View Full Version : Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info
dad1153
10-20-06, 03:30 AM
Let's all not gang-up on Zucker just because its the cool thing to do now. He turned 'Today' around and oversaw it for over a decade of creative and financial growth, pretty much making it into the money-making machine it is today (NBC's most profitable show I've read). It would make sense if I were Bob Wright to turn to Zucker to guide my network's primetime and overall schedule. And even though his reliance on hit shows that have since retired ('Friends') or are aging (the 'L&O' franchise) has cost NBC dearly Zucker has had some successes, albeit more with critics than viewers. He's kept 'Scrubs' on the schedule despite poor ratings, greenlit two laugh track-free and single-camera sitcoms (three if you include 'Scrubs') with 'The Office' and 'Earl,' brought 'Friday Night Lights' and 'Studio 60' (both are excellent shows despite the ratings), has rejuvenated primetime gameshows with 'Deal or No Deal' after ABC had given up on 'Millionaire.' Now if only NBC could come up with a reality show that people would be proud to say they watch. Ever heard anyone say they love 'Fear Factor' or 'Biggest Loser'? Didn't think so. BTW, get ready for year-round 'America's Got Talent' now that NBC will be the reality/gameshow network from 8 to 9PM :(
True though, when an NBC show becomes a hit (like 'Heroes' and 'Medium') it seems to be becauze Zucker accidentally lucked out into picking it for his network's schedule rather than nurture it from birth. The NBC primetime schedule is littered with good shows that have to fend for themselves (like 'SVU' in years past) without the flow of a reliable pattern. Again, why the f*** isn't 'Medium' on Monday nights after 'Heroes'? :mad: How lucky for Zucker that 'ER' is now posting double-digit growth from a year ago on Thursdays, but did he foresee that when CBS moved 'Without A Trace' to Sundays? No, Zucker was practically reading 'ER' its last rights with his original plans to put it on hiatus during mid-season. And since he underestimated 'ER's' resurgence NBC cannot profit from its current high ratings because the ad rates are locked based on last Spring/Summer estimates. I know that nobody could foresee 'ER' coming back so strong this season, but Zucker gets paid the big bucks to think and anticipate these trends and viewer patterns.
On the other hand the new NBC remake of 'The Bionic Woman' will be cost-effective now that Zucker had mandated the show keep the slow-motion effect to simulate fast speed from the original for "nostalgia's sake" (i.e. cheaper to slow the tape than to digitally add trails of speed to the picture). :D
There is no rule a major network can't go out of business. So far NBC is showing it should well be the leading candidate.
No way GE lets NBC go out of business. They will sell it first. Actually, I'm surprised that it hasn't already been sold by them.
archiguy
10-20-06, 08:52 AM
It was facing cancellation, and wasn't sure if season 5 was gonna get the go ahead, so JMS had to push up the schedule a bit, it was late in season 4 before he got the go ahead for season 5, but I still liked season 5 just fine, it was the B5 universe and it hardly ever disappointed. Several spinoff TV movies also.
I'm still hoping that the B5 movie will eventually get made. Crusade got axed quickly. :(
Well, the reason Crusade got axed was because it was terrible. And this, coming from a big B5 fan. Crusade misfired on every level. It was like a cake that came out of the oven too soon, half-baked. There were lots of theories why back then, the most prevalent seemed to be that JMS's vision for the show was compromised too greatly by the suits at TNT.
josejrp
10-20-06, 09:41 AM
Crusade terrible? Are you kidding? After the blah Babylon 5 fifth season, and the awfulness that was Voyager at the time, Crusade actually had some interesting ideas and a direction. Sure, it had flaws and TNT kept meddling with it, but I thought it was pretty good. To each its own, I guess...
There is no rule a major network can't go out of business. So far NBC is showing it should well be the leading candidate.
Good point. I wonder when that cry in the industry starts up like it did a few years back. I remember when the industry was crying that by the end of the century one network would be gone and the bets were about even between NBC and ABC. That prognostication maybe about to come true, albeit a few years late.
Of course NBC has been living the high life for a long time and as you have pointed out, living on the backs of people like Tartikoff. Maybe it is time for a little humble pie. Giving up 8pm IMO isn't a smart move. If they want to be a 2 hour nightly network, give the 10pm time slot to the locals and at least they would have a chance, unlike the dumping of the first hour of network spots in SNF to make the ad buy look better for the network and making it look worse for the locals. If ABC, CBS, FOX and CW can program drama in the 8pm hour, that just shows NBC is taking the easy way out (how ironic that House is moving to 8pm Tuesdays on FOX and is a NBCU property). But then maybe it is NBC's way of pulling a FOX (the 2 hour nightly comment?), which has always run fairly lean but when you have been dining on caviar, it is hard to start eating sandwiches everyday.
Yeah, NBC probably has too much fat and I have always though having NBC News and MSNBC and CNBC physically split didn't make much sense to me (what kind of synergy is that?), but surrendering a whole hour nightly? Either Zucker is a genus or an idiot. I don't know which. :confused:
Let's all not gang-up on Zucker just because its the cool thing to do now. He turned 'Today' around and oversaw it for over a decade of creative and financial growth, pretty much making it into the money-making machine it is today (NBC's most profitable show I've read).
Sorry dad. Can't do that. Broadcasting is a performance business (sorry for the pun) and "what have you done for me lately" is the watch word if you want to keep your job. This looks like a hail mary pass on Zucker's part.
The TV Column
Downsizing NBC Plots An Unscripted Future
By Lisa de Moraes Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, October 20, 2006; C01
BEVERLY HILLS, Oct. 19 On the day NBC announced it would slash about 700 jobs and no longer develop scripted series for the 8 p.m. hour, the network's programming chief had to appear before a packed room of producers, agents and staffers at the TV industry's annual grill-the-programming-chiefs lunch.
"First and foremost, Jack and I will have the same amount of programming on our networks," Kevin Reilly joked when asked about NBC Universal's new slash-and-burn policy, which the network has dubbed NBCU 2.0.
Reilly was referring to Jack Abernethy, CEO of Fox Television Stations Inc., who was onstage with Reilly and his counterparts at the other nets. Abernethy represented "Fashion House" and "Desire," the steamy prime-time soaps of Fox parent News Corp. now airing under the cheeky name MyNetworkTV on many stations that got dumped in the UPN/WB merger -- including Washington's former UPN station, WDCA.
Reilly's self-effacing NBCU 2.0 crack played really well in the room, which had been nervously buzzing about the announcement while the programming chiefs were holed up in a VIP room upstairs at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel. Downstairs the consensus was "NBCU 2.0" stood for NBC's Ratings Next Year.
They were understandably cranky, having read comments by Reilly's boss, NBC Universal television group CEO Jeff Zucker, that NBC will focus on lower-cost programming at 8 p.m. because, as he told the Wall Street Journal, advertiser interest isn't high enough to justify spending on scripted shows. Zucker doesn't like Hollywood; the feeling is mutual.
But they do like Reilly, who was onstage along with ABC's Stephen McPherson, CBS's Nina Tassler, CW's Dawn Ostroff and Fox's Peter Liguori -- all looking relaxed as only TV industry execs whose bosses have not just announced they were going to whack 700 people and no longer develop scripted series for 8-9 p.m. to save money can.
Reilly didn't look quite as relaxed and, after opening with his joke that went over big, got that glassy look that executives always have when they are about to bore you as you've never been bored before with carefully rehearsed corporate-speak.
He talked of a company at a digital crossroads, about how nobody has the answers, how challenges give you the most clarity, how companies on the upswing perhaps put off hard decisions (take that, CBS and ABC), how today's announcement "drew a line" around many practices already in place at NBC and how NBCU 2.0 had galvanized resolve to make the hard decisions -- if not today, or tomorrow, certainly within the next couple of years.
And, in conclusion, he said, "What it means immediately, frankly, is not much to the naked eye."
Reilly noted NBC already runs the heck out of game show "Deal or No Deal" across the week, hinting that the new reality series "1 vs. 100" may become another 8 p.m. utility player.
Additionally, he assured the audience, it does not make sense for NBC to "go into the jaws" of existing reality hits on the other networks -- ABC's "Dancing With the Stars," CBS's "Survivor," etc. -- with reality product.
"So this is not an absolute," Reilly said.
That inspired CBS Entertainment chief Nina Tassler to suggest they were "addressing NBC Universal's corporate ills as an industry case." That's a nice way of saying the problem isn't the industry and lack of advertiser interest, it's the scripted shows that fourth-place NBC has come up with for 8 p.m.
Q&A moderator Andrew Wallenstein, who is the TV features editor at a trade paper and also co-hosts a TV Guide Channel show about the biz called "Square Off," noted that 8 p.m. has produced two of this season's three most promising scripted shows, "Jericho" and "Ugly Betty" (the third is NBC's "Heroes," which airs at 9).
He suggested NBC was, with its no-scripted-at-8 goal, the "canary entering the coal mine." It was the last amusing thing he -- or pretty much anybody else -- said.
Honestly, for a bunch of people who purport to be in the business of entertainment, they certainly do know how to put a crowd to sleep.
Talk was digital platforms this, staggered rollouts that, audience fragmentation here, blah blah there. And to think it wasn't so long ago Michael Moore had the entire room singing the theme song to "The Patty Duke Show."
Sensing the pall, ABC Entertainment chief McPherson -- whose nuts-to-you attitude we admire so much -- asked to see the wine list, suggesting, correctly, that alcohol would do a lot for this event.
Biggest question of the lunchtime Q&A session: What the heck was Jack Abernethy doing up onstage with the networks' entertainment division chiefs?
Grievously, Wallenstein did not ask the question.
In return, the Hollywood Radio & TV Society, the organization throwing the event, aired an ad for "Square Off" at the start of the session.
But not too many people were watching; if you want to get noticed before the actual question-and-answer portion of the festivities begins at the annual grill-the-programming-chiefs luncheon, you need to be grilled steak on skewers surrounded by radicchio and watercress.
• • • • • • • • • • •
Speaking of NBC, the network has decided not to show Madonna standing on a mirrored cross wearing a crown of thorns when it broadcasts her concert special during the November ratings sweeps.
"The 'Live to Tell' song has been revised for NBC's broadcast special," the network said in a crisp NBCU 2.0 statement Thursday. Technically, that's not the case; the song hasn't been revised, NBC is just not going to show her on the cross. Instead they'll show one of the 14 other camera angles captured during that part of the song in which she's on-cross. When she dismounts, they'll revert back to the Material Girl.
Madonna has said in interviews that the bit where she stands on the cross was meant to illustrate a theme of confession.
Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Freedonia.
Several religious groups told NBC they would boycott one of the concert's advertisers if the cross scene appeared, the Associated Press reported.
An NBC spokeswoman told the AP the network doesn't discuss how its editorial decisions are made, and Andrew Wallenstein, the moderator of the industry Q&A panel with NBC Entertainment chief Kevin Reilly and his counterparts at the other networks, was too busy asking about digital media to put the question to Reilly.
But last summer, Reilly told TVGuide.com that the crucifixion scene probably would be in the special because Madonna, who is one of the TV special's executive producers, "felt strongly about it."
