Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 2111

[quote=dm145;19760802]
so true. I cringe any time my wife has Glee on and the kid is all woe is me, i'm being bullied, and i'm super queeny. That's not how 90% of homosexuals are, but 90% of the television characters are. It's just as bad as anything else. I have a few close gay friends and they're not impressed.

TV Notes
Paula's back, and the subject is dancing
Abdul is the star judge of CBS's 'Live to Dance'
By Louisa Ada Seltzer, Media Life Magazine - January 4th, 2011

It's been more than a year since Paula Abdul has judged a reality show on TV, which means more than a year since she did something totally ditzy that had people talking, tsk-ing and most importantly watching.

Now the former "American Idol" judge returns with a new show on CBS. "Live to Dance," which premieres at 8 p.m. tonight and then moves to 8 p.m. on Wednesdays, will feature Abdul judging wannabe dancers rather than wannabe singers.

CBS hopes that a fair number of "Idol" fans will tune in nonetheless for a program that, aside from Abdul's presence, is pretty similar to the many dance reality competitions already on television, including Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance" and MTV's "America's Best Dance Crew."

"Dance" is open to any age of performer and any type (ballet, tap, modern, etc.).

Abdul, whose antics on "Idol" included judging a performance that did not actually take place and frequently looking lost when asked to give her commentary, was hotly pursued by Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS when she left "Idol" in 2009.

Whether the ratings will prove she was worth the fuss remains to be seen. "Dance" won't have to compete against a new "Glee," which usually dominates the timeslot--tonight's show is a repeat--but it will face the season premiere of NBC's fading but still solid "The Biggest Loser."

In a season of lackluster new shows, anything above a 3.0 in adults 18-49 would be promising for CBS.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...is-dancing.asp

TV Notes
'The Biggest Loser' faces weighty challenge
In what will be Jillian Michaels' final season, two new trainers will be introduced and the show's most morbidly obese contestant will compete against Olympic gold medalist Rulon Gardner.
By Rene Lynch, Los Angeles Times - January 4th, 2011

Bob Harper isn't going anywhere.

Season 11 of "The Biggest Loser" starts Tuesday on NBC with the biggest twist the weight-loss show has ever seen: Contestants must choose between working out with Harper and Jillian Michaels or with two unknown trainers.

Why would anyone choose the latter? Because it comes with four weeks immunity from elimination the most valuable prize the show has to offer short of the $250,000 payday awaiting the contestant who loses the largest percentage of his or her body weight.

The introduction of the two new trainers as yet unnamed, although the blogosphere is already buzzing about their identities comes shortly after Michaels announced that this season will be her last. Which raises the question: What about Bob?

"People keep coming up to me and asking, 'What are you doing next?' and 'When are you leaving?' And my response is, 'I'm not going anywhere, there's still plenty of work to do here, folks!'" Harper said.

Contestants this season include Arthur Wornum, 34, a stay-at-home dad from Portland, Ore., who is the unhealthiest contestant ever. The 5-foot-8 Wornum weighs 507 pounds, and that's after losing nearly 140 pounds on his own. His body fat ratio dwarfs that of Season 9 winner Michael Ventrella, who was the single heaviest contestant at 526 pounds but stood over 6 feet tall.

Harper says Wornum represents a segment of the population that viewers haven't seen before someone who is so morbidly obese he's nearly housebound. "Here's a guy who, even if he loses 100 pounds, still has 200 more pounds to go," Harper said. "So how do I keep someone like that motivated and focused when they have such a long road ahead of them?"

This season will also see its most famous competitor yet: Olympic Gold medalist Rulon Gardner, who piled on the pounds after retiring from competitive wrestling. "I still can't believe what I did to myself," Gardner said recently. Harper said audiences will especially identify with Gardner: He followed a strict diet-and-exercise regimen for much of his career, but it was ultimately unsustainable, much like the overly strict diet that many Americans will adopt as they resolve to lose weight in 2011.

Don't do it, Harper warns. Instead, wake up each day and resolve to simply make better food choices and find ways to "move around more," he said. "If you trust in that process, and just focus on what you can do today, the rest will take care of itself."

