quote:

Originally posted by WlcmBlueBloodWorstEnemy:


Yeah, because Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and to an extent Ruben Studdard have achieved nothing after winning the show.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:
Who cares about who wins AI? It means nothing. Who won last year? Or the year before that?

None of them achieved anything, at least not artistically. None of the AI manufactured alums has become an artist, a musician. All they do is reproduce and commodify. It's never about talent, it's about performance and it's about making profits across the board. That's part of the reason I despise that show so much.

quote:

Originally posted by TravisYanan:

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:
Along those lines, whether or not The Pussycat Dolls gets another season on CW may depend almost entirely on how well the Girlicious CD does this Summer/Fall. Geffen Records is a quality label.

Bad comparison. We were talking about the success of contestants on the show as recording artists, not the hypothetical success of the recording artists validating keeping a low rated show on the air.

When it comes to talking about this year's American idol contestants, you have nothing more than hypothetical success to talk about. Since Girlicious is the first group formed on CW, its hypothetical success is exactly on par as a comparison for 'talking about'.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TravisYanan:

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:
Along those lines, whether or not The Pussycat Dolls gets another season on CW may depend almost entirely on how well the Girlicious CD does this Summer/Fall. Geffen Records is a quality label.

Bad comparison. We were talking about the success of contestants on the show as recording artists, not the hypothetical success of the recording artists validating keeping a low rated show on the air.

When it comes to talking about this year's American idol contestants, you have nothing more than hypothetical success to talk about. Since Girlicious is the first group formed on CW, its hypothetical success is exactly on par as a comparison for 'talking about'.

Edited my initial reply. To summarize... Idol was a hit as a TV show without Kelly Clarkson's success or failure as a recording artist. So this isn't apples to apples. Once the recording contract is scored, it really doesn't matter how the person or group got it besides the "Idol" brand (or the "PCD" brand) being used as PR and for exposure. Hypothetically, Girlicious could be a bigger success than any Idol alumnus from this season... but it doesn't change the fact that, as TV shows, Idol is a far bigger success than PCD Presents. Is Geffen Records tied to Warner Bros or CBS-Paramount at all? If not, then CW wouldn't care if Girlicious was a big hit, because financially it doesn't affect them... whereas the low ratings of PCD Presents does.

But its not meant to be a songwriting contest or instrument playing contest, its about finding an idol, someone who people want to listen to and see perform on stage. And when it comes down to it the winner is usually based on singing talent. Even if the best technical singer is eliminated noone who couldn't sing has ever won the show.

quote:

Originally posted by total eclipse:

quote:

Originally posted by WlcmBlueBloodWorstEnemy:


Yeah, because Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and to an extent Ruben Studdard have achieved nothing after winning the show.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:
Who cares about who wins AI? It means nothing. Who won last year? Or the year before that?

None of them achieved anything, at least not artistically. None of the AI manufactured alums has become an artist, a musician. All they do is reproduce and commodify. It's never about talent, it's about performance and it's about making profits across the board. That's part of the reason I despise that show so much.

But no one with an ounce of creativity ever won it. All these contestants are about reproduction and mimesis, not about originality or real talent.

quote:

Originally posted by tvchtw:
But its not meant to be a songwriting contest or instrument playing contest, its about finding an idol, someone who people want to listen to and see perform on stage. And when it comes down to it the winner is usually based on singing talent. Even if the best technical singer is eliminated noone who couldn't sing has ever won the show.

quote:

Originally posted by total eclipse:

quote:

Originally posted by WlcmBlueBloodWorstEnemy:


Yeah, because Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and to an extent Ruben Studdard have achieved nothing after winning the show.

quote:

Originally posted by robert:
Who cares about who wins AI? It means nothing. Who won last year? Or the year before that?

