quote:

Originally posted by yankeesrj12:

quote:

UPN:
8:00pm Everybody Hates Chris (series premiere): 7.58, 3.2--->WOW!!!

Wow, The CW has really killed this show.

Half that audience left the first year on UPN, sort of even after the first few episodes. After that, the CW's dimema was that either Smallville or EHC had to be moved off the Thursday 8pm timeslot when the two networks merged their schedules. CW made the correct decision and kept that timeslot with Smallville, but half the remaining audience for EHC didn't care enough about the show to follow it to a different timeslot.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by HiddenPalmsFan:

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Berman:
They gave me such a hard time when I mentioned it in my webcast last MOnday. Even Dawn Ostroff called me.

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:
Marc that was all over various media news websites last spring as the CW pretty much said Smallville was going to end. Now that it debuted though with larger ratings, the CW is changing its tone.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Berman:
Just curious, where did you hear that Smallville was ending?

Did anything strange happen when she called? Such as power surges, floating objects, etc.?

Just kidding... Sort of.

Sorry she can't afford special effects these days. SN fans know what i'm talking about

I actually think the production has been top notch this year. But off course, that's due to talented people, and not CW's money.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:
"Smallville" is ultimately the story of Superman. If the character of Superman/Clark Kent is not a part of the show, it needs to end.

Yes, but you're not the one making the decisions. If a television series is still bringing in a profit and is the best performing drama on the network, you can bet they'll want to bend over backwards to prolong it - regardless of who the lead is.

"Smallville" is actually the name of a town, so as long as there's the name of the town, or the influence of it, I can see them justifying themselves. There's also precedent - wasn't there at least one Western in the 1950's ("Cheyenne" maybe?) that replaced their lead for two seasons?

I think it's unfair to base the future of the show on one actor. They survived the losses of Michael Rosenbaum and Kristin Kreuk which surprised me. I think they deserve a chance. Though ideally, Smallville the show would continue with Tom Welling at the helm and they could spin off Green Arrow while the main show is still on the air. Unfortunately, I don't think the CW could handle having another male-skewing program, since all of their shows these days must involve rich girls instead.

I think continuing Smallville without Tom would be a creative challenge for TPTB, and that Green Arrow might be a good enough character to do it with. I might live in an idealized world, though - I'd want both Welling AND Rosenbaum to return for the series' final episode, and Rosenbaum hasn't given any indications that he'd like to return.

quote:

Originally posted by KryptonSite:

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:
"Smallville" is ultimately the story of Superman. If the character of Superman/Clark Kent is not a part of the show, it needs to end.

Yes, but you're not the one making the decisions. If a television series is still bringing in a profit and is the best performing drama on the network, you can bet they'll want to bend over backwards to prolong it - regardless of who the lead is.

Do you believe a show called 'The Green Arrow' would lose 50% of the audience of 'Smallville' just because of a name change? I don't really understand your reasoning, unless that is the basis for it. If the show isn't about Superman anymore, then it isn't Smallville. They can use the same sets, the same writers, the same crew, etc..., but they aren't fooling the public into thinking that it is the same show and the studio isn't going to leave the pay scales and such in place as if it is still the same show.

As for precedent of a show changing the lead character, there are more recent/better examples that the 1950's for that. Bewitched got away with it back in ancient times as well. Very recently, Criminal Minds survived without Mandy Patinkin. ER has survived while overhauling the entire cast over the years. However, none of these shows was set around a single character's 'life story', so none of those shows HAD to have that character in order to have the same show.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by KryptonSite:

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:
"Smallville" is ultimately the story of Superman. If the character of Superman/Clark Kent is not a part of the show, it needs to end.

Yes, but you're not the one making the decisions. If a television series is still bringing in a profit and is the best performing drama on the network, you can bet they'll want to bend over backwards to prolong it - regardless of who the lead is.

Do you believe a show called 'The Green Arrow' would lose 50% of the audience of 'Smallville' just because of a name change? I don't really understand your reasoning, unless that is the basis for it. If the show isn't about Superman anymore, then it isn't Smallville. They can use the same sets, the same writers, the same crew, etc..., but they aren't fooling the public into thinking that it is the same show and the studio isn't going to leave the pay scales and such in place as if it is still the same show.

As for precedent of a show changing the lead character, there are more recent/better examples that the 1950's for that. Bewitched got away with it back in ancient times as well. Very recently, Criminal Minds survived without Mandy Patinkin. ER has survived while overhauling the entire cast over the years. However, none of these shows was set around a single character's 'life story', so none of those shows HAD to have that character in order to have the same show.

