Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 75

Sunday's fast national over night prime-time ratings - and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman's view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the second post in this thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post10367387

Critic's Notebook
Finales, fast and furious, force choices on viewers
By Rick Kushman Sacramento Bee TV Columnist Monday, May 21, 2007

This is the last week of the broadcast TV season, which means the last big finales, the song and dance winners, and tonight, the last chance for our heroes to step up.

It's showdown time on NBC's "Heroes" and Fox's "24," and we're on the brink of disaster everywhere. There's a looming nuclear blast and a building world war, and there are viewers everywhere facing that moment when they must learn to watch one show while recording another.

"24" (at 8 ET/PT, Fox) is the one with the war. The United States and Russia are ready to launch the missiles and planes over a component -- with this show, it's always a component -- and only Jack Bauer can save the world for, like, the 11th or 12th time by my count.

On NBC's "Heroes" (at 9 ET/PT, NBC), maybe Peter, maybe Sylar will go nuclear and destroy New York. That would pretty much be a bad thing, but the group that's been chasing the Heroes thinks it will help mankind. We don't know why, but my guess is it's connected to the fact that Roger Clemens is back pitching for the Yankees.

Guessing what will happen with "Heroes" is pretty hard. (No spoiler warning here: I don't know anything.) Producers have been hinting all sorts of different outcomes, and since this is the first season finale for the rookie hit, we don't even have a track record.

Creator Tim Kring has suggested there will be deaths, and he's more or less said Sylar (Zachary Quinto) will be around for a while longer because he's too good a character to lose -- that moment when he stood on the rooftop and quietly said, "Boom" was classic.

We also know we're in for a showdown between Sylar and Hiro (Masi Oka), because Hiro has been the soul of this show from the start, and also because Kring said that's coming.

But who will live, whether a bomb will explode, and what kind of cliffhanger will lead to next season -- you know they'll have a cliffhanger -- well, that's why you have to watch the show.

"Heroes," by the way, is a one-hour finale -- though if you are recording it, give yourself an extra couple minutes on the end because you just never know.



"24" will finish with a two-hour episode, and we already know a few things about the "24" finale. These aren't spoilers either. They're from the news and from watching good ol' Jack.

The first is, Kiefer Sutherland will be back playing super agent Jack Bauer for two more seasons. Fox announced that last week, so bet Jack will survive the night.

Also bet that Jack will torture someone -- my guess is the Chinese agent Cheng (Tzi Ma) because Cheng's been dogging Jack for years -- bet there will be more emotional torture for Jack, and bet someone will yell, "drop your weapon."

In the past couple of weeks, "24" gained back a little of its zip from a pretty zipless season, in big part because the producers finally ditched the White House politics, coups and various other illogical-yet-lame stunts.

"24" is always at it's best when it rushing forward at rollercoaster speed and when Jack is in the middle of it all. In the past few weeks, Jack and agent Boyle (Rick Schroder) have been running around shooting people and taking down huge numbers of bad guys.

When that sort of thing is going on, we can forgive a lot of the other silliness, or even embrace it. "24" wouldn't be "24" without the relentless high school drama inside the Counter Terrorism Unit. (Motto: Even your dog could break in and take hostages.)

One of the joys of "24" is also just how many things can happen to one person in one day. Even a supporting character like Nadia (Marisol Nichols) has had two serious crushes, was accused of treason, was cleared of treason, got kissed, was put in charge of the CTU, was taken hostage, watched a man die for her, beat up a bad guy, and got blamed for the CTU break-in. And that's just in 22 hours. She's got two more to ride out.

Producers and Fox entertainment president Peter Liguori say they're going to make substantive change next year. Part of the problem this season was the adrenaline level had already been pushed so high in previous years, there was no place left to go.