None of them achieved anything, at least not artistically. None of the AI manufactured alums has become an artist, a musician. All they do is reproduce and commodify. It's never about talent, it's about performance and it's about making profits across the board. That's part of the reason I despise that show so much.

quote:

Originally posted by TravisYanan:
Edited my initial reply. To summarize... Idol was a hit as a TV show without Kelly Clarkson's success or failure as a recording artist. So this isn't apples to apples. Once the recording contract is scored, it really doesn't matter how the person or group got it besides the "Idol" brand (or the "PCD" brand) being used as PR and for exposure.

I agree that the after show success of the artists does nopt help the show except in terms of PR/brand exposure. That being said, my initial comment was simply that the success of the Girlicious group would be the only thing that could/would cause CW to bring the show back for another season.

quote:

Hypothetically, Girlicious could be a bigger success than any Idol alumnus from this season... but it doesn't change the fact that, as TV shows, Idol is a far bigger success than PCD Presents.

I in no way suggested otherwise. Sinc ethe two shows were not being compared in any way by me, perhaps you just misread my comment?

quote:

Is Geffen Records tied to Warner Bros or CBS-Paramount at all?

Geffen was linked to Warner when it first started, but I think that relationship ended a long time ago.

Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood would've done very well even if they wouldnt've won AI. All i'm saying is that it doesn't really matter if you win it, it doesn't matter if you have a good voice also. All it matters is to impress some execs so thay give you a record deal. And we all know not always the most talented gets that deal.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WlcmBlueBloodWorstEnemy:
Wife Swap and Supernanny do well for what they are meant to do, Friday night programming or filling in spots

I have watched Supernanny since it debuted in January 2005, and it always as performed well, always improving on it's lead-in. this past winter it was doing really well before AI went to 9 with it's results show, yes it is down, but its holding it's own. And yes I agree it is better as a mid-season replacement, because after it's first initial season, didn't they put it on the fall schedule on Friday nights, just to pull it because it was not performing well in the fall? Because I recall them bringing it back Mondays at 9 that winter to better ratings than it had in the fall.

quote:

Originally posted by pisher:

quote:

C'mon, pisher, try to keep my quotes in context for ONCE. ;-)

But they make even LESS sense that way.

Oooh, nice job of covering my point with a snappy comback.

1) Out of context spin
2) Smart remarks to shift focus

What else, ya got... lay it on me.

Seriously, trying to reason with you feels like arguing with a politician ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by pisher:
And I meant that a show in its 18th season, that has become a universally recognized brandname, isn't supposed to need a lead-in with coattails. It's supposed to PROVIDE the coattails for some other show--or get off the damned airwaves.

Who says? Are you the decider of how a show in it's 18th season is supposed to behave to be considered viable?

I actually disagree wholeheartedly with you. Although some core fans remain, it's reasonable to assume that over such a long time, many many many of the original fans have become tired of the show for one reason or another (and not *all* of them based on quality). Yet, if the show is still viable, it can continue on. The key is to get NEW viewers. It's quite likely that there were viewers in it's 18-49 demo last night that WEREN'T EVEN BORN WHEN THE SHOW PREMIERED.

There are new viewers to be had for this show. A healthy lead-in could bring those viewers. This show could live on (if tended to correcctly) for years and years still. In fact, I think that it's STILL got more lasting power than the original CSI. This is all of course if NBC doesn't botch it up (which it probably will). But the fact is that L&O doesn't need to keep original cast members to stay relevant. This is a show that can continue with entirely new people. They just have to get new fans along the way.

Not every show can do this (insert: ER), but I think L&O is at a stage where, if treated like any other show, i.e. given even close to a good lead-in, it could grow and continue for another 5-10 (yes) years.

One last observation... if your idea of a brand name being able to survive on it's own without healthy promotion, Coca-Cola wouldv'e stopped advertising in about 1922. And they would have gone bankrupt shortly thereafter. ALL brands have a life-cycle, and need different types of help at each specific stage. Right now, L&O isn't *acting* like an "old" show. It's acting like a show catching it's second wind, and catching on with new viewers.

