View Full Version : Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info
Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Smash debut for 'Brothers and Sisters'
Season's best performance for a new show
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Sep 25, 2006, 11:45
With a strong debut for “Brothers & Sisters,” the troubled new drama that took the plum post-“Desperate Housewives” spot on Sunday night, ABC won its fourth night of the young season.
“Sisters” averaged a 6.2 in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights, becoming the highest-rated new show of the season. Though it did drop 18 percent, from a 6.8 to a 5.6, from its first to its second half hour, it still finished comfortably ahead of CBS’s relocated “Without a Trace” and NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” in the 10 p.m. timeslot.
That helped ABC to a 6.4 rating and 16 share for the evening, well ahead of second-place NBC’s 4.6. ABC also won Saturday and Thursday nights last week and tied for first on Tuesday.
“Sisters” lost 35 percent of lead-in “Housewives’” 9.5 rating. The show received somewhat cool reviews, praising its cast but complaining the pilot was too cluttered. The big test will be how much of that audience will return next Sunday.
“Housewives,” which received lots of buzz for its rumored creative revival this fall, was up 4 percent over last season’s 9.1 average, and it dominated its timeslot with 23.86 million total viewers, though that was down more than 4 million from last year’s second-season premiere.
CBS’s “Trace” averaged a 4.8 18-49 rating in its new 10 p.m. timeslot, down 16 percent from last season’s 5.7. But that came airing out of “CSI” on Thursdays. Comparatively, “Trace” more than doubled CBS’s opening-Sunday average in the timeslot last year for a movie about Martha Stewart.
And “Trace” did better “Sisters” among total viewers, 17.36 million to the latter’s 16.1 million.
Meanwhile, for the night, Fox took third among 18-49s with a 4.4/11, followed by CBS at 3.6/9, the CW at 1.1/3, and Univision at 0.9/2.
At 7 p.m., Fox’s NFL runover and “The OT” were first with a 4.5 average, followed by ABC at 3.4 for the first half of the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” premiere, NBC’s 2.5 for “Football Night in America,” CBS’s 2.4 for “60 Minutes,” CW’s 1.1 for “Everybody Hates Chris” repeats, and Univision at 0.9 for “Hora Pico.”
At 8 p.m., ABC moved into first with a 6.3 for “Home Edition.” NBC took over second with a 5.0 for the last 15 minutes of “America” and the start of “SNF’s” Denver-New England game. As a reminder, fast nationals measure timeslot data and not actual program data, and so they may change significantly when final ratings are issued tomorrow.
Fox took third at 8 with a 4.5 for “The Simpsons” (4.8) and “American Dad” (4.3), followed by CBS with a 3.5 for “Amazing Race,” CW with a 1.1 for an “America’s Next Top Model” repeat and Univision at 0.8 for the first hour of “Cantando por un Sueno.”
At 9 p.m., “Housewives” led at 9.5, followed by “SNF” at 5.7. Fox’s “Family Guy” (4.7) and “War at Home” (3.2) tied at a 4.0 with CBS’s “Cold Case” debut, followed by “Top Model” at 1.2 and “Cantando” at 1.0.
At 10 p.m., “Sisters” led with a 6.2, followed by “SNF” at 5.3, “Trace” at 4.8, and “Cantando” at 1.0.
Among households, ABC was tops with a 10.2/16, followed by CBS at 8.9/14, NBC at 7.9/12, Fox at 5.8/9, CW at 1.7/3, and Univision at 1.4/2.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_7504.asp
bphisig
09-25-06, 02:01 PM
Yikes! I wasn't exactly bowled over by Justice, but thought it deserved a little more time to develop than they are obviously willing to give it. Bit of a surprise for me. Do we know if this is a delay/retooling or a certain end?
I thought Justice was ok, but there really isn't enough there to set it apart from just being another legal drama. Even the endings where they show the truth of what happened fall a little flat. Didn't it finish 5th in its timeslot last Wednesday?
The Business of TV
Comcast in no hurry to offer viewers HDNet
Season's best performance for a new show
By Tim Panaccio Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist
The (hockey) season is almost upon us. It's time to re-up on the Center Ice Package on cable or satellite.
Alas, you didn't get the high-definition game feed on most of those telecasts last season unless you had a satellite dish. Comcast will be adding more HD to the Center Ice package this season.
Ah, but that's an old gripe.
We have a new one this season: HDNet. That's the entity owned by Mark Cuban. Comcast still hasn't reached a deal with Cuban's HDNet to provide you, the high-paying consumer, with its 53-game HD hockey package.
Why do you have to have the Dish or DirecTV to enjoy the full spectrum of hockey via HDNet? Why can't some of us, who are paying $150 a month strictly for Comcast cable, watch these games on HDNet in the format hockey was intended to be seen in?
Wasn't high-def supposed to be part of the new era after the lockout?
Comcast has had two years of discussions with Cuban, but no agreement.
"It's a complicated issue," said Matt Bond, executive vice president of content acquisitions for Comcast. "His channel costs a lot of money. We have other hockey programming which we feel is better and costs less or nothing."
The two sides have never discussed a rights fee arrangement for just the hockey content from Cuban's channel, which carries a range of programming.
"It would be technically complicated to do that," Bond said.
Comcast owns the league's TV rights. Shouldn't it be obligated to provide its vast audience with as much HD hockey content as it can?
"We're providing more hockey this year than last year and more hockey than two years ago," Bond said. "We have to weigh the high cost of HDNet's programming with the value of that programming."
So far, there hasn't been an outcry from the public for more HD hockey or HDNet, he said.
"There are a lot of people who are not interested in HDNet or watching Hogan's Heroes in HD," Bond said.
Cuban seemed exasperated when we e-mailed him about this subject.
"We keep on trying to find a way [to get a deal]," Cuban wrote back. "It's going to take hockey fans saying they want to see the NHL as it should be seen in high-def, on HDNet."
"We don't restrict our broadcast to protect viewers [who don't have] HD. We take full advantage of the wide-screen, 1080i resolution and 5.1 sound. We have a special sights and sounds segment of every game where we turn off the announcers and give you full 5.1 audio of the ice, players and crowds..."
So what's this really about?
Simple. Rights fee. Neither side will say what HDNet costs. Bond said it's very expensive. Obviously, Comcast believes there isn't enough interest in adding another layer of hockey to its programming, regardless of whether it may be technically superior to what appears on OLN/Versus.
"I can tell you what I tell them," Cuban wrote. "We are picking up hockey fans across the country who have switched to [the] Dish and DirecTV."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/15592425.htm
CPanther95
09-25-06, 02:52 PM
I love how the writer adds "[the]" in the last line. Apparently, he's never heard of Dish Network.
He is a sports columnist, CP95...I guess he doesn't spend his nights looking for HD providers!
NFL Network Blindsided by Comcast
By R. Thomas Umstead & Mike Farrell 9/25/2006
Comcast Corp. has thrown NFL Network for a distribution loss two months before its first live league game telecasts.
Comcast COO Steve Burke said the operator plans to place NFL Network on a digital tier of sports and information channels, which would limit its ability to be viewed by all 23 million of the operator’s subscribers. Such a sports tier would carry an extra monthly charge. Typically, no more than 10% of an operator’s subscribers sign up for one.
Burke said Comcast planned to put the NFL Network on a sports tier in systems it acquired this year from Time Warner and hasn’t ruled out tiering the service on all of its systems.
The NFL Network insists Comcast doesn’t have the right to offer the service on low-penetrated sports tiers.
The move could be devastating for the network, which launched in 2003 and hopes to gain basic analog carriage. That would make its package of Thursday- and Saturday-night pro games available to all Comcast subscribers.
The network secured the games purchase, valued at more than $300 million last January, thereby beating out Comcast, which planned to add the games to its OLN service, now called Versus.
To date, the network has signed up 33 million subscribers, in deals with direct-broadcast satellite providers EchoStar Communications Corp. and DirecTV Inc.; Comcast and a host of small cable operators.
Comcast’s move could embolden other large operators to hold out signing an NFL Network carriage deal to see if Comcast is successful in tiering the channel, Kagan Associates sports analyst John Mansell said. That could include Time Warner Cable, which dropped the NFL Network from several former Adelphia Communications Corp. and Comcast systems it acquired this year.
Burke, speaking last week at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference in New York, said Comcast planned to place the NFL Network on a sports tier in former Time Warner systems acquired when the two companies split up Adelphia assets this summer. This would include former Adelphia systems in Minneapolis, Memphis, Jackson, Miss.; Louisiana (principally Shreveport and Monroe); and Florida (principally Cape Coral and St. Augustine). Comcast also gained control of Time Warner’s Houston system with the dissolution of Texas Cable Partners.
“We’re announcing we’re putting them on a sports tier in the Time Warner markets we just inherited,” Burke said. He had no comment about what Comcast would do in its own markets with the channel.
NFL Network executives could not be reached for comment, but spokesman Seth Palansky has said in the past that no operator has the right to place it on a sports tier.
Burke disputed that claim, though: “We obviously wouldn’t be doing that if we didn’t have the right to do that.” He added that the network hasn’t said Comcast doesn’t have the right to place it on a tier, only that they “will not give anybody the right in the future,” Burke said.
If Comcast is allowed to tier the service, Mansell said other large operators will most likely demand the same. “I don’t see operators making a big move [toward launching the NFL Network] this year,” Mansell said.
But sports consultant Neal Pilson believes eventually the network and operators will reach some accord, although it may come after NFL Network’s first telecast on Thanksgiving.
“Generally, these types of disputes — whether for the NFL Network or OLN looking to expand when they acquired the National Hockey League, or YES and its dispute with Cablevision — they tend to get settled,” he said. “Sometimes it’s last minute, sometimes it’s even after the fact, but most of them get settled.”
http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6374622
The New Season
“Heroes”
By Ed Bark, former long-time Dallas Morning News TV Writer
Enthralling and super-imaginative, NBC's Heroes is the surprise treat of the season.
Find it the way you did Lost, and then get ready for a Grade-A thrill ride with big, bonafide jolts at the end of its first three chapters. Monday night's opener, subtitled "Genesis," includes a printed prelude that seems prototypically overblown until the show starts delivering the goods. Here it is, submitted for your consideration in suitably bold type:
In recent days, a seemingly random group of individuals has emerged with what can only be described as 'special' abilities. Although unaware of it now, these individuals will not only save the world, but change it forever. This transformation from ordinary to extraordinary will not occur overnight. Every story has a beginning. Volume One of their epic tale begins here ...
But where to begin? Heroes is global in scope, taking viewers to TV renditions of Madras, India; Tokyo Japan; Las Vegas, New York City and Odessa, Texas in its curtain-raiser.
The Lone Star connection is high school cheerleader Claire Bennet (Hayden Panettiere), who can't fly but otherwise seems like Supergirl. Look, up in the sky, it's Claire jumping from on high to the hard ground below while her geeky, platonic boy pal video-cams it. Unhurt, Claire is soon running into a blazing inferno, where she rescues a man trapped in a train wreck. Sticking her hand in a garbage disposal seals the deal. The kid's got something special all right, but she'll remain in Odessa on her own for at least the initial three hours.
There's a helluva lot more going on, all of it digestible and coherent without being simple-dimple.