"We viewed it and, although Madonna is known for being provocative, we didn't see it as being ultimately inappropriate," Reilly said back in those carefree pre-NBCU 2.0 days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901824_pf.html
archiguy
10-20-06, 10:32 AM
Crusade terrible? Are you kidding? After the blah Babylon 5 fifth season, and the awfulness that was Voyager at the time, Crusade actually had some interesting ideas and a direction. Sure, it had flaws and TNT kept meddling with it, but I thought it was pretty good. To each its own, I guess...
I would agree with you that S-5 of B5 was, by far, the weakest, and the reasons for that are pretty well established. But Crusade was a disaster, IMO, and I really wanted to like it since, by and large, B5 was just so darn entertaining and I wanted to see JMS successful in another venture. For one thing, Gary Cole was horribly miscast as the lead; and it went downhill from there. YMMV.
TV Notebook: Younger viewers
Teens rah-rah for 'Friday Night Lights'
Ratings among adults may be life-threatening
By Toni Fitzgerald medialifemagazine Oct 20, 2006
After a terrible debut and an alarming decline in its second outing, NBC’s highly touted new drama “Friday Night Lights” has actually seen some encouraging signs over the past week.
Its ratings were back up in week three, and NBC ordered six more scripts of the low-rated show Wednesday.
But perhaps most impressive, and what could help the show stick around, is the way that it’s connecting with teens. The show, which is much less soap opera-like than most high-school focused programs, actually grew 18 percent in that demo after a decent premiere and now ranks as the No. 3 new show among teens this season, behind NBC’s “Heroes” and ABC’s “Ugly Betty.”
“Lights” averaged a 2.0 among viewers 12-17 last week, the week ended Oct. 15, in its second outing, the most recent numbers available. That was up from the 1.7 earned by the premiere.
In its 8 p.m. Tuesday timeslot, “Lights” outdrew Fox’s Major League Baseball coverage and Univision’s “La Fea Mas Bella,” a popular show among teens, while finishing just 0.3 behind ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars.”
The show, about a high school football coach trying to lead his team to the Texas state title, tied for fourth among all NBC shows in the demographic last week.
Why has the show been more of a success among teens than adults 18-49, where it ranks in the bottom half of 25 new shows? There are several reasons.
First, while NBC does not generally program to teens, it did target them for a “Lights” promotion, for which it invited high school students in 50 cities to special local screenings of the show’s pilot two weeks before its premiere.
Second, teens seem to find the depiction of “Lights’” high school more realistic than many other teen-focused shows on broadcast. Picky teens won’t watch just any show about kids their age.
A cheerleader and a high school football player asked by Sports Illustrated to rate the show gave it strong reviews, saying it portrayed both their sports and high school in general accurately.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_8018.asp
The Business of TV
NBC Tries a New Tack for 8 P.M.
By Bill Carter The New York Times October 20, 2006
(Stuart Elliott contributed reporting from New York and Edward Wyatt from Los Angeles.)
As part of an extensive cost-cutting program it announced yesterday, NBC intends to drastically alter its prime-time programming, starting in the fall of 2007, filling the 8 p.m. hour each weeknight with lower-cost, unscripted programs and saving its more expensive comedies and dramas for the 9-to-11 p.m. block.
That will be probably the most noticeable change NBC will put into effect as a result of a cost-reduction plan it is labeling TV 2.0, in deference to its focus on the changes being wrought by the expansion of digital media. NBC Universal will cut about 700 jobs companywide, or about 5 percent of its work force. It expects to save about $750 million under the plan, and intends to make those cuts by the end of 2007.
Some of the savings are expected to come in reduced costs for the 8 p.m. hour, Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of the NBC Universal Television Group, said. One major impetus for the move, Mr. Zucker said, is the upheaval TV networks face because of ever-increasing incursions from digital media like Internet sites.
But some of NBC’s competitors argued that NBC was simply reacting to its own consistent failure to find scripted programs that worked at 8 p.m. The network has struggled to find hit shows for that first hour of prime time; that weakness contributed significantly to NBC’s free fall from first place to last in the ratings three seasons ago.
Now, Mr. Zucker said, NBC would try less expensive reality and game shows at that hour, like “Deal or No Deal,” which has been a success for the network on Mondays at 8.
Mr. Zucker contended, though, that the decision had less to do with penny-pinching than pragmatism. “It was what the audience was asking for,” he said. “Look at ‘Survivor’ on CBS and ‘Extreme Home Makeover’ on ABC and ‘American Idol’ on Fox.” All those unscripted shows have been hits at 8 p.m. while most of NBC’s efforts to find hits at that hour with scripted shows have languished.
Bob Wright, the NBC chairman, said, “Nobody has tried harder than we have to put on quality shows at 8. This year we tried ‘30 Rock,’ which is about the funniest show on television right now, but the audience just hasn’t gravitated to it.”
Some scripted shows on other networks have worked at 8, though. CBS has a continuing success in “NCIS”; ABC has a growing hit in “Ugly Betty”; Fox has a steady performer in “Prison Break.” This fall Fox moved one of its biggest hits, “House,” to 8 on Tuesday and it has soared in the ratings.
Both Mr. Zucker and Mr. Wright argued that the overwhelming evidence is that audiences prefer lighter, unscripted — and thus less expensive — fare at 8. “ABC is doing it everywhere,” Mr. Wright noted, citing that network’s addition of college football on Saturday night this season to unscripted shows like “Dancing With the Stars” and “Wife Swap.”
NBC experienced an enormous falloff in revenues after its ratings slide, and the move to limit the kinds of shows it will spend money on raises questions about how much of the plan came down to financial pressures exerted by its parent company, General Electric.
Mr. Zucker said, “I would hope we would be doing this whether we were in first place or last place in prime time.”
About the business model that bases almost all of a network’s revenues on income from its advertising clients, Mr. Zucker said, “I don’t know if it is irreparably broken, but the economic model is under a tremendous amount of pressure.”
The risk in sending such a message, Mr. Wright conceded, is that supporters of that model could begin to lose faith in it. “We have to try to preserve as much of those revenues as we can while trying to generate additional digital revenues,” he said.
One advertising industry executive, Steven J. Farella, president of TargetCast TCM, said of NBC’s plan to reshape the 8 p.m. hour, “The role of network TV is to retain and grow audiences.” To Mr. Farella, NBC’s plan looked as if the network wanted to “maximize profit at the expense of audience growth.”
Mr. Farella added, “We want them to swing a big hammer for clients who need to move products quickly.”
Another ad executive, Peter Gardiner, chief media officer at Deutsch in New York, defended NBC’s strategy. “It’s what a lot of mature businesses are doing in the media industry,” he said. “They’ve got to change their operations.”
The decision underlines how big an issue “the cost of content relative to revenue” is becoming for media giants, Mr. Gardiner said.
Other network executives challenged NBC’s rationale, saying it was less about a sweeping trend and more about one network’s problems.
“Broadcast television is in very good shape,” said Nina Tassler, the president of CBS Entertainment.
“Our revenues are up. Broadcast television is still the epicenter of content,” she added, and “part of what we endeavor to do is manage and contain those costs.”
Peter Liguori, president of entertainment for the Fox network, said that cutting back content creation was not the way to go. “We’d rather spend money on content, which eventually can feed all these additional digital channels,” he said.
Still, Stephen McPherson, president of entertainment for ABC, agreed that rising program costs were forcing changes in the business.
“We pour amazing amounts of money into the incredible high-quality shows,” he said. “We have to figure out ways to produce stuff of a real quality level at a lower cost.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/business/media/20drama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
The Business of TV
Prime-time cutbacks will only hurt NBC
Phil Rosenthal Chicago Tribune Media Columnist October 20, 2006
Bill Veeck, the late sage who used to own the Chicago White Sox, always liked to say that it wasn't really baseball's stars that were expensive. "It's the cost of mediocrity that murders you," he said.
It's failure that's costly.
NBC Universal Television Group Chief Executive Jeff Zucker is talking about trying to deploy lower-cost programming rather than traditional dramas and comedies in the 7 p.m. prime-time leadoff slot.
Advertiser interest just doesn't justify the expense, Zucker has said, especially when General Electric's media unit is trying to slash $750 million in annual administrative and operating expenses by the end of 2008, an initiative called NBC Universal 2.0 that was announced Thursday.
What NBC is going through is increasingly common in the media business these days. It reported a nearly 15 percent profit margin on $3.6 billion in revenue for the third quarter, but because the $542 million profit was off 10 percent, it was cast as a drag on General Electric.
"Success in this business means quickly adjusting to and anticipating change," NBC Universal Chairman and Chief Executive Bob Wright said in a statement. "This initiative is designed to help us exploit technology and focus our resources as we continue our transformation into a digital media company for the 21st Century."
That's a nice way of stating that while NBC Universal spends money to build up the digital platforms it hopes will produce more than $1 billion in revenue by 2009, it plans to take a hacksaw to costs. This means consolidating some operations and eliminating approximately 700 jobs, or about 5 percent of its global workforce, as well as spending less money in the first hour of prime time.
Of course, when NBC shelled out for "Friends" or "The Cosby Show" or "Golden Girls"--you know, programs people actually watched--scripted shows weren't expensive no matter how many zeroes were on the checks.
It's when you're spending $2.6 million per hour of "Friday Night Lights," a quality drama that's nonetheless averaging only around 6.5 million viewers, to open NBC's Tuesday lineup this fall, that the $1.1 million "Deal or No Deal" looks so good.
The more than 15 million viewers "Deal or No Deal" averages on Mondays looks pretty good, too.
Back when Zucker, then merely head of NBC Entertainment, was upping the renewal fee each year for "Friends" to keep the top-rated comedy on Thursday nights, he justified it by not only the ad revenue it generated. It also kept NBC No. 1 in the ratings and helped the network promote its other programs.
The price eventually extended beyond $9 million per half-hour. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
You want expensive? How about when NBC paid Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt each $1 million per week to star in "Mad About You" when the fading sitcom was routinely getting pounded by "JAG," a show NBC had discarded?
It's never what you pay. It's what you get for your money, and no matter what Zucker thinks of what advertisers will support at 7 p.m., the 8 p.m. shows are bound to be affected. What's that worth?
Just last year, Zucker himself said the first hour of prime time was crucial because "the ability to launch things [in the second hour and] having them self-start is nearly impossible."
So now he's saying he wants to rein in costs?
"NBC is rebounding and we think it is well-positioned in the fourth quarter of 2006 into 2007," General Electric Chairman Jeffrey Immelt said last week, noting that NBC's ratings were up 15 percent.
But a lot of that is because the network has this fall added National Football League telecasts on Sunday nights, which is costing NBC $3.6 billion, $600 million per year for the next six years.
It's a lot of cash, to be sure. It's not necessarily expensive.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-0610200194oct20,0,1862614.column
The Business of TV
Fox, now in its early 40s, all grown up
A quiet transformation, from cheek to chic
By Kevin Downey medialifemagazine staff writer Oct 20, 2006
Can America ever forget "When Animals Attack," that classic cheeky-trashy special so archetypically Fox? Or for that matter, "Married with Children," the whoopie cushion of a sitcom that became its earliest signature hit?
Yes, quite easily, it turns out. That Fox doesn't exist anymore.
The Fox of today is an entirely different television network from just several years ago. It's been largely a quiet transformation, or quiet for Fox at least.
