FOX says don't expect fall schedule
David
FOX: Don't Expect Fall Schedule on May 20
By Brian Ford Sullivan
CHICAGO (thefutoncritic.com) -- "There is no such thing as a fall
schedule from FOX any longer," the network's entertainment president,
Gail Berman, said this week. "The new season will start in June. It
will all be laid out in a plan for them at upfront [on May 20]."
The news was delivered during FOX's pre-upfront meeting with the
advertising community on Wednesday in which Berman indicated that
instead of a traditional September start, FOX will begin the 2004-05
season in June followed by a second wave of launches in November when
its coverage of the World Series concludes. The moves are part of what
FOX says is a transition to a year-round schedule.
The announcement comes as little surprise as FOX had been moving in
said direction for the past seven months with such moves as launching
scripted dramas like "The O.C." during the summer and ordering several
pilots well in advance of the traditional spring development season.
As for schedule specifics, here's a breakdown of the developments
mentioned:
-- "Cracking Up," which has emerged as the weak link in the network's
new Monday schedule, will be pulled after its April 5 broadcast with
the remaining episodes turning up this summer.
-- Only one series has been given a firm summer start date: the Mark
Burnett-produced reality series "The Casino" will air Tuesdays at
8:00/7:00c beginning June 8.
-- Drama pilots "Ricochet," "Hollywood Division" and "One Big Happy"
(now titled "The Deerings") and comedy pilots "Lucky Us," "The Quints"
and "Related by Family" were all mentioned by name as being likely
targets for a summer start. The network plans to launch at least two
new comedies and two new dramas this summer.
-- The network also confirmed its series orders for dramas "The Jury"
(six episodes) and "The North Shore" (13 episodes) as well as the
comedy "Method & Red," however it's still unclear if any or all of
them will start this summer.
-- Almost 30 hours of programming left over from the 2003-04 season
will be available to fill the network's summer slate, including
shelved series "Still Life" (seven episodes) and "The Ortegas" (six
episodes) as well as unaired episodes of "Boston Public" (two
episodes), "Cedric the Entertainer Presents" (six episodes), "Oliver
Beene" (10 episodes), "Wonderfalls" and the aforementioned "Cracking
Up."
-- "Forever Eden," which has a 25-episode order, will undoubtedly
spill over into the summer months.
-- And finally to review, "King of the Hill," "The Simpsons" and "That
'70s Show" are the only series to have been given official pick-ups
for the 2004-05 season, although "American Idol," "The Bernie Mac
Show," "24" and "The O.C." are considered shoe-ins to return.
Farrell8882
>"There is no such thing as a fall
>schedule from FOX any longer," the network's entertainment president,
>Gail Berman, said this week.
>-- Almost 30 hours of programming left over from the 2003-04 season
>will be available to fill the network's summer slate, including unaired
episodes of "Boston Public" (two
>episodes)
I wonder how BP would do if it were a summer series.
pezneeo
>
> -- Almost 30 hours of programming left over from the 2003-04 season
> will be available to fill the network's summer slate, including
> shelved series "Still Life" (seven episodes) and "The Ortegas" (six
> episodes) as well as unaired episodes of "Boston Public" (two
> episodes), "Cedric the Entertainer Presents" (six episodes), "Oliver
> Beene" (10 episodes), "Wonderfalls" and the aforementioned "Cracking
> Up."
>
Wonderfalls is shelved? Does this mean on hiatus or cancelled?
David
It hasn't been shelved. I think it means FOX has 13 episodes, which
should last them into late-May/June. They may also decide not to air
it during May sweeps.
Tony Calguire
>
> CHICAGO (thefutoncritic.com) -- "There is no such thing as a fall
> schedule from FOX any longer," the network's entertainment president,
> Gail Berman, said this week. "The new season will start in June. It
> will all be laid out in a plan for them at upfront [on May 20]."
>
Yeah, right. We believed them when they said this ten years ago... why
should we believe them now? They're forgetting that viewers have
certain expectations about premieres-- fall is when the *real* shows
premier, January is when the iffy shows premiere, and anything debuting
in June, July, or August is an unsold pilot being burned off.