What's less certain is what Michaels' departure will mean for the show. "The Biggest Loser" boasts devoted fans that have turned the series into a franchise that includes DVDs, CDs, cookbooks, a line of kitchen appliances, fitness wear, weight-loss resorts and more, but the show's ratings are off roughly 20% when comparing Season 8, which aired in fall 2009, with the recently completed Season 10. Nonetheless, it's one of the network's best performers.

"The show is at an interesting crossroads," said Brad Adgate, TV analyst for the advertising-buying firm Horizon Media. "It really depends on who they get to replace Jillian Michaels. She's not exactly Simon Cowell, but she's an important part of the show."

Executive Producer J.D. Roth said he's not concerned about the trainer shake-up. He said that although Bob and Jillian attained first-name-only, rock-star status among the show's fans, the "real" stars are the contestants who bare their souls and mirror the struggles of many Americans.

Harper said that he too is curious about how the two trainers will work out. "The worst thing they could do is come in and try to do what Jillian does." Audiences won't go for that, he said. The trainers need to usher in their own unique style. "We can't have screaming for the sake of screaming."

Michaels said that while she will always be indebted to "The Biggest Loser," she needs a break from the show that has consumed her life since 2005, and wants to focus on adoption and motherhood.

Harper, however, said he feels like he's just getting started, and joked about signing on through Season 30. In fact, it's not at all unusual to find him swinging by the ranch outside Los Angeles on a Saturday even though it's a non-shooting day, and technically his day off just to check in on the players.

"It just never gets old for me," Harper said.

'THE BIGGEST LOSER'
Where: NBC
When: 8 p.m. Tuesday
Rating: TV-PG-L (may be unsuitable for young children with an advisory for coarse language)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,1387859.story

I hope mrvideo is sitting down for this news.

TV Notes
David Tennant to Marry Doctor Who's Daughter
By Mimi Turner, The Hollywood Reporter - January 4th, 2011

LONDON - Talk about keeping it in the family. Doctor Who star David Tennant is to marry Georgia Moffett, the daughter of actor Peter Davison who played the time-traveling Doctor in the 1980s.

The couple met three years ago on the Doctor Who set of the cult sci-fi show when Moffett played Tennant's daughter Jenny in a single episode.

Tennant, has since handed over the mantle of The Doctor to upcoming star Matt Smith in order to pursue a stage career in such roles as Hamlet, and is thought to have a role in the upcoming Hobbit due for release next year.

He has a string of movie credits including playing the son of Ministry of Magic judge Bartie Crouch in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

The wedding -- which will likely trigger all manner of protocol headaches as, strictly speaking, Timelords cannot regenerate at the same time in different bodies -- is scheduled for New Year 2012.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...doctor-s-68131

Nielsen Overnights (18-49)
Not as hot premiere for ABC's 'Bachelor'
Averages a 2.9 in 18-49s, off 12 percent from last year
By Toni Fitzgerald, Media Life Magazine - January 4th, 2011

The women of America may still be angry with Brad Womack. His second, controversial run as "The Bachelor" began last night and it resulted in the show's second-lowest-rated premiere.

"Bachelor" averaged a 2.9 adults 18-49 rating on ABC from 8 to 10 p.m., according to Nielsen overnights, down 12 percent from last year's debut, when it did not air against originals on CBS.

It was a solid rating, good enough to boost ABC to second for the night behind CBS, the only other Big Four network airing all originals last night, but it may be an indicator that "Bachelor" fans weren't happy with the network's choice of Womack as the new bachelor.

During his first stint a few years ago, Womack decided not to choose either of his two finalists, leading one of last night's contestants to slap him upon their first meeting "on behalf of every woman in America."

Still, it was much better than ABC did in the timeslot last month with the woeful "Skating with the Stars," and "Bachelor" has been on a hot streak for the past two seasons.

And the show did particularly well among women 18-34, finishing first for the night in the demo.

CBS was first for the night among 18-49s with a 3.6 average overnight rating and a 9 share. ABC was second at 2.7/7, Univision third at 1.6/4, Fox fourth at 1.3/3, NBC fifth at 0.9/2 and CW sixth at 0.4/1.

As a reminder, all ratings are based on live-plus-same-day DVR playback. Seven-day DVR data won't be available for several weeks. Thirty-eight percent of Nielsen households have DVRs.