The schlock is largely gone. The tasteless sitcoms are fewer, replaced by serious dramas like "House." Fox is no longer the lagging fourth wannabe network targeting a younger 18-34 audience. It aims squarely at the adult 18-49 demographic of the other big networks.
Fox is more mature in other ways. Four weeks into the new season, the network has joined ABC, CBS and NBC in the over-40 crowd. The median age of its viewers is now nearly 43 years old, according to an analysis of Nielsen Media Research ratings released by Magna Global. Last season, Fox’s median age was 39 years old, up from 35 just three years earlier.
Fox will not get much younger when "American Idol" and "24" return in January. "24" is its oldest show, at 45. "Idol" isn’t far behind at just under 40, and that show is creeping up in years.
Fox's aging is all by design, part of its strategy, in place for several years, to become a broader, more encompassing network.
"The difference now is that we have fewer comedies on the air, which is first and foremost, and our young-skewing drama ‘The O.C.’ is not on the air until November," says Melva Benoit, senior vice president of research at Fox. "And we basically decided to put four new, broad dramas on the air that have median ages in the early- to mid-40s. It’s a function of us broadening out."
A lot of this change is the direct result of "American Idol," as the network moved to adapt to the slew of new viewers it brought in. With the show chewing up so much of Fox’s primetime lineup, it became the network’s biggest promotional platform. It simply made less and less sense to be promoting young-skewing shows when a broad 18-49 audience was watching.
As promising new shows came along, like "House," Fox moved them to lead out of the variety show, giving them great exposure. "House," only a middling show when it debuted, became a hit when it was moved behind "Idol." It has a median age of 42.
That broader strategy fell into place under former entertainment president Gail Berman, who put "Idol" on the air, and continues under former FX president Peter Liguori. It's been responsible for pushing the network to No. 1 the past two seasons, something that would never have happened with its previous 18-34-heavy primetime lineup.
"They couldn’t have done this unless ‘American Idol’ was aging a bit. And without ‘American Idol’ they wouldn’t be competing in 18-49," says Steve Sternberg, executive vice president of audience analysis at Magna Global. "When your median age is 34, it’s hard to compete in 18-49 with networks that have median ages in the 40s."
Fox has also seen its ad revenue rise with its programming increasingly geared to the 18-49 demographic that many advertisers favor. The network generated $1.8 billion in this past summer’s upfront, only $100 million shy of NBC, despite having fewer weekly primetime hours.
And even so Fox remains relatively young, its median age five years younger than ABC’s and NBC’s and a full 10 years younger than CBS’s audience. The CW has a median age of 32.
"Fox is 20 years old now, so we are a more mature brand," says Benoit. "Every niche cable network, every niche brand, eventually realizes that to sustain success you have to go broad. That’s the only way to get more people."
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_8020.asp
TV Sports
Ohio State Meets ESPNU
By Michael Hiestand USA Today Oct. 20, 2006
Saturday, Ohio State, atop college football's rankings, hosts 4-3 Indiana, a team coming off a big win against Iowa.
Disney owns Big Ten TV rights. But don't look for the Buckeyes on Disney's ABC, ESPN or ESPN2 -- all showing Big Ten games Saturday. Instead, Ohio State will be on ESPNU, which reaches about 8 million households.
"The press says we're blacking it out," ESPNU vice president Burke Magnus says. "But it will be widely available. Just not the way people are accustomed to."
Well, yes. And if you don't like it, ESPN wouldn't have a problem with you complaining to your cable operator.
Getting on cable systems is the Holy Grail for channels.
In 1994, ESPN put a game between the USA's two top-ranked basketball teams -- Duke and North Carolina -- on ESPN2 in hopes that fans might call cable operators to complain about not getting a channel then just a few months old.
"But this isn't Duke-Carolina," Magnus says. "Everybody says look what we're doing to make the phones ring at (cable operator) Time Warner in Columbus. But that's not the be-all and end-all. We want people to call and request ESPNU. But there's no hidden agenda where we're aiming at any one market."
ESPNU is aiming at lots of markets. Magnus notes that a dozen nationally ranked teams have played on ESPNU this season and anticipates that at least a dozen nationally ranked basketball teams -- including Duke, North Carolina and Kansas -- will be on multiple times this season.
And if you can't get them, ESPN would like you to remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-10-19-weekend_x.htm
Best. Show. Ever. And the best part is that the new B5 eps are being shot in HD :D
What new shows?!? :eek: I was hoping that B5 would show up on HDNet (like Enterprise). Even upverted shows of B5 would be acceptable to me!
// Scott A
The Business of TV
Zucker punch:
KOs scripted series at 8
By Heidi Dawley MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Oct 20, 2006
The television sitcom is ailing, and for NBC it looks to be dead, at least in the first hour of primetime, under a directive from network chief Jeff Zucker.
Disappointed with the rising costs of scripted fare and sinking ratings, NBC has announced that next season it will fill the first hour of primetime with cheaper reality and game shows, saving the more expensive scripted drama and comedy series for the 9-to-11 p.m. block. The 8 p.m. hour was long given over to sitcoms on NBC.
NBC's thinking appears to be that 8 p.m. is too early to attract sizable audiences in a nation that seems to come home from work later and spends so much more time on the internet.
Zucker is obviously inspired by the success of “Deal or No Deal,” the hit game show at airs at 8 on Mondays and has done well on other nights in that same hour. Syndicated game shows such as "Jeopardy" have long done well in the transitional timeslot leading into primetime. And typically reality shows air earlier in the evening, often at 8.
NBC's announcement comes as part of a dramatic cost-cutting initiative, called TV 2.0, that will trim 700 jobs across NBC Universal and $750 million in cost savings as it shifts emphasis more toward the internet and other new media. The cheaper 8 p.m. shows would contribute to reducing costs.
NBC and Zucker are not positioning the 8 p.m. directive as based solely on saving money but rather about changing the model of broadcast primetime.
A number of media buyers declined to comment on the NBC announcement, and those who did speak on the record were mixed in their opinions. Jordan Breslow, manager of national broadcast research at MediaCom, thinks it's a smart idea
"It's good economics," he says, "concentrate the high-cost shows at 10 p.m. and the inexpensive game and reality shows at 8 p.m., and you won't need to air as many expensive shows."
Breslow notes, as do others, the increasing number of unscripted shows early in the evening. "There is a proliferation of game shows coming on the air, and I imagine that the trend will continue. 'Deal or No Deal' and '1 vs. 100' are both big hits," he says, referring to the new NBC game show that debuted last Friday to very strong numbers.
But some buyers, as well as competitors, find NBC's move a curious one.
They point out that NBC's problem is not the 8 p.m. hour but rather NBC's failure to have a successful show in that timeslot. Other networks have had 8 p.m. hits this season, including ABC's "Ugly Betty," a new comedy that airs on Thursdays, and CBS's "Jericho," a drama that airs on Wednesdays.
The other curious factor is why NBC and Zucker would announce such a decision, rather than simply implement it going forward as part of a broader programming strategy. Declaring 8 p.m. as the hour for game and reality shows limits its options.
"All the networks should focus on being broadcasters. Historically speaking, that means that they cater to multiple genres and sometimes even multiple subgenres," says John Rash, director of broadcast negotiations at Campbell-Mithun.
"If the message is sent that NBC is only going to run unscripted shows at 8 p.m., viewers looking for other fare such as comedy or drama will immediately turn elsewhere and probably stay there."
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_8047.asp
Thursday’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.
Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
'CSI' tumbles against 'Grey's Anatomy'
CBS's top copper down 30 percent in 18-49s
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Oct 20, 2006
The gap between CBS’s “CSI” and ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy” is growing as ratings for “CSI” are shrinking.
Last night, against a strong National League Championship Series on Fox and TV’s No. 1 show in “Grey’s,” “CSI” fell to its second-lowest rating in the past five years. It averaged a 6.8 in the 9 p.m. timeslot, according to Nielsen overnights, down 30 percent from the 9.7 it averaged the same night last year.
Of course last year “Grey’s” aired on Sundays and not Thursday, where the show has finished ahead of “CSI” every week in the demo and all but one night in total viewers. Last night “Grey’s” averaged a 9.5 in 18-49s and 21.9 million total viewers to “CSI’s” 20.2 million total viewers.
The last time “CSI” dipped under a 7.0 in 18-49s was in May 2004, opposite the highly rated “Friends” series finale on NBC. It averaged a 6.5 that night.
Certainly some of “CSI’s” decline was due to Game 7 of the NLCS on Fox, which pulled the best-yet ratings of this baseball postseason and averaged a 4.1 at 9 p.m. Fox is usually a nonfactor that hour.
And “Grey’s” is certainly hurting “CSI,” which has dipped nearly every week since its premiere and is down 9 percent since then.
But too there are some rumors of fan backlash on the internet because of the romance between Gil and Sara, which angered some fans when it was revealed in last spring’s season finale.
Yet even a weakening “CSI” remains a top 10 show, even if it’s no longer the No. 1 drama.
ABC won the night, the fifth time in five weeks it has finished first among adults 18-49. It averaged a 5.8 rating and 15 share, compared with CBS’s 5.4/14. Fox was third at 4.5/11, NBC fourth at 4.1/11, CW fifth at 1.7/4, and Univision sixth at 1.4/3.
As a reminder, ratings for live sporting events like the NLCS are approximate as fast nationals measure timeslot and not program data. Fox’s performance will be clearer when final ratings are issued later today.
CBS’s “Survivor” led at 8 p.m. with a 5.3, a point ahead of ABC’s “Ugly Betty,” which was up 0.1 from last week. The shows tied with an 8.9 in households. NBC’s “My Name is Earl” (3.5) and “The Office” (4.0) were third at 3.8, followed by Fox’s NLCS at 3.6, CW’s “Smallville” at 2.0 and Univision’s “La Fea Mas Bella” at 1.8.
At 9 p.m., “Grey’s” led with a 9.5, followed by “CSI” at 6.8, Fox’s NLCS at 4.1, NBC’s “Deal or No Deal” at 3.0, CW’s “Supernatural” at 1.5 and Univision’s “Mundo de Fieras” at 1.4.
At 10 p.m., Fox took the lead with a 5.8 for baseball, followed by a 5.5 for NBC’s “ER.” With a 4.2, CBS’s “Shark” was up a bit from last week’s 4.0 while ABC’s “Six Degrees” held steady for the first time week to week with a 3.7. Univision was last with a 1.1 for “Aqui y Ahora.”
Among households CBS led with a 10.6/17, followed by ABC with a 10.1/16, NBC with a 7.1/11, Fox with a 5.5/9, the CW with a 2.3/4 and Univision with a 1.9/3.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_8048.asp
(From Marc Berman’s Friday, October 20, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
Ratings Box: What’s Hot/What’s Not
Project Runway Breaks the Record Books:
The third-season finale of Bravo’s Project Runway on Wednesday at 10 p.m. was the top-rated telecast on cable for the evening with a record 5.4 million. Comparatively, that was the biggest audience for any show in Bravo’s history. The second-season premiere of lead-out Top Chef, meanwhile, benefited at 11 p.m. with an above average 1.9 million viewers – an increase of 46 percent from the show’s season one opener in March.
