WQ, we'd have eight hours of total programming
> per week :)

...and those hours would be aired in black&white

[Mason Barge]

Yah, but they'd have great theme songs.

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:50:18 GMT, anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>jack <jr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
[...]

>
>And why does the prettiest girl on the planet have man hands?

Pfft. So she can chop the wood for the fire to cook a ham to bring you a
ham and cheese sandwich in bed.

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:00:06 -0600, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>
wrote:

>In article
><7d7b0d8d-7a33-4806...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> jack <jr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>> Terra
>> Nova: we were led to believe it would be some sort of time-travel
>> adventure show with dinosaurs, and it turns into Swiss Family Robinson
>> with time-traveling pirates and not enough dinosaurs and some
>> belaboring ecological message that never made quite enough sense: how
>> could that one portal ever supply enough goods to 22nd-century Earth
>> to make any difference?
>
>That's exactly why I gave up on it right away.

There are just *so* many reasons not to watch this show.

Personally, I think my last straw was when they seemed unable or unwilling
to kill carnivorous dinosaurs attacking them.

[Your Name]

In article <nt80k7pbk0djrf3l3...@4ax.com>, Mason Barge

Terra Nova hasn't started down here in New Zealand yet (it starts next
weekend), so I haven't seen it yet, but my guess would be the usual
paradox of time travel - killing something / someone in the past would
have unknown consequences in the future. Killing a T-Rex could mean that
it doesn't eat the prey it was going to catch tomorrow, which could
eventually lead to someone worse and more "succssful" than Hitler being
born millennia later.

Having said that and linked, the more important question (in terms of
"realistic believability") with Terra Nova is why the human race that has
basically destroyed Earth decides it's actually a good idea to travel back
in time and start destroying it from an even earlier time. :-\

[David E. Powell]

GRIMM is pretty good, NBC should keep it especially as they need good
solid shows with devoted followings to build their viewing.

ONCE UPON A TIME isn't too horrible and has had some good actors
brought in. Wouldn't mind seeing it stick around too.

People ask why Genre shows don't stick around, well some don't and a
lot of them hurt. V, Human Taget (To A Certain Extent) Invasion, the
one CBS did a few years back with Brent Spiner, etc.

However, plenty stick around. Galactica Redux stuck around. Fringe is
going strong. Lost scored massive ratings. We tend to remember ones
that didn't go as far as we'd like, but there are ones that have
staying power on the schedules too.

David

Heck, if we can go back to the 1990s.... TNG, DS9, The X-Files,
Bablyon 5, Space Above And Beyond, I could go on....

[Neill Massello]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Terra Nova hasn't started down here in New Zealand yet (it starts next
> weekend), so I haven't seen it yet, but my guess would be the usual
> paradox of time travel - killing something / someone in the past would
> have unknown consequences in the future. Killing a T-Rex could mean that
> it doesn't eat the prey it was going to catch tomorrow, which could
> eventually lead to someone worse and more "succssful" than Hitler being
> born millennia later.

The time travel element is irrelevant, or at best a mere tease, in the
first season, which could just as easily have been set on some distant
planet that only received intermittent communication and supplies from
the home world.

> Having said that and linked, the more important question (in terms of
> "realistic believability") with Terra Nova is why the human race that has
> basically destroyed Earth decides it's actually a good idea to travel back
> in time and start destroying it from an even earlier time. :-\

This indicates that you are not part of the target audience for Terra
Nova. To enjoy this show, you'll need to turn off much of your brain.

[erilar]

In article <jhp42q$quk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

I watched and enjoyed b/w TV for many years after the introduction of
color 8-)

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[anim8rfsk]

They explicitly explain in the pilot that they are NOT in their own past
but in an alternate timeline (no, the explanation makes no sense) so
there's not a damn reason not to do anything they please.

>
> Having said that and linked, the more important question (in terms of
> "realistic believability") with Terra Nova is why the human race that has
> basically destroyed Earth decides it's actually a good idea to travel back
> in time and start destroying it from an even earlier time. :-\

[anim8rfsk]

I'll be in my bunk.

[anim8rfsk]

Cloddreamer too!