At 8 p.m. CBS was first with a 3.7 for "How I Met Your Mother" (3.9) and "Rules of Engagement" (3.4), followed by ABC with a 2.7 for "Bachelor." Univision was third with a 1.7 for "Eva Luna," Fox fourth with a 1.5 for a repeat of "House," NBC fifth with a 0.7 for a "Chuck" rerun and CW sixth with a 0.5 for a repeat of "90210."

CBS was first at 9 p.m. with a 4.2 for "Two and a Half Men" (4.6) and "Mike & Molly" (3.7), while ABC remained second with a 3.0 for more "Bachelor." Univision was third with a 1.8 for "Triunfo del Amor," Fox fourth with a 1.1 for a "Lie to Me" repeat, NBC fifth with a 0.9 for "The Biggest Loser: Where Are They Now" and CW sixth with a 0.3 for a repeat of "Gossip Girl."

At 10 p.m. CBS led with a 2.9 for "Hawaii Five-0," with ABC second with a 2.4 for "Castle." Univision was third with a 1.2 for "Don Francisco Presenta" and NBC fourth with a 1.1 for more "Loser."

CBS also finished first for the night among households with a 7.0 average overnight rating and an 11 share. ABC was second at 6.0/9, Fox third at 2.8/4, Univision fourth at 2.0/3, NBC fifth at 1.7/3 and CW sixth at 0.6/1.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/art...-Bachelor-.asp

The point here is, those stations want the FCC to step in and do something about being dropped.

Well, that ruling is already there. They can demand carriage if they want - if they don't want the money.

If they want to get paid, they can negotiate a rate that is mutually agreeable. Until that happens, though, they risk being dropped.


Exactly.

...and yes, this is in regard to D*, in this case. I think they were just thrown into the lump of multi-channel providers generically referred to as "cable".

That also makes this battle all the more ridiculous. D* has always paid to retransmit local stations - something the cable companies lobbied for and won, hoping to protect their business model of providing local channels via cable.

So, if those stations can't come to an agreement, it's likely because they want far more than other stations are getting.

I keep seeing this doom and gloom talk about 14% or 22% lower ratings.

This is also one of the few times I've seen the insight on why this is fantastic for ESPN.

Think about it: they lost less than 25% of the viewership verses an OTA network, which has at least twice the viewer reach. That means, they're losing far less than the number of people that could tune in before. They kept over 85% of the audience for the Rose Bowl and nearly 80% of last year's audience for the Fiesta Bowl. At lot of prime time shows on the big 4 lose more than that from season to season - and they're still on the same channel.

However, in return, they get roughly a 400 times increase in revenue when subscriber fees are taken into account. That more than pays for the extra dollars paid to get the contract, by a long shot.

I think that says more about how bad a thing is was that ABC was airing the event verses ESPN. Not only does ESPN make out better with it, but it shows most people that watched previously, were able to do so this year - and that doesn't take into account those that potentially could, but simply chose not to. Also, there may have been a small percentage that simply didn't know where to go for the game.

If every cable broadcast could see 75% of the viewers of equivalent broadcast network shows, cable channels would be jumping for joy over it.

MONDAY's fast affiliate overnight prime-time ratings - along with Media Week Analyst Marc Berman's view of what they mean -- have been posted on his blog: http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums?a=t...1443#796101443.

NPD: People Want Internet-Connected TVs


by Aaron Baar, Marketing Daily - Jan 3

Despite all of the hype 3D television received over the past year, consumers are looking to a different technology to take their television viewing to a new level: Internet connectivity.

According to The NPD Group, sales of Internet-connected television sets increased 38% between January and November 2010, compared with the same period for the previous year. Such sets now account for 12% of all flat-panel sales. Furthermore, nearly half (45%) of consumers who have a connected television have used their sets to access the Internet. Of these, more than half (57%) say they are very satisfied with the features of their sets.

"What we've seen is a large array of content become available for connected television," Ross Rubin, director of industry analysis at NPD, tells Marketing Daily. "Even though more could be done to ease the set-up process, [Internet connected TV] isn't as big an ecosystem [challenge] as the one 3D TV faces."

Part of that may be because consumers have become accustomed to viewing and using Internet-available content on their computers. Of the consumers who have connected TV, more than half (57%) use it to access Netflix, while 47% are watching videos on YouTube. Other content sites -- such as Hulu Plus and Pandora -- are also gaining steam among consumers, Rubin says.