Heroes' breakout character could be Hiro Nakamura (Masi Oka), an excitable Japanese plugger with a Star Trek fixation. Can he really make time stop and then teleport himself to wherever he chooses? Hiro's relationship with best pal Ando (Omid Abtahi) gives Heroes its comic relief. But the pair's quest to save New York from a mega-disaster looks as though it's going to be the backbone of the series. In future episodes, their guidebook will be a comic book, 9th Wonders!, drawn by drug-battling artist Isaac Mendez (Santiago Cabrera). His ability to see the future threatens to drive him mad.
Other key characters include mild-mannered Peter Petrelli (Milo Ventimiglia), who thinks he can fly. But big brother Nathan (Adrian Pasdar), who's waging a cutthroat campaign for Congress, is determined to keep Peter under his finger.
On another front, dedicated Mohinder Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy) has journeyed from India to New York to investigate the mysterious disappearance of his mystical father. And in Vegas, single mother Niki Sanders (Ali Larter) is deeply in debt to thugs. Making ends meet by making erotic Internet videos, Niki's stunned to learn she's a savage beast when threatened.
The series' second episode introduces Los Angeles policeman Matt Parkman (Greg Grunberg), who thinks he can hear people think. Pretty soon he knows he can. That might help in apprehending a so-far unseen serial killer named Sylar.
Heroes creator Tim Kring (Crossing Jordan) has fashioned a whale of a tale so far. Lost had better look out, because this could be the season's new Internet chat sensation. The show should have a huge following among 18-to-34-year-olds, who likely will respond to both the attractive cast and the evolving mythology.
Old goats with a half-century or more under their belts (hi, happy to meet ya) should hitch a ride, too. In a season full of new serials, this is the one to invest in. The first three episodes are thoroughly captivating, with cliffhangers that might well leave you with mouth agape. So let's get the word-of-mouth going. Talk this one up, and then by all means tell me if I'm wrong.
Prospects: Very solid in a relatively soft Monday night slot whose principal tenants are the CBS' comedy combo of Two and a Half Men and The New Adventures of Old Christine. Big promotional pushes on NBC's Sunday night football games won't hurt either.
Grade: A
http://www.unclebarky.com/fall.html
(Hmmm, that didn’t take long at all. My bet is that Gibson beats Couric this week.)
TV Notebook
NBC's Williams Back on Top
By Allison Romano Broadcasting & Cable 9/25/2006
NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams reclaimed its position as the most-watched evening news show last week, outperforming CBS and ABC in total viewers.
For the week of Sept. 18 to 22, Nightly averaged 8.18 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric was second with 7.69 million viewers and ABC's World News with Charles Gibson was a close third with 7.58 million viewers.
The three newscasts tied in the key news demographic, adults 25 to 54, averaging 2.1 ratings.
Evening news ratings have been closely-watched since Couric's Sept. 5 debut, when she attracted more than 13 million viewers. CBS' marks have settled down since then, but the three network newscasts are now locked in a heated three-way race.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6375049
TV Q&A
Ask Matt
(from the Ask (TV Critic) Matt (Roush) column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush TVGuide.com TV Critic
Question: After reading your positive reviews of Ugly Betty, I've been waiting with anticipation to view this show described as "charming" and "heartwarming." Then my husband and I watched ABC's Sneak Preview program and saw some clips setting up the premise of Ugly Betty. We were really disappointed at the tone of the show. It came off as mean-spirited, and really left a bad taste in our mouths. If there is charm and heart-warmth in the show, why wouldn't ABC promote it that way? All we saw was people making fun of Betty, laughing at her, putting her in humiliating situations, even her little brother telling her how bad she looked. I'm having second thoughts about watching it now, which I'm sure is not the effect ABC was hoping for by previewing the show. Does the charm really come through in the full episodes? Or does it continue in the vein of mean-spirited mockery? As a fan of America Ferrera, I'm willing to watch an episode to see for myself — I'm just wondering if I should bother. What are your thoughts? Do you still hold to the same opinion?— Toni M.
Matt Roush: Look at the title: It's not "Everybody Loves Betty." The charm of the show is all in America Ferrera's performance as Betty. You'll love her, and you'll root for her. But she doesn't have it easy, nor should she for the show to work. There is an aspect of cruelty in the show's title and certainly in the over-the-top characters she encounters as she goes out into the cutthroat world of the high-fashion magazine business. Not knowing how thick your skin is, I'd still recommend the show, but I won't pretend there isn't a stylized edge to it and that while Betty herself might warm your heart, the show may also make it bleed a bit for her travails in this ugly-duckling urban fairy tale. (Face it: Nobody was very nice to Cinderella until the Fairy Godmother intervened, right?)
Question: Despite your (and other critics') praise for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, I was ready for disappointment, thanks to NBC's inept promos. Fortunately, you were right. I enjoyed it thoroughly, except for what seemed to me to be a completely inept performance by Amanda Peet. What was with all those vacant smiles? Does she get extra money for showing her teeth and standing there looking stupid? Everyone else was terrific, however. If the show manages to hold on to most of the premiere's audience (13 million or so), do you think NBC will consider it a success and keep it where it is?— David G.
Matt Roush: Absolutely. If it can stay a strong No. 2 in the time period, with attractive demos (like The West Wing, the expectation is that the audience profile will be very upscale and advertiser-friendly), it will do just fine. It is helped immeasurably by ABC rolling over and playing dead on the night. (Many of us are still surprised that ABC didn't try to jump-start Mondays with Grey's Anatomy, instead of moving it into the Thursday battlefield.) As for Amanda Peet: that is a curious characterization. It's interesting that Aaron Sorkin is trying to create a network exec who isn't a villain, but her glacial calm in the face of mounting crisis is not only puzzling, it's deeply unreal. At least in my experience with people who hold jobs like that.
Question: I was wondering what your take is on shows whose plotlines don't seem to lend themselves to multiple seasons. Prison Break immediately comes to mind, since the new season feels like they are finding new ways to stretch it out. The Nine also comes to mind (I love the concept, just not sure how long you can stretch out a 52-hour event). Day Break, Vanished, Kidnapped, Reunion (from last season), etc. Granted 24 has done this for a while now (and for the most part has done a good job), but I wonder if all of these other shows will be able to do the same.— Anthony V.
Matt Roush: Wouldn't we all like to know. The genius of 24 is that it can reinvent itself every season, building on past adventures while essentially starting from scratch with a new crisis. As I watch Prison Break, especially in the credit sequence, I find myself pining for the first season when everyone was still behind bars, plotting. This race to the treasure, with ridiculous detours like Sucre trying to break up his true love's Vegas wedding, isn't really cutting it for me, and makes me wonder about the long-term potential of many of these now ubiquitous serialized thrillers. And just look at the impatience of so many Lost fans, who somehow wish the show was a different sort of show, one that would burn through more story and focus less on character and backstory (the very elements that make Lost a one-of-a-kind masterpiece). The real issue here is that these shows with their high concepts are all very inviting, at least at the start, and many of them look like they'd make a terrific movie or, even better, a miniseries. So much more exciting than just another procedural. (And, by the way, to digress for a moment, could last week's season-opener of CSI: Miami have been any more cartoonish?) The challenge for the producers and writers of these serials is to spin the story in a way that continues to keep us engaged without exasperating us (sorry, Vanished is already failing that test), while also figuring out how to sustain the premise for the long haul of a long, multiyear run. I'm not sure if many or any of these new shows can pull that off. But I'm willing to watch them try.
Question: A year ago, I was intrigued by the premise of Reunion, only to be greatly disappointed when it was canceled before the identity of the killer was unveiled. With all of the serial dramas (in the vein of 24 and Lost) that are being introduced this fall, which ones would you predict will end up disappointing viewers like me because they aren't allowed to provide closure, thanks to trigger-happy network programming execs?— Paul L.
Matt Roush: Here's the other burning question about this suddenly popular genre. Fans aren't likely to be satisfied unless these shows get at least a full season's run, and even then (taking Invasion as a for-instance), if the ending is ambiguous and the show isn’t renewed, there’s still a feeling of betrayal. Serialized thrillers and mysteries are especially vulnerable, because unlike typical soap-opera cliffhangers, there are often specific climactic answers (as in the revelation of the killer in Reunion) that go unaddressed if the show is yanked too soon. This was a hot topic at the summer's TCA press tour, and each of the network heads promised they would try to provide some sort of content for fans (perhaps online, in a blog or podcast or something) if these individual shows ended up not succeeding. As the season progresses, we’ll have to see how well they uphold their end of this often one-sided bargain. Or if we're lucky, some of these shows might actually click, and it won’t be such a problem. But to answer your question more directly, I imagine many of the new serials will have a hard time getting to the end of their first-season stories: most notably Vanished, Kidnapped, Six Degrees, Jericho (which opened better than I expected) and possibly Heroes (which may be hard to follow but, in the first three episodes anyway, has some of the season's niftiest cliffhangers). We'll know more once we see how these shows sustain over the next few weeks.
Question: I was just reading that Criminal Minds was losing Lola Glaudini after six episodes and replacing her with an older female who acts as a foil of sorts for Mandy Patinkin's character. This got me thinking: Has a show ever brought back a character from a previous show and added them to their cast as a regular? I was thinking along the lines of Ally Walker's Profiler, Dr. Samantha Waters. It seems like an interesting proposal to integrate her into the show, and her character is so similar to what the team does now. I have always liked Criminal Minds (although I know it's not your favorite), but I agree it seems a bit lacking. Anyway, just wondered if anything similar has been tried.— Matt Z.
Matt Roush: The most famous example I can think of is Richard Belzer as Det. John Munch, a character introduced on the classic Homicide: Life on the Street who later joined Law & Order: Special Victims Unit after appearing in crossover episodes of the original Law & Order. (The character has also made stunt cameo appearances on cult shows such as The X-Files and Arrested Development, among others.) A colleague also reminds me that Alan Rosenberg and Debi Mazar's characters from L.A. Law migrated over to Steven Bochco's short-lived Civil Wars series. I'm sure there are others, but this is not a good time of year to be throwing trivia questions at me when my mind is about to explode with new TV. As for your suggestion about Ally Walker: why not? She certainly couldn't hurt the show.
Question: I read your most recent column item about Lost and its scheduling, specifically about not showing new episodes from November to February, and I had to ask a question. Why is it that networks now show only 22 or so episodes of a popular series? If I remember correctly, they used to show 24 to 26 shows a year. Although I have read about the quality being diluted with more episodes, I would think it would be preferable for a network to show more of its more popular shows, even if an episode or two was not as strong, rather than have three months of reruns. Did they ditch having 24 or more episodes for a reason, or is it just network inertia that keeps them from putting more episodes of their best shows on the air? You would think that other networks would run new episodes of their best shows, like CBS with CSI and NBC with My Name Is Earl, as often as they could. Beats no one watching when a rerun is on, right?— Rich
Matt Roush: This question comes up nearly every season, and the answer is pretty much the same each time: The networks would love to have an unlimited number of episodes of their most popular shows, but TV isn't getting any cheaper to make, even when you can factor in DVD sales these days, in addition to syndication and international sales. There are budget considerations and also time considerations for some of the more elaborate productions, of which Lost probably ranks at the top of the list. Many of these shows do average 24 or so hours or episodes a season, which is pretty remarkable and more than you get in overseas markets. But ABC's fondness for two-hour season finales still limits the number of weeks of original programming. Something's gotta give, and that usually means either bursts of reruns or, in the case of Lost and ER this season, a midterm hiatus during which the show will be replaced by a mid-season tryout. We'll see how that works this year. (I'm betting rhat eventually ABC will copy Fox's model and put a show like Lost on straight through January to May or September to February.)