Crime Watch From Program Partners Picks Up Steam:
Freshman syndicated block Crime Watch, featuring Canadian dramas Cold Squad and Stone Undercover, perked up to a 1.4 AA (average audience) rating for the week of Oct. 9. Comparatively, the Program Partners weekend offering was up by 40 percent week-to-week, with its best performance in four weeks. Based on the metered markets, Cold Squad ranked No. 1 in its time period in Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Norfolk, Louisville, Richmond, and Ft. Myers; while Stone Undercover was first in Atlanta, Phoenix, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Nashville, Cincinnati, Louisville, Richmond and Ft. Myers.
A Fuller View:
Based on ratings for the week of October 9, ABC’s The View grew year-to-year by 14 percent in total viewers (3.1 million) and 16 percent among key women 18-49 (955,000).
Also in Daytime:
ABC and CBS continue to share leadership in the daypart, with CBS first in total viewers and ABC No. 1 among key women 18-49 for the week of Oct. 9 in both full daytime and among daytime dramas. Take a look:
Full Daytime
-Total Viewers:
CBS: 3.89 million
ABC: 2.94
NBC: 2.59
-Women 18-49:
ABC: 1.6 rating/10 share
NBC: 1.5/10
CBS: 1.4/ 9
Daytime Dramas
-Total Viewers:
CBS: 4.09 million
ABC: 2.98
NBC: 2.59
-Women 18-49:
ABC: 1.6 rating/10 share
NBC: 1.5/10
CBS: 1.3/ 9
• Source: Nielsen Media Research data
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp
Fredfa,
I just saw this in today's Cynopsis newsletter:
Live + Same Day Ratings: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - time period averages. Source: Nielsen Media Research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 9.4/15 Dancing with the Stars Results Show 12.5/20, Lost 9.9/15, The Nine 5.8/9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS 9.2/14 Jericho 6.8/11, Criminal Minds 10.6/16, CSI: NY 10.3/17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOX 7.2/11 MLB: NLCS Game #6: Cardinals vs. Mets 7.2/11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC 4.6/7 30 Rock 3.9/6, Twenty Good Years 3.5/5, The Biggest Loser 4.9/7, Dateline 5.2/8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CW 2.7/4 America's Next Top Model 3.4/5, One Tree Hill 2.0/3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIV 1.9/3 La Fea Más Bella 2.2/3, Mundo de Fieras 2.0/3, Don Francisco Presenta 1.6/3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TELE 0.6/1 Tierra de Pasiones 0.7/1, Marina 0.7/1, Amores 0.6/1, Decisiones 0.6/1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A18-49: ABC 4.9/13, CBS 4.2/11, FOX 3.2/8, NBC 2.6/7, CW 1.9/5, UNIV 1.6/4, TELE 0.5/1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ratings for wednesday put Lost at #1 for the 9PM hour. Am I misreading your charts or did Cynthia get it wrong?
The New Season
The Back Nine:
Any Other Keepers?
By Matt Roush TV Guide
ABC's Brothers & Sisters has joined the charmed, and so far rather tiny, circle of new fall series rewarded with what is known as "the back nine," as in a full-series renewal taking the original order of 13 episodes to 22 (sometimes expanded further for true breakthrough shows). At the moment, only three other shows have this honor: ABC's delightful Ugly Betty and two speculative fantasies that defied the odds to capture an early following: NBC's intriguing Heroes and, to the surprise of many skeptics (including this one), CBS's dark-hued Jericho.
Over the next few weeks, we'll find out which other newbies will get the full-season order and which will bite the dust in 13, if they even get that far. Here's my educated guess, by network.
CBS
The network with the most solid and consistent schedule was the first to cancel a show (Smith), and has only two other new series to decide upon.
While Shark on Thursdays has been a bit of a disappointment, relative to its CSI lead-in by being upstaged by the resurgent ER (now no longer taking a midseason hiatus, thankfully), I'm betting CBS will give it a full year to grow, and James Woods more time to grow on you.
I'm less certain about The Class, the overpopulated Monday sitcom that appears to have dipped this week in the hammock between How I Met Your Mother and Two and a Half Men. (Last week, when it first flipped with Mother, it grew a bit.) I still think there's promise in many of The Class's characters and actors, nothing a little tinkering couldn't fix. But CBS is doing so well these days, it may not feel the need to show such patience. Besides, judging from the mail I get, if CBS were to return The King of Queens to the night, that would give the lineup another boost.
ABC
The first network to give two shows a vote of confidence, in Betty and Brothers, ABC is probably going to give the nod to Anne Heche's Men in Trees, which has been holding up reasonably well in an impossible Friday time period. Moving it to Mondays or even to Thursdays after Grey's Anatomy to try to boost this romantic comedy's profile is not out of the question.
The one show that looks like a sure-fire loser is Six Degrees on Thursday, squandering its Grey's lead-in and attracting no critical or fan buzz that I've noticed. Despite some strong New York-based performers in the cast, the show's pretentious premise and so-far-ludicrous execution makes it look like the wrong show on the wrong night.
Question marks: The middling Ted Danson comedy Help Me Help You, which looks like it will stick around at least long enough to see how it plays alongside another comedy: the similarly single-camera Big Day, scheduled to premiere Nov. 28. The future's also cloudy for The Nine, whose brilliant pilot opened to disappointing numbers after Lost. Despite outstanding production values and casting, with sharply drawn characters reeling from a trauma whose details will only slowly (perhaps too slowly) come into focus, this tricky set-up may just be too much for many viewers. Though it's still very early days for this acclaimed series, not enough of the Lost audience appears willing to sit still for a second dense hour of character-driven intrigue. And that's a shame. But maybe ABC will stick it out, as it did for a full season with Invasion. Or maybe not.
NBC
Kidnapped already has been shuttled to Saturdays, starting this weekend, to burn off the remainder of its original 13-episode order, giving closure to the fans of this slickly produced mystery. That's NBC's first official casualty, and it's too early yet to say if or when the critically reviled comedy Twenty Good Years, which lost audience from the so-so launch of 30 Rock, will join it. (I imagine 30 Rock will be a keeper for a while; NBC should at least give it a chance to play alongside Scrubs, whenever it returns, before ditching Tina Fey's sharp-witted but uneven work in progress.)
The real heartbreaker here is the non-performance of the superb Friday Night Lights, which has ascended in its first three weeks to the status of my favorite new drama of the season. I know the network believes in it, but it will be a real leap of faith if NBC even allows the show to stay on the schedule through November sweeps. (A vanishing act during that crucial ratings period is almost always a sign of lost confidence.)
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is a trickier animal: launched amid great hype because of its starry cast and creator (The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin), the show has lost audience by the week, even as the show itself has ramped up its sense of self-importance to a level that even a fan (I'm speaking of me) can't help but cringe.
This week's episode of Studio 60, though still dazzling in many respects (the acting, mainly), was especially tough to swallow. Sorkin's gratuitous swipe at reality TV (reprising the "bad crack in the schoolyard" line he used during a TCA press conference this summer) fell flat, because the mock Mark Burnett pitch was of a despicable sort of reality programming that even Fox has mostly turned away from. Temptation Island was so '90s. This diatribe felt outdated and out of touch, not to mention annoyingly self-righteous. And then there was the young playwright selling a show about the U.N. (shades of Sorkin and The West Wing?), who was prompted by Danny (just where did he get his "street cred?") to choose NBS (read NBC) over HBO. We won't even get into how this show is looking ever more like therapy for a writer who appears to be reliving his past relationships with figures like Jamie Tarses (Jordan McDeere), Kristin Chenoweth (Harriet Hayes) and Maureen Dowd (Christine Lahti's Martha O'Dell, the rare reporter who uses neither pen nor tape recorder). In so many ways, you can't help thinking: Get over yourself, Aaron.
Mind you, I'm not giving up on the show. But I'm becoming more aware of why it's a turnoff for so many. Which makes me rethink my former belief that NBC would never jettison such a prestige project this early in its run. I still think it will get the full season, if only to save face and to send a signal that NBC is committed to quality (even when flawed) TV. But if it doesn't make it to May for whatever reason, I won't exactly be shocked.
Fox
A real mixed bag here. No cancellations yet, but the clock is certainly ticking on Thursday's mirthless Happy Hour and on Friday's transplanted fiasco Vanished.
The first few weeks post-World Series will be make or break for Justice (moved to Mondays after Prison Break) and Standoff, which will have to survive against Dancing With the Stars and NCIS in the killer Tuesday time period that torpedoed Friday Night Lights. Both shows have been given additional script orders, but whether that will translate to a full season run remains to be seen. I'd try to wager some odds here, but I find it hard to care about either.
The Brad Garrett comedy 'Til Death hasn't had much of a chance on Thursdays. And while it may not deserve one, couldn't Fox give it a try in place of the truly unwatchable The War at Home and see if it couldn't find a home on Sundays? Regardless, I'm thinking this star vehicle may be given the benefit of the doubt in hopes of finding a niche during American Idol season.
CW
Last and definitely least, this fledgling hybrid network of WB/UPN titles has made no impression with its new series. Runaway was DOA on Mondays and Sundays, and The Game will make it only by riding Girlfriends' coattails. Whatever happens, we have to hope CW has something brewing for midseason or its first year will have been a wash.
http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700009260
NBC does not keep good programs on, just think American Dreams
Fredfa,
I just saw this in today's Cynopsis newsletter:
Your ratings for wednesday put Lost at #1 for the 9PM hour. Am I misreading your charts or did Cynthia get it wrong?
Those are household ratings, not viewers. I prefer, whenevr possible, to compare viewer totals -- becasuse that is, after all, what is most important (of course advertisers prefer total 18-49 viewers, but that is a different story).
So, when the initial total viewers came out yesterday they showed "Criminal Minds" beating "Lost" (barely) for the first time. But when the full results were released later yesterday, "Lost" managed to squeak by for the total viewers win.
(I noted that change late yesterday here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8697938&&#post8697938 )
"Lost" also wins handily (although the margin is eroding week-by-week) over "Criminal Minds" in the 18-49 demo.
Why count DVR users in advertising rates if they typically do not watch commercials?
(Sorry I missed this question yesterday, CP95!)
Because the networks (led by legendary CBS ratings guru David Poltrack) stubbornly insist that people actually DO watch commercials even when they TiVo or DVR a program. (Of course, what else are they supposed to say?)
Early in December that all may become moot when Nielsen unveils its commercial rankings. I have no idea how they are going to handle DVR/TiVo viewing, but these new ratings are supposed to show how many people actually watched the commercials.
I suspect the nets are terrified.
CPanther95
10-20-06, 01:49 PM
It was more of a rhetorical question in response to the previous poster.
Sorry, sometimes I have tunnel vision.
I should figure out some way to spend more time reading the thread slowly, I guess.
Obituary
Herbert Leonard, 84
Produced TV Classics
By Dennis McLellan Los Angeles Times Staff Writer October 20, 2006
Herbert B. Leonard, a film and television producer who brought "The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin" and the classic TV dramatic series "Naked City" and "Route 66" to television in the 1950s and '60s, has died. He was 84.
Leonard died of cancer Saturday at his home in the Hollywood Hills, said his daughter Gina Leonard.
A former unit production manager at Columbia Pictures, Leonard launched his career as a producer in the 1950s, developing adventure TV series for Screen Gems, Columbia's television subsidiary.