"A lot of these services were already available on PCs and the key was to create a TV experience to access," Rubin says. "It's not about the Internet, per se. It's about what the Internet can deliver. It has given rise to new entertainment and on-demand experience. Consumers are looking for that to supplement what they already have from cable and satellite providers."

Still, much of what consumers are looking for on the Internet is heavily dependent upon what the TV manufacturers are willing to include with their sets. Further development of open-source platforms such as GoogleTV and Boxee, however, should open up more of the Internet experience as viewed through a TV set.

"It really opens the door to the developer community and building applications that can work across devices," Rubin says. "What many [consumers] would like to see is to search across all that programming and aggregate it through a single user interface, to tie in that wealth of content."

\\http://www.mediapost.com/publication...art_aid=142202

Microsoft ready to take on Apple, Google with TV set top box


By Ed Oswald - Beta News - Jan 4

Reports indicate that Microsoft is prepared to show off a connected television solution of its own, and will demo a TV set top box this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The device will be similar to those already offered by competitors Apple and Google.

The Seattle Times reports that the device will come in at a price point below $200, and is expected to go on sale later in the year. In the simplest terms, it is an effort by Microsoft to bring its Windows Media Center concept to the masses.

It could be argued that the Redmond company was one of the first major companies to invest in the idea of a "connected TV" when it launched the Media Center platform back in 2002. However at the time, digital content had only begun to catch on, and the platform did not have broad-based appeal.

These days, it's certainly a different story. According to research firm DisplaySearch, the market for connected televisions is expected to triple to more than 124 million units by 2014.

Microsoft's entrant into the space will be built on Windows Embedded, with a UI similar to its Media Center platform. The company's plans are nothing new -- the devices made an appearance when Microsoft announced its plans for embedded software last year, and during an Intel conference last September.

The fact that the devices appeared at the chipmaker's gathering may give a strong indication that the devices themselves may use Intel chips.

If the Times reporting is true, it would mean a quicker timetable for Microsoft's connected TV plans than had earlier been reported. Reuters said in November that the company had been in talks to turn the Xbox 360 into a cable TV set top box for a monthly fee, although it was said at the time any service was a year away from becoming a reality.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...box/1294166253

Or, it could be argued they were in it far earlier with WebTV (later called MSNTV).

What started out as a single purpose box, moved on to a multi-media device. My late 90's UltimateTV DVR through D* included the ability to connect to the internet via Web/MSNTV.

The problem is, dial-up internet was the only way to go back then and TVs simply didn't have the resolution to display a real web page. It was also slow and unpredictable. It never took off and was abandoned in favor of the Media Center project, which is still lagging in acceptance.

Now, many TVs (running at 1920x1080) have more resolution than the average laptop screen (many of which top out at 1280x768) and broadband is in a very large number of homes. You can actually surf the net realistically on something like that. A box that lets you split the screen to watch TV while checking out IMDB can be a reality - if anyone ever does it. Instead, what we get is a collection point, rather than a jumping off point. It's the gated community of AOL all over again.

Had Microsoft continued to develop the UTV project with an HD version that included broadband, they'd be ahead of the game now instead of playing catch up. This nonsense of restricting content would be nullified by a multimedia box that to the outside world is simply another computer.

Even arch-rival Google fumbled this play.

My opinion: Microsoft needs to capitalize on the X-Box install base as a jumping off point for further development among those that use the platform, then pursue contracts with TV manufacturers to integrate Media Center into them. The idea of the "boxless" TV is going to fly much further than all these silly devices companies seem to expect us to connect up.

I agree 100%. Which is why I was so critical of that BCS on ESPN article a week ago claiming these low ratings would be the end of the BCS and be a disaster for ESPN.

Watch List
Tuesday Watch List: Paula Abdul Returns
By Drew Magary

Welcome to Watch List, where we identify five things on TV to watch at home while you suffer through Day 5 of the Norwegian Death Flu that has infiltrated your household. Dear Lord, I feel like someone inflated a zeppelin inside my head. LET'S GO!