Question: I am trying to understand why so many great sitcoms seem to bite the dust before they have a chance to gain an audience. I really loved the CBS show Out of Practice, but it only lasted a few months, and also ABC's Rodney and Freddie, which, though given a little more time, have now been canceled. It seems we are bombarded with so many reality shows, contest shows and police dramas that there is no time for a few laughs. I want television to bring back the comic relief that is needed in our lives. I also wonder about the shows that are missing from the fall lineup but were never mentioned as being canceled: Medium, According to Jim and George Lopez. Did I miss something? Were they also dropped, and I just never heard about it?— Lori P.
Matt Roush: Medium, Jim and George will all be back at mid-season. But I can't really give you much reason to hope about the current state of TV comedy, especially the more conventional ones you bring up in your question. The pendulum has swung away from old-fashioned farce and traditional family comedy for now. The chances of success for many of this season's new single-camera comedies (some more ambitious than others) seems slim, which could prompt a return to the classic form. Which, when it's good, is nothing to sneer at, believe me. We could use a few more solid comedies on the schedule — not that I'd include Jim in that mix; I'm thinking more along the lines of true classics like Home Improvement. To me, lazy shows like According to Jim helped kill the traditional comedy. At least for now.
Question: Not so much a question as a comment after reading Monday's bits on Prison Break. For me, it's not that the show has become more ludicrous, but that it's lost its heart. Season 1 built up a relationship between Michael and his cellmate Fernando (aka Sucre), and then suddenly he says that everybody's on their own? I could buy it with the other inmates, but not with Fernando. Michael's selfless acts to free his brother begin to lose meaning when Michael begins to act selfish. Meanwhile, Lincoln simply needs more of a personality. His brooding made sense last season while on death row, but I expected him to show more range now that he's out. I'll probably keep watching (there's not much competition besides CBS' comedies, which I can tape), but my eyes are wandering.— Josh
Matt Roush: Interesting point. It does seem like prison has toughened up Michael quite a bit, and the brothers' ruthlessness to get to the buried treasure and keep it to themselves isn't exactly a noble calling. It's not that I mind that even the hero of the piece isn't that likable anymore. I just wish someone or something interested me. As the show has scattered geographically, it has definitely lost something for me. As in: a rooting interest. I'm pretty much watching now out of habit (and the only reason I'm still watching Vanished at all is to make fun of its rank clichés, which get moldier by the week). I've got to say: Until 24 returns in January, Monday is one of the weakest nights of the week (with the exception of Studio 60 and the occasional chuckle from a CBS comedy).
Question: Why do you think NBC is completely refusing to promote Crossing Jordan? The show is in its sixth season and doing well in its time slot. It has now been moved to Friday nights at 8 pm/ET! Family hour for a show like Crossing Jordan? I wonder why they did that? Moreover, they delayed the premiere till Oct. 20. Please tell me why they insist on killing this show?— Nalex
Matt Roush: Oh, please. If NBC wanted to kill Jordan (which it doesn't), it would be dead already. The show had to move because NBC is now showing football on Sundays, and it had to go somewhere. While I'd agree it might make more sense to flip Las Vegas and Jordan, if Jordan aired later, it would face either of CBS' already established (and to me, superior) crime dramas, Close to Home and Numbers. And no way was it going to get Law & Order's 10 pm/ET time slot. The reason it's not being promoted much right now is because NBC is kind of busy getting a bunch of new shows established. Returning shows always take a backseat this time of year. The real head-scratcher is why NBC is waiting so long to put its new Friday lineup into play. The only reason I can think for Jordan's and Las Vegas' late start is to reduce the need for repeats down the road.
Question: According to my TiVo, some new series are being rebroadcast on cable this fall: Heroes is getting a second run on Sci Fi, and Ugly Betty is popping up on ABC Family. And I wouldn't be surprised if Kidnapped also airs on Bravo or The Class floats over to VH1. If these series have middling returns on broadcast but good-for-their-respective-cable-network ratings, how do you think it would influence the network wanting to pick up the back nine or renew their series for a second season?— Chris L.
Matt Roush: These cross-platform double-runs are all about exposure, and I'd be surprised if the actual numbers these shows generate on the various cable networks will matter in the long run. The point here is to get these shows sampled in such a cluttered universe so that more people will be inclined to watch them on the actual network. (How lucky for NBC Universal to have a network like Sci Fi in the corporate family to give Heroes a boost.) But if the cross-promotion doesn't help boost the network numbers, it won't matter if these shows are doing better than average for the cable channels. It's the performance on the network that will determine their future.
http://tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/default.aspx
The New Season
“Heroes”, “Runaway”
NBC wonders what it would be like to wake up with superpowers
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle Monday, September 25, 2006
Two more serialized dramas for the new fall season premiere tonight, and both break a couple of key rules of the genres, though one is infinitely more fun than the other, which should help since they're on at the same time.
"Heroes" is a kind of "X-Men" meets "X-Files" leap of enormous faith for both NBC and viewers. The idea is that nine -- maybe less, maybe more -- ordinary individuals wake up one morning to find they've got special powers. One office worker in Japan can stop time and eventually teleport himself. A cheerleader in Texas is immune to injury -- she jumps off buildings, runs into fire, etc. -- a budding (slimy?) politician can fly, etc. Tonight's episode begins to weave the web by introducing each character and hinting at how they might all be related (cooler than "Six Degrees" because these people aren't self-obsessive, they're freaked out). Anyway, viewers need a significant amount of "buy in" to fall for "Heroes" because it demands that you have an open mind even if you're not into science fiction.
If you're thinking, "Wow, that's kind of like 'Lost' over on ABC," well, yeah, congratulations. A whole bunch of this season's new serialized dramas owe a debt to "Lost" for proving that audiences will stay riveted to a series all season long if you make the mystery fun enough.
Unfortunately, that may be the Achilles' heel of "Heroes." It's not that it doesn't have enough mystery or even fun, it's that it has perhaps too much. Because one of the codes that supernatural-themed shows must play by (to be fair to the audience) is the use of set rules. For example, if you give a character paranormal powers, such as Hiro (Masi Oka), then the audience needs to know exactly what he's capable of. Not in the first episode or two, mind you, but not far after. Let's see -- he can stop time? And then he can teleport himself from one place to another if he thinks about it hard enough? Fine, but that's it, right? We're not going to find out in Episode 6 that he can hold his breath underwater for hours, too. Right?
The point is, if producers and writers are true to their characters they create a bond with viewers who buy in. That bond is broken when characters -- no matter how supernaturally geeked out -- do things the audience doesn't expect in the last four episodes. That's cheating. Producers and writers who make up the rules as they go along are hedging their bets because they don't know where they're going. And in a crowded field of serialized dramas, the most essential element is a sure hand on the wheel of the show. People don't want their time wasted.
That said, it's too early to tell if "Heroes" is too much show for its own good. The end of the first episode is particularly intriguing and the second episode goes even further (and gets a whole lot more bloody and "X-Files" gross). Both episodes are entertaining and show enormous promise -- "Heroes" may be the dark horse among this year's serialized dramas. It also might be a dud down the road. Because after two episodes, it's not even remotely clear what these "special" ordinary people are capable of. No boundaries have been established.
And if keeping up with an artist who paints the future, a beat cop who hears things before they're said and a single mom who might be a brutal, avenging killer isn't enough, the writers and producers have come up with two more tricks:
-- There could be a worldwide government conspiracy at work.
-- There may be a serial killer involved (no pun intended).
Whoa, big boy. Let's crawl before we fly.
What "Heroes" has going for it -- other than ambition that's hard to resist -- is that the other 9 p.m. freshman series it faces off against, "Runaway," on the CW, is one of those series that looks great on paper but ends up less-than-thrilling on the screen. A man (Donnie Wahlberg) is framed for a crime he didn't commit. In order to prove his innocence, he needs time to see who framed him. But of course he has no time. He's going to jail.
So instead he takes his whole family -- wife (Leslie Hope from "24"), sullen teen boy, pretty teen girl and young, inquisitive grade school boy -- on the run. They flee from town to town, with made up names and background stories. Everything they knew before of their life is lost -- girlfriends abandoned, schools left, jobs dropped, while dad goes on the lam. It's "The Fugitive" with a family.
Now, that can either be an opportunity to tell more than one story or it will work like a man on the lam dragging four anchors. Who knows how it will play out on "Runaway" in future episodes? The sad truth is, in the pilot it plays out like one very long, not-very-exciting family vacation. While there's a sense of urgency -- the law is hot on his heels! -- it never really comes through on the screen.
Part of the problem is that Wahlberg, who was so good in "Boomtown" and "Band of Brothers," is too laconic here. Granted, he's got to play it cool so he doesn't seem like he's nervously hiding a secret, but you'd think his pulse might race a bit more.
Ultimately, it's the story and the directing that fail "Runaway" in the pilot. The show fails to hook and in this competitive environment of serialized dramas, how are you going to convince people to watch your mystery unfold over 22 episodes when they're bored by the 22nd minute?
"Heroes" may end up being the default winner in this timeslot for dramas ("Vanished" is vanishing and "Runaway" walks too much), but viewers sucked into the myriad tale of ordinary people turned supers ought to hope the writers come up with a workable and believable set of rules and then stick with them. There is such a thing as being too fantastic for your own good.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/25/DDGKBLB6201.DTL&type=printable
(In case you missed this when it was posted earlier)
Monday’s Prime-Time Premieres
8 PM ET/PT 7th Heaven - CW
9 PM ET/PT Runaway - CW HD
9 PM ET/PT Heroes - NBC HD
The Business of TV
NBCU's Wright Addresses Digital Future
By Elizabeth Jensen Special to TVWeek September 25, 2006
NBC Universal Chairman and CEO Bob Wright hopes that within 12 months his company is booking $400 million to $500 million in digital advertising, has a number of integrated broadcast and digital program ventures, and is offering movies in many countries via digital delivery.
Separately, he doused recent news reports that he may be planning to leave the company in the near future, quipping that he could be around for another 15 years. Mr. Wright is celebrating his 20-year anniversary at NBC Universal.
Mr. Wright, interviewed by TVWeek Publisher and Editorial Director Chuck Ross as part of Advertising Week events in New York, said NBC Universal is trying to "sort out the real consumer application" of all the digital opportunities bearing down on the television industry.
NBC Universal's multiple television operations reflect the variety of businesses Mr. Wright has to guide into a digital future.
NBC Universal's recent acquisition of iVillage, an Internet site targeting women, was in part based on the overlap between the site's users and viewers of the "Today" morning show on NBC, Mr. Wright said. He said the company has high expectations for a "full-tilt experiment" it is launching to integrate iVillage content into a TV show for NBC owned and operated stations.
Audience enthusiasm to participate in shows such as NBC's "Deal or No Deal" has generated some 50 million unique callers since spring from fans eager to express their opinions, Mr. Wright said.
"It's crazy for us to deny that interest because it is very, very strong," he said.