Leonard created and was executive producer of "The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin," the 1954-59 western series set on a cavalry post and featuring a heroic German shepherd and his boy companion, Rusty (played by Lee Aaker).
Then came "Naked City," the gritty police detective drama that ran on ABC from 1958 to 1963 and initially starred John McIntire and James Franciscus.
"There are 8 million stories in the Naked City …" the announcer intoned each week on the series, which executive producer Leonard insisted be shot on location in New York.
But for many, Leonard's most memorable series is "Route 66," which ran on CBS from 1960 to 1964.
The show starred Martin Milner as the Yale-educated Tod Stiles and George Maharis as streetwise Buz Murdock: two young men meandering across America in an iconic Corvette. (Maharis was replaced by Glenn Corbett as Linc Case in the final season.)
Like "Naked City," "Route 66" was shot on location — in about 40 states — and frequently featured the writing of co-creator Stirling Silliphant.
"Herbert B. Leonard was a key producer, creating unique entertainment on film starting in the late '50s," said Ron Simon, curator of television and radio at the Museum of Television & Radio in New York. "Unlike other producers, he worked to explore contemporary America.
"His 'Naked City' reflected the grittiness and realism of 1960s New York. And 'Route 66' in many ways brought the spirit of Jack Kerouac's 'On the Road' to a television audience."
Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University, said Leonard's "greatest legacy was to extend the golden age of television into the 1960s through 'Naked City' and 'Route 66,' which carried the idea of the anthology drama into the era of the modern television series."
Speaking of "Route 66," Leonard told The Times in 1993: "The stories were about something. They had a theme. They had a point. They had a human spirit. The guys were really testing their values against the people they met on the road."
Chris Canaan, a screenwriter who worked with Leonard on several TV projects, called him a "visionary."
"He was a man who, when he had a vision, he would do anything to make that vision happen, including putting up his own money, which he did on 'Naked City' and 'Route 66,' " Canaan said.
Leonard, he added, "had a gift for collaboration like no producer I've ever worked with in this business. He … was there to facilitate and work with the writer on a collective vision."
Leonard was born in New York City on Oct. 8, 1922. He attended New York University, where he played football, before becoming a Navy pilot and instructor during World War II.
Among Leonard's movie credits as a producer are "Popi," a 1969 comedy-drama directed by Arthur Hiller and starring Alan Arkin. Leonard also produced and co-directed "The Perils of Pauline," a 1967 comedy starring Pat Boone; and he produced and directed "Going Home," a 1971 drama starring Robert Mitchum.
In addition to his daughter Gina, Leonard is survived by daughters Michelle, Swan, Victoria, Sophie and Annie, and three grandchildren.
A memorial service will be held at 10:15 a.m. today at the Old North Church, Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills.
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-leonard20oct20,1,3999074.story?coll=la-news-obituaries
Those are household ratings, not viewers. I prefer, whenevr possible, to compare viewer totals -- becasuse that is, after all, what is most important (of course advertisers prefer total 18-49 viewers, but that is a different story).
So, when the initial total viewers came out yesterday they showed "Criminal Minds" beating "Lost" (barely) for the first time. But when the full results were released later yesterday, "Lost" managed to squeak by for the total viewers win.
(I noted that change late yesterday here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8697938&&#post8697938 )
"Lost" also wins handily (although the margin is eroding week-by-week) over "Criminal Minds" in the 18-49 demo.
Thanks for the explanation, Fredfa
archiguy
10-20-06, 02:52 PM
Because the networks (led by legendary CBS ratings guru David Poltrack) stubbornly insist that people actually DO watch commercials even when they TiVo or DVR a program. (Of course, what else are they supposed to say?)
Early in December that all may become moot when Nielsen unveils its commercial rankings. I have no idea how they are going to handle DVR/TiVo viewing, but these new ratings are supposed to show how many people actually watched the commercials.
This reminds me of a question I've been wondering about for a few weeks now. Since this is the autumn of an even-numbered year, extraordinary amounts of money are being lavished on the TV networks for political campaign ads. I wonder what, if any, adjustments to the fees being charged the candidates are being made because of DVR's? After all, if people use these devices to zap commercials, they surely will use them to zap political ads as well.
I mention this because it's only 2 1/2 weeks before the election and I noticed, with some surprise, that I haven't seen or heard a single political ad this season, thanks to my DVR (for TV) and the fact that I'm pretty much an exclusive NPR listener on the radio. It's not a big deal for me, as I'm kind of a political junkie and I seek out information on the candidates from a variety of sources. But for most Americans, the only information they get on candidates is the relentless negative ads on TV. We always hear how important money is to political campaigns, and most of that money, of course, goes to buy TV ads.
Fred, have you heard anything about the effect of DVR's on political advertising?
TV Notebook
Look at Who's Heating Up TV Guide's Hot List!
The weather’s getting cooler, but TV’s catching fire! Here are this season’s steamiest sensations.
HOT DOC
Eric Dane, Grey's Anatomy
Why him? Look no further than this season’s second episode, in which Dane — aka Dr. Mark “McSteamy” Sloan — emerges from Addison’s hotel bathroom in a cloud of steam, and not much else. “I had a towel on,” says the real-life hubby of Vanished star Rebecca Gayheart. “We also had to use double-stick tape.” Ouch.
HOT GEEK
Masi Oka, Heroes
Why him? As Heroes’ Japanese salesman Hiro Nakamura, Oka steals the show with his hilarious one-liners and hit-and-miss attempts at honing his superpowers. When he’s not bending the space-time continuum as Hiro, Oka is a part-time programming consultant for George Lucas’ visual-effects company, Industrial Light & Magic, where he worked on the Pirates of the Caribbean series and Star Wars prequels. “I love being constantly occupied,” he says.
HOT FEET
Mario Lopez, Dancing with the Stars
Why him? Whether he’s playing fast and loose with the ballroom-dancing rule book or keeping viewers guessing about his real relationship with his sultry partner, Karina Smirnoff, Lopez has become a lightning rod for controversy on DWTS. "We’re not trying to be [rebellious], at all," he says. "It’s just that I love to put in my little steps, make it more entertaining for the audience."
HOT AND BOTHERED
Hugh Laurie, House
Why him? Whether he’s calling Chase “Dr. Idiot” or informing Cuddy that she’s “ugly when she’s jealous,” House has been TV’s biggest pill for three seasons. We’re still addicted to his scalpel-sharp remarks.
HOT BODY
Roselyn Sanchez, Without a Trace
Why her? As FBI agent Elena Delgado, Sanchez worked a stripper pole like a pro — for an undercover job, of course. “Roselyn has added a lot of heat,” says costar Poppy Montgomery. “Not only do the boys want to kiss her, so does one of the girls.” That’s hot!
HOT LOOK
Amanda Peet, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
Why her? Besides the obvious, you mean? Sleek but still sexy, Peet’s NBS honcho Jordan McDeere is no stuffed suit. “She’s playing a studio head, but one with a lot of style,” praises TV Guide Channel’s Fashion Team guru David Evangelista. If only all network execs knew how to put together such winning ensembles — on and off screen.
HOT COACH
Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights
Why him? As Eric Taylor, coach of the mighty Dillon Panthers in a Texas town obsessed with football, Chandler is as tough as he is graceful — and even manages to look dapper in a cheap nylon windbreaker.
HOT TRIANGLE
Jim, Pam and Roy, The Office
Why them? You didn’t expect Pam (Jenna Fischer) to just ditch fiancé Roy (David Denman) and live happily ever after with Jim (John Krasinski), did you? After all, the NBC comedy is only in its second full season. “Jim needed to figure out who he is, and Pam needed to do the same,” Fischer says. While Jim’s transferred to Dunder-Mifflin’s Stamford office, Roy is fighting to win back Pam. He’s dropped weight and looks great. What’s his secret? Must be those frozen chicken-or-fish wedding meals he eats for lunch every day.
HOT SET
The secret court on Shark
Why this? If you’re Michael Jordan, you have a regulation-size at-home basketball court. If you’re Sebastian Stark (James Woods), the lawyer who puts the teeth in Shark, you have your own personal courtroom to practice your cunning maneuvers. “I read about two or three high-profile law firms in Washington, D.C., that had [fake] courtrooms in their offices,” says Shark creator Ian Biederman. “But Sebastian is a guy who has tremendous resources, so I took the liberty of putting the courtroom in his house.”
HOT ON THE TRAIL
William Fichtner, Prison Break
Why him? "He is going to find these guys," Fichtner says of his Fox River 8-tracking Fed, Alexander Mahone. "But some of the things that Mahone has in the back of his closet — and in the back of his mind, the voices he is hearing about his own life — get in the way. When we come back from hiatus, somebody starts to look at Mahone and wonder a bit about him. The pieces start to come together, with a little bit of a backstory."
HOT NEW FACE
America Ferrera, Ugly Betty
Why her? How could you not love her? The swan behind Ugly Betty is the season’s biggest sweetheart, bringing a refreshing normality to a medium that’s overcrowded with the extra-petite set. “It’s not about her trying to conform,” says Ferrera, who hopes that her heroine will never be chic. “It’s more about her exploring what she likes about herself."
HOT KIDS
Dukie, Randy, Michael and Namond, The Wire
Why them? In their portrayal of middle-school teens caught in the sights of the Baltimore drug trade, the scarily talented Jermaine Crawford, Maestro Harrell, Tristan Wilds and Julito McCullum have viewers and critics raving. “Stunning” is producer Ed Burns’ take on the foursome’s professionalism. “I’d trade them for many an [adult] actor,” he says. Apparently HBO is pretty psyched, too, as it’s just ordered a fifth season.
HOT LOVER
Claire Forlani, CSI: NY
Why her? She seduced Death (aka Brad Pitt) in Meet Joe Black. But that's kid stuff compared to her latest achievement: Forlani has actually given Gary Sinise’s scowling Mac a reason to flash his pearly whites. Since her heart-stopping medical examiner Dr. Peyton Driscoll hit CSI: NY earlier this season, she and Mac have been keeping their love undercover, quietly charming fans who’d given up on seeing Mac happy.
HOT ROCKER
Tracy Morgan, 30 Rock
Why him? His riotous alter ego, Tracy Jordan, is a bigger star than Morgan ever was on SNL. But 30 Rock could change all that. “Tracy Morgan is my muse,” says star Tina Fey. “I transcribe whatever he says and it comes out in our scripts: ‘Dress every day like you’re gonna get murdered in those clothes.’ You can’t beat that.”
HOT RELATION
Josh Henderson, Desperate Housewives
Why him? As Austin, the ne’er-do-well nephew of Nicollette Sheridan’s Edie, Henderson is setting off sparks with Julie (Andrea Bowen), the daughter of his aunt’s sworn enemy. With his face and bod, we’re surprised it wasn’t Eva Longoria’s Gaby who snatched him up first.
STILL HOT
Jeri Ryan, Shark; Tim Daly, The Nine
Why them? Ever since she Borg'ed out as Voyager’s Seven of Nine, we’ve been over the moon for the vivacious Ryan. Her stint as Boston Public’s smokin’ teacher and her current gig as James Woods’ DA boss have proven she can heat up any line of work. And as for Daly, who wouldn’t want to join the mile-high club with the former Wings man? On The Nine, he’s a perfect 10.