[voldemort]

On 18/02/2012 1:55 PM, erilar wrote:
> Nor do I. If I see a simple question that might just come from an
> unobservant person that only needs a simple answer, I give it. I don't
> research the questioner's entire life and posting history.

How, exactly, does the *network's* refusal to either behave predictably
or at least warn/explain in advance weird scheduling changes make *me*
unobservant???

[Heike Svensson]

On 18/02/2012 3:21 PM, Stephen Newport wrote:
> I'd be thrilled if GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME were really going away.

dickhead

[voldemort]

On 18/02/2012 6:14 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
> People ask why Genre shows don't stick around, well some don't and a
> lot of them hurt. V, Human Taget (To A Certain Extent) Invasion, the
> one CBS did a few years back with Brent Spiner, etc.

Human Target wasn't sci-fi. It was basically a remake of Fall Guy with
maybe a dash of McGyver thrown in. IOW, straight action.

> However, plenty stick around. Galactica Redux stuck around.

Cable. And some don't think it was that great.

> Fringe is going strong.

In what universe? It's been renewed three times so far, yes, but it's
barely squeaked in with a D+ in Ratings all three times. It's sheer luck
that's kept it going, as near as I can tell.

> Lost scored massive ratings.

And then disappointed with the finale. And had stronger character/soap
elements and weaker SF elements than typical.

> We tend to remember ones that didn't go as far as we'd like, but
> there are ones that have staying power on the schedules too.

You mean, there *were*.

> Heck, if we can go back to the 1990s.... TNG, DS9, The X-Files,
> Bablyon 5, Space Above And Beyond, I could go on....

Those were the golden years, yes.

What we really need is either a decent new Star Trek series or a decent
new Stargate series, or even both, combined with Fringe miraculously
surviving for several more years as an X-Files spiritual successor.

I suggest rebooting Stargate. Have a time travel incident or, to avoid
copying Trek2k9 too closely, have someone blunder through the quantum
mirror to a universe where nobody's dug up the gate yet, leak
information about the gate, and then die off or get put on a bus. It can
be an SG-1 or SGA alumnus guest-star in the pilot, or just some nobody;
whatever works.

Then a whole new SGC gets put together with a whole new team. Because
it's another universe, they can change pretty much whatever they like.
New bad guys, new planets, and other new thingies.

Just DO IT IN THE STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL, with a moderate amount of humor
and optimism and NOT the gloomy style of BSG/SGU. We now know that that
doesn't work all that well with Gaters.

[Angela Trachten]

On Feb 18, 2:00 pm, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article

> <7d7b0d8d-7a33-4806-8c42-3601c3de0...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  jack <j...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > Terra
> > Nova: we were led to believe it would be some sort of time-travel
> > adventure show with dinosaurs, and it turns into Swiss Family Robinson
> > with time-traveling pirates and not enough dinosaurs and some
> > belaboring ecological message that never made quite enough sense:  how
> > could that one portal ever supply enough goods to 22nd-century Earth
> > to make any difference?
>
> That's exactly why I gave up on it right away.  If they had been living
> in quarters they constructed themselves from materials present there in
> the past(wood, stone, etc.) instead of moving into modern houses with
> all the modern conveniences, and dealing with life based on what could
> have been sent back through that one portal, I might have watched more.

Then you should probably watch the second season, because they cut
themselves off from resupply and will run out of those modern
conveniences and need to learn to live more fully off the land.

Oh, but it didn't even get its back nine for the first season, so I
guess the major networks have disappointed SF fans once again. :P

[Nurble]

On Feb 18 2012 2:16 PM, Jim G. wrote:

> EGK sent the following on 2/17/2012 9:14 PM:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:38:14 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"<a...@chinet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> voldemort<vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
> >>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
> >>> February sweeps. . . .
> >>
> >> Damn, seamus, you're really putting effort into this. Nice chart!
> >
> > I bet he masturbates furiously every time he gets someone to reply to one
of
> > his new nyms. It's actually pretty sad to imagine what a lonely life this
> > guy has to be doing what he does.
>
> No kidding. And after yesterday's manic activities, in particular, I'm
> guessing that he's due to have his meds adjusted.