Some critics also say the plot turns this year have bordered on ridiculous. Really? The man who tried to assassinate the president is running the country and no one minds, the fate of the world has come down to the kidnapping of a teenage boy, and Jack keeps saving the world, then getting arrested, saving the world, then getting arrested, and on and on. What's illogical about that?

But "24" has never been about logic. It's about suspense and surprises and the adrenaline rush. If they can resurrect that, they resurrect the show next season. Then Jack can save the world again.

Or maybe he can just save the cheerleader and let her do it.



A heads-up for Tuesday night. While ABC's "Dancing With the Stars" will be announcing its winner in a two-hour finale (at 9 ET/PT, ABC-- a last-minute time change by the network), Fox's "American Idol" lets Jordin and Blake sing their last appeals for votes (at 8 ET/PT), and the CW's "Veronica Mars" disappears forever with its final two episodes (at 8 and 9 ET/PT), CBS is offering up a terrific TV movie.

That's "Jesse Stone: Sea Change" (at 8 ET/PT), the fourth in the series of moody and mesmerizing crime stories based on Robert B. Parker's best sellers and staring Tom Selleck.

It's an absorbing procedural, and Selleck makes it even better as the earnest but flawed police chief of a small New England town. The film blends the short, powerful dialogue of a classic noir detective story with Selleck's always engaging humanity.

The real crime here is that CBS is running it against such stiff competition.

http://www.sacbee.com/127/v-print/story/187516.html

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Reviving finale for ABC's 'Housewives'
Season-ender averages a 7.0 in adults 18-49
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Monday, May 21, 2007

After setting new series lows several times over the past few weeks, ABC's Desperate Housewives went out on a much stronger note for last night's season finale, albeit well below last year's season ender.

Housewives averaged a 7.0 adults 18-49 rating last night, according to Nielsen overnights, up 17 percent over last week's series-low 6.0 overnight rating and its best outing since a 7.4 on March 4.

The show did continue to fall compared with last season, which averaged a 9.8 for its finale. But the 9 p.m. episode was still by far the night's highest-rated show and was slightly above the show's season-to-date 6.9 average, according to Nielsen.

ABC dominated the night, as CBS and NBC aired mostly movies instead of programs on the finale Sunday of May sweeps.

Housewives has been one of numerous hit shows to see ratings decline this spring. It became an instant hit when it debuted in fall 2004.

Also last night, the season finale and 400th episode of The Simpsons lifted the show to its best ratings in weeks, averaging a 4.5 at 8 p.m. for two episodes. It peaked with a 4.7 at 8:30.

ABC finished first last night among viewers 18-49 with a 4.6 average rating and a 13 share. Fox was second at 3.5/10, NBC third at 1.9/5, Univision fourth at 1.6/4, CBS fifth at 1.5/4 and CW sixth at 0.6/2. Univision's hourly ratings were not available at press time.

ABC started the night in the lead with a 2.4 rating during the 7 p.m. hour for its first hour of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Fox was second with a 1.9 for an hour of King of the Hill, CBS third with a 1.8 for 60 Minutes, NBC fourth with a 1.1 for Dateline and CW fifth with a 0.4 for a repeat of 7th Heaven.

Fox took the lead at 8 p.m. with a 4.5 for an hour of The Simpsons, with ABC slipping to second with a 4.3 for another hour of Home Edition. NBC was third with a 1.5 for the first hour of the movie National Treasure, CBS fourth with a 1.3 for the first hour of the movie Million Dollar Baby and CW fifth with a 0.6 for a repeat of Gilmore Girls.

ABC regained the lead at 9 p.m. with its 7.0 for Housewives, while Fox dropped back to second with a 4.0 average for Family Guy (4.5) and American Dad (3.6). NBC was third with a 2.2 for its second hour of National Treasure, CBS fourth with a 1.4 for the second hour of Million Dollar Baby and CW fifth with a 0.6 for a repeat of America's Next Top Model.