NBCU's USA Network hasn't generated as much audience involvement and the network hasn't yet figured out why, he said.
As viewers continue to embrace time-shifting technology that allows them to skip traditional ads, Mr. Wright predicted that eventually broadcasters will carry "smaller pods, and fewer commercials, spaced differently."
As for TiVo, in which NBC Universal is still an investor, Mr. Wright said the company needs to decide whether it wants to be "an operating company or a licensing company."
Mr. Wright also predicted that both TV and film production and marketing costs will come down in the next 18 months, now that DVD penetration has leveled off, piracy issues have raised costs and syndication revenues for TV shows are not as big a factor as they were.
On the programming front, Mr. Wright said the company was pleased with how both "NBC Nightly News" and "Today" have held up in the wake of Katie Couric's defection to the "CBS Evening News." He called the primetime drama "Studio 60," which opened last week to moderate ratings, "a big-time show and we want it to do well. We'd be very disappointed if it doesn't do well."
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=10805
(To get you ready for the preview pieces to come later on)
Tuesday’s Prime-Time Premieres
8 PM ET/PT Gilmore Girls - CW HD
9:30 PM ET/PT Help Me Help You - ABC (Series Premiere) HD
Commentary
Maybe It's Because TV Sets Don't Talk Back
By Ray Richmond The Hollywood Reporter in his blog “Past Deadline”
I love the Nielsen Media Research survey released last week that revealed the average American home now has more television sets in it than people. The breakdown: 2.73 TV sets per home, only 2.55 people. (I'm wondering who is watching a mere .73 of a TV set and what it's missing. It's no doubt being viewed by that .55 of a person, whose body mass index I don't even want to hear about.)
The typical home also has at least one television running for 8 hours and 14 minutes daily, or an hour longer than the average a mere decade ago. So much for the Internet and DVDs and video games and cell phones and iPods taking eyeballs away from watching programming on the tube. Why, you people are so addicted to TV that I doubt you're even reading this blog right now. And if you are, it's with at least .55 of yourself paying attention to the TV set. C'mon, you know I'm right.
Added note: I have also concurrently learned that there are more television sets in the U.S. than toilets. I'm loathe even to speculate about what this means.
http://www.pastdeadline.com/
The New Season
“Help Me, Help You”
Will Ted Danson help me or help you?
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” September 25, 2006
“Help Me Help You” (9:30 PM ET/PTTuesday, ABC) is billed as a comedy, but it’s more a curiosity. After all, the show opens with a guy who jumps out a window in a suicide attempt. But “Help Me” isn’t exactly black comedy, and it isn’t exactly a traditional sitcom, either. It straddles the tricky area between those genres, with decidedly mixed results.
That isn’t to say that the show, which stars Ted Danson as a vain, clueless psychologist helping a bunch of misfits via group therapy, doesn’t have the occasional amusing moment. And amazingly enough, it’s not flat-out awful, which is all I really ask of new half-hour comedies these days.
Still, the only description I can provide regarding my reaction to the show is in the form of an analogy: One of Danson’s patients, an emotionally stunted, socially awkward young woman named Inger, attempts to “share” some of herself with a date. She recites a long list of unconnected facts about herself, then asks her date if he wants to have sex.
He sits there, sort of stunned but slightly amused, and a tentative, confused grin breaks out on his face.
That’s the effect “Help Me” has — it’s not laugh-out-loud funny, but once in a while it’s vaguely amusing, though certainly not in a must-see sort of way.
Though “Help Me” isn’t shot on a soundstage, it has all the trappings and somewhat tiresome thinking of a typical network sitcom. One character is a messed-up nymphomaniac who’s in love with her shrink; there’s the suicidal guy, who’s really just hung up on a cute woman at the office; Danson’s character is obsessed with the fact that his estranged wife has found someone new; another character won’t admit he’s gay;, and so on.
Danson’s comic chops are good for a few laughs (as is his license plate, which reads “4EVRJUNG”), but his relationship with Jane Kaczmarek, who plays his wife, is the sort of thing we’ve seen on sitcoms forever — the jealous husband, the exasperated wife, the high jinks at the family barbecue, etc.
At least they spared us the wisecracking kids. The couple do have one daughter, but she’s in college, — and dating a man who’s as old as her dad. Ah, there’s that sophisticated Freudian comedy we all love so much.
To it’s credit, “Help Me” is not one of those entirely predictable setup-punchline sitcoms, but then again, a few more punchlines would help me. And, presumably, you.
http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/
dad1153
09-25-06, 09:24 PM
Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Smash debut for 'Brothers and Sisters'
Season's best performance for a new show
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Sep 25, 2006, 11:45
At 7 p.m., Fox’s NFL runover and “The OT” were first with a 4.5 average, followed by ABC at 3.4 for the first half of the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” premiere, NBC’s 2.5 for “Football Night in America,” CBS’s 2.4 for “60 Minutes,” CW’s 1.1 for “Everybody Hates Chris” repeats, and Univision at 0.9 for “Hora Pico.”
At 8 p.m., ABC moved into first with a 6.3 for “Home Edition.” NBC took over second with a 5.0 for the last 15 minutes of “America” and the start of “SNF’s” Denver-New England game. As a reminder, fast nationals measure timeslot data and not actual program data, and so they may change significantly when final ratings are issued tomorrow.
Fox took third at 8 with a 4.5 for “The Simpsons” (4.8) and “American Dad” (4.3), followed by CBS with a 3.5 for “Amazing Race,” CW with a 1.1 for an “America’s Next Top Model” repeat and Univision at 0.8 for the first hour of “Cantando por un Sueno.”
I'm shocked! I was absolutely sure that 'Extreme Makeover: Home Edition' on ABC-TV would be trounced by the one-two punch of NFL football (on three networks!) and 'Amazing Race.' I know those are only the 18-49 demo ratings but these tend to mirror the overall ratings. Guess this is why Nielsen says there are more TV's in households than people. The men are watching the game, the women 'EM:HE' and the young one's the animated comedies on Fox. I know it's a gross generalization (I'm a guy and I watch the game but I also tape 'TAR' and 'EM:HE'). I love that 'EM:HE' gets almost no promotion and buzz (even from its own network, which seems to be almost ashamed to be associated with such feel-good schlock) but the show continues to dominate the 8PM Sunday time slot even with boffo competition. People forget that, before 'Lost' and 'Desperate Housewives' saved ABC's bacon, 'EM:HE' was the network's only show that ranked in the Nielsen Top 20 for an entire season (2003-04). This truly is the Rodney Dangerfield of network TV shows (and the only reality show that repeats well, unlike 'Amazing Race,' 'Survivor' and all the others). :D
I agree.
I am a bit surprised NBC didn't stick with "Three Wishes" last year. I thought it was a less frenetic but still feel-good show with great potential.
I think the reason EM:HE repeats as well as it does is that it is much more contained than most reality shows. Each episode has a beginning, middle and payoff which aren't at all related to necessarily watching the previous -- or next -- episode.
(By the way, I'm a guy, too. And except for rare occasions, I don't watch the game. By Sunday night I am footballed out. But here on the West Coast we can see most of prime time without NFL interruption, so our network choices are easier.)
Xesdeeni
09-25-06, 10:19 PM
Maybe someone can explain to me how it helps to actually remove a show from the air that is already in the can. Happy Hour for example. Instead of showing whatever they have finished (presumably at least three or four shows, since most networks operate a month or more ahead), they are showing repeats of 'Til Death. Does this actually save them any money? And do they really believe that a repeat of another show would gain even one more viewer than a new episode of a (according to them) worse show?
I'm just not understanding. Didn't they already pay for the shows already in the can?
Xesdeeni
Yes but if the ratings are terrible, it can help ruin a network's week.
So, the thinking goes, stop the bleeding and play off the shows (if ever) some time when it won't hurt the network.
And in this case, I guess Fox thinks "Til Death" has some potential. But clearly "Hapy Hour", which was savaged by the critics, and saw its numbers go down week after week, did not seem to have much ratings potential at all.
(And, Xesdeeni, welcome back - you have been gone too long!)
The New Season
“Help Me, Help You”
'Help Me' could use some laugh therapy
By Robert Bianco USA Today
Some shows just can't seem to help moving in the wrong direction.
Help Me started out near the TV top when it came to casting, putting Ted Danson in the star spot and luring Malcolm's Jane Kaczmarek back to sitcoms to play his wife. Throw in a few funny scenes and some good comic actors in support, and you get what was one of the season's more promising pilots.
Then, apparently, someone decided the show needed more help, and everything has gone south. The Help Me opener you'll see tonight has been tweaked in small ways that make Danson's therapist character a bit more prominent and a lot more annoying. What's worse, the second episode carries the character over from annoying to unbearably obnoxious.
It makes you afraid to watch the third episode for fear it might actually be harmful.
Help Me casts Danson as Dr. Bill Hoffman, a famous therapist whose current group consists of Dave, a young would-be suicide (Charlie Finn); Inger, a woman with no social skills (Suzy Nakamura); Jonathan, a married man in deep gay denial (Jim Rash); Michael, who has anger-management issues (Jere Burns); and Darlene, who has too many issues to list (Darlene Hunt).
You can use Jonathan as a symbol of what's gone wrong with the show. In the original version, his introduction ended with a very funny, scene-capping joke that questioned the sexuality of a TV celebrity. Few who saw the pilot thought the joke would make it to air, and it hasn't. But nothing has been put in its place, and so the scene just peters out, and a show that has no laughs to spare does without one of its best.
To be sure, even without that joke, Jonathan provides tonight's episode with some of its better moments. But this unambiguously fey act is almost destined to wear out its welcome quickly, a shift you can feel coming by Episode 2.
As for Bill, he's yet another of those TV guys who is a whiz at work and a flop at home. His wife, Anne (Kaczmarek), has thrown him out, and his daughter is dating her psychology professor — who worships Bill like he's a rock star.
Considering his talents, Danson should be the show's biggest asset, and yet his character has become its biggest problem. He's an incredibly skilled and personable comic actor, and while he pushes too much tonight, he still manages to make the character amusing. In large part, however, that's because the script only asks him to embarrass himself in front of Anne, and Kaczmarek can handle him.
By next week, unfortunately, he takes his act on the road, making a complete and hateful fool of himself in front of his friends and neighbors at his daughter's birthday party. At that point, a show that was already more pleasant than funny jettisons being pleasant.
My advice, Dr. Bill? Change course but fast, before viewers resort to some remote control self-help of their own.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2006-09-25-review-help-me_x.htm
TV Notebook
Fox Shuffles New Season Shows
By John M. Higgins Broadcasting & Cable 9/25/2006
Tweaking the fall lineup as baseball playoffs take control of the network’s air, Fox is shuffling the schedules of freshman shows Happy Hour and Justice, while two others, Til Death and Standoff, are taking a week-long break from production.
Happy Hour is being preempted this Thursday by a repeat episode of it's lead-in, ‘Til Death. A repeat of ‘Til Death will also bump a planned repeat of Happy Hour’s pilot this Sunday.
In an attempt to get Justice out of the way of the third-season premiere of ABC’s Lost, will not air next week, the new courtroom drama will be replaced replaced by a repeat episode of House.