> -- And finally to review, "King of the Hill," "The Simpsons" and "That
> '70s Show" are the only series to have been given official pick-ups
> for the 2004-05 season, although "American Idol," "The Bernie Mac
> Show," "24" and "The O.C." are considered shoe-ins to return.
Where the hell is "Malcolm"?
Uniblab
news:406523...@tcfreenet.org...
> David wrote:
> >
> > -- And finally to review, "King of the Hill," "The Simpsons" and "That
> > '70s Show" are the only series to have been given official pick-ups
> > for the 2004-05 season, although "American Idol," "The Bernie Mac
> > Show," "24" and "The O.C." are considered shoe-ins to return.
>
> Where the hell is "Malcolm"?
It's not a shoo-in. The ratings have been down over the past couple of
seasons, and the kids are getting older, so the show is suffering
creatively. It'll probably get another year, though, because the rest of
Fox's schedule is pretty much a mess.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
jayembee
Did you notice the "as well as unaired episodes of" between
the "shelved series" part and the "Wonderfalls" part?
I assume it means that WONDERFALLS will still be airing
well into the summer. It'll probably be taken off the
schedule during May sweeps, if it isn't officially cancelled
for poor ratings by then.
-- jayembee
Maureen Goldman
>>Wonderfalls is shelved? Does this mean on hiatus or cancelled?
>It hasn't been shelved. I think it means FOX has 13 episodes, which
>should last them into late-May/June. They may also decide not to air
>it during May sweeps.
A Wonderfalls episode is scheduled for April 1st (honest), with Eden
being put into the Friday 9pm slot. I don't know if the change is
permanent, but Wonderfalls seems better paired with Tru Calling, and
this would put the two reality shows together.
David
Zap2it says it's for one week only.
SoHillsGuy
<< Zap2it says it's for one week only.
>><BR><BR>
Makes you wonder why they advertised it last night as their "new night," as
opposed to a "special night."
Harv
> "Tony Calguire" <calg...@tcfreenet.org> wrote in message
> news:406523...@tcfreenet.org...
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > -- And finally to review, "King of the Hill," "The Simpsons" and "That
> > > '70s Show" are the only series to have been given official pick-ups
> > > for the 2004-05 season, although "American Idol," "The Bernie Mac
> > > Show," "24" and "The O.C." are considered shoe-ins to return.
> >
> > Where the hell is "Malcolm"?
>
> It's not a shoo-in. The ratings have been down over the past couple of
> seasons, and the kids are getting older, so the show is suffering
> creatively. It'll probably get another year, though, because the rest of
> Fox's schedule is pretty much a mess.
>
>
>
It should be "FOX says don't expect anything good on the schedule".
Except for just a couple of shows , about 90% of their lineup
stinks.After they cancelled Firefly and John Doe(which the ended the
season on a big cliffhanger and then cancelled it)I've come to despise
FOX.They should put 24 on FX as so it won't be tainted by the other
crap on FOX. Their new slogan should be "If it sucks then it must be
FOX". Every time I hear a commerical on cable about some totally
stupid reality show,I know its going to end with the words"only on
FOX".
David
>"Uniblab" <uni...@uniblab.net> wrote in message news:<4065e...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
>> "Tony Calguire" <calg...@tcfreenet.org> wrote in message
>> news:406523...@tcfreenet.org...
>> > David wrote:
>> > >
>> > > -- And finally to review, "King of the Hill," "The Simpsons" and "That
>> > > '70s Show" are the only series to have been given official pick-ups
>> > > for the 2004-05 season, although "American Idol," "The Bernie Mac
>> > > Show," "24" and "The O.C." are considered shoe-ins to return.
>> >
>> > Where the hell is "Malcolm"?
>>
>> It's not a shoo-in. The ratings have been down over the past couple of
>> seasons, and the kids are getting older, so the show is suffering
>> creatively. It'll probably get another year, though, because the rest of
>> Fox's schedule is pretty much a mess.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>It should be "FOX says don't expect anything good on the schedule".