At 10 p.m. ABC was first with a 4.7 for Brothers & Sisters, with NBC second with a 2.8 for the last hour of National Treasure and CBS third with a 1.6 for the final hour of Million Dollar Baby.

Among households, ABC was first for the night with an 8.1 average rating and a 14 share. CBS was second at 5.4/9, Fox third at 4.3/7, NBC fourth at 3.8/6 and CW fifth at 1.0/2.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...icle_12236.asp

Daily Nielsen Notebook
May Sweep 18-49 Demo Race
FOX Maintains 0.1 A18-49 Lead After 25 Days of the May Sweep:
(Compiled by dumont ) at Marc Berman's Programming Insider blog:

2007 Adults 18-49 vs first 25 nights 2006 A18-49
(results weighted for extra hour on Sundays)

1. FOX 3.6 vs 4.2 (-14%)
2. ABC 3.5 vs 3.3 (+6%)
3. CBS 3.0 vs 3.7 (-18%)
4. NBC 2.3 vs 3.2 (-28%)
5. CW 1.3 vs. 1.2 (+8% to The WB)
6. MNT 0.4 vs 1.2 (-67% from UPN, first 22 nights only)
TOTAL 6 NETS: 14.0 vs. 16.6 (-16%)

FOX continues to hold on to first place by a slim 0.1 lead over ABC in A18-49 after 25 days of the May Sweep.

ABC and The CW are the only two broadcast networks to show year-over-year improvement in both A18-49 after 25 days of the May Sweep.

Source: Nielsen Media Research data

http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/t...10335#69510335

Does that mean a year from this September, taz?

There were a lot of unhappy people when "Jericho" got axed baizdd, and they posted about it.

But generally (except for dad's extended "Studio 60" campaign) people often make their comments in the individual show threads.

The 2006-2007 Season
Upcoming Season (and Series) Finales

Tonight
The Bachelor: Officer and a Gentleman (ABC)
24 (Fox)
Heroes (NBC)
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (NBC finale)

Tomorrow
NCIS (CBS)
Law & Order: SVU (NBC)
Dancing with the Stars (ABC)
Veronica Mars (CW) (series finale)

You always access this information at the bottom of post #4 on the HOTP thread here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post10367392

Critic's Notebook
Is there life left in 'Jericho'?
From Maureen Ryan's Chicago Tribune blog The Watcher May 21, 2007

Jericho, Kansas, is the post-apocalyptic town that won't die.

Or rather, Jericho, the show based on the post-blast life of that rural town, won't be killed not if fans have anything to say about it.

CBS announced last week that the network was wrapping up the show after only one season. As was the case with many other dramas this season, a lengthy hiatus in the middle of the season drove away viewers, and Jericho, an unlikely success in the first place, never quite regained the audience that it had during the fall.

But viewers reacted with swift fury, and said Nuts! to CBS (echoing a line from the show's rousing season finale, which saw the residents of the town making a last stand against an armed attack from a nearby settlement).

Viewers inundated CBS with outraged e-mails and message-board comments calling for a second season of the show, and the network's president, Nina Tassler, was compelled to post a message on a fan forum a few days ago.

We have read your e-mails over the past few days and have been touched by the depth and passion with which you have expressed your disappointment, Tassler wrote. Please know that canceling a television series is a very difficult decision. Thank you for supporting Jericho' with such passion. We truly appreciate the commitment you made to the series and we are humbled by your disappointment. In the coming weeks, we hope to develop a way to provide closure to the compelling drama that was the Jericho story.

It sounds as though Tassler's talking about a possible wrap-up TV movie (something Deadwood fans will have to be content with if and when those wrap-up movies air, which may be up to two years after the show's third series ended), but some fans have made it clear that that won't be good enough.

While it is very flattering that Ms. Tassler went out of her way to post a message for us online, I have to say on behalf of each and every Jericho' fan that not one of us will settle for anything less than season two, CBS or no CBS, and if they think our recent campaigning has been bad, it's only going to get worse, one fan, Melanie, wrote in an e-mail to me on Monday.