HOT ZONE
Jericho
Why there? The pilot’s gut-punching nuclear blast blew away viewers, who have been visiting the isolated town in droves. And the fallout is shaping up to be a crafty headscratcher of Lost proportions. How come an ex-cop knows so much about nukes? Were those other cities really blasted off the map? And who is Hawkins, anyway.
http://tvguide.com/News-Views/Interviews-Features/Article/default.aspx?posting={2C9B0416-BF43-403A-9F3C-8C8678D56FB1}
....Fred, have you heard anything about the effect of DVR's on political advertising?
Nothing new, Archie. Except that broadcasters are counting on a heavy, heavy influx of political ad money again this year.
And from all reports I see, they are getting it.
Here in California the ads seem even more ubiquitous than ever. I read somewhere (and I don't remember the source, but believe it to be reliable) that there will be in excess of $1 billion spent on televised political advertising this year.
But there are the beginnings of an advertsiing migration to the net. I am sure we will see far more of that by 2008.
What new shows?!? :eek: I was hoping that B5 would show up on HDNet (like Enterprise). Even upverted shows of B5 would be acceptable to me!
// Scott A
You mean you don't know?? Hope you are sitting down ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5:_The_Lost_Tales
The New Season
The Game and 7th Heaven on The CW
By Jim Benson Broadcasting & Cable 10/20/2006
The CW Network has picked up the back nine episodes of two series from CBS Paramount Network Television, the freshman comedy The Game, making it the first new sitcom on any network to get a full-season order this season, and returning drama 7th Heaven.
Earlier in the week, The CW pulled the plug on the low-rated drama Runaway.
The Game, which counts actor Kelsey Grammer among the executive producers, has retained 95% of its Girlfriends lead-in among women 18-34 and The CW has been pleased with its creative direction.
7th Heaven, which had been destined to end its long run last season only to be revived for the new netlet, began the season in its usual Monday night slot before moving to 8 p.m. Sundays when The CW flipped its comedies and dramas on the two nights.
Its numbers have been so-so, but a CW spokesman says the netlet expects loyal viewers to follow the longest-running family drama to Sundays.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6383556
TV Q&A
Ask Matt
(from the Ask (TV Critic) Matt (Roush) column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush TVGuide.com TV Critic Friday, October 20, 2006
Question: I've noticed that some of the more popular shows on TV right now are quite racially diverse, e.g. Grey's Anatomy, Lost, Ugly Betty, Heroes. Maybe this is more than just a coincidence. In other words, is it that the best show creators just happen to be more open to racial diversity, or do you think having a multiracial cast actually allows the show to reach a larger audience of more than just one demographic?— Caroline
Matt Roush: While stopping short of predicting that Grey's Anatomy can cure prejudice, I will say (as I've said before) that one of its greatest attributes is its ethnically blended cast, which almost never calls attention to itself. Lost also broke barriers in presenting an Asian couple whose back stories were often told with subtitles, something Heroes has adopted with its most appealing character, Hiro. (And here's where I should stop and tip the cap to ER, which got there first and is still doing an admirable job.) All of this is a step in the right direction. I'm not sure these shows' popularity is due entirely to the diverse casting, but it's refreshing to see networks rewarded for reflecting a more accurate picture of today's melting-pot culture. Ugly Betty takes it a step further by grounding its title heroine in a specific culture, reflecting the origins of this particular show. Bravo.
Question: I just read that NBC pulled its planned three-episode encore of Friday Night Lights this Sunday in favor of Heroes. Does this mean cancellation is basically inevitable? If so, what a loss. I felt that this was a show that could truly bring together red and blue America. It dealt with issues of community, family and religion respectfully and truthfully. It was also smart, well produced and extremely well acted. Isn't this exactly the kind of show the family values crowd has been clamoring for? Why aren't they watching? Is Dancing with the Stars really that much more appealing? With Friday Night Lights likely on its way out and Studio 60 in a similar boat, it looks like viewers are really not interested in straightforward quality TV these days. They seem much more drawn to procedurals, reality shows and bizarre concept serials like Lost, Heroes and Jericho. What do you think this means for the future of what used to be mainstream drama in prime time? Also, was any quality show on NBC set up for failure simply because none would have a decent lead-in? Is there any way to save Friday Night Lights?— Dan
Matt Roush: I have a feeling we'll learn more about Friday's fate soon. By the end of the month, I bet. (If NBC lets the show air into the November sweeps, that will be a true show of support, and so far, it's still on the calendar.) I'm worried about it, too. I was worried before it premiered. Look, NBC was always going to have a tough time launching some of its series this fall because 1) it entered the season playing catch-up, with few returning hits; and 2) several of its better shows were not the sort of franchises (self-contained crime, legal or medical dramas) that seem to catch on faster. NBC took some risks. Heroes, at least, paid off. You bring up a good point about the so-called "family" audience. In this case, that audience appears to be focused instead on Dancing with the Stars and, to a lesser degree, Gilmore Girls, both of which are more purely "entertaining" than this wrenching drama about a Texas town and its high-school football team. I wouldn't generalize too much about the future of "mainstream" drama, although it's true that it seems harder to sell a story about everyday people unless there's some kind of high concept or franchise attached. The moderate success of ABC's Brothers & Sisters is a positive sign, though I wish that show interested me more.
And because I'm all about equal time (well, within reason), here's a provocative opposing view regarding Friday Night Lights, from Tom:
"OK, I'm going to get crucified on this one. I cannot stand watching Friday Night Lights because I find it ideologically reprehensible. Let me say upfront that I have no interest in sports, so I know I lose credibility with sports nuts right there. While I understand that people can enjoy sports and find some level of collective pride in them, I believe that our culture has gone way overboard with its obsession. When my local newspaper devotes one page to international news and at least eight to sports, something is awry. I watched the premiere of FNL because of the critical hype and my interest in small-town stories. I understand that it is based on a real town in Texas and certainly is representative of much of everyday America. But the extent to which the townspeople put their pride in a game is pathetic. And what I find most reprehensible is that these sick parents and community members place so much of their misplaced ego and pride on the backs of their kids! When the quarterback was injured in the premiere, I certainly felt bad for the character and his family. But the tears I shed were tears of grief over a twisted culture that would risk the life and limb of their children for meaningless entertainment. I'm tuning out because the show is simply sick."
Hmmm, were you channeling Veronica Mars this week? Veronica, who described football as "the systematic violation of the Geneva Convention made into a sport." If I thought Friday Night Lights glorified any of these things, I might agree. But the fact that it had this impact on you leads me to believe it did its job very well. The show empathizes with these people, for sure, but it also dramatizes the downside of this obsession with sports and the dehumanizing pressure on these young people and their coach. Put all of that together, and you've got one hell of a drama. Too bad so few are watching.
Question: As I enjoy The Wire and Weeds, I have noticed that dramas on cable have overtaken dramas on network TV in terms of quality. Sure, there are shows like 24, Lost and Grey's Anatomy, but in my opinion they pale in comparison to Weeds, The Wire, The Sopranos, Battlestar Galactica, Rescue Me, The Shield, Deadwood, etc. Maybe it's because cable offers greater freedom to the writers, but I think it's because of the 13 episodes per season in a cable drama compared to 22 (or more) episodes for a show on network TV. The long season is probably too much pressure on writers, leading to a lot of "filler" episodes. Lost's Season 2 was so slow that I gave it up by the end of the season. I think shows like that would greatly benefit if the number of episodes were reduced to 13. What do you think?— Shayan
Matt Roush: This is a great topic, because while it's absolutely true that in many cases, less would be more, I hear all the time from greedy fans who can't understand why more episodes per season can't be made by many of these complicated productions. Networks are hungry beasts. They devour product. If a show is successful, a network is always going to demand more, not less. While I will always disagree with the Lost contingent that thinks the show doesn't move fast enough — the way it tells stories still seems revolutionary and fascinating to me — you're probably right that if the producers had to churn out fewer episodes, each individual story could pack more punch.
I've had a similar discussion lately with colleagues about The Office, which I think improved quite a bit last season but still seems to be uneven week to week. Here's a show that I wish could find a happy medium between the British model (12 episodes total, plus a Christmas special) versus the American system of cranking out at least 22 a season. The NBC version has already produced nearly three times as many episodes as the original, and a show that strikes such a delicate balance of realism and comedy isn't always going to be able to hit a home run. (Dwight's attempted coup was a particular low point lately, though I felt the "Grief Counseling" episode was a pale imitation of last season's classic "Conflict Resolution," with the exception of Pam's genius gag of making up family deaths from movies they've seen.) If it could be more selective in its output, imagine how great it could be.
Question: Here's a Lost theory that has nothing to do with the island's mystery, but rather its slightly slipping ratings. I believe the success of Jericho is causing viewers to avoid watching Lost directly after (too much mystery-adventure in one sitting) and instead to gravitate toward something more mindless, such as Criminal Minds. I think this opens up many possibilities for network scheduling. Grey's Anatomy has seemed to get its viewers craving more medical drama, sending them to another network for ER at 10 pm/ET. Could a network be crafty enough to schedule a show around another network's hit?— T. Paul
Matt Roush: You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You don't think CBS purposely scheduled Jericho in Lost's original time period (back in the first season) in hopes of drawing that audience in an hour early? I imagine there's plenty of overlap between the shows — and for the record, at least for now, Lost is still outdrawing Jericho, even if Lost's numbers aren't what they used to be (though hardly disastrous, especially in the demos). It does seem like Grey's Anatomy fans may be drifting over to ER (which now conveniently begins a minute into the hour, to take advantage of Grey's fans whose story doesn't end until a minute past the hour). Lost's slippage probably has more to do with some frustration over the continuing denseness of the storytelling, which leaves many characters unattended for weeks (months?). It doesn't surprise me a bit that Criminal Minds (the absolute worst of CBS' procedural hours) attracts an audience that wouldn't dream of stepping foot on that mysterious island. That's a classic example of counterprogramming.
Here's another Lost question, from Jeff:
"I'm one of those obsessive Lost fans who jump on the Internet immediately after the show finishes and begin analyzing every little movement and posting new theories. What amazes me when I do this is the number of people who say that great episodes of Lost are terrible. I constantly see a minority of people complaining that 'They never answer any mysteries.' I found a similar reaction to the premiere of The Nine. People wanted everything shown to them in the first episode. I don't understand. What makes shows like Lost so great is the suspense and anticipation. If we had found out all about Dharma in the pilot, then why bother watching?"
To me, the reality of the situation is that Lost was never meant to be this popular in the first place. There's a reason it doesn't draw the mass audience of CSI and its offshoots, which despite its occasional gruesomeness is a much easier and more comforting show to sit through. Lost intends to provoke and disturb as it expands its world of characters and settings, and I get why some fans wish it could go back to the relative simplicity and tighter focus of its earlier days. But to whine that nothing happens, it's too slow, nothing's ever explained, I will never get. I agree with you totally. It's about the mystery, the ride and, most important, the human drama.