>Except for just a couple of shows , about 90% of their lineup
>stinks.After they cancelled Firefly and John Doe(which the ended the
>season on a big cliffhanger and then cancelled it)
That's the producers' fault for creating a cliffhanger when the show
had little chance of being renewed.
alon
And how about Arrested Development? I'm going to be beyond pissed if
they don't bring it back.
PkJ0891
(David) writes:
Isn't that a bit unrealistic? Given the lead time on writing and producing
episodes, not to mention the usual long-drawn-out death watch of network
programmers, I can't see blaming producers for aborted cliffhangers.
It seems to me like you're saying that any producer involved with a new show
that has any semblance of an arc should automatically write a predetermined end
to the series, just in case it get prematurely canceled . . . in, what, 6 or 8
or 13 episodes? Jeez, who knows in advance how quickly a net will zap a series
for poor ratings. How the heck would the producers know when to wrap up an arc
or the arcs?
PKJ
Invid Fan
<pkj...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <40664a5b....@news.individual.net>, diml...@yahoo.com
> (David) writes:
>
> >That's the producers' fault for creating a cliffhanger when the show
> >had little chance of being renewed.
>
> Isn't that a bit unrealistic? Given the lead time on writing and producing
> episodes, not to mention the usual long-drawn-out death watch of network
> programmers, I can't see blaming producers for aborted cliffhangers.
>
Dramas are probably different then sitcoms, naturally, but I seem to
recall producers being given notice mid-season that their sitcom was
being canceled and given the chance to write an ending.
> It seems to me like you're saying that any producer involved with a new show
> that has any semblance of an arc should automatically write a predetermined
> end
> to the series, just in case it get prematurely canceled . . . in, what, 6 or 8
> or 13 episodes? Jeez, who knows in advance how quickly a net will zap a
> series
> for poor ratings. How the heck would the producers know when to wrap up an arc
> or the arcs?
>
Given how short many shows runs are now, it should be taken into
consideration. Especially now that what episodes that are produced may
find a second life on dvd. If your show is given a 13 episode order
with an option on another 9, write it so that one arc comes to a
semi-ending after 13 episodes and again after 22. Set up the second
season, naturally, but make it so things hold together if there isn't
one.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
David
>>That's the producers' fault for creating a cliffhanger when the show
>>had little chance of being renewed.
>
>Isn't that a bit unrealistic? Given the lead time on writing and producing
>episodes, not to mention the usual long-drawn-out death watch of network
>programmers, I can't see blaming producers for aborted cliffhangers.
The ratings were stagnant from the beginning so unless the producers
were in denial they should've erred on the side of "we're going to be
cancelled." And even if there was a very slight chance that FOX would
renew them it still wasn't enough to risk disappointing the few loyal
fans who were good enough to stick with the show for the whole year.
>It seems to me like you're saying that any producer involved with a new show
>that has any semblance of an arc should automatically write a predetermined end
>to the series, just in case it get prematurely canceled . . . in, what, 6 or 8
>or 13 episodes? Jeez, who knows in advance how quickly a net will zap a series
>for poor ratings. How the heck would the producers know when to wrap up an arc
>or the arcs?
I'd be more understanding if the show got suddenly aborted off the
schedule after 13 episodes but here they had a full 22 episodes to
work with. And it's possible to do a final episode without it being
"final," by having a satisfying conclusion but still leaving the door
open for another season.
Ian J. Ball
diml...@yahoo.com (David) wrote:
> from the futon critic
>
> FOX: Don't Expect Fall Schedule on May 20
> By Brian Ford Sullivan
> [snip]
It's good to see that FOX's kamakaze trend is continuing...
--
Ian J. Ball | No good TV quotes lately... [shrug]
TV lover, and |
Usenet slacker |
ijball@macDOTcom | http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV.html
Ian J. Ball
diml...@yahoo.com (David) wrote:
Not necessarily - I've read at least one artice (and I think it was
about a WBN show) where the producers said they wanted to wrap
everything up at the end of the season, but the network goons insisted
upon ending with a cliffhanger instead. (It may have been about
"Everwood" actually...)