Could Jericho move to another network? Hard to say. Network dramas are far more expensive than cable dramas, which would make any cable network very wary of picking up the show (even TNT, which would be a good fit fans have been pressuring that network to pick up Jericho). Still, even after it began getting clobbered by American Idol this year, Jericho had a respectable audience of 8 million viewers - a segment of which has proven itself to be very devoted (one fan petition already has more than 60,000 signatures).

If CBS does actually plan a wrap-up movie - or if the show makes the move to another network (and again, I don't want to get fans' hopes up - that is very unlikely), you can be sure I will let you know about it as soon as it's announced. My own two cents: The show certainly has some life left in it, but without a certain central character, who died in the season finale, the show is less attractive. "Jericho" deserves a wrap-up movie or two, but perhaps not another season, in my own humble opinion.

http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/

The Business of Television
News Corp. May `Walk Away' From Dow Jones
By Leon Lazaroff Bloomberg May 21, 2007

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. may be preparing to walk away from a $5 billion bid for Dow Jones & Co. after trying without success to win support from the controlling Bancroft family, Pali Research analysts said.

News Corp. ``is increasingly frustrated'' with the failure of family members to respond to overtures by Murdoch, Pali's Richard Greenfield and Mark Smaldon wrote today in a note to investors. Directors of New York-based Dow Jones took no action on the bid after Bancroft family members said a majority of their shareholder votes would reject the offer of $60 a share.

News Corp., Greenfield and Smaldon predicted, will rescind its offer for the publisher of the Wall Street Journal in ``the next couple of weeks and leave Dow Jones to fend for itself.'' Dow Jones is not a ``must-have'' for News Corp., and the New York-based company isn't expected to raise its bid to $80 a share as a way to pressure the family to accept it, they said.

``It is `silly' for News Corp. to simply stand around endlessly waiting for the Bancroft family to change their minds,'' New York-based Greenfield and Smaldon wrote. Greenfield, co-head of London- and New York-based Pali Capital Inc.'s Pali Research, rates News Corp. shares ``buy.''

A News Corp. spokesman, Andrew Butcher, had no comment on the Pali Research report. Dow Jones spokesman Howard Hoffman also declined to comment.

The rest of the story is here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...rN.IM&refer=us

Not to nitpick, but Maureen Ryan referred to him a "a" central character.

It is really difficult for even the most dedicated TV reporter to keep up with every TV show.

We all have the luxury of having our favorites and watching them. A few we watch religiously.

But good TV reporters have to literally watch everything at least once, and then try to keep up with the shows which seem to be getting buzz -- that is probably four to five times the amount of shows any of us actually watches.

So perhaps I am more forgiving than most (especially when they aredefending a show) when I tend to overlook minor stumbles from a TV writer -- and in the interest of full disclosure, I don't watch "Jericho" -- but in this case he WAS a central character, wasn't he?

Critic's Notebook
Here's a great way to prepare for "Sopranos" finale
By Hal Boedeker Orlando Sentinel Television Critic his TV Guy blog May 21, 2007

What's a great way to prepare for the "Sopranos" finale?

Watching "The 7 Minute Sopranos -- a whacked out refresher."

Here's a warning: This compilation of clips contains the foul language, violence and sexuality that the HBO series is known for.

The final two "Sopranos" episodes air June 3 and 10.

The clip is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz_Ee...eat%5Fw%2Ehtml

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...a_great_w.html

The 2007-2008 Season
The New Shows
Watch video clips

If you are tired of just reading about next season's new prime time shows, the people at Television Week have a gift for you.

It is clips of all the fall shows - and some of the mid-season replacements, too.

You can take a look here:

http://tvweek.com/page.cms?pageId=733

No harm at all, shuttermaker.

Agreed -- that "Sopranos" clip job is a fun thing to watch.

OK, thanks.