And finally, because every so often I just like to share someone's joy, here's this shout-out to the glories of Lost, from Robert R.:
"Praises to J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof for such a magnificent relaunch of the third season of Lost. I am stunned beyond belief by the naysayers who must struggle mightily to find anything to complain about. What other show is so rich with complex, beautifully portrayed characters that it can keep over one-half of its cast off screen during the first two hours of the season, and still deliver such magnificent television? This show has so much life in it. It has not even neared its peak yet. And there are plenty of answers being fed to us while new questions are created. This is the best of cliff-hanger television with a gifted, electric cast and production qualities that are unparalleled. Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy, folks."
My sentiments exactly.
Question: Thanks for your updates on MI-5. Do you have any idea why A&E would seemingly and purposely not advertise the show's return, air just two episodes, then pull the plug without so much as a warning to viewers who have fervently but patiently waited for its return? This is a crime, and shame on A&E. I used to think "quality" whenever I heard A&E. Now, it's gone so downhill, I don't know what to think.— NT
Matt Roush: You know how I often say that it's silly to think that networks purposely try to kill shows? Well, in this case, it's true. A&E did everything in its power to keep MI-5's return a secret after an unconscionably lengthy hiatus, and when no one came to the party when the show was annexed to Fridays at 11 pm/ET, it was yanked off the schedule. I bring this up to remind the show's fans that a marathon of the remainder of the current season will be airing this Saturday, 11 am to 7 pm/ET. But it wouldn't surprise me if the network canceled the marathon midway through, it has such seeming contempt for anything that isn't cheesy reality. The network argues that its new programming mandate has made its median viewer age younger. At what cost to brand credibility?
Question: I have watched all the episodes of Ugly Betty so far, and I really enjoy the show on many levels. I love (and hate) that "poor Betty" moment that seems to occur at least once per episode (you know, when some wafer-thin coworker attempts to humiliate her at a staff meeting or some such). The only problem I have with the show, honestly, is that as believable as Betty is in terms of her disposition and courage, she is utterly unbelievable to me in terms of her looks. A woman (whether she's raised in Queens, the rural Midwest or Seattle) who wants to work at the most successful fashion magazine in America would presumably have some minor interest in fashion and/or personal beauty. I just have a hard time buying the idea that Betty, who is by no means ugly, would have no interest in or ability to present herself with a certain amount of style and grace. If she has no interest in fashion, why is she working at such a prestigious publication? And if she does have an interest in fashion, how can such a bright, resourceful, competent and professional young woman have absolutely no clue that she's presenting the most unfashionable image possible? Thanks for your thoughts. I do love the show and hope it lasts many, many years.— Andrew T.
Matt Roush: So do I. First off, keep in mind that in many ways, Ugly Betty is a cartoon, a garish comedy that is meant to be extreme in its looks and style, including Betty's lack thereof. Addressing a key plot point, though: Betty had no intention of working at Mode. She wanted to work for one of Meade Publications' more serious mags (think Vanity Fair), not this glossy fashion rag. She is a complete novice to this world. And while it's true that someone with Betty's gumption and brains would probably be able to do enough homework to put together a look that's a little less goofy, Betty is also representing a less inhibited culture that isn't afraid of a little color or a few curves. Do I believe someone like Betty would actually go to work looking like she does? No. But the show's called Ugly Betty, not Extreme Makeover (although her recent makeover was hilarious). I will say, though, that I hope the show doesn't bring Betty to the brink of quitting every week. That's getting old fast.
Question: After seeing the first two episodes of The Nine, it seems obvious that the concept just doesn't work. Episode 2 only showed five minutes of the bank robbery. If the robbery lasts 48 hours and they only show five minutes each episode, it will take 576 episodes in order to show the entire robbery. Now, I'm a fan of shows like Lost that gradually reveal details about the plot over the course of the season, but this just seems gratuitous. And while I enjoy seeing the pieces of the robbery, the rest of the show is rather dull. It's like going to work after you missed an episode of your favorite show and having to hear everyone talking about how great the episode was. Everyone's talking about the robbery, and it sounds really interesting, but all the talk about it just makes it frustrating that you can't see the robbery for yourself. Well, unless this show actually makes it 576 episodes, but you probably have a greater chance of becoming a hostage in a bank robbery yourself.— Andrew R
Matt Roush: Very funny. And I assume you're being facetious. The Nine may only offer several minutes of bank-robbery flashback per week, but I would assume they're always going to be pivotal, character-revealing minutes, which certainly wouldn't be the case if we had to live through the entire ordeal in real time. I loved The Nine's pilot episode, and am still intrigued, though after the second hour, I'm also struck by just how tricky it's going to be to maintain a balance between the riveting nature of the robbery/hostage crisis flashbacks and the more mundane subplots of life in the aftermath. Although calling them "dull" this early in the game seems awfully harsh, especially when one of the story lines in the second week ended in a character committing murder.
Here's another take on the show, from Rick C.:
"The Nine is a well-made show, and I'm enjoying its execution, but I've got to wonder how far the premise can take it. It seems completely tied to what happened in the bank, and they either spread that reveal out forever (hello, X-Files), or they just peter out. The show either ends with a bang after a short run, or it ends in a whimper. What are your thoughts on this?"
Rich isn't the only person to wonder about The Nine's long-term potential. Which could be a moot point if the numbers don't pick up. Like so many series this season, The Nine has the feel of a great story that could have made a brilliant miniseries, or even a 13-episode "limited series" on cable or some network that could support such a thing. Not knowing what twists the writers have in store for these characters, as more is made clear about just what happened in the bank, I can't speculate on how the show could carry on in a second season, perhaps reinventing itself the way Prison Break did this fall. It's a hurdle I imagine the show's creators would probably love to face.
Question: I don't understand why Studio 60's ratings aren't better, considering how celebrity-obsessed our society is these days. Entire magazines are dedicated to describing in great detail what stars are wearing, dating, eating, etc. I really love TV, and I enjoy knowing about the behind-the-scenes workings of my favorite shows. It seems like there are a lot of people who feel the same way. So why can't a show about a show find an audience?— Cherlene N.
Matt Roush: Gossip is popular, true, but Studio 60 takes the world of entertainment all a bit more seriously. Maybe too much so, as it addresses aspects of the culture wars and the corporate entertainment world with a growing sense of self-importance and at times (especially this week) with a self-righteousness that muddies what could be a very enjoyable workplace-relationship show. Aaron Sorkin never writes ordinary TV, which is great. And there's much about Studio 60 that still dazzles me. But Tyler's comments below may help shed more light on Cherlene's question:
"I have a response to those who think that the people tuning out of Studio 60 'just don't get it.' I get it. I loved Sports Night more than I can say. The early seasons of The West Wing induced tears and chills on a weekly basis. But Studio 60 leaves a strong 'been there, done that' sensation. I loved the pilot. I like the actors and characters. (I don't even care that Amanda Peet's Jordan is an imaginary creation.) But it's hard to swallow the show's self-importance. I love TV, but these characters are approaching the show-within-a-show in the same way the gang in the White House approached foreign policy. I just can't reconcile those two things, to say nothing of the fact that the show they are producing just isn't that funny."
Question: This fall season, more than any other in recent memory, the viewing public has disappointed me in the shows it is choosing to watch, or rather not watch. NBC in particular has seen most of its fall slate go practically unnoticed. Friday Night Lights, Kidnapped and Studio 60 are arguably the three best new shows of this year, and yet no one is watching. I keep reading about Studio 60's "quality" of audience (yupsters who buy things), but at what point does quantity begin to matter? And while I appreciate that NBC will at least let Kidnapped finish its story arc (which can't be said for CBS' underrated Smith), why is the network so quick to cut the cord on this promising show? 24 wasn't a blockbuster initially, but has grown with time. Viewers were initially afraid of the serial quality of the show, but that has become less of a problem, and just now, in its fifth (and best) year it won an Emmy. I think Kidnapped would follow a similar trajectory, given the chance. This may be a pipe dream, but I would like to see NBC try another Kidnapped arc over the summer or next fall. It could be a limited series, six episodes, maybe 10. Knowing that the story is limited, more people might tune in. I also think a network would be able to attract top-tier talent (not to slight their fantastic cast) for such limited runs. What stops networks from having such miniseries or even serial movies, like the BBC? Is TV reaching a point where shows cost so much to produce that the only ones that make the cut are the immediate blockbusters?— Phil G.
Matt Roush: I feel your pain. And I also wonder if we aren't in a transitional stage right now where some of these serialized failures might be an evolutionary step toward a new form of limited-run hybrid closer to the cable model, in which shows aren't quite season-long series but aren't quite miniseries (they air in weekly installments but only for a limited time in each cycle). The networks clearly want to tap into this vibe, but the learning curve has been pretty brutal so far this fall.
http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/default.aspx
rebkell
10-20-06, 04:36 PM
Man! I didn't know that either. Hope its good.
I wasn't aware of it either, some new B5 material, that is awesome news.
The New Season
“Shark” To Stay on CBS
By Jim Benson Broadcasting & Cable 10/20/2006
CBS has given a full-season order to its freshman Thursday night legal drama Shark after it showed week to week growth Thursday despite tough competition from game seven of the Mets-Cardinals National League Championship series.
The back-nine episode order came after last night's episode of the James Woods series averaged season-high ratings in adults 18-34, women 18-34 and women 18-49, while matching its best adults 18-49 performance.
After four episodes, Shark this season has been averaging 14.36 million viewers and a 4.1 rating/11 share in adults 18-49 in its 10 p.m. time period against a resurgent ER on NBC.
Of its four new series, CBS has now given full-season orders to two (including Jericho) and cancelled a third (Smith). The jury is still out on the Monday night comedy, The Class.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6383645
rebkell
10-20-06, 05:52 PM
The New Season
“Shark” To Stay on CBS
By Jim Benson Broadcasting & Cable 10/20/2006
After four episodes, Shark this season has been averaging 14.36 million viewers and a 4.1 rating/11 share in adults 18-49 in its 10 p.m. time period against a resurgent ER on NBC.
Of its four new series, CBS has now given full-season orders to two (including Jericho) and cancelled a third (Smith). The jury is still out on the Monday night comedy, The Class.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6383645
Not that it really matters, but I'm pretty sure there have been 5 episodes of Shark. I like James Woods and he seems totally in his element for this show.
123HDTV
10-20-06, 06:02 PM
I think Shark works very well. It's one of the few shows I watch when it airs each week.
I agree with both of you. I think there have been five episodes, and it has grown on me to where I look forward to seeing it.
The New Season
Some Lessons from the fall roster
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”
…( NBC) just announced that it’s going to more or less give up on presenting scripted fare in the 7 p.m. (CT) hour; game shows and reality fare will, in future, take that spot on the NBC schedule. However, network head Kevin Reilly said Thursday that NBC would not necessarily move “My Name Is Earl” or “The Office” out of that spot.
Still, it’s depressing news, especially since NBC fielded such a strong slate of new shows for the fall season. “Kidnapped,” “Friday Night Lights” and “Studio 60” were some of the most well-reviewed, ambitious programs on any network slate this fall.
It’s a drag that not only will we be less likely to see NBC swing for the fences next year, but we’ll be more likely to see mindless fare such as “1 vs. 100” and “Deal or No Deal.” We’ve come from “Friends” to this? See how the mighty have fallen.
Frankly, I’d rather see in the 7 p.m. hour an intelligent failure such as “30 Rock” rather than yet another game show or another season of “The Biggest Loser.” But network executives care about one thing: Money. It’s hard to see how NBC will make more dough by catering to the lowest common denominator, but their only ambition, it appears at this point, is to stop the bleeding.