The schedules of ‘Til Death and Standoff have not changed, but both shows are taking a break from production. Fox starts its fall season several weeks earlier than other networks, meaning that production teams are often racing to keep the pipeline filled. In the case of ‘Til Death and Standoff, the production pause is described as a “writers’ break". Studio 20th Century Fox Television says Standoff will be suspended for a week and half as it brings in writer Tim Minear as a "consulting producer" , to help energize the show, though Craig Silverman remains the show runner.
Fox’s new shows have been far from electrifying. They debuted in August, while rival broadcasters have been in reruns. Credit Suisee media analyst William Drewry says that since NBC, ABC, CBS and The CW have put on fresh shows, the ratings for Fox shows have fallen 20-35%.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6375098
Rakesh.S
09-26-06, 01:24 AM
I don't watch Standoff.
I love Tim Minear and his work on Firefly, but he is the absolute kiss of death for any new show on Fox.
I have no idea why he keeps reupping with Fox -- surely his talent could be put to use on another network that will actually give his shows a chance.
Looks like none of Fox's new shows will survive this season..oh well, back to the drawing board. What new serial dramas will they come up with that they can cancel without a conclusion? Stay tuned.
Well, as long as they have "American Idol" to save them, the Fox execs are all pretty safe, I guess.
The New Season
No breakthrough TV series in season so far
By Andrew Wallenstein The Hollywood Reporter Sep. 26, 2006
(Paul J. Gough in New York and Nellie Andreeva and Kimberly Nordyke contributed to this report.)
With such titles as "Vanished" and "Kidnapped," no wonder new hit shows have gone missing so far this season, particularly at Fox Broadcasting Co.
If Fox could be seen as a bellwether of viewer appetites for first-year series, the early indications are not good: The network is again flagging in the fourth quarter, with all five of the new series it rolled out in August fading fast. With postseason baseball beginning Monday, Fox already is making schedule changes this week, including the pre-emption of "Happy Hour," a possible sign that the faltering comedy will not be back after the World Series.
Beyond Fox, none of the eight rookie series that rolled out during premiere week burst out of the gate the way NBC's "My Name Is Earl" and ABC's "Desperate Housewives" did in recent years. Hopes are still high for 10 more to come, including high-profile launches this week for NBC's "Heroes" and ABC's "Ugly Betty."
"I don't see anybody's shows really breaking out (of) the new shows," NBC Universal chairman Bob Wright said Monday during an Advertising Week event at New York's Museum of Television & Radio in Manhattan.
Fox seems to be sticking to the script it has followed in recent years in which season premieres -- scheduled weeks ahead of other broadcasters to accommodate baseball on its air for all of October -- struggle despite the head start. Last year, at least one series, "Prison Break," avoided the downturn, while the previous season an unscripted-laden schedule, including "The Billionaire: Branson's Quest for the Best," experienced a similar meltdown.
But Preston Beckman, executive vp strategic program planning at Fox, notes that his network actually held up in the first week of the season compared with the same period last year, up 11% in the 18-49 demographic.
"To come out of this week with growth versus where we were a year ago, that means we're moving in the right direction heading into January, when we bring out heavy artillery," Beckman said, alluding to the 2007 launches of "American Idol" and "24."
"Happy Hour" is taking a seat Thursday, when Fox will double-pump " 'Til Death" from 8-9 p.m. In addition, the finale of "Celebrity Duets," scheduled for Friday, has been shortened to an hour, making room for a repeat of the pilot of the legal drama "Justice," which will be replaced by a repeat of "House" the following Wednesday at 9 p.m.
The pre-baseball changes underscore how difficult Fox is finding it to seed new series. Monday 9 p.m. entry "Vanished" is running 31% lower in 18-49 from what its lead-in, "Prison Break," was doing there last year. "Standoff" has plummeted from a promising 4.7/12 three weeks ago to a 3.2/8, while "Justice" has dropped a full ratings point as well.
Sources indicate that Fox isn't ready to give up on "Justice," which is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and likely will find it a new time slot in November.
"Standoff" is on the schedule for now, though Fox confirmed that production on the series was suspended this week in order to let the writers "catch up," according to a network spokesman.
The production hiatus also will allow Tim Minear, who has come aboard "Standoff" as a consulting producer, to get up to speed. Minear has been tapped to help with day-to-day operations on the show that will continue to be run by Craig Silverstein.
One week into the season, Fox's rivals haven't achieved a breakthrough yet, either. CBS rolled out all four of its new shows and got decidedly mixed results. While the dramas "Jericho" and "Smith" were competitive second-place finishers in tough time slots, the heavily marketed comedy "The Class" did no better than "The King of Queens" in its Monday time slot, while "Shark" tanked in its high-profile Thursday 10 p.m. slot, dropping 44% of its "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" lead-in in 18-49.
"Shark" may have been hurt by the surprisingly decisive ratings victory "Grey's Anatomy" scored over "CSI" at 9 p.m., a gap Kelly Kahl, executive vp program planning and scheduling at CBS, expects to narrow. "That race will tighten up as the weeks go on," he said. "ABC went all in on the first hand, but there's a lot of poker left to be played."
The disappointment of "Shark" was somewhat mitigated by a collapse in the same time slot of ABC's "Six Degrees," which dropped 47% of its potent "Grey's" lead-in and a sharp drop-off in audience heading into the latter half-hour of the show. ABC got better first-week results from "Brothers & Sisters," which beat "Without a Trace" in the demo but still dropped 16% from the first half hour to the second.
"With all these 10 o'clock shows, it's going to be our job to hold that audience and build on it," ABC Entertainment executive vp Jeff Bader said, noting that new ABC drama "Men in Trees" managed to build slightly in its second week after a modest debut.
NBC may have suffered the biggest disappointment of the week with the flameout of the drama "Kidnapped," which managed half the audience of Wednesday 10 p.m. competitor "CSI: NY" and made it a strong possibility for NBC's first cancellation. "It's a good show that deserved a bigger audience," said Mitch Metcalf, executive vp program planning and scheduling. "That one surprised a lot of people."
Critically touted "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" also will be put to the test after a respectable bow that scored well in upscale demos but experienced audience erosion through the hour. The series' Hollywood focus has been criticized for being too insular to appeal to broad audiences.
Still, the next big thing could come as early as this week -- when new offerings include the ABC comedy "Help Me Help You" -- through next month, with more fall premieres, including NBC's "30 Rock."
In contrast to struggling new shows, plenty of returning fare came back strong. ABC won the week in the 18-49 demographic, propelled by robust returns for "Grey's" and "Housewives," while Fox's "House," CBS' "CSI: Miami" and even NBC's aging "ER" showed pep.
Still to be tested is the CW, which launched its first new series, "Runaway," on Monday. MyNetwork TV began stripping a pair of dramas, "Desire" and "Fashion House," that saw reductions of 13% and 11%, respectively, from their first to second week on the air among households.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003156987
The New Season
“Help Me, Help You”
Sometimes it's funny how life falls apart
ABC's "Help Me Help You," starring Ted Danson, finds dry yet apt humor in a therapist's sorrows.
By Robert Lloyd Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 26, 2006
Ted Danson, who has spent 19 of the last 24 years starring in situation comedy — six of them, astonishingly, in "Becker," which makes me feel as if I'd been living out of the country — is going 20 for 25 in "Help Me Help You," a low-boil sitcom in which he plays Dr. Bill Hoffman, a respected psychiatrist whose life is falling apart. Premiering tonight on ABC, it's a slightly schizophrenic show, for want of a less appropriate word, split three ways between group therapy sessions; the adventures of the group members as they attempt to put Hoffman's activity of the week into action (make connections, practice nurturing, take risks); and Hoffman's messy personal business.(Doctor, shrink thyself!)
It's a little hard to get a handle on, critically. Each element of the show has its own vibe — the group sessions feel theatrical, like little playlets. The bits focusing on the group members tend toward blackout rhythms; the parts dealing with Hoffman are more dramatically developed. It's an actor's comedy rather than a comic's comedy, and, notwithstanding some bursts of physicality and some extreme behavior on the part of Hoffman and his patients, it's all rather dry in a way more familiar on cable television than network. Created by Jennifer Konner and Alexandra Rushfield (who wrote for "Undeclared"), with "Malcolm in the Middle" producer Alex Reid as a co-executive producer, it's funny in its own way, smarter than most TV comedies and has a terrific cast — all of which makes me wonder why I'm not more moved by it. (At the same time, I'm not unamused, nor uninterested.) Although I wouldn't necessarily recommend "Help Me Help You" in a grab-you-by-the-sleeve Ancient Mariner sort of way, I would certainly recommend checking it out.
Hoffman's therapy group includes Dave (Charlie Finn, a winning dumbbell on the short-lived "Life on a Stick"), who jumped out a window in a botched suicide attempt after e-mailing an "interoffice suicide note" with a cc to his cat-sitter (he landed on his boss); Jonathan (Jim Rash), the new season's second married-gay-man-in-denial after Sam Harris on "The Class," who tries to mask his swishness in guy talk but can't keep from using words like "adorable"; Darlene (Darlene Hunt), who, we are told, has a list of issues as long as your arms, but is represented here primarily as a nymphomaniac with a psychiatrist fixation; Inger (Suzy Nakamura, "Curb Your Enthusiasm"), a 25-year-old retired software designer who "can't read people" and so says funny things to them; and Michael, who can't manage his anger, played by Jere Burns, best known from another support-group sitcom, the Judd Hirsch vehicle "Dear John."
They are a talented troupe of players, but may soon suffer from having to play the single note of their stated neurosis — you can tell the same joke only for so long.
As to Hoffman, he's more preoccupied with his own troubles than those of his patients — the first two words of the title are, significantly, "Help Me." His marriage has come to an end — Jane Kaczmarek, from "Malcolm in the Middle," plays not-yet-ex wife Anne — and his daughter (Lindsay Sloane, whom it is always nice to see) is dating her psychology professor (Bruce Altman), who is more or less as old as Hoffman and has a massive professional crush on him.
This part of the show reminded me, of all things, of the stories of John Cheever — the displaced upper-class suburbanite trying to get his life back. In the first episode, a drunken Hoffman crawls mindlessly into bed in his old house with Anne and her new boyfriend, the man who sold him his car; later he takes a golf club to it but cannot dent it. In another, he crashes a birthday party for his daughter, tries to buy her love by giving her his new and expensive midlife crisis car, gets into an aggressive game of basketball with Anne's boyfriend, winds up sprawled over "his" old barbecue grill, and is then carried off to the hospital by his new rival. It has something of Cheever's sorrowful comedy, not to say its Westchester County milieu — and I must say, that is an impressive, and surprising, quality in a situation comedy.
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-help26sep26,0,5608349,print.story?coll=cl-tvent
Xesdeeni
09-26-06, 09:13 AM
Yes but if the ratings are terrible, it can help ruin a network's week.
So, the thinking goes, stop the bleeding and play off the shows (if ever) some time when it won't hurt the network.
And in this case, I guess Fox thinks "Til Death" has some potential. But clearly "Hapy Hour", which was savaged by the critics, and saw its numbers go down week after week, did not seem to have much ratings potential at all.I understand pulling it if you can replace it with something that would improve ratings. But does a repeat of a show really do this? I'd think the time slot ratings would fall even more.
Xesdeeni
The New Season
“Help Me, Help You”
A Cure for Couch Potatoes
By Tom Shales Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, September 26, 2006; C01
What killed the sitcom? Could it perhaps have been . . . The Sitcom?