LIVE TO DANCE - 8:00PM (CBS) If you spent all of 2010 pining for Paula's Abdul's patented brand of acetaminophen-induced nonsensical gurgling, fear not. The former American Idol judge and part-time speaker of the English language resurfaces tonight on this CBS reality dance competition featuring 18 dance teams vying for a half million dollar grand prize. And while this may seem like just another cheap Dancing With The Stars retread, you'd best not underestimate Abdul's canniness. After all, she was the one who managed to ditch Idol first, right before it really went into the gutter last year. Coincidence? Or has Abdul taken so much medication that she can see things before they happen? Don't bet against the latter. ANTICIPATION: FOREVER YOUR GIRL!

V - 9:00PM (ABC) Did you know they didn't cancel this show last year? It's true! They kept it, put on hiatus until now, and then will cancel it in three week's time. You know, for the fans. Anyway, the season premiere is tonight, and I was promised an alien baby in the print ads. I hope it fights a Predator baby. ANTICIPATION: ALIEN BABY!

MY BIG BREASTS AND ME - 10:00PM (BBC America) Three women openly discuss the negative impact of being endowed with overly large mammaries. I guess appearing on international television is NOT one of the drawbacks, eh ladies? Seriously though, these women may have some pretty gnarly back problems. ANTICIPATION: EYES UP HERE!

BIGGEST LOSER: COUPLES - 8:00PM (NBC) In the season premiere, the fatty duos must choose between training with Bob and Jillian or training a mysterious pair of unknown trainers. Oooooh ahhhhh! What surprises await them? Well, not to spoil it, but I'm told the two new trainers are both Shake Weights. ANTICIPATION: SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE!

CHOPPED - 10:00PM (Food Network) Tonight the chefs must use brains in one of their dishes. I used to serve brains in a restaurant I worked at, and the reason no one ordered them is because no matter how you slice them or serve them, they still very much look like brains. Can't say the same about cow testicles. ANTICIPATION: BRAINS!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/p...112864369.html

Nielsen Overnights (Cable)
ABC Family's 'Pretty Little Liars' Hits Series Highs In Return
Lifetime's 'Craiglist Killer' Does Well
By Nellie Andreeva, Deadline.com - January 4th, 2011

ABC Family's drama Pretty Little Liars has moved from a 'promising newcomer' to 'bona fide hit' status. Last night's winter premiere of the show drew 4.2 million viewers, posting series highs in total viewers as well as all key demographics: adults 18-34 (1.4 million), adults 18-49 (1.9 million), women 18-49 (1.6 million) and people 12-34 (2.9 million). Vs. the series premiere last summer, last night's winter debut was up by almost 2 million viewers (4.2 million vs. 2.5 million), 67% in adults 18-34, 72% in adults 18-49 and 70% in people 12-34. It was ABC Family's No.2 telecast ever in women 18-34 (1.2 million) and females 12-34 (2.5 million). ABC Family's other premiere last night was of Greek, whose fourth season debut followed Liars and averaged 1.2 million viewers. That was on par with the show's winter Season 3 premiere last January but Greek squandered most of its lead-in, holding onto 28% of the Liars audience.

Meanwhile, Lifetime's original movie The Craiglist Killer drew 5.4 million viewers last night, 2.7 million of them in the 25-54 demographic. It was up triple digits from Lifetime's 2010 original movie average. The documentary Beyond the Headlines: Catching the Craiglist Killer, which following the movie, drew 3.7 million viewers.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/abc-...ghs-in-return/

Q&A
Southland's Tom Everett Scott on Poker, That Thing You Do!, and the Joy of Getting Shot
By Gwynne Watkins, The New York Times' 'Vulture' Blog - January 4th, 2011

In the final shot of Southland's first season SPOILER ALERT Tom Everett Scott's character, LAPD detective Russell Clarke, was shot in the chest by an irate neighbor. For months, fans weren't sure if he or the critically acclaimed NBC show would survive. Fortunately, TNT picked it up in fall 2009. In Southland's third season, premiering tonight, Scott returns as Detective Clarke, who is still recovering from the physical and emotional trauma of being shot. Vulture talked to Scott about Southland's guerrilla shooting style, his first job on the sitcom Grace Under Fire, and his distinguished poker career.

When your character was shot at the end of season one, did you have a period of time when you thought you were dead?
Yeah, it was like, Which writer did I say something inappropriate to? Whose parking space did I take? No, I didn't think that was the end for me. And I was reassured that it wasn't the end for that character. And it's fun to get shot. People were like, have you ever done this before? And I was like, not since I was a little kid diving into the pool, pretending to get blown away. It's a rite of passage.