I think what I meant was more about a show firmly associated with one character changing the lead. Smallville does equal Clark Kent to a lot of people. An example like the Western I used, I do believe, was based on just that one character.

As much as I love the Green Arrow character, I do think it'd lose a substantial part of the audience if it wasn't still "Smallville." Likewise, I think "Smallville Season 9" would sell better on DVD than "Green Arrow Season 1." I don't really agree with that logic, and would prefer a Practice/Boston Legal type change, but knowing the CW's backwards moves, I can see it happening.

quote:

Originally posted by KryptonSite:
I don't really agree with that logic, and would prefer a Practice/Boston Legal type change, but knowing the CW's backwards moves, I can see it happening.

That I can agree with. they held of to 7th Heaven and they tried everything possible to hang on to Gilmore Girls. I have no doubt at all but that they would rather market Smallville season #9 than Green Arrow season #1.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by KryptonSite:
I don't really agree with that logic, and would prefer a Practice/Boston Legal type change, but knowing the CW's backwards moves, I can see it happening.

That I can agree with. they held of to 7th Heaven and they tried everything possible to hang on to Gilmore Girls. I have no doubt at all but that they would rather market Smallville season #9 than Green Arrow season #1.

Maybe they could go for the best of both worlds and call it "Smallville: Green Arrow" or "Smallville: Star City"... therefore keeping the branding and name recognition.

That doesn't always work either, though. Remember "Dynasty II: The Colbys?"

Regardless of what happens, it is funny how the CW suddenly changed its tune about Smallville. Next time they should day nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by KryptonSite:

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by KryptonSite:
I don't really agree with that logic, and would prefer a Practice/Boston Legal type change, but knowing the CW's backwards moves, I can see it happening.

That I can agree with. they held of to 7th Heaven and they tried everything possible to hang on to Gilmore Girls. I have no doubt at all but that they would rather market Smallville season #9 than Green Arrow season #1.

Maybe they could go for the best of both worlds and call it "Smallville: Green Arrow" or "Smallville: Star City"... therefore keeping the branding and name recognition.

That doesn't always work either, though. Remember "Dynasty II: The Colbys?"

I sometimes wonder if Dawn O. was just making things up when she said "Reaper would replace Smallville at midseason." I never tend to believe her comments at the upfronts, especially since she also said Aquaman was a midseason contender. (When really, the show was officially "dead" the second they announced their schedule, and everyone had already started moving on)

I do think a lot of the changed-minds might have something to do with how creatively refreshed a lot of people seem who are associated with the show. The series' new showrunners seem very excited and enthusiastic, and reaction to the show's two new characters seems good. I also think that they might be considering that back in May, they did not yet have Allison Mack re-signed (she's signed for a S9 if there is one), and they also did not have Justin Hartley available... now, those things have both changed.

I'm still amazed at how little the ratings fell with no longer having Rosenbaum, Kreuk, Vandervoort, and John Glover.

Smallville has held very well so far although I would argue Fox basically putting up a dead hole on Thursdays at 8 right now has helped substantially there. ABC targets the younger females who probably wouldn't watch Smallvile and Survivor is older skewing although that's not to say there isn't crossover everywhere. Still, it appears Smallville still has fans. The CW may want to try to get them to do 13 eps for a fall run and then they could do a repeat free season of either Supernatural or Reaper in the 8pm hour come January next season.

quote:

Originally posted by mushu_jj:
Smallville has held very well so far although I would argue Fox basically putting up a dead hole on Thursdays at 8 right now has helped substantially there. ABC targets the younger females who probably wouldn't watch Smallvile and Survivor is older skewing although that's not to say there isn't crossover everywhere. Still, it appears Smallville still has fans. The CW may want to try to get them to do 13 eps for a fall run and then they could do a repeat free season of either Supernatural or Reaper in the 8pm hour come January next season.

I'm not sure FOX really put up a dead hole in the Thursday-at-8 slot, at least as far as Smallville goes. Most of the time, Smallville was getting CREAMED by Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader.

Although surprisingly, Smallville did quite well against The OC, and I thought The OC would clobber it.

13 episodes for a fall run is a great idea, especially since it's the fall episodes that usually do well ratings wise. It is once the show returns in Spring that it starts hitting ratings snags. I sometimes wonder if people either don't know when it's back, or they figure they'll wait for September for the DVD's.

This year, the show is doing one of their big event episodes as their first one back in January or February... so that might help momentum a little bit... but even after the Justice League episode a few years back things started going down, so I don't know.