That's the glibly simplistic explanation, but it's hardly groundless. Situation comedies became so overwhelming in number and so formulaic in execution over the decades that the typical sitcom seemed like a revival upon arrival.
Comes now Exhibit M, N, O or P: Ted Danson starring as Dr. Bill Hoffman in "Help Me Help You," a supposedly fresh sitcom arriving on ABC tonight in a big cloud of deja vu.
One reason for that sense, albeit a fairly minor one, is that the supporting cast includes Jere Burns playing a member of a group-therapy ensemble that Hoffman runs. Burns made his first big splash in sitcomedy back in 1988 when he played, of all things, a member of a similar group-therapy ensemble, this one run by Judd Hirsch. What goes around comes around, and around, and around.
Crispy and crackling, Danson handles the role of a troubled shrink a lot better than Hirsch did. And while we're making meaningless comparisons, "Help Me" and Dr. Hoffman are several steps up from "Becker," the last Danson sitcom, wherein he played a doctor whose most bitter pill was himself, dispensed liberally.
All those similarities bring us back to "why the sitcom seems kaput." And by "the sitcom," we especially mean the sort of gang's-all-here, three-camera, "taped before a live audience" kind of sitcom that dominated prime time for most of the '70s, '80s and '90s. There are hardly any such shows among the new network series rolling out this week and next.
It's always too early to say that any TV format is dead. Even westerns might come back (on HBO, with "Deadwood," they sort of did). "Help Me," however, is not the show to do the trick for the sitcom.
The show tries to be both a comedy about Hoffman's mess of a personal life and an ensemble show about all the members of the group -- Charlie Finn as Dave, who is clumsily suicidal; Jim Rash as Jonathan, in denial about being gay; and Suzy Nakamara as Inger, who has a laundry list of Relationship Issues ("I haven't had sex since my 19th birthday"), and so on.
As for Doc Hoffman, he's going through a midlife crisis as big as his awesome black Porsche (vanity plates: "4EVRJUNG"). Having told everyone in the group, repeatedly, that they should "connect" with someone else and "make a connection" before the next session, he makes one of the klutziest connections possible, accidentally climbing into bed with his ex-wife (the imposingly hilarious Jane Kaczmarek, formerly of "Malcolm in the Middle") and the used-car salesman she is dating.
"You sold me a crappy car, and now you're diddling my wife?" That's Danson's version of "J'accuse" the next morning around the breakfast table. Yes, he's somehow still there the next morning, and so is his teenage daughter, determined to immortalize excruciating moments on her camcorder. A little later, "Help Me" becomes the season's second new sitcom to attempt variations on "Seinfeld's" famous "make-up sex" joke, with Hoffman entreating his wife to indulge in not only "make-up sex" but also "break-up sex" and "wake-up sex."
Accumulating evidence indicates that "Seinfeld" will prove to be the last great sitcom of the age of the sitcom. Or -- the last great sitcom of the second trimester of television. Maybe phrasing it as simply as possible is the best way: "the last really funny TV show." "Seinfeld's" lofty and towering status is in no way challenged by "Help Me Help You," which is also no threat to "Cheers" as Ted Danson's shining and defining career achievement.
As luck would have it, "Help Me Help You" does not face extremely stiff competition in its Tuesday night time slot, so Danson and Kaczmarek might live to spat another day, and another week, and perhaps for the entire season. Then someone can use their show as proof that sitcoms are actually alive and well after all -- even though "Help Me Help You" begins its existence half-dead and quite deadly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501402_pf.html
The New Season
“Help Me, Help You”
A Therapist Who Needs a Little Help of His Own
By Alessandra Stanley The New York Times September 26, 2006
Like aerobics or group sex, group therapy seems sort of vintage: maybe a lot of people are still doing it, but nobody is talking about it as much. Eventually, however, everything comes back, including platform shoes and shock treatment, so perhaps it was only a question of time before someone remade “The Bob Newhart Show.”
In ABC’s new comedy “Help Me Help You,” Ted Danson plays Dr. Bill Hoffman, a New York City therapist who guides a group of full-fledged neurotics and weirdos but has a harder time dealing with his own problems, which include a failed marriage and a daughter who is in love with a psychologist old enough to be her father.
The series, which has no laugh track and is filmed with a single camera, takes a beloved sitcom from the 1970’s and refashions it in the style of “Arrested Development” and “Malcolm in the Middle.” In fact, a star of that show, Jane Kaczmarek, appears on tonight’s premiere episode of “Help Me Help You.”
Mr. Danson has some funny moments, but he is not as comfortable in a comic genre where deadpan takes the place of punch line. The sitcom’s strength lies in the weaknesses of Bill’s patients, a group that includes Inger (Suzy Nakamura, “Dodgeball”), a socially inept 25-year-old software millionaire who hasn’t had a real date in six years, and Jonathan (Jim Rash), a man who loves Broadway shows and low-fat chai and doesn’t realize he is homosexual. Riffs about gays are television’s new mother-in-law joke, but Mr. Rash’s character finds humor by pushing the joke a little further than most.
Shopping for a salmon-colored jacket, Jonathan is confronted by his wife, who accuses him of being gay after finding pictures of naked men on his computer. “Look, I think I got this random e-mail about Hurricane Katrina relief, all right, but I guess it actually said release,” Jonathan stutters. Turning the tables with sarcastic bluster, he adds, “If supporting New Orleans makes me gay, then yes, you caught me. I’m gay, I’m super gay, and I guess that makes Anderson Cooper gay, too.”
Inger goes to the Jewish matchmaking Web site JDate to meet men, then promptly repels them. Asked if she is even at all Jewish by one man on their first date, she admits she is not and explains, “I guess I find Jewish guys a lot less threatening because I’m not attracted to them.”
Mr. Danson has plenty of sitcom experience: he was amusingly vain as a bartending Casanova on “Cheers” and entertainingly rude as a misanthropic doctor on “Becker.” In this loose, absurdist conceit, however, he seems too stiff, and even a little scary, almost as chilling as he was in the 1984 television movie about pedophilia, “Something About Amelia.”
Bill is supposed to be endearing as a brilliant, egotistical therapist who cannot listen properly when his family members speak up, and who suddenly finds himself alone and newly vulnerable at midlife.
In other words, he’s not so much like Mr. Newhart’s Dr. Bob Hartley as he is a slapstick version of Dr. Craig Huffstodt, the troubled therapist played by Hank Azaria on the Showtime drama “Huff.” As it happens, both series begin with a young man’s suicide attempt: tragically, it succeeded on “Huff.” It fails laughably on “Help Me Help You.” The depiction of the psychiatrist in movies and television has evolved, and devolved, over time. The golden age of psychiatry in movies was in the 1940’s and 50’s, when the men next to the couch were portrayed as godlike in movies like “Now, Voyager,” where Claude Rains helped Bette Davis overcome all kinds of phobias and fixations, including bushy eyebrows.
By the 70’s and 80’s, the profession was treated less reverently on screen. For every menschy therapist like Judd Hirsch in “Ordinary People,” there were less flattering portraits, including Michael Caine as a cross-dressing homicidal maniac in “Dressed to Kill.” By then, writers like Janet Malcolm, who published her book “Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession” in 1981, were putting a spotlight on fissures in Freudian analysis. Prozac and other mood-altering drugs have further demystified and defanged the field. That may be why shrinks nowadays are mostly shown as neither gods nor monsters, but as gifted, well-meaning healers who are sometimes hobbled by their own doubts and insecurities
“Huff” took it seriously. “Help Me Help You” doesn’t. It has amusing characters and a few funny turns, but Mr. Danson may need some help helping the show find a broad audience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/arts/television/26stan.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1159281400-vq4psk7xZvFrg5yHWwEyjg&pagewanted=print
TV News Notebook
CBS, PBS Top News & Doc Emmys
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 9/26/2006
CBS and PBS topped the news and documentary Emmy winners with five awards apiece. The statues were handed out at a ceremony in New York Monday night.
CBS' 60 Minutes was the most-honored show with four awards (48 Hours was CBS' other win).
Cable's History Channel beat out ABC and NBC for third place with four awards. ABC followed with three, tied with the National Geographic Channel. NBC and CNN tied with two apiece.
The late Peter Jennings' name was much in evidence, with all three of ABC's awards going to stories from World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
Regional TV station winners were Hearst-Argyle's WBAL TV Baltimore and CBS-owned WBBM-TV Chicago.
Bill Moyers was given the Lifetime Achievement Award, while three groups, the Committee to Protect Journalists, The International Press Institute, and Reporters Without Borders, were saluted for their defense of press freedom around the globe.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6375104
The New Season
”Gilmore Girls”, “Help Me Help You”
“Gilmore” season premiere is a bad omen
By Melanie McFarland Seattle Post-Intelligencer TV Critic Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The season premiere of "Gilmore Girls" opens tonight with Rory waking up after Logan's going-away party, cool Britannia decorations still on the walls, streamers sadly drooping, near-empty pitchers of beer scattered throughout the apartment. She gets up, stumbling around the place, looking the part of a hung-over party girl.
Watch the 40 minutes that follow, and it may occur to you that the scene could end up being a metaphor for the seventh season.
Without creator and executive producer Amy Sherman-Palladino and her husband, Daniel Palladino, the heart and soul of this series, it looks as if the party is over. Better to say, it sounds as if it's over. Gone is the slicing wit. Gone are the keen cultural references and the smarty-pants social jabs the Palladinos easily wove into each episode. Stars Hollow residents didn't just chat, they danced through each exchange.
Now, under the new show runner, David S. Rosenthal, every conversation has two left feet and seems interminable. You can tell Rosenthal tried to incorporate the Palladino pep into this new episode, but all he could manage is a shabby trace job.
We know what you might be thinking. On the rare occasion that a TV series keeps going without its creator, attacking the new guy might seem like the fashionable thing to do. It can look like an unjustified, knee-jerk reaction, a failure to cut the new person some slack. But the insufferable premiere transforms Rory (Alexis Bledel) and Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham) into babbling idiots.
The Palladinos didn't exactly leave Rosenthal high and dry. The May finale gave him a terrific jumping-off point: Rory had to tearfully let Logan (Matt Czuchry) go to London, although the more substantial surprise was seeing Lorelai impetuously jump into bed with former flame Christopher (David Sutcliffe) after a blowout with fiance Luke (Scott Patterson). Lorelai wakes up to face the consequences tonight, which lends about four or five minutes of profundity to this hour of television.
The rest of the time is filled with pointless nattering in what may be the worst hour of network prime time you'll experience this fall, if you don't count Fox's Thursday night comedy block. It's painful. Not in a gut-wrenching, emotionally touching way, but in an "Oh, God, I can feel my will to live being sucked out of my nostrils" way.
Not a good start to what could be the series' final season.
When Graham spoke to critics in July about whether she thought this was the last hurrah, she seemed to be open to the possibility of continuing beyond this year. But she added a caveat:
"The thing I've always talked about is I don't want to be in a situation where I feel sorry for me, you know," she said. "Because I've seen that happen to actors and to shows where the thing is done. It's done. Let it be over, you know. But I don't know that we're in that situation yet."
After this premiere, she may want to rethink her position.
At least "Gilmore" had six strong seasons. The new ABC sitcom "Help Me Help You" can't even manage 22 decent minutes.