Wikipedia says that NBC didn't like your character.
That could be. Yeah, I don't know I heard that as well. So NBC. Yeah, well you know, they were batting a thousand back then, right?

Southland is reminiscent of Law & Order, in that you seem to be shooting in the heart of a very active city. What's that like?
Yes. Like this season, I was shooting a scene with Regina King in the Farmers' Market, which is this kind of crowded indoor-outdoor space with restaurants and coffee shops and all these little businesses. So we just went in there with a small crew and shot the scene; we used the people who actually really work at that coffee shop to serve us our coffee. And we really don't tell any of the other people until it's over that we're shooting. And then I guess they get the proper releases from those people? I don't know. They don't fuzz out anybody's faces on these things, but that's not my job so I don't worry about it. And no one yells rolling we all just kind of know that we're shooting.

Was there any police skill that you had to be corrected on a lot?
I'm not very coordinated, so cuffing someone while talking was difficult for me. We did a lot of cheating where that was concerned.

At the start of this season, Russell is still behind a desk. Are we going to see him getting a little more engaged in field work than he has been since the shooting?
Well, I guess the key thing that happened to Russell is that he's no longer able to do the police work like he could before. So that's gonna create a dramatic shift in his character, and you'll just have to wait and see what happens after that.

What about Russell's relationship with Lydia? I know that a lot of fans are hoping it turns romantic; can you lay odds on that?
I don't know. I honestly don't. I have heard that people are interested in that idea; I think that's a great idea. It would be a really cool thing to see on television, because they seem to be such compatible characters. We'll see. Regina King and I get along great, and we're lucky that a lot of that comes through in the characters.

You had a lead in the Broadway show Little Dog Laughed in 2006, with Julie White...
One of my first jobs ever as an actor was working with Julie White on a sitcom called Grace Under Fire.

Have you two been in therapy together ever since?
We have definitely commiserated over the experience. She got the brunt of it. I only had to recur in a handful of episodes. But we would take our lunch breaks together and go hit golf balls and vent.

Your first high-profile role was in That Thing You Do! and everyone commented on how much you look like Tom Hanks. But you don't, so much, anymore.
I look totally different now, right? I look way better than Tom Hanks?

Please tell us people don't mistake you for him on the street...
No, no one ever really did. It was just that, at the time when we did all the press for the movie, all the things that were said were put down on paper and recorded on video and now have been cemented in my bio. It was Tom Hanks's directorial debut, so there was some focus on it, and he cast a guy who was similar to him. It was a thing he was concerned about in the beginning, but luckily, not really concerned.

You were the first celebrity to make the finals of the World Poker Tournament. Are actors better or worse poker players than non-actors?
Oh, because it's all about lying and doing a little performance? Actors should be better poker players. But I think there's actual skill and crazy guts that you need to play poker, this ability to put all this money on the line inside of that game of cards. There's this whole different set of skills that doesn't apply to acting whatsoever. Actors, we like our little cups of cappuccino and our personal umbrella-holders. Poker players, they've gotta be a little bit tougher.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...t_scott_o.html

I think Brothers and Sisters does a pretty decent job.

Business Notes
Post-Bankruptcy, MGM Launches Classic TV Channel
By Brent Lang, TheWrap.com - January 4th, 2011

Fresh out of bankruptcy, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer announced Tuesday that it is partnering with Weigel Broadcasting to launch a new network devoted to vintage sitcoms. This TVLand challenger will be called Me-TV (Memorable Entertainment Television), and will be targeted for digital broadcast stations.

In launching the channel, MGM will raid its own vaults and dust off such television classics as "Cheers," "M*A*S*H," "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "The Bob Newhart Show."

This is the first significant deal MGM has announced since it emerged from Chapter 11 protections last month. The studio had been stuck in a holding pattern for much of the past year, while it struggled to attract a buyer and labored under some $5 billion in debt.

Last fall, MGM's creditors agreed to a prepackaged bankruptcy plan in which they exchanged their debt for equity. As part of that deal Spyglass chiefs Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum assumed control of the studio.

MGM and Weigel have previously worked together to launch broadcast movie service THIStv.

A local version of Me-TV has already been airing on Weigel Broadcasting's WWME in Chicago. WWME and WBME, the Weigel station covering the Milwaukee/Racine metro area, have become the first affiliates of Me-TV.