Critic's Notebook
No Mystery Why Viewers Are Disappearing
Long breaks send them on permanent hiatus
By Mark McGuire Albany Times Union staff writer

I miss "The Shield."

Yeah, I know it's still on (10 p.m. Tuesdays, FX).

I just keep missing it.

Every year FX sends out DVD press screeners of the first handful of episodes for a season. I scarf them down in a sitting. Then I make a vow to resume watching the volatile cop drama on regularly aired episodes to "catch up" to what I've already seen.

Of course I forget to watch. I'm a guy; how can you expect me to remember a promise I made six weeks ago?

(Yeah, I know: Cue the pity music.)

I'm not alone. We have too many options, too many other shows, many of them backed up in our DVR like a Northway traffic jam. Unless a show remains in the forefront of our television consciousness, it can be lost in the crush of media that assaults and entices from every direction.

There is an rich irony here: The medium blamed for shortening attention spans probably deserves this fate.

With an early spring, video poker, kids' DVDs, softball games and ballet rehearsals (no, not me), Mets games, movies on demand and episodes on demand online, I often get waylaid from any set TV viewing schedule.

And when shows disappear for several weeks or more, it's tough to remember them, let alone fit them back into my schedule.

This week the broadcast networks rolled out their slate of fall shows. Great news: The woefully rated but critically acclaimed "Friday Night Lights" is returning to NBC. The better news: The networks will likely not make the same egregious mistake it did this year to "rest" shows for weeks if not months at a time.

Successful dramas like "Lost" (ABC), "Heroes" (NBC) and "Jericho" (CBS) came out of the gates relatively strong, only to disappear for long breaks. I don't mean long as in two minutes of commercials; "Jericho" disappeared for 10 weeks (and now it's been canceled).

The same happened with "The Sopranos;" the legendary HBO drama returned this spring after 10 months, only to see a significant ratings drop off.

This has been part of a disturbing trend for TV executives; during the first week of the May sweeps, 2.5 million broadcast network viewers "disappeared" compared to last year.

Where did they -- we -- go?

We moved on. With all the options we have we have the attention span of a ... of a ... What were we talking about? Sorry, I just saw a shiny thing. I like shiny things. I think I will go to shinythings.com. Not much of a site; some company. ... That's OK, as long as I'm online, I'll check the box scores. Oh, and a journalism site to see which newspapers are laying off people. ... Maybe I'll just grab a snack, first. You know, I really do like vanilla. ...

Sorry. You still here?

Got a little sidetracked. That happens. We are all puppies bounding through the media neighborhood; there is too much to stimulate us, too many attractions. We can't go forward in a straight line.

The idea behind the split schedules of this current concluding TV season was that people don't like reruns (true), and want to watch new episodes consecutively (equally true). Now, this is where math comes in, so stay with me: The television season lasts 35 weeks, but most dramas and comedies run for 22 episodes. What do you do with the other 13 weeks? And how do you get a show to appear during the November, February and May sweeps?

The answer, the executives decided, was to have shows go on extended breaks, and insert other shows in their places.

Anybody recall "The Black Donnellys"? How about "Day Break"?

The problem, now self-evident -- especially with serialized dramas -- is that if people don't flock to the replacement shows, they will find their entertainment elsewhere during that time. And they won't come back.

A better solution might be rolling out shows in staggered intervals, and running them consecutively. For example, ABC announced that "Lost" will return for three more 16-episode seasons that won't feature a mid-season hiatus. This is the "24" model -- start the season late, and run all the episodes consecutively.

Great idea ... except it should be noted the ratings for "24" are down.

I'm way behind on "24." Maybe I'll catch up. Wait: More episodes of "The Shield" just arrived. I have to watch that. ... After I read the paper. And listen to some new tunes on my iPod. ... I need a new iPod. Maybe green. I like green. ...