But Ted Danson's new ABC comedy does make you ask questions. Such as, if no part of a half-hour episode of a show makes you laugh, does it count as a comedy? And, if Danson is the best part of a pointless show, is that a compliment?
Maybe we're getting too much into the spirit of this debacle, what with all these pseudo-existential examinations. This time Danson plays a therapist named Dr. Bill Hoffman, who runs a group for various social misfits, including a suicidal office drone (Charlie Finn) and a guy with rage-management issues (Jere Burns).
However, Hoffman has issues himself stemming from the death of his 25-year marriage. Jane Kaczmarek plays his soon-to-be ex, and she may regret taking this part instead of enjoying a nice break after "Malcolm in the Middle."
"Help Me Help You" is one of those TV oddities that don't qualify as anything. It's not terribly written, but it isn't funny. Neither is it tragic, nor deep, so you can't call it a drama, or a dramedy. What in the heck is it, other than a peek into the lives of several people we'd rather not watch?
To put a finer point on it, "Help Me Help You" doesn't come close to being as entertaining as "Becker" was. And "Becker" really wasn't all that entertaining. Happily, we doubt "Help" will be around as long. Lacking anything in the way of humor, cancellation may be the best medicine here.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/286409_tv26.html
Monday’s prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted just under the HD Football listings near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.
Posty-McPost
09-26-06, 12:44 PM
#40 Houston (4-0) at Miami (1-2) 6 PM ESPN2-HD
Who is ranking teams to #40? Casey Kacem? So number 40 Houston is playing unranked Miami (FL). Maybe I should start to repent.
henry296
09-26-06, 12:46 PM
Tuesday, Sept. 26
# 38 Southern Mississippi (2-1) at Central Florida (1-2) 7:30 PM ESPN2-HD
Who is ranking teams to #40?
I think he just counts down after 25 for the teams receiving votes. From the point of view you could say a team is #38.
Posty-McPost
09-26-06, 12:47 PM
I think he just counts down after 25 for the teams receiving votes. From the point of view you could say a team is #38.
Oops got caught in an edit. Ya I guess there are always teams recieveing votes. But really those are unranked teams.
Last week’s complete network average prime-time results (with demographic averages) are now at the bottom of RATINGS NEWS the first post in this thread.
#40 Houston (4-0) at Miami (1-2) 6 PM ESPN2-HD
Who is ranking teams to #40? Casey Kacem? So number 40 Houston is playing unranked Miami (FL). Maybe I should start to repent.
Actually the tams themselves often use the below-25 numbers in their press material. It is a simple method of next fewest votes is next lowest. Often the bottom handfull of teams contain a raft of ties for those teams receiving five votes or fewer.
Starting next week I'll start using BCS projections (as computed by Jerry Palm and collegebcs.com since those are the only numbers which truly count.
CPanther95
09-26-06, 01:26 PM
Personally, I don't think any of the numbers mean a thing. They need a playoff system.
Posty-McPost
09-26-06, 01:28 PM
Personally, I don't think any of the numbers mean a thing.
You obviously don't live in Columbus. :D The number is good, the number is life.
(I enjoyed Jason Whitlock's appearances on PTI. I also think ESPN needs more external criticism and input, not less.)
Playing Fred
ESPN dumps Jason Whitlock - Or - Whiltlock free to be Whitlock
Freedom to speak has price
JASON WHITLOCK
The Kansas City Star
Good news for those of you complaining that I spend too much time taping ESPN television shows.
The World Wide Leader dumped me Monday afternoon because of critical comments I made about Mike Lupica and Scoop Jackson in a blog interview that ran on Friday. You can read the interview at www.thebiglead.com.
Lupica, of course, is a sports columnist for the New York Daily News and a longtime panelist on ESPN’s “The Sports Reporters.” Jackson is the infamous ESPN.com sports columnist who bragged in a recent column about telling black kids they had a better chance of being NBA players than sportswriters.
James Cohen, an executive at the network, called me Monday and asked me whether the comments attributed to me in the interview were true. When I said “yes,” he informed me that I could no longer appear on ESPN television shows and that my November appearances on “Pardon the Interruption” would be canceled.
I wasn’t surprised. ESPN, a terrific network, has always been hypersensitive to criticism, especially when it comes from its independent-contract employees. Over the six years I’ve worked for ESPN, I’ve received complaining phone calls from its executives almost every time I’ve written a critical word about the network.
I take being a journalist/columnist very seriously. To me, being a contract employee for ESPN did not mean I’d surrendered my right to blast the World Wide Leader in Sports for making the awful TV show “Playmakers,” employing as expert analysts clownish buffoons with drug problems such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Irvin, and publishing the gangsta-posturing rantings of a poor writer.
ESPN is a powerful newsmaker in the sports world. As a sports journalist/columnist, I thought it would be wrong to ignore obvious topics just because I drew an occasional check from ESPN.
I’m not stepping on any high horse. It wouldn’t hold me.
The fact is I can’t be happy unless I’m true to myself. I like to criticize and analyze. Every coach, teacher or boss I’ve ever had would tell you that. My parents would tell you that. Every woman who has ever tolerated my company for more than six months would tell you that.
I guess ESPN thought I would get the message and pipe down. I can’t pipe down about things I’m passionate about.
So, in the blog interview, I answered the questions that were asked about my departure from ESPN.com Page 2 to AOL Sports (two weeks ago I told my editor at Page 2 that I was moving my once-a-week Internet column to AOL Sports) and a run-in I had with Mike Lupica on “The Sports Reporters” in August.
I told the blog that part of the reason I was leaving Page 2 was because I was uncomfortable with Page 2’s relationship with Scoop Jackson. Much of his writing is childish, anti-white and a caricature of a negative black stereotype. I didn’t say it in the blog interview, but it’s my belief that it is irresponsible for the World Wide Leader to publish much of what Scoop writes. Over the last year, I’ve shared these opinions with ESPN executives countless times. I said nothing in the blog interview that I hadn’t said privately.
I told the blog that Lupica and Joe Valerio, the producer of “The Sports Reporters,” had become disenchanted with me because I would not join in the crusade to portray Barry Bonds as the baseball anti-Christ. I’m not a Bonds fan and don’t think all that much of his recent accomplishments. But a life spent competing in sports and writing about sports has made me uninterested in pretending that Bonds is the real villain in the steroids mess. And I have zero tolerance for when people try to censor my ability to state fair opinions.
You might read this and think that I think I’ve been treated unfairly by ESPN. I don’t.
This was inevitable. ESPN does not tolerate criticism. Sportswriters far more distinguished than yours truly — Tony Kornheiser, John Feinstein and T.J. Simers — have been banned/suspended for comments perceived to be detrimental to the World Wide Leader.
I’m sure my move from ESPN .com to AOL Sports was viewed as an act of disloyalty by some within the network.
It wasn’t. It was just the act of a guy who values his ability to think, act and speak independently more than he does seeing his face on ESPN.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/15608294.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Marcus Carr
09-26-06, 01:54 PM
NBC Owes Thanks To Heroes
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/26/2006 12:40:00 PM
NBC won Monday night with a 4.7 rating/12 share average in the 18-49 demo thanks primarily to a big opening for drama, Heroes.
The dark--so far--drama about a motley crew of newly super-empowered twentysomethings averaged a 5.9/14 at 9-10, the night's top-rated show.
NBC got a second-place performance out of Studio 60 at 10 p.m. (4.4/12) behind CSI: Miami's 5.4/15, but Studio, NBC's latest from Aaron Sorkin, inherited that big Heroes lead-in, then dropped a half a rating point--from a 4.7 to a 4.2 from its first half-hour to its second.
That followed last week's pattern, when Studio 60 debuted at a 5/31 vs. CSI: Miami's 5.7/14, but dropped from a 5.4/13 in its first half hour to a 4.6/12 in its second.
The premiere of The CW's new series, Runaway, didn't attract much of a crowd, averaging a .7/2 in the 18-49 demo, not even half the audience of the season premiere of Seventh Heaven on the network.
In a competitive second behind NBC on the night was CBs with a 4.4/11, powered by CSI: Miami, but also getting help from a strong showing from Two and a Half Men at a 5/12 at 9 p.m.
ABC and fox tied for distant third at a 2.7/7. ABC's Wife Swap was its top show with a 3.6/9 at 9 p.m. Fox was led by Prison Break with a 3.4/9.
The CW averaged a 1.2/3, thanks to 7th Heaven.
http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6375225.html?display=Breaking+News
jim tressler
09-26-06, 02:17 PM
i agree cp - playoff of some sort.. maybe take the top 6 teams with 1 and 2 getting byes.. and have the different bowls be a round of the playoffs and start it early in december.. something like that - what I hate is the fact that some team who is a hell of a team does not have the votes at the start of the season.. its awfull hard for them to get to the top even if they may be deserving!
Posty-McPost
09-26-06, 04:26 PM
i agree cp - playoff of some sort.. maybe take the top 6 teams with 1 and 2 getting byes.. and have the different bowls be a round of the playoffs and start it early in december.. something like that - what I hate is the fact that some team who is a hell of a team does not have the votes at the start of the season.. its awfull hard for them to get to the top even if they may be deserving!
This year there is the 1 v 2 game a week after the BCS Bowls. That's almost a mini playoffs for the top 4 anyway. I'd like to see the whole thing move away from Bowl games but that will never happen.
Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Super 'Heroes': Monday night to NBC
Wins second Monday in a row of the new season
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Sep 26, 2006
“Heroes” lived up to the hype and then some.
The new NBC sci fi show premiered last night at 9 p.m. with a 5.9 adults 18-49 rating, according to Nielsen overnights, becoming not just the evening’s highest-rated show but also NBC’s best new drama premiere since “Crossing Jordan” in 2001.
Perhaps most significantly for NBC, after an opening week in which nearly all the high-profile drama premieres saw big losses during their second half hours, “Heroes” grew from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., jumping 13 percent from a 5.6 to a 6.3.
That helped NBC to its second straight Monday night victory over CBS, averaging a 4.7/12 for the evening to CBS’s 4.4/11.
“Heroes” averaged 14.29 million total viewers, first in its timeslot.
“Heroes” is now the second-highest-rated new show of the season in 18-49s, behind “Brothers & Sisters” at a 6.0, and it could well become the season’s breakout new hit. Unlike ABC’s “Sisters,” which had the benefit of a huge “Desperate Housewives” lead-in, “Heroes” built from a relatively modest 3.8 from “Deal or No Deal” at 8 p.m.
There was some question whether the show, which received a tremendous amount of internet buzz over the summer, would deliver. Though it received numerous glowing reviews, other critics questioned whether the storyline could ever gel with the focus on so many different characters.
“‘Heroes,’ NBC’s new series about regular people discovering they have spectacular abilities, wobbles perilously close to falling on its side,” wrote Media Life critic Andrew Lyons. “It has a credible mythology, and the pilot introduces several engaging characters. But others are weak, borderline comic book figures.”
“Heroes” did not help “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” Aaron Sorkin’s new drama, sustain last week’s audience, however. “Studio” pulled a solid 4.4 at 10 p.m. against CBS’s 5.6 for fading “CSI: Miami,” but that was down 12 percent from last week’s 5.0.