Have you considered that maybe he has a legitimate grievance about his TV
shows unexpectedly not being on for no good reason?

That his "manic activities" yesterday were because not one, but *two*
shows he watches were missing without warning, *and* it was the middle of
a sweeps month when they shouldn't even be in reruns but have new episodes
every week?

I don't know why you guys hate it more when someone asks where their shows
have gone than when the networks yank *your* shows at random times without
good reason, but it doesn't make very much sense to me. If I were you I'd
be agreeing with him and trying to get some sort of viral grassroots
petition going to tell the networks we want more scheduling predictability.

I see complaints about scheduling changes from other people from time to
time -- recently, erilar, tdciago, and one or two others -- and they don't
get met with ridiculous tirades, name-calling, and other nonsense. But
even they don't get very much sympathy, either.

And there really is a deeper issue here. For example, Grimm's
disappearance was apparently prompted by NBC deciding to replace it with
some silly awards thing, which then flopped in the ratings. Why did they
do that? They alienated Grimm fans and probably fans of other shows they
rear-ended and they didn't *even* get a spike in ratings for the awards
thing.

I used to think they did this shit out of a combination of greed and
short-sightedness, killing the long-term viability of shows like Grimm for
a short-term ratings boost that ultimately doesn't do them as much good in
the long run; but things like this simply boggle the mind. Why would they
hurt Grimm fans and Grimm's prospects to air something that gets *worse*
ratings? It makes no business sense.

It's as if they're either actively evil or *really* stupid (since the same
thing got terrible ratings last year, apparently, they should have known
how much, or rather how little, to expect; besides, awards shows are
supposed to be aired on Sundays, both to avoid messing up the weeknight
prime time schedule and because that's when people look for such things).

And then there's CSI:NY being replaced mid-season not by a special of any
kind but by *a different, ordinary show*. What is the logic behind *that*
move? You draw up a schedule for a reason, retards at CBS! And that reason
is so viewers can predict what will be on when, and get into the habit of
tuning in at particular times, which in turn gives you the ratings and ad
revenues you crave as a network! You don't schedule two things so they
conflict, morons! And you don't yank veteran shows that draw a steady and
good audience for a roll of the dice with a new and untried show IN THE
MIDDLE OF SWEEPS!! You save the new show for next fall, or use it as your
nuclear option to replace a failing show -- A FAILING SHOW, not a
juggernaut like one of the CSIs!

Oh, and when a show has been running for several full seasons, you DO NOT
just yank it halfway through a season even if it has started doing badly.
You give veteran shows that you aren't renewing the decent burial of being
allowed to finish the current season and have a proper series finale as a
reward to the loyal fans that stuck with it all those years. Doing
anything else is like hoisting a giant middle finger to the show's fans,
producers, cast, AND crew.

I don't care HOW much more money you think you'll get if you ditch CSI:NY
right now for this other thing. a) It's extraordinarily *rude*, given
CSI:NY still pulls very good ratings AND is a veteran show, and b) you're
probably wrong wrong WRONG, that new thing is NEW which means it is
UNTRIED which means it could very well FLOP. Worse, you handicapped it by
a) starting it when no-one expects new shows to start (they'd have been
looking for new stuff in September and in January) and b) putting it where
no-one will look for it (nobody will tune in at that time except CSI:NY
fans, and they'll just turn off the set and hammer out angry Usenet posts
rather than go on to see any of the ads in your stupidly-scheduled new
show).

And the idea that this thing replacing CSI might flop is hardly "just
theoretical" or even unlikely. A few years ago they thought they had a
sure-fire hit in something called Beautiful People. They advertised it
with billboards featuring naked (though demurely posed) women. NAKED
WOMEN. And it was CANCELED WITHIN A FEW EPS FOR ABYSMAL RATINGS! It
happened again last year with Lone Star. "Sure-fire hit", and it was out
after a miserable TWO EPISODES.