Anyway, I think the rash of cliffhangers on 'one season wonder' shows
may in many cases be another example of network goon tomfoolery...
David
<ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <40664a5b....@news.individual.net>,
> diml...@yahoo.com (David) wrote:
>
>> On 27 Mar 2004 19:14:20 -0800, harv...@hotmail.com (Harv) wrote:
>> >
>> >It should be "FOX says don't expect anything good on the schedule".
>> >Except for just a couple of shows , about 90% of their lineup
>> >stinks.After they cancelled Firefly and John Doe(which the ended the
>> >season on a big cliffhanger and then cancelled it)
>>
>> That's the producers' fault for creating a cliffhanger when the show
>> had little chance of being renewed.
>
>Not necessarily - I've read at least one artice (and I think it was
>about a WBN show) where the producers said they wanted to wrap
>everything up at the end of the season, but the network goons insisted
>upon ending with a cliffhanger instead. (It may have been about
>"Everwood" actually...)
Yeah but doesn't the WB know better than anyone whether "Everwood"
will get renewed?
>Anyway, I think the rash of cliffhangers on 'one season wonder' shows
>may in many cases be another example of network goon tomfoolery...
Sure why stop the trend of blaming the networks for everything now...
PkJ0891
writes:
I'm confused. Which show had a 22 ep order? AFAIK, it wasn't either John Doe
or Firefly.
At any rate, in general, I was referring to shows with the full 22 order, that
were genuinely on the bubble, and got the axe after May Sweeps. I'm probably
stuck in a time warp, because three that immediately came to mind when reading
your comments were MS-CL, Nowhere Man, and Alien Nation. I'll try to strain my
brain to think of more recent examples. There might not be any, though, since
the nets have increasingly ordered a limited amount of eps.
The recent examples of what you suggest are DLM and Wonderfalls. But, what
happens if FOX pulls Wonderfalls in, say, two weeks, and never airs the
wrap-up? What if FOX had pulled 24 after two months? This is why I think the
ultimate responsibility falls on the nets. In principle, you might be correct,
but in practice, I think you're asking writers and producers to construct a
show with the assumption that it will fail, and without having perfect
knowledge of when a net's patience will run out and how many eps that are
written and filmed will air.
PKJ
David
"John Doe" must've had a 22-episode order since it aired until the end
of the season. Epguides lists 21 episodes but that's close enough.
>The recent examples of what you suggest are DLM and Wonderfalls. But, what
>happens if FOX pulls Wonderfalls in, say, two weeks, and never airs the
>wrap-up?
I wasn't referring to shows that get suddenly pulled but those that
get to air whatever is their order, whether it's 13 or 17 or 22
episodes. Obviously if FOX orders 13 episodes of "Wonderfalls" but
suddenly pulls the show after week 4 there's nothing anyone can do but
if the producers get to do the whole 13 episodes, and the ratings
picture remains as is, then episode 13 should be written in such a way
as to provide some closure.
>What if FOX had pulled 24 after two months?
Actually "24" did do a wrap-up episode in case FOX never extended the
original order. Episode 13 ended with satisfying closure, with Jack
rescuing Kim and Teri, but still provided an opening for there being
more episodes, which was the perfect way to do it.
>This is why I think the
>ultimate responsibility falls on the nets. In principle, you might be correct,
>but in practice, I think you're asking writers and producers to construct a
>show with the assumption that it will fail, and without having perfect
>knowledge of when a net's patience will run out and how many eps that are
>written and filmed will air.
I'm not saying they should assume that every episode will be their
last, just that if they're given a certain number of episodes then
they should do the right thing for their loyal fans and work towards
having a satisfactory ending. It isn't that hard to provide some sort
of closure while at the same time allowing for the possibility of
there being more episodes.
Tony Calguire
>
> Not necessarily - I've read at least one artice (and I think it was
> about a WBN show) where the producers said they wanted to wrap
> everything up at the end of the season, but the network goons insisted
> upon ending with a cliffhanger instead. (It may have been about
> "Everwood" actually...)
>
Yes, that's correct... the WB execs wanted Colin's death to be a
cliffhanger.