It’s thinking like that that’s sending viewers in their millions to cable television, where ratings expectations are lower and the level of ambition, in some cases, is higher.
Speaking more generally, I hope that the networks don’t take the wrong lessons from the failure of several expensive new shows this fall. I have a palpable fear that the three lessons executives are taking away are these:
Lesson No. 1: Audience don’t want high quality shows -- they don’t need big expensive stars and fancy sets and snazzy cinematography.
Lesson No. 2: Audiences don’t want serialized dramas. A pox on the house of anyone who says they do.
Lesson No. 3: Audiences don’t want new half-hour comedies.
I don’t think those are really the right lessons to take away from this fall season.
Regarding Lesson No. 1: Nobody minds expensive stars and fancy sets and all the trimmings – if they’re part of a show with depth, heart and good writing. “Smith” failed because its characters weren’t all that compelling, not because the actors or directors were incompetent.
As for ambitious show such as “The Nine” and “Friday Night Lights” not doing better, frankly I have no idea why they’re struggling. They’re excellent shows and possibly their time slots are to blame.
And “Studio 60’s” slide can quite credibly be laid at the feet of Aaron Sorkin, who started out writing a snappy, compelling drama about interesting people but failed to realize that he can’t write a comedy sketch to save his life. And viewers aren’t stupid. They get that.
Regarding Lesson No. 2: When Fox’s “24” returns in January, just try to tell that show’s millions of fans that serialized dramas don’t work. But the difference there is that Fox gave that show time to grow. “24” didn’t really become a monster until two or three years had passed, and the writing, direction and the viewers’ involvement in the characters grew each season.
Serialization can work just fine as long as expectations for the show are reasonable (see “Jericho”) and as long as the shows are executed with flair, depth and talent (as “Vanished” and “Runaway” weren’t). And it's not as if "Heroes" has suffered from its serialized format -- in fact, that's one aspect of the show that's made it a success.
Regarding Lesson No. 3: Audiences can smell bad comedy from 50 paces. Networks should stop making cliché-filled comedies that reek of too many executive "notes" and a whiff of desperation. Enough already.
Here’s the real lesson from fall’s successes: Audiences want diversity. Not just diversity of casts, but a wide range of stories, characters and creative impulses.
Look at the shows that have gotten full season pickups: “Heroes,” “Brothers and Sisters,” “Jericho,” “Ugly Betty.”
Look, Ma, no procedurals! There’s not a corpse, a cop or a lawyer in the bunch.
You know what these shows have in common? Nothing. And that’s terrific. None of these programs is like anything else on TV, nor are they carbon copies of each other. A Latina trying to make it in Manhattan, Midwesterners dealing with disaster, a family soap and a drama about ordinary folks with super powers.
These are all left-field ideas. Let’s hope we see more of them next fall.
http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/
TV Notebook
NBC: Nothing But Clueless:
Knee-jerk fear at the Peacock
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle in his TV blog “The Bastard Machine” Oct. 20, 2006
Thursday's announcement that NBC Universal was running around with a corporate machete in some psychotic act of cost-slashing, upper-management panic-attack nonsense, had the distinct look of self-mutilation.
Having said many times that the TV industry is run on fear and cluelessness, it's always nice to have NBC confirm this over and over again. Thursday was no exception. Never mind the 700 - or was it 7,000? - layoffs that are planned. That's a business story. Never mind, even, the NBC News/MSNBC/CNBC mash-up that may soon take place, above and beyond office space consolidation. You can take all your doomsday junkies who talk about the end of journalism and how bad that is for the world and put them in a sealed room. The point is not that NBC wants to kill the nightly news or even all televised news as we know it. NBC and parent company GE want to make money, period. If they think they can make a dollar by having Keith Olbermann sit on Brian Williams' shoulders and do a post-Brokaw dog-and-pony deconstruction of the day's news, they'll do it.
And by the way - NBC is not alone in wanting news to make more profit. Every network does. NBC just wrapped it up in a bunch of Web. 2.0 nonsense it knows nothing about. (Maybe it will start hyping Williams' blog as a download on iTunes?)
No, the thing to take away from Thursday's unbelievably public display of cluelessness and paranoia is that GE wants more money for its shareholders - and it wants the money now. That's a dog-bites-man story if there ever was one. But the fascinating little addendum to it was that NBC was going to dump scripted fare - comedies and dramas - from the 8 to 9 p.m. timeslot, and use reality and game shows exclusively. This appears to be the idea of former NBC entertainment president Jeff Zucker, who nearly drove the network into the ground when he was at the helm, though it also has the stamp of his boss, Bob Wright, who is nearly unrivaled in his inablity to discern quality fare from, say, a cinder block.
This revolution of the 8 to 9 p.m. timeslot is laughably wrong-headed and caused Kevin Reilly, who has Zucker's old job of entertainment president, to say the edict was not absolute. Reilly was at a Hollywood Radio and TV Society luncheon on Thursday and was quoted in Variety saying this: "You can't be exclusive with reality at 8. You have to be in the scripted business. It's not an absolute." Translation: "My Name Is Earl" and "The Office" won't move from Thursday's line-up. (The irony there, of course, is that Zucker should be starring in "The Office," not Steve Carell).
Reilly's remark should prompt a nice little closed-door discussion, one would think. (Reilly, who's done a far better job as entertainment president than Zucker - once he got out of the mess Zucker left him with - is a well-respected programmer and should look immediately to free himself from the bad marriage he now finds himself in with NBC. Unless NBC fires Zucker, which seems unlikely because all people who fail upward tend to have an angel of mercy near them, then Reilly ought to keep his head on a swivel.)
This notion of a reality/game show hour from 8 to 9 p.m. truly shows Zucker's lack of vision and programming acumen. Why blindly limit that hour to non-scripted fare? Sure, reality shows and game shows are cheaper to produce and cost GE less money. Hmmmm. But anyway, has anyone ever tried this in the history of network television? Has there ever been success with this formula? Why does every other network have a scripted hit in the 8 p.m. time slot? Do these questions even need to be asked?
Look, ABC is currently doing something similar to what Zucker is suggesting. It has "Wife Swap" (Mondays - not a hit), "Dancing with the Stars" (Tuesday and Wednesday - hits), "America's Funniest Home Videos" (Fridays - oh, please) and "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" (Sundays - hit) all in the 8 p.m. hour. Results? Mixed. But it also has "Ugly Betty" on Thursdays at 8 p.m., which has turned out to be one the biggest freshman hits of the season and was renewed for a full 22 episodes. If ABC entertainment president Steve McPherson was hamstrung by The Zucker Rules, he'd be out of luck. And you can bet that if McPherson wants to try another scripted series at 8 p.m., he'll do it - without worrying about parent company Disney's bottom line first.
It's hard to imagine that even Zucker believes a genre-specific block from 8 to 9 p.m. is a good idea. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe this is a world-class ass covering because Wright, his boss and the CEO of NBC Universal, thinks the reality and game show idea is brilliant. Wright has proven his lack of programming knowledge relentlessly in the past, and told this to USA Today on Thursday: "Tuesdays and Wednesdays, we're running the best-scripted programming on television, but the audience just isn't there for it"
Boy, that is rich. On Tuesday, NBC has the highly-acclaimed but dead-on-arrival drama "Friday Night Lights" on at 8 p.m. The series has gone up against "House" on Fox, "NCIS" on CBS and "Dancing with the Stars" on ABC - each of them bonafide hits. Perhaps that has something to do with it? You're right, Bob - the audience isn't there because they're watching those other shows, two of which are scripted. On Wednesday, Wright is simply out of his mind, because "30 Rock" and "Twenty Good Years" are both unfunny sitocms - the latter being exceptionally and obviously not funny. Both of those series are being aggessively ignored by viewers, not because they're scripted, but because they're bad. In fact, CBS is running a freshman drama, "Jericho," opposite them and it was just picked up for a full season.
Maybe the problem at NBC isn't bad programming, it's bad management? Nah, couldn't be. At the very least, the network has had bad luck. "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" got a lot of hype but failed to launch. "Kidnapped" was one of the better serial dramas but got lost in the fall crush. You know what? That happens. Both of those series are/were exceptional. But in the end, the audience always decides. And the audience is fickle. It can not be fully understood. Many network programmers will tell you (in confidence, of course) that they don't know what will or won't work. Television is an inexact science, which is precisely why it's fear based and overrun with paranoia.
Nina Tassler, who's the entertainment president at currently robust CBS, told USA Today that NBC's ideas about the state of television are off base: "They're addressing corporate ills as industry trends, and that's just not the case."
So good luck to NBC in further beating "Deal or No Deal" to death. The only way this new philosophy for the 8 to 9 p.m. block is going to work is if the network gets four more reality or game show hits - and fast. Of course, if developing hits and putting them in the right spot was so easy to do, Zucker would probably still be entertainment president.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=24
Critic’s Notebook
A Hail Mary pass for 'Friday Night Lights'
Can "Heroes" save "Friday Night Lights"?
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”October 20, 2006
Let’s hope so. “Lights,” an ambitious and creatively engaging series about a Texas football team, has had a tough time of it in the ratings. In a bid to get more folks to check out this well-acted drama, which has been airing 7 p.m. (CT) Tuesdays, NBC will air “Lights” after “Heroes” on Oct. 30.
Regular readers of this column will know that I was not exactly a huge fan of “Heroes,” but the superhero-flavored drama has been one of the fall season’s few certifiable hits. And I sincerely hope that “Heroes” viewers stick around a week from Monday to check out “Lights.” The show’s in real need of a Hail Mary pass, and let’s hope this one connects.
http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/
TV Notebook
It's a Tough Universe
For Ronald D. Moore and David Eick, there are no real heroes on their show, "Battlestar Galactica" — only complex characters.
By Kate Aurthur Los Angeles Times Staff Writer October 22, 2006
The critically lauded "Battlestar Galactica," Sci Fi Channel's remake of the fluffy 1978 television series, was politically minded from the outset. The 2003 miniseries began with the genocide of billions of people in a Sept. 11-like attack by the Cylons, a mysterious race of robots.
The show, now in its third season, has mostly been set in space, as the survivors on the Battlestar fleet have tried to evade the Cylons. In their struggles to rebuild a civilization, the characters on "Battlestar Galactica" have faced dilemmas about the legality of abortion, torture in military prisons, and the separation between religion and politics, all while asking, "Why do they hate us?"
The beginning of this season, though, put the action on the ground: The humans' attempt to colonize a planet failed when the Cylons found them and occupied the planet. Now, having been rescued after a fierce insurgency developed, the humans must attempt to restore order to their even more diminished and demoralized population.
In Friday's episode — "Collaborators" — a small tribunal of humans seeks to root out those who betrayed their race and worked for the Cylons during the violent and poorly planned occupation. Ronald D. Moore and David Eick, the executive producers of "Battlestar Galactica," talk about the show's political allegories.
Why is punishing the collaborators the first priority after the humans are rescued from the planet New Caprica?
Moore: The first episode back, it felt like, no matter what it was, they had to deal with the aftermath of what they had just gone through. What do they do with the people who collaborated with the Cylons?
Eick: What's interesting is what we didn't