Still, the drama has done well with the upscale viewers that NBC favors and looks like a compatible lead-out to “Heroes” despite declining 11 percent in its second half hour.
Meanwhile, in other series premieres last night, the CW’s “Runaway” didn’t get off to a great start. The new drama averaged a 0.9 among the network’s target audience of 18-34s, losing half of lead-in “Seventh Heaven’s” audience.
And the second episode of new CBS comedy “The Class” plummeted from a 3.6 in 18-49s last week to a 2.8 last night, a dip of 22 percent.
For the night, ABC and Fox tied for third among 18-49s, each averaging a 2.7/7, followed by Univision at 1.5/4 and the CW at 1.2/3.
At 8 p.m., “Deal” led with a 3.2, followed by a 3.4 for Fox’s “Prison Break,” a 3.2 for CBS’s “Class” (2.6) and “How I Met Your Mother” (3.5), a 3.0 for ABC’s “Wife Swap,” a 2.1 for Univision’s “La Fea Mas Bella” and a 1.6 for the CW’s “Seventh Heaven.”
At 9 p.m., “Heroes” kept NBC No. 1 with a 5.9, followed by a 4.5 for CBS’s “Two and a Half Men” (5.0) and “The New Adventures of Old Christine” (4.0), ABC’s “Supernanny” at 3.6, a 2.2 for Univision’s “Barrera de Amor,” a 2.1 for Fox’s fading “Vanished,” and a 0.7 for the CW’s “Runaway.”
At 10 p.m., CBS took over the lead with a 5.6 for “Miami,” followed by “Studio’s” 4.4 and ABC’s “Men in Trees” repeat and Univision’s “Cristina” tied for third at 1.6.
Among households, CBS led with an 8.9/14, followed by NBC’s 8.1/13, Fox’s 4.8/7, ABC’s 4.3/7, Univision’s 2.4/4 and CW’s 2.2/3.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_7534.asp
The Business of TV
Fox News wants more $$ from cable operators
Atlanta Journal Constitution 09/26/06
Fox News Channel defies the skeptics again and again.
Now the nearly 10-year-old operation is trying once more, by seeking an unheard-of increase in fees paid by the cable operators that carry the popular news network.
As Fox tours the nation to celebrate its birthday, including a stop Thursday in Atlanta, the channel has its sights on lucrative new deals with cable companies.
Fox, which overtook CNN in the ratings race in early 2002, currently gets an average of 27 cents per subscriber each month. The network has proposed bumping that amount to a stunning $1, while also talking with cable companies about carrying a proposed Fox business news channel.
Some believe Fox is playing an aggressive bit of gamesmanship with its $1 request and will settle for a smaller increase. "Going from 25 cents to a dollar is completely unrealistic," said Derek Baine, an analyst with Kagan Research.
Yet honchos at Fox's parent, News Corp., have postured about putting up a fight if they don't get what they want, including the possibility of yanking the channel and unleashing the wrath of the channel's base of vociferous viewers.
Determining who wins— or, more likely, who compromises — promises to be a lively business drama. Fox may be powerful, but so are the nation's cable companies. "The sides are evenly matched," said cable and media veteran Dennis Miller, of Spark Capital in Boston.
The brewing battle highlights a little-seen side of the cable business. Networks typically earn money in two ways: by selling ads and by gathering monthly license fees from cable companies. Networks and cable operators rely on each other yet, at times, have a love/hate relationship.
Tim Carry, senior vice president of affiliate relations for Fox News, said the network believes that getting $1 per subscriber is reasonable, based on the performance of the channel. In the beginning, skeptics scoffed at Fox's prospects for success.
"When you look at what level of audience we deliver on a daily basis, we're in the top echelon of cable networks," Carry said. Fox has helped cable operators, he said, by attracting a big, new audience. "Overall, I think cable operators are grateful for what we've done."
Negotiations common
But even when a network is highly desirable, it's still fairly common for difficult negotiations to happen.
In 2004, for example, ESPN had a high-profile fight with Atlanta-based Cox Communications. Eventually, the warring parties reached a deal that led both to declare victory. ESPN got a 7 percent increase, much less than what it had been getting in other deals. Cox Communications is, like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a unit of Cox Enterprises.
Fox, meanwhile, is starting out with what Baine calls a "contentious tone."
Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of News Corp., said during a recent Merrill Lynch conference that he expects "tough, tough, tough negotiations" in the next few weeks as talks continue over a pair of deals that are set to expire with DirecTV and Cablevision Systems.
"You may also see us pull the channel from people if we can't make a deal," Chernin said at the conference, according to a transcript.
Already, a fracas is brewing in Connecticut, where Fox has faced off with Cablevision. Fox bought legal-notice ads in local newspapers, cautioning that the network could be pulled. Then Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp., addressed the issue at a Goldman Sachs conference, saying he hopes to avoid a "big breach" with Cablevision but will be willing to fight.
Neither side backs down
Like News Corp., Cablevision has a reputation for not backing down. The company did not return a call seeking comment.
Cablevision's discussions with Fox promise to get plenty of attention, given that some other cable companies — including Comcast and Cox — don't face imminent negotiations with Fox but will want to monitor what happens. Fox also has been talking with DirecTV, but that service is approximately one-third owned by News Corp., making it a lesser bellwether than what happens with Cablevision.
Baine, among others, expects Fox to get a good increase, but probably in the range of 40 cents to 50 cents per subscriber. That would amount to much less than $1, though still a stout increase.
With 90 million subscribers, a boost to 50 cents would bring in about $248 million in extra annual revenue for Fox News.
Fox also has been working on a possible business news channel. One key challenge in getting it launched is persuading cable systems to offer it.
New channel may help
While Carry said the possible business channel has no role in current negotiations, Baine said Fox could use the business channel as a way to win deals. Fox could accept lesser fees from a cable operator for Fox News in exchange for getting agreements to carry the business channel.
Of course, programming costs need to be borne by someone, and that probably means viewers will face higher cable bills.
The possibility of a backlash is a key reason cable companies don't want to give in to big demands. "Cable operators are under a tremendous amount of pressure," Baine said. "Every time you raise rates, you have these consumer advocacy groups popping out of the woodwork, saying how cable operators are trying to screw the consumer."
Then there's the ripple effect. CNN, a unit of Time Warner's Atlanta-based Turner Broadcasting System, trails Fox in the ratings, though Fox's lead has softened lately. Currently, CNN gets about 44 cents per subscriber.
If cable operators have to pay more to keep Fox, it could have an impact on how much they're willing to give CNN in future talks.
"What all negotiations come down to is value — the value that one partner sees in another," said Turner spokeswoman Misty Skedgell. "We believe that CNN's cable and satellite partners, and their customers, place a value on CNN that is unrelated to any other business'."
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2006/09/25/0926bizfox.html
FOX TRIES TO CASH IN
Cable networks typically make money in two ways: from ads and fees paid by cable operators.
Fox News Channel is trying to roughly quadruple its fees per subscriber. Here's a glimpse at fees* for a few popular networks:
ESPN: $2.91
TNT: 89 cents**
Disney Channel: 79 cents
USA: 47 cents
CNN: 44 cents**
Nickelodeon: 41 cents
TBS: 39 cents**
Fox News Channel: 27 cents
Discovery: 27 cents
Lifetime: 23 cents
* Average monthly license fee per subscriber; figures are for 2006.
** Operated by Turner Broadcasting System
Source: Kagan Research
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2006/09/25/0926bizfox.html
The New Season
“Help Me Help You”
By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog
I didn't get around to ''Help Me Help You'' for this morning's Beacon Journal for a couple of reasons. One, I felt a greater need to file a column about the season premiere of ''Gilmore Girls'' (which was a variation on what I had already posted in this blog). Two, I forgot about it.
And that's pretty much my review of ''Help Me Help You.'' It wasn't memorable enough or provocative enough or funny enough. Not that it isn't funny in spots. And it does provide a reason to consider the TV career of Ted Danson, an actor who often gives off the air of likability while playing characters whose flaws are deep. So I'll do that now.
Sam Malone, after all, was a recovering alcoholic who at times fell off the emotional wagon, too. He seemed relatively stable because he was surrounded by far more twisted characters -- Cliff, Carla, Diane and so on. He added to his abrasiveness in the briefly seen ''Ink'' (opposite his wife, Mary Steenburgen) and then let all the edges show as the star of ''Becker.'' In that context, ''Curb Your Enthusiasm,'' where he plays himself, is a breath-catcher, a chance to let someone else carry the neurosis bag. (Hello, Larry David!)
But Danson is back in his discomfort zone in ''Help Me Help You,'' playing a therapist who could use some help himself -- especially when it comes to his former marriage, which he refuses to admit is former.
If this was just a show about Danson trying to reclaim a wife (Jane Kaczmarek) that he has all but certainly lost, that might have been a decent comedy. But ''Help Me'' isn't content to do that alone, so it veers off from the Danson story into tales of his patients. You've seen some of this before, on the old ''Bob Newhart Show'' and in Judd Hirsch's ''Dear John.'' The latter involved a support group for singles but had its band of wackos, and Jere Burns is part of the group in both ''Dear John'' and ''Help Me Help You.''
I won't argue that some of the wackiness on ''Help Me'' isn't funny. I especially like Suzy Nakamura's character, a woman hilariously lacking in social skills. But I'm not going to tune into this show every week just to wait for a good Nakamura scene. That would be like watching ''Two and a Half Men'' just for the scenes with Conchata Ferrell. Who is, by the way, very good. But if the show wasn't funny in other places, she would have to be very good without my weekly attention.
Still, getting back to ''Help Me,'' the occasional giggle doesn't compensate for the long stretches where the laughs are nonexistent. (A patient in denial about being gay is especially unamusing.) I have seen two episodes, and that's more than enough.
http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/
Cable TV Nielsen Notebook
USA Net Tops in Ratings; Unseats TNT
By Anthony Crupi MediaWeek.com Sept 26, 2006
USA Network was ad-supported cable’s most-watched network in prime time in the third quarter, delivering an average 2.75 million total viewers and a 2.2 household rating in the period ending Sept. 24.
Boosted by the television premiere of Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, which ranked eighth among all cable programming in the quarter with an average audience of 7.37 million on July 15, USA unseated TNT at the top of the ratings heap. The Turner net had won the second quarter race but finished behind USA this time around with an average total audience of 2.58 million and a 2.2 household rating.
As was the case throughout much of the summer, USA also got quite a lift from its original series (Psych, Monk) and its Monday night juggernaut, WWE Raw. The most-viewed episode of Psych delivered 6.25 million viewers on the night of July 7, while the highest-rated installments of Monk and Raw both drew 6 million viewers on August 25 and June 26, respectively.
USA was also tops among the core demos, averaging 1.22 million viewers 18-49 (an increase of 25 percent year-over-year), while delivering 520,000 18-34s (+ 28 percent) and 1.26 million 25-54s (+ 26 percent).
For its part, TNT reaped huge dividends from The Closer, which closed out its second season on Sept. 4 with 8.03 million total viewers, making it the seventh most-watched program on cable in the quarter. That episode also stood as ad-supported cable’s top-rated series telecast among the 25-54 demo (3.67 million). Across the board, TNT finished second in the two of the top three demos, delivering 1.09 million 18-49s and 1.22 million 25-54s.
Football season helped push ESPN into third place for the quart