Me-TV's national distribution will be handled by MGM's domestic television sales force.

http://www.thewrap.com/television/ar...-channel-23614

In other words, ratings aren't real important to them. They get their money from the cable/DBS companies who get it from their subscribers whether or not they even watched. What a racket! They can bid as high as they want for these sporting events, with very little risk of losing money.

Business Notes
Facebook vs. Time Warner: A Not-So-Rigorous Financial Evaluation
By David Carr, The New York Times' 'Media Decoder' Blog - January 4th, 2011

Word arrived Monday that Facebook, the burgeoning social media company that surpassed Google last year as the most visited Web site, was worth $50 billion dollars based on a deal done by Goldman Sachs. By way of comparison, our colleagues Andrew Ross Sorkin and Evelyn M. Rusli pointed out that the company was worth more than Time Warner, the large U.S.-based media company, which closed the day with a market cap of about $37 billion.

That contrast got those of us at Decoder headquarters thinking: How can Facebook, a company that was cooked up by Mark Zuckerberg, give or take, in his dorm room at Harvard seven years ago be worth more than the world's largest media conglomerate, which owns HBO, Warner Brothers movie studio, and Time Inc, the big magazine publisher?

We thought a little comparison chart might help:

Revenues

Time Warner: about $26 billion.

Facebook: approaching $2 billion according to analysts.

Franchises

Time Warner has the Harry Potter franchise with over $6 billion in box office revenues.

Facebook has a Duct Tape page with over 3.3 million fans.

Relationship Status

Time Warner ended a bad marriage with AOL in 2009, closing the book on what has been billed as the worst business merger in history.

Facebook, which prefers the role of matchmaker for others, has refused countless marriage proposals, including one from Google, and remained independent.

Gimmick

Time Warner is pushing TV Everywhere so customers can see subscription content on any device at any time.

Facebook has like button.

Whodunit Movie

Time Warner made half-a-billion dollars last year on a remake of Sherlock Holmes.

Facebook is the unauthorized star of Social Network, a movie last year about the fight for control of the site and its half-a-billion friends.

Okay, okay, we get it. Almost anyone could tell you that Time Warner is a legacy media business with big numbers that is stuck in slow-moving sectors that Wall Street finds uninspiring.

It's a tragedy that large organizations so often come merely to perpetuate themselves, said David Kirkpatrick, the author of The Facebook Effect and a former Time Warner employee at Fortune Magazine. The risk for Facebook is that it may soon come to be so big it faces the same problem.

Indeed, if Facebook continues to grow, it will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe as much as $350 billion which is what a rising digital superstar called AOL-Time Warner was worth 11 years ago at the height of the bubble.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...ref=television

what a great FAMILY show

Probably so, but it always galls me that "cable" gets the attention and bad rap when every other provider and station is out for the same thing, easy money.

Oh, OT, but I'm watching DirecTV upgrade my neighbor to HD. Now he has not only a Cox box (for internet and previous cable TV) hanging on his house, he also has a DirecTV box with painted wiring hanging off it and now 2 new white wires hanging off it. There are also 2 old wires coming off the new dish and now 2 new white wires. He also has a new white wire running from the box to a room in the back, but I didn't stick around to see how that was going to be run. Hopefully, the majority will go under the eave, but who knows? Not sure why they didn't just tap into the Cox box and use the existing cable wiring, unless Cox won't let them.

FCC Notes
Court tosses indecency case against ABC's 'NYPD Blue'
By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times' 'Company Town' Blog - January 4th, 2011

There is nothing indecent about actress Charlotte Ross' rear end. That's the word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, which tossed a roughly $1.4 million fine that the Federal Communications Commission had slapped on ABC and some of its affilaites in 2008 for a 2003 episode of the police drama "NYPD Blue" in which Ross' buttocks were visible to viewers.

Last July, a three-judge panel from this same court ruled that the FCC's enforcement of its indecency rules was "unconstitutionally vague and chilling." That decision was in response to a fight between the FCC and Fox Broadcasting over so-called fleeting obscenities. The FCC decided in 2004 that TV stations could be fined for indecency violations in cases when, during a live broadcast, an obscenity went out over the air.