E Brown
>Yeah but doesn't the WB know better than anyone whether "Everwood"
>will get renewed?
>
>>Anyway, I think the rash of cliffhangers on 'one season wonder' shows
>>may in many cases be another example of network goon tomfoolery...
>
>Sure why stop the trend of blaming the networks for everything now...
The one I remember was "John Doe." As a Friday night FOX show it
never had a real chance and the producers knew it, but FOX told them
to continue the storyline rather than wrap things up.
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911
1983 Porsche 944
PkJ0891
writes:
>"John Doe" must've had a 22-episode order since it aired until the end
>of the season. Epguides lists 21 episodes but that's close enough.
I just looked up John Doe at Variety. It must've had a limited order of 13
initially, because it was given a back nine order in November, 2002, based on
the ratings. (According to Variety, "John Doe averaged a 3.1/10 among adults
18-49 in its six airings and last week led its Friday-at-9-hour in all male
demos".)
At least with John Doe, fans should be angry with FOX, not the producers,
especially if it's true that FOX insisted on a cliffhanger ending, not a
resolution. What is it with FOX? People talk about how badly run the SciFi
Channel is, but FOX has to be thisclose to a tie for first with SciFi.
Not that I was crazy about Dark Angel, but FOX did the same thing with it,
leading producers to think it would be renewed for a third season and then
cancelling it.
>>What if FOX had pulled 24 after two months?
>
>Actually "24" did do a wrap-up episode in case FOX never extended the
>original order. Episode 13 ended with satisfying closure, with Jack
>rescuing Kim and Teri, but still provided an opening for there being
>more episodes, which was the perfect way to do it.
I'll have to rent the DVD. I really liked 24 in its first season, and I don't
remember an episode that I thought could've served as a decent finale in case
of early cancellation.
>>This is why I think the
>>ultimate responsibility falls on the nets. In principle, you might be
>correct,
>>but in practice, I think you're asking writers and producers to construct a
>>show with the assumption that it will fail, and without having perfect
>>knowledge of when a net's patience will run out and how many eps that are
>>written and filmed will air.
>
>I'm not saying they should assume that every episode will be their
>last, just that if they're given a certain number of episodes then
>they should do the right thing for their loyal fans and work towards
>having a satisfactory ending. It isn't that hard to provide some sort
>of closure while at the same time allowing for the possibility of
>there being more episodes.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, asking writers to create a
show with a built-in early resolution, one that sort of second-guesses whether
a net will order more episodes or renew for the following season, is pretty
much like sticking a fork in their creative concept.
PKJ
David
>In article <4067bef6...@news.individual.net>, diml...@yahoo.com (David)
>writes:
>
>>"John Doe" must've had a 22-episode order since it aired until the end
>>of the season. Epguides lists 21 episodes but that's close enough.
>
>I just looked up John Doe at Variety. It must've had a limited order of 13
>initially, because it was given a back nine order in November, 2002, based on
>the ratings. (According to Variety, "John Doe averaged a 3.1/10 among adults
>18-49 in its six airings and last week led its Friday-at-9-hour in all male
>demos".)
>
>At least with John Doe, fans should be angry with FOX, not the producers,
>especially if it's true that FOX insisted on a cliffhanger ending, not a
>resolution.
That still shouldn't have precluded the producers from providing some
sort of closure. In fact that should be requisite of all shows when
the season ends no matter what the likelihood is of there being
another season. Piling on cliffhanger after cliffhanger without even a
minimal resolution is almost a sign that they don't know what they're
doing or where the story's heading and that at the end they're likely
to end up like the last seasons of "The X-Files," with a big insult to
the loyal fans.
Alex Wai
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4068bf5c...@news.individual.net...
Does this apply to Alias?
David
wrote:
I wouldn't consider "Alias" the same type of show since on the whole
it isn't one continuous search for answers like "John Doe" or "The
X-Files" but more of a homage to old cliffhanger serials, plus it
redefines itself so often that the stories don't get stale. Although I
do think that it's time they provided some answers, like what the heck
the Rambaldi device is, since they've been collecting parts for 3
years (well 5 years their time).