Networks, you are BY NO MEANS infallible when you declare something a
"sure hit", and it follows that airing even "a sure hit" as a sudden
replacement for a decently performing show like CSI:NY is A BIG FUCKING
GAMBLE, and also A STUPID FUCKING GAMBLE given that the CSI was a solid
performer that would have dependably raked in the advertising bucks for
you for at least the rest of this season.

So CBS, in particular, either you are REALLY FUCKING STUPID or you are
being ACTIVELY EVIL. Which is it? And why? Not that it matters, because
there's no excuse for either. There's *never* an excuse for active malice.
And whereas individual people that are stupid can't help it, CORPORATIONS
that are stupid CAN, because they or the shareholders can fire the stupid
people and hire smart people!

CBS, you have no excuse whatsoever for your STUPID behavior. And neither
do you, NBC. But all of the networks show equal tendencies towards
stupidity (if not outright malice towards viewers, advertisers,
show-producers, or all three). And I, too, have got to wonder two things:

Why?

and

What can we, the viewers and the eyeballs they're in the business of
renting to advertisers, DO about their stupidity (or malice)?

---- 

[Michael Black]

I never saw color tv at home until 1980. Since I can barely remember The
Beatles on Ed Sullivan, that's at least 16 years of black and white.

Since I never knew color until I go it, it wasn't strange for everything
to be in black and white.

But once I made the change, it can look odd, at least it would for things
I know were in color originally.

But they were talking about mandated black and white, in the here and now,
not those of us who didn't rush to color way back when.

Michael

[Adam H. Kerman]

Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Mark G. Habermann" wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:26:21 -0330, cloud dreamer wrote:

>>It takes all of two seconds to check the source. The subject matter
>>should direct you to check that first. Not all his posts are constructed
>>the same way, but you get the "wtf" moment with most of them.

>I don't find that. Just because you can't understand most of someone's
>posts doesn't mean they're not making sense. If it happens to you a lot
>it may mean you're just a bit duller than average instead.

>>In doubt, don't respond at all. Simple.

>Terrible advice.

>=================================

>I don't understand.

"Mark G. Habermann" is yet another seamus sock.

[90Th]

On 19/02/2012 12:06 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
41030> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv

41030> "Mark G. Habermann" is yet another seamus sock.

Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.

[Mark G. Habermann]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 05:06:16 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I don't understand.
>
> "Mark G. Habermann" is yet another seamus sock.

What the fuck you been smoking?

[erilar]

In article <jhpqoo$cnk$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

voldemort <vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote:

> I suggest rebooting Stargate. Have a time travel incident or, to avoid
> copying Trek2k9 too closely, have someone blunder through the quantum
> mirror to a universe where nobody's dug up the gate yet, leak
> information about the gate, and then die off or get put on a bus. It can
> be an SG-1 or SGA alumnus guest-star in the pilot, or just some nobody;
> whatever works.
>
> Then a whole new SGC gets put together with a whole new team. Because
> it's another universe, they can change pretty much whatever they like.
> New bad guys, new planets, and other new thingies.

This is far too brilliant a suggestion for any network to adopt,
unfortunately.

>
> Just DO IT IN THE STYLE OF THE ORIGINAL, with a moderate amount of humor
> and optimism and NOT the gloomy style of BSG/SGU. We now know that that
> doesn't work all that well with Gaters.

SGU was not a Stargate show, just a skewed offshoot conception full of
losers both in the cast and writing staff.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <jhpq94$9r2$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

What an appropriate signature!

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <jhpq89$9r2$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Check the online TV Guide page.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jhoqv9$4or$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

> cloud dreamer wrote:
> > On 18/02/2012 11:05 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> >> cloud dreamer wrote:
> >>> On 18/02/2012 1:42 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> >>>> cloud dreamer wrote:
> >>>>> On 17/02/2012 11:01 PM, suzeeq wrote:

> >>>>>> voldemort wrote:
> >>>>>>> And another one bites the dust: Grimm, yanked from NBC's schedule
> >>>>>>> unceremoniously and without fanfare right smack in the middle of
> >>>>>>> February sweeps.