That decision came after Fox aired awards shows in 2002 and 2003 in which swearing by Cher and Nicole Richie was not bleeped in time.

The court said its July ruling applied to this case as well even though the circumstances were different.

"Although this case involved scripted nudity, the case turns on an application of the same content-based indecency test that Fox found 'impermissibly vague,' " the ruling said.

In the episode at hand, Ross, who played Andy Sipowicz's (Dennis Franz) love interest, is caught in a state of undress by his son. When the FCC first made a stink about the scene, ABC and its affiliates said, according to the court, that it was included to "portray the awkwardness between a child and his parent's new romantic partner and their difficulities in adjusting to life together."

Not all ABC stations were fined because the FCC only went after stations in markets where the show show aired at 9 p.m. On the East and West Coasts, "NYPD Blue" ran at 10 p.m. but in central time zones, it aired earlier.

Maybe the FCC would have had a stronger case if it went after ABC for showing Dennis Franz's rear end for all those years.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...nypd-blue.html

TV Notes
24-Year-Old Chicago Reader Contributor to Co-Host 'At the Movies'
By Tim Molloy, TheWrap.com - January 4th, 2011

Twenty-four-year-old Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, a contributor to The Chicago Weekly and Mubi.com, will share the balcony with longtime AP critic Christy Lemire on "Ebert Presents at the Movies," Roger Ebert announced.

He replaces former New York Times critic Elvis Mitchell, host of "The Treatment" on Santa Monica's KCRW, who taped a pilot with previously announced host Lemire. Ebert has denied reports that the two lacked chemistry.

The choice of the youthful Vishnevetsky reflects Ebert's longtime fondness for surprising and dark horse picks: Just last week he said that an online video recorded during the East Coast blizarrd, "Idiot With a Tripod," deserved an Oscar.

The new weekly program debuts Jan. 21 on public television stations in 48 of the top 50 markets. It will be produced in Chicago at WTTW, where Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert began taping "Sneak Previews" some 35 years ago.

The Russian-born, Chicago-based Vishnevetsky is a critic and essayist for Mubi.com, an online magazine focused on independent, foreign, and classic cinema.

His insightful, in-depth approach may win him more audience respect than the last twentysomething host of "At the Movies." Ben Lyons, who took over at 26, was often criticized as lacking any depth of film knowledge.

http://www.thewrap.com/television/co...t-movies-23603

That would probably fall under:

* Don't carry (retransmission fee not agreed upon.)

Doncha think so?


If only because the cable company has had it handed to them since day one. The broadcasters had to threaten a lawsuit to get cable/DBS to stop "stealing" their signals until Congress intervened by codifying retransmission consent. If cable doesn't want to pay for the signals, they don't have to carry them.

or maybe the FCC should be disbanded and people should police their own children. Seriously, who keeps these clowns around?

The only cases of such I've heard about is where a local station was dropped in favor of a distant signal. If it was just a matter of being dropped after failing to reach an agreement (with no distant signal replacement) then yes, I agree that the station's solution is to lower it's demands.


What? The cable companies wanted retransmission consent? Nah, it was Congress intervening after lawsuits were threatened. [BTW, D* added it's local carriage after retransmission consent was codified.]

If you want to define it that way, they both fall under that, so your separate category was still just a needless bash against cable.


Look, they did what every other company does, lobbied to get things to go their way. There is nothing wrong with that. If you want to blame someone, blame the government, almost everything they touch turns to garbage at some point.

And, DBS had a self-interest in paying for locals, they wanted to get rid of antennas, mostly because of customer complaints, and to offer locals to customers who were out of OTA range. Payiijng for locals got them a lot more customers, and profit.

Also, cable didn't have it handed to them either. In the early days, locals couldn't do enough to get carried by cable. Now that so many people are hooked on cable/dbs, they're playing the "poor little me" card, you're making too much money and we want a bigger piece of it. It's all a bunch of garbage and neither side it right.

Anyway, that's my $.02 and I'm moving on to other topics. This has all been discussed ad nauseum.

Here, here! How much money has the government wasted on this issue?

News I just saw...

ESPN has fired long time football/basketball announcer Ron Franklin for remarks between him and female sideline reporter Jeannine Edwards.

Link here: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...cerdisciplined

ABC Family should just change its name to 'ABC-F' (more catchy and representative of what their most popular shows are like).