On the whole issue of Law & Order issue...

Its a strong show again, L&O, along with Medium, are both up in from their previous seasons in both viewers and demos. But that being said, just because L&O and Medium are doing well, doesnt mean they should both be airing immediately in the fall.

Those are the shows that NBC brings back when their new shows fail. By wanting to leave both Medium and Law & Order at their current 10pm timeslots all year long, is a rather bad idea. Because NBC would just be doing what they did 4 years ago, by relying on old established shows and not finding new hits.

Like NBC needs to keep trying new shows on after Heroes; and it can work too, considering how House does extremely well after American Idol and how Grey's Anatomy began to beat Desperate Housewives, when they used to be paired together on Sundays. The net just needs to find the right series.

And why are people thinking Lipstick Jungle is an immediate failure? LJ held much more of The Celebrity Apprentice's lead in then Cashmere Mafia did out of DH or Supernanny. LJ also spiked up in its season finale. And there are plenty of shows that are being "relaunched," like Chuck, Life, Dirty Sexy Money, Private Practice, and Pushing Daisies.

quote:

At least in Dancing w/the Stars, the judges have SOME say in the matter!

This is where I believe in the next few years, Simon will bring his X-factor format to replace Idol as they did in Britain. In X-factor, the viewers decide the bottom two, there's a "sing-off" and the four judges decide who to send home. In the event of a tie, the audience vote decides. There's also more variety in that there's an over 25 group of contestants, as well as a "group" group of contestants.

Right now, American viewers only call in to save those in jeopardy not to keep someone. That's why Simon holds back on tearing down some contestants completely because he knows there will be voter support against his harsh comments.

Honestly, X-factor in britain has a whole lot less filler, more background on the contestants themselves, and you actually feel like they want to win to change their lives for the better (at least in this last season).

dola

I also wanted to add that Idol in Canada for example don't have as much filler as we do in America. At least if they do fill it, they fill it with performances or something other than the recap of comments and the little games of "who is it".

Honestly, the Seacrest/Cowell jabbing is tired as well. Again, in other competitions, the host is more charming and supportive rather than a nuisance like Seacrest. Spasmatic Paula doesn't help either.

How crazy is it that this was the first time this season that 'Model' broke 4 million viewers? It also tied its season high among adults 18-49.

This was also the first time that Pussycat Dolls broke 2 million viewers as it was up by 450,000/24% among viewers and 33% among adults 18-49 from the week prior.

Despite those gains, it's hard to justify another season of the series. Check out the numbers:

Season 1 average (8 episodes):
Viewers - 2.96M
Adults 18-49 - 1.3/3

Season 2 average (9 episodes):
Viewers - 1.70M
Adults 18-49 - 0.8/2

That's a decline of 1.26 million/43% among viewers and 38% among adults 18-49.

I think Ryan will win 5-2, but you never know. The person I want to win always loses.

quote:

Originally posted by TK:
Does anyone have the numbers for Under One Roof on My Network? I watched it. It was far worse than I could have imagined. Flav might not be the worst actor on the show, and that is not a complement to Flav. The writing is the worst I've ever seen on a show that was actually trying (wait, are they trying?). The characters are just rip-offs of the characters from Fresh Prince, except even more one dimensional and cartoonish. My favorite is the nerdy son who always wears a bowtie, even when in his underwear. Oh, and it also has what I hope is the most offensive character on television today: a Chinese maid with an exaggerated accent that actually said "me so horny."

This show is lucky I love me some Flavor (from his Public Enemy days, not the recent VH1 garbage). I'll be tuning in to watch the train wreck every week. "Me and my kid brother both grew up. He was the good one, I was the screw up." Flav's still got it!

I don't have individual series numbers for the MyNetworkTV shows last night just yet, but a preliminary number for the night overall showed a significant growth over last week in viewers, up by 18%.