> >>>>>> Hasn't been 'yanked' there's a special on tonight - you'll notice
> >>>>>> Who Do
> >>>>>> you think you are isn't on either. To make room for the awards show.
> >>>>>> It's back next week.
> >>>>> And you called me thick?????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you keep answering Seamus as if the question is legitimate????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sheesh.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I didn't think this one was Seamus.
> >>>
> >>> And the guys all trash me for telling people BEFORE they start to
> >>> answer the guy???? Notice that once I brought it up....no one else
> >>> replied to him.
> >>>
> >>> In fact, he's replying to himself in this thread.
> >>>
> >>> Here's a hint: if it's a complaint about a show not being on AND from
> >>> a name you haven't seen before, it's 95% chance it's him.
> >> Exactly, voldemort's posted before. He's apparently recycling nyms now
> >> instead of coming up with a new one for every 'where is' thread.
> >
> > My newsreader goes back a year. There's only one post by voldemort in
> > all that time.
>
> I've seen it in the last month or two. Perhaps you've got posts
> killfiled by newsserver.

I've seen LOTS of posts by voldemort; maybe Cloddreamer can only count
to 1?

>
> > The point is that it's not an easily recognizable nick. It's not W/Q or
> > Dano or David etc.
>
> Yeah, but I recognized it.

[suzeeq]

Or her filter is set too strictly... I've seen quite a few posts from him.

[voldemort]

And how does the TV guide help me? All it does is what it did do: tell
me that Grimm was gone. Nothing about why.

[Heike Svensson]

On 19/02/2012 1:39 PM, erilar wrote:

> In article<jhpq94$9r2$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Heike Svensson<hsvensson...@hotmail.nospam.please.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/02/2012 3:21 PM, Stephen Newport wrote:
>>> I'd be thrilled if GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME were really going away.
>>
>> dickhead
>
> What an appropriate signature!

For Newport.

[suzeeq]

You could see that something else was in its place and look up next week
to see that it's back. That tells you a lot right there.

[voldemort]

Well, *obviously* something else was in its place. They don't tend to
air test patterns some hours anymore, after all, let alone just switch
off the transmitter.

> and look up next week to see that it's back.

Newspaper primetime grid is only for the same night. The guide channel
is only for the same night. The interactive guide provided by my cable
service goes about 40 hours ahead (why not a round 48? Who knows?).

If you're suggesting I open my wallet for a magazine subscription or
something, please tell me you're joking.

And even then, what none of that is likely to do is *tell me why*!

For that matter, what if something went missing for more than one week
in a row? In the past, that was a sure sign of cancellation but these
days who knows? The networks do all kinds of random reshufflings, drop
shows for a month or more and then reinstate them suddenly, and other
stuff like that with no apparent rhyme or reason.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Then consult the Compendium of Psychiatric Disorders.

[voldemort]

I doubt it's useful to diagnose NBC with a psychiatric condition.
Satisfying, perhaps, but probably not very useful.

FWIW, they probably have, at the very least, something that all large
corporations seem to have: sociopathic personality disorder. Amoral and
incapable of empathy. Mixed with some schizophrenia stemming from being
run by a committee, in most cases.

Still not enough to explain why they'd yank a show to air something that
can easily have been predicted to do *worse* in ratings, though. That's
not even something long-term stupid that gives them a short-term gain;
it's just plain stupid, assuming their main goal is to make money as is
supposedly the case.

[Ken from Chicago]

90 percent of ALL shows are never renewed for a second season.

You notice the genre shows more because you are interested in genre shows.
It's like when you get a green car and then start noticing green cars more.
It's not that there are more green cars, it's just you now have a particular
interest in green cars since whenever you're getting ready to leave you're
looking for your green car.

-- Ken from Chicago

[voldemort]

You're forgetting something important: there are only three of them now
airing on network TV, and two of those are freshmen AND more fantasy
than science fiction. None is a five-year-plus-old veteran, and we
haven't had a single one of those since Lost concluded.

Meanwhile, in ALL other genres there are half a dozen or more currently
airing and several long-lived veteran shows. For example, in the crime
show category we have at least two *very* long-lived (> 10 years old)
ones still airing in L&O:SVU and CSI, plus several more between five and
ten years old such as CSI:Miami and NCIS.