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/sto...StoryID=590506

TV Notebook
A cable network on a shoestring
As Rupert Murdoch waits on the Bancrofts, his media empire commits $100 million in startup cash for Fox Business Channel
By Tim Arango Fortune writer

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- As audacious as Rupert Murdoch's $5 billion offer for Dow Jones was, News Corporation's internal plans to launch Fox Business Channel to go head-to-head with CNBC are surprisingly cautious.

Or maybe it's not so surprising: After all, the company set up Fox News on a relative shoestring in 1996 and the network now trumps its much better-financed rival CNN in the ratings. (CNN is one of the partners in CNNMoney.com.)

The company plans to spend $100 million in initial capital for the business channel, which is slated to hit the airwaves in October, a News Corp. insider told Fortune. At the same time, the company is in the process of hiring about 300 people to staff the network. (The company has never released these figures - it has only said it plans to launch the channel in the fourth quarter of 2007.)

For News Corp. (Charts, Fortune 500), $100 million is merely a rounding error, and the outlay suggests the company is wary about wading too deeply into cable business news, an industry that has seen such high-profile flops as CNNfn and the Financial News Network, which CNBC purchased out of bankruptcy in 1991 for $115 million. (Roger Ailes, the Fox News boss, was said to be initially skeptical about launching a competitor to CNBC).

"$100 million is not really much to launch a typical cable network," says Derek Baine, an analyst at Kagan Research. By comparison, News Corp spent $400 million to launch Fox News, and it took about five years to break even.

Baine projects that Fox will endure about $107 million in losses from Fox Business Channel before breaking even in four years. The relatively small investment is made possible in part because the channel will utilize much of the infrastructure of Fox News - the company doesn't need to invest heavily in real estate and building fancy studios. It already has that.

This caution, however, would turn in to full blown ambition should News Corp. prevail in its bid for Dow Jones (Charts).

The day the Dow Jones offer became public, on May 1, Murdoch told Fox News' Neil Cavuto, "we just want to have a business channel that lives up to the quality and traditions of The Wall Street Journal, and we think that if we can do that, we will do very well."

While News Corp. envisions leveraging the Wall Street Journal brand and journalism to buttress the new cable network, how much they would be able to combine the two entities is something News Corp. lawyers and executives are debating. Dow Jones and CNBC currently have a deal in place through 2012 in which CNBC pays an undisclosed fee for access to Dow Jones' content and its reporters for on-air commentary. That deal is exclusive - meaning, for example, that Journal reporters cannot appear on another business network.

News Corp insiders believe they could use the Wall Street Journal name for the new channel, but acknowledge they probably wouldn't be able to have Journal reporters appear on air until the deal expires in 2012.

Beyond that, the CNBC/Wall Street Journal deal has significant wiggle room for News Corp, according to a source who was involved in negotiating the pact. "There's no real bite in terms of how much resources The Wall Street Journal has to contribute," said this person. "Murdoch couldn't take those resources and devote them to his own franchise but he could wean them from CNBC. He could create deadlocks for Dow Jones and CNBC."

Many observers have pointed out that Wall Street Journal reporters appear less on CNBC than in the earlier days of the deal - meaning that the real threat to CNBC from a Dow Jones-News Corp. marriage is not the potential impact on CNBC and the Journal's partnership but on the broader implications of a Dow Jones-News Corp. tie up and what it could mean long-term.

"It depends upon whether they reposition it with the WSJ name," says Baine. "I think if they do, ad sales would ramp up faster because this is such a powerful brand name and they can probably cross-sell ads across the different platforms."

In a report earlier this year, Baine estimated that the Fox Business Channel will cost cable operators 10 to 15 cents per subscriber each month - or less than half what CNBC charges. "We believe this puts CNBC in jeopardy of losing subscribers as contract renewals take place, particularly if FBC can gain some ratings traction," he wrote.

That traction would get a significant boost if Dow Jones winds up in Murdoch's hands.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/16/news...n=money_latest