Even if, as you claim, the failure rate for freshman shows isn't much
different between the genres, it's clear that the failure rate before
age 5 is higher by far for sf/f shows AND that fewer of these get picked
up to series to begin with.

[Ken from Chicago]

"voldemort" <vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote in message
news:jhtgv2$876$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

It's just numbers. When the vast majority of PNB tv dramas are of the holy
trinity, cop / doc / law shows, very few are genre. Thus it's easier to
notice when they fail--even tho the vast majority of failed shows are cop,
doc or law shows. Then there's the failed sitcoms and soaps.

The reason why so many dramas are cop, doc or law shows is because they have
such a history of commercial success, Hollywood keeps pumping out more and
more of them even when 90% of the new ones fail commercially in season one.

Ironically, the phenomenally massive commercial success of LOST and HEROES
has spawned more PNB genre shows. That's why a few genre shows keep being
made, not just for cable. There had been a trickle of genre shows before,
QUANTUM LEAP, KNIGHT RIDER, etc.

Btw, genre sitcoms have found far greater chances of commercial success,
ALF, THIRD ROCK FROM THE SUN, SMALL WONDER, etc.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. PNB tv = Primetime Networked Broadcast tv (as opposed to cable).

[voldemort]

On 20/02/2012 9:19 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "voldemort" <vold...@hogwarts.ie> wrote in message
> news:jhtgv2$876$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> Even if, as you claim, the failure rate for freshman shows isn't much
>> different between the genres, it's clear that the failure rate before
>> age 5 is higher by far for sf/f shows AND that fewer of these get
>> picked up to series to begin with.
>
> It's just numbers.

I don't think so. How often do you start watching a cop show or a
medical show and then it shuts down within a season or two? Versus a
genre show?

And then there's the way the networks have a special tendency to jerk
genre shows around. When was the last time Law and Order vanished in
mid-winter for several weeks in a row without so much as a rerun? Seems
to happen to Fringe every damn year. When was the last time they fucked
up a House, CSI, or 24 story arc by airing episodes in shuffled order?
They did that to Firefly. Infamously.

[suzeeq]

There's plenty of free online guides - zap2it, titantv and so on. They
show schedules for 2 weeks out.

> And even then, what none of that is likely to do is *tell me why*!

Again, it's obvious why - they put a special show in it's place.

[Stephen Newport]

From: dra...@chibardun.net.invalid (erilar) I watched and enjoyed b/w TV

for many years after the introduction of color

--------------------------------------
SN: Only shallow and artistically challenged people object to black and
white.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Stephen Newport]

I'd be thrilled if GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME were really going away.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Stephen Newport]

From: mason...@gmail.com (Mason Barge) great theme songs.
--------------------------------
SN: GREEN ACRES was my favorite.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Stephen Newport]

From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)
black&white
-------------------------------
SN: You're not going to start in again with your "black and white acting
style?"

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Stephen Newport]

I'd be thrilled if GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME were really going away.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Stephen Newport]

From: et...@ncf.ca (Michael Black)

they were talking about mandated black and white

-------------------------------
SN: Which no one mandated. And the they was Obveeus.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Stephen Newport]

I'd be thrilled if GRIMM and ONCE UPON A TIME were really going away.

http://community.webtv.net/NewportsRetro/SteveRhondasPetPics

[Jim G.]

suzeeq sent the following on 2/20/2012 9:03 AM:

> voldemort wrote:
>
> Again, it's obvious why - they put a special show in it's place.

Why are you still allowing yourself to be played like this? Especially
now that you know whom you're dealing with? I've had to add (at last
count) 19 new Seamus 'nyms to my killfile in the past two days alone
because people like you and Margolin continue to engage him and give him
reason to exist and propagate himself. *WHY*, for crying out loud?

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
NoCLoDS Founding Member (No Cop, Lawyer or Doctor Shows)

[trotsky]

On 2/20/12 10:34 AM, Stephen Newport wrote:
> From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)
> black&white
> -------------------------------
> SN: You're not going to start in again with your "black and white acting
> style?"

What is that?